I rise to move the insertion of the Clause which stands in my name on the Paper, and I do so at the instance of the London County Council. It is, however, desirable that I should correct a statement which I find is made in the papers issued to-day by the promoters of this Bill, in which they say that the Clause I am now moving is identical with that which was submitted in Committee on the Bill. That is an entire mistake. I should not think it respectful to the Committee to propose here a Clause which that Committee had examined and rejected, and I should hardly think it prudent, having regard to the object I have in view. This which I now submit is a materially modified proposal, so much so, in fact, that it may be said to be a new Clause; and I, therefore, ask Members of the Committee and the House generally to give an unbiased consideration to the proposal I put forward. I shall not labour the point that if the Public Health Act and the Housing Act are to be effectually administered in London we must have an ample supply of cheap trains for workmen, in order to make it practicable for those whose livelihood has to be earned in London to live in the suburbs; and to provide, in part at least, for those persons who are displaced by the clearance of insanitary areas. I may quote one sentence from a communication on this subject received from Mr. Beachcroft, the Chairman of the Housing Committee of the London County Council. Mr. Beachcroft is not a member of the Progressive Party, although he enjoys, as I am sure he deserves, the respect of all parties, and therefore I think that his authority will be accepted even by hon. Gentlemen opposite, who are most virulent assailants of the London County Council. Mr. Beachcroft writes—

"While we are waiting for the Board of Trade, London is becoming more and more liable to insanitary conditions from overcrowding. Not only is the work of our Public Health Committee, but the action of Vestries is stopped by the fact that there is nowhere for the people, who are displaced, to go to."

Mr. Beachcroft adds—

"I am hopeless of doing anything unless enormously increased travelling facilities are offered immediately."

I do not think I need add anything to insist on the importance of providing a cheap service of trains, nor do I think I need say anything upon what I think will be admitted—that there is at the present time a most deplorable deficiency in the supply. Moreover, it is admitted that this railway will run through a district in which cheap trains for workmen will be specially required. I do not know whether this will be conceded by the promoters of the Bill, but certainly it is one of the findings of the Select Committee, because they say the most ample accommodation for workmen's trains ought to be offered, but they add that the Act of 1883 is sufficient for this purpose and ought to be operative. Now, according to the Act of 1883, how does the matter stand? Prior to that year, and at that time, it had become a tolerably general practice on the part of this House to introduce into Railway Bills clauses providing that workmen's trains should be run at special rates, the usual rate being 1d. per passenger per journey; the distances travelled being six or eight miles, or even more. I need not trouble the House with cases, but I may mention that they were given in detail by Mr. Courtenay Boyle, of the Board of Trade, in reference to the Central London Railway Bill of last year. There is one case I may for a moment refer to—that of the Great Eastern Railway Company. This House placed the Great Eastern Company under very stringent terms with regard to the fares to be charged by workmen's trains; it provided that these trains should carry workmen between Liverpool Street and New Gross, Liverpool Street and Waltham-stow and Liverpool Street and Edmonton at a penny per passenger for each journey, that is to say a penny for distances respectively of five, seven, and eight miles. I have no doubt the shareholders of the Great Eastern Company protested against that Clause as much as those interested in the Manchester, Sheffield and Lincolnshire Company now protest against this Clause; but let the House notice that this very Company, which we placed under the severest conditions with regard to workmen's trains, have voluntarily gone beyond the statutory conditions we imposed, and to-day the Great Eastern is emphatically the workmen's Company—the one Company which above all others seems to regard the workmen as desirable customers. They make provision for them, and consult the needs of workmen to an extent and in a variety of ways which no other London company does. I submit, therefore, that the policy this House adopted in imposing these conditions has been amply justified in the case of the Great Eastern Company. But the promoters of this Bill say that although it would have been perfectly right before 1883 to move the insertion of such a Clause as this in a Railway Bill, the case is now altered by the passing of the Cheap Trains Act of that year. Now for a moment let me refer to the Report of the Royal Commission on the Housing of the Working Classes in 1885, because they have said something very pertinent to the argument on this point. They say—

"Your Commissioners would here endorse the recommendations of the Select Committee of 1882 as to the conditions which should be imposed for the running of workmen's trains as opportunities may offer."

Now what is the meaning of these words "as opportunities may offer"? Surely it is clear the meaning is that where a railway company comes to this House for new powers this House ought to seize the opportunity to place that company under terms similar to those which have been imposed upon the Great Eastern Company. So I may claim that I am, in moving this Clause, only following the course which was suggested by the Royal Commission of 1885, and this will be recognised as a good authority. Beyond this I can claim in my support a precedent set by this House so recently as last year. I refer to the Central London Railway Act of 1891. In that Act it is provided that the Company shall run three trains daily each way morning and evening at fares not exceeding one penny for the journey, that is one penny for six miles. Now I notice that the promoters of this Bill in arguing against the Clause proposed in Committee upstairs said they would be placed in a very unfair position as compared with the Metropolitan Railway Company and the London and North-Western Company. But that was exactly the objection, or a very similar objection, raised by the promoters of the Central London Railway Bill last year. The counsel for the promoters put his case almost plaintively before the Committee. "You will be putting us," he said, "in a worse position than any other company, and what have we done to deserve it?" Well, the objection was not allowed to prevail in that case, and I see no reason why it should be permitted to prevail in this. Now, with regard to the adequacy of the Clause which the promoters say they have introduced to meet the equity of the case and the unfairness of this Clause, they say that whereas the Metropolitan Railway Company would be permitted to charge four-pence between Baker Street and Neasden, our proposal would only allow the Manchester, Sheffield and Lincolnshire Company to charge twopence. The Clause in its amended form meets that objection because Neasden is beyond five miles from the London terminus and it would therefore be competent for the Company under this Clause to charge the same fare to Neasden which the Metropolitan Company are required by the Railway Commission to charge. Then it may be asked if we are allowing the Manchester, Sheffield and Lincolnshire Company to charge the same fare in this case, what object will be gained by passing this Clause? A difference would arise so far as the intervening stations between Baker Street and Neasden are concerned. For instance, take the case of Willesden Green, where I am informed there is a considerable and growing working-class population. At present the return fare between Willesden Green and Baker Street is threepence, and under this Clause the Company will not be able to charge more than twopence. I submit that threepence, having regard to the fares charged for the longer distances on other railways, is an unreasonable fare, and that twopence would be quite as much as the Railway Company ought to charge for the distance which is only about four miles. Then secondly this Clause would require that trains should be run up to a reasonable time, eight o'clock. As a matter of fact at present these trains fall considerably short of eight o'clock, and the Royal Commission in that Report to which I referred a moment ago say that at present—that is some years ago—considerable inconvenience is experienced by workmen who find themselves compelled to travel by trains carrying them to London at seven o'clock when their work only commences at eight o'clock. Thirdly, the Clause requires that the Company shall permit a passenger taking a workman's ticket to return by any third class train. I do not conceal from the House that I make this suggestion for the convenience of the workmen, but at the same time it seems to me it is equally desirable in the interest of the Company. How does the matter stand? Having brought the workman into London, the Company are bound by their contract to carry him back again; and I think it would be an advantage for the Company to carry back as many of these passengers as possible during the hours when traffic is slack, and when, as we know, trains are frequently run almost empty. I may mention that the London, Brighton and South Coast Railway Company have actually adopted this enlightened policy. In the paper which has been issued by the promoters of the Bill, as well as in the arguments used before the Committee which rejected the original Clause, considerable stress is laid upon the recent decision of the Railway Commissioners in the Neasden case; but, for my own part, I think there is no particular reason to be proud of the proceedings connected with the Neasden case, because, as a matter of fact, the memorial on the subject was presented to the Board of Trade so long ago as 1889, and three years have been required to secure the remedy.

The hon. Gentleman is mistaken. The memorial was not presented until August last year. The memorial he is referring to was a memorial to the directors.

; No one is better entitled to speak on the subject than the hon. and learned Gentleman, and I accept his correction. But, at all events, this case has been a matter agitated and recommended on many public occasions during a period of three years, and all this time was required, before there could be obtained what I consider a somewhat inadequate remedy. The Board of Trade disputes the duty which is laid upon the Department by the Cheap Trains Act of 1883, and the Commission of 1885 in that Report to which I have referred have some very pertinent and stringent observations with regard to the view of its duty which the Board of Trade has taken. They say that the Act mentions eight o'clock in the morning as the limit of the time for running workmen's trains, but that most of the trains were run before seven o'clock. It was contended that the powers under the Act should be exercised with great discretion, but the Commissioners go on to express their opinion that under the Act a bargain was struck between the nation and the railway companies, there being a remission of part of the passenger duty on the one part, and this provision of a certain number of workmen's trains on the other part. The Board of Trade, however, preferred not to look on this as a bargain, on the ground that the repeal of the passenger duty could be justified on public grounds, and the Board does not take the initiative in action for the protection of workmen's interests. But, as the Commissioners say, the opportunity was taken to give increased powers to the Board of Trade which it was intended should be from time to time exercised to put pressure on companies for the increase of this accommodation. The Commissioners found that the powers of the Board had not been extensively, if at all, exercised; that it was not the custom of the Board to take the initiative; and they suggest that the Board of Trade should enter into communication with leading Trade Councils and other representative bodies of working men for the purpose of securing to the working classes the full benefit to which they are entitled, under the Act of 1883, as to hours of trains and in other respects. But I fear the Board of Trade is but a broken reed to rely upon. If the Board of Trade has acted on this suggestion, and has put itself in communication with the London Trade Councils, I am not myself aware of the fact. In these circumstances, I think I may claim the suggestion of the Commissioners as being in support of my proposal, and, at all events, it would be desirable to adopt a clause of this kind in order that this House might set up a kind of standard of fares for workmen's trains, and perhaps the Board of Trade would thereby be stimulated to bring other companies up to that standard. I submit I have made out a strong case in favour of the Clause, for, as I have said, I am following the suggestion of the Royal Commission of 1885, and I am able to claim in my support the precedent of the Central London Railway Act of last year set by this House itself. I beg, therefore, to move the new Clause of which I have given notice.

I do not propose to follow the hon. Member through the various matters he has introduced to the attention of the House and details which, though they are of interest in themselves, raise principles which are outside the scope of the proposal we have now to decide upon. The question the House has before it is, Shall we put aside the Report of the Committee in one respect and adopt in its place a clause which is now, for the first time, brought to our notice, and the terms of which only appeared on the Paper yesterday? The hon. Member has laid great stress on this: that if the House will accept his recommendation, then we shall set up a standard of fairness for the rates for workmen's trains. He invites us upon his ex parte statement to deal with a matter involving figures and questions of finance, we being utterly unacquainted with the details of railway management and the expense of working a railway; that we should accept this proposal, and embody it in an Act as a standard for future railway legislation. Now, I venture to say that is asking the House to do more than it can reasonably be expected to undertake. May I put before the House the following argument? We, the Committee upstairs deliberately, having had witnesses before us examined and cross-examined, having had the whole case thoroughly argued out by able experts having ample acquaintance with details, came to a unanimous conclusion; and I am bound to say the materials furnished by the hon. Member do not enable the House to come to a judgment setting that unanimous opinion aside. The hon. Member has very fairly stated that his proposal now differs materially from the original recommendation of the London County Council, on whose behalf I understand he speaks.

Yes.

It is so. The proposal does differ from the original excessive demand of the London County Council. He has omitted to mention that the first request of the Council was for the payment of £250,000 by the Manchester, Sheffield, and Lincolnshire Railway Company on account of street improvements. Besides this, the request of the London County Council as it came before the Committee was of exactly twice the extent of that now put forward, or, in other words, the clause of the hon. Member will allow a charge of 100 per cent. more on these workmen's trains than the original demand did. But the point in question is, Are we now to accept this clause? I venture to think it is essentially a matter to decide upon details; it cannot be dealt with here; it can only be dealt with in the proper place; and when the Bill goes before the Committee of the House of Lords, there will be the opportunity to raise and decide this question. We could come to a decision here only on the most imperfect evidence. We cannot put the General Manager in the box and examine him as to the possibilities of railway management and finance; we are not a tribunal to deal with such matters of detail, which can be effectually dealt with by a small Committee with the advantages necessarily denied to us here. There is one reason, which I will put very shortly, why the proposal of the hon. Member even in its present modified form ought not to be accepted. The clause would lay down a certain fixed fare to be charged by the Manchester, Sheffield, and Lincolnshire Company. The line will communicate with London through Harrow, whence the distance is ten miles. There is another railway—the London and North Western Company—having connection with Harrow, with powers under the general law, whereas the hon. Member would place this new line under a special law, reducing the amount which it could earn from this traffic. Now, whether this is desirable or not, it is obvious that it would not be just towards this railway and the Metropolitan, which Company would, in some degree, also be affected, that Company not having been heard in respect to the clause. The Company also take exception to the provision that workmen should return by any train. We had evidence from the managers that such an obligation would create such serious difficulties that they did not in all cases see how they could overcome them. This is just one of those matters of detail which can be threshed out before a Committee, but cannot in the House have the attention it deserves. One effect of this clause, also, would be to upset a decision the Railway Commission recently arrived at, a decision which dealt not only with a matter of principle, but with a particular part of the Metropolitan line, which practically will be amalgamated with this new line, or, at any rate, over which the Manchester, Sheffield, and Lincolnshire Company will exercise running powers. Further, the clause would introduce the anomaly of passengers travelling by the same train and class at different rates—the one travelling at the Metropolitan Company's rate, the other exercising the right this clause would give. In short, whichever way you look at it, the proposal is beset with difficulties, and I trust the House will not accept it. The Committee, having fully considered the matter, determined that it should be left to the operation of the general law, and here let me say that the general law is most simple in its application. Some of the evils of which the hon. Member has complained have no doubt arisen from the fact that the people aggrieved have not taken the trouble to use the opportunity given them or the means which the Statute has put in their power. A number of workmen have simply to meet in an informal way, draw up a formal memorial of the simplest character, present it, and the matter will be decided, the fares reduced, or the train accommodation increased. The operation of the Act is most simple. If the Act has not been effective that is because people have not resorted to it. The Committee, as I have said, fully and carefully considered this matter, and arrived at their judgment in no haste; they fully sympathised with the desire of the workmen to get the fullest benefit from the train service; with all the advantage of ample evidence and able, argument they arrived at a unanimous opinion, and I hope and believe the House will support the decision the Committee came to, and will not accede to the proposal of the hon. Member.

As a Member of the Committee, I express the hope that the House will concur in the view of the hon. Baronet who was Chairman. I confess that when Mr. Beachcroft first brought in the Clause proposed for adoption by the Committee, I personally felt inclined to view it with favour; and it was only when I saw that the Clause could not be introduced without causing great harm and injustice to the Manchester, Sheffield and Lincolnshire Railway Company and also to the Metropolitan District Railway Company that, as the Chairman has said, I agreed with my colleagues on the Committee that we could not possibly accept the Clause. I am sure the hon. Member who has moved this Clause will acquit me of any desire to thwart the London County Council in any reasonable action. When we consider the two instances the hon. Member has quoted as giving precedents for this Clause, I think we must allow that those cases are not on all fours with this. In the first place, as the hon. Member has said, the Great Eastern Company have voluntarily gone beyond the provisions in their Act requiring them to run certain workmen's trains at fixed rates, and they have done this to the great convenience of the working classes as well as to their own advantage. Surely if the Company find it to their advantage to adopt such a policy we may trust the Manchester, Sheffield and Lincolnshire Company to find out that it will be to their advantage to provide workmen's trains in the same voluntary fashion. Besides this, the Census Returns show that the County of Essex is one of the most rapidly increasing in population of any in the United Kingdom. Take the Romford Division as an example—the division nearest London—the increase has been from 53,000 to 102,000. In spite of the slight decrease in the agricultural divisions, the whole county shows a considerable increase. In the case of the Central London Company, to which the hon. Member referred, there is a grave distinction from this case. In the first place, the whole length of the Central London line is to be only six miles, whereas it is proposed under this Clause to extend the fares to ten miles. In the second place, the Central Company's line will at once run through a densely-populated district. I do not think I need dwell upon the objections to the Clause, and I hope the House will confirm the unanimous decision the Committee came to.

I add the expression of my hope that the House will reject the Clause. For some time I have taken an interest in this question of workmen's trains, and the House will allow me to state that I have received a letter from the Metropolitan Railway Company signed by their General Manager, Colonel Bell, in the presence of their Chairman and the Chairman of the Manchester, Sheffield and Lincolnshire Company to the following effect:—

"On behalf of the Metropolitan Railway Company we will undertake as from the 1st proximo to adopt the following scale of fares for our workmen's trains, viz:—For distances of five miles and under, 2d.; for distances from five miles up to ten miles, 4d.; for distances from ten miles and up to 15 miles, 6d.; including the return journey in each case. Daily and weekly tickets on this basis."

Now, this offers far better terms than the hon. Member proposes by his Clause, and it applies to the Manchester, Sheffield and Lincolnshire Company, because by Clause 105 in the Bill it is provided that the Company shall in respect to workmen's trains between their London terminus and Neasden, including intermediate stations, be entitled to charge no fares higher than for the time being are chargeable and charged by the Metropolitan Railway by their workmen's trains between Baker Street and Neasden, and intermediate stations. So not only will workmen succeed in getting what is asked by the Clause from the Manchester, Sheffield and Lincolnshire Company, but the rate of twopence, including the return fare for every five miles, will apply to distances up to 15 miles. I submit, therefore, the House need no longer be occupied with the discussion of the proposed Clause.

I think I shall best consult the convenience of the House by not entering upon details after the exhaustive analysis in the speech of the Chairman of the Committee, and after the Committee, upon the result of two days' examination, came to the decision that such a clause should not be introduced. I think it must be clear that it is utterly impossible to entertain the clause, considering that so very recently the rates at which workmen are to be carried on the Metropolitan line over which the Company will have to run, have been fixed by the Railway Commission. We have, then, the security of Clause 105 that the rates shall be identical, and we have the authoritative decision of the Railway Commission. Then, further, after the letter which the hon. Member for Camberwell (Mr. Maple) has just read, I do not think the House can possibly be justified in inserting the clause. The Manchester, Sheffield, and Lincolnshire Company would not agree to the clause, and the arrangement just referred to will give better terms to those interested than the clause would give. Taking these matters into consideration, I do not think the House will be disposed to revise the decision of its Committee. After all, it must be remembered this is a question of finance; and it is utterly impossible for us here, even if we wished to do so, to form any opinion as to the ability of a Railway Company to carry at any given rate unless we have the evidence of managers and experts to guide us. Such evidence the Committee had, and then their decision was unanimous. If the London County Council are not satisfied with the proposal conveyed in the letter read by the hon. Member opposite, then the Council can raise the question again, and it can be fully and fairly discussed before the Committee of the other House. I think the House may now decide to support the finding of its Committee.

I think, probably, my hon. Friend (Mr. Pickersgill) may be satisfied, after hearing the letter read, that the promoters of the Bill are prepared to concede something in the direction indicated by the clause.

More.

I do not want to overstate the case; I only want to say that my hon. Friend is justified in the action he has taken. It is a considerable concession, and I do not suppose my hon. Friend will go to a Division. But there remains the question of running these trains up to eight o'clock. These trains run through a district rapidly growing, and already largely populated by people whose work commences not at six o'clock, but at eight o'clock in the morning. I refer to the Willesden Green district particularly. These men are employed in the large houses in the City and elsewhere; they are packers, porters, warehousemen, and so on, and I think it is only right that they should have the means of using these cheap trains at the time they are required.

I understand that the hon. Member (Mr. Pickersgill) has made some reference to the action or inaction of the Board of Trade. I think it may be of interest to state that the London County Council have made a most exhaustive and searching inquiry into the number of workmen's trains running to and from the different London termini, and matters relating thereto, and certain recommendations for improvements in these matters may be found in the Report. If I may say so, the inquiry does the Council great credit. The Report has been sent to me, and I have taken immediate steps to communicate with the railway companies; but before I express any final opinion I ought to hear what they have to say. I have no doubt that the result will be beneficial.

Although the proposal, which I understand is put forward with authority, will more than meet the demand in respect to fares, the views of the County Council are not met on the other points—the times of trains and the return journey. Having regard, however, to the concession, which I acknowledge is of a most substantial character, I beg leave to withdraw the Clause.

I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he is aware that the Macclesfield School Board, which possesses no day school of its own, now proposes to form central classes for the instruction of pupil teachers of voluntary schools, and to subsidise such classes from the rates; and whether the School Board has power to carry these proposals into effect?

I am aware that the Macclesfield School Board have propounded some such scheme as that described by my hon. Friend, but the Department have no power to sanction it, and it will be for the local auditor to decide how far any application of public money to such an object is legal.

I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether he is aware that at the Assizes recently held in Belfast 300 special jurors were summoned for the trial of two criminal cases, many of whom attended them at great inconvenience from distant parts of the county on 17th, 24th, 28th, 29th, and 30th March before being finally discharged; that upon the entire jury panel being challenged it transpired that the larger portion of those upon the jury lists for County Antrim are never called upon to serve on any jury; whether the Judge, Baron Palles, when holding that the jury were properly summoned, is correctly reported to have commented upon the state of things in County Antrim, which, owing to the state of the law, he could not interfere with, and to have stated that the Clerk of the Crown had informed him that were all the jurors of the county to serve in rotation the list would not be exhausted for some 17 or 18 years; and whether the Government will introduce a Bill to amend the law under which such an anomaly exists in County Antrim, and thus relieve a small minority of the jurors in the county from having to perform the duties of the entire number?

My attention has been called to the case referred to, both by the question and by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for East Antrim. The facts are substantially as stated. I shall be glad to consider whether it would be possible to amend the provisions of the Jury Act of 1871, so as to avoid what is in many cases undoubtedly a hardship.

Can the right hon. Gentleman state the reason why Belfast, the second city in Ireland, has not jurisdiction of its own, while very small towns have distinct jurisdiction?

That, of course, is a separate question, which I shall be glad to consider; but the difficulty referred to arises from the practical effect of the 19th section of the Jury Act of 1871, which is at present in operation, and which does not necessitate the exhaustion of the entire list of jurors. The matter is a complicated one.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether his attention has been called to the facts connected with the election of its Committee of Management by the Greenock Parochial Board on 17th March; whether it is true that, while the Board contains about 1,200 members, and 68 were present at the meeting, 1,547 mandates, purporting to be signed by members, were handed in in support of two competing lists of committee men; whether he is aware that, on a scrutiny, which extended over 21 sittings, and lasted to 25th April, 567 of the mandates were pronounced good and 980 rejected, as being signed in duplicate, or by persons who were not members of the Board; whether he is aware that, after the scrutiny, the whole of the mandates were handed back to the persons who had tendered them as votes, on the ground that the Board had no right either to retain or destroy them; and whether the law of Scotland contains any provision for preventing voting frauds, through vote by mandate, being perpetrated or attempted with impunity?

My attention had not been called to the election of the Committee of Management of the Greenock Parochial Board on 17th March last; and I have no information as to the accuracy of the statements made in the question of the hon. Member. If he desires to obtain such information I shall be glad to get it for him; but I must point out to him that there is no reason to assume that any fraud was committed as suggested by the hon. Member, even although votes were rejected as stated in the question.

Did I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that there are no means of stopping it?

I said there was no reason to assume that any fraud was committed as suggested in the question, although votes were rejected as stated.

I shall repeat the question, and in the meantime might I ask the right hon. Gentleman to look into the question whether or not there were more votes tendered than there were members?

I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he is aware that for many years Miss Robinson has devoted herself to mission work in the Army at Portsmouth with much acceptance; if he will explain why Miss Robinson's meetings in barracks at Portsmouth have been forbidden at the request of the Chaplain, and her ladies have been refused permission to visit the hospital at Netley, and whether the Army Chaplains are trying to stop the distribution of religious tracts in barracks; and whether he is aware that there exists at the present moment among many of the senior Chaplains great dissatisfaction with the conduct of the Chaplain General?

I am aware of the good work which Miss Robinson has carried on for many years at Portsmouth, and inquiries are being made with regard to the alleged interference with her meetings in barracks there. Soldiers of all denominations are treated at Netley Hospital, and the Chaplains of all denominations objected to the distribution of tracts by outside visitors on the ground that the peace and harmony now prevailing would be disturbed. The Secretary of State is not aware that there is among the Chaplains dissatisfaction with the conduct of the Chaplain General. On the contrary, the recent attacks upon him in certain newspapers have called forth spontaneous expressions of confidence in his administration from all classes of Chaplains employed under him.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this Chaplain General, contrary to the Army Regulations, issued a circular to the Chaplains, in which it was stated that they must not look for any superannuation or any benefit unless they expressed their confidence in him?

I am not aware of any such circular; but if the hon. Member submits a question, I will endeavour to answer it.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the French Government have given legislative effect to the North Sea Fisheries Convention, signed at the Hague on the 16th November, 1887, by the Representatives of all the European Maritime Powers; if not, what is the present position of other Maritime Powers in respect to grog boats sailing under the French flag in the North Sea; and what steps, if any, have been taken to obtain the ratification of the Convention of the French Government?

The French Government have not yet, I regret to say, seen their way to ratify the Convention. It has, however, been submitted to the Chamber; and it is hoped that in the interests of the fishermen of all the nationalities which take a part in the North Sea Fisheries, the Chamber may be able to assent to the unanimous conclusions of the Conference. Until the assent of the French Government is given, the Convention does not come into operation. The Netherlands Government, as the Government of the Power which convened the Conference, is charged with the duty of obtaining the ratification of the Convention, and I have no reason to suppose that it will not endeavour to obtain the ratification of the French Government, in order to put an end as soon as possible to the evils justly complained of and universally admitted to exist.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the members of the Dockyard Police, incorporated with the Metropolitan Police, living in Government quarters are entitled to their quarters free of charge without any deduction being made from their pay in respect of lodgings; and whether this applies to all the members of the Dockyard Police, or to which of them it is confined?

The Metropolitan Police doing duty in dockyards are not entitled to their quarters free of charge; but a weekly deduction according to rank is made from the pay of those for whom quarters are provided. Certain members of the old Dockyard Police who were transferred to the Metropolitan Police in 1860 retained free quarters; but the last of these has now been reported to be unfit for further duty on medical grounds, and his papers have been submitted for pension.

I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Department if he can state what steps are being taken to place chief and other warders of Her Majesty's Military Prison Service on the same pay, allowances, and rates of pension as those in local prisons; and when any such change will be made?

A scheme for assimilating the emoluments of warders in military prisons to those of warders in civil prisons is at present under consideration, and has been submitted to the Treasury.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether it will be competent for the Committee which he has appointed to inquire into the working of the Inebriates Acts to consider whether the penal enactments for drunkenness might not be extended, either as regards the amount of punishment for the "drunk and disorderly," or as regards the application of the law to proved cases of habitual drunkenness, even not necessarily in a public place; and, if not, whether he will extend the Reference to such Committee so as to include such considerations?

I do not think it is expedient to extend the order of Reference to the Committee to the first suggestion of my hon. Friend. I think the second suggestion will be within the province of the Committee. The order of Reference relates exclusively to the treatment of habitual drunkards.

I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education whether his attention has been called to the action of the Department in calculating the amount of the fee-grant on the average attendance of the whole year, and to the loss thereby incurred by certain schools which have placed themselves under the provisions of the Elementary Education Act, 1891, before the close of their school year, but whose average attendance is largest towards the end of the year; whether the average attendance, as defined by the Act and the minutes in force at its commencement, is so limited, or is "for any period," and in this case, therefore, for the fraction of the school year during which these schools have been under the Act; whether, on the other hand, the average rate of fees permitted to be charged under Section 2, Sub-section (2), is directed to be calculated upon a whole school year, but, nevertheless, at the end of the first quarter, the Department has ruled the fee-income received to be in excess, and thus these schools have incurred a further loss, in consequence of the fee-grant being further reduced under Section 1, Sub-section (2); and whether the effect of this reduction will be to bring the fee-income of these schools below what it was before the passing of the Act?

Section 1 of the Act provides that the fee-grant shall be paid at the rate of 10s. a year for each child in average attendance, which is held to mean the average attendance for the school year irrespective of the date from which the school complied with the conditions of the Act, and the Department are advised that in framing regulations accordingly they acted on a correct interpretation of the Act. Upon the other point the case stands on a different footing, inasmuch as until a school year has been completed it is admitted that the Section provides no test for ascertaining with precision whether the conditions are being complied with, and the Department has therefore agreed to remit any deductions under this head, if at the end of the next school year it appears that the fees charged for the concluding months of the previous one were within the limits prescribed by the Act. I may also remind my noble Friend that the question involved in either point is of no permanent importance, as the whole difficulty is incidental to the fact that up to this date only fractional periods of a year have come under the operation of the Act.

With regard to the calculation of the average attendance, I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has consulted the law officers of the Crown as to whether his interpretation is a proper one; and if not will he do so in order to save the trouble and expense of litigation on the point?

We have not gone so far as to consult the law officers, but we have taken a legal opinion, in which I have perfect confidence. If necessary, I do not object to consult them.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if the tenants of the Belville Estate, County Antrim, purchased their holdings from Lady Harberton at 17½ years' purchase in 1887, and that all applications were lodged with the Land Purchase Commissioners in 1889, and ruled as satisfactory both as to security and title, and yet the matter has not been completed; what is the cause of this delay; and when will the purchase date from?

The Land Commissioners report that the agreements for sales on the Estate referred to were lodged at dates ranging from October, 1889, to October, 1890. The advances were provisionally sanctioned at dates ranging from June, 1890, to April, 1891. Rulings on title were issued on 18th April, 1891. The Commissioners added that the cause of delay is that the solicitors for the vendor have not yet complied with the rulings of title or proceeded under the provision of Section 14 of the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1887. No advance can be made until one or other of these courses has been taken.

Seeing the delay is not due to any default of the tenant, cannot the right hon. Gentleman suggest to the Land Commissioners to bring some pressure to bear?

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that only two cases remain undecided under that decision, and yet that the bulk of the tenants are prevented from purchasing, owing to the informality of these particular cases?

I am afraid I do not understand the point. As regards the delay, I have stated that it was on the part of the vendor's solicitors. I am not aware that we have any power to accelerate proceedings. I will suggest that one of two courses might be adopted—either by Section 14 of the Land Law Act, 1887, or by complying with the rulings of title.

Do I understand that if the landlord does not wish to carry out the sale, there are no means by which the Land Commissioners can make him do so?

That is a legal question.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the tenants solicitor has been writing daily in order to get the sale effected, but that frivolous objections have been put forward by the Land Purchase Commissioners?

I did not say any delay had been caused by the tenants' solicitor; I said the vendor's solicitor.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the police were upon last Sunday week, for the second time, furnished with copies of proclamations to be used in suppressing any attempt of the hon. Member for North Cork to address his constituents at Ballyclough; and by what right the police swear informations as to the date and object of particular meetings, of which no public announcement is made, and use those informations for the purpose of exercising a general right of suppressing public meetings in a district?

The Police Authorities, having reason to believe that private arrangements were being made to hold a meeting on the 5th inst., with the same object as that connected with a meeting fixed for the previous Sunday and suppressed—namely, the denouncing and intimidation of certain persons who had taken evicted farms—the responsible authorities forthwith took the necessary steps to prevent such illegal meeting being held.

I desire to know whether the Irish Government claim the right on information with regard to a particular meeting to prevent all meetings in that district whatever their object.

In regard to both meetings, the Authorities acted on information as to each. I think there can be no question about what was intended to be done, because I find the Cork Examiner, in the report of a meeting which had been held, reported that the chairman, in opening the proceedings, said he thought nothing could be of greater importance than the holding of that meeting, which was called for the purpose of denouncing land grabbing. He was speaking the truth in stating that notwithstanding the force on the ground they had successfully held their meeting. The importance of that meeting could not be gainsaid, inasmuch as one of the most glaring cases of land grabbing which had occurred for a period of ten years had taken place in their midst.

Do the Government upon a political speech assume the character of any political meeting summoned in the district?

No, Sir. I am speaking of the report of a speech which was delivered after the proceedings had taken place. The opinion they had as to the holding of the meeting was, I believe, correct; indeed, it was proved to be correct by the subsequent proceedings.

Is that the kind of evidence upon which the Government are prepared to interfere in Ireland with the right of public meeting?

I am not confined to that evidence. I had sworn evidence before the meeting took place.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will assent to a Return of all evicted farms in Ireland from July, 1886, showing how many were at that time occupied by tenants other than the parties evicted, and how many have been since taken by such new tenants?

I find that applications for similar Returns have never been granted, and I do not feel able to assent to the Return.

As the General Election is near I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will not consider the propriety of affording the public some means of judging whether coercionist government has not failed in its object?

I have no doubt the hon. Member and his friends will keep them carefully informed on the matter.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland with reference to the fair rent application of Francis Kane in respect of a farm held under the Trustees of the Ballycastle Charities, whether his attention has been called to the decision of the County Antrim Sub-Commission, as published in the Ballymoney Free Press of the 7th April last; whether he is aware that the Sub-Commission avowedly dismissed the application, not on its merits, but on an allegation that the tenant had failed to point out the entire holding to the visiting Commissioners, and that the tenant denies that he had failed to do so, and notwithstanding, and without any notice to him or his solicitor to appear before the Commission, the application was dismissed on the ground of "the unreasonable conduct of the tenant"; whether he will give a copy of the Report so acted upon by the Commission, and also the name of the person who made it; and whether, even now, an opportunity will be given Mr. Kane of answering the charge which was acted upon behind his back, and which he declares to be groundless?

I am informed that the Chairman of the Sub-Commission in announcing his decision had before him, as he then stated, the personal representation of his colleagues who had inspected the holding that the tenant had abstained from showing the entire holding. It is open to the tenant to appeal against the decision, which I understand as a matter of fact he has entered.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether his attention has been called to a letter in the Daily News of the 12th April, signed "A Revenue Officer," regarding the collection of Agricultural Returns without remuneration by Revenue officers, and stating that many competent and zealous Revenue officers have been punished or dismissed for failing in this duty; and whether he will cause such inquiry to be made into the means of collection of such statistics, or suspend the collection of these Returns by Revenue officers until provision can be made by Parliament enabling the police and overseers, as being the best qualified agents, to perform the duty efficiently?

In reply to the hon. Member, I may refer him to my answer of 26th February to the hon. Member for North Roscommon. When special remuneration for the collection of these statistics ceased, a new and improved scale of salary was introduced, which was considered sufficient to cover this duty as well as all other duties demanded from Revenue officers. As regards the last part of the hon. Member's question, I would refer him to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Agriculture on 25th February.

In view of the great dissatisfaction this question is causing both to the farmers and to the Revenue officers, I wish to know whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that the officers have great difficulties placed in the way of collection of these Returns, because, when they step on the farmers' land, they are treated as trespassers? Being unable to obtain the Returns from the farmers, who are not compelled by law to fill up the schedules, the officers have to fill up the Returns by guess-work. Therefore they are valueless.

I believe the President of the Board of Agriculture is, on the whole, satisfied with the preparation of these Returns. Of course, it is a question whether it would not be desirable to make the return compulsory. The matter is one of some difficulty, however.

I am not satisfied with the matter, although the right hon. Gentleman appears to be. I wish to ask whether he would have any objection to this collection being transferred to the Department of the Minister for Agriculture. As the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Chaplin) is not in his place, I give notice that I will put a similar question to him when he is here.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the letter of Dr. Redmond in the British Medical Journal of 2nd April last, on the action taken by the Local Government Board with reference to the increase of the salary of Dr. M. J. Kenny, Medical Officer, Lismore Union, of the Tullow District, on what grounds did the Local Government Board refuse to sanction the increase of £20 in Dr. Kenny's salary, which was recommended by the Dispensary Committee, after careful investigation, and unanimously approved by the Board of Guardians; whether the Guardians, for good reasons stated, requested the Local Government Board in vain to reconsider its decision; and whether, considering that it is the only district in the Union having two dispensaries, the great increase of work, and the fact that his predecessor was paid the increased salary voted by the Board of Guardians to Dr. Kenny, he will now cause the decision to be reconsidered?

I have seen the published letter referred to by the hon. Member. The grounds upon which the Local Government Board felt themselves unable to sanction the proposed increase of salary to the Medical Officer mentioned were stated in my reply to a question put by the hon. Member for Waterford, W., on 5th inst. The Local Government Board have given every consideration to the matter, and it may be pointed out that of the four districts comprising the Union of Tullow, Dr. Kenny's district, is the smallest, both as regards area and population.

Is it not a fact that the local Guardians, and everybody with opportunity for inquiry into the matter, view the case favourably? I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will not request the Local Government Board to reconsider this question?

I have already stated that the Local Government Board have carefully considered this question.

I will raise it on the Estimates—when they come.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if his attention has been called to Colonel Spaight's Report on the state of Larne Workhouse, in which, among other complaints, he states that the cells for idiots were "awfully cold" during the winter, and were "most dangerous" to the patients, and also complained of the "scarcity of nurses," which was keenly felt in the infirmary; whether his attention has been called to a report in the Irish News of Thursday last of the proceedings at the last weekly meeting of the Larne Board of Guardians, wherein the Chairman is reported to have stated, regarding the last question asked on this subject, that the Clerk of the Union, in reply to the inquiry of the Local Government Board, had said "a whole lot and had given no answer at all," and moreover "that Dr. Rillen did certainly agree with the most of what Colonel Spaight complained of," and whether he will now state what were the complaints made by Colonel Spaight, and what steps have been taken to remedy the same?

The Local Government Inspector reported that the cells for the idiots in Larne Workhouse were wretchedly cold; but he did not describe them as "most dangerous." He called attention to the infirmary nurse being left without sufficient assistance. The Clerk of the Union supplied the Board with all the information he was required to furnish. The Inspector also called attention to the absence of a bath in the hospital and to certain sanitary defects in the Workhouse. It is the case that the Medical Officer agreed generally with the Inspector. The Guardians have taken steps to obviate the insufficiency of assistance to the nurse and to remedy the other defects complained of, and the only question that now remains open is as regards the provision of a close range for the kitchen and the improvement of the quarters for the idiots. The Local Government Board have addressed the Guardians again on the latter point, and the letter was to have been before the Guardians yesterday.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the report in the Northern Whig of 20th April last, of a meeting of Presbyterian farmers, presided over by Mr. Carr, J.P., at Killyleagh, County Down, on the previous day; and whether, considering that a resolution was unanimously adopted declaring it to be "absolutely necessary" to have a law passed to compel the landlords to sell to the tenants their holdings at a fair price, and having in view the strong feeling of discontent among the farmers of Ulster, he will now consider the desirability of introducing a Bill to amend the law relating to the sale of land in Ireland? I wish to supplement my question by this inquiry: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the secretary of this meeting declared himself to be a Unionist, and is reported to have said the Government must either pass a Compulsory Sale Bill for the farmers of Ulster or grant Home Rule? Which alternative is the Government prepared to take?

I think it must be obvious that the Government must form their own conclusions as to the necessity of passing a Compulsory Land Bill; and I am not aware of any intention on the part of the Government to propose to Parliament a measure dealing with compulsory sale and purchase.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the report in the Newry Telegraph of the 2nd April last, of proceedings at Petty Sessions, Rathfurland, where it appears that two men, named Dubby Smith and Patrick McEvoy, had violated the conditions of their recognizances previously entered into; that Smith, who was bound himself in £10, and two sureties in £5 each, was merely fined in 10s., and his sureties in 5s. each, while McEvoy, who was bound in only £5, and two sureties of £2 10s. each, had his recognizances estreated, and the two sureties had to pay £2 10s. each; and whether he will explain why Smith, who had been bound over in the larger amounts, was treated so leniently, while McEvoy and his sureties were obliged to pay the full amount?

I am informed that the circumstances of the two cases referred to were wholly different. As regards Smith, he was convicted and fined 21s. for being drunk and disorderly during the period he was under bail. For this offence, in addition to the fine, his bail bonds were estreated to the amount stated in the question. McEvoy was committed for trial for assault and for using a knife, and admitted to bail. He absconded before the holding of the Petty Sessions, and his recognizances were accordingly estreated.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to the decision of the Bench of Magistrates at the Rhyl Police Court last month in the case where two men were charged with grievously assaulting Lemuel Hughes, an old man of 70 years of age, by kicking him, after knocking him down, until he was completely dazed and almost rendered insensible, for which they were only ned 10s. each; whether he is aware that there were twelve previous convictions against one of them, including a conviction for assaulting the police; while the other defendant had not yet paid the fine for a previous conviction; and whether he will consider the expediency of amending the law so that more severe punishments may in future be inflicted for assaults of this nature?

I have received a report from the Magistrates' Clerk concerning this case, together with a copy of the evidence taken at the hearing. I gather from this information that the complainant by no means suffered to the extent mentioned in the question, and that he himself inflicted a violent blow on one of the defendants. The Magistrates inform me that before passing sentence they carefully considered the previous convictions, and that the convictions particularly referred to in this question took place nine years ago. The fine imposed on each prisoner was 10s. and 7s. 3d. costs, or, in default, 14 days' imprisonment, with hard labour. There appears to me to be no sufficient ground for interfering with the sentences in this case, nor for an amendment of the law as to punishment for assaults.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the Clerk of the Union of Strabane last year published the removals in the Tyrone part of the Union and not in the East Donegal portion; and whether he will be willing to furnish a Return showing the Unions in Ireland in which the English practice as to registration of successive inhabitant occupiers is carried out?

I am informed that the practice is as stated. The Clerk of the Union in Donegal adopted the course stated, in consequence of an expression of opinion of the County Court Judge on the law relating to qualification by succession.

I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will take steps to see that a uniform practice is followed in all the Unions of Ireland?

I am not aware that I have any power to interfere.

Will the right hon. Gentleman favour the assimilation of the practice in Ireland to that in England?

I understand it is rather a question of law and as such could have been easily decided.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs upon what day he will lay upon the Table the correspondence which has passed between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of Newfoundland, respecting the proposed Convention recently agreed between the Governments of the United States and of Newfoundland?

Perhaps I may be allowed to answer this question. Papers will be laid as soon as the interests of the Public Service permit.

Am I to understand that in a question so closely affecting the immediate welfare of the people of Newfoundland a more definite answer cannot be given by the Government?

It would be contrary to precedent to present Papers while negotiations are in progress.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government have declined to assent to the Convention between the United States Government and the Government of Newfoundland?

The answer to the hon. Member's question is in the affirmative. Her Majesty's Government have not been able to depart from the position which they have taken up that the negotiation of a Convention between the United States and Newfoundland must proceed pari, passu with the negotiation of an arrangement between Canada and the United States.

Do I understand the hon. Gentleman to say that the Government have declined to assent to the Convention?

Yes, Sir, they have declined to assent on the ground I have stated.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, having regard to the terms on which loans may be advanced for the purchase of land in Ireland under the Act of last Session, and to the terms on which it is proposed that loans may be advanced to County Councils under the Small Agricultural Holdings Bill now before Parliament, he will consider the advisability of modifying the Treasury Minute, dated 4th May, 1887, on Harbour Loans so that loans may be advanced to fishery harbours on more favourable terms than are authorised by that Minute?

The rate at which loans can be advanced for various purposes by the State depends not only upon the rate at which the State can borrow, but on the security which can be afforded. Where there is experience that bad debts are incurred, it is necessary to fix the loans with some reference to the ultimate result to the State. The case of harbours, to which the Minute in question applied, shows generally that the rates at which money has been advanced have not been more than sufficient to insure the State against loss, even if it should ultimately be proved that they have been sufficient, which is extremely doubtful.

Does that apply to loans advanced on collateral security?

Taking all the loans together—and no loans have been advanced without some kind of security—it seems extremely doubtful whether it will not be necessary to write off something as bad debts.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether any other patents of smokeless powder besides cordite have been assigned to him as being the inventions of officers in the employ of the War Office; whether any other smokeless powder is being manufactured at any of the Government factories which, in the event of cordite not giving satisfaction, could be resorted to; on what grounds he decided that the cordite patent should no longer be secret; in what foreign countries Sir Frederick Abel and Professor Dewar have patented cordite; and whether any arrangement has been made by him with Sir Frederick Abel as to the profits of the foreign patents?

Cordite is the only smokeless powder the patent for which has been assigned to the Secretary of State, and no other form of smokeless powder is in course of manufacture in the Government factories. It will be necessary to give trade firms licence to manufacture cordite under the patent, and it is not considered necessary to keep the specification any longer secret. It is not known at the War Office in what foreign countries the inventors have patented cordite, and no arrangement has been made with them as to the profits under foreign patents.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War on what date the Explosives Committee was appointed; what were the terms of Reference to that Committee; and when it was dissolved?

The Explosives Committee was appointed on 10th July, 1888, and was dissolved on 10th July, 1891. The Reference to the Committee was the consideration of questions relating to new explosive agents or to new applications of, or improvements in, explosive agents already known, if such questions were referred to the Committee by order of the Commander-in-Chief.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether it is his intention to propose legislation to give effect to the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Vaccination?

I must ask the hon. Member to defer the question, as the Government has not had the opportunity of considering the Report of the Royal Commission.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board, with reference to an interview reported in the Times of Wednesday, the 4th inst., which a deputation of the Parliamentary Committee of the Trades Unions Associations had with him, and to suggestions made by that deputation in regard to his assenting to the Second Reading of the Bills now down for consideration, dealing with the property qualification in the case of Guardians of the Poor and Vestrymen, whether he will on behalf of the Government consent to these Bills being read a second time together, and referred to a Select Committee?

It is the case that a deputation urged me to assent to the Second Reading of the two Bills referred to, on the condition that they should go to a Select Committee. As to the rating qualification for Vestrymen, I do not think it can be maintained, looking to the fact that no similar qualification is required for either Town Councils or County Councils. At the same time, I think the matter is one which ought more properly to be dealt with in a District Councils Bill. The question of Guardians' qualification stands on a different footing. It cannot be considered as quite satisfactory that the amount should vary so much as it does in different Unions; and if the House consider it desirable, the Government would offer no opposition to the Bills being read a second time and referred to a Select Committee, on the understanding that they must not be held to assent to the principle of the abolition of the qualification for Guardians of the Poor, but merely that the present conditions of the qualification be inquired into.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether an application has been made to the Government for a telegraph office at Culdaff, County Donegal; whether the Electoral Divisions of Culdaff, Carthage, and Gleneely, in the Innishowen Union, are asked to give a guarantee to support the same; whether he is aware that the said application has been made without the knowledge or consent of the ratepayers of the said divisions, and that a memorial is being signed by the ratepayers against the giving of the said guarantee; and whether he will grant such application pending the ratepayers being afforded an opportunity of expressing their opinion upon the same at the next election for Poor Law Guardians?

Such an application was received from the Innishowen Board of Guardians, who are the Rural Sanitary Authority empowered to give guarantees for the cost of telegraph offices, and they resolved to guarantee the sum required by the Post Office for a telegraph station at Culdaff, Donegal. A draft agreement was sent to the Board accordingly. The Department has no official cognisance of the contributory Unions, and I have no right to question the competency of the Statutory Authority to conclude such an agreement.

I beg to ask, the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland what is the cause of the delay in presenting the Report of the Inspectors of Irish Fisheries for the year 1891, which, by the 112th section of 5 and 6 Vic, c. 106, is directed to be laid before each House of Parliament within three weeks after the commencement of the Session; and whether, since such a Return would be of manifest importance to the Select Committee on Salmon Fisheries, it will be given without further delay?

The Inspectors of Irish Fisheries state that the Report for the year 1891 is complete, and directions have been given to the printers to furnish the copies for presentation to Parliament forthwith.

What is the cause of the delay?

The reason is that they could not be got ready sooner.

Is it not rather incompetence on the part of the authorities, or want of application on the part of the Chief Secretary?

I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether a guarantee is invariably demanded from districts in which it is proposed to establish telegraph stations, and whether any guarantee was required for Kiltegan, County Wicklow; and, if not, why a guarantee is insisted upon for the proposed telegraph station at Rathvilly, County Carlow?

I am sorry to say that a mistake was made in asking for a guarantee for the telegraph station at Rathvilly, and it will be established without guarantee.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether any reply has been given to the representations forwarded by the Shannon fishermen of Limerick to the Inspectors of Irish Fisheries many months ago, in which the fishermen complain of certain byelaws which they seek to have altered; and whether any investigation of the case will be made, or any public inquiry thereinto held?

The Inspectors of Fisheries have received a memorial from certain representative fishermen praying that a bye-law be made permitting the use of nets of greater length than is at present allowed in the River Shannon. The Inspectors propose to hold an inquiry into these matters as soon as practicable.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he will have any objection to grant a Return giving the names of the Revising Barristers appointed in 1891, the constituencies in which their sittings were held, and the total number of days they were employed in the revision work?

There will be no objection on the part of the Government to grant the Return relating to Revising Barristers of the nature indicated should the hon. Member desire to move for it in the usual way.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been called to handbills issued by Mrs. E. Holterman, 54, Gold Street, Stepney, offering malt liquors for sale, and stating that "a present will be given to every child purchasing beer on Saturday, 7th May, 1892;" and whether such an offer is legal, or can be lawfully prohibited?

Before he answers that question, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman a question of which I have given him private notice? Is he aware of the extent to which the practice prevails amongst licensed victuallers both in London and in the provinces of enticing young children into their public-houses by giving them sweets and other bribes; and whether such practice is an infringement of the law; and, if so, will he instruct the police to take steps to bring the offenders to justice?

In answer to the first question my attention has been called to the matter, and although I am advised the offer is not illegal the Commissioner of Police has given directions for the matter to be brought to the attention of the Licensing Justices. My answer to the second question is that the Commissioner of Police is not aware that the practice prevails to any extent; but any case of the kind brought to his notice will be placed before the Licensing Authorities.

I should like to ask whether the right hon. Gentleman will give me the opportunity of proving cases, and also whether he can see his way to grant a Select Committee on the practice of the Act passed in 1886 dealing with this matter? I shall be prepared to supply ample evidence of the existence of the state of things to which I have referred.

If the hon. Member will forward any evidence he has to the Commissioner of Police he will act upon it.

It is impossible to obtain evidence in every case; but I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it would not be possible, considering the evidence we have, to instruct the police to open their eyes to this—I was going to say villany—but I will say this practice, and to prevent anything of the kind being done? They have the entrée to the public-houses.

Order, order!

I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether the Treasury Warrant has yet been issued authorising the re-direction of letters without extra charge; and whether it extends to Members of this House the right of posting from the Vote Office Parliamentary Papers as well as Bills?

I hope that the Warrant will be issued shortly. No charge is made to Members of Parliament for despatching Parliamentary Papers from the Vote or Sale Office of this House.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether, although in Dublin there are several receiving offices for the postage of letters for the English mail on Sunday, letters for Ireland posted in London after the evening collection on Saturday do not reach any of the provincial towns in time for delivery before Tuesday morning; and whether, considering the very great inconvenience caused thereby, and the little extra cost of having a receiving office in connection with the telegraph office at Charing Cross, he will consider the desirability of establishing one there?

Since the hon. Member put his question I have made inquiry, and as I find that a certain number of persons are necessarily employed on Sunday at the West Strand Post Office, and that letters could be received there for evening despatch as well as at the General Post Office without increasing the staff employed, I have given directions that this shall be done, and it will take effect on Sunday next. I may mention that each letter to be forwarded in this way must bear an extra stamp of ½d. for inland letters, and 1d. for continental letters.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, with reference to the Constabulary investigation recently held at Dromara, County Down, whether he is aware that the immediate removal to another district of constables, against whom charges have been preferred, is always considered a punishment; and whether he now knows of the strong feeling in the district against the continuance of Sergeant Downey in charge of the station there; and, if so, whether he will call the attention of the Inspector General to the matter?

The Constabulary Authorities report that the removal to any district of constables is not regarded as a punishment, and I am not aware that there is any strong feeling in the locality against the sergeant referred to.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether any final arrangement has been come to between the Treasury and the Waterford and Limerick Railway Company for the completion of the Collooney and Claremorris Line; if any hitch, as reported, has arisen in the matter; and whether, in the event of the Waterford and Limerick Company not proceeding with the work, the Government have in view any further arrangement by which the line may be completed?

I cannot say that there is any hitch at present, but I should say that the negotiations are not concluded.

I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he is aware of the terms upon which the School Board of Walton-on-Thames is allowed to carry on the work of education at Hersham School; whether he is aware that by the terms of the lease the School Board is not permitted to have possession of the school premises till 10 a.m.; and whether, in the interests of education, he will use such influence as he may possess, with a view of obtaining for the School Board a revision of the terms of the lease in question?

The Walton, School Board holds the Hersham School under an ordinary agreement which I am not aware is productive of friction or liable to act prejudicially to edueation. Indeed, no difficulty arose until the present Board came into existence, and I am not prepared to suggest a revision of the terms of the transfer.

Does the right hon. Gentleman consider it a perfect arrangement?

It is one that works well in a great number of cases.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to a letter signed "H. Whorlow" in the Daily News of the 10th instant, relating to the trial and sentence by the Recorder of London to six months' imprisonment of Mr. Lewis Lyons for a libel published in the Yiddish language on Mr. Charles Tarling, from which it appears that Mr. Lyons, who on account of poverty employed no solicitor, only discovered when it was too late that certain forms of law were essential in order that he might, as he intended, prove justification, and was not allowed to call any witnesses, on the ground that no notice had been given of his intention to plead justification; and whether, under all the circumstances, he will inquire into the case with a view to a mitigation of the sentence?

I shall be glad if the hon. Member will be good enough to postpone this question for a few days.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Suez Canal Company have sanctioned Provisional Regulations which propose to permit the passage of tank steamers laden with bulk petroleum through the Suez Canal on and after the 1st July next; whether Her Majesty's Government are aware that in the opinion of the eminent petroleum experts, Sir Frederick Abel and Mr. Boverton Redwood, such proposed traffic will be fraught with danger to life and property on the Canal; and, if so, what steps, if any, do the Government propose to take to prevent such threatened danger; and will he lay a copy of such Provisional Regulations, and of the whole of the correspondence which has taken place relating to this passage of petroleum in bulk through the Suez Canal upon the Table of the House?

The Suez Canal Company have sanctioned Provisional Regulations for the passage of petroleum tank ships on and after the 1st July next. A copy of the Report of Sir Frederick Abel and Mr. Boverton Redwood has only been received to-day, and will be forwarded to the British Directors of the Suez Canal Company. Her Majesty's Government have no power to interfere with the Company in regard to the regulation of the traffic passing through the Canal so long as the Company complies with the provision of its Charter—that the flags of all nations shall receive equal treatment. There is no objection to lay the Papers asked for, but I desire to point out that the Regulations referred to appeared in the Board of Trade Journal for February, and the correspondence with the Shipping Associations, Chambers of Commerce, and others, has already been made public.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can now, with reference to his answer of 3rd May, 1888, see his way to make arrangements for the stamping of Bills of Exchange, &c., in Glasgow?

In the answer to which the hon. Member refers, I suggested that the facilities recently granted to Liverpool might be extended to Glasgow, and this extension has been practically carried out. These facilities do not, however, include the stamping of Bills of Exchange. Such bills can only be actually stamped at the four great centres—London, Edinburgh, Dublin and Manchester; but a good stock of forms already stamped is always kept at Glasgow on sale. This is enough, I think, for all practical purposes, and I fear I cannot see my way to granting facilities to Glasgow which are possessed by no other town in the Kingdom except the four mentioned.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty what was the original cost, exclusive of armament, of H.M.S. Sultan; the sum paid on account of salvage services to that vessel up to her arrival in Portsmouth Harbour; and the probable cost of again placing the vessel in condition as an effective part of the Navy?

The original cost of the Sultan, exclusive of armament, was £374,777. The sum paid on account of salvage services amounted to £55,260. The cost of repair of the damage sustained by the accident cannot be separated from the expenditure that may be incurred in fitting modern engines and boilers, and the estimates for this work have not yet been completed.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what period of time has elapsed since the last geological survey of North Wales and the County of Wicklow; was the last or any survey ever made with the view of ascertaining the probabilities of the gold-mining industry being carried on profitably, or were the surveys merely formal and general surveys; have any reports ever been obtained by the Woods and Forests Office from any practical geologist or experts respecting such industry; and, if so, who made such reports: and when were such reports obtained, and have they been printed, and are copies available for the use of miners?

The geological survey is under the Science and Art Department, and questions with regard to it should be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Vice President of the Council. Numerous reports on the subject of the gold-mining industry in North Wales were made to the Commissioners of Woods by the late Sir Warington Smyth at various times. The Commissioners of Woods have also had before them published papers and reports by various experts, with which the hon. Member is, no doubt, acquainted. I may mention publications by Professor Ramsay in 1854, by Professor Ansted in 1858, and by Mr. Robert Hunt in 1866, and several papers of the late Mr. T. A. Readwin. Some of the information in the possession of the Commissioners of Woods with regard to gold mining in Wales and Ireland will be found in the Appendix to the Third Report of the Royal Commission on Mining Royalties.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture if his attention had been directed to the following paragraph, which recently appeared in the papers, relative to the operations of Professor Loffler to destroy mice, or voles, in Greece—namely,

"Professor Loffler's method of counteracting the plague of field mice in Thessaly by means of a contagious virus promises to be completely successful, and the farmers who were threatened with ruin are loud in their gratitude;"

and whether, in the inquiry promised by the Department into the mice plague in Scotland, he would give instructions to include in the inquiry Professor Loffler's system, with a view to its adoption, if found to be efficacious?

Yes, Sir, my attention has been directed to the paragraph in question, and I am in communication with the Foreign Office with a view to obtain any further information on the subject which may be available.

I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether he can now state what steps have been taken to establish a district registry in Belfast for the issue of writs of summons there?

No steps have been taken for this purpose. The Lord Chancellor has not been made aware of any great desire in regard to this matter on the part of the public or the local practitioners in Belfast.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in order to show the cases to which the Superannuation Acts Amendment (No. 2) Bill would apply, he will lay upon the Table a Memorandum showing the estimated number of persons in each of the various branches of the Civil Services who will be affected by the Bill, and the estimated financial burden arising in consequence? I also beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland to how many of the seventy persons whose names are given in Return, No. 107, Session 1892, as holding the post of Resident Magistrates (Ireland), is the Superannuation Acts Amendment (No. 2) Bill expected to apply; what would be the consequent increase of financial burden on the public; and what is the reason for thus augmenting the emolument attached to the office of Resident Magistrate in Ireland?

The hon. Member for Rushcliffe has two questions upon the Paper, one addressed to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the other to my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland. Both questions relate to a Bill about which there was some controversy the other night. The hon. Member asks if we will lay upon the Table a Memorandum showing the estimated number of persons in each of the various branches of the Civil Services who would be affected by the Bill, and the estimated financial burden arising in consequence. Both the Secretary to the Treasury and myself have been endeavouring to ascertain from the various Departments concerned what will be the number of persons affected by the Bill; but I do not think it will be possible to lay the Return asked for on the Table for this reason. One of the Departments to which the Bill will apply is the Post Office, in which there are no fewer than 10,000 officials. It would be necessary, in such a case as this, to trace the public career of each of those officers before the Government could make out whether or not they had previously served in another branch of the Public Service; and whether the service in the other branch made it necessary to pass this Bill, in order to give them continuous service. I think the hon. Member will see that it is not therefore possible to give the particulars asked for. But some kind of estimate can be made of the number of persons in the superior branches of the Civil Service who will be affected by this Bill, and my information is that it is in the highest degree improbable the number will exceed 50, in all probability it will be less than that. I have consulted the best authorities in the Treasury as to the amount of financial burden, and I am sure that there is no probability—I had almost said possibility—of the sum exceeding £2,000 in any one year. This is, as far as the officials—those most conversant with the question of valuation—can judge. I may say that I have made special inquiries with regard to the number of Resident Magistrates in Ireland who will be affected by the Bill. The Bill only applies to those Resident Magistrates who have previous continuous service in the Constabulary, and it does not apply to any Resident Magistrate who has previously served in India or abroad, because in those cases the service is not continuous. The number of Resident Magistrates now in the service of the Irish Government who have continuous service as Resident Magistrates, with previous service in the Constabulary, is 22, and in many of these cases the change only means a few years' additional service. I have not made out what the financial burden on the public of this particular class of officials will be, but the burden will be slight, and there will be no difficulty in giving it if the House or the hon. Member desires it. In the last paragraph of the second question, the hon. Member asks, "What is the reason for thus augmenting the emolument attached to the office of Resident Magistrate in Ireland?" I should like to point out to the hon. Member that this Bill is not intended to increase the emoluments of anyone, but simply to carry out the deliberate intentions of Parliament as expressed in the original Superannuation Act of 1859, as repeated in every subsequent Act, and which was continuously administered by the Treasury until the Auditor General discovered a technical flaw in the Bill—namely, that persons serving under certain Acts were excluded from the benefits that they expected would accrue from their service. And as illustrating the necessity for the Bill, and the difficulty of finding out to whom it would apply, I may state that only the other day a Sheriff Substitute in Scotland was appointed Solicitor to the Inland Revenue. Neither this gentleman, the Inland Revenue, nor the Treasury knew that by taking a new appointment he forfeited all his claim to pension as a Sheriff in Scotland, and this is an illustration of all the cases that come under this Bill. I should not be in order if I argued the merits of the Bill, but I would point out that it would be impossible for any Government in any circumstances not to allow these gentlemen, when their period of service ended, to obtain the pension to which they are equitably entitled. This Bill is the simplest method of remedying an obvious injustice, and it is with that object the Government has brought it forward.

I should like to ask that the House should be furnished in some shape with a definite Memorandum as to the number of persons affected and the financial burden involved. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to remind him that on 5th May the Chancellor of the Exchequer told us that this would be a simple matter of £5,000. In these circumstances, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to give us some Memorandum embodying more or less what he has told us this afternoon?

Before the right hon. Gentleman answers the question, I should like to ask him if we are to understand that the 50 cases which he said would probably be the maximum number of superior officers who will benefit under this Bill includes all the Anglo-Indian officers?

I think the hon. Member is labouring under a mistake. A gentleman who serves in India and earns his pension in India, and comes home and looks out for employment here, is not affected by this Bill, because his service is not continuous. It is only the man who passes straight from the Indian service to the English service without a break that obtains any benefit under it.

I should like to ask, in view of the fact that the Royal Commission sat for two or three years and investigated the whole of the pension system, and this alleged difficulty was never brought under the notice of the Commissioners and investigated, whether the right hon. Gentleman would consent to refer the subject to a Select Committee, in order that the question which has arisen may be thoroughly investigated?

I have not the slightest objection to the whole question being investigated by a Select Committee if such an inquiry does not mean undue delay. On the contrary, I shall be glad to have the question investigated. With regard to the historical point put to me, I think—I am not certain—that this point has been raised by the Auditor General since the Royal Commission sat.

The right hon. Gentleman said just now that this Bill referred to persons who have continuous service. I cannot find any reference to that in the Bill.

I should like to ask whether in the 50 superior officers of the Civil Service the right hon. Gentleman included any officers of the Uncovenanted Service in India, and whether he is aware that three of those gentlemen might take the whole £2,000 mentioned.

I have to say that undoubtedly the Bill is intended to apply, and does apply, only to continuous service, and there is no objection to adding words to make that perfectly clear. With regard to the question put by the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, it is perfectly obvious that if you choose to consider a series of cases where a man is raised from a small employment to a large one, the £2,000 might conceivably be exhausted; but the same anomaly would occur in the English service. I believe, however, from the investigations I have been able to make, that the cases of continuous service in which Englishmen have been transferred to India are not less numerous than the cases in which Indian officials have been transferred to England, so that the probability is that the English Treasury will not be the loser.

May I ask whether amongst those who are to benefit under this Bill are included the 30,000 discharged soldiers who, according to the statement of the Postmaster General, may soon hope to be employed at the Post Office?

No, Sir.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether it is the intention of the Government to introduce before Whitsuntide the Bill for the establishment of District Councils, referred to in Her Majesty's Speech?

It would be useless to introduce this Bill unless there was some hope of passing it into law during the course of the present Session, and unless the Government make unexpected progress with public business no such hope appears to be likely of realisation. The Bill, therefore, will not be laid upon the Table before any specified date.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Edward Fitzgerald, a Guardian of the Cork Union, who was, in April last, convicted on three charges of forging and tendering proxy voting papers in his own favour in the last election of Guardians, was again, on the 6th instant, convicted on six other charges of forging the names of 13 persons to voting papers and tendering the same also in his own favour in the same election of Guardians; whether the Government intend to take steps to remove Mr. Fitzgerald from the Board of Guardians, and prosecute him for these forgeries; and whether a sworn inquiry will be held to test the legality of the election of a number of other Guardians of the Cork Union, who are alleged to have been elected by forged proxy votes?

The facts are as stated in the first paragraph, with the exception that the convictions number in all eight. The Local Government Board have been informed by the solicitor acting for Mr. Fitzgerald that he has lodged appeals against these convictions. Pending the hearing of these appeals, the Board are unable to express any opinion as to whether the convictions in question disqualify Mr. Fitzgerald from acting as a Guardian. Mr. Fitzgerald and two others were returned as Guardians for the South Ward. The Local Government Board have ordered an inquiry with the view of ascertaining whether the majority in any of these three cases is due to votes recorded in respect of the forged papers.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies when it is probable that the Papers relating to the Zulu Boundary Commission will be distributed which it was intimated on 7th April were in preparation?

I hope to present the Papers shortly.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General if he will explain why the United Kingdom Postal Union cards, which until recently were the same size as those issued by the principal European States—namely, 5 4/8 by 3 4/8 inches, have now been reduced to 5⅛ by 3 2/8, or one-seventh; whether he is aware that the German and some other Continental home cards of the value in United Kingdom money of one halfpenny, are 40 per cent. larger than ours sold at 5½. for ten; and would there be any objection to increasing the size of our Postal Union and internal cards to the sizes of those issued by other countries of equal importance?

Until recently three different rates of postage were chargeable in this country for postcards sent to places abroad—namely,. 1d., 1½d., and 2d. In carrying out the scheme of uniform postage to all places abroad, it was decided to abolish the 1½d. and 2d. postcards, and make the 1d. postcard available to all destinations; but it was found necessary to accompany this concession with a slight reduction in the weight of the cards, the payments for the transit of cards through foreign countries and colonies being made by weight. The dimensions of the inland postcards have not undergone any change for the last 20 years, but it is true that some foreign countries employ larger cards in their home service. The new cards for transmission abroad are larger than the inland cards; but the size of both has been fixed with regard to the reasonable requirements of the senders in the vast majority of cases. Both appear to give general satisfaction, and it is not intended to alter the sizes.

I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether he is aware of any practice amongst certain merchants and commercial agents whereby they transfer woollen goods to Ireland, and having there stamped them with a spurious trade mark, export them to Great Britain, and there sell them as being of genuine Irish manufacture; whether such a practice would be a violation of Section 4, Sub-section (b), of the Merchandise Marks Act, 1887, and an "implied warranty of sale" according to Section 17 of the same Act; and whether, if any such practices as referred to be brought under his notice, he will order a prosecution under the provisions of the above-mentioned Act?

If any such cases as those referred to in the question are brought to my notice, I shall be glad to consider them with a view to directing a prosecution if necessary.

I should like to ask the Government whether they will take the Budget on Monday, and a second question has reference to a notice which I think has now appeared many times on the Paper without any apparent progress being made. I should like to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with reference to a notice he has given of what appears to be the very desirable object of fixing the relative contributions of the three Kingdoms to the Exchequer, whether he thinks that notice can be taken to-night? I am not aware that it is one that is likely to excite any prolonged discussion.

We shall be very glad to take the Budget on Monday, if that meets with the views of Gentlemen opposite, because I hope we shall then have finished the discussion on the Small Holdings Bill. With respect to the second question, my right hon. Friend (Mr. Goschen) asks me to say that as soon as convenient after eleven o'clock to-night he will be prepared to submit the matter referred to with a view of bringing it to a satisfactory conclusion before twelve o'clock.

May the House understand that the Indian Councils Bill will not be taken to-night?

Yes.

If the Budget is taken on Monday, I suppose the Irish Local Government Bill will be taken on Thursday the 19th?

I do not know why we should not take it on Tuesday.

Do we understand that the fourth stage of the Local Taxation Relief (Scotland) Bill will not be taken till after the Second Reading of the Irish Bill?

Yes; it will not be taken till after the Irish Bill.

With reference to the third Order of the Day, may I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will arrange to take the discussion on it as early as ten o'clock? The matter is a very complicated one, and there will not be time properly to discuss it between eleven or a quarter past and twelve o'clock.

The subject may be a complicated one, but I think it would be rather hard to expect the House to interrupt important Business at such an early hour. I cannot, therefore, adopt that suggestion.

As the right hon. Gentleman is not certain that he will be able to take the Irish Bill on Tuesday, I should like to ask him what notice he will give?

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will put that question to-morrow.

In view of the fact that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has seen fit to make the question for to-night not only a matter of detail, but of principle, I should like to ask him whether he will not give us more than three-quarters of an hour to discuss this question?

While the Government have every desire to meet the wishes of hon. Gentlemen opposite, it is impossible to abstract more time than I have mentioned, and I hope the hon. Member will be content with one hour.

Could we not take it on Tuesday afternoon?

There are a number of Amendments put down in my name, in order to remove objections which this clause suggests. I dare say the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Chaplin) has gathered that I object to the Bill as a whole, and I put down this series of Amendments with a view of mending it to some extent. I do not, however, propose to move them, and perhaps I may be permitted to say that whilst I am quite of the view that the Bill, so far as it enables County Councils to buy land and let it in small holdings, will be an advantage, I think that so far as it attempts to resuscitate the class of yeomen farmers it will be an absolute failure, and in my part of the country it will be inoperative. Feeling that, I do not know that it is any special duty of mine to endeavour to amend the clause in that direction. As I have said, in my part of the country it will be inoperative, and I shall be glad if it is, because I regard this effort to revive the yeoman farmer class as trying to set back the hands of the clock. I do not wish to express my views at length now, because I shall have an opportunity on a subsequent occasion, and I beg to withdraw the series of Amendments in my name.

The object of the Amendment I have to move is to alter the payment of the first instalment from one-fifth to fifteen per cent. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will make no objection to that alteration, because in his opening speech he said that the amount he had put down represented a principle rather than the exact amount upon which the Government had decided. I am glad that the Government have stuck to the main principle of the Bill, which is to create owners instead of tenants, or rather as well as tenants; but I think now it is our duty to make it as easy as possible for everyone to become owners. The object of fixing any sum at all to be paid down is, of course, simply to secure the bona fides of the purchaser, and to protect the ratepayers from any fear of loss. It seems to me, however, that one-fourth is a very large sum, and one which would give rise to a great deal of difficulty in many cases. Besides, there is a precedent which will, no doubt, occur to the Government—that is the case of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, who in all the sales they have hitherto made have put fifteen per cent. as the sum required to be paid down; and if the right hon. Baronet (Sir H. Selwin-Ibbetson) were in his place he would be able to say that they have found the amount quite satisfactory, and that it has worked very well. I am aware that there are other Amendments on the Paper, but I do not think the difference between 20 and 25 per cent. is sufficient alteration to make, and 15 per cent. seems to me to be a fair thing between the ratepayer and the purchaser, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will accept it.

The hon. Member is quite right in saying that on the introduction of the measure I did say that the amount which was put down was a question of degree rather than of principle, and I am very anxious that the views of hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House, which have been put forward from time to time, should receive every attention; but I am afraid I cannot go to the length that the hon. Member desires. It is necessary that the Government should look after the interests of the ratepayers; and though I am prepared, with a view to meet the wishes of the hon. Gentleman, to make a reduction in this amount to be paid down, I cannot go beyond one-fifth, which I see is the suggestion of several hon. Gentlemen. Beyond that I cannot go; that is the utmost limit, Amendments to the extent to which I am prepared to go stand in the names of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Heneage) and the hon. Member for Northamptonshire (Mr. Channing); and in order to meet the wishes of hon. Gentlemen opposite, and with the object of making progress in Committee, I am willing to accept one-fifth instead of one-fourth, but I cannot go beyond that.

The right hon. Gentleman seems to be afraid that the tenant will have an opportunity of running away, but to my mind there is no fear of any such thing. The County Council can make an arrangement by which the first instalment shall be paid in advance, and then there would be no risk to the County Council. The most tremendous risk they can undertake is the loss of one year's rent, and I think if the instalment were paid in advance the purchaser might very well be allowed to have the land without any capital sum being paid down, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will consent to accept the 15 per cent. It has been said that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners only ask 15 per cent., and why should the County Council be more exacting than the Ecclesiastical Commissioners? No doubt the instalments to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners are paid more quickly than we should require, but the right hon. Gentleman must remember that if a man occupies a farm three, four, or five years and pays instalments during that time the security of the County Council is steadily increasing, and I do not see how it is possible for the County Council to lose, at all events, more than the rent for one year, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will reconsider his decision.

The Ecclesiastical Commissioners, who have fixed 15 per cent. as the amount to be paid down, have sold land of no less value than £350,000, and they have conducted their business with success, and have found no reason to go back on the principle which they adopted. I think we may trust the County Council, who are a popularly-elected body, in the matter. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will see his way to adopt this Amendment.

There seems to be such a general agreement as to the 15 per cent., that I hope the right hon. Gentleman will see his way to meet us. If the clause passes in its present form it will make the Bill quite unworkable in many parts of Scotland. The right hon. Gentleman says it is our duty to protect the ratepayers. Surely that is the duty of the County Councils. They represent the ratepayers. Why cannot they be left to bargain with a would-be purchaser in the same way that an ordinary vendor bargains? If they found that a man who wanted land was impecunious, probably they would make him pay more than one-fourth—perhaps the whole of the purchase money, or secure it by mortgage; but, on the other hand, I do not see why they should not be allowed to accept less. If the right hon. Gentleman does not accept some further reduction, I am certain the result will be disastrous to the working of the Bill, and the Government will defeat the object they have in view.

I should very much prefer that no money should be required from the purchaser at all, and I think the right hon. Gentleman might do something better than 20 per cent. I have a Motion on the Paper that 10 per cent. should be the amount, and I am certain that if you do not come as low as 15 per cent., you will not benefit at all the class which this Bill proposes to benefit. If the average small holder has to provide 20 per cent. of the purchase money, you will leave him nothing to start and stock his small farm. The old land companies used to ask the purchaser to deposit only about five per cent., or half-a-year's payment in advance on the ten years' scale, and they did not consider that they took an extraordinary or any risk. In these cases the County Council will retain the deeds and virtually the land until the whole of the purchase money is paid. If the County Council, or the Parish Council as I hope it will be, use ordinary prudence, there will practically be no risk at all, and we shall prevent these people being driven out of the country or into the great towns.

I should like to call the attention of the Committee to the fact that what is fixed here is a minimum and not a maximum. As an hon. Member observed, the County Council can ask a larger sum if they think fit; if the circumstances demand more than a minimum they can ask it. Why should not the County Council be trusted to exercise their discretion the other way? If they are to be trusted there is no occasion to put in a minimum. The County Council will have to inquire into the solvency of a purchaser, and when you are dealing with these very small men and these very small amounts surely you may believe that 15 per cent. would be enough to ask as security. Under these circumstances, I think there is no danger in the minimum proposed by the hon. Member for Bordesley (Mr. Collings).

I think it would be a most foolish thing if the County Councils were to allow purchasers to take land without paying down a substantial sum. A man who has no money cannot take land, because he will require money to stock his farm; but if a man has money to lay out and is solvent and prepared to pay that is a different matter, and I should like to see a lower amount fixed to be paid down. I hope the Amendment will be pressed.

The Government have already gone some way to meet the wishes of hon. Gentlemen on the other side, and I hope they will not give way on this point. The right hon. Member for Derby (Sir W. Harcourt) says this is only a question of fixing a minimum; if that is so, why not fix it at £1? But it is not a question of that kind purely, and I think the amount that has been fixed will meet all emergencies. The Member for Peterborough spoke of the very small risk to the County Council, but we have to think not only of the risk to the County Council and the ratepayers—we must also think of the risk to that class which we desire to benefit—namely, the labouring class. We must not tempt the small holders to undertake the care of land which they have not the money nor the ability to cultivate with advantage. If we make it too easy for them, and do not take the trouble of finding out by their antecedents whether or not they are thrifty and possess a certain amount of business capacity, they will take the land, and it will be not a blessing but a curse to them. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will stick to the sum he has laid down.

I am myself perfectly willing to accept the Amendment I have put on the Paper, but I think it might with advantage be the maximum as well as the minimum. I do not see why the words "not less than" should not come out, so that the one-fifth should be the statutory sum which should be asked for.

I would press on the right hon. Gentleman not to give way in this matter. It is true this is only a question of fixing a minimum, but the minimum is apt to become the maximum. It is not merely a question of trusting the County Councils; I think we have rather to protect them. If we put in too low a sum undue pressure will be put on the County Councils to take it.

There are two reasons why I gladly support this proposal to reduce the minimum. The first is that the lower the amount of the deposit the greater will be the obligation on the County Council to see that their purchase is a sound and economic one. You have not got compulsory purchase in the Bill, and it is possible that a County Council might be pressed to buy at too high a price. The answer to that would be, "We cannot give the price asked because it will not be safe for the ratepayers, as the security of the deposit is so small." My second reason for supporting the Amendment is, if the amount is smaller it will be more likely that the holdings will be smaller, and the land will be more likely to go in 10 or 15 acre lots instead of in 50 acre lots, and that smaller class is the one we on this side wish to see get the advantage under the Bill. We believe the smaller the deposit the more likely the County Council will be to give small holdings to the poorer and, therefore, the more deserving class.

May I point out to my right hon. Friend that 15 per cent. would be about four years' rent, and that would be pretty good security to the County Council? I think, if my right hon. Friend could be induced to reconsider the matter in that way, he might be inclined to diminish the amount to 15 per cent., which, I think, would be enough.

I must appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to adhere to the Bill as far as possible. The Bill is one in regard to which we must show our trust in the right hon. Gentleman. I think, if we do so, he will do what is right and proper, and though I do not like the reduction to one-fifth, I would urge the right hon. Gentleman to accept that.

I am bound to say I have heard nothing in this discussion to induce me to modify my opinion further than I have already done. I must remind my hon. Friend that in the Report of the Select Committee these words occur:—

"That it is essential that the purchasers of small holdings should provide in cash a portion of the purchase money not less than one-fourth or one-fifth."

I am not aware that my hon. Friend took any objection to that clause when it was inserted in the Report. Something has been said about the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. The money would be paid in a much shorter time under the Ecclesiastical Commissioners—in thirty years, I believe—whereas under this Bill we have allowed fifty years. I would also remind my hon. Friend that, although one-fifth may be too much in those cases where the purchaser cannot find that amount, there the powers inserted in the Bill which enable the County Council to let will come into play. The man will then hold as tenant instead of owner, and over and over again it was urged on that side of the House that the great object and desire of hon. Gentlemen was that the holdings should be let rather than that they should be sold. I cannot see that any good reason has been given for a change, and, while regretting to differ from my hon. Friend, I must adhere to the change from one-fourth to one-fifth.

I regret that the right hon. Gentleman cannot accept my Amendment. The clause in the Report gave 20 or 25 per cent. and the object of that was to secure the bona fides of the applicant, and not to state a principle. The Government have rightly made the purchase of small holdings the great principle of the Bill, and they have increased the amount of land a man may hire if he be not in a position to buy. The carrying out of the principle of the Bill will be most valuable in restoring the class of peasant proprietors, and our object should be to make that restoration as easy as possible; and I contend that 15 per cent. would abundantly protect the ratepayers from loss, because every yearly instalment would increase the security. As to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, I do not see what the shorter period of payment has to do with the question. They have taken 15 per cent. in many cases, and it has been found sufficient. Lord Wantage's Small Holdings Company only ask ten per cent., and there are many other arguments which might be put forward in favour of this percentage. I would like to point out that in the last hundred years this class have been practically deprived of their interest in the land. I am aware that the public has benefited by that, and that agriculture has been improved in every way by that process. But we cannot forget that this class as a class suffered from the operation which has been for the public good, and they have a sort of moral claim on the Legislature that it should make their restoration as easy as possible. We have precedents which have answered admirably, and I regret that the right hon. Gentleman cannot accept my Amendment. The change from 25 to 20 per cent. is something, but I think he would do right to go further.

The only real and substantial security is unquestionably the land, and, therefore, I think we ought to encourage those who are prepared to put their labour into the land, and make it more valuable, for no rent will be got from land not well cultivated. I hope, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman will look at the question in a practical manner, and will look for security to the manner in which the land is cultivated, and will not imagine that 15 or 20 per cent. is likely to meet the requirements of security. We know perfectly well that if land is badly cultivated it soon deteriorates more than 15 or 20 per cent. I hope he will seriously consider the Amendment.

I would venture to put a little pressure on the right hon. Gentleman on this question. We want men of small means to buy or hire these small plots of land, and it is not worth while to spoil the ship for a ha'porth of tar. I think we should rather let them pay 15 per cent. than call upon them for a larger sum, which in many cases would probably prevent them taking the holdings at all. I do not think the question of risk to the ratepayers is of much importance, but I do know that the main obstacle to the taking of holdings under the provisions of the Bill will be that the people have not the money. If the experiment is to be fairly tried, I think we should strain a point in the direction of the Amendment rather than be steadfast against it.

There seems to be such a division on this subject among those behind the right hon. Gentleman and such singular unanimity among those who have spoken on the subject, that, perhaps even at the eleventh hour, the right hon. Gentleman will reconsider his determination. The right hon. Gentleman said that we on this side were in favour of leasing, and not of purchase. That is to a great extent true, but the reason we were so much in favour of leasing was that we considered that the very poor class are not sufficiently rich to purchase. If we ask them to purchase, it is obvious that the deposit should be as small as possible. The difference between 15 and 20 per cent. is so small that I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be persuaded to accede to the change.

I beg to move—

In page 3, line 9, to leave out. Sub-section (4) and insert the following Sub-section: "(4) A portion representing not less than thirty-five per cent. of the purchase-money shall remain unpaid, and be secured by a perpetual rent-charge."

The reason I move this Amendment is that owing to the strange wording of Sub-section (4) I confess I am not able, as it stands, to understand what it means. It appears to follow the recommendation of the Select Committee in providing for a perpetual rent-charge. But the Bill goes on to say "it shall be redeemable," which to my mind destroys all usefulness with regard to perpetual rent-charge; and, therefore, I propose the substitution of this sub-section in order to carry out in plain language the intention of the Government.