I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he has had his attention called to a new scheme for Jarvis's Charity, in the parishes of Stanton-upon-Wye, Letton, and Bredwardine, in Herefordshire, which proposes to divide that Charity, and to assign £49,000, or thereabouts, to a new foundation, to be called "The Herefordshire Endowment," for a county or middle-class school, leaving about £31,000 to be administered as a parochial charity in the places named; if so, whether this plan will oust the Parish Councils or meetings of those parishes from getting any, or the same, right of management under the new Local Government Act which they would have had of the £49,000 if there had been no new scheme; and if he is aware that the original Charity was, by the will of he founder Jarvis, who died in 1793, to be administered for the benefit of the poor of the above parishes; and, if so, whether he will lay the Scheme on the Table of this House to enable its opinion to be expressed on the proposed application of the funds, and delay the operation of the Scheme until after the coming into operation of the new Local Government Act, so that the new Local Bodies may, at any rate, express their views on the new Scheme, dealing with the Charity in a way at variance with the founder's will?

I have recently approved a Scheme for the above Charity, under the Endowed Schools Acts, by which, after making due provision for all the charitable and educational objects to which the income of the endowment has been hitherto applied, a sum of £14,000 (not £49,000) is formed into a separate foundation, under the name of "The Herefordshire Educational Endowment," to be dealt with by a future Scheme for higher education in Herefordshire, and in the meantime to be administered by a Joint Committee on the lines of the Joint Committees appointed under the Welsh Intermediate Education Act, which will prepare and submit the proposed Scheme for the consideration of the Charity Commissioners. With regard to the residue, Schemes framed under the Endowed Schools Acts are not affected by the Local Government Act of 1894, but the Scheme makes due provision for the election of representative Governors by the Parish Councils of the three parishes affected. I am aware that George Jarvis left the property to trustees, for certain charitable objects in connection with the poor of the three parishes. The Scheme can only be laid before Parliament in the manner provided by Section 13 of the Endowed Schools Act of 1873.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether, in framing the Regulations under The Local Government Act, 1894, he will pay special attention to the importance of providing that ballots, either for the election of Parish Councils or to decide questions arising at parish meetings, shall be taken at the least possible cost; whether he is aware that any such expense as that relating to a County Council election would tend to make most important portions of the Act a dead letter, and would in many parishes exhaust the whole of the rating powers for the then current, year; whether he is aware that ballots in rural parishes of upwards of 3,000 inhabitants have been taken at an expense, including everything, of less than £3, and that this has mainly resulted from the appointment of a local returning officer, who has carried out the election for a very trifling fee, or even for no fee at all; whether he is aware that if existing paid officials are appointed Returning Officers, and paid according to the existing rates, the absolutely requisite economy cannot be carried out; and whether he will, either by fixing a scale by the Regulations or by giving instructions to the County Councils, secure that all ballots under the Act shall be carried out at a very trifling expense?

The Local Government Board in framing, their Regulations as to polls at elections of Parish Councillors and polls consequent on parish meetings, will be desirous of not imposing any duties which can be avoided, so that there may be no unnecessary expense. The scale of expenses as regards the elections will be prescribed by the County Council. If the services of suitable persons as presiding officers and clerks can be obtained without remuneration or at a nominal fee as suggested, it would, of course, materially diminish the expenses.

Might it not do some good if a special circular were addressed to the County Council on the point?

I think that point is worthy of consideration.

I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he will inquire from the correspondent of the Radway School, in Warwickshire, how long it has been closed, and when it will be reopened; and whether he can state what is the maximum length which is recognised by the Department as proper for the summer holidays at an elementary school in a rural district?

I will make the inquiry suggested by the hon. Member. The length of holidays given at a public elementary school rests in the discretion of the managers, the only condition laid down by the Department being that the school must meet at least 400 times in the school year.

On behalf of the hon. Member for -North Louth, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he will inquire whether, in the County Down Royal Irish Constabulary, Catholics secure their fair share of promotion; is it the case that the County Inspector and three out of the four District Inspectors are Freemasons, and that of the 14 acting sergeants 10 are Freemasons; and whether this exercises any effect on the advancement of Catholics in the Force?

I am informed by the Inspector General that religion is not, and never has been, an element for consideration in the matter of qualification for promotion in the Constabulary. The principles which are laid down for the guidance of County Inspectors in making their selections for promotion are—(1) efficiency in the performance of duty, (2) steadiness of conduct, (3) ability to write Reports, (4) physical fitness, (5) aptitude for command, and (6) length of service. Of the eight promotions made to the rank of acting sergeant during the past 12 months in the County Down, five men were Protestants and three were Catholics, and of the 14 men of that rank now serving in the county, nine are Protestants and five Catholics. The Inspector General has no official knowledge as to whether the officers and men now serving do or do not belong to the Society of Freemasons, and in this connection I may remind my hon. Friend that the oath provided by Section 17 of the 6 Will. IV., c. 13, to be taken by all persons entering the Constabulary specifically exempts that Society from the prohibition placed upon members of the Force. The Inspector General is assured that the fact that a man may be a Freemason exercises no effect whatever on his advancement.

How is it that every sergeant in the Royal Irish Constabulary is a Protestant?

That is not the case.

May I ask whether the Society of Freemasons in Ireland is a secret society; and, if so, whether it is the only secret society of which a member of the Royal Irish Constabulary can be a member?

I suppose that in Ireland as elsewhere it is a secret society; but I really do not know anything more about it.

1 beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state the number of men at present serving in the Royal Irish Constabulary who are registered as Presbyterians, and how many of these are quartered at stations where no Presbyterian places of worship is within reach; and whether he can also state the respective numbers of Episcopalian and Presbyterian Head Constables who have been promoted to the rank of District Inspector during the past three years?

The number of Presbyterians in the Constabulary on January 1 last (which is the most recent information upon the subject now in possession) was as follows:—Head constables, 10; sergeants, 103; acting sergeants, 30; constables, 425; total, 568. It is a rule of the Service that a man shall not, if it can be avoided, be kept at a remote station where he is not within a reasonable distance of his place of worship longer than 12 months, and officers are instructed to call attention to such cases in order that any disadvantage under which individual policemen might labour in this matter might be remedied by removal to some other locality. The Inspector General is not aware that this rule has been infringed in any case; but if it should be so, the case would receive attention upon its being made known. Within the last three years four Protestant head constables have been promoted to the rank of District Inspector. Of these one was a Presbyterian and the other three were Protestants of other denominations.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether it is within his knowledge that there exists in the burgh of Ayr a practice on the part of the Procurator Fiscal, in connection with prosecutions arising out of the Dog-Muzzling Order now in force there, after service of a summons, and before the hearing of the case in open Court, of writing a letter to the accused informing him, or her, that it will not be necessary to attend the Court if a certain sum of money is previously sent him, and then, on payment of such sum being made, accepting it for penalty and expenses, and dropping the case, but refusing an account of the money; whether the practice referred to is a recognised one; and, if not, whether it will be discontinued; and whether he will call for an account of the money so exacted and its application?

Upon inquiry I find that the statement in the first paragraph of the question is substantially correct, and that more than one case of the kind has recently accurred. The practice appears to require explanation, and I am informed that in at least one other place where, the Muzzling Order is in force, a fine of 2s. 6d. is the penalty imposed, and no expenses are charged. I propose to bring the matter under the notice of the Provost of Ayr, and to ask him whether an account of the money paid in name of expenses, and of its application since the Muzzling Order came into operation, can be supplied.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland is he aware that the Trustees of the Erasmus Smith Endowment do not know whether they are fulfilling any part whatever of the one essential and primary obligation under which alone they have received the endowment—namely, to give free intermediate and University education to all the children of all the tenants on all the Irish estates of Erasmus Smith, and to 20 other poor children within two English miles of his schools at Galway, Drogheda, and Tipperary; whether, if the Protestant Judicial Commissioner refuses to sign a Draft Scheme, the endowment will remain in exclusively Protestant hands, as it has remained during the last 225 years; and whether, in view of the fact that the Governors of the Erasmus Smith Schools put before the Educational Endowments (Ireland) Commissioners in 1886 a Draft Scheme containing a Conscience Clause, which exempted Catholic pupils attending the Erasmus Smith Schools from receiving Protestant instructions, he can take any steps to a Scheme being agreed to under which, if the endowments are vested in Catholics, the Protestants may be protected by a similar Conscience Clause?

It appears from the Reports of the successive Commissions which have inquired into the case of the Erasmus Smith Endowments that the education which the Governors are under an obligation to provide is subject to religious and denominational conditions and restrictions which prevent Roman Catholic pupils from availing themselves of it. It is a question upon which the Executive Government has no means of forming an opinion how far these religious restrictions and conditions must prevail, or must be regarded as essential and primary, in order to give effect to the intention of the founder. If the Judicial Commissioners under the Educational Endowments Act of 1885 do not concur in signing a Scheme, the endowments will continue to be administered in accordance with the existing Charters and Statutes and the Rules framed by Erasmus Smith in his lifetime, until altered by lawful authority such as an Act of Parliament, Charter, or Decree of the Court of Chancery. The Executive Government has no authority to interfere with the Judicial Commissioners in the discharge of their duties, and, I am advised, has no means of ascertaining whether the endowments of Erasmus Smith can be vested in Roman Catholics, or subjected to a Conscience Clause, without vitiating the intention of the founder.

I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education when he expects to issue the Return giving the details of the incomes of public elementary schools which some months ago he said he hoped would be ready in June?

The printing of this Return, which is a very bulky one, is taking longer than was anticipated, and I do not think it can lie issued before October.

I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether, in the case of St. John's, Wakefield, Church of England School, notwithstanding the fact that the managers notified to the Department that in the determining school year the parents of the children were compelled to expend a sum equivalent to 1s. 4d. per child for books, the Education Department refuses to allow this sum to be taken into account in calculating the fees now chargeable?

The sum in question was not a charge for the use of books, but a sum received for books sold to children, and cannot, therefore, be reckoned as part of the school fee in the determining year. Moreover, it was not entered in the school accounts for that year. The managers state that during the determining year the children were compelled to purchase books as a condition of being allowed to attend. I have to point out that such compulsion was illegal, and that if any complaint had been made to the Department at the time the managers would have been told that the children must be admitted, whether they bought the books or not, or the Government grant would be forfeited.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland how many Catholics and how many Protestants were on the County Wicklow Bench when the present Government came into Office in August, 1892, and if he has any objection to state the number of Protestants and Catholics who at the present date are Magistrates of the County Wicklow; and can he state what proportion of the population of Wicklow are Catholics?

When the present Government came into Office there were 92 Protestant and 8 Roman Catholic Magistrates in the County Wicklow. The numbers at present are 98 Protestants and 23 Catholics. Seventy-nine per cent. of the population of the county is Roman Catholic.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the rates over the Great Northern and other Irish Railways are the same per wagon for sheep as well as cattle, irrespective of the size or weight carried; and whether this is owing to any Regulations enforced by the Board of Trade?

The maximum rates for the conveyance of live stock on Irish railways are embodied in the Railway Rates and Charges Order Confirmation Act, 1892, and were agreed to by the Irish traders at the time of the passing of that Act. The maximum rate for a truck load is the same for sheep as for cattle, the load being limited to such number as may reasonably be carried in the truck. As more sheep can be got into a truck than cattle, the position is scarcely as stated in the hon. Member's question.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the 10 recently appointed Inspectors of workshops in London cover the same area as 140 Sanitary Inspectors; whether the total salaries of the first named amount to only £1,000 per annum, whilst those of the last named run to £20,000 per annum; and whether he can furnish the number of notifications sent to the workshop Inspectors by the Local Authority, and the number of complaints of insanitation sent from the Inspectors of workshops to the Sanitary Authorities in London only?

I do not know how the figures of 140 and £20,000 are arrived at, but it is the case that since 1892 I have appointed 10 Inspectors' assistants, in addition to the ordinary factory staff, for the special duty of inspecting workshops in the County of London, with salaries of £100 rising to £150; and that in the same time 124 Sanitary Inspectors have been appointed under the Public Health Act, 1891, in the same area and for the most part with the same salary. The duties of the former are confined to workshops; those of the latter are much wider. The number of notifications sent to the workshop Inspectors by the Local Authorities is 292. The number of complaints of insanitary workshops sent by the Inspector of workshops to the Local Authorities is 1,315. I take this opportunity of acknowledging the hearty co-operation of the Medical Officer of the London County Council with the Inspectors of workshops and his readiness to inquire into all cases neglected by the Local Authorities.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether, and if so when, steps can be taken to carry out the recommendation of the Washington Conference that the complete alphabet of the Morse Code be inserted in the International Code Book for optional use, with special reference to night signals at sea?

The International Code of Signals Book is now under revision by a Committee consisting of representatives of the Admiralty, the Board of Trade, the Trinity House, and Lloyd's. I understand that the question of inserting the Morse Code in the Book for optional use as recommended by the Washington Conference is receiving their careful consideration, but no definite decision on the point has yet been arrived at, although there is obviously a strong primâ facie case for adopting the recommendation.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he will give instructions, when the auxiliary assistance is engaged at the end of the year for the Christmas pressure, that preference shall be given to suitable persons who are out of employment?

It is essential, when auxiliary service is required at the Post Office, that only men of known and proved character should be employed, while, in the case of those whose employment lasts during a portion only of each day, care has to be taken that their total earnings from the Department and outside are not less than 18s. a week. Subject to these provisoes, I gave orders some time ago that no new auxiliaries should be taken on who are in regular employment elsewhere.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that on Lady Day, 15th August, five Protestants were assailed and beaten by a Nationalist mob on Silverwood Road, Lurgan; extensive premises wrecked in Brownlow Terrace and Mary Street; and that the Railway Hotel and shops in Market Street were attacked, and several Protestants attacked in Edward Street during the evening; and whether any persons have been made amenable?

On the 13th instant a party affray took place at Silverwood, near Lurgan, and, no doubt as a result of the ill-feeling arising from this affray, a Catholic named Murray was next day attacked by Protestants. I have directed proceedings to be taken against a number of persons in both of these cases. Another affray took place at the same place on the 16th instant, when a man named Turkington was attacked by Catholics. Proceedings will be instituted in this case also. About 2 o'clock on the morning of the 17th instant some persons unknown smashed with stones the windows in eight houses in Lurgan, the estimated damage done amounting to about £13. The occurrence is apparently due to party feeling. No person has yet been made amenable for the window breaking.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any further communication has been received from the Dutch Government regarding the Costa Rica case; whether he can state the present position of the question or the purport of the last communication from the British to the Dutch Government; and what answer has been given by the Foreign Office to the protests of the New South Wales Government and its demand for redress?

There is nothing to add to the statement which I made on Friday night, except that we have since received the Report of the Law Officers on the question of arbitration, which will be considered without delay. I understood that the communications from the New South Wales Government have been fully answered by the Colonial Office.

I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether he has considered the question of putting a statue of Oliver Cromwell in some part of the Palace at Westminster; and whether he will be able to gratify the wish of many that there shall be such an addition to the statues there?

No series of historical personages can be complete without the inclusion of Cromwell. As I have already said, I have no funds at my disposal this year to defray the cost of a statue; but I have obtained the sanction of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer for making the necessary provision in the Estimates for next year.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Government will, before the close of the Session, make any statement as to the course which they propose to take with regard to the veto of the House of Lords?

This is a very grave question—the gravest, I may say, which will occupy the attention of the Government. But I do not think that I could, during the present Session, make any definite statement on the subject.

I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman, looking to the fact that several measures which have passed this House have been defeated by the exercise of this veto, and especially, from my point of view, to the fact that this Parliament has been rendered impotent in regard to Ireland by the rejection of the Home Rule Bill last year and of the Evicted Tenants Bill this year from the same cause, whether the Government intend or anticipate that, in the Queen's Speech at the opening of next Session, they will be able to define their policy?

It is those facts to which my hon. Friend refers that constitute in great degree the gravity of this question. I have already stated that the Government are fully impressed with the gravity of the question, and hope to be able to deal with it; but, as I have told my hon. Friend before, I do not think it would serve any good purpose, nor are the Government prepared at this moment to make a definite statement on the subject.

May I ask whether it is not a fact that the two Bills referred to were rejected in this House by a large majority of the votes of Members from England and Scotland?

I have already stated that I am not a Separatist to the degree that are gentlemen opposite— [Mr. SEXTON: Conservative gentlemen]—and I recognise no distinction between the votes of Members of this House, or between the nationality from which they come.

But, as a fact, were not the Bills referred to carried in this House by the preponderance of Ireland, which has a larger share of representation than it ought to have.

I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether the late Sir E. Landseer's picture of the Duke of Wellington revisiting the field of Waterloo with his daughter-in-law, the Marchioness of Douro, is to be permanently located in the provinces, where it has been for some years; and whether he will endeavour to secure for the present generation of Londoners an opportunity of seeing it either in the National Gallery or at South Kensington?

I am informed by the Director of the National Gallery that Sir Edwin Landseer's picture, entitled "A Dialogue at Waterloo," was removed from South Kensington to the National Gallery with the rest of the Vernon Collection, in 1876, and remained there until 1883, in which year it was lent to the National Gallery of Ireland, where it has been ever since. It is not at present proposed to recall the loan, as, owing to the large size of the picture, there is not sufficient space for its exhibition here.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the original donor stipulated that the picture should be kept in London?

I will call the attention of the Trustees of the National Gallery to what the hon. Member says.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland(l) whether the Local Government Board have yet published a Provisional Order in respect of the Labourers' Acts Inquiry, held by their Inspector at Trim last November; if not, for what cause, and who is responsible for the delay; and (2) how many representations came before that Inquiry, and how many of them have been sanctioned by the Local Government Board?

(1) The Provisional Order has not yet been published, but it is ready to be issued. A printed draft of the Order was sent to the Guardians on the 16th instant for perusal, and on receipt of their reply the Order will be signed. The delay has been occasioned by the necessity for procuring consents to the taking of certain sites. The first batch of these consents was received by the Local Government Board on the 25th of July, and the remainder on the 8th instant. (2) The number of cottages included in the Guardians' scheme was 162, and the number about to be authorised is 81.

Does the right hon. Gentleman think four years a proper amount of time to be occupied in carrying out these schemes?

It seems a long time for an operation of this kind. I am not aware of any other reason than that given for the delay.

I have known a case which has taken five years.

I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether, in view of the continued complaints of trawling near our coasts and its destructive effects, Her Majesty's Government will take steps during the Recess of carrying out the recommendations of the Select Committee on the Sea Fisheries to extend the territorial limit for fishing purposes; and whether he is aware that already certain Foreign Powers, for example, Denmark, Norway, and Portugal, do exercise jurisdiction for fishing purposes beyond the three-mile limit?

As regards the last paragraph of the hon. Member's question, I am informed by the Foreign Office that the jurisdiction of four miles for fishing purposes has been claimed by Norway. They are not aware of any such claim on the part of Denmark. She is a party to the North Sea Fisheries Convention, which fixes the limit at three miles. Portugal has an arrangement with Spain fixing the limit at six miles, but it is not applicable to the vessels of other powers. Claims of this kind beyond the limit generally recognised by International Law can only be exercised over the vessels of Foreign Powers with the express or tacit assent of those powers. The proposal made by the Select Committee on Sea Fisheries, who reported that they were sensible of the difficulties of making International Regulations, is one for the consideration of the Foreign Office and the Board of Trade.

On behalf of the hon. Member for the Tunbridge Division of Kent, I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether the managers of Painscastle National School, Hay, have been ordered by the Department to make extensive alterations within 12 months, including the provision of a cloak room and a new store; whether he is aware that the school possesses now a large porch fitted up as cloak room, and is well warmed by a fireplace; and whether he will make further inquiries before these demands are insisted on?

In the last Annual Report on this school, after the inspection in May, the managers were told that a cloak room should be provided, and that a stove was needed to heat the school properly. Her Majesty's Inspector stated that there was no cloak room, and that the children's clothes were hung on pegs round the school room. Any representations the managers make will be duly considered.

I desire to ask whether in the latest Post Office Circular the Postmaster General announces that it is not competent for any Post Office servant to become a member of a District Council, nor even to offer himself as a candidate, while, as regards Parish Councils, before one can serve he must obtain the permission of the head of the Department through his superior officer; whether, having regard to the answer given the other night by the Secretary to the Treasury, the Postmaster General intends to modify this Circular, so as to enable Post Office servants to serve either on District Councils or on Parish Councils, without asking for any previous consent of their superior, provided that such service does not interfere with the discharge of their duty to the State?

I desire to thank my hon. Friend for having given me private notice of the question. The date of the Regulation he will see is the 14th of August, and the answer of my right hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury was given on the 16th of August. No doubt under pressure from the House of Commons the decision of the Treasury was slightly modified, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the Post Office will not be behind other Departments in the matter.

I wish to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any official news regarding the extradition of Jabez Balfour?

Yes, Sir; it is correct that the Federal Judge has given an opinion in favour of the extradition.

I wish to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in order to save a Debate and Division late to-night, he can make any statement with regard to the Supplementary Vote of £80,000 which is being asked for Uganda and British Central Africa? I understand that the Uganda Vote has already been explained, but that for British Central Africa has not been explained.

The right hon. Baronet is quite right when he says that it was contemplated that this Uganda Vote should be included in the previous discussion, and there is no new feature in connection with it. The Vote has nothing to do with the provision of a railway, and the amount could not be included on the previous occasion because matters were not sufficiently far advanced. With regard to the second Vote, the fact is this, that the British Central Africa Protectorate has not yet cost this country any money; but it has lately been necessary to undertake very considerable operations against the Slave Trade and the Arabs who are prosecuting it in that particular district. Those operations have been exceedingly successful, and their beneficial results have already become apparent in the protectorate. They have cost a good deal of money, and it is that extra expense which renders so large a Vote necessary. I should say, in addition, that the Vote will not be for this year only, because a protectorate of this kind must, until it pays its own way, cost the country something. The bulk of the £35,000 asked for has been incurred in operations against the Slave Trade.

May we expect that in the future there will be a permanent charge on this country for the administration of Central Africa?

Yes, the moment has arrived for that; but the charge will not be so large in future. It will not be so much as this year's Vote.

Is it intended to take the Education Vote to-night? I understand that there is a very large amount of business in front of it, and that it is very unlikely to be reached.

My hope and expectation is that the Education Vote will be taken to-night. I see nothing on the Paper, and I have received no information to lead me to think it may not be reached at an early hour this evening; perhaps directly after dinner. If we have not that good fortune it will have to stand over.

After what hour will it not be taken?

I cannot name any hour. We recognise the Vote as a most important one, which must have reasonable time for discussion.

Is it intended to take the Votes in the Order in which they stand on the Paper?

The Scotch Members understood on Friday that we were to take the Scotch Secretary's Vote first to-day, but if the Irish Votes are to precede it we shall have no chance.

I never heard of any arrangement except that the Votes should be taken in the order in which they stand.

That seems to me very singular.

In regard to the Education Vote, will the right hon. Gentleman undertake that it shall come on at an hour when the Debate can be reported in the Press?

I would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Third Reading of the Appropriation Bill could not be taken on Friday in order to allow hon. Members to get away early on Saturday?

As to that, I need not tell the hon. Member it is not in my power to fix the time. It is only in the power of the House to fix a day for the termination of the Session, and I cannot press the House to take its business more rapidly than Members in all parts think advisable. What was contemplated was that we should take Committee of Supply to-day and to-morrow, and the Report of Supply on Wednesday. That would enable the Session to be concluded on Saturday. Of course, if the House were willing to take Report of Supply on Tuesday—to finish Committee to-day and to leave what Votes were over to be discussed on Report, we might finish on Friday, which perhaps would be the more convenient course; but we cannot press that upon the House if it does not desire it. On Wednesday it is intended to take the Lords' Amendments to the Scotch Local Government Bill. I do not know how much time that will occupy, but there will only be left a short period for the discussion of the Report of Supply if it takes much time. However, beyond the Education, the Irish and the Scotch Votes, there is very little likely to call for much discussion. It is, however, entirely for the House to determine what they wish in the matter.

Will the right hon. Gentleman answer my question?

I cannot give any undertaking on that subject. I can only repeat the hope that the Education Vote will come on at a reasonable time.

When will the Lords' Amendments to the Local Government (Scotland) Bill be circulated?

To-morrow morning.

And the consideration of them will not be taken before Wednesday?

No.

I wish to ask the attention of the House for a brief time while I recall the circumstances under which the Draft Report of the Chairman of the Select Committee on the Irish Land Acts was published in certain papers, and in doing so I desire to make a personal explanation. It may be in the recollection of the House that on Thursday last the hon. Member for North Kerry drew the attention of the House to the publication in The Times of the particulars of the Draft Report of the Chairman of the Select Committee, and the Chief Secretary, who intervened in the observations which followed the statement of the hon. Member for North Kerry, told the House that that question had been raised very properly at the meeting of the Committee, and that the feeling of the Committee was that whoever had made this communication to the Press had been guilty of an act of impropriety, and to some extent an act of disloyalty to his colleagues on the Committee. The hon. Member for North Louth then put the question to you, Mr. Speaker, whether the newspapers which published these particulars should not be deprived of the privilege they enjoy of reporting the proceedings of this House, and you stated, in reply, that the newspapers might not be so guilty as the person who communicated the news. I now desire to call attention to a paragraph which appeared in the London correspondence of The Free-man's Journal of Friday, August 17, this being a paper with a large circulation in Ireland managed by a Board of Directors, the Chairman, and a member of which sit in this House, and a member of which was also, I believe, on the Select Committee. The paragraph ran as follows:—

"Mr. Sexton rendered a public service in drawing attention yesterday to the breach of faith committed by the representatives of the Orangemen in giving copies of the Draft Report to a certain newspaper. I need not say that the publication of that document does not include any special amount of enterprise, and if the Nationalist Members of the Committee took the same low view of their obligations as the Orangemen it could have been published in The Freeman as early as in any paper. A certain Scotch newspaper, I am told, had six columns of the Report, giving many paragraphs since omitted. The Committee sat again yesterday, and the revision of the Report was proceeded with. That revision was of an extensive character, and rendered the published Reports completely misleading in nearly every important respect."

I desire to point out that that paragraph, in my judgment, casts a very serious reflection upon all the Members of the minority on the Committee, if it does not amount to an absolute and distinct allegation that they are responsible for the publication of the Reports. It certainly circumscribes the area of the charge, and points out that the Members who were responsible for the breach of Parliamentary etiquette were the Orange Representatives. That can only apply to myself or the hon. and gallant Member for North Down (Colonel Waring), as we are the only two persons on the Committee who are supposed to represent in any way the Orange interest in Ireland. I desire at once to give the most emphatic denial to the allegations contained in that paragraph. Neither I nor my hon. and gallant Friend ever communicated any Report to any newspaper on the subject, and no Member of the minority on the Committee has had any share whatever in conveying to the Press what purported to be the full Draft Report of the Chairman of the Committee. I hope that the House will not think that I have intruded in any way upon its time in making this personal explanation. The paragraph is couched in very serious language, and seems to convey an imputation upon Members of this House, amounting in effect to a breach of the Privileges of this House. I am, however, quite content with the opportunity which has been given to me to call attention to the subject, and of denying for myself and my hon. Friends the Members of the minority that we have had any share in conveying to organs of the Press the Draft Report of the Chairman.

The only observation I will make upon the statement of the hon. Gentleman is that I believe Members of the House are bound to accept his assurance as far as concerns himself; but I am not aware that he is in a position to give an assurance on the part of others—[Cries of "Oh!"]—I am entitled to say that, and certainly I am not aware that there is any law or practice of the House which binds the House to accept the assurance given by a Member on behalf of others who ought to be here to give it themselves.

I may say that I was asked, and other Members of the minority of the Committee were asked, to communicate to the Press this Draft Report. We were told by representatives of certain newspapers that if we did not other organs would get it, and were in possession of it. I consulted my friends, and we all agreed together that whatever might occur in any other quarter we would be bound by the confidential nature of the Draft Report until it was presented to the House, so that I am in a position to speak on behalf of my hon. Friends who are not here, as we all agreed to act together.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how it was that an English Vote was to be taken before the Scotch Secretary's Vote, and said he had understood that the last-named Vote was to be taken first in Committee of Supply.

The other day when we agreed to postpone certain Votes the first appeal was made to me by my hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon (Mr. Lloyd-George) with regard to the Registrar General's Vote. It was a case of first come first served, and my hon. Friend (Mr. R. Wallace) was behindhand on that occasion. The Scotchmen being next they got the next place, and then came the Irishmen, who got the third place.

said, that many years ago a Royal Commission expressed the opinion that, in the public interest, it was very desirable that all Registers of Births, Deaths, and Marriages should be deposited at Somerset House. Acting upon that opinion the Registrar General of that day issued an earnest request to the Nonconformist Bodies to give up possession of their various Registers. They very cheerfully complied, and a large number of Registers were deposited at Somerset House; an Act being passed making the Registrar General their custodian. Some of the Registers deposited were of considerable historical and biographical interest, and for 40 years the previous owners of these Registers had had free access to them, and facilities had been accorded to them to inspect them. Within the last few years these facilities had been withdrawn, and now those most interested in them had to pay the same fees as the rest of the public for consulting the Registers; whilst they had to conduct their researches in the midst of a crowd of persons who were engaged in searching modern Registers. They thought the hard-ship thus inflicted was all the greater, because facilities were given freely at other public places, such as the British Museum, the Record Office, the Library of Lambeth Palace, and even in the Wills Department of Somerset House itself. The reasons assigned by the Registrar General for withdrawing such facilities were that he had discovered, after 40 years, that he had no power to remit the statutory fees; that the number of applicants had so increased that it was inconvenient to grant the former facilities, and that he had no room, and no clerk, at his disposal. He trusted that the Government would allow a restoration to be made to the Nonconformists of the facilities they had hitherto enjoyed. They were quite willing to submit to conditions as to days and hours, if the Registrar General thought fit to impose them. The additional expense that would be caused could be but very inconsiderable. Where there was a will there was a way. He hoped the Government would have the will, and he was satisfied that then the way would be found also. He also trusted that the Government would order a reprint of the catalogues of the old Registers.

The Secretary to the Treasury has asked me to reply to this question. I have consulted the Registrar General, and it appears that it is really a question of want of space. He is very much hampered at present for want of space, and has therefore been obliged to withdraw the facilities which Nonconformists at one time had of searching the Registers. I will make inquiries into the matter, and will endeavour to see whether some arrangement can be made for restoring the privilege of search, and if possible of providing another room for the purpose. I have no information with regard to the catalogues, but I will make inquiries as to whether the advice of the hon. Member can be carried out on that subject.

said, he wished to call attention to the Report published in January last in the Census of Wales, especially with reference to the language Return. In 1890 pressure was brought to bear upon the Government to introduce a new column into the Census Return in regard to language in Wales. The Conservative Government agreed to introduce such a column. Papers on the subject of language were distributed when the Census was taken, but the Welsh Members drew attention at the time to the fact that those papers were not properly distributed, that there were several parishes where no papers at all were distributed, and that in districts which were thoroughly well-known to be Welsh speaking the papers were printed in the English language, and the people were without proper instruction in their own tongue with regard to the method of filling up the Returns. The Registrar General's Report on the Returns contained a grave reflection upon the character of the Welsh people. The Registrar General seemed to have formed a very strong view in regard to the language question. He appeared to have some preconceived opinion on the subject, and seemed very much disturbed because that idea had been upset by the Returns. It was found that out of a population of 9,500,000, 508,000 persons spoke Welsh exclusively, and had no practical knowledge of English. Commenting upon this, the Registrar General said—

"The instruction seems clear enough. Nevertheless, abundant evidence was received by us that it was either misunderstood or set at naught by a large number of those Welshmen who speak both languages, and that the word 'Welsh' was very often returned when the proper return would be 'both.'"

No indication was given as to the nature of the Registrar General's "abundant" evidence. The Registrar General went on to say that the Returns were absolutely unreliable, that a certain amount of suspicion attached to them, and that no weight whatever could be attached to the Returns made by the people themselves regarding the language they talked. This meant either that these people did not understand the Returns or the instructions given with regard to them, or that they had made false Returns with regard to the language they habitually used. He need hardly say that that was a very grave allegation to make against a whole people, and it ought not to have been published with the sanction of the Government without some evidence of a more clear character than anything indicated in the Report. What was the ground on which the Registrar General came to this conclusion? He said that some householders returned their children as speaking the Welsh language, although they were only two years of age, and because two cases of this kind were detected the Registrar General came to the conclusion that the whole of the Returns were false. The Registrar General went on to state that he made a test, and discovered that a number of infants were returned as Welsh speaking. The fact that he made such a test indicated a preconceived notion with regard to the Return. He would like to know whether a similar test was made with regard to infants of English-speaking householders. But the test in either case was unnecessary, for the Return contained an ago column; and, besides, as a matter of fact, the Registrar General completely answered his own observations, because he stated further on that children of two years of age—infants, in fact—had been excluded from the Returns of language taken, yet, notwith standing this, he made the strong statement of which he (Mr. Lloyd-George) complained. But what did the Registrar General expect householders to do? A householder who habitually spoke the Welsh language naturally thought the proper thing to do was to return his children as speaking the same language as himself. Was there anything in that circumstance to justify an important State official in casting this grave aspersion on a whole people? This was a matter of some importance to the Welsh Members, who had been for years enforcing upon the Governments of the day the necessity of appointing Welsh-speaking officials in the Principality—Welsh-speaking County Court Judges, Inspectors of collieries and quarries, and other officials who would have to listen to the complaints of those who only understood their own language. But after the Report of the Registrar General the Census Returns were absolutely useless as regards the number of people reported as speaking Welsh. It was found that after the Census Returns appeared there were 500,000 people who did not understand a word of English. The clergy took alarm, seeing that it affected the position of their Church. Circulars were sent round by the Bishops, and the clergy became amateur detectives as to how the Census Returns were filled up in Welsh-speaking districts, and one or two suspicious cases had been discovered. The Bishops communicated with the Registrar General, and this official incorporated in his Report, which now appeared in the Blue Book, some suspicious evidence got up and cooked by a number of clergy for political purposes. Why was that evidence not produced, so that the House of Commons might sift and test it—a duty it was better qualified to perform than the Registrar General. He protested against anything of the kind. It was clear from the general tenour of the Report that the Registrar General had taken a strong view of this question. The Registrar General came to the conclusion that the Welsh language was only spoken by a few mountaineers, and when he discovered from the Census Returns that his ideas were upset he was naturally very indignant, and instead of setting himself in an impartial frame of mind to sift the evidence, to go through the Returns and to arrange and collate the facts, he set himself deliberately to prove that the whole of the Welsh people were liars. That was a very serious matter. He submitted to the President of the Local Government Board that it was nothing more nor less than an attempt to buttress up the theory which the Registrar General had of the Welsh language, for he had clearly come to the conclusion that the Welsh-speaking inhabitants were very few and were dying out. In the first place, the Registrar General printed an insignificant supply of forms in the Welsh language. He knew of a case where there were about 750 householders in a particular parish. It was an eminently Welsh-speaking district. He did not believe that there were 30 English-speaking householders in the whole district, and yet to that district there had only been sent down 40 or 50 Welsh forms. To another district, which was a purely Welsh-speaking one, the Registrar General sent only three or four forms which were printed in the Welsh language, and then he complained that the Welsh-speaking population seemed to have set the instructions at defiance, and forthwith issued a Blue Book stating that they either did not understand those instructions or had lied. He asked the right hon. Gentleman whether he was prepared to defend such an aspersion cast upon a whole people upon strong partisan evidence which had been got together simply for political purposes by the enemies of the Welsh-speaking population, by men who were simply fighting for their own emoluments there. Was the Registrar General prepared to justify the conclusions of this Blue Book founded on the suggestions of the Bishop of St. Asaph and other political partisans? The conclusions were based on no evidence whatever. They were produced by a person who sat somewhere in an office in Whitehall. He knew nothing about the Principality, and had perhaps only visited it once or twice in his life. He wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the evidence justified the inference of the Registrar General, and, if not, whether a fresh Report could be issued on this subject by somebody who, with a more impartial frame of mind, or that one Englishman who could approach the question in a judicial frame of mind should be instructed to go through the Returns so far as they affected the Principality of Wales, and produce some Return on which Parliament could rely. He would also point out that there was no kind of Report at all upon such a matter as the decrease of the population in the agricultural districts, or upon the occupations pursued by the people in different parts of the country, upon overpopulation and other matters. He would further point out that while there was a separate Report as to the Scotch and Irish Census there was no separate Report with regard to the Welsh Census. In a case of this kind there ought to be a separate Return for the Principality.

said, he had had no notice that the hon. Member was going to raise this question.

said, he had told the Under Secretary to the Local Government Board that he intended to raise the question.

said, that until he came to the House he did not know that the hon. Member intended to raise this important question, and consequently he had had no opportunity of communicating with the Registrar General upon the subject. He had no information on the subject other than that which he could gather from the Report. He did not think, however, the hon. Member was justified in saying that the Registrar General had accused the Welsh people of having deliberately lied, or of having deliberately made false Returns. What he gathered from the Report was that the view of the Registrar General was that a certain number of Welsh people, being enthusiastic Welshmen, had rather misunderstood the language of the Return, and had consequently been rather inclined to magnify the number of persons who spoke Welsh. [Cries of "Oh!"]

What does that mean except making a deliberate false return?

said, he did not think that it amounted to that. He thought the hon. Member had made the charge against the Registrar General on too high ground, and was of opinion that the Report did not justify the assertion that the Registrar General had accused the Welsh people of having deliberate intention to make false returns. That was his opinion. It would seem that children had been entered as speaking only Welsh when it was thought they ought not to have been entered at all. The paragraph did not, in his view, indicate that there had been any deliberate intention to make a false statement. All that was meant was that there had been a desire to increase unduly the number of persons speaking Welsh only. Whether the Registrar General was justified or not in his observations he could not say. He could only take the Report as it was, and he hoped that there would be some future opportunity of making the matter clear.

said, he thought it was impossible to read the Census Report without feeling that some of the Welsh parents were somewhat prophetical in their view as to the language to be spoken by their children when they reached maturity. It occurred to him that the Registrar General had made some remarks which were not necessary, and this was often the case in Government Returns. He rose to condemn in the strongest terms the language used by the hon. Member for Carnarvon respecting certain clergymen in Wales. He understood that the hon. Member accused those clergymen of having endeavoured to mislead officials, and, further, accused the Registrar General of being misled by correspondence which had taken place between him and the Bishops and clergy of Wales. That was a most grave accusation to bring against the clergy or ministers of any denomination. [Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: Hear, hear!] To accuse the clergy of Wales, and particularly such a clergyman as the Bishop of St. Asaph, of having wilfully made certain false returns was an extraordinary accusation, and one which ought not to have been made.

said, he did not make any statement of the kind.

said, that if the accusation was withdrawn he had no more to say on that point.

said, he did not withdraw the accusation, because no such accusation was made. He said the clergy had misled the Department, but he did not say they had done so wilfully.

said, he did not see how any gentleman living in Wales and knowing the facts could make statements misleading the Department without being guilty of conduct that deserved the severest reprobation.

But they do not know the facts.

said, they must have known the facts, because they were living on the spot, and he repudiated with scorn the allegation that these clergymen would endeavour to mislead a public official. With regard to the Bishop of St. Asaph, speaking as a friend of his, he declared there was no gentleman in Wales who was a more thorough Welshman or was more ardently attached to Wales than he was; and though a different opinion existed between the Bishop and hon. Gentlemen opposite, he was as much a Welshman as any one of them.

rose to a point of Order. Was the hon. Member in Order in speaking with respect to the nationality and character of the Bishop of St. Asaph on this Vote?

said, he could not say that the hon. Baronet was out of Order.

said, his object was to defend the Bishop from the aspersions which the hon. Member had cast upon him—[Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: Hear, hear!]—and he repeated they were absolutely and entirely undeserved. With regard to the question of a Quinquennial Census, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board would give them some assurance that he would consider the question of such a Census for the whole of the United Kingdom, giving certain facts relating to population which would be of great service.

said, he thought the tendency of the Report was undoubtedly such as had been described. He was afraid he could not agree with the right hon. Gentleman in his version, or his assumption, that the Registrar General did not impute motives. It looked from the whole Report as if there had been a deliberate intention to minimise the number of Welsh-speaking Welshmen in Wales. The Registrar General stated that the desire of many householders appeared to have been to add to the number of Welsh monoglots' and that parents had not only returned themselves as speaking Welsh, but also their children of a few days old. He did not think that was a very extraordinary thing for a Welshman to do. If a Frenchman resident in England had to make a return of his children's nationality he would put them down as monoglots, and in this case he did not see that any grave charge could be made against the Welsh people. It must be borne in mind that the language of Welsh children at home was Welsh, the only time when they had an opportunity of acquiring English being when they were at school. Schoolmasters could now, however, explain the lessons to Welsh children in the Welsh tongue, whereas formerly they were not allowed to do so. It seemed to him that this was a case which was not at all deserving of the censure which had been poured upon it by the Registrar General. Some of his hon. Friends had called attention to the necessity of providing proper Welsh Schedules in Welsh districts, and they had complained that proper Schedules had not been supplied. It had also been pointed out that in many cases the English forms supplied contained no language column. What was the inference from that? That, so far from the Return making out that there were too many Welsh-speaking people in Wales, the fact was that the Return fell under the number. There were whole blocks of cottages which were left without Schedules, and it was in the cottages that the people spoke the Welsh language. It was a curious fact that while the Registrar General inquired very closely and carefully into the case of Welsh children who were put down as Welsh-speaking, he did not say anything in the Report of a condemnatory character of the children put down in the Returns as English-speaking. He quite agreed that there had been a great use made of this Report to bolster up the claims of the Church Establishment. He did not accept the assumption that the Registrar General did not attempt to impute motives, and he did not think that official was well qualified to make such a Report. He joined most cordially in the protest made by his hon. Friend, and he hoped this Report would not be allowed to remain as it was, but that something would be done by the Government to give them an amended Report.

said, that speaking from personal knowledge he could bear testimony to the difficulty that occurred in making Returns at the time of the Census. His neighbours were in difficulties and came to him for assistance in filling up the Census Returns, saying they did not in the least know what the papers meant, and no Welsh forms were supplied to them. What took place in the district where he lived occurred throughout Wales generally, and complaints were made in the House shortly afterwards of the manner in which, in taking the Census of 1891, the officials failed to fulfil their obligations. In one district only 200 Welsh Census papers were distributed, although it contained a Welsh-speaking population alone of 10,000.

said, he could confirm everything that had been said as to the painful feeling that had been excited in the Principality by the Registrar General's Report. In his own constituency, as in other Welsh constituencies, there was great confusion in sending round the Census papers, the consequence being that many of those who filled them up did so imperfectly and at haphazard. He fully associated himself with the contention that there was animus in the Report. It was a painful thing to see highly-placed officials, whether in the State or the Church, allowing themselves to issue Reports of this kind containing expressions which would naturally lead those who were not well acquainted with the facts to form erroneous conclusions as to the number of Welsh-speaking people in Wales. The fact that a man spoke English was no indication of his sympathies or the language he used in daily life. Men who could speak English fairly well preferred to use Welsh in the ordinary affairs of life. The inferences which would naturally be drawn from the Report were either that the Welsh language was dying out or that the use of English was increasing, both of which were erroneous.

regretted that the right hon. Gentleman could not see his way to give some kind of a satisfactory answer to the question raised, because it would be necessary to press the matter upon his attention a little further. The right hon. Gentleman had paraphrased and endeavoured to explain away the objectionable expressions in the Report, and no doubt if it had been the right hon. Gentleman's own Report there would have been no occasion for these complaints. There was no complaint of the view of the right hon. Gentleman; the complaint was of the Registrar General. The right hon. Gentleman said, in effect, that he did not know this question was going to be raised. He could assure the right hon. Gentleman that that was no fault of his (Mr. Lloyd-George's). Several questions had been asked in the House on the subject; it was then pretty plainly intimated that the question would be further discussed when opportunity offered, and he took the precaution to place a Motion on the Paper for the reduction of the salary of the Registrar General, informing the Parliamentary Under Secretary to the Local Government Board what his reason was for proposing such reduction. It was not, therefore, their fault if the right hon. Gentleman was not posted up on this question. After what had been said, did not the right hon. Gentleman think there was a case for some further Departmental investigation? If he would promise an impartial inquiry into the mutter by an official of his Department in whom he had confidence—and there were several who knew Welsh, and the circumstances of the Welsh people thoroughly—then the Debate would for the present close, but in the absence of such a promise it would be the duty of the Welsh Members to press the matter a little further, and to adduce further arguments to enlighten and influence the right hon. Gentleman, since he seemed to know so very little about the subject, and had not been coached in it. With regard to what had fallen from the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir F. S. Powell), he could assure him that he did not intend to bring any charge against the clergy, or any ecclesiastical personage in Wales, of having wilfully misled the officials in this matter. What he did say was that he understood the Bishops in the Principality issued circulars to their clergy, instructing them to make inquiries with regard to the Census Returns, and that the "abundant evidence" referred to by the Registrar General in his Report was identical with the Returns made by the clergy to the various Bishops. He did not accuse the clergy of Wales of wilfully misleading the public or the Registrar General's Department on this question; but he did say that, having taken a very strong view of this question, knowing how much it affected the matter of the Establishment in Wales, they naturally did not take a very judicial view in regard to the subject. He had asked in this House what ground there was for the inference, of the Registrar General that there was "abundant evidence" that the Returns made by the Welsh people were not trustworthy, and the Minister replied that he did not know. In these circumstances, did not the President of the Local Government Board think it was a case for a Departmental inquiry to ascertain what the "abundant evidence" was? It might be that the Welsh people had misunderstood the instructions given in the Census papers; and if they had not misunderstood them a very serious imputation was made upon their veracity. To state that they had made Returns about the language they spoke, which the Registrar General did not believe, was to give them the he direct, and that was an imputation under which the Welsh people were not satisfied to rest.

did not think he could be expected to direct an inquiry by some independent person, but he would make inquiry himself, and would be prepared to make a statement at a future time. He would make special inquiries, and would communicate the result to the hon. Member publicly or privately. He could only now repeat he was persuaded the Registrar General never intended to make any such accusation as had been attributed to him. The utmost of which he complained was that there had been some exaggeration, and that some of the Welsh people had made returns that were not altogether to be relied upon. The only doubt he suggested was as to the number of those who could speak Welsh only. The Registrar General could not be considered to have said that the Welsh people purposely made false Returns.

regretted exceedingly that inquiry could not be granted, because the Registrar General, while blaming the Welsh people, made no reference whatever to the mistakes made by his Department in 1891—mistakes which were admitted in the House by Mr. Ritchie, who was at that time President of the Local Government Board. They could not possibly accept the offer of the right hon. Gentleman as adequate or sufficient, because the sources from which he would derive his information would be precisely those already utilised in producing this extraordinary Report. He hoped his hon. Friend would press the matter to a Division.

said, it might be that the right hon. Gentleman, in his reading of the Report, considered that it did not impute motives, and that the Registrar General had no malicious motives in passing the figures he did, but everybody looking through the Report would not have the same kindly feelings towards the Registrar General as the right hon. Gentleman. The object of the Welsh Members was to secure that there should be some amended Report, some real official documentary evidence from which no false impression should go out as to the number of Welsh-speaking people in Wales. They felt this was a serious matter for them, and they desired to extract from the right hon. Gentleman a promise that there should be issued an official statement in a form from which no false impression could be derived, giving the facts free from assumptions and inferences.

expressed the greatest reluctance to oppose the Government on a Division, even by way of formal protest, but to that extent he must join with his hon. Friends, unless the right hon. Gentleman would go a little further than he had done. There were two points they had pressed on his attention—namely, the untrust-worthiness of the figures and the obvious animus of the Report.

said, he would take occasion at a future time to disclaim on the part of the Registrar General any such intention as had been imputed to him. He felt quite certain, although some passages in the Report might seem to justify language which had been used, that the Registrar General never contemplated making such a charge. It was his intention to speak to the Registrar General on the subject in the utmost confidence that he would disclaim any such intention as had been imputed to him, and that he would give an explanation that would be perfectly satisfactory to the hon. Member, so he hoped the matter would not be pressed further, for he felt certain that after inquiry he would be able to relieve the minds of hon. Members.

inquired whether the right hon. Gentleman would make a further statement on the Report of Supply? It did not much matter what had been the intention or animus of the Registrar General; the important question was whether the Returns could be relied upon or not, and, if they could not, whether the instructions given had been such as could be understood by the Welsh people. What they wanted was a Report on this question upon which Parliament could rely, and which could be quoted in future proceedings in that House. He wanted to know whether the right hon. Gentleman would take steps to furnish the House with a proper Report on this question before the House met next Session?

could not give any such undertaking, but he would communicate with the Registrar General, and make a further statement on the whole subject on the Report stage.

said that, under these circumstances, he would withdraw his Amendment.

said, that for the work done under this Vote Scotland got £13,000, Ireland £157,000, and England £212,000. The population of Ireland and Scotland was about the same, but the difference in the grants to the two countries was very remarkable indeed, The reason was that a good deal of the cost of the work was thrown on the local rates in Scotland, while in Ireland and England it was paid for out of Imperial funds; which was another illustration of the unfair treatment meted out to Scotland. Original Question put, and agreed to. 2. £6,915, to complete the sum for Secretary of Scotland's Office.

I wish the hon. Gentleman would speak louder. If he is referring to the Crofters Bill he is not in Order.

said, the right hon. Gentleman had failed to carry out the promises and pledges he had given, and he attributed that to the supposition that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was too strong for him in the Cabinet, and that the right hon. Gentleman did not assert himself there as he ought to do. With regard to the Crofters Bill—

I have already pointed out that the hon. Gentleman is not in Order. The Secretary for Scotland cannot be attacked on a matter of that kind.

said, he bowed to the ruling of the Chair; but he thought he had a right to call attention to the fact that the right hon. Gentleman had not given effect to the pledges he had made. However, ho would ask the right hon. Gentleman for some information in reference to the Inspector of Constabulary for Scotland. He wanted to know why this gentleman dated his Reports from his private residence in Ross-shire? He sympathised with the Inspector's heart being in the Highlands, but he would like to know if the £250 allowed the Inspector for travelling expenses included the expenses of his travelling to and from his private residence? The Inspector of Constabulary was one of the Justices recently appointed by the Lord Lieutenant of Ross-shire. He had to complain that the Inspector spent too much of his time in travelling between his private house and Dingwall in attending Quarter Sessions. He would now proceed to refer to the charges of the Returning Officer in Ross-shire.

That matter does not come under this Vote.

On the point of Order. I wish to ask whether it is not the fact that though these charges fall on candidates, the control is in the hands of the Secretary for Scotland?

If the charges are paid by candidates the matter does not arise under this Vote. It does not amount to administration within the sense that the Secretary for Scotland is responsible for this particular matter.

Is he not responsible for the appointment?

That may be so; but he is not responsible for the conduct of the officer.

Oh, yes.

Is he not responsible for the conduct of the officer?

The officer acts under Statute, and the Secretary for Scotland is not responsible for that.

said, he must deal with the matter on another occasion. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would secure from the Treasury the money for the construction of the Garve and Ullapool Railway.

said, the Chancellor of the Exchequer on Saturday compared the Secretary for Scotland to St. Sebastian. He did not think saintship was the strongest point in the variegated character of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and certainly he could not understand why the right hon. Gentleman selected St. Sebastian as a parallel to the Secretary for Scotland, because St. Sebastian was well known to have been a young and dutiful warrior who was with difficulty killed by Domitian in his early youth. The Secretary for Scotland, he was sure, would not be displeased at his saying that youth was neither his (Sir G. Trevelyan's) strong point, nor his (Mr. Wallace's); and as for militant propensities, he did not know that he should be insulting the right hon. Gentleman were he to say that he was a lover of peace. But in this matter this saint would not have done, or abstained from doing, exactly what the right hon. Gentleman was doing in the connection with respect to which ho wished to make a few remarks. He referred to the griev ances of the professional waiters in Edinburgh. What this Society stated was that they were very much handicapped and otherwise ousted and put to a disadvantage in earning a living in their calling by the fact that the State-paid subordinate officials in the Public Departments of Edinburgh, and the macers of the Court of Sessions, messengers of the Exchequer, and officials of the Register House, who had salaries of from £90 to £150 a year, were enabled, through this endowment, to undersell them in the waiting market. Representations had been made to the right hon. Gentleman, which he held in his hand, but which he did not think he should be justified in reading to the House.

I think not.

said, then he would hold them as read. These representations asserted that there was a certain amount of irregularity and impropriety in the management of the Scottish Departments in this matter. The allegation was that those officers were not allowed to engage in this extra Departmental activity except upon days which were reckoned out of their six weeks' holiday; but the allegations made to him by the Waiters' Society were distinctly to the effect that that was not true, but that these officials were allowed to go out and employ themselves in waiting, and adding considerably to their incomes, and that their holidays were not to be curtailed. What he wanted to press on the right hon. Gentleman was whether he would not once for all institute a thorough and searching inquiry into the matter. The right hon. Gentleman ought not to be satisfied with a mere Departmental reply. The Scottish Public Departments required to be taken by the throat, to put it in plain Scottish, and if the right hon. Gentleman would get the truth out of them, he must apply his fist to that portion of their constitution. The waiters of Edinburgh had noticed that the Government had yielded to the pressure of the eight hours movement. It was notorious that one of the reasons put forward by the promoters of that movement was to provide employment for the unemployed. What the waiters of Edinburgh not unnaturally said was that £1,500, which was pocketed by the macers, messengers, and other officials in the Public Departments in Edinburgh in working 14 and 15 hours a day, might much better go to the relief of the unemployed section of their body. He understood that holidays were given to public servants in order that, after a temporary cessation of labour, they might come back more invigorated for the performance of their public duties. But the moment one of these officials got a holiday he proceeded to devote it to harder work than he was usually engaged upon. If he were to spend his holiday by romping up and down stairs with plates of meat and bottles in a heated atmosphere loaded with carbonic acid gas, he certainly would be rather unfitted for the discharge of his duties in the public interest. These off-days given to the Edinburgh officials wore scattered in doles throughout the year, and therefore were no good to the officials concerned, and he submitted seriously that those holidays might very well be dispensed with, with advantage to the Treasury. He submitted, further, that it was against the interests of decorum and propriety that these officials should be employed in this way. He would take an extreme case. The Lord Advocate would bear him out in saying that the Senators of the College of Justice were not only men who were solid, but were occasionally men of brilliant, parts. The right hon. Gentleman had known them as men of histrionic and literary capacities—people who wrote and sung their own songs with great delectation to their hearers. Suppose that some of these gentlemen chose to go on the "boards." He knew they would draw audiences every night, and that even upon two-thirds salaries they would add very considerably to their incomes. But was he to be told, if either Mr. Irving or Mr. Toole, or both of them, sent a remonstrance to the Government, that the Government could say it was no matter of theirs—that if these gentlemen did not occupy Court hours in this way there was no title to interfere? Yet that was what they said in regard to these subordinate officials. He would make a condition that that sort of double activity should not be possible in those cases. Take the case of a macer. He was not a small official; he was a dignified official. He had a salary, he wore a gown, and called out, "Silence in Court" every quarter of an hour in the College of Justice. Was it right that a person in that position should be found ranging over the whole country serving "hot and hot" between polished tin plates? He thought that the conduct of these officials in connection with epicurean proceedings was not consistent with that dignity that suited the administration of justice, nor the propriety that was befitting the appropriation of the resources of the country. He would ask the attention of the Government to another matter—namely, the extraordinary coincidence between the private festivities of Scotch Societies and the Departmental slack time of its public officers. The explanation that was made by the Scotch Departments was that they never gave a holiday to their officials except when there was a cessation or slacking of business in the Departments; and that when they gave these holidays they never asked, and did not know, what the officials did in the holidays. Well, he did not doubt that. The Department said it, and it was his duty to believe the Department, and he performed that duty with the best grace that he could. But then a remarkable thing took place, and it was this: that, whenever a great social function came off in Scotland, throughout the length and breadth of the country, by a most extraordinary coincidence, it became known in the Public Departments that on the very day when that social function was to take place there was also going to be a special cessation of public activity and of attention to public business to such an extent that they were able to allow one-third, or even two-thirds, of their official staff to get their regularly-appointed and promised share of their annual holidays; and when the appointed day arrived, whether it were in Edinburgh, in Inverness, in Oban, in Dumfries, or in any of the other principal towns of Scotland, there were found some officials, he would say many officials, of the College of Justice, of the Exchequer, and of the Register House on the spot, busy interrogating the guests as to their partiality for thick soup and clear, or, at a later period of the evening, confidentially inquiring whether they would have champagne or potatoes. He must say, for himself, that these coincidences had occasioned him, as he had no doubt they had occasioned the Secretary for Scotland, many difficult moments. He was not able to explain this, except by a reference to the doctrine of the pre-established harmony which the great philosopher Leibnitz employed to explain the connection of mind and body. When it was willed that a hand should rise, as that great man said, the thing took place as a matter of course, not as the result of cause and effect, but because the mind and body were like two clocks which had been wound up to strike continually at one point together. That was the only way in which he had been able to explain the continual, the most remarkable, he might say the mysterious, the almost miraculous and marvellous synchronism that subsisted in Scotland between the private festivities of Scotch Societies and the slack time of its public departments. He commended that matter to the Scotch Department, and he thought that some of the spare hours and some of the spare energy of Dover House might very well be applied to working out that problem with advantages which were not always found to emanate from that very leisured and "lotophagous" institution.

said, that a threatened man did wisely when he asked no questions. The storm had fallen, and he must say he had enjoyed it as much as anyone in the House, because everyone must consider that he had had a treat during the last few minutes. The three English Inspectors of Constabulary got each £750 to £850, and that was the salary of the Inspector of Constabulary in Scotland. He (Sir G. Trevelyan) did not think that, compared with the salaries paid to Chief Constables, Inspectors of Constabulary in Scotland should have one penny less. If there was any difficulty arising in the discharge of the duties of this official, through his living in Ross-shire instead of Edinburgh, or Glasgow, or wherever hon. Members might think he ought to live, the question must be reconsidered; but if the Inspector of Constabulary discharged his duties with great assiduity and completeness, they ought not to interfere wherever he chose to reside. The travelling allowance of £250 did not appear to be at all excessive. He was not responsible for the conduct of the Returning Officers, though he would always be glad to answer questions on any subject which the hon. Member might put to him. The Inspector of Constabulary had been appointed a Justice of the Peace, and had taken part in several decisions. He had represented to the official that that was not a wise course, and he had since then desisted. On the question of the waiters, the question was not one confined to Edinburgh, but the general conclusion to which the Government had come was that they should insist that their employés should undertake no offices that were incompatible with their giving to the performance of their official work the whole if their official time. In the case of Directorships of Companies—a class of business in which he hoped not only public servants but people of every degree were very cautious before they embarked—the Government did not approve and would not allow employés of its own to take Directorships which would take them away from the public offices during even five minutes of the time when public business was done; but they did not inquire what they were doing out of hours, and some very prominent public servants have been known to spend their time in literary labour. With regard to the waiting at night, there was no special irregularity. In the English public offices the messengers were allowed to wait at night—indeed, a very great number of them were well suited for that purpose from the character of their calling before they took the office of messengers. The matter was open to abuse as regarded waiting during the day, and he had not been satisfied with taking the reply of the Departments, but had written a letter requesting that the superintendent of the messengers should be informed that care must be taken in future to prevent any irregularities. He would consult with the Treasury, to see whether some general rule might not be made that messengers, like other people, should take their holidays in one succession of days, or, at any rate, in two long holidays in the course of the year, and that no special single holiday should be given if there was the least suspicion that these holidays were for the purpose of waiting. He would lay down Rules which would prevent any such abuse in the future, and he would signify to the heads of these Departments that a holiday must never be given to enable a man to do any work outside his office.

hoped that the official resident in Ross-shire, to whom reference had been made, would take the hint as to his action in small local matters in the County of Ross. He (Dr. Clark) spoke on a former occasion very strongly indeed as to the remarks of the Assistant Secretary, but he had had more accurate information since, and he regretted he had spoken so strongly, but still he thought some of the statements were inaccurate. He regretted that while law and order ran in Ireland, it did not do so in the Highlands, and that they refused to allow the aid of the forces of the Crown to carry out unjust work. He did not think they ought to be in that position. The Airdens case was one where the law was unjust, and he would rather have an unjust law put in force occasionally, because they would get up public steam to have it repealed. He hoped, however, that the trustees of estates who were compelled to carry out the law would not be made responsible for not having done their duty. Vote agreed to. 3. Motion made, and Question proposed,

"That a sum, not exceeding; £16,739, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1895, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Fishery Board in Scotland and for Grants in Aid of Piers or Quays."

alluded to the great loss which the Board had sustained by the death of its Chairman. Those who knew Mr. Esslemont knew that the Public Service had lost in him a most able, energetic, and capable man. One of the subjects to which he (Mr. Buchanan) wished to call attention was that on which he put a question earlier in the day. Everyone on the coast was aware that the grievance connected with trawling continued to exist. He had a budget of letters on the subject in his possession. Ho would not occupy time by quoting any of these communications, but he proposed to quote one authority. A case had been brought under the consideration of the House during the present Session by the Member for Orkney with regard to a prosecution for breach of Trawling Regula tions. The case fell through from what he thought a miscarriage of justice, but the Sheriff, referring to the extent to which illegal trawling was carried on along the shores of Orkney, said—

"I believe it has already been shown on this coast that they systematically trawl at night without lights, and I think that more than once the scene of their operations has been so chosen as to be a source of considerable danger to passing ships."

That was the evidence of a person who was perfectly unbiased on the subject. He (Mr. Buchanan) wished to refer to the existing Regulations. There had been constant complaints year after year as to the inadequacy of the sea police, and these complaints were repeated in the Report of the Board for the present year. The Secretary for Scotland had given the Fishery Board a new cruiser on the west coast; but on the east coast, where the fisheries constituted more than two-thirds of the whole of the Scotch fisheries, the only vessel available was the Jackal, and she was practically restricted to service within the Moray Firth. For carrying out the Regulations along the rest of the east coast the Board had no cruiser. He strongly urged the Secretary for Scotland to carry out the recommendation of the Committee which sat last year, and of every one who had considered the subject, that an efficient police independent of the Navy should be placed under the control of the Fishery Board, so that they should be able to see that their Regulations were carried out. This duty was thrust upon the Admiralty, and that Department would be glad to be relieved of it. An efficient marine police independent of the Admiralty should be given to the Fishery Board. The Select Committee of last year considered the subject of trawling, and recommended that steps should be taken to extend the territorial limit for fishing purposes along the coast, and that there should be an International agreement come to with other Powers sanctioning the extension. The Government, however, had not taken any steps to ascertain whether the Powers interested in the fishing in the North Sea would be disposed to consider this question. The principal objection on the subject was that France was jealous and disinclined to come to any agreement with us. The Institute of International Law held its last meeting in Paris in April, and passed a resolution, moved by one of the members representing France, unanimously recommending that for fishing purposes the territorial limit should be extended from three to six miles. That showed that there was a strong preponderating opinion among jurists in France as elsewhere in favour of this change for extending jurisdiction. He trusted that the question would not be lost sight of by the Government. Another point was one relating to expenditure. As mentioned at page 120 of the Report, the Fishery Board had paid a large sum to the Post Office as guarantee for certain telegraph offices at fishing stations. Considering the limited resources of the Fishery Board, it was hardly fair that that practice of one Department paying over to another should continue. Surely the Post Office out of the large revenues at its disposal, particularly from the large fishing ports, might forego those charges, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would strongly urge on the Post Office Authorities the adoption of that course. Then he wished to call attention to the want of fishery harbours round the coast of Scotland. Ten years ago a Committee made certain recommendations on the subject, but no steps had been taken to carry them out. Powers had been given recently to the Fishery Board, by an Act passed by himself, by which the Board could use its harbour grant as a security on which to borrow money. So far so good, but the sum placed at their disposal was quite inadequate for embarking on a general scheme for building fishery harbours round the Scotch coast. He, of course, recognised that for their construction it was necessary that contributions should be made from local as well as from Imperial sources. They had some reason to complain of the attitude of the Government, during the passing of the Local Government Act, in reference to an Amendment proposed by the Member for Orkney, by which County Councils or districts might pledge their rates for harbour purposes as burghs were able to do. That subject was not taken up by the Government as it should have been. It would be of the greatest advantage to the whole coast of Scotland if some general scheme for fishery harbour construction were introduced and passed by the Government. He was not merely proposing additional grants-in-aid for harbour construction, but that they should be constructed according to a definite and well-thought-out plan. What was wanted was that an adequate sum should be advanced so that those who were responsible in these matters might know how far a general scheme could be carried out during the next 10 or 15 years for the construction of fishing harbours where required for the benefit of the fishing population round the coast of Scotland.

joined in the expressions of regret at the loss they had sustained in the death of Mr. Esslemont. He was universally valued and respected. The appointment to the Chairmanship of the Fishery Board was a matter of great importance to the fishing industry of Scotland, and he trusted, therefore, that his right hon. Friend, in filling up the vacancy, would as far as possible consult the wishes of the practical men engaged in it, and endeavour to obtain the services of someone experienced in all branches of the industry which he had to superintend, and the prosperity of which depended upon his efforts. As regarded the construction of harbours of refuge, particularly in the Moray Firth, he thanked the right hon. Gentleman for the sympathetic way in which he had received the suggestions made to him. That was absolutely necessary for the protection of the fishing fleet against north-east storms. The question was one of life and death to the fishermen, and he trusted, therefore, that the Secretary for Scotland would press the matter on the Treasury until a grant for this purpose was made. Three thousand pounds for fishery harbours for the whole coast of Scotland was a ridiculous sum, and the least that should be done was to double it. Speaking for his own constituency, he entirely agreed with what had been said about increasing the limit of jurisdiction to six miles, and until that was done trawlers would be able to continue prowling round our coasts. He would point out also with regard to the sum paid to the Post Office that the amount was larger than stated—more like £1,500, he thought. It was not desirable that so large a proportion of the Fishery Board's small resources should be devoted to subsidising the rich Post Office and Telegraph Department. Further, he wished to ask the right, lion. Gentleman whether he could give the Members for Scotland any assurance as to when the Fishery Bill would be again brought forward?

said, more efficient stops should be taken for marine police purposes. The tendency was not to increase the number of sailing vessels, but of steamers. Referring to a sum set down in the Estimates for a new cruiser and tender for the purposes of marine police on the coast of Scotland, he suggested that the expenditure might be avoided by the Admiralty utilising for the work, as was done on the English coasts, some of the many spare gunboats they had at their disposal. He also thought the three-mile limit might be advantageously extended.

said, that the trawling difficulty was by no means an easy one to deal with. For his own part, he believed that until the full responsibility for illegal trawling was placed on the masters of vessels, the Board or the Government would never be able to deal effectually with it. The sum provided for the work to be done by the Fishery Board was much too small, and what, had been spent had been to a great extent frittered away. The money granted, if not sufficient for all purposes, should be spent on those harbours which benefited the largest number of people along the coast.

, in reference to the alleged ravages by trawlers on the West Coast of Scotland, reminded the Government, of an assurance which he received last Session, that the speed of the new cruiser should be equal to catching any trawler around the Island of Lewis. Notwithstanding that assurance, it was now found that the Government had employed a 10-knot cruiser to catch trawlers possessing a speed of 12 or 13 knots. Two of the trawlers had passed two days working day and night in Loch Roag, where they had completely ruined the fishery, no gunboat being within hundreds of miles. The same thing had occurred in many other places round the Western Islands. He was surprised at the small expenditure on this vessel. She was very well for fine weather, but not for stormy seas. She was staunchly built, and had a good captain and crew. Still, it was no use whatever sending a 10-knot vessel to catch 13-knot trawlers. What chance could she have against them? He had been assured that the speed of the new cruiser would be sufficient to capture any trawler. The new cruiser did not fulfil that condition. He quite agreed with the Member for Sunderland that they should have gunboats, but why not send a torpedo boat if they could not send gunboats? It was the duty of the Admiralty to see that the industry was protected. It could not possibly be protected by the means placed at the disposal of the right hon. Gentleman. The Jackal spent most of her time in Invergordon Harbour, and the officers were at every garden party, fête, and amusement in the neighbourhood. The Jackal ought to be out at sea doing her work, instead of being always in harbour. The commander of the Jackal had two masters, the Admiralty and the Fishery Board, and everybody knew what happened to those who sought to serve two masters. The Jackal should be put under the control of the Fishery Board absolutely. At many places besides Loch Roag the fishermen were simply ruined. The living of the line fishermen was taken from them, and how they were to exist next winter ho could not conceive. He feared there might be trouble in the North. He was anxious that this should be avoided, and that gunboats should be sent to protect the fishing-grounds. The Secretary for Scotland recently told him that the people should act as their own sea police. But how could they report trawlers which came along at night, or how could a fishing boat chase a steam trawler? The people of Lewis had decided to act on that advice. They, however, needed one thing to effectually settle the whole question. If the right hon. Gentleman had arranged with the War Office and the Admiralty to supply the people with Maxim guns and ammunition, and had given them full license to use those guns and to send to the bottom of the sea any and every trawler found within the three mile limit around the Island of Lewis, he would warrant that the Lews men would not be troubled any further with trawlers. When these men were about to protect their own interests, as suggested, the gunboat Foxhound was sent to watch them. So far as he could ascertain, she was 33 days in harbour, and nine days out of harbour, and a precious little way out of the harbour she went. In drawing the attention of the Secretary to the Admiralty to the fact that she only went eight knots an hour, he inquired whether she had fired a single shot. The answer was that as no trawler had been seen or heard of, it would be difficult to fire a shot at them. He agreed with that. But why did the Foxhound not go out to look after the trawlers: how could the Foxhound see trawlers 35 miles off on the other side of the Island? He hoped answers of this frivolous character would not be given in future. On another occasion he asked how the commander of the Foxhound when lying at Stornoway could tell what was going on 35 miles off at the other side of the Island? The answer was that the information came from the Sheriff Substitute. But how did he know what was going on 35 miles off? The Fishery Board officer was the man who should receive this information. When he drew attention to the fact that there was no fishery officer there, he was told the officer was required in Orkney and Shetland. Why was there not an officer kept in the important fishing district of the Island of Lewis? It would not mean much extra cost, as these officers only received £80 or £100 a year. How did the right hon. Gentleman expect to get information regarding trawlers around the Island of Lewis? Did he expect him (Mr. Weir) to go down and get it when the Whip was trying to keep every man he could at his post here? How could the right hon. Gentleman expect so faithful a follower as himself to desert him? He had not paired; it was so much nobler to remain here and support the Government from whom they hoped to obtain something. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said the other day—"Abandon hope all ye who enter here" after the middle of August. Until this afternoon he had had a little hope that the Secretary for Scotland would have sent him off to the North rejoicing but he would now go up to Scotland hopeless, and sad at heart. He was very mud surprised that the Government had treated this matter with such absolute indifference. This little five-thousand pound cruiser was not enough. A swift gunboat should be sent out to scare away the Sassenach marauders. He wanted to know why there were not more penalties inflicted upon the trawlers? It would be better to send up a gunboat and one or two Maxim guns and settle the whole question. The Jackal was not absolutely at the disposal of the Board, and he bought she ought to be. No man could serve two masters.

The hon. Gentleman has said that over and over again, and I draw the attention of the Committee to the repetition.

said, he should refer to the latter part of a letter of the late Chairman of the Fishery Board. He said—

"I may add that I am of opinion that the sea police of the Scotch coast never can be satisfactory unless a sufficient force could be placed entirely under the control of the Fishery Board."

urged Parliament to give the Fishery Board entire responsibility, with suitable cruisers. He supported very heartily the desire of communities who had appealed for harbours. He had himself appealed for harbours, and had appealed in vain. A dozen harbours were wanted in his constituency. He had many times called the attention of the Secretary for Scotland to Portmahomach Harbour, and he sincerely hoped something would be done to put the harbour in a better condition. He would draw attention to other harbours on another Vote.

said, the question of trawling was a very important matter to the fishermen in the North of Scotland, and he wanted to impress on the Committee the necessity for something being done in reference to it. They had a large number of fishermen who depended for a living upon the fishing industry, and the fishing industry and the fish supply was a very important industry indeed in Scotland. Unfortunately, these men were having their living destroyed, and this source of food was being destroyed. Acts of Parliament had been passed for the purpose of preventing it; but they had not been carried out, and the money of this Vote of £5,000 for a new cruiser would not be adequate for the work required to be done. A large number of English steam trawlers had on the East Coast of England almost, entirely destroyed the very valuable fishing beds there. They had gone to Ireland and done the same thing. Now they were going round the whole of Scotland, because it was the only place left to them except the Bay of Biscay. There were laws to prevent them trawling within the three miles' limit, but the sea police was altogether insufficient, and so the trawling was going on. The trawlers were destroying the lines of the line fishermen and the nets of the drift fishermen, and were greatly injuring the herring fishing. It was ridiculous to expect that an eight-knot cruiser like the Jackal could do anything against boats steaming 12 and 13 knots. As the result of the Select. Committee that sat last Session it was proposed that £5,000 should be spent on a new cruiser, and the Fishery Board, which was dependent upon the Admiralty for gunboats and failed to keep the sea police, were going to have a number of boats themselves. The local Fishery Boards in England had got small boats of this kind, and probably the best method of dealing with these trawlers would be to have boats of the same type as trawlers which could go up to 14 knots, and should be similar in appearance to trawlers. Torpedo boats would be very much better, and he considered the Admiralty were not doing their duty. If they sent torpedo boats and fast gunboats it would be splendid work for that branch of the fleet. It would be useful for them, because a great deal of this illegal trawling was done at night. The sea police was utterly inefficient, and the work of destruction of Scotch fishery beds was going on, and Scotch fishermen were having their lines and nets destroyed. There was a vessel that had committed a crime, and because, forsooth, it had left Scotland and gone to Milford Haven, the Public Prosecutor would not take the trouble of having these people summoned and fined, as the Act directed. This was a condition of things which ought not to exist. If an English fishing boat went into Scotch waters and broke Scotch laws, when it went back to England they ought to know of some remedy, and the captain ought to be summoned before the Scotch Court and fined. He did not, blame the Secretary for Scotland or the Fishery Board, but he did think the Lord Advocate should see to it, or the Procurator Fiscal should give his opinion of the cases. Surely he ought to see that wherever they go the law follows them, and they are brought to book for their illegal actions. If they were only going to spend, £5,000 that would be only continuing the existing condition of things. If they were to have new boats they would require £20,000 at least, and £5,000 in expenses alone. He hoped the Admiralty and the Scottish Office would come to terms, so that a number of swift boats would be placed at the disposal of the Fishery Board until the question was ended. The people were not going to have their fishing beds destroyed by English trawlers; and if they were not going to have legal protection, then they would resort to illegal protection, and defend their rights themselves. About £5,700 was spent in harbours. He very much preferred to give the people the right of raising the money themselves, and let them get it on the security of their votes, in which case the harbours would be built in a reasonable fashion, and according to the wants of the community, instead of in the wasteful way that obtained when the money came from the Imperial Treasury. If they were coming to the question of stopping these grants he would certainly vote with the English Members who desired that they should cease. He had no objection to the grant of £3,000 under the provision of 6th Geo. IV. if they could get back their surplus grant sums. They had to pay £1,500 a year for telegraphic expenses, so that the Government had it all back again, inasmuch as the Telegraphic Department wanted security, and a sum of money had to be paid down. Last year there was about £700 taken on this head, but the Scotch Fishery Board did not get the balance. So far as the £3,000 was concerned, it was their own money, and Scotland had no preference over England, Ireland, or Wales in that respect.

said, that hon. Members for England who had listened to the hon. Member for Ross-shire must not consider that that county was, after all, so badly used. There were at, this moment being constructed in the Island of Lewis one harbour costing £16,500, and another costing £2,000. Besides, there were nine other harbours in the constituency of the hon. Member which were either in the course of construction or very soon to be taken in hand. Compared with any other county in Scotland or in England or Wales, it could not be said that Ross-shire was badly off. The most important matter in regard to harbours which had been raised was the question of the disposal of the £3,000. An hon. Friend had done himself great credit by carrying a Bill through the House by which that sum of money could be capitalised, which made it necessary for close consideration on the part of the Fishery Board, the Secretary for Scotland, and the Scottish Members themselves, because instead of giving £3,000 a year, they should have something like £100,000 at once. It was important that his hon. Friends interested in the question should agree upon some harbour or harbours, for it would never do to take the first suggestion, and perhaps spend the greater part of this money on one work instead of spreading it over. The Scottish Office would regard with real gratitude any combined scheme on the part of the Scottish Members and the Scottish Local Bodies, naming some one or two harbours on which this large sum might be expended. As to the amount paid out of the brand fees for telegraphic extension, these were very likely telegraphic services which would not have been obtained at all if someone had not guaranteed them. But most of the time of hon. Members had been taken up by discoursing about the prevention of trawling, and English Members might imagine that Scotland had specially bad usage. So far as that went, however, Scotland had two vessels placed at her disposal out of the Treasury funds. But she had besides, during the summer fishing, three of these Admiralty gunboats for the protection of her fishing and, incidentally, the suppression of trawling. In the case of one of these, they had had in Shetland a particularly brilliant capture of a trawler, which gave the Government the idea that if even they had to go and cut out privateers, they had officers who could not only show courage but craft. It was all very well to run down the speed of these Government vessels, but the fact remained that within the last six weeks or two months no fewer than four trawlers had been captured by them. These vessels could not be everywhere at once; but he had not the slightest doubt that with these two vessels at the disposal of the Fishery Board—he had decided that the time of the Jackal should not be spent in scientific experiments, but in the protection of the fisheries—Scotland was, at any rate, better off than any other part of the coast. His hon. Friend the Member for Banffshire (Sir W. Wedderburn) had expressed the hope that in any future Sea Fisheries Bill for Scotland the expenditure would be put upon the rates. He was very much in agreement with his hon. Friend, but it was difficult to persuade the people of Scotland generally upon that point. As for himself, he would not recommend any Minister for Scotland to introduce such a Bill in a hurry. Such a proposal might be acceptable in the constituency of this hon. Friend, but it would not be acceptable to the majority of the Scottish Members. But he earnestly hoped that in the course of the next three or four months Scotland would come to some determination as to what method of fishery protection it wanted; but he could not agree that the opinion of the Scottish Members was unanimous on the question of placing that protection on the rates. He hoped, however, the question was not insoluble. He submitted that in the main the Government had done right in this matter, and he thought they and the Fishery Board deserved credit for having made a new departure, instead of being open in any serious sense to criticism.

said, he had no objection to the action of the Government in supplying cruisers for the protection of the Scottish fisheries, but he thought they might recognise the claims of other places as well. With regard to the grant, it ought to have been made in the interests of the country generally and not merely for the improvement of Scotch harbours.

called attention to the deportation of a man named Charles Devine. This man went to Scotland 42 years ago, and lived in Glasgow for 27 years. Owing to the failure of the City of Glasgow Bank he had to leave Glasgow. He ultimately became chargeable on Glasgow, but he was deported to Donegal Union on the ground that, as he had lost his settlement, his birth settlement revived. This birth settlement was a mere figment of the imagination and was not sanctioned by any Act. The law said nothing about forfeiting a settlement once acquired, and he would be glad to hear what the Chief Secretary had to say in the matter.

said, he was not surprised that this question was raised. There were numbers of these deportation cases, and no one could deny that the Irish Unions had a serious grievance. He had looked into the matter, and he found that legislation would be the most-satisfactory method of dealing with it. He should consult with his right hon. Friend near him (the Secretary for Scotland), with the view of arriving at an equitable settlement of what was an undeniable grievance.

said, he was very much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for his statement.

said, he wished on this Vote to call attention to several matters. The first was the case of Katie Walsh who had been attacked in a very violent manner, and whose reason was stated to have given way in consequence of the attack. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. J. Morley) had stated in answer to a question that the police had no reason to believe that the aberration of intellect had resulted from any personal attack which had been made upon her. It appeared from a communication which he (Mr. Macartney) had received that the girl had had a dispute with some of her neighbours, and had made an accusation of a somewhat grave character against another girl. A good deal of feeling had been engendered amongst the friends and relatives of both parties, and the girl Walsh had been attacked by three or four men who tried to throw her over a cliff. It was stated that one of the persons who made the attack was a well-known character in the neighbourhood. There had during this spring and summer been a series of brutal assaults in this neighbourhood arising out of private quarrels, and these assaults were believed, to have increased from the fact that those who had been guilty of them had received at the local Petty Sessions punishments which were not at all commensurate with the offences. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he was still of opinion that there was no ground for supposing that the intellect of the girl was disturbed by the attack? The next case he wished to refer to was connected with Colonel O'Callaghan's estate. On the 30th of July he had asked the right hon. Gentleman a question with regard to a placard headed "Vengeance," which had been extensively posted in the neighbourhood of Colonel O'Callaghan's residence. The reply was that ample police protection had been given to Colonel O'Callaghan, and that no harm had been done by the posting of the placard. As a matter of fact, however, Colonel O'Callaghan had not been able to sell his meadowing, which he had been accustomed to sell, and he had been boycotted in Smithfield Market. All his (Mr. Macartney's) information led him to believe that the attacks on Colonel O'Callaghan had followed the speeches made by one of the Members for Clare at Bodyke on the 8th of July. On the 15th of July notices were posted in the neighbourhood threatening with death anybody who bought meadowing from Colonel O'Callaghan. On the 22nd of July the placard headed "Vengeance" was extensively posted, and on the 2nd of August it was again largely posted. Colonel O'Callaghan's son, who had nothing to do with the dispute, and was on excellent terms with his own tenantry and with the great majority of his father's tenantry, had been boycotted, having found it impossible the day after the second posting of the placard to sell some meadowing he had advertised for sale. Colonel O'Callaghan's son was of opinion that the persons who had posted the placards were perfectly well known to the authorities in the district, and that if more active measures were taken it would be quite easy to prevent a recrudescence of boycotting in the district. There was another matter he wished to call attention to. On the 3rd of August last there appeared a paragraph in The Tuam News from its Ballinasloe correspondent stating that a certain Paddy Healy had taken a grazing on an evicted farm, that this was a wanton violation of Land League principles, and that everyone was asking why a meeting was not got up. He (Mr. Macartney) wished to know whether if the facts were as stated the man who was threatened would receive every protection from the authorities? The last case he wished to bring forward was in connection with the eviction of John Bridgeman in County Limerick. The evicted tenant in this case had nothing to do with the Plan of Campaign. He owed three years' rent, and was evicted for a decree of £106. After the eviction proceedings had been abandoned and resistance had been offered to the Sheriff, the police declined to give him assistance. While the disturbance was going on the Sheriff sent a special messenger to the police barracks, but assistance was refused him. The right hon. Gentleman would not contend that the police were justified in refusing assistance because the barracks were not in the district where the breach of law occurred. It would be impossible for the right hon. Gentleman to find any authority for such a proposition. The right hon. Gentleman had no official legal adviser in the House, but if he would consult any authority on crime in Ireland he would find that there was nothing to justify the action of the Constabulary. The right hon. Gentleman had told him (Mr. Macartney) that prosecutions might be instituted, and in that case he should like to know who was being prosecuted. There was just another case to which he would refer. It was a case which was made the subject of a question by the hon. Gentleman the Member for St. Stephen's Green on Monday last—a case where a meeting was held in County Roscommon to denounce a man who had taken an evicted farm, and where strong language, to the effect that the man was a reptile, and that an eye should be kept on the shopkeepers with whom he dealt, was used by a person who was a Justice of the Peace and by others. The Chief Secretary, speaking from the information which had been supplied to him, had given the hon. Member to understand that not much damage was done to this man, and that police protection had been afforded. He (Mr. Macartney), however, had since heard that all his men had left him but two. The right hon. Gentleman had said that the speech of the Justice of the Peace would be referred to the Lord Chancellor, and the other speeches to the Irish Law Advisers of the Crown. What action had the Lord Chancellor taken, and what did the Irish Government propose to do in the other cases? There were one or two other matters on which he should have liked to have spoken, but at that hour of the evening he would not detain the Committee.

was understood to say that as to the last case mentioned by the hon. Member he had not yet received a reply from the Lord Chancellor with regard to the action of the Magistrate, but, as to the other language used at the meeting, the Law Officers advised him that the evidence before them would not sustain a prosecution. In answer to the question whether the protection given to the holder of the evicted farm was adequate, he had to say that the police authorities in this and all cases acted upon a uniform instruction—namely, that they were to spare no effort to secure protection, and rather to-over-protect than expose persons to any risk. As he had stated on former occasions, the fact that the present Government had determined to govern Ireland without exceptional repressive laws made it all the more obligatory on them to see that the ordinary law was put into full force and carried out with the utmost vigilance and resolution. That had been the policy of the Government in the past, and it would continue to be their policy in the future. As to the case of the Sheriff who had been engaged in carrying out evictions in Limerick, and to whom it was said that the police had refused protection, the question was whether this officer not having taken the trouble to secure for himself due and full protection had a right to send messengers to the barrack, which it appeared was in another district, for assistance, and then and there, though there did not appear to be a tumult, the assault, or whatever it was, being over, demand police aid. As he understood it, the plea for the constabulary not going to the aid of the Sheriff was not a very good one. No doubt cases might arise where constables might go outside their districts, but, as he understood, no representation was made to the effect that disorder of any magnitude was taking place. He would make further inquiries into the matter.

said, that as the right hon. Gentleman was going to make further inquiries he should like to know what was the rule in these cases where police assistance was requested from outside districts in the case of a person being assaulted. He had never in his life heard of a rule under which such assistance would be refused.

It might be a rule or practice.

Well, I never heard of such a practice.

said, he would see into the matter. If, in their view, the police ought to have given the assistance demanded they would communicate with him in that sense. He rather thought they were within their rights. The hon. Gentleman asked who were to be prosecuted. He was not able to give the names just now.

Will there be more than one?

I am not sure. As to the case based on a paragraph in The, Tuam News, he could only say that he had not heard of it before, but he would make inquiries. Then there was the case of Katie Walsh. He had read through all the details this morning, and must say it was obscure in certain particulars. She had been bathing. Subsequently she had an altercation with some people, and was found on the edge of the cliff talking in a rambling way. Whether her condition was due to an attack upon her was not clear; at any rate, the police did not see their way to take proceedings against any one. With regard to the alleged boycotting of Colonel O'Callaghan's sheep, it was said that they were followed by Malone from Clare to another town, but that was not the case.

said, Malone had asserted that he followed the sheep round the market.

said, he was informed that that was untrue.

said, his case was the 3rd of August.

said, in his Report it was stated "on the day mentioned," and he did not know whether that was on the 3rd of August or not. But it appeared that 28 sheep were sold, 18 for 30s. each, and 10 for 37s. each, prices which suggested that they were sold at a fair market value. The buyer stated that no person spoke to him or interfered with him in any way in the transaction. Malone had only just returned from England, and he remained near the pen because a friend of his who was a regular client of the salemaster had some cattle for sale on the same stand. No one informed the police that they saw Malone following the Colonel or speaking to him. So much for the transaction of the cattle, and the presence of Malone. The next point was about the constable Colonel O'Callaghan appealed to, and who declined to interfere. It appeared that the constable was outside the market, and was a young constable who only joined the Force in Februrary last; he was very confused in his statement. It might be assumed the allegations in paragraph 3 were not correct. Malone had previously been bound over to keep the peace as stated in paragraph 2, that was quite true. With regard to the last paragraph, protection was given, and would be given, to the rights of salemasters in this or any other market, He would take the opinion of the Law Officers as to what extent interference would justify action by the police, and that opinion would be acted upon in case there should be boycotting at markets. Every person who took cattle to market, whatever his position, had equal rights, and those rights would be secured.

said, he was much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for his statement, though there was a most extraordinary discrepancy between the statement of the right hon. Gentleman and the information that he (Mr. Macartney) had obtained. He did not throw any doubt upon the right hon. Gentleman's statement, but he would make further inquiries into the matter, and if he had been misinformed he would at once communicate with the right hon. Gentleman.

said, he might say further that he was not quite satisfied with the police Report, and wished to hear the whole story, therefore he gave instructions for the salemaster to be seen and questioned upon the matter. It would, therefore, be seen that he had taken some trouble in this matter in order to arrive at the true particulars, and he thought it would be found that he had given the right story.

said, there was one point he would like to raise on this Vote, and which was a point that he had brought before the attention of the right hon. Gentleman before. He thought this Vote was a little out of proportion to a similar Vote for England. While in some parts of Ireland the Vote in aid was sufficient, in Belfast there would be found, if the right lion. Gentleman would inquire into it during the coming recess, an urgent need for some further provision for industrial schools. The Catholic community there, as had been explained to the right hon. Gentleman before, had done all they could to provide an industrial school. They were not over-burdened with wealth, but they had spent a considerable sum in acquiring suitable premises for the extension of their industrial schools, which were greatly needed in an industrial town like Belfast, but it was a lamentable fact that the excellent premises that had been provided for the purpose were lying vacant and useless because a certificate could not be granted. The Grand Jury of Antrim was quite willing to give the increased grant from the county, and the Catholics in the district would supplement that by their subscriptions. Last year the right hon. Gentleman made some difficulty in consequence of an increase being made in another part of Ulster, and he trusted that in the coming recess the right hon. Gentleman would inquire into the case, and see if this was not an exceptional case that justified a certificate.

said, he remembered very well the deputation that was good enough to wait upon him on this subject, and he admitted that the case did present to his mind some hardship, but, as the hon. and learned Gentleman well knew, in these matters they had to be on their guard, and were constantly advised that they must refuse the certificates for these schools because money was not more abundantly forthcoming. He would undertake to inquire into the matter to which his hon. and learned Friend referred and see what he could do.

said, it was true that the Vote for these schools was relatively high, but it was also true that the taxation was very high, and therefore there were two or three matters that should be kept in mind by the right hon. Gentleman in regard to this application. One of those was the great poverty of Ireland, and another was that the cost of the State for prosecutions and the maintenance of prisoners had been greatly reduced in the course of the last 20 years by the operation of these schools. School children who were in danger of falling into crime had been received into these schools, the result being that £1 was saved for every 1s. expended on these schools, and these were circumstances that should not be left out of view, and were of much greater moment than the amount of the Vote. When the right hon. Gentleman came into Office he presented this case to him, and he had presented it to the late Government, who, when they went out of Office, had almost reached the point when they were willing to conclude what, was desired. He not only pressed the right hon. Gentleman but introduced subsequently a deputation from Belfast, which included the Rev. James Hannon, the master of the school. He thought it was a very hard case, as this was a community in Belfast overcrowded with Catholic children in a city where the Catholics, by reason of the peculiar bitterness of sectarian feeling there, and by reason of the spirit in the county, were placed in a position of considerable disadvantage. He thought it was hard upon a community who, at an expenditure of £3,000 or £4,000, had secured a, suitable house and grounds within two or three miles from the city where the children might be taken with advantage to their bodily and physical health, and who had done it on the faith of something like a promise from the Inspector of Industrial Schools in Ireland. If the certificate were granted it would undoubtedly save the State a burden of at least £500 a, year; and the grant from the State was a very small matter as compared with the great benefits that would result from it. He would say no more than that the refusal had caused him great disappointment and great regret, but he hoped the words that had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman to-night would be found to have some substantial force.

said, he would like to call attention to the fact that the Christian Brothers did not get any money for their schools.

pointed out that this was a Vote for endowed schools, and not of education generally. The whole sum proposed to be taken was only £605.

Then I think I shall be right in moving a reduction of £600. I would like to point out that education generally in Ireland—

That will not arise on this Vote. This is only a Vote for the Endowed Schools Commissioners in Ireland.

said, he should then object to the Endowed Schools Commissioners. He considered that endowed education in Ireland was not managed in a spirit of fairness and equity. He thought it would be a good plan to abolish most Education Commissioners in Ireland, and particularly the Commissioners for endowed education. A great deal of money would be saved by adopting such a course. As a general rule only Protestant headmasters were appointed to endowed schools, and consequently nobody but Protestants attended the schools. After some movement in this matter by the noble Lord the Member for Paddington there were one or two Catholics appointed as headmasters, and he believed the experiment was successful. The Protestants did not fall off, and the Catholics came to the schools in tolerable numbers. This was a policy which he earnestly recommended to the attention of the Chief Secretary, and it was one which, he regretted to say, was not followed out to any extent in Ireland. The general policy of education in that county—except in the primary schools— was to give the whole of the endowments in such a manner that, although they were nominally open to all, it was only Protestants that could avail themselves of them. He acknowledged that primary schools, so far as religion was concerned, were managed with tolerable fairness, but the moment they went above the primary to the endowed schools, they found that the endowments were administered so as to be exclusively in favour of the Protestants. Having made his protest, and having regard to the fact that there were so few Members present, he would not put the Committee to the trouble of a Division.

said, he understood that any portion of the sum of £1,000 for the purchase of pictures if not used in one year had to be returned to the Treasury, and the result was that if a picture worth £1,500 was available for purchase for the Gallery it could not be bought, for the simple reason that no balance could be held over to add to the next year's grant. He believed that money could be held over in the National Gallery in London, and he asked that the same rule should be applied to Ireland.

said, he would explain how the matter really stood. Unfortunately, in Ireland, no bequests were made to the National Gallery, as in England. Therefore, the money granted yearly was to maintain the Institution, given as a "grant in aid," and carried over from one year to another. The Trustees of the Irish National Gallery were allowed to purchase pictures of the value of £1,500 a year—£1,000 to be paid in one year and £500 in the next. No money was paid back into the Exchequer, and if bequests were made to the institution the difficulty would be got over, and the National Gallery in Ireland could be treated in the same way as the National Gallery in England. Personally he was in favour of such a plan, if it could be adopted.

said, the right hon. Gentleman's explanation was satisfactory.

desired to know how it was that £1,030 was paid in wages and salaries for eight people in connection with this Museum? Out of that the Director got £500, which was a proportionately large salary compared with the others, whilst he also had an allowance of £150 a year for travelling expenses. In what was that money spent?

replied that the Director had to travel about to see pictures which were offered for sale, and this, of course, entailed considerable expense. That was the only explanation he could give, but if the hon. Member desired it, he would endeavour to obtain further information by the time the Report stage was reached.

would feel obliged if the right hon. Gentleman would do so. There was only £1,000 a year to spend on pictures, and yet the Director got a salary of £500 with £150 for travelling expenses for looking after pictures on which this large expense was incurred. As compared with the National Gallery here, this expense was disproportionate.

said, he wished to recognise the excellent work accomplished by the National Gallery in Dublin. With a modest allowance of £1,000 a year, they had got together a most interesting and valuable collection. The results obtained there showed what could be done with a small sum of money, provided that a good Director was secured. The Gallery was, in fact, a model and a most excellent democratic Picture Gallery.

said, the right hon. Gentleman completely misunderstood his point. The fault he found was not with the Gallery, nor the money spent in improving it; but when £1,000 was voted for the purpose of buying pictures, it would strike anyone as curious that £150 should be spent in railway fares. He thought the Dublin Gallery might get many of the pictures from the National Gallery that were now in the basement of that Institution unseen by anyone; and £100 might be saved from travelling expenses and spent on better pictures.

said, that 20 pictures of various kinds were bought for the Irish Gallery last year; and that necessitated a considerable amount of travelling, not only in England, but abroad.

said, the Chief Secretary had described the Gallery in Dublin as a democratic Picture Gallery. He did not know what a democratic Picture Gallery was; but he preferred an artistic Picture Gallery. The total amount voted for the National Gallery in Dublin was £2,500, which was altogether too small. In the National Gallery in London they could afford to spend £70,000 on a picture which would not have fetched £10,000. An hon. Member told the Irish to go down into the cellars of that Institution and dig out the works of art there; but considering the rubbish that was in the Gallery itself what must the rubbish be in the cellar, which the hon. Member wanted to have sent to Dublin? The allowance of £1,000 for buying pictures for the Dublin Gallery was a ridiculously small sum, and he wished the forms of the House permitted him to move to increase it.

thought the hon. and gallant Member for Galway was quite right in saying that the sum was too small; and almost worse than its smallness was the fact that had been disclosed, that the Director was not allowed to spend the money to the best advantage, because unless he was able to use the money in one year, he would have to return it, or any balance that there might be, to the Exchequer. Did the return of the money in that way rest upon statute; or was it merely a Regulation of the Treasury? It appeared to him that the English Gallery, because it was wealthy was allowed a greater degree of freedom than the Irish Gallery because it was poor. The former received £5,000 a year from the State, and if they did not use it all the balance could be retained and added to the bequests they had. But the Irish Gallery had no bequests, and he certainly thought the money for its improvement should be spent at the discretion of the managers.

said, that no money had been returned during the last five or six years. He should be very glad if the rule which applied to England could also be applied to Ireland, but a grant in aid could not be given unless there was some sum or bequest available for the use of the Gallery. If a small bequest were made to the Dublin Gallery, arrangements could be made similar to those prevailing in England.

said, a hardship existed, although no money was returned to the Treasury, because the rule obliged it to be spent within one year or it would practically be lost, so that it could not be laid out to the best advantage of the Dublin National Gallery.

said, that in Ireland if lunatics were dangerous they were sent to the county asylums, and if they were not dangerous they were sent to the workhouses, where they gave a great deal of trouble and were badly treated, owing to the want of proper accommodation. He thought there ought to be a reorganisation of the whole system of treating lunatics in Ireland; and that no lunatics should be sent to the small workhouses of the country districts.

said, he desired to call attention to the extraordinary delay which had occurred in taking proceedings against persons other than Jabez Balfour who were connected with the Liberator frauds. There was no failure which had caused such widespread ruin as the failure of the Balfour Group. The failure of the parent Company was known in September, 1892. That was nearly two years ago, and one by one afterwards the other Companies which were started by Mr. Jabez Balfour failed. Loss and sufferings which were almost unparalleled had followed. Ever since he had ventured to ask questions in the House on the subject he had been inundated with letters from all parts of the country written by persons who had suffered in the frauds. Most of these persons belonged to the middle class and working class, and were Nonconformists, and chiefly supporters of the present Government. The fact of their writing to him showed the intense interest that was felt in the subject.

Order, order! The hon. Gentleman can only call attention to the delay on this Vote. He cannot go into the merits of the case.

said, he did not intend to go into the merits of the case. He was merely pointing out the general interest that was aroused in the matter, as the justification for his intervention. There was a full inquiry by the Official Receiver, and all the information which could be got was in the hands of the Law Officers fully 10 months ago, late in October, 1893. Ever since then the Government had been pressed in the matter, but no action had been taken. He could, of course, understand how anxious the Law Officers were that the principal author should be arrested before proceedings were taken against others involved in the disasters. The House could not but think that there had been a want of alertness on the part of the authorities in respect to the escape of Balfour himself, though it was a matter of congratulation that the announcement had been made in the House that evening that one of the Federal Courts of the Argentine Republic had pronounced in favour of his extradition, and that there was some prospect of his being brought to this country. It was, however, with the fellow-directors of Jabez Balfour that he was now chiefly concerned; and he repeated that it was extraordinary that 10 months were allowed to elapse without anything being done, though the Official Receiver in his Report had declared that the last three or four balance-sheets of the Company were false, and were issued by the Board to deceive and mislead those who had invested their money in the Company. He had asked several questions on the subject, but the answers were unsatisfactory. On the 25th of May the hon. Member for Preston asked a question as to how long it was since the Official Receiver's Report had been presented, and whether further proceedings had been decided on. The first question was replied to; with regard to the second question, it was said that it would not be for the public benefit that anything should be made known. That was an answer which he ventured to say should never have been made in the House merely to shirk a disagreeable question—merely to put off dealing with a question; and was an answer that should only be made when there was the sincerest conviction that it was indeed for the public benefit that no statement should be made. It was impossible for the House to believe that a statement by the Law Officers of the Crown that a prosecution was to be instituted would be injurious to justice by warning incriminated persons to escape; for escape those persons could not under any circumstances, if ordinary diligence were exercised. He believed that if the Public Prosecutor had done his duty promptly Jabez Balfour would never have been allowed to escape from this country. He could not but think that, if the authorities had made up their minds and acted properly, there could never have been any danger of the persons incriminated escaping. Again, on the 31st of May he (Sir E. Ashmead-Bartlett) asked whether all the details had not been given to the Public Prosecutor six months before, and whether any action would be taken? The President of the Board of Trade, to whom the question was addressed, gave what he would venture to describe as a misleading answer. The right hon. Gentleman said the documents in the case were handed in from the 30th of October to the 25th of April. The essential documents—the documents showing fraud, if there was fraud—had been handed in in October. Some unimportant papers might have been handed in since October, 1893; but the materials and groundwork for a prosecution were then in the hands of the Public Prosecutor, and at the service of the Attorney General. On the 11th of July he asked another question, whether it was intended to take proceedings against persons other than Mr. Jabez Balfour? The Attorney General said that it was not in the interest of justice that any statement should be made; and, in reply to a further question, the hon. and learned Gentleman said— much to the amusement of the House—that it was in his predecessor's time that the papers were handed in, and that his directions were being acted on. If the directions of the hon. and learned Gentleman's predecessor had been acted on, the only action was inaction. On the 13th of July he asked another question, and then the Attorney General gave one of the most extraordinary answers ever heard in the House. The hon. and learned Gentleman said that the question had been informally laid before the Attorney General at the end of January, and again in April. He should like to know what "informally" meant. Important documents disclosing what most people believed to be tremendous frauds were before the Public Prosecutor in October, 1893, and yet the Attorney General stated that the question was only brought before his predecessor at the end of January; and that no documents had been laid before the Law Officers as such. What did that mean? On the 18th of July he appealed for information to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but the right hon. Gentleman treated the matter in the most cavalier style. The Chancellor of the Exchequer referred him to the Foreign Office, and to the Attorney General, in happy oblivion of the fact, that all efforts to urge the Attorney General into action had failed. Being further pressed, the right hon. Gentleman said it was impossible to extract information from him which he did not possess. So that the Heads of the Government apparently had neither studied this question, nor decided to take any action. He now asked once more, Was it intended to take proceedings against those supposed to be responsible for these gigantic frauds other than Jabez Balfour? He wished now to ask whether the Law Officers intended to take proceedings against the other persons he had indicated. If they did, why had not the proceedings been taken before this? A considerable number of persons were involved. Of the Directors of these Companies who were responsible for their management, there were from 30 to 40. The total of the losses by the frauds had been about £10,000,000 sterling, and all these losses had fallen on a class of people who were the least able to bear them. He had received a letter that, morning from a small tradesman who had put the whole of his savings— amounting to —2,000—from time to time into the Companies under the direction of Jabez Balfour. Now, having lost, every penny he possessed, he was obliged, at the age of 60, to go to work again, and try and accumulate something for the future. This was only a typical case out of thousands, and what every one was anxious to know was why no steps had been taken by the Government in the matter. He had not pressed the Government as to why steps were not taken to prevent Jabez Balfour leaving the country; but he would press them to say why they had not taken steps against, these minor offenders, but still most responsible, in the conduct of these most improperly-managed Companies. He thought the Committee would admit that this was a case he was justified in bringing before it. The greatest possible interest was felt in the matter, and he trusted they would hear from the Law Officers that there would be no further delay in dealing with the case.

said, he was afraid that he should not be able to give the hon. Gentleman the full satisfaction he wished to obtain in reference to this subject. It was clear that the hon. Gentleman did not understand the difference between the responsibility that attached to the Attorney General in such a matter as this and that of the Law Officers of the Crown. The only person ultimately responsible for taking action in cases of this kind was the Attorney General, and although he might consult his colleague, the Solicitor General had nothing whatever to do with directing prosecutions at all. Papers in such cases were never laid before the Law Officers of the Crown, and the Attorney General alone was responsible. The hon. Gentleman had made merry, not for the first time, at his expense in connection with this case. All he could say was that he knew no more than the hon. Gentleman himself what communications had been made in relation to the matter to his predecessor in Office, and it was no part of his business to give the Attorney General any information with regard to such communications. Therefore, that conduct on his part, which appeared so laughable to the hon. Gentleman, was merely the result of his acting according to the ordinary practice. The matter was first brought to the notice of his predecessor in January. It was impossible at, that time to have brought the case before his predecessor with a view to getting a decision from him in respect of it. The Papers were immensely voluminous, and to study them completely would occupy the time not only of the Attorney General, who had other things to do, but of several of the most careful and most experienced counsel, and that time had been given to them. He did not believe it would have been possible to have brought anything like a primâ facie case before the Attorney General in January, but, nevertheless, all parties were so anxious to know what might be done, that informally the matter was brought before his predecessor at that, time. If it had been brought before him formally, he would not have had the means of knowing in what way he was to decide. Late in April—on the 27th, he believed—when there was a fuller knowledge of the circumstances, the matter was brought formally before the then Attorney General. On that occasion he (Sir J. Rigby) knew nothing of it, and it was no part of his business to know anything about it, but what information he possessed he had learned by inquiry in May or June. Of course, it was easy to say that a great number of respectable people had been sufferers by these transactions. Unhappily that was so, and very great misery had been occasioned by the maladministration of these different Companies, but it was a very different thing to say that and to bring home by legal evidence a criminal charge against the persons who had been at the head of those Companies. They had learnt that to their cost already. It was as dangerous to be premature in making an attack of that kind as it was to be too late. He quite agreed with the hon. Gentleman that an assurance that it was not to the public interest that information should be made known should not be used for the purpose of shirking responsibility, and he ventured to say that the insinuation that it had been so used ought not to have been made, unless the hon. Gentleman had better knowledge than he possessed upon which to found it. It was patent to all those who were consulted professionally and who were in possession of the exact facts of the case that a prosecution might be more effectually instituted if they could put into the dock the man who had been described by the hon. Gentleman as the principal author of these frauds. If no case could be made against him, it would be difficult, he would not say impossible, to make a case against those who were, or might, be, responsible in the secondary degree. However that might be—and he did not say that that was not one of the considerations—his predecessor in the latter part of April came to the conclusion that, in the interests of justice and not in order to shirk responsibility, or from any of those motives so kindly suggested by the hon. Gentleman—

I never suggested or insinuated motives. There are many painful suspicious current among the public outside, to which I have not even referred. The only statement which I made was that the plea of the public interest should not be lightly put forward as an excuse for withholding information.

said, he understood that complaint had been made by the hon. Gentleman that he had put forward that plea as an excuse for not giving in formation. At any rate, after the hon. Gentleman's explanation he should know in the future that if he (Sir J. Rigby) made that statement again he might expect to have it allowed that he did so under a grave sense of responsibility, and that the assertion was not made with any idea of shirking responsibility or cloaking want of energy or want of investigation on the part of the authorities. The statement he had previously made, that it was not to the public interest that he should explain what had been done in the case, was made under a grave sense of responsibility. Whether the hon. Member was satisfied or not, that was still the only answer he could properly give. He had already told the House that at the end of April his predecessor came to a certain conclusion, one point of which was that prosecutions were not to be immediately brought forward. When he succeeded to the office of Attorney General he felt it his duty to inquire into the matter personally, and to take the opinion of those who had been engaged in going through the vast mass of facts necessary to a prosecution; and he now stated again on his own responsibility—without in the least attempting to shield himself behind his predecessor—that it was not to the public interest that the Government should say what, they would do or would not do in the matter. That there had been any kind of negligence, want of investigation or careful consideration in the case, and still less any attempt to shirk responsibility, he absolutely and emphatically denied. It was not to the public interest that any further explanation should be made at the present time.

said, he was perfectly willing to accept the statement of the Attorney General that he had acted in the manner which he believed was best for the public interest. But he ventured to say that the general opinion would be, when the reply of the hon. and learned Gentleman came to be read, that he had not given any adequate or satisfactory reason for the extraordinary delay that had occurred in taking action in the case. Ten months ago the main facts, as embodied in the Report of the Official Receiver, were known to the public. The facts, therefore, must have been before the Law Officers of the Crown for over eight months, and, in spite of what the Attorney General had said, doubtless with great force and conviction, he did not think the delay in taking action had been fully and properly explained. He believed that much stronger reasons for the delay would be demanded by the public and by Parliament if the offenders in the case should ultimately escape justice.

said, he hoped to get some information from the Secretary for Scotland as to the basis upon which fair rents were fixed by the Crofter Commissioners. He had on various occasions attempted to get information on this subject, but without success. He hoped they would be more successful to-night. The people in the Highlands ought to know on what basis they were rented. On the Island of Lewis, on Lady Matheson's estate, in 208 cases the old rent was £591 9s. 5d., and the fair-rents fixed by the Commissioners were £392 18s. Arrears had been reduced from £4,863 8s. 11d. to £1,194 12s. In individual cases rents had been reduced from £4 3s. to £2, from £4 10s. to £3 12s., from £3 12s. to £3 6s., and so on. There was nothing to show on what basis this was done. Some time ago he had visited two crofts. The old rent of each was £26. Well, the Commissioners decided that the rent of one should be £10, and the rent of the other £16. He was assured that these crofts were very much alike, and the man who had had his rent reduced to £16 only said, "Why should my neighbour have his rent reduced to £10—£6 more than mine? What reason is there for this?" He (Mr. Weir) hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Scotland would give them some reason for these extraordinary differences. He should like to refer to the case of a man named John Mackenzie, of Lochalsh, Ross-shire, who appealed against the Crofter Commission in December, 1891. His rent had been £8, and it was reduced to £4, and the £48 of arrears were reduced to £12, to be paid in three instalments of £4 each. Well, it seemed that the county rate collector was entitled to assess on the whole rent, but if the man disputed it he had to deposit the whole rate. The Secretary for Scotland could not be aware of the unfortunate position in which such proceedings placed these poor people. To lodge the whole rate was a very serious matter. It might mean selling the only cow or the only sheep or two sheep the man possessed. These men had not sovereigns and half-sovereigns to lodge with the county collector. Moreover, it was very hard that these appeals should stand over for years. It was necessary that all the Commissioners should be present during appeal cases. On the 20th of April this year he received a communication from the Crofters' Commission intimating that, owing to the illness they all regretted of Sheriff Brand, the Court had not been able to take up the consideration of the cases requiring the attention of the three Commissioners as an Appeal Court. He was glad Sheriff Brand was better, but it appeared to him that the Secretary for Scotland worked Sheriff Brand far too hard. He was the principal Commissioner at a salary of £1,200, he was also Chairman of the Deer Forest Commission, and he received —700 from the Consolidated Fund as Sheriff of Ayr. It appeared to him that this unfortunate man was simply being slaved to death. His large income might be some consolation to him, but it was no consolation to the people for whom the work had to be done. It would be interesting to know who attended to his duties as Sheriff of Ayr, and who paid the person who attended to these duties while Sheriff Brand was wandering all over the Highlands. He hoped the Secretary for Scotland would tell the House what number of the 682 appeals recently existing had been cleared off. He wished an explanation of the sum of £100 paid as remuneration to Sheriff clerks. He failed to see any number of Scottish or Highland Members in the House, and therefore he would refrain from making a Motion, hoping that the right hon. Gentleman would be able to give a satisfactory account of the Commission.

said, that he was glad to say that the Crofters' Commission was being able to do its work, and that large arrears had been wiped off. The Chair man had done his work remarkably well, but he (Dr. Clark) hoped that before long they would abolish Sheriffs altogether. In his spare time he could have been acting as advocate. Instead of that he was acting as Chairman of this Commission. He (Dr. Clark) did not object to his salary, but he objected to the character of the Sub-Commissioners, who were of the same class as the Commissioners. To send to the Highlands a Sheriff, a factor, and a large farmer, was a course which ought not to have been taken. On the whole, the Commissioners had done their duty fairly well, and during the last two or three years some good work had been accomplished by the Sub-Commissioners and valuers. But he did not altogether approve of the principle which had been acted upon in appointing the Sub-Commissioners and valuers. Large farmers and factors had generally been chosen for the posts, and he would suggest that there were numbers of small farmers of the crofter class and dealers in cattle who knew the various counties well, and who would command the confidence of the crofters much more readily than those actually appointed.

said, he was quite certain that much of what his hon. Friend had said would appeal to the judgment and good sense of almost every one in the Highlands, and if the hon. Member for Ross-shire took a Division in order to reduce the salary of the Crofters' Commission, on the ground that it did not command confidence in the Highlands, he would not carry the House with him. While Sheriff Brand had just now undoubtedly too much to do, every one who knew the difficulty of the work would be very unwilling, indeed, that he should cease to take part in it. As Chairman of the Crofters'Commission he had secured confidence in the Highlands not only among the tenants but also among the landlords, many of whom were now feeling that their relations with their tenantry had never been so satisfactory. The tenants felt, too, that their cases had been fully inquired into. Their rents had been reduced, and arrears had been cancelled. The way in which he presided over the Crofters' Commission convinced the Government that it was desirable to place him at the head of the Highland Commission. For that he did not receive five guineas a day, as had been suggested, but he had only the ordinary travelling allowances. Sheriff Brand had had a terrible struggle, and in his efforts to give the invaluable assistance of his special knowledge of the Highlands his health had suffered greatly. But by the middle of next month his duties in connection with the survey of the Highlands would have been brought to the close, and then there would only remain the preparation of the Report. The only serious drawback was the one referred to by his hon. Friend, the delay in disposing of appeals, but he could reassure the Committee on that point, for when Sheriff Brand was discharged from the Land Commission duties he would soon dispose of the 393 cases which stood on the list on the 30th of June last. The current work of the Commission in fixing rents was being carried on with celerity, and he believed there never was a Judicial Body which had more completely fulfilled the purposes for which it was created or more completely commanded public confidence.

asked for an explanation of the item of £100 for Sheriffs' clerks.

That goes to the clerks themselves for work actually done.

said, some arrangement was made by the right hon. Gentleman in the course of the present year that an official of this Commission should give evidence as to its work before the Welsh Land Commission, because that work had been done so well as to create a sincere desire that the Welsh Commission should be informed how it had been carried on. Accordingly, Sir Colin Moncrieff was deputed to give the evidence for the Crofters' Commission. But, as a matter of fact, he knew nothing of the subject personally, he was not a Commissioner, and he had to get his information secondhand. He had been assured by some of the Scotch Members that the evidence thus given was not at all reliable, and he therefore trusted that Sheriff Brand would be directed to give evidence, and an arrangement had accordingly been made that it should be passed pro formâ, and Report taken early the next evening, so that the matter might be fully discussed. This was agreed to with a view to finishing Committee of Supply that night and enabling the Prorogation to take place on Friday.

Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to take to-night the Report of Supply voted on Saturday?

Yes, so far as the Votes are unopposed. If any require further discussion they will be postponed.

If I mention one or two Votes, will the right hon. Gentleman postpone them?

I would rather that the hon. Member mentioned one than two.

I am afraid that I shall have to mention three.

said, it was intended that both Sheriff Brand and the hon. Member for Sutherlandshire should attend.

said, this was really a very important Vote. Several questions were to be raised upon it; information was required from the Government on several points, and he proposed, therefore, to move to report Progress, in order that he might elicit some information as to the intentions of the Government in regard to affording a proper opportunity for discussing it.

said, he had received a communication that afternoon to the effect it was very much desired that the Education Vote should not be taken that night.

When will the Report of the 1st June be taken?

Not until tomorrow.

I will not press the Motion for Progress.

said, he regretted being unable to allow that Vote to pass on account of the action of the Treasury, and if they failed to give him a promise that his views would be met in regard to the grants he would have to press the matter to a Division.