I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether a Commission of Inquiry has been sanctioned by the Colonial Office to inquire into charges made against the First Puisne Judge, and into the administration of justice in the Islands of Trinidad; and, if so, whether he can state the nature of the charges preferred against the Chief Justice; and whether the cost of defence before such a Commission would be thrown individually on the Chief Justice and other persons; and, if so, in view of the great expense that must be incurred in any attempt to prove that the daily duties of an official have been faithfully discharged over a course of years, and that all his judgments have been reasonable, whether the cost of defence could be defrayed out of public funds instead of out of the private estates of the officials whose conduct will be under investigation, and to whom the payment of such costs must necessarily be extremely burdensome if not disastrous?

Perhaps the hon. Member will allow me to answer the question. The Secretary of State has decided on the appointment of a Committee to inquire into charges made against the First Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Trinidad and Tobago, and into the administration of justice in those Islands. Complaints have been made against the Chief Justice of receiving in Chambers irregular applications from, and giving advice to, intending litigants; of allowing persons to sue in formâ pauperis without the evidence of poverty required by law; of preventing mortgagees from realising their securities, and keeping the mortgaged property for long periods under the control of Receivers appointed by the Court; of making orders unsupported by any evidence; of using insulting and intemperate language, and intimidating parties, witnesses and jurors; and of abuse of the power of the Court to punish for contempt of Court. Until the Report of the Commission about to be appointed has been received and considered by Her Majesty's Government no opinion can be expressed on the question whether any expense which the Chief Justice, or any other persons whose conduct is impugned, may have incurred in defending themselves before the Commission should be recouped to them from the public funds of the Colony.

I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether the number of existing school places in the parish of Enfield is now 4,371; and whether, in view of the facts that last year's Census showed a population in the, parish of 31,532, and that on the Departmental basis of one-sixth of the population the number of school places required would be 5,255, he will state what steps the Department has taken, or proposes to take, to secure that this deficiency of 884 places be supplied without delay? The hon. Gentleman had also the following question on the Paper:—To ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he is aware that the population of the district of Bush Hill Park, in the parish of Enfield, is now about 3,600; that in this district there is only one small infant school; that the London Road School, the nearest school for older scholars, is a mile and a quarter distant from Bush Hill Park; and that many of the children from Bush Hill Park have to cross a level crossing on the Great Eastern Railway in order to reach it; and whether he will take immediate steps to have suitable school provision made for this district?

As the hon. Member has two questions dealing with the same subject, it will be for the convenience of the House that I should answer them together. When the results of the Census were known, the Department became aware of a deficiency, though not to the extent assumed in the question; but no pressure upon the existing supply was experienced until the Free Education Act came into operation. Since the calculation of the number of school places given by the hon. Member enlargements providing for more than 150 children have been sanctioned, and others are in preparation. A site for a new school in the Bush Hill Park district has been approved, and the plans will be submitted in the course of a few days. It is confidently expected that by the end of the summer the whole ground will be covered, and the Inspector reports that even now there is no difficulty in finding room for all the older children who are under the obligation to attend school.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether there is any official Return giving the number of deaths in the Poorhouses of Scotland; and, if not, whether he will amend the form of the "Abstract of Poorhouse Returns," by requiring the Returns to be made in separate columns of the persons now accounted for as "Died or discharged"?

I am informed that the Abstract to which the hon. Member refers gives the number of deaths in the sick wards in each poorhouse, but does not include those rare cases of sudden deaths which occur in the ordinary wards. The Board of Supervision are considering whether the Abstract can be conveniently amended so as to show the total number of deaths.

On behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea (Mr. Whitmore), I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether he can state what progress has been made in the negotiations with Mr. Henry Tate for the erection of a gallery for British pictures?

I am still in correspondence upon this subject, and I must ask my hon. Friend to postpone his question for a week.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the attention of the Government has been called to an extract from a Report of a Commission sent by the Government of the United States to inquire into the subject of immigration into the United States, in which the following paragraph appears:—

"There is a systematic landing on the shores of the United States of the convicts of Great Britain, and from England, Ireland, and Scotland. During the last eleven years there has been a wide-spread and thoroughly organised movement, known, encouraged, and patronised by the Government of Great Britain, for the purpose of sending convicts and ex-convicts to the United States";

and whether it is the intention of the Government to make a representation in regard to this statement?

Her Majesty's Government have not received the Report referred to, but Sir J. Pauncefote has been requested to procure it and send it home as soon as it is published. A similar allegation was made in 1889 by a United States Select Committee on Foreign Immigration, and it was then pointed out to the United States Government that the statement was devoid of foundation.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he is prepared to allow polling cards to pass at the halfpenny rate, with the voter's number on the register written thereon?

No, Sir; it must be printed.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether he can define the areas in the Madras Presidency in which distress and famine pressure prevail, and fix the dates since which remedial measures, such as relief works, kitchens, &c. have been opened; what are the dates on which scarcity was first apprehended, taking the dates on which restrictions in water supply were officially directed in the districts affected as the basis; what was the normal death-rate in the areas referred to in 1890, and what is the death-rate in the same areas since 1st July, 1891; and what scale of diet is doled out of relief kitchens?

Broadly speaking, the areas are those mentioned in the Official Telegrams, published every week in the newspapers since July. The affected districts are: Bellary, Kurnool, Salem, Chingleput, Nellore, Anantapur, Cuddapah, Coimbatore, North Arcot, South Arcot. In parts of Chingleput and of some other districts relief works were opened in July, and some little gratuitous relief was also given. In Bellary and the Deccan districts generally relief works began in November, and gratuitous relief began in the last week of December. The Secretary of State has received no Report as to the dates on which the supply of water for irrigation purposes may have been restricted. The last Return of deaths received is the monthly Return for August, which gives the following results per 1,000 as compared with the death-rate of 1890: Bellary, 49 as against 26; Salem, 23 against 25; Nellore, 26 against 16; Cuddapah, 40 against 24; Kurnool, 59 against 29; Chingleput, 34 against 24; Anantapur, 52 against 26; Coimbatore, 26 against 21; North Arcot, 29 against 22; South Arcot, 34 against 26. The scale of diet at the Relief Kitchen is settled upon the provisions of the Famine Code, which prescribe 22 oz. of grain to 28 drachms of condiments as the minimum for an adult. The minimum can be increased at the discretion of the Medical Officer attached to the Relief House.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether-he hopes to receive an additional surplus from the Post Office by the sale of the new letter cards, which are sold at ten for a shilling; if so, can he state the estimated amount?

The letter cards are costly to manufacture, and the Inland Revenue estimate that the difference between the manufacturer's charge and the price at which the cards are sold to the public is approximately only sufficient to cover the cost of distribution.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether, by the Crofters' Act of 1886, Sections 21 and 25, the sole and final power of determining who is a crofter within the meaning of the Act lies with the Crofter Commissioners; whether his attention has been directed to the case of "Stewarts v. Macleod," and particularly the remarks of Lord Maclaren, decided in the Second Division of the Court of Session on 9th December, 1891, where the Court overruled the decision of the Crofters' Commissioners and of the Lord Ordinary; and whether steps will be taken, by legislation or otherwise, to prevent these matters, which have been declared by Act of Parliament not subject to appeal or review, being brought before the Courts of Law?

I understand the question to refer to a decision of the First Division of the Court on 8th December, 1891. It is not the case that the Court overruled a decision of the Crofters' Commission. The question arose in a bankruptcy proceeding, which originated in the Supreme Court, and which was founded upon a civil debt constituted by a previous Judgment of that Court. The sections quoted from the Crofters' Act do not debar the-Supreme Court from determining whether a person is a crofter when that question arises in the exercise of its ordinary jurisdiction. It does not appear to me that any change in the law is called for.

Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that it was the intention of Parliament to give full powers to the Crofters' Commission to determine those matters, so as to prevent them going further.

I cannot gather the intention of Parliament otherwise than from the words of the Act, and these are in accordance with the answer I have given.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether, for the satisfaction of the great number of people interested, he will consent to publish the terms of the specifications for the new contracts for carriage of mails in the Western Highlands and Islands of Scotland?

These services will very shortly be advertised, and the forms of conditions of tender will be given to any persons who may apply for them.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state by whose authority and for what purpose collectors engaged recently in receiving subscriptions for evicted tenants in the parish of Philips-town, King's County, were accompanied from house to house by the police?

The Constabulary Authorities report that they had reason to believe that attempts would be made to intimidate persons who were unwilling to subscribe to the collection being made. Two constables were accordingly detailed for duty, so that their services would be available if required.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if he is aware that in many rural districts the same person is Clerk to the Local Board of Guardians and also Clerk to the Local Bench of Magistrates, and thus advises the Guardians as to the prosecution of defaulters under the Vaccination Acts, and subsequently advises the Magistrates as to the penalties and sentences to be inflicted on the same persons; and whether he will issue instructions to Boards of Guardians that their clerks cannot hold the office of Magistrates' Clerk to any Bench having jurisdiction over persons ordered to be prosecuted by such Board?

There are no doubt cases where the Clerks to Guardians, who are solicitors, act also as Clerks to Justices. As regards the proceedings to which the question refers, it does not in any way devolve on the clerks to determine whether the prosecutions should be instituted by the Guardians, and it is for the Justices to determine whether the offence has been proved. The advice which the Clerk to the Justice can give as to the penalties which can be imposed in case of a conviction cannot be affected by the fact that he holds the office of Clerk to the Guardians. The two offices of Clerk to the Guardians and Clerk to the Justice are not, in my opinion, incompatible. I could not propose to make it unlawful that one person should hold the two offices.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether, in view of the long time that the Royal Commission on Vaccination has sat, he will inquire whether there are any points upon which the Commission is prepared to furnish a preliminary Report, with special reference to the question of cumulative penalties?

I have communicated with the Commissioners, and I learn that the matter will receive their consideration.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether the Government will introduce a Bill for the purpose of suspending prosecutions under the Vaccination Acts until the Report of the Royal Commission on Vaccination has been issued?

It is not my intention to introduce a Bill for the purpose of suspending prosecutions under the Vaccination Acts.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he will consider the advisability of simplifying the system of telegraphic money orders, and the form of such orders; whether he can see his way to a reduction of the charge for such orders; and whether he will direct that the money shall be delivered at the residence of the person to whom the telegraph money order is payable, with a view to ensure speed, and to guard against mistake or fraud?

It is not thought that the system can at present be made more simple. It follows that of postal money orders. It will be extended on the 1st of March to all offices open both for money order and for telegraph business, and the instructions have been revised. A certain reduction of charge will then take place—namely, when one remitter sends more than one order at the same time to one recipient up to £50 only one telegram of advice will be required. It is not thought expedient to alter the rule by which the recipient must claim the money at the paying office, which affords the security against fraud. The limited experiment hitherto made has shown an increasing popularity and few complaints, the number of telegraphic money orders having reached 10,673 in the last quarter as compared with 7,409 in the corresponding quarter of last year.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is prepared to make the statement, in regard to the clerks in the Sasine Office, Edinburgh, promised by his predecessor on 27th July, 1891?

I am not able to discover what particular information the hon. Member desires; but if he will formulate the questions he wishes to put, I will endeavour to answer them.

On behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for North Longford (Mr. T. M. Healy), I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India if pensioners of the late East India Company can have the option of commuting, like pensioners in the Regular Army?

Military pensioners of the late East India Company have the same privileges as to commuting as pensioners in the Regular Army.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, with reference to the proposal in Clause 42 of the Local Government (Ireland) Bill to throw the whole sanitary rate, over and above a limit to be fixed by the Local Government Board, upon the tenant, notwithstanding existing contracts and Statutes to the contrary, he will lay upon the Table of the House a Return showing the rate now levied for sanitary purposes in each union and division in Ireland; and whether there is any precedent for the proposal to allow a Government Department to fix the incidence of a rate?

I am not aware that there will be any difficulty in granting the Return indicated, if the hon. Member will move for it in the usual way. The subject-matter of the second paragraph is one that can more properly be discussed when the Local Government Bill is under the consideration of the House.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he will ensure that the agreement between the Caledonian and North British Railways, by which almost the whole railway system of Scotland will be placed in the hands of a monopoly, and new and independent railway enterprise seriously checked, will be submitted to the judgment of the House?

I have not seen the agreement to which the hon. Member refers. If it comes within the meaning of Section 22 of the Railway Clauses Act of 1863, the approval of the Railway Commissioners will be necessary before it comes into effect; but whether this is, or is not, the case is not for me to determine. I have no jurisdiction in the matter, and cannot ensure that it shall be brought before Parliament.

On behalf of my hon. Friend (Mr. T. M. Healy) I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if a vacancy has been allowed, since July, 1890, to exist in Dundrum Lunatic Asylum for the post of head attendant; whether a temporary appointment was made from outside the service; and is it intended to deprive experienced officers of the chance of promotion by making the temporary appointment permanent?

The vacancy in Dundrum Lunatic Asylum referred to is temporarily filled in the manner stated in the question. When a permanent appointment is being made to the post, the qualifications of all the candidates will receive due consideration.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General what number of telegraphic messages were transmitted by the State on account of the Railway Companies, and free of charge to them, during the years 1888, 1889, 1890, and 1891 respectively?

The numbers of telegrams sent free by the Post Office on account of the Railway Companies in the years 1888 to 1891 respectively are as follows:—1888, 1,033,433; 1889, 1,196,596; 1890, 1,406,398; 1891, 1,571,803. The above figures refer to the telegrams sent free on behalf of Railway Companies only, that being the information asked for. But it is right that I should state that several Canal Companies also possess the right to send free telegrams, and that some Railway Companies—notably the Irish Railway Companies—have the privilege of sending telegrams at a reduced rate.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the accidents caused by vessels being run down, he can have the regulations altered so as to make it compulsory for all British vessels to carry stern lights at sea as well as in the rivers?

The proposal of the hon. Member was adopted by the Washington International Maritime Conference, and has subsequently been approved by the Board of Trade in the amended International Regulations for preventing collisions at sea, submitted to Foreign Governments for consideration. I hope, therefore, that it may be included in the revised regulations when these have received International acceptance.

had a notice on the Paper to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that John Charlton, of Lingdale, Yorkshire, labourer, aged 70, was sued for a debt of a little above £5, and that an order was obtained for payment of 5s. per week; that these payments were regularly made until more than £5 had been paid in reduction of the debt; that, being out of work in the latter part of last year, he was unable to keep up the weekly payments, and that a judgment summons for two instalments was taken out, returnable at Guisborough on 20th November, 1891; that on that day Charlton attended at Guisborough to plead his inability to pay, owing to the fact that he was out of work, and was then, and had been since the 20th of October previous, in the receipt of parochial relief; and that he states that he went away on the assurance of the plaintiff's agent that the case would be withdrawn; that, on the case being called, the plaintiff's agent said that Charlton had told him that he had only had two weeks' relief, and that on this statement a committal order was granted; that the Relieving Officer has certified that Charlton was in receipt of relief from 20th October, 1891, until 9th February, he was arrested by the County Court bailiff as he came away from the relieving officer after receiving his weekly allowance, and conveyed to prison, where he now is; and whether, in view of the fact that Charlton's only means were those which he received as parochial relief, and that his wife cannot earn money for him, being 65 years old and suffering from disease of the heart and an abcess, he will see that the man is at once released? On the question being reached the hon. Gentleman said: I may say that I have just received a telegram stating this man has been let out. In view of the fact that he seems to have been imprisoned on perjured evidence, I should like to know whether the right hon. Gentleman will take action?

I can only say that I have no power in the matter.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he will explain the grounds on which Constable Gurry, recently stationed at Tipperary, has been promoted to the rank of acting sergeant and removed to Clonmel; whether he has any objection to state the length of Gurry's service, the number of stations he has been in, the cause of his removal from each station, and his general conduct record; and by whom was he first recommended for promotion to the rank he now holds, and was he recommended for promotion by his superior officers?

The Constabulary Authorities report that the acting sergeant referred to was promoted to his present rank on the recommendation of his superior officers. He has served through the exigencies of the Service at various places, and has been in the Royal Irish Constabulary ten and a half years. His general conduct record is good.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Mullingar Board of Guardians, having several years since paid out of their general funds the cost of obtaining the Private Act, 48 & 49 Vic. c. 131, enabling the town of Mullingar to be supplied with water, by a majority of two votes, struck a special rate on 18th February instant, of 3s. 8d. in the £1, to recoup by one levy the general fund, though their powers under the Act have been abandoned, and no works were ever constructed under it; and that this was done after the Board had been advised by their counsel that such a rate would be illegal, in view of Sections 31 and 41, which provide that the money for the purpose should be first borrowed; whether he is also aware that the Guardians are now unable to define the boundary of the area of taxation, namely, "the town and manor of Mullingar"; and whether the Local Government Board intend to take any action in the matter?

The facts are generally as stated in the first part of the question. The matter is altogether a question of law, and the Guardians appear to be acting under the advice of their counsel. The Local Government Board do not propose to interfere.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the teachers of model schools were excluded from the capitation grant arising from the £78,000 derived from "The Customs and Excise Act, 1890"; whether the model school teachers in contributory unions receive the same proportion of results fees from the poor rate as the teachers of other national schools; and whether Her Majesty's Government will authorise the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland to pay to the model school teachers in non-contributory unions, out of the £2,000 derived from the fees paid by the pupils who attend the model schools, and now paid into the Treasury as an extra receipt, the same capitation grant as is paid to the teachers in other national schools?

The reply to the inquiries in paragraphs 1 and 2 is in the affirmative. With regard to the third paragraph, the arrangement made by the Treasury with regard to the application of the item of £2,000 mentioned is one which I have no power to alter.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that of the soldiers who fought at Balaclava there are 18 alive who have no pensions, and that there are 12 who have pensions varying from 4d. to 1s. 3d. a day; and whether Her Majesty's Government will take the necessary steps to provide that each of these heroes shall, for the rest of his days, enjoy a pension of not less than 2s. 6d. a day?

As I have already stated more than once, the Balaclava Charge, gallant as it was, was but one incident in many actions which took place during the Crimean and Indian Mutiny campaigns, and I cannot discriminate specially in its favour. As I have also already said, the Treasury is now considering whether it will be possible to effect a reduction in the length of service qualifying for pension, so as to benefit many of the men now without a pension. I cannot, however, hold out any hope that the pensions will be generally raised to the high figure suggested in the question.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it has been stated in the newspapers, and not contradicted, that no fewer than six of the survivors of the Charge of Balaclava are at present in workhouses in various parts of the country?

I am not aware of that fact, if it be a fact; but I do know that the Patriotic Commissioners, whose duty it is to inquire into the matter, satisfied themselves that there were a few men who had brought that condition upon themselves by drunkenness and misconduct.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he can state, with reference to the survivors of the Six Hundred who took part in the charge at Balaclava, how many of them died in the workhouse, and how many of them are at present in workhouses; and whether the Commissioners of the Patriotic Fund have yet, in accordance with the Report of February, 1891, disposed of the £3,700 balance of the Relief Fund raised in the summer of 1890?

I have not information which will enable me to reply to the first part of the question; -but considering that, with few exceptions, these men received gratuities exceeding a year's pension, I can scarcely imagine that there ought now to be any serious destitution among them. The balance of the Relief Fund has only recently been transferred to the Patriotic Fund, and amounted to £2,949; and it is intended to apply it in the grant of pensions of 1s. a day to each of seven men as long as so many survive.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, on an application being received for a licence in mortmain under 51 and 52 Vic. c. 42, any consideration is given to the question whether such licence is legally necessary to save the property intended to be conveyed from forfeiture?

The Attorney General, to whom every petition for the grant of a licence to mortmain is referred for report, gives due consideration, among other circumstances, to the legal necessity for a licence in order to save forfeiture. The gift of lands to Owens College was licensed on the ground that purposes of public benefit and utility would be promoted by the grant of the licence. The fees charged are solely for Revenue purposes. Twelve licences have been granted since the passing of the Mortmain and Charitable Uses Act of 1888.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, under the regulations of the Intermediate Education Board in Ireland, no examining centre will be established, under the Intermediate Education Act, in any part of Ireland, unless there are at least 20 pupils presented there for examination; and, if so, whether, in view of the difficulty of presenting such a number in the smaller rural towns, and the little difficulty and small expense of providing superintendents to preside over the examinations, the Government will bring it under the notice of the Board with a view to reduce the requisite minimum number to ten or twelve; and whether he is aware that it frequently happens that a number of pupils are brought (under the superintendence of the teachers) at great expense from a considerable distance to the examining centres, and maintained there at further expense during the period over which the examination extends.

I learn from the Intermediate Education Board that they have no fixed rule as to the number of candidates required to constitute a centre, but that each application is considered on its merits. The Board do not consider it would be advisable to adopt as a minimum the number ten or twelve, as in their opinion the doing so would largely increase the cost of superintendence.

Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the last part of the question?

I have no information on that point.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he can explain on what grounds the Irish Board of Works claim that the Kinsale Harbour Commissioners are indebted to them in the sum of £11,059 15s. 1d., this sum being made up of principal and interest, the latter being charged at the rate of 5 per cent.; and is he aware that the Board of Works have issued a writ for the recovery of this amount, and have threatened to appoint a receiver; that the Town Commissioners, in order to meet what they considered their portion of the liability, levied a special extra rate of 2s. in the £, which they find the ratepayers of the town are unable to meet; and that the Harbour Commissioners have applied for a Provisional Order to enable them to increase the Harbour dues for the purpose of meeting the payments, according to terms of the award of the Board of Works, dated 23rd April, 1890; if so, will he take into consideration the advisability of reducing the rate of interest, and also make a reduction in the principal sum, in view of the fact that a high rate of interest has hitherto been charged, and that the revenue of the port from fishing and other vessels has fallen off very considerably within the past few years, and that the Town and Harbour Commissioners have made every effort to meet the heavy instalments?

The sum of £11,059 15s. 1d. represents the principal sum, with interest accrued at the rate of 5 per cent., which was still out- standing at the date of the award. The facts are substantially as stated in the second paragraph, except that I have not seen proof of the inability of the ratepayers of the town to meet the special rate of 2s.; but, in view of the steps taken by the Town and Harbour Commissioners, the Treasury are now prepared to grant a reduction of interest from 5 to 4 per cent. as from the date of the award. I see no ground for making any remission of principal.

Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the propriety of reducing the interest from the date of the accumulation of the arrears?

I cannot go, further than to say that we will reduce the interest from the date of the award.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, in the tenders for the-pier at Carloway, and for other works under "The Western Highlands Works Act, 1891," Her Majesty's Government will take care that no conditions are inserted similar to those in the tenders for Uig Pier, whereby Scottish contractors are bound to submit themselves to the jurisdiction of the English and not the Scottish Courts of Law?

The Carloway pier will be constructed under Provisional Order, not under the Act referred to. The contracts are matters for the sole consideration of the promoters and the contractors; but the Secretary for Scotland will, I am informed, do all in his power to secure the omission from the tenders of the conditions complained of by the hon. Member.

May I point out to the right hon. Gentleman that it is within the knowledge of Her Majesty's Government that, owing to the conditions imposed under this contract, several contractors withdrew?

Well, Sir, I was not aware of that.

beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education if he is aware that Saturday 30th April is the day fixed by the Education Department for the next literary examination of pupil teachers in elementary schools, and that the same day has been fixed by the Science and Art Department for the next examination in geometry, and that the result of such an arrangement is to cause general inconvenience and annoyance to pupil teachers, and to prevent many of those who have to sit at different centres for the two subjects from passing both examinations; whether the literary examination is compulsory for pupil teachers, while geometry is taken up almost universally by them; and whether, in view of the great hardship that will result to many teachers if both examinations are held on the same day, he will arrange with one of the Departments to alter their date?

I am much obliged to my hon. Friend for calling attention to this matter, and I am glad to inform him that steps are being taken to hold the Education Departments Examination on an earlier day.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland in how many and in what bays in Ireland is trawling forbidden, also in what bays is steam trawling forbidden; if when a large majority of the fishermen residing near any bay desire that trawling should be prohibited, do the Irish Authorities consider and give effect to this desire; has he any evidence to show whether the fishermen near any bay consider that the non-prohibition of trawling has injured the take of fish; if he knows that trawling is forbidden within the three mile limit of Scotland; and if the Irish Government will take steps to ascertain whether the Irish fishermen prefer the Scotch or Irish practice with regard to trawling; and if they prefer the Scotch, will he remove the jurisdiction with regard to trawling from the Irish Fishery Board and transfer it directly to the Lord Lieutenant?

I regret I was unable to reply to the last question when it appeared on the Paper on Friday, as I had not then had time to consider the telegraphed Report. As regards the first question, as the answer is somewhat long, perhaps the hon. Member will allow me to give the substance of it.

The matter is very important, and I should like to have the answer in full.

Very well, Sir; I will answer this question in full. The Inspectors of Irish Fisheries report that trawling from sail and steam vessels is prohibited in Belfast Lough, Dundrum Bay, and thence along the coast of Ireland to Howth and in Dublin Bay. Off the coast of Wexford trawlers must keep three miles away from vessels engaged in mackerel or herring fishing. Within certain limits in Waterford Harbour trawling is prohibited as regards vessels of over ten tons. Bantry Bay is closed to trawlers during night time, and within, a certain portion of the bay at all times. It is prohibited within certain limits in Brandon Bay. In Galway Bay trawling is not allowed while drift nets are being used for mackerel or herrings. Within certain limits in Inver Bay (County Donegal) it is also prohibited. Trawling from steam vessels is prohibited with certain limits in Sheephaven Bay, off the coasts of Donegal, Londonderry, and Antrim, a portion of the coast of Wexford, a portion of Waterford Harbour, and Lacken Bay. In Killala Bay within certain limits it is prohibited from the 1st of August in each year until the 1st of May in the year following, and in the entire bay at all times when mackerel or herring fishing is being carried on. A bye-law prohibiting steam trawling in Galway Bay inside the Arran Islands has been submitted for the approval of the Lord Lieutenant in Council. Where a large majority of fishermen residing near a bay intimate their desire that trawling should be prohibited therein the Inspectors of Irish Fisheries usually hold a public inquiry into the matter" and, if they consider it desirable, make a, bye-law to suit the circumstances of the case. In one case an application from certain fishermen was received requesting that trawling from sailing vessels be prohibited in a bay, but the Inspectors having recently held an inquiry into the fisheries of that bay, and having passed a bye-law prohibiting steam trawling therein, did not consider it necessary to hold a further inquiry, as they were of opinion that the protection of the bay from steam trawlers was sufficient. Evidence has been given to show that the fishermen near the bay consider the non-prohibition of trawling as injurious to the take of fish. Hence the bye-laws were made prohibiting trawling as described. The list of bye-laws quoted will show that the Inspectors are anxious to protect the fisheries of the bays; but, at the same time, they are careful to avoid any unnecessary action that would harass the trawling industry, which contributes so largely to the food supply. I have no official knowledge of the matter referred to in the fourth paragraph. The Government are not prepared to propose to remove the jurisdiction from the Irish Fishery Inspectors, in whom it is vested by law.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether a treason-felony prisoner named Gallagher has been released; and, if so, when and on what grounds; whether the treason-felony prisoner M'Cabe, who became insane, has been discharged; and, if so, when and on what grounds; if not, where is he; and whether he has seen a statement in the Press that a man named Gallagher, a discharged treason-felony prisoner, is now a dangerous lunatic in America?

The only treason-felony prisoner named Gallagher is still undergoing his sentence in Portland Prison. I have not seen the statement in the Press to which the hon. Member alludes. M'Cabe died in Perth Lunatic Asylum on the 9th October, 1890.

Is it not the fact that two brothers of the name of Gallagher were convicted together, and that one has been released?

All I can say is that we have not had more than one treason-felony prisoner of the name of Gallagher.

I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether there is any, and what, provision in the present Grand Jury Act by which a traverse can be tried in any county other than the county concerned; and whether he is aware of any demand on behalf of people living in the North or South of Ireland to have such traverses tried in Dublin, as is proposed by the Local Government(Ireland)Bill, Clause 9?

The latter portion of the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the previous question of the hon. Member will apply to a considerable extent to the second part of this question. But with reference to the first paragraph, I may point out that there is at present no need of any such provision, inasmuch as presentments are made by Grand Juries at the Assizes at which traverses may be heard before the Judge.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War for what reasons, and upon what terms and conditions as to pay and promotion, are soldiers and non-commissioned officers during service in India allowed home on leave?

Any warrant or non-commissioned officer after eight years' service abroad, and within the limit of 100 in one season, any soldier down to the rank of bombardier, after five years' continuous service in India, who has re-engaged, may have furlough for six months, with free passage, without loss of pay or promotion.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he is aware that the hall porters and labourers employed in the General Post Office, Dublin, are required to perform Sunday duty and night duty, for which they are not allowed the usual overtime wage of the Department; whether he is aware that his predecessor in office promised to remedy the grievance of these servants twelve months ago, and that nothing has yet been done for them; and whether he will see that the usual wages are paid, and the deficit of the past twelve months allowed?

The persons in question do as part of their weekly work an average of about two hours on a Sunday. I find that my predecessor said on the 7th March last year that the case of Post Office servants other than sorting clerks and telegraphists was under consideration. Since then extra Sunday pay has been extended to postmen at a considerable cost. I will now consider the cases mentioned, but I am not in a position to make any promises regarding them.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether any evicted tenants, or association on the part of evicted tenants, sought to take advantage of Section 13 of the Land Purchase Act of last Session before its expiration, and were unable to do so owing to the refusal of their landlords to co-operate; whether he can give the number of such tenants, the names of their landlords, and the grounds of their refusal to avail themselves of this Act to restore these evicted tenants to their late holdings; and whether the Government intend to introduce or favour any legislation for this object?

I have no means of knowing the number of cases in which landlords and former tenants failed to agree to take advantage of the provisions referred to of the Land Purchase Act of last Session. I am not aware of any intention on the part of the Government to propose or to suggest legislation of the compulsory nature indicated in the last paragraph.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the French Legislature has yet passed any law to give effect to the resolutions of the International Conference of Berlin regarding the hours of labour of women and children?

The French Legislature has not yet passed into law the Bill relating to the hours of labour of women and children, but it is in the Orders of the Day for future consideration.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether the metre gauge railways of Rajputana, the North West Provinces, and Bengal, with a total length exceeding 3,800 miles, which are now divided into four separate and unconnected groups, could all be coupled together for about £400,000, or only two per cent. on the original capital outlay of 20 millions sterling; whether the Secretary of State is aware that the money can easily be found for constructing the missing links of this system, and thus establishing unbroken connection on the metre gauge lines, on which traffic can now only be carried on by repeated transfers, from the vehicles of one gauge to those of another, from the Valley of Brahmaputra in the east, across the whole breadth of Northern India to the western seaboard; and whether the India Office proposes to sanction the short connections required to develop the full usefulness of these metre gauge railways?

The question of constructing these metre gauge lines is now under the consideration of the Secretary of State in Council, who is therefore unable, at the present moment, to make any public statement as to the cost of construction or the means of raising the money.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether a sergeant-major is, under the Royal Warrant, compulsorily retired at 45 if serving with his regiment, and at 50 if with the depôt; whether, under the Militia Regulations, a sergeant of the permanent staff must retire at 50, unless he was so serving prior to July 1881, while for sergeants of the Regular Army there is no such limit, and men are actually serving with the Regulars who would on the score of age be retired if they belonged to the Militia; and whether he proposes to remove the grievance complained of?

The rules for retirement of warrant officers and for the permanent staff of the Militia are as stated in the question. They are necessary for efficiency. There is no age fixed for the compulsory retirement of non-commissioned officers in the Army, but commanding officers take care not to retain men who are no longer efficient. In the last annual Return, out of 13,203 sergeants only 29 were over the age of 50, and 17 of these were in the Royal Artillery, for the most part master gunners. I am not aware that any grievance exists.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if the Government sold the machinery to the Henry Barrel Company for the purpose of manufacturing the order for 30,000 carbines, and for what sum; and what was the original cost of the machinery?

No, Sir; the machinery in question was not sold to the Henry Company for the purpose indicated in the question. Early in 1889 we sold to the company for £2,000 certain machinery, fixings, &c., which had been used in making the component parts of Martini-Henry rifles. It had been in use for many years and fetched its full value. As the Martini-Henry rifles would be in use for some time to come, it was considered to be an advantage that there should be a company able to make the spare parts, but it was intimated to them at the time of the sale that no orders of any kind could be guaranteed to them. I cannot state the original cost of the machinery.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it was intended by the Treasury Minute of the 24th March, 1891, that the employment of "Acting" Officers should be limited to cases of exceptional pressure or emergency in regard to Customs Officers generally or to Outdoor officers only?

The whole of the Treasury Minute in question relates only to Outdoor officers.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, with a view to, the House being able to form a judgment on the recommendations of Lord Wantage's Committee, and on the very conflicting opinions advanced by the minority, he will lay upon the Table the whole of the evidence taken before that Committee; and, if so, when he expects to be able to do so?

I can only refer to the replies I have already given on this subject, and say that directly I receive the evidence taken by Lord Wantage's Committee, I will consider whether I can lay it upon the Table. I have already stated that it is my wish to present it.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury why, in the contract between the Controller of the Stationery Office and Reuter's Telegram Company of 21st December, 1891, no, provision is made for carrying out the terms of the Resolution of the House of Commons of 13th February, 1891, in regard to the payment by the contractor of a fair rate of wages to the men he employs under the contract?

Before the tender of Renter's Telegram Company for reporting the Parliamentary Debates was accepted, the attention of the Company was drawn by the Controller of the Stationery Office to the terms of the Resolution adopted by the House of Commons on 13th February, 1891, and an assurance was received that the spirit of the Resolution would be complied with. The Government has no reason to doubt that the assurance so given is being duly carried out.

May I ask why this Resolution was not inserted in the-contract, in order to make it perfectly clear to the public?

The reasons against such a course were explained last year in the Debate on the Motion brought forward by the hon. Member himself. It is not expedient to insert the Resolution as a condition of a contract, as was then stated.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that the steamer Sir Walter Raleigh put into Bantry Bay recently with her propeller disabled; whether the Board of Trade permitted her to be taken in tow for Dunkirk without having undergone repairs; whether he is aware that she broke adrift from the tug engaged in towing her: that Her Majesty's ships Triumph and Shannon were despatched to rescue her; and that she was picked up by another steamer, and towed back to Bantry Bay before the Government war vessels reached her; and, if so, whether, in view of the danger to the crew involved in the steamer being towed across the Channel in her present helpless condition, the Board of Trade will direct the necessary repairs to be executed at the nearest dockyard; and if he is aware that the Royal Victoria Dockyard, Cork Harbour, affords ample facilities for the repair of sailing vessels and steamers?

I am informed that this steamer did put into Bantry Bay recently, disabled, as stated in the question. There is no Board of Trade surveyor stationed there, but the coastguard officers reported by telegram to the officer at Dublin that the hull of the steamer was seaworthy; and they did not think any further action necessary, as she was being towed by a powerful tug. I am also informed that she broke adrift from the tug, and eventually returned to Bantry Bay, where she was surveyed by a Board of Trade surveyor despatched from Cork for the purpose. He reports that he found her hull seaworthy. I have directed the surveyor to allow her to leave Bantry with sufficient tug power, on an undertaking being given that she will proceed to the nearest convenient port for repairs to her machinery.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, in reference to the charge of 3s. 7d. for birth certificate which must be paid by pupils entering for the intermediate examination in Ireland, whether the Irish Office has yet made any communication to the registrars with a view to reduce the charge to a nominal sum?

The fee referred to is a statutable one, and there is, therefore, no power to suggest its reduction.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, with reference to the death of P. W. Nally, in Mountjoy Gaol, whether he will have a copy of the evidence and verdict given at the coroner's inquest laid upon the Table of the House; and whether Dr. Nally, brother of the deceased, was obliged to leave the gaol at 10 o'clock on the night when his brother was dying there?

The Government are not aware of any authentic report of the proceedings at the inquest in the case of P. W. Nally. Dr. Nally was not obliged to leave the prison when his brother was dying. On the contrary, as stated in reply to a previous question, Dr. Nally, with other friends, was present at his brother's death, which occurred about 9.50 p.m.

Is the right hon Gentleman not aware that the coroner at the inquest was bound to take a copy of the depositions made before him? Are we to have them, or is it intended to conceal from the Members of this House all information as to the death of this man?

I have answered the question in accordance with the information given to me. So far as I am able to ascertain, the Irish Government have no authentic report of the proceedings at the inquest; but if there is an authentic report of course I will make inquiry about it.

I will ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether it is not the practice of a coroner to take a copy of the evidence given before him; and whether the Irish Government will inquire if it was not done in this case?

Undoubtedly it is usual for a coroner to take the depositions, but I am not aware whether it was done in the present case.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he has received a memorial from a large number of resident householders in the parishes of Upperchurch and Drumbane, County Tipperary, representing a population of nearly 3,000 inhabitants, praying that they would be afforded the accommodation of a Sunday post at the village of Upperchurch; whether he is aware of the great inconvenience the residents in this locality are subject to (some of them persons in business, clergymen, and others) owing to there being no postal delivery on Sundays; and whether the want could be supplied at a trifling cost by the appointment of a rural messenger on the Sundays from Ballycahill to Upperchurch, the distance being only five miles; and, if so, will steps be taken to have this public want supplied?

Such a memorial has been received, but it has not been found practicable to comply with its prayer because of the expense involved. Even the existing service entails considerable loss on the Revenue.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the fact that the landlords in the union of Dunmanway who have had fair rents fixed before the Sub-Commissioners are pressing their tenants for the old rents without allowing them the reductions granted by the Sub-Commissioners, he will expedite the hearing of appeals in the union referred to by the Chief Land Commissioners?

I have no information on the subject-matter of this question; but I would remind the hon. Member that there is statutable provision for an adjustment between landlord and tenant in respect to payments made in regard to altered rents.

Will the right hon. Gentleman ascertain when the Land Commissioners will hear the appeals?

I am sure the Land Commission would desire to expedite the proceedings as much as possible.

In the meantime, allow me to say, the landlords are pressing for the old rents which the tenants are unable to pay.

I have no power to interfere; but the Court to which application is made will have power to take into consideration all circumstances of that kind.

I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether he is aware that at a recent public meeting held at Goleen, Captain Welch, R.M., had a number of policemen, armed with rifles and bâtons, drawn up close and in view of the meeting, and threatened that if any illegal language was made use of he would disperse the meeting by force; and what Statute, if any, empowered Captain Welch to disperse the meeting?

The facts appear to be as follows. From what had occurred at a meeting held at Goleen a few days previously, Captain Welch had reason to believe that the meeting referred to would be used for the promotion of intimidation, in relation to certain evictions which were being carried on in the immediate neighbourhood. Before the commencement of the meeting he spoke publicly to Father Forrest, P.P., pointing out the illegality of such a course, and warning him that if the meeting proved to be an unlawful assembly it would be his duty to disperse it.

I should like to ask the Attorney General to explain under what Law or Statute this proceeding was taken. I should like at the same time to ask him to extend his answer so as to cover a case in which a similar proceeding was taken against myself when I endeavoured to address my constituents in a peaceable district. I want to know under what Statute a magistrate was justified in approaching me on the platform, and saying to me—

"Mr. Dillon, if you use any language which, in my judgment, is illegal, I shall break up this meeting."

I cannot answer, of course, for what occurred in the case referred to by the hon. Member. He asks me under what Law or Statute a meeting, assuming it to be called for the purpose of intimidation, was dispersed.

The right hon. Gentleman has missed the point of my question. I was told this was a legal meeting, and that I could hold it, but that if my language in the judgment of the magistrate was improper or illegal the meeting would be dispersed.

I assumed that the question put across the Table had reference to the facts of the case brought before me by the question on the Paper, but, if the hon. Gentleman wishes for information about other meetings, I must ask him to give me notice.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that at the previous meeting referred to there was a police reporter in attendance? If it was illegal, why not bring a prosecution; but why should a Magistrate be judge and jury in the case?

Has Captain Welch had any legal training whatever?

I am not aware that the legal training of Captain Welch has anything to do with the matter.

The right hon. Gentleman is evidently declining to answer the question I have put to him. It is whether it is legal for an Irish Magistrate to set himself up on the spot as a judge of the language of the speakers, and, if so, under what Law it is done? Mr. Speaker, I must ask the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the point of my question. If the meeting was illegal, why was it allowed to be held at all? It was allowed to be held, and that is a proof that in the opinion of the Magistrate it was not illegal, and the question is under what Law or Statute the Magisstrate was entitled to constitute himself on the spot a judge, not only as to whether the meeting was illegal or not, but also whether the language used by the speakers was illegal?

The Magistrate could not constitute himself a judge of the legality of the language used at the meeting. But, if the hon. Gentleman wishes to go into the question of other meetings, I must request him to give me notice. In regard to the particular meeting to which the question on the Paper relates, Captain Welch, rightly or wrongly—I cannot go into that—after what occurred at a previous meeting was apprehensive that the meeting about to be held would be used for the purpose of intimidation. Now, if the meeting had been so used, it would have been an unlawful assembly, and it would have been his duty to disperse it. The hon. Gentleman asks me if it was legal for Captain Welch to speak to gentlemen present at the meeting; but, in stating his apprehension and warning them of the. possible consequences, he was doing, nothing illegal.

The point of the question is that he stated that he would disperse the meeting if illegal language was used, and that amounts to saying that he would be the judge of the legality of such language.

The hon. Gentleman will allow me to complete my answer. That is, no doubt, a point in the question, but what I said in reply is a totally different thing—that Captain Welch, in stating that if the meeting was used for the purposes of intimidation it would be an unlawful assembly, and it would be his duty to disperse it, was acting perfectly within the law.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he can now state when telegraph communication can be established between Whitegate and Woodford; whether he is aware that letters at present take two days to go from one town to the other, though the distance is only six miles: and what steps he intends taking to redress this grievance?

I have already explained that the circumstances would not admit of direct postal communication being established between the two places named. It is true that the letters take two days in passing from one to the other, but they are very few in number. With reference to the telegraph: on a similar question being asked last week the necessary inquiries were directed, but there has not yet been time to receive. the Report.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he proposes to take any, and what, steps to carry out the promise of the late Postmaster General to grant a faster mail train service to Wexford?

I am not informed that the late Postmaster General promised to grant a faster mail train service to Wexford. He promised to endeavour to come to terms with the Railway Company for that purpose, but the extra payment which they would require is more than the Service can afford. So far as the Post Office itself is concerned, all that is possible has been done by sorting on the way, and by the employment of additional force to expedite the delivery of the letters at Wexford, as well as at Enniscorthy.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the authorities in Ireland, following the precedent set by the Board of Agriculture in England, have taken any steps to provide for suitable instruction in the higher and lower branches of arboriculture and silviculture, as advised by the Select Committee on Forestry in 1887?

I have called for, but not yet received, Reports on this question. I must therefore ask the hon. Member to be good enough to defer it.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland in how many cases and to what extent the Congested Districts Board has availed itself of its power to undertake the re-afforesting of waste lands in Ireland; and whether he will use his influence to urge upon the Board the great importance of tree-planting in Ireland, and the yearly increasing likelihood of its proving remunerative in the near future?

The Congested Districts Board have taken over from the Land Commission the carrying out of the forestry operations at Knockboy, County Galway. The lands being dealt with comprise 914 statute acres. This is the only case up to the present in which the Congested Districts Board have availed themselves of their powers to develop forestry in Ireland, but a proposal to purchase additional land is at present under consideration.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland what advances have been by the Board of Works, under Clause 20 of the Tramways and Public Companies (Ire- land) Act, which included the planting of trees amongst the objects to which, with the sanction of the Treasury, the Board of Works was authorised to make advances under the 31st section of the Land Law (Ireland) Act of 1881?

Perhaps the hon. Member will allow me to answer that question, and to say that no advances have been made.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that a convict named Clarke, late Postmaster and Churchwarden at Bringham, Norfolk, now confined in Portland Prison, has become insane; and whether he will consider his case with a view to his release?

A prisoner named Clarke has become insane, and is now at Broadmoor. I am informed that there is no ground whatever for the suggestion that his insanity is due to prison treatment. The medical officer reports that it was probably congenital. During the time he was in a convict prison he never made a complaint to the authorities, nor did he send any petition to the Home Office.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if the Prisons Board claim the area in front of the gaol in Enniskillen, extending from the gaol wall to the channel adjoining the county road leading south to Castlecoole; and, if so, is it the duty of the Board to keep it in proper repair and clean it; will they either do so, or hand it over to the Local Authority, the Town Commissioners, to put it into and keep it in proper condition; and is this gaol being now used as a prison, or is it intended that the authorities will discontinue its use as such, and permit it to fall into further dilapidation; if not, will they instruct an engineer to inspect and report on the condition and appearance of the outside front wall, doors, &c., with a view to due repairs?

I am causing inquiries to be made in regard to the subject of this question, but have not yet received the information.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that rents in many cases and generally were increased by the Land Commissioners in Enniskillen, county Fermanagh, last week; and if he will state the number of cases in which rents were thus increased, and the number in which they were reduced, at those sittings; and the number of appeals by the landlord and tenant respectively, both in the cases of increased and reduced rents?

I am informed that at the recent sitting of the Land Commissioners' Court of Appeal at Enniskillen 82 cases were heard. They included 55 landlords' appeals, of which 28 were raised and 27 confirmed. Of the six cross appeals, one was raised and five were confirmed. Of the 20 tenants' appeals, 12 were confirmed and eight reduced.

I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether the provisions of "The Deeds of Arrangement (Amendment) Act, 1890," so far as relate to private arrangements, and especially Sub-section 5, of Section 2, have been disregarded; and what steps the Government proposes to take to ensure the observance of the Act?

I have made inquiries into this matter. I find that a difficulty has arisen in carrying out the provisions of the Act, especially having regard to the enactments of the sub-section referred to in the question. The matter is too technical to be explained in reply to a question. But I have given the matter careful consideration, and I believe that the difficulty is capable of being removed.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury) whether with reference to the provision in Clause 2, Sub-section (2) (a) of the Local Government (Ireland) Bill, by which (notwithstanding any contract by the owner, whether in town or country, to pay the county cess or borough rate, or any part thereof) the whole of any increase beyond the present amount of the cess or rate is to be paid by the occupier only, the Government are prepared to introduce a Bill regulating the contracts between landlord and tenant concerning the payment of rates in every part of the United Kingdom?

I must remind the hon. Member that the main outlines of our programme are now before the House, and I am afraid I cannot undertake to make any addition to it.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he has received tenders for the construction of the pier at Carloway, in the Island of Lewis, some months ago, and how soon is he likely to decide to proceed with the work; and whether, in reference to the construction of the road from Stornoway to Carloway, effect is to be given to the unanimous decision of the district committee of the County Council as to the manner of its construction?

My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. Tenders for the construction of the pier were submitted in December, and are now under the consideration of the promoters. In accordance with the, usual rule the works cannot be commenced until the Provisional Order for their execution has received the sanction of Parliament, but every effort will be made to expedite the passing of the confirming Bill. As regards the road from Stornoway to Carloway the Secretary for Scotland has been in communication with the County Council, with the result that there is now practically an agreement as to the method of construction, and it only remains to settle the question how far a portion of the present road near Stornoway may be utilised.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether it is intended to take advantage of the opportunity afforded by the death of Sir Spencer Clifford to combine the duties of Yeoman Usher of the Black Rod and of Secretary to the Lord Great Chamberlain, as recommended by the House of Lords Committee of 8th August, 1889, with a view to effect a saving of £700 per annum?

As the hon. Gentleman is aware, the matter is not within the competence of the Government, but it is entirely within that of the House of Lords itself, and I am given to understand that their Lordships desire to carry out, as soon as possible, the intention expressed by the Committee to which the question refers.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he would object to a Motion for a Return showing the total amount of the Exchequer issues in the year ending 31st March, 1891, in respect of pensions and superannuation allowances, indicating the total amount charged for the purpose on the Consolidated Fund; and the total amount issued for the purpose on account of Naval Services, Military Services, Civil Services, Customs and Inland Revenue Departments, and Post Office Services; and whether he would object to the inclusion in the Return of the total amount paid out of the local taxation account in respect of police superannuation, and of the total amount expended by Local Authorities during the year upon pensions and superannuation allowances?

The information for which the hon. Member asks in the first part of his question is contained in the Report of the Appropriation Account, so that there would be no need of a Return. With regard to the information sought for in the second part of the question, I must refer him to my right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture a question, of which I have given him private notice—namely, whether his attention has been called to statements in the Observer with regard to the action taken by the Board of Agriculture in reference to the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease?

I also wish to ask whether the right hon. Gentleman has heard of any outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease at Edinburgh, and also at Ashurst in Sussex?

In reply to my hon. and gallant Friend (Sir Walter Barttelot), I regret to say that I received notice on Saturday of an outbreak which has occurred at Edinburgh. I have made inquiry into the circumstances of that case; but the reports I have received up to the present time do not enable me to trace the origin of the outbreak. It is also true, I am sorry to say, that the outbreak which occurred in Sussex some days ago appears to have extended to Ashurst to a farm there, and to a neighbouring farm called the Bentley Farm. In reply to the question of my hon. Friend behind me (Sir Edward Birkbeck), I have to say that my attention has been called to various statements which have recently appeared in the paper referred to, to the effect that we are relaxing our precautions in connection with the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease, and have treated the matter with levity, and reflecting severely on the conduct of the Board of Agriculture generally. There is no foundation for these statements, and I can only suppose that they are based upon a complete misapprehension as to the effect of some of the most recent orders of the Board and the circumstances under which they have been passed. It is true we have re-opened the London Market and revoked the order for prohibiting the movement of animals alive from the market, for this reason: London must be fed, and if those orders were continued animals would be sold at railway stations, in yards, at private lairs, and other places over which we should and could have no control whatever. We have therefore thought it best to re-open the market, leaving the animals free to be taken from the market to their destination within the County of London, but taking the most stringent precautions, in which we are being most admirably served by the police, to prevent a single animal from the market going beyond the limits of the County of London. The effect, I hope, will be this: that animals will go freely into the market, and if unhappily the disease should be brought into it again we shall have them altogether under our control and be able to deal with it at once.

I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman, with respect to the outbreak at Edinburgh, whether he can inform the House if he has any reason to suppose it is connected with cases which have arisen in London, or whether it is an independent outbreak?

As far as I have been able to ascertain up to the present time the outbreak in Edinburgh is regarded as quite independent of that which took place in London; but as the right hon. Gentleman knows very well, it is quite possible that the disease may have been conveyed from London to Edinburgh without there being any indication of it.

I beg to ask the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the fact that a meeting which was being held at World's End, Chelsea, on Sunday was suddenly attacked and broken up by the police without any warning being given to the speakers, and notwithstanding his answer on the 23rd instant to a deputation that such meetings would not be interfered with?

I would also, before the right hon. Gentleman answers that question, ask whether it is not the fact the meeting that day was disorderly and obstructed the traffic; and whether the police did not interfere with it until the disorder and obstruction caused by it compelled them to do so?

What I said to the deputation on the 23rd instant was that if we think the meetings at the World's End were of the same character as those which preceded August last, and were accompanied by no disturbance of the peace and no obstruction to the public thoroughfare, the police would not interfere; but I added that the police would be neglecting their first duty if they did not interfere with such meetings as had taken place there since September last. I am informed that yesterday the police had orders to avoid interference with tie meeting if possible, and an Assistant Commissioner attended in person to enforce these orders. The police were not sent for, and did not interfere at all until the number of persons assembled had so largely increased that the thoroughfares were blocked and there were much noise and disturbance. The Inspector then requested the speaker to desist, calling his attention to the obstruction and disturbance, and informing him that there was illness in several neighbouring houses. The speaker refused to desist, and the policemen then caused the central group to move on and cleared the roadway. I am informed that inhabitants in the neighbourhood were for some time prevented from leaving their houses, and that a clergyman, whose mission room is at World's End, was unable to get there.

In the absence of the President of the Local Government Board, I wish to ask the Home Secretary what law there is that justifies a Deputy Returning Officer counting votes at a County Council Election at his office instead of at the polling place, as is now being done at one of the divisions of Norfolk?

I must ask the hon. Gentleman for notice of that question.

But it is going on now.

I desire to protest against the postponement of this Bill until Monday. It was ordered for this day, and appears "by Order" on the Orders of the Day. A number of Members have attended early in their places expecting the Bill would be taken, and now it is again put off for a week. I do not know how these arrangements are made, but I do think that Members ought to have notice of a postponement of this kind, and should not be left to find it out at the very last moment when they expect the Bill to be taken. I have no objection whatever to the postponement, but I do not think it should be left on the Orders as to be taken "by Order."

In moving the Second Reading of this Bill I will briefly allude to its objects. It is for the purpose of continuing the tramway lines across Westminster Bridge and along the Embankment as far as the bridge of the South Eastern Railway, near Charing Cross Station, and the object is to connect the tramway systems on the south with the north side of the river. There has been, as I will shortly show, very considerable demand for this tramway. Last year a Bill for constructing the line was promoted by the Tramway Company, but it was rejected in the House on the Second Reading stage. The Bill now, somewhat differing from the Bill then, is promoted by the London County Council itself. It appears to the Council that the circumstances of the case make it more properly the Authority to construct the line, inasmuch as the bridge and the Embankment are under its particular care by Act of Parliament. For this and for other reasons it has seemed desirable that the London County Council should construct the line. There are two portions of the line, the one I have described and a very small portion uniting the new line with the other London Tramway Companies lines, which come very near to the terminus of the South London Company, but as to this small portion of the line it is hardly worth while my speaking. The clauses of the Bill are in one respect very different from the ordinary clauses of a Tramway Bill. It is proposed that the Council shall have power to work the tramway itself if necessary, and I may say that that clause has been introduced into the Bill because if the tramway were to be constructed and the Tramway Company were not to lease it from the Council the line would be useless and the expenditure on construction wasted. It is not desired, however, by the London County Council to work the line, and an agreement between the Council and the South London Tramway Company has so far advanced that there is hope that an arrangement may be arrived at satisfactory to all parties for the working of the line by the Tramway Company, and if this agreement is arrived at then the clause for the making of the line by the London County Council will not be pressed. Negotiations for this agreement have advanced a considerable length; they have reached this stage: that whereas the London County Council ask £1,350 a year rental for the line from the South London Company, the Company is willing to give £1,000. That is the difference at issue, that and the question of rates, and these points surely may very fairly be settled by the Committee upstairs. If we are so near an agreement as that, it is hardly worth our while contemplating it falling through now. There was a clause in the Bill last year which caused great opposition, limiting the hours of servants to ten each day. There were many-Members who cordially agreed with the proposal, but objection was taken to it being introduced in a clause in an Act of Parliament. In the present case, the County Council are willing to make this a clause in the agreement with the Company subject to the approval of the proper Authorities. No doubt one of the points at issue before the Committee will be whether such a clause should be introduced or not into the agreement between the Council and the South London Tramway Company. That is a suitable point for decision upstairs, it, will take its place in the consideration of the agreement. The line is not proposed to be carried further than Charing Cross Bridge. The Lambeth Vestry, within whose district a considerable portion of the line lies, have signified their assent to the Bill. Now there come in one or two, objections that have been raised to the Bill and have been circulated among Members in papers which have reached my hands, and one of these documents emanates I believe, though it does not bear the statement on the face of it, from the District Railway Company. This document argues that this Company paid £200,000 for the privilege of passing under the Embankment, that it has stations at Westminster Bridge and also at Charing Cross, and that to run a tramway line along the Embankment is not fair to them. Upon this I beg to observe that the right to go under the Embankment was the right purchased, there was never a thought of a monopoly being conferred of a line of communication there, and the same objection, if it hold good, would equally apply to streets in almost any quarter of London, and I cannot for a moment think that the House will throw out the Bill on this ground. Then the same document objects to the London County Council embarking on a speculative undertaking involving risk of loss, the burden of which must fall on the ratepayers. Now, I have told the House how far the arrangement for working the line has gone, and it will be in the power of the House to estimate how far this is likely to throw speculative burdens on the ratepayers. But this is in no sense an extraordinary or novel undertaking. Local Authorities have laid down a very large proportion of the tramway lines in the country, and the London County Council are doing nothing speculative in this matter. Then there is a statement put forward that Westminster Bridge and the Embankment are thoroughfares peculiarly unsuitable for tramway lines. Now, Westminster Bridge is, as I am informed by engineers of the London County Council, one of the widest bridges crossing the Thames, and the Embankment is one of the widest drives in London, and if people are to travel by tramway this is, just one of the lines to be taken. It is said it will destroy Victoria Embankment as a carriage drive; but this cannot admit for a moment, seeing the width of the roadway, though, even if it did, let hon. Members observe the number of carriages driving along the Embankment for pleasure and compare the number with the crowds of working and middle class people passing by this route to and from the South of London. There is a very large number of people indeed, clerks, artisans, shop assistants, male and female, working men of all classes, compositors, and others, who live in the South of London, and whose employment brings them to Westminster Bridge to cross to the other side of the river. They have to make the journey in all weathers, in rain or snow or mud, and unfortunately these conditions predominate in London, and these unfortunate people have to go to office, shop, or warehouse, in wet clothes and wet feet, to their considerable discomfort and with risk of injury to their health. If the tramway were constructed over Westminster Bridge, to say nothing of going any further, it would bring these people right up to lines of omnibuses, and of course going on to Charing Cross would do still more, and the crossing the bridge would land the people where they could avail themselves of Westminster Bridge Station of the District Railway. These facts have been before the London County Council in a memorial signed by no less than 62,000 inhabitants and resident ratepayers in the South of London, and these are some of the reasons I lay before the House in favour of this undertaking. I have only one more matter to touch upon, and that is that in one of these opposing memorials which have been circulated among Members of the House it is stated that, the present Council being just about to quit office, it should not be allowed to commit its successor to this new departure. Well, the House has heard how very little of a new departure it is either in legislation or in the action of the London County Council itself, which has, as the House knows, resolved to take over a much more important piece of tramway than is now proposed to be made. But if the House throw out the Bill, if the Government should join with some of its supporters in the endeavour to throw out the Bill on the present occasion on the ground of objection I have just alluded to, then it will be a most extreme verification of what has been said on this side of the House—what has been predicted from this side of the House, not without full knowledge of the circumstances—that the deferring the County Council elections to March would have an exceedingly impeding effect on London legislation. If a Bill is not to pass because the Council is about to dissolve and its successor about to be elected, why then, for one whole year out of the three, will London progress and legislation for London and London people be absolutely arrested so far as the County Council is concerned. This question is of extreme importance to London people, and whatever points are at issue between the Council and the Company will be settled after the election by the chosen representatives of the people of London. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. J. Stuart.)

I was extremely sorry to hear the closing remarks of the hon. Gentleman, because I am certain that in my own opposition to the Bill I am not moved by any political motives, and I am positive that Her Majesty's Government had nothing on earth to do with any such motive in postponing the County Council elections. I am equally certain that in opposition to the Bill I shall find support from the other side of the House. I need not follow the hon. Gentleman into detail of the various clauses, because these may very properly be dealt with by the Committee should the Bill ever reach that stage, but I ask the House to throw out the Bill positively. In the first place, it comes before us in a very shifty, broken form, and in the very statement we have just heard we find how inconclusive the arrangements are for the working of the Bill, and in the very statement put before us by the London County Council itself we read—

"The arrangement is so far complete that it will probably be ready for submission to the Council when it reassembles after the election if the Bill be read a second time."

So we are to proceed on the hypothesis that if we pass the Bill, perhaps the London County Council may be able to entertain it after the new election. Then we ask if that is the case, seeing that the Bill was rejected only eight months ago, why are we troubled with the Bill again now; why not wait for the new Council to put it forward in a complete shape or a perfect form without taking any further steps? The hon. Gentleman has alluded to a certain amount of opposition from the Underground Railway Company, and that opposition appears to me perfectly natural. The Company paid £200,000 to the predecessors of the London County Council for the privilege of going under the Embankment, and, the Council having possessed themselves of this £200,000, now propose to run a line overground in opposition to the very persons from whom they derived this pecuniary benefit. But this is a matter which concerns the Railway Company, and is not the principal objection. The hon. Gentleman speaks of the Embankment as important as a means of traffic, and so it is of local traffic, but the hon. Gentleman will not tell me that the workmen, clerks, and others to whom he alludes have any business on the Embankment. They have no business, no work, no occupation there; they are not employed there. They travel long distances and they are dropped at various points. They do not all go to Lombard Street or to the City; they go to Regent Street and the City, and various places inside and outside the City, and, leaving the tramcars, are carried to their destination by the various lines of omnibuses which diverge in various directions in large numbers. I have counted six omnibuses in the minute passing my house, and excellent vehicles they are. I hope we shall have no comparison drawn to-day between these and "gilded chariots." They are excellent conveyances, and the ladies of London avail themselves of the omnibus service quite as much as do the working classes. The stream of omnibuses crosses the bridge and takes natural directions according to the requirements of the traffic right or left and carrying passengers long distances for a penny. But none of these omnibuses take the line of the Embankment. No, they follow the natural routes, and I maintain that it is fiction to say that if you had this tramway it would be of the slightest real use. It is intended only to land passengers at the foot of a gentle hill rising to Charing Cross; it does not go to the station even, but practically nowhere—among a lot of cabs, where. the terminus will cause an enormous amount of obstruction. It would cause the greatest amount of obstruction, too, on Westminster Bridge, where the roadway is only 53 feet wide. If you take 16 feet from the centre of the roadway you leave a very narrow margin for the traffic, which even now is often brought to a standstill. But the fact is, this proposal is the outcome of a long-standing endeavour on the part of Tramway Companies to capture the West End. For their own purposes they wish to have lines running through the West End of London. I am quite aware that the tramway system is of great public convenience in some parts of London, where the thoroughfares are suited to them, but as Lord Palmerston said, "Dirt is only matter in the wrong place," so tramways become an intolerable nuisance when introduced into the unsuitable narrow thoroughfares of the West End. The traffic at many points is blocked beyond endurance now very often We shall probably have to come to this House for powers to do something to relieve the congestion of traffic at Knightsbridge. Here and at such places as Hyde Park Corner, in spite of the admirable steering of the drivers of cabs and omnibuses, who with the utmost cleverness and forbearance avoid constant difficulties, there are blocks repeatedly; and if you introduce into the middle of such traffic fixed lines, you will effect the greatest amount of inconvenience and damage to the tradesmen in the West End, who find employment for those sempstresses and shop assistants to whom the hon. Member has referred, and if you ruin their trade you injure the very class on whose behalf the hon. Member urges this Bill. This I say on the question of tramways generally. For the last ten years attempts have been made to carry the tramway lines up such streets as Sloane Street, an impossible street for the purpose, and over and over again the project has been defeated. Now the attempt is made to get communication for the cars over Westminster Bridge, and I suppose in due time the attempt will be made to get up Parliament Street to connect with the northern branches of the lines. On these and other grounds I ask the House to reject the measure as one it is impossible to sanction. Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."—(Sir Algernon Borthwick.) Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."

My objection is that the real object is not stated in this Bill, that real object being to make a connection between the northern and southern tramway lines. If this is to be done, then let the proposition be made in an open, straightforward manner. There is no reason why the North and South Metropolitan Tramway System should not be connected, but let it be proposed in a Bill introduced for the purpose, and let us have some voice in the selection of the bridge over which the traffic is to go. The last bridge to select would be Westminster. It is inconvenient, and the bridge is unsuited for such traffic. I have seen the plans of the bridge, and have consulted engineers, who tell me the construction is unfitted for such traffic. The crown of the arches is elliptical and unfitted to bear the heavy traffic in the centre of the road. The bridge was built to accommodate lines of slow, heavy traffic on either side and the quicker traffic in the middle; but if the tramway takes 16 feet from the centre of the road-way it will be impossible to accommodate two streams of traffic on either side. The power is also proposed to be taken to close a portion of the bridge for a certain time pending construction of the line, but meantime what is to become of the traffic? The Embankment was constructed at a great expenditure of public money for a specific purpose, to relieve the traffic flowing east and west by the Strand then so often blocked. But if this tramway is sanctioned on the Embankment, the effect will be to drive traffic back again to the Strand, for it will be impossible to use the Embankment for carriages. Nothing owners and drivers of carriages dislike more than the twisting of their wheels by the tramway metals, and, equally with the public vehicles, carriages have a right to the use of the roads, for all pay rates. It is evident, also, that something more than horse cars is contemplated, for the Bill includes a clause for regulating the smoke from engines. Will that not prevent all other traffic? Will anyone care to drive along the Embankment passed by puffing engines every two minutes? With regard to the District Railway, undoubtedly it is right that the Company should have a voice in this matter. I was twitted last year with holding a brief for the District Railway Company, though I did nothing of the kind, as I have no connection with that line except as a passenger. But I think, if a public body gives £200,000 towards a public improvement, and directly that is made all the profit is to be taken away by competition promoted by the Local Authority, that is scarcely likely to encourage public bodies to assist municipal improvements in the future. Well, the Bill was thrown out last year by a decisive majority, and I hope the House will not stultify itself by accepting this proposal from a defunct County Council—a proposal which we do not know that the new Council will carry out. It may well be that the new Council may think it has quite enough in hand without entering upon other undertakings. I certainly think such a Bill as this should wait for the opinion of the new Council, and if the Bill is for the purpose of effecting a junction between the northern and southern tramway systems, this is not the bridge for the purpose, because the lines do not come up to the bridge on both sides of the river.

I have listened with attention to the two speeches made against this Bill, and I fear they are of the class we have long been accustomed to as used against anything like a development of popular traffic. I have failed to recognise one argument or reason against the passing of the Bill. I was astounded to hear the hon. Member for South Kensington (Sir Algernon Borthwick) argue that the other side of the bridge would not be more inconvenient as a terminus than the end of Villiers Street. You have a dense industrial population coming daily from Brixton, Peckham, and the southern suburbs to employment on the other side of the river, and crossing Westminster Bridge and turning northward many of these people will, by the line indicated in the Bill, be brought within reasonable distance of their place of employment. The hon. Gentleman who seconded the Amendment admits the desirability of connecting the northern and southern tramway systems, but where would he begin his operations for the purpose if not at Westminster Bridge?

There is no tramway system with which to make a junction on the north side of Westminster Bridge.

No; there is not, I admit that; but will the hon. Gentleman say that he would not equally oppose a plan to carry the northern system over Blackfriars Bridge by way of Farringdon Street? Would there not be exactly the same District Railway monopoly opposition as we meet with now? Am I to suppose the hon. Gentleman would be prepared to endorse a scheme of that kind for crossing Blackfriars Bridge?

That is not the question before us now.

Just now the hon. Member said there was no reason why the two systems should not be connected, but he objected that there is no connection on the northern side of the bridge, then I ask him would he oppose a plan where the connection could be made at Blackfriars, and he evades the answer. Of course we should meet with the same opposition. I thought I heard the whole of the opposition when I heard of the carriage wheels. We have heard of this skidding of carriage wheels many times. I admit of course, the equal right of carriages to the use of the roadways, but I deny the right of the owners of carriages to exclude the public conveyances carrying thousands where the carriages carry units. With the argument on behalf of the railway monopoly I need not deal; it is not an argument against the Second Reading of this Bill. The thoroughfare through which the proposed line will run is a wide one, the terminus is a useful one as landing passengers within easy walking distance of the Strand. I am not afraid of another argument which has not to-day been used, that it will spoil the Embankment. I desire to see the cars running along the Embankment, giving the industrial classes the benefit of a ride by the side of the river on a summer's evening for a penny, just as the industrial classes in Paris can ride along the Boulevard des Italiens. (Several hon. MEMBERS: No, no; that is not so.) Yes; I have done it myself—or I should say the Rue de (No, no.) At all events, I desire to see the industrial classes of London able to travel cheaply by the side of the Thames as the people in Paris do by the Seine. I hope that omnibuses may adopt the idea of going along the Embankment. I know of no reason why they should not. What reason is there for opposing this Bill? There is a dense industrial population dwelling at a considerable distance from their employment, and they have to take a public conveyance. But in bad weather they get wet through, having to cross the bridge on foot, and they have to continue their work during the day, and I, from experience, know what it is in wet clothes or with wet feet. I hope hon. Gentlemen will withdraw this opposition, for I can tell them there is only one opinion upon it outside. It may be bias on the part of the people, but it is regarded as class opposition from those who do not themselves need this means of conveyance.

I base my opposition on grounds quite other than those which have already been advanced, though I concur in what has been said by the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment. My main ground of objection is that this Bill is promoted by the London County Council. ("Hear, hear!") I expected that cheer, but I am not at all afraid to announce at the outset of my observations the ground upon which I make them. I hope to show the House before I have done, and in a few minutes, that this Bill is the thin end of the wedge for proposals which, if carried to their logical conclusion, will be of a colossal description, involving London in Socialistic experiments for extracting capital from the pockets of those ratepayers who have it and turning it into the pockets of those who have not—to be repaid Heaven knows when. Let me draw attention to Clause 27 in the Bill, which provides that if the Council carries on the undertaking at a loss, then this loss shall be borne by the ratepayers. Not without reason has this clause contemplating a deficiency been introduced. A few weeks ago we had announced to us from public platforms in London what is called the London programme of the Progressists—-programmes are fashionable just now—and the programme has attracted some attention. One speech in particular attracted my attention. It was suggested by one speaker, Why should not tramways be taken up by Municipalities and worked even at a loss to the ratepayers in order to accommodate what are called the toiling thousands, although those who would be made to pay are probably as great or greater toilers than they. The votes of these thousands are what is aimed at. That is the principle of which this, I say, is the thin end of the wedge, the first communication in the House, and I ask the House to pause before sanctioning such a principle as that. At another meeting in my constituency, one of the largest divisions in London, this principle was boldly announced by a well-known Socialist representative of his friends on the London County Council, and I suppose, to give it an extra touch of satire, it was said under the portals of the Local Board of Works. Working men in attendance were strongly recommended to organise and to use their votes, first of all, for getting on to the vestry and Local Boards, then on to the Council, and then, by the help of their fellows, into Parliament. For what? To control contracts for labour in London, to organise that labour for the purpose of appointing their own foremen, of fixing their own rate of wages, called a fair rate, but anyhow fixed arbitrarily, by those taking the wages and managed by the exercise of the labour vote, to fix their own hours of labour, or, as it might more properly be called, of non-labour. (Cries of "Question!") I am strictly keeping to the question, for I am proceeding to show that the Bill is simply a first enunciation before Parliament for carrying into effect this doctrine laid down out-of-doors by the party promoting this Bill. These are the principles underlying the proposals in the Bill. If the Bill passes authorising the construction of one tramway, the precedent will be set and the House will be asked, if one why not ten, if ten why not all tramways? But the programme is not confined to tramways: it is to extend to docks and other undertakings, and the organisation is to extend to the vast army of labourers in this great Metropolis. Having made the London County Council the largest employer of labour in the Metropolis, and presumably in the country, those who secure the employment will, of course, expect the gratitude of this vast army of labourers and their votes to secure Socialistic domination over the whole of society, and over those whom Socialists call the people living at their ease, but whose work in most instances extends over many more hours than the limit labourers fix. Therefore I oppose this Bill. This proposal was rejected last year. The principle has often been affirmed that the State should not compete with private enterprise. The principle on which this Bill turns is of a much further reaching character than any mere question of whether or not this little tramway should be made. By Clause 24 the County Council seeks running powers over the whole of the two largest tramways in London—the London Tramways Company and the South London Tramways Company—and to work over and use them on such terms and conditions as, failing agreement, shall be settled by arbitration. The Parliamentary agents who are supporting the Bill say that it is not intended by the Council to work the lines themselves, but to enter into an agreement with a Tramways Company. But I object to private agreements made by Committees of the London County Council behind the back of this House, and smuggled through by a Bill of this kind. The Council would, under that clause, require an army of labourers, inspectors, conductors, and paymasters, and if there were any loss on the working the ratepayers would have to meet the charge. Clause 26 is a very necessary one, if the principle of the Bill be sanctioned, for in it the Council asks for power to spend on capital account, whatever that may mean in County Council finance. But it is not to remain capital; the ratepayers are to repay it, as if it were a loan, in 60 years. Why should they not raise a million if they are to be the promoters and financial agents of this vast Metropolis, with power to drag, by compulsory powers, out of the pockets of the ratepayers enough money to create industrial undertakings of this kind, and carry them on in competition with private owners? If the County Council, which was to be the Superviser of the working of tramways, is to be a tramway owner itself, what kind of impartiality will they exercise? If this line is to be made at all, it is well known to commercial men that not only could it be done without charging the ratepayers or taking power to charge them, but it could be done not only with security against any possible loss, but with a very large payment to be made to the ratepayers if the County Council would but act as commercial men do. The Tramway Companies would give a large sum of money to cross the bridge. They would keep the bridge in order, and pay a large sum to the ratepayers annually in aid of the rates. If the line is to be made at all, it should not be made by the County Council, but by somebody else under conditions in which the ratepayers would be indemnified against any loss. For this reason, in addition to those given by the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment, I join in their hope that the Bill will be thrown out.

I think it would be convenient to the House if we were to restrict the Debate to rather narrower limits than did the last speaker. There are some persons now soliciting votes who believe that the whole of the tramways should be taken by the County Council, and worked on a semi-philanthropic and socialistic principle, at a loss, for the benefit of the people of the Metropolis, in somewhat the same way as the Post Office is worked. Whether there be many or few of these persons remains to be seen. I suspect that the number who indulge in these dreams is few. What I would submit to the hon. Member is that the best way to resist foolish proposals is to be sensible ourselves. Let us look at this question in its real dimensions and see what it really means. It is the same proposal as that brought before the House last year and rejected, and it will probably be rejected now. Although it is proposed this year by the County Council, and was proposed last year by the Tramways Company, it is practically the same thing. If the Council takes over a tramway, it does so in accordance with what is now the law, which enables it to take over the various lines at fixed periods. The Bill also contains powers for the County Council to come to terms so that it will not work the line, but the Tramway Company will do so. These terms between the County Council and the Company are matters which will properly come under discussion in the Committee upstairs, and they are not points which we should enter into here. They should be examined by the Committee, if on consideration of the principle of the Bill you do not see a. fundamental objection to the construction of the tramway. What we have to consider here is whether there is any fundamental objection to the construction of the tramway. Let us examine that. Are the circumstances of convenience or inconvenience such that you will not entertain the project of a tramway being constructed over the bridge and a little way along the Embankment, not further than Charing Cross Bridge—so as not to interfere with the traffic from East to West? Have you such rooted objection to this tramway that you cannot allow the Bill to go upstairs? I asked hon. Members to consider this last year. It is perfectly true that there are no tramways along the Boulevard des Italiennes or the Rue, de Rivoli; but they are all along the Seine, along the Champs Elysées. Under the Empire they were stopped at the Place de la Concorde, but when the Empire was abolished one of the first things done was to run them again, and they now run between the Louvre and the Seine, which is a very narrow place. They run right through Paris, and to the other end of Versailles; and so between North and South there is uninterrupted communication. The tramways run from north to south and from east to west. Can you, with that experience before you, say that you destroy all the amenities of London if you allow this tramway to be brought over the bridge and along the Embankment as far as Charing Cross Bridge? If it were proposed to carry the line along the Strand or any other very busy place, it would, of course, be absurd. But when you have a large space like this, I should recommend the House—though I am afraid it will adhere to its original Resolution—to send the Bill upstairs, so that the details may be examined.

I think, Sir, there is another course we might take with regard to this Bill, and that is to adjourn this discussion for a month. I will explain why I suggest that. This is not only not the same Bill as that of last year, but it will be opposed by the very persons who introduced the Bill last year. I have a letter from the Chairman of the London Tramways Company, in which he says the Company would not, and could not, consent to the conditions which the County Council desire to impose, and that the Company would, in fact, feel it to be their duty to oppose the Bill in Committee. The County Council desires to impose the condition that the Company shall not, under any circumstances, employ a man more than ten hours a day; but there are occasions, such as a great Bank Holiday, when they desire to run every car at the last possible moment to carry poor people home at night; and if they were placed under that restriction it would be impossible for them to carry on their business in their own way, dealing as they might find it necessary with their own servants. Their employés, who receive 42s. a week, are contented, and it has been found quite impossible to get the great majority of them into any union. We are now trying to decide this question, when in a week's time we may have a County Council willing to make reasonable terms with the Tramway Company, and so lead to that which is of the greatest importance to thousands of working girls and poor children who cross the bridge every day, and whom the Tramway Company would carry across it without any further charge whatever. I am bound to vote for the Second Reading, because I believe that will happen between now and the sitting of the Committee which will enable the parties to come to terms. The Tramway Company is willing to build the line or work it for the County Council, paying interest to the ratepayers for the use. The hon. Member for the Uxbridge Division held out the Smoke Clause to the House. The Bill provides that the line shall alone be worked by either animal or electric power, so I do not see where the hon. Gentleman could get his smoke from. The line over the bridge would be a great convenience to persons driving to Waterloo, for the trams now stop in a narrow and dangerous spot, seriously affecting the traffic, and being a constant source of danger to those leaving and entering the trams. The Embankment is three or four times the breadth, and there would be little danger or trouble in entering or leaving the cars at that place. I regret that we must go to a Division, for I think it is absolutely useless to pass the Second Reading under the present circumstances, as the chairman's letter says the Company will not work the line under the conditions now insisted upon by the County Council. That Body takes power by this Bill to work the proposed line, but surely this is impossible. The line must be worked by the Tramway Company, or it cannot be worked at all. I appeal to the hon. Member for Hoxton to adjourn the Debate for a month, and then we shall have a chance of seeing whether the County Council will or will not come to terms with the Tramway Company, and if they will not, the House will be more than justified in throwing out the Bill.

I have no intention of making an electioneering speech, as we are simply discussing whether a certain Bill promoted by the County Council shall be read a second time or not. As regards the matters brought forward by hon. Gentlemen opposite. The smoke difficulty was removed by the last speaker, and the clause referred to is the Board of Trade Clause, which has to be inserted in all such Bills, and I am quite ready to leave that point to the right hon. Gentleman opposite, who, I regret, was not here at the commencement of the discussion. We have been told that the traffic would be seriously impeded across Westminster Bridge. There are four lines of traffic over London Bridge, and they are regulated just as if tram lines, were laid down, therefore I cannot see where the objection comes in. As to the laying of the lines, I think some statement should be made on behalf of the County Council, as they are not to be laid in the centre of the bridge, but one line on each side, leaving the centre for the general traffic. The roadway is 54 feet wide, and the two lines for the tramway would take up 14 feet, leaving a 40 feet roadway for the general traffic, which would be ample. We should consider the necessity there is for some tramway communication between the South of London and the rest of the Metropolis. As to the question of finance, it seems to be the impression that it would be a serious matter. The cost would be £10,000. What has been the offer of the Tramway Company? Their offer has been to pay £1,000 a year. Of course there would be expenses, wear and tear and keeping up the line, and they might be calculated at 25 to 30 per cent. at the very outside. There would be no question of loss to the ratepayers of any shape or kind. A great deal has been made of the point that the County Council should have left the question for a future Council to decide. Foy my own part, I look upon that view with extreme disfavour; I think that it is the duty of a Municipal Body to carry out its work to the last moment, and that it has no right to postpone to its successors a duty which it regards at the present moment as necessary. With regard to the question of spoiling the Embankment, I imagine that the Embankment was made for the use of the ratepayers of London, that it should be used for their convenience, and that it should be left to them to determine what use to make of it. The argument has been used that the tramway would be competing with the Underground Railway. But that argument would mean that we are to have no more tramways or omnibuses at all. As a matter of fact, what is wanted is competition, and why should we not have it? Some hon. Members opposite seem to hold that everything proposed by the London County Council must be wrong, and I must confess regret that Party opposition has resulted in Party fights in elections for the London County Council. The London County Council knows that the districts of South London, which would be affected by this Bill, are unanimous in favour of it, and we have only done our duty is bringing it forward. I should like to call the attention of the House to Clause 5, by which it is laid down explicitly that if the work is not done in three years the matter will lapse. Therefore it will be in the power of the new County Council to decide whether they will go on with it or not, and the term would come to an end during their tenure of office.

The Underground Railway paid £200,000 for the privilege of going along the Embankment.

I wish to say a few words upon the subject, but I do not desire to go into the matter of competition as to which these tramways and omnibuses will be subjected. I wish to say a few words from the point of view taken by the minority of the Council against the course adopted by the Council of constructing tramways. The hon. Member for Shoreditch has stated that the County Council does not desire to work the tramways, but to enter into an arrangement with the Tramway Company by which the latter should work it. I do not believe that it would be possible for the present County Council to enter into such an agreement with Tramway Companies, because, as we all know, it insists upon such terms as to wages paid and the length of hours worked as that it would be absolutely impossible for the Company to entertain such proposals and pay its way. The minority of the Council object very strongly to the Council working those tramways. I admit there is a large majority in favour of taking them over and leasing them; but there has been a distinct undertaking given that there should be no attempt made to work them. With regard to the estimated cost of this undertaking, since the question of the acquisition of tramways has been discussed in this House last year the County Council has given notice to a Tramway Company to purchase a very small piece of line. That purchase has been carried out upon the estimate made by the valuer of the Council, and it is now rumoured that a claim six or seven times as large as the estimate made by the valuer has been sent in by the Tramway Company. I think, therefore, it is necessary to accept the noble Lord's statement as to cost with caution. What I ask the House to do is to give time. This is purely an experiment, and I think the House should pause before allowing such an undertaking to be prac- tically forced upon the successors of the present County Council.

The opposition to this Bill comes from two classes of Members—those who are actuated by an intense hatred of the London County Council and all its acts, and those who can afford to ride in carriages and cabs and who disregard the wants of the masses, who must ride in omnibuses or tramways or walk. The conditions which the London County Council desire to impose upon the Tramway Company are to my mind rational and wholesome. These conditions are that the Company should pay their servants fair wages, and that the hours of work should be limited to ten hours a day.

I wish to explain that there is no condition affecting the wages to be paid. The servants of the Company have always been contented with the wages they received, and they have refused to join in the union.

The statement that a condition as to wages was to be imposed has been made by at least two hon. Members upon the other side of the House, and if such a condition is not contained in the Bill the hon. Members have been misleading the House. I believe that the poorer ratepayers of London have made up their mind that the control of the tramways should be in charge of the London County Council. Hundreds and thousands of people living upon the other side of the Thames are most anxious to avail themselves of the increased facilities of locomotion which would be supplied by this Bill, and I confidently say that if the opponents of the Bill succeed in defeating it they will regret their action before long. Depend upon it that the new County Council will insist upon harder conditions than the present Council seek to impose upon the Tramway Companies, and I believe it is quite possible that they will be supported in their demand by a Liberal House of Commons.

I think there can be no doubt that the construction of a tramway on Westminster Bridge would seriously interfere with the traffic. There is, in fact, no room on the bridge for a tramway. If there were any widespread desire for a tramway along this route I should say that the best proof of it would be to see omnibuses running along the same route, for it may be taken for granted that where the public wish to go there the omnibuses will be found. But we find none along this route; along the Embankment you seldom see an omnibus, and I take it that that is the best proof that the route is not desired for the purpose. Why was the Embankment constructed? I take it that it was not built for the use of a few people who want to go to the South of the Thames from Charing Cross, but rather for the general benefit of the people. Besides, it cannot be said that it is for the benefit of the public generally; for there are but few shops in the neighbourhood of Charing Cross. The Embankment was constructed for the general benefit of the whole of London, and I, for one, must protest against its being applied to the use of any particular class. The Embankment was spoken of as a great boulevard, and hon. Gentlemen referred to Paris, but they will find that in Paris there is no line of tramway running over any bridge. In Paris there may be a line of tramway running along the side of a bridge, but there is none running over it. Hon. Gentlemen want to have a tram line running along the Embankment in order that there might be better communication established with North London in the most congested districts. If they want to have communication established from North to South London it certainly ought not to be over Westminster Bridge.

Might I interrupt the hon. Gentleman for a moment with reference to what he said about Paris? There are at least two tramway lines in Paris running across bridges.