It will be unnecessary for me to take up much time in recommending my Amendment to the House. Several witnesses were brought before the Committee on this Bill, and gave evidence that fishing in the streams running through the common and commonable land had been enjoyed by the inhabitants of the town and district without interference, let, or hindrance from time immemorial. The Chairman and the Committee generally assented to the principle that nothing should be taken away which was now enjoyed by the people of the locality, and assented to the introduction into the Bill of Clause 53, which is intended to safeguard the rights of the inhabitants of the town of Rhayader and district. But I think it came out very clearly in the discussion on Report the other day that the clause as it stood did not safeguard the rights of those inhabitants. I think the Chairman of the Committee (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain) in that discussion admitted they were willing to maintain all the usages and privileges the people hitherto have had, and the new clause I have to propose does nothing more than safeguard immemorial usage, and maintain for the people of the district a cherished privilege they have always enjoyed, have highly valued, and a continuance of which they look forward to after the Corporation of Birmingham have control over the land. Clause 53, which ostensibly has that object, will, I am afraid, simply lead to litigation, in which the peasants and townsmen would have little chance against the very powerful and distant Corporation of Birmingham, having all the legal weapons ready to carry a matter before a Court of Law. The least, I think, that we can ask the House on behalf of the people is that in the Act the intention of Parliament shall be clearly expressed; and so, without taking up the time of the House further, I move the re-committal of the Bill in order that for Clause 53 may be substituted a clause in the following terms:—

"The inhabitants of the districts and of the town of Rhayader may continue as heretofore to fish in the Rivers Elan and Claerwen and their tributaries flowing through the manor of Grange and the manor of Builth above the upper end of the upper reservoirs and in the lakes adjacent thereto, to take turbary and to cut fern and rushes over such commonable land without interruption by the Corporation, subject nevertheless to the bye-laws authorised by this Act."

The Motion is an unusual one, and the course pursued by the hon. Member is an extremely unusual one in relation to a private Bill which has been carefully considered by an important Hybrid Committee, and has been discussed in the House on more than one occasion. I must remark with some surprise upon the absence of the Chairman of the Committee on this occasion. He, as Chairman, is really responsible for the provisions of the Bill as it left the Committee, and I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman is not here to defend his own proceedings. In earlier discussions upon the Bill, Welsh Members represented that the Corporation intending to become owners of this land might thereby endanger certain rights and privileges hitherto enjoyed by the inhabitants of Rhayader and district; and the Corporation, in reply, stated plainly that their object in obtaining possession was merely to guard the vast interests intrusted to them, and that when called upon by the necessities of the case to spend six millions sterling, it was only reasonable that they should have full security that their work should not be thrown away and their money lost in consequence of proceedings which might endanger the purity of the water. But they said subject to this they were perfectly willing that every right which heretofore had been enjoyed by these people should be continued to them, and accordingly when the matter came before the Committee it was very fully gone into, and not only were witnesses heard who represented the views put forward by hon. Members; but the Hybrid Committee, being unwilling that any doubt should remain as to the justice of their final decision, took the subject into its own hands, and invited the attendance of other witnesses in order to be absolutely certain that the views of the locality should be fully represented. And apparently with regard to all the other matters discussed on the Second Reading, the wishes and desires of the in-habitants were fully satisfied. I was informed by the Chairman of the Committee that the witnesses went away absolutely satisfied with the provisions which the Committee were prepared to introduce into the Bill on their behalf. Then the Committee had to deal with this question of fishing. It should be understood that while undoubtedly there has been a certain amount of fishing—not considerable, but a certain amount of fishing—as to which the Committee called evidence and came to the conclusion—quite independently of the Corporation, and acting entirely on what I believe to be precedents guiding the proceedings of a Committee on a private Bill in such cases — to decline to turn into an absolute legal right that which had heretofore been enjoyed on sufferance; but decided to introduce Clause 53, to which I invite the attention of the House. I am informed that that clause was not prepared by the Corporation of Birmingham; but, on the contrary, it was imposed upon the Corporation by the representatives of local interests as absolutely satisfactory. But hon. Members go much further than those whose interest they profess to represent; and on the Report stage of the Bill they again raised the question, and endeavoured to turn these rights—as to which there is no sort of dispute between us—into absolute possession, contrary to past usage. They endeavoured to do this by inserting the words "and privileges," which we were told might be interpreted into something more than the word "rights." This was resisted by the Corporation and by the Chairman of the Committee, who explained what I have now repeated, and gave the reasons for the decision of the Committee, and then by a large majority the House rejected the proposal. Now, in another form the hon. Member raises what is practically the same Amendment. It is raised with the object of introducing into the Bill rights of a vague character which are not now absolute. The course pursued is unusual and very unfair to the Corporation and the landowners with whom the Corporation have entered into preliminary arrangements. I am by no means certain that any alteration of rights at this stage would not be resented by the landowners, and throw into confusion the arrangements already made. Under the circumstances, I hope the House will maintain the decision already arrived at, and reiterate its rejection of this proposal.

With reference to an observation of the right hon. Gentleman on the absence of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Stirling Burghs (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman), I beg to say I have received a letter from the right hon. Gentleman, in which he says he expected the Bill to come on yesterday, that he is called out of town to-day, and he has asked me to represent generally, in his absence, the views of the Committee of which I was a Member. We entirely accepted the principle laid down that nothing should be done to take away existing rights; but while we were extremely unwilling to deprive the inhabitants of any privilege of fishing hitherto enjoyed, we felt it was impossible in this Private Bill to convert a privilege into a legal right. In coming to this decision the Committee were unanimous, and I hope the hon. Member may not think it necessary to press the Amendment.

We submit that the right of the public to fish in the Elan and Claerwen should be no more and no less than it has been. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. J. Chamberlain) has stated that Clause 53 was introduced to protect the rights of fishing; but when it comes to a construction of the section nothing can be maintained but actual legal rights, not actual usage, in the past. The position is this: the riparian tenants have the right of fishing in the rivers, and they and their successors would have a freehold of those rights, but these are not the rights of the public we want to preserve. Just as the exercise of a right of way for over twenty years gives a title, so we want to secure that the right of fishing which for the last thirty or forty years the inhabitants have enjoyed without interference from the landowners shall continue in the future as in the past. We recognise the distinction between this right and a strictly legal right, but no landowner has interfered in the past, nor would any landowner deny the right. We wish to ensure that under the new landowners—the Birmingham Corporation—the same right shall continue.

I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. J. Chamberlain) in the interest of his Bill, to give a little further consideration to this question. The clause proposed is really much milder than the existing clause. Very properly the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Stafford Northcote) stated that the Committee did not desire to confer rights not already in existence. The Committee were right in that view, and I endorse it. But that is not the position striven for. Nobody is asking for any right to be conferred which is not already in existence. The words of the new clause are: The inhabitants may continue to do things "as heretofore." The rights of the riparian owners, are left exactly as they were, and the arrangements they may make with the Birmingham Corporation will not be affected. Further, the recognition is subject to all the bye-laws the Corporation may make for the object they have in view—namely, the preservation of the purity of the water, and why the Corporation should object I do not know. I think, unless the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to make the concession, his Bill may be placed in a position of considerable peril. The Bill has to pass through the House of Lords, and a Dissolution is impending. If a Petition is lodged against the Bill in the House of Lords it may be that the Bill may have to return to the House of Commons, and so the decision on the Bill may be relegated to a new House of Commons in which the right hon. Gentleman will not have the assistance of his Unionist majority. This is a danger I venture to indicate to the right hon. Gentleman if he takes a too "high-horsical" attitude. I shall be glad to facilitate the progress of the Bill, and have every sympathy with its object—namely, to secure a good water supply for a large district; and I trust that the Corporation may see the advantage of giving a pledge, if they cannot accept the clause in its present form, that they will in another place have some regard to the views put forward by hon. Members near me. The Amendment is a very small one, and I should have thought that the right hon. Gentleman would have been the doughtiest champion of public rights on such an occasion. Let me point out this: that the clause as it stands is, unintentionally no doubt, practically illusory in consequence of the use of the word "right." There is no right; there is only a good old custom that the people should fish; and why the Corporation of Birmingham should, on the score of the purity of the water, seek to prevent that I cannot conceive. I see the hon. Member for Bordesley (Mr. Jesse Collings) is about to speak, and I hope he will take up a reasonable position, as he has fought hard for rights and privileges where none existed in the case of the agricultural labourers and others. I hope he will do something to prevent these rights being taken away from people under words which are intended to give a right and do not give one.

The speech of the hon. Gentleman contains a covert threat of Party action, and is, practically, an attempt to coerce the House into acquiescence with the Amendment. The arguments made use of were most extraordinary. The hon. Gentleman had to admit that the practice of fishing was only on sufferance, and he desires to turn this privilege into an absolute right. The hon. Gentleman also said that the difficulty was that the Birmingham Corporation might, under the Bill, make bye-laws, and that in case any pollution took place the inhabitants might find themselves deprived of the fishing. I think the House will admit that in such a case they should be deprived of it.

That is what I said; that if there was pollution they would be deprived of it.

The sole argument of the Birmingham Corporation and the object of the Committee upstairs was that, after the Corporation had laid out this enormous sum of money to get pure water, it should not be rendered of no avail by the pollution of the water. Anyone who followed the proceedings before the Committee must know that everything that could be met consistently with a supply of pure water was met by the Corporation, and the rights of those interested was met in every way. This Amendment is, in fact, an attempt to throw out the Bill; for if it is re-committed at the present stage of the Session, as it will have to go to the House of Lords, there is no guarantee that it will go through at all. The Welsh people, in whose midst three or four millions will be spent, would be the first to object to that. The Birmingham Corporation are entitled to a great deal of sympathy in the difficult position in which they are placed. For years they have been in a state of anxiety as to their water supply, and now the question is becoming more important and the sources of the supply more precarious. The difficult position which they are in is proved by the fact that they propose such an enormous outlay, which they would not be likely to do if it were not absolutely necessary. The whole question has been thoroughly threshed out during an eighteen days' inquiry in the Committee upstairs; everyone interested has had the fullest opportunity of stating his case; and, therefore, I think the Committee are in a better position to judge as to the desirability of such a clause than we are without any consideration of it. I hope the House will support the decision of the Committee.

I protest against any suggestion that anybody in this House wants to keep the people of Birmingham from having a supply of water. I think the feeling is unanimous that they ought to have it, and to have power to make bye-laws to secure the purity of the water. But I am entirely in sympathy with the Welsh Members, and I think if they did not take every opportunity of protecting the people they represent they would fail in their duty. It is all very well for the hon. Member for Bordesley (Mr. Jesse Collings) to speak of five or six millions being spent, but how much of it will go into the pockets of the Welsh people? You will spend a lot of money in burying pipes underground, and give a great deal to the landowners; but the people we are interested in are those who have enjoyed the fishing. Under the much-abused landlord system they have enjoyed the fishing, and they are afraid that when they are handed over to the Corporation they will be interfered with, and they ask that the privileges they have enjoyed in the past should not be taken away. Is that not a fair and reasonable demand? I hope my hon. Friends will persevere in their duty, and leave no stone unturned to preserve these rights to the people of Wales. The sole reason of the action to-day and on Report is not to defeat the Bill, not to prevent the people of Birmingham having the water, and having it pure, but to maintain the existing privileges and customs of this Welsh district. I hope many hon. Members on the other side will take the same view and support the Amendment.

I rise to move that this Bill be read a third time this day six months. I have not the slightest intention of divesting the great community of Birmingham of their necessary supply of water, but I represent a far larger community than Birmingham, and one far nearer this water supply than the City of Birmingham. Our population in Glamorganshire and Monmouthshire is increasing at an enormous rate, and there is no population in the United Kingdom which is increasing at anything like the same ratio as that of the mineral districts of South Wales. During the last ten years the population of Glamorganshire has increased by 33·4 per cent., and is now 1,740,000. If that rate of increase is continued, in a hundred years our population will be between ten and twelve millions. It is of the greatest importance that we should be secure of a proper water supply, not only for our present population, but for any future increase. I am quite aware, Sir, that this matter has been investigated by a strong Committee upstairs, and that, therefore, we labour under a great disadvantage in bringing forward any question of this kind on the Third Reading. But our case was not brought before that Committee in any formal manner. By the courtesy of the Committee—which I desire to acknowledge—the hon. Member for Merionethshire (Mr. Thomas Ellis) and myself were invited to give evidence and state our views. But the House, with a long experience of the way matters are fought out before Committees, will appreciate that the evidence of two witnesses called in that manner would not produce the same effect as witnesses of various kinds—experts and others—led by eminent counsel, were likely to produce on such a Committee. My hon. Friend stated the case of Wales generally, and I stated the case, so far as I was able, of the mineral districts of South Wales. What I desire to point out is that while the district which is sought to be taken by Birmingham is eighty miles distant from that city, that district is only fifty miles distant from the centre of the great mineral district of the North. The population of the district of Birmingham is not increasing in any degree in the same ratio that our population is increasing. As I said before, it is highly probable that in a comparatively short period our population will be some millions; and standing here as I do, more or less representing Glamorganshire and Chairman of the County Council, it must be admitted that our first duty is not only to protect the interest of our present constituencies, but also the interest of those that may come after us, even by a long distance. I would point out to the House that the areas of the clean gathering ground—that is, the areas of the gathering ground above the range of cultivation—are comparatively limited, and that in this instance the Corporation of Birmingham propose to secure for themselves for ever an area of not less than forty-five thousand acres of clean gathering ground. Then, again, it is nearer to us than to them. I must point out also that the sites of the reservoirs are also extremely limited. You cannot in many cases catch the water, because of the elevated land; and then, again, another element is the altitude at which you can construct these reservoirs. Some of our districts, containing the most dense populations, lie at a very considerable elevation, between seven hundred and eight hundred feet, and you will require, therefore, to establish the reservoirs for the supply of that population at a level that will reach the population by gravitation. Now, that is one of the important elements of this scheme which is proposed, that we are enabled by the favourable character of the gathering ground and of the reservoir ground to intercept the water is such an elevation as would bring it to their town, and also bring it to the great mass of their population. It is very difficult to select a place where the same favourable conditions exist as exist in this particular spot which has been selected by Birmingham. What we desire is that before this large area is allocated to one community there should be a careful and impartial investigation of the whole of the water-producing areas of that part of Wales. We believe that there are large areas lying at a point nearer to Birmingham, which would not be so near to us, which would be perfectly capable of supplying Birmingham with all the water which they require. We also are informed, by a statement which has been circulated to hon. Members to-day, that the present water supply of Birmingham is amply sufficient for their immediate wants, and had been very much understated to the Committee. I observe from the statement which has been circulated to-day that the amount of water at present available for Birmingham is twenty and a quarter millions of gallons daily, whereas the consumption is there stated to be fifteen millions; but I see that by the evidence before the Committee that it was also stated at seventeen millions. This statement also points to the fact that the whole amount available for Birmingham at present is twenty-eight millions of gallons daily, and that they have a surplus of something like thirteen millions; so that really there is no pressing necessity for this present large scheme which Birmingham has instituted. As I said before, we have no desire to prevent the great community of Birmingham from being properly supplied with water, but what we desire is that this matter should be judicially and impartially investigated before this great area is allocated to Birmingham. I beg to move the rejection of the Third Reading of this Bill.

This Bill proposes to transfer to the Great North of Scotland Railway certain powers which were obtained by the Garve and Ullapool people from this Parliament by the Bill of 1890. What led to the obtaining of these powers was that during the great agitation in the Highlands the people of the West Coast thought that by opening up the district by means of a railway they could very materially develop the fishing industries of that part of Scotland; and, consequently, the Bill of 1890 was presented to the House and passed. After they had obtained this Bill, the promoters went to the Treasury, with the view of seeing whether they could obtain any Imperial assistance for the purpose of building this road. The Treasury informed them that if they could find a regularly constituted Railway Company to build the road and work it for a period of twenty-five years or so, they would grant them a subsidy. When they found the Treasury prepared to do this, they approached the Highland Railway Company, because naturally enough that Company had already a large interest in the country. The Highland Railway Company refused the offer which the Garve and Ullapool people made to them. When the Highland Railway Company refused the offer, then they approached the Treasury again, and laid the matter before them; and the Secretary to the Treasury suggested that they should try some other Railway Company. They accordingly entered into negotiations with the Great North of Scotland Railway Company, and the Great North of Scotland Railway promised to build the road, equip it, and work it for the period stated upon the terms laid down by the Treasury. When the Highland Railway Company found that the Great North of Scotland Railway Company had agreed and were about to come into the Highlands, and that they were also going to get an Imperial contribution, they turned round and said they would be prepared to make the line and work it. But instead of going to the Garve and Ullapool people and entering into negotiations with them as they ought to have done, they went direct to the Treasury, as I am led to believe, and told the Treasury that they had previously offered to build the road, but that the Garve and Ullapool people had refused their offer, and that they were now perfectly willing to do so. A Committee was appointed last year to inquire as to the best means of opening up the Highlands, and they came to the conclusion that the extension of the Highland Line from Strome Ferry was the best. They recommended that, if this was not done, a line should be constructed from Invershin to Lochinver. But neither of these proposals had the advantage which the Garve and Ullapool line possesses. In the first place, the Garve and Ullapool people have their Bill, and are perfectly ready to proceed with the construction of their line, provided the Government will sanction the subsidy and the transfer of powers. Then their line would be very much shorter than the other routes, being only thirty-three miles long. If the line were made to run in connection with the Great North of Scotland Railway the fish caught on the west coast would arrive in the London market two or three hours earlier than at present, and certainly in time to catch the first market. Thus a great stimulus would be given to the fishing industry. I am exceedingly sorry that the Government have thought fit to treat the Garve and Ullapool people in the way they have done. These people were the first to take any steps whatsoever, and the moment the Highland Railway Company saw that there was a chance of the scheme proceeding they came forward to get the Government subsidy in an underhand manner. I think if such a method was adopted by one honourable man of business towards another, that man would not be likely to get much business from him in future. I think it would be very much better if there was a second Railway Company competing with the Highland Railway Company. The promoters were perfectly willing to allow the Highland Railway joint powers over the new railway, or to agree to any such arrangement as would meet the requirements of the country. I have no antipathy to the Highland Railway Company, and the reason why I have been selected to move the Second Reading of this Bill is because I have no interest whatsoever either in their line or any other line of railway in the country. The Secretary to the Treasury, I see, is not here; but I hope that somebody in authority who is acquainted with the case will explain to the House and the country why the Government have taken this attitude. I do not understand for the life of me why they should favour one company more than another. It is the interest of the country they ought to have at heart, and not the interest of the Highland Railway. We know that the directors of the Highland Railway are very influential gentlemen and in favour with the present Government. We know that last year they paid six per cent. dividend on their ordinary Stock. But whenever they have an opportunity of doing anything to help themselves at the expense of others they are always on the alert to do it. I beg to move the Second Reading of this Bill.

I beg to second the Motion. I think the Secretary to the Treasury ought to be the first to help the Garve and Ullapool people, because they have been considerably at the mercy of the Highland Railway in the past. I think it would be not only for the interest of the locality, but for the interest of the Treasury, if this railway were made. I have always stood up for this railway in opposition to any of the rest, because I thought it was the best, and I still think so. I should like to know from the Government what they are going to do in this matter. This matter of a railway and other things have been dangled before the Highlands for a long time past; and I think it is time now that the matter should be settled by the Government, and that they should really say whether they are going to assist us or not. Several considerations ought to favour the Garve and Ullapool scheme in the eyes of the Government. It is about forty miles shorter than the Lochinver route, and about fifty miles shorter than the existing route by Strome Ferry. I wish to impress upon the House the fact that the Government have not behaved to the Garve and Ullapool people in the past as they ought to have done. It may be said by the Government that the Lewis people are not in favour of this new railway. I think it is a very small minority of the people of Lewis who say that they are not in favour of it. I know that to be the case.

In the unavoidable absence of my hon. Friend the Member for the Knutsford Division of Cheshire (Mr. Tatton Egerton), I beg to move that this Bill be read this day six months. This is a matter of great local interest, because it really largely affects the whole trade of the district. It affects not merely the traders to whose hands the trade goes, but also the Local Board of the district, who oppose very keenly the Bill now brought before the House. The matter has been discussed now for about twelve years, but I will only briefly refer to it. There are some points which I quite agree are not such as should be brought to-day before the House, but the general question, I think, is worthy of its consideration. The question of subsidence in the salt districts first came on the tapis, as far as this district is concerned, in 1881. The people interested were then willing that the area should be divided into four districts; but, for reasons not connected with any local differences, I understand that that Bill never became law. It was ten years before the matter was again broached—in 1891—when a Bill was brought in which is the foundation of the Provisional Order of to-day. Before it got to the Select Committee stage, there was some very important correspondence between the districts which come before the House to-day to air their grievances—namely, the Northwich Local Board and the Winsford Local Board. The Winsford Local Board has to deal with, an area where, at present, there is a large amount of pumping, and a very small amount of subsidence. The Northwich Local Board is in wholly different circumstances. For the last one hundred years or more, Northwich has yielded large quantities of salt, and, as one person very wittily put it, "There is something very rotten beneath Northwich." A large area has already subsided, and the chances are that before very long a still larger area may be affected. At present no less, than forty-six acres of Northwich have subsided, and that may very easily be added to. When this Bill of 1891 came before the House the Winsford Local Board wrote to the Local Board of Northwich and asked what they were going for—whether they were really going for one large district, or whether they were endeavouring to embrace Winsford in the compensation area which the Bill contemplated. I need not read the correspondence at large, but I may say that the Local Board of Northwich passed a resolution when there were sixteen people present out of the twenty entitled to be there, and by that resolution they passed with, I believe, one dissentient, a statement that they were perfectly content with the areas laid down with the Bill ten years before, under which each of the four districts was to bear the consequences of its own pumping. On the strength of that assurance, the Winsford Local Board came forward and co-operated with Northwich in introducing the General Act which is now on the Statute Book. This Provisional Order is a Provisional Order made under that Act, by which one compensation area is formed. In spite of the assurance which the Winsford Local Board received from the Northwich Local Board, the Northwich Board immediately applied to the Local Government Board, and an Inspector came down and, after a consideration of four days, decided that the very thing which Winsford most deprecated should become law, and we are here to-day to consider whether this proposal of the Local Government Inspector should be carried out, or whether the matter should be relegated for further inquiry. I appeal also on behalf of the traders, for the trade of Winsford passes largely through Liverpool hands, and therefore I am not out of my place in raising this question. The trade of Winsford deals largely with the cheapest kind of salt—altogether the salt of this character dealt with in England amounts to one and a half million tons. One-half million of that amount would not be touched by this Bill, so that any tax put on the other million will distinctly handicap the working of that million tons. That is a consideration which ought to be taken into account, because assuredly the other half million not affected by the Bill will be seriously advantaged. It will be seriously advantaged in this way that whereas at Middlesbrough, where it is made, it can be put on board ship at a cost of eightpence per ton, the same salt made at Winsford costs to put on board at Liverpool three shillings and sixpence per ton. If this Bill becomes law another threepence will be added, which would be three and ninepence per ton, as against the eightpence which is charged at Middlesbrough. The people of Winsford, and not merely the traders oppose this because it is the only trade of Winsford, and it is not the only trade of Northwich. They say that the subsidence in Northwich, for the reasons I have already mentioned, is very great, and as the pumping at Winsford is so much greater, the tax will be borne in Winsford and expended in Northwich. The cost of the damage done per annum in Northwich is £4,800, while that in Winsford is only £1,600 a year, so that there seems to be a prima facie and strong case why this Bill should not become law. Then again, in the matter of pumping, out of the million tons that are pumped in the two districts, 700,000 tons are pumped at Winsford, on which this tax would be levied, and only 300,000 tons at Northwich; so that there, again, the tax being on the pumping, the burden will be on the shoulders of Winsford, and it will be, as I say, expended in compensating Northwich for its subsidence. When I add also that the subsidence of the same character in Winsford only represents one-quarter of an acre, or something like that, as compared with forty-six acres at Northwich, you will agree with me that the difference between the two districts is so great that though the general principle where you have to tax you should make a wide area is perfectly right, the particular case of Winsford makes its claim for exemption from this general principle quite fair. We have also to consider the expert evidence. Everybody knows that expert evidence is liable to vary in quantity and quality, but the singular fact is that Mr. Boyd-Dawkins, a great authority on this matter, who was a witness examined on behalf of Northwich before the Local Government Inspector, himself affirmed, on two or three occasions, judging from the questions put him, that there was no damage now done to Northwich by Winsford. And when you remember that, under the 8th section of the Act of 1891, the Local Government Board has always the power to vary the boundaries, surely it would be fairer and wiser, if there is no damage done at present to Northwich by Winsford, to wait until damage is done before you make this law; for when you have the power to vary the boundaries, you can always meet a hardship whenever a case may arise. You may hear about there being a continuity of strata over the whole of the district, but the expert evidence is quite to the contrary. Mr. Dickinson, Chief Inspector of Mines, I believe, of all England, has twice reported that there is no continuous bed. Mr. Green, Professor of Geology at Oxford; Mr. Leader Williams, engineer of the Manchester Ship Canal, and formerly engineer to the River Weaver Navigation, and who was for ten years at Northwich, have affirmed that there is no continuous bed of salt; while, quite lately, Professor Hull has affirmed, that there could not be a weaker geological case than that propounded by the people of Northwich. I think, therefore, I have shown that there is a strong prima facie case against the Bill becoming law—namely, that while on the general ground the people of Winsford accept the principle of the general law of 1891, they contend that the particular circumstances of their locality are such that it may be fairly made an exception. Some hon. Members may say, How hard it will be if the whole burden of this taxation is thrown upon Northwich! As a matter of fact, Northwich has several industries; Winsford has only one. Winsford is farther up the Weaver, and the expense of carting the salt down from the district to Liverpool is very much greater owing to the longer distances, and the distance from rail and canal is also greater, and when you take the whole of these facts into consideration, I think you may fairly say that Winsford is perfectly entitled to come here and complain of what seems to me a very hard case—namely, that by the application of the general principle in a wide area a great hardship will be conferred upon a particular locality. This feeling at Winsford is not confined to the Local Board, but is general throughout all society there, including the working men, who believe that their trade is in danger. As we all know, the salt trade, in spite of recent and spasmodic efforts, has gone back to the low ebb of fortune it has been at for the last ten years or so, and this further tax of threepence will do much to kill that trade. The trade in Winsford is entirely export, and if this Bill becomes law it will bring considerable suffering and distress upon everybody who has anything to do with the salt industry in the district.

As the Chairman of the Committee on last year's Act, it is only right that I should say that the question of areas was not actually before the Committee, and that the Committee declined to take evidence upon it. We knew it was a matter to be afterwards settled by a Provisional Order. But the evidence taken with regard to the general question was such as to give us a very fair opportunity of judging what were the proper areas to be appointed under any future Bill, and the Committee were practically unanimous in the opinion that the area should be as large as possible. For my part, I think that if this Bill fails in any respect it is that the Local Government Board have not had the courage which they should have shown, and have not made the whole salt district of Cheshire into one area for taxation. One thing which was clearly shown before the Committee was that in this case of brine-pumping it is absolutely impossible to say where the mischief is being done by those who are pumping the brine. I think that the figures the hon. Member has put before the House show that that is the case. He told us that at Winsford 700,000 tons of brine are pumped, and that yet there is little or no disturbance, whereas at Northwich only 300,000 tons of brine are pumped and there is enormous disturbance. It is a matter of absolute fact that the disturbance occurs in consequence of the quantity of salt taken away; and if Winsford is really taking two and a half times as much salt from its own area as Northwich does, it is clear that the subsidences at Winsford would be much larger than they are at Northwich. But as a matter of fact these 700,000 tons of brine are being taken away from somewhere else, and are causing a subsidence there; and I am confident that no man can say that no part of the brine is taken from under the town of Northwich, and is not causing subsidence there. It is perfectly clear that the only safe ground is to make the area of taxation as large as possible. You will thus spread an equal burden over all those engaged in the trade, whereas in having only small areas you may be making them pay for the damage which they have not themselves caused. My only regret is that this Bill does not propose a much larger area.

I am sorry that no Representative of the Local Government Board is present to-day. This is a question of scientific and technical evidence which I do not think this House can be expected to hear and to judge; but what the House can judge is that there has been a direct breach of understanding, and a breach of understanding that has been sanctioned by the Report of the officer of the Local Government Board. It seems to me that nothing could be clearer than what was said by my hon. Friend in opening this discussion, that there was a perfect understanding between the Local Board of Winsford on the one side and the promoters of the Bill of last year on the other when they accepted the declaration that they were unanimous in agreeing that the districts of Winsford and Northwich should be kept separate. That declaration was signed by the promoters of the Bill of last year, and yet these very promoters, once the Bill had passed, applied to the Local Government Board for a district and asked that that district might include both. There could not be a more direct breach of an understanding than is disclosed by the correspondence and by what has passed since. I think it is a great hardship on a small and rather struggling town like Winsford that it should have the great expense of fighting the Bill of last year in a Committee of this House, and of being represented again on the inquiry by the Local Government Inspector; and now, if this Bill goes to a Select Committee upstairs, they will have to fight the whole thing over again at a very heavy cost to the rates. The real secret of this Bill is kindly explained to us in the Memorandum circulated this morning in favour of the Second Reading, and the reason that is given is this—

"To make small districts," say the promoters, "would create inequality, as the maximum levy authorised would be inadequate in some suffering districts, and more than necessary in others."

The people of Northwich say they are a suffering district where the maximum levy will not compensate, and therefore they take the very natural way of putting in other people's districts in addition to their own, so that there may be plenty of area from which to compensate themselves. The reason why the damage at Northwich is very much heavier than elsewhere is that the town is honeycombed by old mines which are not worked now and which are perpetually falling in; and that is accelerated by pumping of the brine. My hon. Friend who presided over the Committee last year stated what was the unanimous opinion of the Committee, and he also stated that they took no evidence and did not hear counsel on the subject. But he could not have been aware of the fact that there is the greatest distinction between the soil from which the brine is pumped at Northwich and the soil from which it is pumped at Winsford. I hope the people of Winsford may be spared another fight in this matter. At all events, I hope the House will see that they have been grossly deceived in relying on the representations made to them last year, and that an injustice has been done which the House has it in its power to rectify.

I am very glad my friends have raised this question, but having raised it, and made their protest, I rather doubt whether the floor of the House is the proper place to discuss the scientific evidence that is necessary to be brought forward, or to enter into the unfortunate disputes which have taken place between the towns of Northwich and Winsford. I should like, however, to say I thoroughly endorse everything that has been said by them as to the merits of the question. I feel very strongly that the town of Winsford has been extremely badly treated. The Bill of last year was passed by the Committee upstairs on the distinct understanding that there should be a separate compensation district for each town; and although my hon. Friend who was Chairman of the Committee did not take any evidence on the subject of the loss caused to each town, I cannot agree with him in the conclusion which he has arrived at without taking that evidence. Anyone who knows the district, although he might not be able to say the particular damage that is caused by each particular set of pumps, would be perfectly able to say that in certain localities where pumping goes on no damage whatever is caused except in the area immediately around. I have just presented a Petition from eight hundred ratepayers and property owners of Winsford protesting, not against the Bill in itself, but against the very unfair provision which puts the town of Winsford and the town of Northwich together in one compensation area. I think my hon. Friend would perhaps be wise not to press this matter to a Division, but to take every step to bring the proper evidence before the Committee upstairs, with the view of getting this most unjust provision expunged from the Bill.

I share in the regret that neither of the Parliamentary Representatives of the Local Government Board is present; but I am empowered on behalf of my right hon. Friend the President to say this much to the House, that in his view—a view which he takes very strongly—this is pre-eminently one of the cases which the House, in passing the Compensation Bill of last year, considered should be dealt with in the ordinary way by the ordinary procedure created by that Bill. This is a matter of geological and scientific inquiry which could not possibly be settled here. It has been inquired into locally by an officer skilled in the matters discussed before him, and with the aid of expert evidence, I submit, it was the intention of Parliament last year that such matters as this urged by my hon. Friends behind me—as to which they may be entitled to sympathy—should be settled. Such matters are rather pertinent to what the Committee should do upstairs than to what the House should do. I trust, therefore, the House will not depart from the ordinary precedure in regard to this Bill.

I was very glad to hear, last among the speeches made on the opposite side, the kindly tones of the hon. Member for the Eddisbury Division. He has a right to speak on this subject, for he has given the suffering property owners of that district his sympathy in the matter throughout the whole of this long discussion. I should like to say a few words in reply to the accusation made against my neighbours in Northwich, of bad faith in this matter. I know all the gentlemen who were at the meeting, the proceedings of which occupy so large a space in the pamphlet which has been distributed during the last few days. They are all men who would refuse to stoop to do a mean thing. They carried that resolution, expressing their opinions at that time, in perfect good faith, and it has not been because they wish to do an injury to Winsford that they have since changed their tactics, but simply because that having heard the evidence before the Committee of last year, and the statements made by its Chairman, they deemed it unwise, impolitic, and dangerous to the last degree, to ask for separate districts. The hon. Member for the Medway Division (Mr. J. S. Gathorne-Hardy), who presided over the Committee with so much care and ability last year, has, I am inclined to think, forgotten some of the evidence that was given before him. Mr. Thomas Ward, who is Director of the Salt Union, and who knows perhaps more about this matter than any man in this country, stated that in his opinion it is impossible to say where the mischief began or where it ended, and it was thereupon that the hon. Member said that the Committee were unanimously of opinion that it was impossible to divide the district. The hon. Member for the Cricklade Division (Mr. Story-Maskelyne), who sat upon the Committee in 1881 as well as in 1891, declared in Committee last year that the principle of separate districts was fatal to the Bill of 1881. I am very glad to think that the Amendment will not be pressed. If it were accepted, it would be a strong condemnation of the Committee of last year, and would involve an almost indefinite postponement of an honest attempt by the people of the district to make those pay who cause the suffering.

With the permission of the House, I will withdraw the Amendment.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the Amendment be withdrawn?

I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he will consider the possibility of allowing voting cards, with the name and address only in writing, to be sent for a halfpenny in the same way as printed matter is now allowed to be sent, in open envelopes?

I think that my hon. Friend is not aware that by a recent change in the regulations polling cards, in which the name and address of the voter and his number on the Register are inserted in writing, are allowed to pass by book post, and may therefore, like other book post matter, be sent for a halfpenny in open envelopes. I think that this meets the case he puts. After the 1st proximo any printed document, having the name and address of the sender or the name of the person addressed inserted in writing, will pass at the book rate.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether P. Barry, leading stoker of H.M.S. "Hibernia," was shot dead by a Maltese at Malta on the 4th February last; whether anyone was arrested for the crime; and, if so, with what result, and what steps the authorities propose to take to bring the criminal to justice; and whether any provision will be made for the widow and orphans of the deceased?

The Admiralty have received a Report to the effect that Philip Barry, who was employed as leading stoker in the Steam Reserve at Malta, was found dead from a gunshot wound in a field adjoining his residence on the 4th March last. The circumstances are being investigated by the Civil Police, but the result of their inquiry has not yet been communicated. Until a further Report has been received the Admiralty are not in a position to settle the question of granting relief to the widow. The Report is being pressed for.

May I ask for an answer to the second part of the question?

We have had no information as to that matter.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that the plastering included in the contract for building the police station at Walthamstow has been sublet, in disregard of the understanding that Government work shall be carried out by the contractor to whom it is entrusted and not by sub-contractors; and whether he will take steps to have the undertaking carried out in this particular case?

I am informed by the Receiver that the contractor for this building will do the plastering with his own men, and will not apply for leave to sublet that portion of the work.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if the Regulations for the prosecution by the Board of Trade of offenders against the Merchandise Marks (1887) Amendment Act have yet been made public; how many complaints of false marking have been received by the Department; and how many have formed the subject of legal proceedings?

The Regulations made by the Board of Trade with the concurrence of the Lord Chancellor under Section 2 of the Merchandise Marks Act, 1891, were laid upon the Table of the House on the 27th instant. Several instances of false marking have been brought under the notice of the Board of Trade. The Department has undertaken prosecutions in two cases, in each of which a conviction was obtained.

I beg to ask the hon. Member for Exeter, as a Charity Commissioner, whether the Commissioners have received a Memorial from allotment tenants at Chaddesley Corbet in regard to the rent paid for charity land under the Act of 1882; whether he is aware that the rent per acre of the allotments has been for some time higher than that paid for the rest of the charity land let to a farmer; and whether the Charity Commissioners will communicate with the trustees with a view of securing such a revision of the allotment rents as the circumstances of the case may require?

A Memorial in regard to the rent paid for allotments by the tenants of the charity land belonging to Chaddesley Corbet was received by the Commissioners on November 5th last. The rent per cultivable acre of the allotments when set out in or about the year 1884 was fixed at £3 5s., the agricultural value of the land being taken at £2 per acre, which the then farming tenants of the charity were paying; the additional charge being made in respect of the expenses of setting out, cost of collection and outgoings. The Commissioners are informed by the Governors that this rent has now been reduced to £2 13s. 8d. per cultivable acre. The Commissioners are still in communication with the Governors on the subject of the allotment rents, and have been recently informed by them that it is in contemplation to adopt a system of management, which will give further satisfaction to the allotment holders.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been directed to the following extracts from the Review of Catholic Missions, published in Paris, which were quoted in the Daily News of the 30th instant:—

"The Catholic Kingdom of Uganda has been destroyed. The King, the Bishop, and seventeen missionaries have been driven out by the Protestants, supported by the agents of the British Company. Fighting broke out on the 21st January, when the Protestant natives, armed with rifles distributed by Captain Lugard, and backed up by the English fort, drove out the Catholics after a sharp engagement. Captain Williams left the fort to recover the bodies. Protestants afterwards attacked the Catholic mission, bombarded it, and set it on fire. The doctor and a Catholic chief were killed. The missionaries and the remnant of the Catholics were forced to retire to the English fort, which had at first refused to send soldiers to protect them. The report concludes by stating that the British officers were incited to action by the Wagandas, and by the Protestant missionaries;"

and whether these allegations against the agents of the British Company, Captain Williams, Captain Lugard, and the officers of the English fort, are true; and, if so, whether the Government intend to take any action in the matter?

I also wish to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if the following statement in the Press is correct:—

"M. Ribot, Minister for Foreign Affairs, has instructed M. Waddington, French Ambassador to Great Britain, to bring under Lord Salisbury's notice the bad treatment which the White Fathers in Uganda are undergoing at the hands of Captain Lugard, representing the British East Africa Company in that region. It is alleged that Captain Lugard detains several of the Fathers as prisoners, and has distributed arms among the natives, who use them against the missionaries;"

and what stops will the Government take to secure the immediate release of the Catholic missionaries, and punish their assailants?

I cannot add anything to an answer which I gave last week to the hon. Baronet the Member for Dublin County (Sir Thomas Esmonde). No reliable information has been received from Captain Lugard since the date of the alleged massacre. From the known character and antecedents of that officer and of Captain Williams it is impossible to believe that they were directly or indirectly parties to it. I may add, in reply to the hon. Member for North Longford, that I understand that M. Waddington has been instructed to call the attention of Lord Salisbury to the matter. He has done so, and the answer given to M. Waddington was of a similar character to that which I have just made.

Do the Government intend to make any independent inquiry to test the truth of the statements that have been published?

I wish also to ask whether, when the representations referred to were made, any documentary evidence was laid before Her Majesty's Government on behalf of the French Administration tending to prove their accuracy?

No, Sir, I think no documentary evidence was submitted, but that M. Waddington's statements were founded upon letters received from Monsignor Hoith, who had communicated them, I believe, to the Foreign Office in Paris. The place where the disturbances occurred is at a distance of more than three months' journey from the coast, which is more than one month's distance from London. It would require an expedition to Uganda to convey any message whatever there, and before any expedition could reach Uganda it is more than probable—nay, it is certain—that a full account of what has occurred will be received from Captain Lugard.

May I ask whether if it was a case in which British subjects had been the sufferers the Government would have taken the matter in the same free and easy way?

Order, order!

As the British East Africa Company has its Charter, and as it has also offices in London, has the Government deemed it to be their duty to address any remonstrance or any demand for information to that office?

Yes, Sir. We have been in constant communication with the British East Africa Company in London, but they have had no information on the subject subsequent, as I have already said, to January 8th last, and those disturbances, as far as can be made out, occurred about the end of January, or about a fortnight after the 8th of January. In reply to the hon. Member for Monaghan, I would say that it is impossible to suggest any person who could make an independent inquiry into what has occurred in that district, short of sending what practically would amount almost to a military expedition to Uganda.

Are we to understand that Captain Lugard has been practically the Governor of that country since the King was defeated?

That is just one of the very questions which I am not able to answer until we have received information.

Where can a copy of the Charter of the British East Africa Company be seen and examined?

It was published in the Gazette at the time it was issued. I think it will appear in the Papers that will be laid upon the Table almost immediately.

Can the hon. Gentleman inform me when we may expect to have the Papers, and whether he has any data which will enable him to judge when information will be received from Captain Lugard?

The Papers are ready, and I expect to be able to lay them on the Table to-night or on Thursday. I am afraid we have no data at all on which we could say precisely when an account will be received from Captain Lugard.

Are not the Government already in possession of certain material facts, as, for instance, whether there has not been a distribution of rifles to some of the inhabitants of the district, under the authority of Captain Lugard; secondly, whether those who are so provided with firearms were not victorious in certain engagements; and whether King Mwanga has not been actually deposed in favour of a nominee of Captain Lugard?

No, Sir, upon the three points specified we have no certain and definite information. We have only had rumours which have come to us, not through the British East Africa sphere at all, but across the Lake and through the German sphere.

From whom?

From a gentleman of the name of Munksworthy, who lives on the Lake, and partly from the White Fathers; but we have not seen any documents.

Will the Papers to be laid on the Table contain the letters from Mr. Munksworthy and the White Fathers?

I do not think they will from the latter, but I believe they will from the former.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland for what purpose and at whose suggestion a force of twenty police under Sergeant M'Dermott of Walfhill and Sub-inspector Hickey from Ballylinan was assembled and placed in the immediate neighbourhood of a meeting of farmers at the Swan, near Walfhill, on Sunday, the 22nd instant, in connection with the establishment of a creamery on the co-operative dairying system; whether Government note-takers were also present, and whether he has ascertained anything which could justify this police demonstration; and from what fund the expense of the presence of the police for the day will be defrayed?

The facts are substantially as they are given in the question. The police had reason to believe that a meeting would be held for the purpose of intimidating a man who had taken an evicted farm; but that belief, happily, proved to be unfounded.

I should like to ask upon what information the police in Ireland act in a case of this kind. I would draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the notice of the meeting [producing a large poster for the inspection of the House]. It was called for the sole purpose of establishing a creamery, and the police could not have had the slightest evidence to justify them in taking the course they did.

The police do not, of course, wish to interfere with the establishment of a creamery, and as I have already stated, their anticipations as to the nature of the meeting proved to be unfounded.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that a certain Syndicate gave, many months ago, orders for several tank-steamers under the lines of construction laid down in the "Provisional Regulations," issued by the Directors of the Suez Canal Company, and proposing to permit the transit of petroleum in bulk through the Canal in tank-steamers built according to conditions therein contained; whether he is aware that such a steamer has been already launched, for which the order must have been given before the issuing of such regulations; and whether the facts with reference to the construction of the tank-steamers for such Syndicate show that there has been a contravention of Article 15 of the original Charter granted to the Company in 1856, by which it is laid down that the

"Universal Company, to which the concession is granted, shall never in any case have power to grant to any vessel, company, or private person any advantages or favours not granted to all the other vessels, companies, or private persons under similar conditions"?

I am not aware of either of the facts alleged in the first and second paragraphs of the hon. Member's question. Upon the assumption, however, that both are correct, the matter is not one upon which Her Majesty's Government can be called upon to pronounce an opinion.

Should not this question have been put to the First Lord of the Treasury?

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will inform the House whether, since the commencement of traffic on the Suez Canal, vessels passing thereon from sea to sea have been subjected to compulsory convoyage, and to discrimination in regard to anchorage, construction and cargoes; under what Article and in what words in the Suez Canal Charter or Concession the power and right was given to the Suez Canal Company, at its discretion, to make convoyage compulsory and to impose exceptional tolls and charges for hire in regard thereto; to create novel and exceptional systems of anchorage in the isolation of steamers by means of floating booms; to lay down principles for the construction of steamers according to the views of the Suez Canal Directorate, and to debar steamers not so constructed from passage on the Suez Canal from sea to sea; and to exclude from the Canal one class of cargoes and to impose exceptional conditions on other classes of cargo; whether these proposed Provisional Regulations are in excess of the powers in the Charter or Concession of the Suez Canal Company, irrespective of the equality of flags; and whether, before being sanctioned, with all the safeguards necessary for the security, safety, and freedom from interruption of the Canal, they will be submitted to the Sublime Porte, Egypt, and the Great Powers for ratification?

My reply to the first question of the hon. Member is: No, so far as Her Majesty's Government is aware. To the second question my reply is that, under Article 14 of the Concession to the Company of the 5th January, 1856, the Company is empowered to establish regulations for the passage of the Canal and its adjuncts, and that the new regulations do not raise any of the tolls hitherto paid. To the third question my reply is that the Provisional Regulations are not, in the opinion of Her Majesty's Government, in excess of the powers conferred by the Concession; and to the fourth question my reply is that there is no provision in the Concession of the Company or elsewhere for a submission to the Great Powers for ratification. So long as the Company does not refuse admission to any class of commercial vessels which comply with the regulations and treats the flags of all nations on a footing of equality, the intervention of Her Majesty's Government would not be justified.

I beg further to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the responsibility for the proposed Provisional Regulations for the navigation of steamers carrying petroleum in bulk on the Suez Canal rests with the British Government, through its Inter-Departmental Committee, or with the Suez Canal Directors?

The responsibility for the regulations referred to rests with the Directors of the Suez Canal, who made them.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether the attention of the India Office has been drawn to the fact that British and native interests in Mysore are hampered and injured by the Extradition Laws, which prevent Mysore warrants from running in British territory, though warrants from British territory run in Mysore, whereby employers of labour in Mysore are liable to be defrauded and injured in their business by labourers and contractors for the supply of labour, who have received advances on account, absconding into British territory; and whether any steps are in contemplation to remedy the grievance complained of?

The whole question of the execution in British territory of Mysore criminal warrants and civil decrees was carefully settled in 1878. The Secretary of State has received no recent communications on the subject; but the question of the noble, Lord will be sent to the Government of India in the ordinary course, and will call their attention to the matter if it is not already being considered. The Indian Extradition Act of 1879 does not prevent Mysore warrants from running in British territory, but requires the interposition of the Resident before they can be issued.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the Report of the Royal Society Committee on Colour Vision is yet completed; and, if so, whether it will be presented to Parliament; and whether Her Majesty's Government have come to any decision as to any steps to be taken in accordance with that Report?

Yes, Sir. The Report was laid before both Houses on the 19th instant, and its contents are engaging my careful consideration.

Will the evidence which was taken before the Committee be also printed?

I am afraid I cannot answer that question.

I will put the question again on Friday.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, having regard to his recent statement that the holding out of inducements by placards to children to visit public houses is not illegal, he will afford facilities for the passing of the Bill now before the House for making such conduct on the part of holders of licences illegal?

As I informed the hon. Member on the 12th of this month, when any case of the kind to which he refers is brought to the notice of the Commissioners of Police, representations will be made to the Licensing Authority upon the proper occasion. The question of facilities for the Bill dealing with this subject is for the Leader of the House.

Then I ask the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury when he will be able to afford facilities for the passage of the Bill, which has only one clause?

The hon. Gentleman must see that it is impossible for me to give special facilities to one private Member without affording an equal measure of favour to the numerous other Private Bills which are before the House.

I will put down the Second Reading for tomorrow; and perhaps, if the House declines to adjourn for the Derby Day, the right hon. Gentleman will enable me to move it.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he will grant increased postal facilities to Bere Island by having letters delivered daily there?

There is a post office at Bere Island where the mails are received daily, Sundays excepted. Inquiry will be made as regards the delivery of the letters by postmen.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state whether Boards of Town Commissioners, under the Towns Improvement (Ireland) Acts, have power to adopt the Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1890, in towns where the Labouring Classes and Lodging Houses Acts, 1851 to 1881, have been adopted? I beg also to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether Boards of Commissioners existing for the paving, lighting, and cleansing of towns in Ireland have power under Section 99 of the Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1890, to erect dwellings for the working classes in those towns where the Commissioners are not the Sanitary Authority under the Public Health (Ireland) Act?

The hon. Member will find his inquiries in both questions answered in Subsection 1 of Section 102 and Subsection 1 of Section 99 respectively of the Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1890, which in substance give an affirmative reply to the questions.

In that case I wish to ask how it is the Irish Boards of Commissioners have been prevented from taking advantage of the Act?

I have no knowledge that that is so.

Yesterday I asked the question, and I was informed that as they are not a Sanitary Authority they could not take advantage of it. But the Act distinctly gives them power to do so.

I did not give that answer.

Will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to communicate to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the substance of his answer?

I do not think that is any part of my business.

The information does not seem to be possessed by the Secretary to the Treasury, nor by the Boards of Commissioners in Ireland.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the case of George Osborn, aged seventeen, who was charged on 30th June, 1886, with threatening to accuse another person of an infamous crime with a view to extort money, verdict guilty, and was sentenced to penal servitude for life; and whether, considering the youth of the prisoner, and also in view of the fact that much lighter sentences have recently been imposed for the same offence, he will advise Her Majesty to use Her Royal prerogative of mercy and remit the remainder of Osborn's sentence?

Yes, Sir, my attention has on several occasions been called to this conviction. I regret, however, to say that there are circumstances in the case and in the career of the prisoner which prevent me from recommending that the remainder of the sentence should now be remitted.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in a similar case a man forty-four years of age was sentenced to five years' penal servitude only? I should like to ask if he has considered the disparity between the two sentences?

I have not compared this sentence with other sentences, but I have compared it with the facts proved.

I beg to give notice that at the earliest possible opportunity in the new Parliament I shall move to bring in a Bill giving power to juries to modify these atrocious sentences.

Order, order!

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he will lay upon the Table of the House the Report made by Mr. Forster Browne on the royalties imposed by the Woods and Forests Commissioners on slate quarries on Crown property in Carnarvonshire?

Negotiations on this subject are still pending, and I do not think it would be for the public interest to publish the Report in question, which is of a confidential nature.

I shall call attention to the matter again.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether the Report of the Committee appointed to inquire into the grievances of the prisons staff in Scotland is receiving the consideration of the Secretary for Scotland and the Treasury, with a view to an early settlement; and whether the Report will be laid upon the Table of the House?

The Report referred to in the question is still under the consideration of the Secretary for Scotland, who hopes shortly to be in a position to make proposals to the Treasury; and as regards the latter part, I must refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on the 16th instant, when I said that it is not intended to lay the Report on the Table, as it is not thought that such a course would be of public benefit.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he is aware of the discontent caused by the present system of collecting agricultural statistics by the Inland Revenue officers, not only to those officers, but also to the farmers; and whether he will cause an inquiry to be made into the possibility of having all such agricultural Returns collected through the agency of the Board of Agriculture, of which he is the President?

For an answer to the first part of the question I must refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Roscommon (Mr. O'Kelly) on the 25th February last. With regard to the second part, I may say that the staff of the Board of Agriculture could not collect the Returns referred to with anything like the same degree of efficiency as is done by the Inland Revenue officers. Under these circumstances, I cannot undertake to cause the inquiry asked for to be made.

As the Inland Revenue officers collect these statistics, would the right hon. Gentleman be disposed to give them some additional remuneration?

That is a matter over which I have no control whatever.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if the recent Resolution of this House, declaring that public meetings should be permitted in schools in receipt of State aid will now be communicated to the Board of National Education in Ireland?

I stated yesterday that I had no objection to communicate this Resolution to the Board of National Education in Ireland.

I gather from that answer that it will be done?

Certainly.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether it is intended by Subsection (c), Clause 3, of the Public Elementary Schools Bill, to forbid the discussion of the Disestablishment of the Church at public meetings in elementary schools authorised by the Bill?

Unfortunately, both the officials of the Local Government Board are away from the House through ill-health, and I am afraid that without notes I am unable to answer the question. Perhaps the hon. Member will put the question down for Thursday.

I see the Vice President of the Council (Sir W. Hart Dyke) present. Perhaps he will answer the question.

I think this is a question that had better be dealt with when we come to discuss the Bill.

I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether a lease has as yet been executed by the Commissioners of Woods and Forests to the Secretary of State for War, of the proposed site for the rifle range in the New Forest; and, if not, whether he will undertake that no such lease shall be executed or bye-laws issued until Parliament shall have the opportunity of expressing its opinion on the Report of Mr. Pelham as to the proposed site for the rifle range?

The lease has not yet been executed, and the Military Lands Consolidation Bill is under the consideration of a Select Committee. Mr. Pelham's Report will be presented to Parliament before the Third Reading of the Bill.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, with regard to the Persian tobacco concession, whether he is aware that the Hon. R. Grosvenor, the Chairman of the Tobacco Corporation Company, is reported in the Financial News, 23rd December, 1891, to have said, in a speech to the shareholders of the Company made on 22nd December, 1891—

"It is a concession granted for a definite and favourable purpose to a British subject, with the knowledge of the British Minister at Teheran, translated, certified, and registered at his Legation";

whether the Hon. R. Grosvenor was correct in making this statement; and whether he is aware that, at the adjourned general meeting of the Tobacco Corporation Company held on 22nd April, 1892, the Hon. R. Grosvenor said, according to the report in the Times of the next day's date—

"The British Government had endorsed the action of Her Majesty's representative at Teheran, and their good offices were afterwards placed at the disposal of the Tobacco Corporation, in order to obtain for them from the Persian Government the compensation to which they were entitled"?

The statements referred to appear to be correct. In accordance with the practice in Persia in the case of contracts or concessions in which British subjects are concerned, the concession was duly registered at the British Legation.

I would ask the hon. Member whether the words he has just used do not contradict the statement already made by him in the House.

I fail to see any contradiction. The statement I made was that the concession had been obtained without the sanction or knowledge of Her Majesty's Government; and my answer was that after the concession had been obtained it was registered at the British Legation.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury when he will produce the Papers, promised about three months since, relating to the Irish Teachers' Pension Fund?

I am informed that the Report of the Committee of Actuaries cannot be ready for some time; and until that Report is received, I am afraid I cannot lay the Papers on the Table.

I would remind the hon. Gentleman that we asked for these Papers in the last financial year, and we were then told they could not be produced till the 31st March. May I ask if they will be laid on the Table before the Session ends?

I am afraid I cannot give the information required.

May I ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will be so good as to help forward these Papers?

I have some recollection of this matter, and I know the interest the hon. Member takes in it, but I understand from the officials that until the Actuaries' Report is ready, the Papers cannot be produced. I am afraid I cannot give any definite information on that point.

I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether the position of Petty Sessions Clerk at Durrus is vacant; and whether it is proposed to add Durrus to the Bantry Petty Sessions District; and, if so, whether, in view of the fact that portion of the Durrus Petty Sessions District is twenty-six miles from Bantry, he will have the Petty Sessions Clerk reside within the Durrus Petty Sessions District, and thereby convenience the people resident there?

No information has reached the Department of the Registrar of Petty Sessions Clerks in Ireland that the clerkship at Durrus, otherwise Carrickbue, is about to become vacant.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if it is correct, as published in the Times newspaper of 23rd May, 1892, and dated Antananarivo, Madagascar, 30th April, 1892—

"It is reported, amongst the higher Malagasy officials, that the Hova Government intend to abrogate the Anglo-Malagasy Treaty, if Britain allows France to exercise jurisdiction over British subjects, that the interest on French loans is unpaid";

and if he will lay Papers on the subject before the House?

No information has been received at the Foreign Office corroborating either of the Reports referred to, and consequently there are no Papers which can be presented.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether there is any prospect of a favourable alteration in the present French Tariff as respects English japanned leather used for coach purposes, for which Walsall and Bermondsey are noted, as these goods are now paying more than double the duty when entering France than they did under the old Cobden Treaty, and that other classes of leather goods, especially the heavy and cheaper kinds, have, from increased duties now payable, nearly ceased to be exported to France, and that some English houses dealing in these goods are considering the desirability of retiring from that country?

The present French Tariff came into operation on the 1st February last. The duties on japanned leather and on other classes of leather goods were presumably fixed more in the interest of French trade than in that of Walsall and Bermondsey. As the tariff has only been four months in operation it is improbable that the French Government would be prepared, without a longer trial, to substantially modify its provisions.

I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office what is the new arrangement with regard to ordnance stores in Scotland consequent on their proposed removal from Edinburgh; what will be the amount and the character of the additional barrack accommodation thereby obtained in Edinburgh; have the proposed changes met with the approval of the Military Authorities in Edinburgh; and will the correspondence that has passed between them and the War Office be laid upon the Table?

Under the new arrangements, which have met with the entire approval of the Military Authorities, guns and carriages will be stored at Leith Fort, while all other ordnance stores for the South of Scotland will be concentrated at Stirling, partly in the Castle and partly in some new store-houses at Forthside. The removal of the stores from Edinburgh Castle will enable accommodation to be provided for a hospital and for two warrant officers. It is not proposed to present any of the correspondence on the subject.

I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office if he would say what arrangements have been proposed by the War Office to enable the troops at the Curragh to practise tiring with the new magazine rifle; and if the proposed ranges at Portmarnock, in the County of Dublin, are solely for the use of the garrison of Dublin, or whether it is proposed to utilise them for the troops quartered at Curragh Camp or elsewhere?

It is expected that the ranges at the Curragh will be altered in time for the annual course of musketry to be carried out. The work of adapting them for the Lee-Metford rifle is now in progress. The proposed ranges at Portmarnock will be for the use of the garrison at Dublin. It is not at present proposed to use them for the troops at the Curragh.

I wish to ask the hon. Gentleman whether it is not a fact that all sections of the local inhabitants are opposed to these proposed ranges at Portmarnock, and if that is the case whether the War Office will sot them up?

I am not aware that all sections are opposed to it. I will make further inquiries.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if there is any truth in the welcome report circulated by the Press Association that the United States are disposed to make some tariff concessions in favour of the trade of Sheffield and Birmingham, and if negotiations to that end are being conducted by Her Majesty's Government?

No information of the character referred to has reached Her Majesty's Government, and, therefore, no negotiations are being conducted upon those lines.

May I ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he is in a position to make a statement with reference to the Whitsuntide holidays?

I am afraid that I shall have to ask the House to re-assemble on Thursday in Whitsun week. I am sorry that the holidays will be so short, but the state of Supply requires it.

Will Supply be taken on Thursday?

Yes. It is probable that I shall also have to ask the House for additional facilities for Government Business on Thursday. Apart from that, we will take Supply on that day.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the strong feeling against pressing forward that very contentious Bill—the Criminal Evidence Bill? I would ask him to be good enough to take into consideration the unfairness of keeping the Standing Committee at work if there is no chance of passing it. I do not ask the right hon. Gentleman for an immediate answer, but I hope he will carefully consider the question.

I beg to move "That this House, at its rising, do adjourn till Thursday." I am perfectly aware that it is not for a humble agricultural Member like myself to occupy the time of the House on this or any other question, but I merely wish to dispel the delusion that possesses the minds of hon. Members, that by voting for the adjournment they will plunge the House into a vortex of dissipation, and set a bad example to their constituents, or that on its being stated that the Ayes have it—as I hope will be the case—hon. Members will array themselves in white hats and green veils, and take the first train to Epsom. Motions for Adjournment are not absolutely unknown to the House. For the last six years I have heard no less a person than the First Lord of the Treasury move the Adjournment on Ash Wednesday, but I have failed to observe that on the day following the Church of St. Margaret's was crammed with hon. Members and officials of the House repeating the Commination Service. And I do not believe that the top of the grand stand at Epsom will be any the more crowded with hon. Members if the Motion is agreed to than if it is lost. Some people have one idea of enjoyment and some another. I have many hon. Friends in this House who would utilise the adjournment to spend a happy day with their constituents, and to receive their congratulation on the number of Divisions in which they have taken part and the successful legislation they have forwarded. Some time ago I had the pleasure of hearing a speech of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere)—one of those addresses which all hon. Members admire and some hon. Members study—and in that speech the hon. Member, with a candour and truth which always characterise him, said that he, for one, would vote for the adjournment, and go down to the Derby; but he said he would qualify his speech, for it was primarily to gratify a wish, which he had always cherished, to enjoy the summer solstice from the top of Banstead Downs. I will venture to point out to the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Sidney Gedge) that it does not at all follow because a man goes to the Derby he sees the race. I myself have been to twenty-three consecutive Derbys, and I might say that with the exception of Silvio's year, and perhaps half-a-dozen others, I have never seen the race run at all. I should like to have appealed to an hon. Member who is a great advocate for shorter hours and lighter work, but who is not in his place, whether, after having done six years of hard labour in this House, where the work is hard and the pay is bad—and eight hours are not in it—hon. Members are not entitled to one holiday between Easter and Whitsuntide? I should like to suggest to hon. Members that if by voting for my Motion they were to postpone the dissolution for twenty-four hours they would gain the gratitude of their constituents, and would probably get a few more votes by postponing, if for only one day, the flood of oratory that threatens to overwhelm them. I have said that I will not detain the House long, and I will therefore now conclude by proposing the Motion which stands in my name.

Sir, I think the only fault I have to find with the speech of the hon. and gallant Member is that he has anticipated everything I had to say. No doubt the hon. Baronet the Member for Cockermouth (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) will rise in a moment and fulminate against this Motion, and the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Morton) is probably anxious to deliver one of those philippics with which he is wont to charm and electrify the House. I will therefore in a few words meet what I consider will be the chief objections raised by hon. Members against this Motion. Now, Sir, in the first place, we may be told that it is a wicked waste of the time of the House to adjourn for the Derby. Let me remind the House that a similar Motion to that of my hon. Friend has been carried for the last forty-five years, and I think it was Lord Palmerston who described the adjournment over Derby Day as one of the privileges and unwritten laws of the House. I will ask hon. Members to say whether Public Business has in any way suffered, or the hands of the political clock been put back by it? As far as I can ascertain, that has not been the case. For my part, it is a positive relief to be able on one extra day to take up my newspaper without having to wade through the columns of talk and the oceans of debate which the sitting of the House involves. Then we shall be told that we are encouraging all the vices said to follow in the train of horse-racing. But hon. Members who made that objection last year confessed that they had never been to the Derby at all. I will ask the hon. Baronet the Member for Cockermouth if he will not, for once, break through his stern resolution and go down to the Derby himself; if so, it will be one of the strongest inducements for me to go too. I shall be most happy to act as the hon. Baronet's cicerone. I will not detain the House by saying more than that I cordially second the Motion.

I rise with considerably more satisfaction than usual to oppose this Motion, because I believe it is the last time I shall have occasion to do so. We are on the eve of a Dissolution, and I may not be here in the next Parliament; but if I am not here there will be in the next Parliament men who will gladly discharge the duty of opposing this Motion if it be made. The hon. Member who has just sat down (Captain Grice-Hutchinson) looks upon this Motion as a time-honoured precedent. It appears to me that when people talk about precedents being time-honoured, as a rule there is very little else in the way of honour about them. But it is not a very time-honoured institution after all. We only have to go back to about 1847, when the Motion was first made, and for thirteen years it was moved by a private Member. Then for nineteen years, under the initiative of Lord Palmerston, it was moved by the Government of the day. Since that time—and I must say I think it was very creditable to Sir Stafford Northcote that he broke down that custom—for thirteen years it has been moved by a private Member. Now I hope we shall return to the custom before 1847, and that the Motion will not be moved at all. It would, of course, be idle on my part to set up a contention that all this racing is not very popular. It is very popular and very profitable, especially to the newspapers. I remember some time ago I bought an evening newspaper at Hyde Park Corner, and I asked the man which was the most popular—which he sold most of. He mentioned the name of an evening paper and added, "The paper that gives the most racing is the most popular. If it was not for the racing we should sell very few newspapers." I quite admit that racing is a very popular proceeding, and that a large number of people are interested in it, but that is no reason why the House of Commons should adjourn. This very Session the House has passed two Acts of Parliament to put down betting, and I am happy to say they both, came from the House of Lords. I am always ready to give credit to the House of Lords when it does anything good. One of those Acts provides penalties for betting with an infant, and the other is called a Gaming Act. I am not sufficient of a lawyer to understand it exactly, but as far as I can read it, it deals a heavy blow at the gambling that goes on. Having passed these two Acts of Parliament, is it not rather hypocritical for us to come down here and adjourn for the greatest gambling day of the year? The President of the Board of Agriculture (Mr. Chaplin) objected to our opposing the Adjournment last year, and said that the House was not going to be governed by Puritanical and water-drinking considerations. What I want to point out is, that it is not only the water-drinkers who object to this, but many other people of all sections. Here is one sentence from a London daily newspaper a few years ago—

"There are few places on the face of the globe where more sin and wickedness are perpetrated in the course of a week than at Epsom."

These are not my words. I admit these are the words of a Liberal newspaper; but to go to the other side, what was said by the greatest Leader the Tory Party ever had, I mean Lord Beaconsfield? He said that the turf was a vast system of national demoralisation. Why should the House of Commons adjourn for the principal event in that vast system? We all remember how about a month ago there was great anxiety when we heard of the indisposition of Orme, and I believe if he had died there would have been national mourning. Everybody knew about it. I do not see the hon. Member for South Belfast (Mr. Johnston) here, but I read somewhere of a meeting about selling drink to black men and the hon. Member could not go because the meeting was to be presided over by a person who had some connection with Orme. The other day I was in Hyde Park at the Labour Demonstration; and I mention this in order to show that there is a large class who do not support this pastime. A speech was made by John Burns, who, I suppose, represents a considerable portion of the working people of this country. Tie said this:—

"Why do you working men waste your money in putting your shillings on Orme? I wish Orme had been poisoned to death."

That is a very dreadful statement. I am not justifying it; I am only pointing to it as an indication of a very strong feeling against the gambling that goes on. I quite admit, as I have said, that it is a very dreadful speech, and I do not know of any speech that has so shocked right-minded persons since the right hon. Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain) spoke of "ransom" in one of his speeches. Now, we are going to the country, and this is one of the last occasions on which we shall have an opportunity of giving our votes. Some hon. Members do not intend to come back and others will not be able to return, and I would ask those who are about to retire from Parliament to let one of their last votes be in favour of the dignity of Parliament and of a House they have all been proud to sit in. Some of us expect to return, and we do not think we can take any better recommendation to the electors whom we shall soon have to face than that we have done what in us lay to put a stop to this mischievous vulgarity and this discreditable recognition of it.

Does the noble Lord rise to support the hon. Baronet who has just spoken?

Yes, Sir. It is with considerable pain that I rise to dissociate myself from the friends with whom I have hitherto voted upon this matter, and to argue in a sense opposite to the arguments I have on previous occasions brought before the House. I am bound to say that, if I could have followed my own inclination, I should have liked to follow the example of those hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who, lacking either the convictions or the courage to express them, walk out of the House when the Division bell rings. But I am confronted by so many splendid examples set by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who have the courage—I might almost say the audacity—of their changed convictions, that having found salvation on this point, I feel bound publicly to proclaim my conversion which is not more sudden nor less sincere than many which have elicited the admiration of a not easily-astonished House of Commons. In order to justify my own position and to strengthen it before the House, I may, with the indulgence of the House, mention one or two of the arguments which have weighed with me in adopting this line. I do net wish to make any invidious distinctions, but I cannot help thinking that those who sit above and on each side of him will acknowledge that I am not making an invidious distinction when I take as an instance a statesman from the Front Bench opposite, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir W. Harcourt). Is there a simple point, from the great Derby question downwards, on which the right hon. Gentleman has not changed his views? Is there any Gentleman in this House who can answer the speeches of the Member for Oxford of ten years ago, but the right hon. Member for Derby at the present moment? So much is this so that the practice of bringing out the ghosts of the right hon. Gentleman's former opinions against him is absolutely obsolete. He is not afraid of them, he recognises them as his old familiar friends; and an inconsistency from the right hon. Gentleman surprises the House no more than a speech from the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Morton). I should be a degenerate Member if I admitted that the other side had a monopoly of the political virtue of inconsistence. I see the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Agriculture in his place, and I hope he will speak on this question. We all hope and believe on this side of the House that the right hon. Gentleman has won the love of the agricultural labourer. We hope for and believe in the benefits of the alliance, but I and others who are the right hon. Gentleman's friends cannot be blind to the fact that his political youth is strewn with the wild oats he has sown, and that small holdings were not the blandishments with which he won the love of the farmers of the country. I must pay a tribute to the ingenuity which has been shown by my hon. and gallant Friend behind me in submitting this Motion to the House. Nobody knows better than I how difficult it is to find any arguments of any sort in favour of this question. I admit that perhaps in the early years of a Parliament, as in the early youth of an individual, eccentricities are pardonable which in their old age are absolutely inexcusable. I can understand a Parliament, worn out perhaps by the feverish energy of its own youth, taking a holiday at Epsom; but for a Parliament in our unfortunate stage, with at least one foot in the grave, with the marks of approaching Dissolution written on every line of our faces, to go masquerading to Epsom in an official capacity is more or less an act of indecency. It seems to me that the most hardened reveller on Epsom Downs would not fail to be appalled by the skeleton at the feast on that occasion. I am bound to say that I do deplore the growth of the gambling spirit, not only in the country, but also in the House. I read with pain the other day that, with the reckless exuberance of the Jubilee Plunger, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for New castle (Mr. John Morley) was laying odds of one hundred to one on so uncertain an event as the date of the Dissolution. It seems to me that the right hon. Gentleman laid himself open to great danger. Possibly if he offers such tremendous odds the First Lord of the Treasury might take them through a commissioner, and we should have the date of the General Election fixed, not according to the interests of public business or the demands of the country, but according to the state of the First Lord of the Treasury's betting book. There is one other argument in regard to this question. We propose to adjourn for the Derby. I do not in the least agree with the remarks which the hon. Baronet (Sir W. Lawson) made, for I approve of the Derby in every sense of the word, and I should be very glad to be there myself to-morrow; but I ask the House whether we do adjourn out of deference to the wishes of hon. Members who care for racing? I ask, where are they? I look for them in vain in this House, as I have looked for them in vain in the Division List on previous occasions. Is it that they are not here under a hypersensitive wish not to vote on a question in which they are interested? Or is it because the Epsom race week, of which the Derby is an event, begins on Tuesday, and they are already at Epsom anticipating that holiday which we are now wasting the time of the House asking for? It seems to me that their absence to-day shows how little they care for this holiday, and is a convincing argument that the time for giving the holiday has gone past. I shall therefore support the hon. Baronet. We are approaching a time when we do everything we can to set our sails to catch every puff of popular favour, and I cannot help expressing the hope that perhaps my course to-day may have some success in that way. Perhaps those who disapproved of my previous attitude will receive me into their bosoms with that welcome that attends the proverbial sinner who repents, while those who approved of my previous attitude will forget and forgive my present shortcomings in memory of my services in the past. I sincerely trust, in seconding the Amendment, that this will be the last time I shall have to speak either for or against this Motion.

Sympathising with the sentiments of the noble Lord, I move, "That the Question be now put."

withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.

I think this is a very serious subject. All Members will admit the great evils of gambling, and I do not think the House of Commons ought to set an example by adjourning on this day. It is a most unfortunate example to set, and it is likely to produce effects that the House would very much deprecate. The author of Tom Brown's Schooldays, in that very amusing work, says:—

"The boys have their lotteries for the Derby, and how can we blame them so long as the House of Commons adjourns on that day?"

The House commenced its life in a very excellent way by putting an end to the Queen's Plates, and refusing to have anything to do with them. I hope it will finish as well by putting an end to that other course of adjourning specifically for the Derby.

The Amendment which I had on the Paper refers to two points: to what we consider the insufficient sum for secondary education, which we propose to increase by £50,000; and, secondly, that of the proposal to give a certain sum to Parochial Boards, which are not considered properly representative. I believe at this stage the First Lord of the Treasury will be inclined to accept the Amendment, which would remove many of the objections we have to the Bill. I see he shakes his head, and as I only desire to repeat the protest I made on a former occasion, I do not think it desirable at this period of the Session to re-discuss the question. I shall simply throw the responsibility of resisting it on the Government, and not move the Amendment which stands in my name.

I should like to hear what the right hon. Gentleman has to say as to the reason for moving this Amendment before I say what I have to say on the subject.

I had intended to give an explanation of this Amendment. It may be in the recollection of the House that when the Bill was in Committee, a proposal was discussed for remitting the whole question of secondary education dealt with by this Bill to a Departmental Committee of Inquiry; and in the course of the discussion on the proposal an Amendment was moved by the hon. Member for South Aberdeen (Mr. Bryce) and was accepted by the Government. It was in the words I now proceed to read—

"Provided that no aid shall be given to any school not being wholly or partially under public management or control."

These, of course, are limiting words. The desire of the Committee was to enlarge as far as was consistent with Scotch practice the scope of the provision which was to be made for secondary education by this additional money, and in token of that, I may remind the House that one of the Amendments of this very sub-section consisted in substituting the words "making provision for secondary education" for the words "making grants for secondary education." The proposal which now appears on the Bill as it stands is one obviously not couched in the usual language of draughtmanship, and is capable of more than one interpretation. My desire is to make clear, beyond doubt what the Amendment which was accepted by the Government means in their view, and what they intended by the acceptance of it. I think it is desirable that at this stage the matter should be thoroughly cleared up, and that we should thoroughly understand each other. I may remind the House of the class of schools which may be within the scope of this additional money, distributed by way of grant. There are, first, the burgh schools. There are also those schools which are provided with schemes under the recent Education Endowment Commission. These schools stand on one side as secondary schools properly so called, and they have in one sense public management and control. On the other hand stand the State-aided schools, and it is part of the scheme tabled by the Government that these should be enabled to take advantage of the grant by way of developing secondary departments in schools in places where such secondary departments are required. I need not remind the House that the principle of State aid does in itself involve public control, and inasmuch as the Amendment which was moved in the Committee uses the expression "schools not being wholly or partially under public management," the purpose of this Amendment was, in our view, to exclude private or adventure schools, as they are sometimes called, and not in any way to restrict the category of schools which would be entitled to the grant, so as to exclude any school which was or might become State-aided. I think it would be most unfortunate if, in conseqeence of these words now standing in the Bill, any limit was to be placed upon the development of secondary education in those schools which in the course of their development might have a secondary department added. That being so, the Amendment which stands in my name has the effect of defining beyond doubt the schools and classes of schools which shall be entitled to participate in the grant of £60,000 which we are now distributing. They are to include schools which are under the same management as State-aided schools, higher-class schools, and schools which are managed under the provisions of any Act of Parliament, or Scheme, or Provisional Order issued pursuant to an Act of Parliament. It is in order to make clear the inclusion of primary schools to which State aid is given, and which have now, or in course of their development may receive, a secondary department, that I move this Amendment.

I confess I do not understand from the explanation of the Lord Advocate what the meaning of his Amendment is. The expression "under the same management as a State-aided school" appears to me to be a most ambiguous expression. If the right hon. Gentleman means State-aided school, why not say so? We do not know what the management of a State-aided school means. I submit that on that ground alone the House ought not to accept the Amendment. It seems to me that if it were adopted it would give rise to far more difficulty than the words which the right hon. Gentleman proposes to leave out of the clause; and not merely that, but that it would nullify and destroy the Amendment which was previously accepted by the Government. The right hon. Gentleman, in speaking on the First Reading of the Bill, stated that it was part of the Government proposal that the schools which were to be aided by the grant to be made under the scheme of the Scotch Education Department should be schools in the management of which there was an element of public control. These words were applauded upon delivery. And in the debate upon the Bill the Government were congratulated upon the step which they had taken in introducing the principle that schools receiving this exceptional benefit were to be schools which admitted a public element into their governing body. No comment was made by the Government upon these speeches. They did not deny in any way the interpretation which hon. Members put on the Lord Advocate's words, and when the Bill was produced I was not prepared to find nothing in the Bill which carried out the promise which had been made. In order to remedy that defect I moved an Amendment in lines 19 and 20 to the effect that the benefit of the grant should not extend to schools—

"Not being schools wholly or partially under public management or control."

That Amendment was on the Paper for several days before it was come to, and when it was come to it was accepted by the Lord Advocate without a word. I submit that this Amendment has the effect of destroying the value of the words that now stand in the Bill, because there is nothing in this Amendment that recognises the principle of public management or control. I see the Lord Advocate says that a State-aided school is under public control, but that is a very great straining put upon the words. It suggests that the mere fact that a school receives aid from the State imports the element of public control. Certainly, there were no words uttered by the Lord Advocate in introducing this Bill which implied that. It was stated that the schools, which were to receive the grant were to be schools under public management and control. I take it that the effect of these words will be to allow the grant to be received by schools which are not under public control. As regards the ordinary class public schools, I agree that they are already included in the words as they now stand in the Bill, and that the schools managed under the provisions of an Act of Parliament, or Scheme, or Provisional Order, are also included in the words of the Bill as it now stands. Further, there are schools which are wholly or partially under public control. But if we take the first part of the Amendment I find nothing in it to supply the element of public management. What I mean by the element of public management is that there should be on the Governing Body either some person elected by the people, or some person placed there by a public authority, such as a County Council, or a Town Council, or any other authority, being in this sense public, that the public have confidence in him, and that he represents an element distinct from the purely private management of a school. That seems to me to involve a very important principle, and unless the Lord Advocate will agree to leave out the first words of his Amendment, it is an Amendment which we are bound to resist; because in my mind it not only does a serious injury to the Bill itself, but it introduces a principle into Scotch education which I contend against, and which in my mind makes the grant liable to considerable abuse.

In support of the views expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for South Aberdeen, I may say that during the discussion in Committee I had an Amendment on the Paper dealing with this subject, in order to get the Government to explain what schools there were that they meant to give aid to. However, in the course of the discussion the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for South Aberdeen was accepted without any demur. I now find that the Lord Advocate puts down on the Paper an Amendment which undoubtedly runs very much counter to the words which he then accepted. In the course of the discussion which took place when questions were asked of the Lord Advocate, I understood from him that burgh schools were included, and also that endowed schools, and schools managed under a Provisional Order, or scheme, or under the provisions of an Act of Parliament, were included. Now I find that the Lord Advocate introduces words, the true interpretation of which is undoubtedly very hard to make out. He should have given us instances of the schools which he had in view, and particularly as he is introducing a new class of schools for obtaining the benefit of the distribution of this money, and introducing apparently a new principle. I quite agree with my hon. Friend that we ought to resist the Amendment of the Lord Advocate.

I should like to know from the Lord Advocate what schools are intended to be included by those words. According to the Bill, one part of the application of the grant is to ordinary schools that have a higher or secondary department. I do not know whether that is what he has in view. I should like to ask the Lord Advocate whether, in case his Amendment were carried, what schools would be included under the words "high class schools"? Hon. Members are already acquainted with what are called "higher class schools" in Scotland; but the expression "high class schools," so far as I know, is new to Scotland.

I cannot congratulate the right hon. Gentleman the Lord Advocate on the way in which he has conducted his business. Here is the case of an Amendment of which formal Notice was given, and which was accepted in the precise form in which it was offered by the right hon. Gentleman; and now he comes down to call for a reversion of the decision of the Committee, and to introduce words which themselves are open to precisely the same objection as was advanced against the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for South Aberdeen (Mr. Bryce). I should like to ask the Lord Advocate what is the difference between a State-aided school and a school under the same management as a State-aided school? So far as I can comprehend these words, they mean the same thing. If not, what is the difference between them?

I think it is a very strange thing that after the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill should have given what he considers all the necessary explanation that was required, we are as much in the dark as we were before regarding the meaning of the words proposed to be introduced into this Bill. As the hon. Member has just stated, I do not know the difference between a State-aided school and a school under the same management as a State-aided school. Is there any mystery about the sort of school which is to be included? Is it to be a private school, or what sort of school is it to be at all? Besides that, there is the new term which has been alluded to by the hon. Member for Perth (Mr. C. Parker). Does the term "high class school" refer to the nature of the instruction given in the school, or does it refer to the social condition of the children who attend it? We have always held in Scotland that it has been the boast of our educational system that no social distinctions should be made between the children. I hope no attempt will be made to introduce into education distinctions between classes, and for these reasons, as well as for those advanced by my hon. Friends, I think we are justified, if we do not get further and satisfactory explanations of this Amendment, in resisting it as far as we can.

It seemed to me, when I was considering this Amendment, that the Lord Advocate was proposing to meet a case of this kind—and there is one in my constituency—where there is a school which has departments, if I may use the word which is used in the English Education Act, primary departments, which are State-aided, and secondary departments, which are not State-aided, which do not receive at the present time any assistance from the State. It seems to me, therefore, that the words he has introduced "either a school under the same management as a State-aided school," were reasonable words, and that they are intended to refer to schools such as I have described, and of which there was one—I believe it is now changed—in the borough I represent. With regard to the point raised by the hon. Member who has just sat down, who asked what was meant by the words "high-class school," surely I am right in saying that they referred to the education, and not certainly to the social standing of the children who attend those schools. It would be against all Scotch precedent and desire and thought if it were not so, and I have no doubt myself that the Lord Advocate will find no difficulty in explaining the words in that sense.

I only rise to say, in answer to the questions which have been addressed to me, that the words "high-class public school" may carry a wrong impression, and therefore I think a slight amendment might be made. The hon. Member who has just sat down is quite right in surmising that it is the higher department of a school already receiving State aid which is meant, and not any of those social distinctions which have been referred to by hon. Gentlemen opposite. I would, therefore, propose that the Amendment should be amended by substituting the word "higher" for "high" in the second line.

If that is the explanation which the Lord Advocate gives of this part of the Amendment, it seems to me that he has not met the objections which have been made, because he is confining the word "department" to a school. What he tells us is that when he speaks of a school under the same management as a State-aided school, he refers to an arrangement of this kind—there is a school containing two departments, a primary and a higher department, in which the primary is State-aided and the higher department is not State-aided, and he says that because a school containing two departments is under one government, the higher department is to be described as a separate school. The Lord Advocate's explanation makes the thing more difficult, and it will be perfectly impossible for the Scotch Education Department to draw up regulations that refer to an unintelligible clause that cannot be defined in any other way than that given by the Lord Advocate. It is an interpretation which is self-contradictory. When you talk of a school under the same management as the State-aided school, you are talking of two schools, and not of one school containing two departments. The Lord Advocate wishes to say that half of a school is another school.

I agree that the Amendment of the Lord Advocate is very unhappily expressed. It may or may not be that technically, in the language of the Education Department, a higher department is a separate school from a lower department, but I do not think that that would be a sufficient defence for the wording of an Act of Parliament being otherwise than ordinary people can understand. My objection to this Amendment goes a great deal deeper than that. The clause, as it now reads, in consequence of an Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, and accepted by the Government, says that—

"No aid shall be given to any school not being wholly or partially under public management or control."

The Lord Advocate is of opinion that there is a certain ambiguity in that phraseology—I am not convinced that there is—but at all events the principle is perfectly distinct. The principle of the Amendment which the Lord Advocate now proposes is totally different. It introduces a class of schools which are not in any sense under public management or control except in the sense that if they obtain a grant they must submit to inspection. Clearly we did not intend to admit such schools. I do not charge the Government with any intentional departure from an understanding, and therefore I am willing that the matter should be considered by the House to be open, because I think the Government must have misunderstood the Amendment which they accepted. But I would strongly urge that the principle now included in the Bill should be adhered to, and that we should not extend this grant to every voluntary school, even though it be not under public management.

Shall I now be in Order in asking whether the Lord Advocate will agree to bring in an Interpretation Clause?

I consider that the words are perfectly clear, and I do not intend to introduce any such clause.

I must join my appeal to that of the hon. Member, on the ground that otherwise the meaning of the clause will be extremely obscure. I hope that the Lord Advocate will withdraw his Amendment and re-introduce it in another form.

I beg to move the following Amendment:—

Clause, 2, page 2, line 33, leave out sub-section (4), and insert—"In transferring to the Scotch Education Department a sum of fifty thousand pounds to be applied in providing exhibitions or scholarships for secondary education to boys and girls selected by competition from State-aided public schools."

I do not wish to occupy much of the time of the House with this Amendment. The point of it is to set aside £50,000 for the purpose of providing exhibitions or scholarships for secondary education. The great fault of this Bill is that it makes no such provision. Not a single penny will be applied by it to the benefit of the working classes. It all goes to the benefit of the middle classes instead of to that of the most numerous class of ratepayers, who are most unjustly burdened by taxation. Now, I contend that £50,000 is not a large sum to set apart for such a purpose as that I propose. It would only provide five thousand exhibitions of the value of £10 each for five years, or one thousand per annum. We hope that the Government will give us the benefit of a death bed repentance in regard to this matter, and that this Parliament, which has done so much evil, will finish up with this little act of justice which is so much desired. It is in order to give the Government this last chance that I move my Amendment.

I do not think the hon. Gentleman understands the magnitude of the question he raises. It has been discussed before. It would be impossible to recast the whole Bill at this stage.

The right hon. Gentleman has stated that it is impossible to recast the Bill at this stage, but he is only asked to accept Amendments. No one wishes to keep this Bill before the House longer than possible. It has already been discussed at some length. I wish, however, to say that I think the whole system of education has been framed with the idea of benefiting the State as much as the children. If scholarships and exhibitions are given as now proposed, they will give the children of poor parents the chance of getting to the top of the educational ladder—a state of things we ought to encourage. That is the reason why I support the Amendment of my hon Friend.

I beg now to propose an Amendment which is not on the Paper. The point is this: Under Section 2 power is given to the County and Town Councils to apply money for the relief of local rates. I think the Government have contended that by relief of local rates they do not mean the relief of landlords; and therefore I wish to insert words which will prevent, what I daresay the Government do not desire, the possibility of this money being applied in the relief of landlords' rates. There are certain rates to be fixed by Statute exclusively for the landlord, and I propose, in Clause 2, Sub-section 5, page 3, line 17, after the word "Scotland," to insert these words—

"Provided that no part of this money shall be applied in relief of rates payable by owners only."

This Bill is in the interests of ratepayers generally, and, therefore, I cannot exclude from the scope of the Bill any particular class of ratepayers.

I regret that the right hon. Gentleman should decline to accept this moderate Amendment, the object of which is to prevent money from being used by a County Council, in which the landlords have a majority, for the reduction of the rates paid by the landlords alone. I think the Government ought to permit the money to be used only for the reduction of rates common to landlord and tenant, or for the other purposes defined in the clause.

With reference to the Amendment standing in my name on the Paper providing that—

"No portion of the sum shall be applied to any University in which provisions shall not have been made for the full recognition of extra-mural teaching as qualifying for graduation," &c,

I may say that I hoped on a former occasion that we might have discussed this matter in connection with the Ordinances, so-called, of the Commission; but it was two o'clock in the morning when they were under consideration, and neither the First Lord nor the Lord Advocate said a word about this question. Now, Sir, we have no extra-mural teaching in arts in Scotland, although the Scotch Universities have plenty of power to prevent any of the evils arising that have been foreshadowed. But although we have no extra-mural teaching in arts in Scotland, we have extra-mural teaching in medicine and divinity. In Glasgow there is St. Magnus College, a well-organised medical school with a large infirmary, and all we ask for is that the students connected with this school—which has been founded and endowed by the citizens of Glasgow—shall have the same fair play as the medical students attending the classes of the University. In Scotland we had a monopoly. Edinburgh was the first to break through that monopoly, and to recognise extramural teaching. Glasgow has since been compelled to recognise it, as every other University has had to do. It was not right that the professors should be in a position to prevent students from being taught by men who were as able to teach as themselves. Since then most of the professors have been taken from the extra-mural lecturers. This proposal will affect both medicine and divinity, because you have competing schools in both sections. There is the school of the Free Church, the United Presbyterian school, the Evangelical Union, Congregationalist, and a number of ecclesiastical and theological academies. Then there is the school of the Faculty of Physicians of Glasgow and the Royal College of Surgeons at Edinburgh. Thus, as I said, both sections will be affected. In the old days before the General Medical Council took action, the sole teacher and the sole examiner was a professor; and unless a student sat under him, and was prepared to adopt all his fads, he ran a risk of being rejected. Fortunately, we have now got an assessor, but, at the same time, we think that the extramural schools should have some voice in the Governing Body. This is a question which ought not to be brought on at the fag end of a Session, or at three o'clock in the morning; and though I do not intend to move the Amendment which is down in my name, or to go to a Division, we can still bring up this matter on the Estimates. When we have the final Ordinance of the Commissioners, and when we see the course they are going to adopt, we shall know what to do. If they take the course that was foreshadowed by the Member for one of the Divisions of Manchester (Sir Henry Roscoe), we shall not perhaps raise very much objection. But we had better wait till we know what they intend to do, and we shall be able to discuss it then. Under these circumstances, and with a view to enable the Government to get through their business, I will withdraw the Amendment.