desired to ask if anyone was present who could answer certain questions with regard to this Bill, because if not he should have to request that its consideration be deferred till to-morrow.

It stands by Order for to-day already.

remarked, that it was very unfortunate that if a Member desired to ask a question with regard to a private Bill, no one interested in such Bill should be present to answer him. The Bill now before them took powers for obtaining the control of a certain railway, and he desired to ask if the directors intended to make any alteration in the passenger fares over that particular line?

I do not know what the purpose of this Bill is, but I assume that it is not a Bill which deals with the question of fares.

said, the company distinctly took control of the particular railway by this Bill, and once having got it under their control they would have the entire management of it. In the interest of the travelling public, he wished to ascertain if it was proposed by the directors to take any, and, if so, what, action with regard to passenger fares? He did not wish to oppose the entire Bill, but he desired to have some information on this point, and in the absence of anyone who could give him an answer, he would move that the Debate be adjourned till to-morrow.

Does any hon. Member second that?

I beg to second that Motion.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, if he can state what number of compassionate pensions to soldiers who served in the Crimean and Indian Mutiny campaigns have been granted since he made his statement on the Army Estimates; and whether all the applications from men of 65 years of age and upwards have now been dealt with by the Chelsea Hospital Commissioners.

Since March 15, when the Army Estimates were introduced in this House, 118 special campaign pensions have been granted, and 119 are in various stages of consideration. All the qualified claimants over 65 years of age at home have been dealt with or are among those mentioned as under consideration; but new claims are constantly received, and the claims from men in the colonies are only taken up as they are renewed.

said that he presumed that these cases included those of the old soldiers who were incapacitated from work by ill health.

asked whether the rule that men must be in a state of destitution before they could receive assistance was still enforced.

said, that the rule was interpreted very generously.

asked how far this rule, which really discouraged thrift, had been abolished. What in fact was the present rule?

said, that he hoped the hon. Member would not press the question, as he thought it inadvisable that a public answer should be given.

said that he must put the question on the Paper.

Very well; I will ask the hon. Member to put it down.

On behalf of the hon. Member for the St. Patrick Division of Dublin, I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board, in view of the fact that the Commission on Bovine Tuberculosis has been proceeding for the past five years, and that numerous questions have been asked thereon, whether the Government have delayed the practical consideration of this matter; and whether they expect to be able to announce their decision within a reasonable time?

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether Her Majesty's Government will recommend that the scope of the inquiry of the Royal Commission appointed to inquire into the effect of food derived from tuberculous animals on human health shall be extended so that the Royal Commission may further inquire and report on administrative procedures available for reducing the amount of tuberculous material in the food supplied by animals to man?

The Royal Commission on Tuberculosis issued their report a few days ago, after a prolongued inquiry. The evidence which has been taken during that time has not yet been issued. The Report makes no recommendations. The Commission has arrived at various conclusions of fact as to the existence of tuberculosis in animals, and as to the possibility of its being communicated to consumers of meat and milk. These conclusions appear to point to the expediency of an extension of the system of inspection of dairies, slaughterhouses, and butchers' shops, and possibly to the general establishment of public slaughter-houses. Until the evidence taken by the Commission is published, and time has been given for the consideration of the very large and difficult questions involved, I shall be quite unable to state what the intentions of the Government are upon these matters, or whether it is desirable to have a further inquiry as suggested by the hon. Member for West Salford.

asked whether the right hon. Member would issue directions to magistrates, sanitary inspectors, and other officials, as to what meat they should condemn, and what meat they should not condemn.

said, that he did not think he had any power to issue such directions. The inspectors of meat were appointed by the local authorities.

On behalf of the hon. Member for South West Ham (Mr. J. Keir Hardie), I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department—(1) whether he is aware that the miners employed in No. 7, Blair Pit, Dalry, Ayrshire, appointed James Crawford as their check-weigher on 1st May, in the form prescribed by the Mines Regulation Act; that a letter was sent to Mr. Cunningham, the manager, inviting him to attend at the ballot, but that the manager refuses to allow Crawford to take his place on the pit head until the miners sign their names at the office that they are in favour of him acting as check-weigher; and (2) whether such action is in accordance with the Mines Act?

My attention has already been called to this case by the Inspector. The facts are as stated in the first paragraph, but I am informed that the following day the men agreed to sign the paper, and that the check-weigher has been allowed to take up his duties. I do not think that the manager was entitled under the Mines Act to require the miners to sign the paper.

On behalf of the same hon. Member, I beg to ask the Secretary for the Home Department—(1) whether he is aware that in certain pits in Dalry, Ayrshire, workmen are prohibited from ascending the shaft before Four o'clock, even when their work is finished earlier, or when from any cause they are unable to continue at work; and (2) whether he will introduce a clause into the new Mines Act putting a stop to such proceedings?

I understand that it is a fact that in certain pits in Dalry, workmen are prohibited from ascending the shaft before Four o'clock, but I am informed this rule is not strictly enforced in case of illness or other reasonable excuse being made. I will consult the Secretary of State as to the last question.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, having regard to the importance of the Board of Trade being represented at inquests on fatal accidents to railway servants, he will cause a circular letter to be sent to coroners in England and Wales, intimating that the recent increase of the staff of the Board of Trade by the appointment of practical railway men as sub-inspectors of railways, will now enable the Board to be represented more frequently at inquests, and recommending coroners to apply by telegraph to the Board of Trade to send an inspector or sub-inspector to attend all inquests on such fatalities?

I am informed by the Board of Trade that in railway cases when a coroner asks for technical assistance, it is their practice, unless there is a grave reason to the contrary, to direct an inspecting officer of railways to attend the inquest. They will be willing to continue this practice in important cases involving the deaths of railway servants, and on receiving a request from the coroner they will direct a sub-inspector to attend. A circular letter scarcely appears to be necessary, as coroners are well aware of the practice of the Department.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the Board of Trade has the power to cause the inquiry now proceeding under Section 189 of the Thames Conservancy Act 1894, as to the practicability and expediency of improving the navigation of the Thames and the estuary thereof," to be extended to the whole of the river as far upwards as London Bridge, in place of the limits fixed by the Act, that is to say, from the Nore Lightship to Thorney Creek; and whether, if the Board of Trade have the power, they will exercise it?

The Board have no power to extend the inquiry to which the hon. Member alludes. The Admiralty, having re-surveyed the limits fixed by Section 189 of the Thames Conservancy Act 1894, are now engaged in examining the shoal patches between Thorney Creek and Gravesend. The Conservators of the Thames are also making a survey of the river above Gravesend. These surveys and examination, when completed, will be placed before the Commissioners who are holding the inquiry referred to.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland—(1) whether applications from various quarters have been made to the Irish Local Government Board to take necessary steps to establish a Pasteur Institute in Dublin; and (2) whether, having regard to the fact that this system involves operations upon living animals, he will be able to give an undertaking that public money will not be applied to the establishment of an institution of this character in Dublin?

I understand that the Boards of Guardians of a large number of Unions in Ireland have adopted a Resolution of the nature referred to in the first paragraph of the question. The Local Government Board are now collecting information as to the amount expended from the poor rates in sending poor persons to the Institute in Paris for treatment, and my hon. Friend may rest assured that the whole matter will be carefully considered when it comes before me.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, whether he can now state when the building of the pier at Killybegs, which was promised by the late Government upwards of four years ago, and by the present Government upwards of two years ago, will be commenced?

I am sorry that as yet we have not been able to come to an arrangement with the Congested Districts Board, nor to estimate the amount that will be available from railway funds.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, whether he can see his way to abolish guarantees for local telegraph offices throughout this country, as the liability to give such guarantees seriously hampers the development of sparsely populated country districts?

I cannot hold out any hope of an abolition of the guarantee system, but I would remind my hon. Friend that much has been done of late years to encourage the extension of telegraphs in country districts. Rural sanitary authorities have been empowered to give guarantees for this purpose; the conditions of the guarantee have been very considerably lightened; and the Post Office is constantly making inquiries as to whether the business likely to be done at village post offices will justify the extension of the telegraph without any guarantee at all. The result has been that the number of country telegraph offices is increasing steadily, and at a growing rate In 1890–91 the increase was 275; in 1893–94 it was 673.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General, what is the total number of telegraph offices in London and metropolitan district; whether he is aware that there are 40 telegraph offices in the metropolis within a radius of two miles; and whether he can spare a few of these town offices in order to be in a position to establish more offices in the rural districts, with a view to encourage the people of such districts to remain in them and abstain from flocking into the towns?

There are about 500 telegraph offices in the metropolitan district, or, in other words, about one office to 10,000 people. Elsewhere there are about 9,150 offices, or one office to 3,600 people. The offices in the metropolis have been established to meet the requirements of the public, and are only maintained if they pay their way. To close any of them would not facilitate the establishment of telegraph offices in rural districts, which, however, are being extended with increasing rapidity year by year, the number of offices added in 1890–91 being 275, and in the three following years 349, 561, and 673.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that in the transfer of some of the Indian Guaranteed Railway Stocks the Companies require a certificate of burial in the case of the death of one of the holders, and will not accept a certificate of death; whether he is aware that this often involves great difficulty and delay; and whether he will consider the advisability of altering this requirement in future?

The Indian Guaranteed Railway Companies are administered by their respective Boards of Directors. I have ascertained that though the procedure followed by each of the Companies varies somewhat in detail, the general practice is to accept either certificates of death or of burial.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that one of the principle industries in the district of Mount Charles, County Donegal, is the quarrying and exportation of the Mount Charles freestone, a work which gives employment to labourers and small farmers; whether he is aware that the quarries are two statute miles from Mount Charles (Salthill) pier, and a little more than one mile from the railway station, and that between the quarries and the pier and railway station there are steep hills, the result being that horses are only able to carry a little over half an ordinary load to the places of exportation; and whether, having regard to the increase in the cost of transportation of stones thus carried, and to the fact that special orders could not be executed, as stones over a certain weight could not be drawn over the Glencough Braes, he would consider the propriety of instituting public works for cutting through these hills, which would give employment for relief of the distress in this neighbourhood?

I am informed that the facts are generally as stated in the question, and that at Presentment Sessions held at Mount Charles on the 9th instant a presentment was passed for the cutting one of the worst hills. With regard to the suggestion that the Government should undertake the cutting of these hills as relief works, the Local Government Board state that no representations have been made to them as to the existence of distress in the locality such as to justify the opening of such works, and the Board's Inspector is of opinion, that no such works are required in this district at present, I have directed the inspector to make further inquiry and to report to me at an early date on this point.

I beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade—(1) whether his attention has been drawn to the grave inconvenience and annoyance caused to the travelling public by the recent refusal of the North British Railway Company to allow passengers from Edinburgh to Kirkcaldy to travel by the 4.25 p.m. train, notwithstanding that it stops at Kirkcaldy for the purpose of taking up passengers; (2) whether he is aware that in giving evidence before a Select Committee of the House of Commons, in opposition to the proposed scheme of a rival company, the late Mr. John Walker, manager of the North British Railway Company, stated that the inhabitants of Kirkcaldy would have full advantage of all passenger trains passing Kirkcaldy; and (3) whether, in view of the strong dissatisfaction with which the present action of the North British Railway Company is regarded, he proposes taking any action in the matter?

I can quite understand that the people of Kirkcaldy may be put to inconvenience by the facts stated in my honourable Friend's question. The Railway Company, however, state to me that they are only able to make this train keep time at Dundee and the other places north of Fife which it serves, by refusing to book passengers from Edinburgh to Kirkcaldy; and they add that there are trains from Edinburgh at 3.55, 4.40, and 4.50 p.m., so that, in their view, passengers from Edinburgh to Kirkcaldy have adequate afternoon facilities. The Board of Trade have no power to take any action in the matter; complaints regarding the absence of due facilities can only be addressed to and heard by the Railway Commissioners.

The right hon. Gentleman has not answered the second paragraph of my question. I would also ask whether it is not the case that this very train has to wait a quarter of an hour at Dundee for connections?

I daresay that is the case. I will endeavour to get some information on the subject.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, whether he will agree to the Return as to the State limitation of the hours of labour in foreign countries which stands on the Paper this day?

I understand the hon. Member consents to the alterations which I have communicated to him privately, and if that is so, he can have the return.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether he is aware that the pea bug has been introduced by American peas, grown by contract for English seedsmen, and that their existence is admitted by the producers, who advise soaking in petroleum before use; and that pea fields are being ploughed up in Essex and elsewhere owing to the damage done by this insect; and whether he will stop the importation of foreign seed peas known to be infected by the bug?

There seems to be some misunderstanding as to the particular insect to which the hon. Member refers under the term "pea bug," and I should be obliged to him if he would place me in possession of any information on the subject which he may possess. The insects of which specimens were sent to me from Brain-tree were, as I am advised, Sitones lineatus, commonly described as the pea and bean weevil. This insect has been well known in this country for many years, and the leaflet now being issued by the Board of Agriculture sets out the measures which may with advantage be adopted with respect to it. I have no power to take the action suggested in the latter part of the question.

said, that he had some of the bugs with him. Would the right hon. Gentleman have consignments of peas coming from America marked as such and kept in bond in order that the bugs might develop there instead of on the land?

I am afraid that what the hon. and gallant Gentleman suggests is outside of my power.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to the statement of Dr. Cecil Wilson, Anglican Bishop of Melanesia, that Sir J. B. Thurston, Her Majesty's High Commissioner in the Western Pacific, had informed him, after a recent cruise amongst the islands, that he had been saddened throughout his jurney by the evidences of the fearful depopulation resulting from the Queensland labour traffic; whether he is aware that it was admitted, in the course of a recent trial at Brisbane for kidnapping, that the Government Agent on board the labour-recruiting vessel William Manson had sanctioned the taking on board of seven single women contrary to the regulation forbidding the recruiting of women unless they volunteered with their husbands, and that other irregularities occurred on the same vessel with the cognisance of the Government Agent; and whether, in view of this recrudescence of the malpractices associated with this traffic in bygone years, he will urge upon the Governor of Queensland and Her Majesty's High Commissioner in the Pacific the necessity of the utmost vigilance and the closest supervision?

My attention has not been called to the statement of Dr. Cecil Wilson, Anglican Bishop of Melanesia, that Sir J. B. Thurston, Her Majesty's High Commissioner in the Western Pacific, had informed him, after a recent cruise amongst the islands, that he had been saddened throughout his journey by the evidences of the fearful depopulation resulting from the Queensland labour traffic, otherwise than through the newspaper extract which has been forwarded to me by the courtesy of my hon. Friend. Sir John Thurston has in recent despatches expressed the opinion that the labour traffic has tended to depopulate some of the islands. The Governor of Queensland has reported that the master and Government Agent of the William Manson have been committed for trial at Brisbane for kidnapping; but the official report of the trial has not yet been received. The High Commissioner for the Western Pacific has arrived on leave, and it is intended to confer with him on this and other questions connected with the islands of the Pacific, but it is premature to discuss the question of addressing the Governor of Queensland in the sense suggested.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the Parish Council for St. Clears, in the county of Carmarthen, have communicated with him in reference to the use of the justices' room for the purpose of holding Parish Council meetings under Section 4 of the Local Government Act, 1894; whether, having considered the representations made to him, both for and against the use of the room, he communicated his consent to the chairman of the Parish Council; whether the Standing Joint Committee, in the face of this communication, refused the Council the use of the room; and whether, under the circumstances, he will direct the Standing Joint Committee to grant the Parish Council the use of the room on any reasonable occasion?

The facts are as stated in the question. The Standing Joint Committee are bound by Section 4 of the Local Government Act, 1894, to allow the use of the room to the Parish Council. I think they must have misunderstood the law, and I will communicate with them further.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that since police protection has been granted to a man named M'Cordick, in the parish of Drumreilly, South Leitrim, the constabulary have turned his house into a temporary barrack, and employed him to run messages; and whether he can state for what further period the police intend to continue making payments to this man for these purposes?

I am sorry to say that I have not been able to complete my inquiries on this subject. If the hon. Member will put the question down again for Monday I hope I shall be able to answer it.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Government will grant an early day for the discussion of the question of referring the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act (1887) Repeal Bill to the Standing Committee on Law, &c?

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Government will be able to afford an opportunity for the Adjourned Debate on the Motion to refer the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act (1887) Repeal Bill to the Standing Committee on Law, &c.?

It is not possible for the Government in the present state of public business to give any undertaking on this subject. The Irish Land Bill must be the first and paramount object of their consideration in the distribution of time for Irish business.

What I wish to know is, whether the right hon. Gentleman will allow anything to interpose between this Coercion Act Repeal Bill and the House, except the Irish Land Bill and the Welsh Disestablishment Bill?

Questions of that kind ought, I think, to be addressed be to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House; but I have no reason to doubt that the Irish Land Bill will follow the Welsh Bill.

That is not what I asked.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he can say that this Bill will be taken after the Land Bill?

Surely the hon. Member must be aware that this is not a Government Bill, though the Government heartily and cordially sympathise with its object.

What I desire to ask the right hon. Gentleman is this: Will the right hon. Gentleman say that no time will be given to other Irish Bills besides the Land Bill until this Bill is taken up?

Oh no; I certainly cannot say anything of that kind. There is at least one Irish Bill, if not two, which has a prior position in the list of the business of the House.

What Bills?

The Municipal Franchise (Ireland) Bill for one.

Is that the only Bill?

I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will give precedence to the Coercion Act Repeal Bill over another unofficial Bill, the Irish Sunday Closing Bill?

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether any English Bill whatever will be considered?

All these different questions ought to be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House.

I beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Scotland whether he has received any further information as to the proposed eviction of crofters at Kinrossie, Perthshire; whether he is aware that the Sheriff Clerk of Perthshire is also agent for the Messrs. Nairne, the proprietors of the land in question; and that the Procurator Fiscal of Perthshire is also connected in business with the landed proprietors in the county; if he will cause inquiry to be made whether the dwelling-houses in question were wholly built, or extensively repaired, by the occupying crofters or their relations, and whether any of the crofters in question have resigned their holdings voluntarily; and whether he will order an independent inquiry to be made into all the circumstances of the case?

Before the right hon. Gentleman answers that question may I ask him whether it is the case that these tenants have been compelled to leave their holdings without any compensation being given for the improvements made by them in their houses and lands?

The Sheriff Clerk and Procurator Fiscal of Perthshire were both appointed a considerable time ago, and they are not debarred by their Commissions from private practice as law agents. The Sheriff Clerk is factor on the estate of Dunsinane belonging to Messrs. Nairne. The Procurator Fiscal is factor upon two small estates, upon neither of which are there crofters. It is understood that the predecessors of the present occupants built their houses with assistance from the proprietors, and that in consideration of this they got their holdings, which are separate from their houses, at a low rent. The Sheriff informs me that the houses are generally speaking old, and that no one has made repairs of any importance upon them without assistance from the proprietors. Of the six crofters who have now received notice to quit, four retain their houses, and those who desire new crofts will receive them. Two crofters are warned out from both houses and crofts. I shall inquire as to the reasons in respect of which it is proposed to remove them from the estate. I will at the same time inquire as to the question addressed to me by my hon. Friend the Member for Perth.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that it is alleged that these people have been evicted on account of political partisanship, and whether that is true or not?

The information I have from the Sheriff confines itself to this, that they made themselves offensive to the proprietor, and I want to know how they made themselves offensive. As the Sheriff has given me that information I shall consider it my duty to inquire how they made themselves offensive.

Must I put down another question in order to get an answer on that point?

That is for the hon. Gentleman to decide. I shall endeavour to obtain the information for myself.

On behalf of the right hon. Member for London University (Sir John Lubbock), I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether it was proposed to make certain archæological researches at Tara; if so, under whose superintendence the works would be carried on; and whether a survey and relief model would be made showing the present configuration of the earthworks?

Such a proposal has been put forward by private persons, but it is not supported either by the Royal Irish Academy or by the Royal Society of Antiquaries in Ireland. Any recommendation from those two societies would receive every attention, but in its absence the Board of Works, in whom this ancient monument is vested, would not be justified in giving the necessary permission for the proposed work.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state if the Local Government Board Inspectors visited the distressed districts of Beihy, Keeldra, and Cattan, in South Leitrim, and whether any report was made in the case of Thomas Colreavy, of Drumhass, in Cattan division; whether he is aware that this poor man, Colreavy, died on Saturday last from the effects of hunger, and the priest who attended him in his last moments found that he, his wife and family, had not a morsel of food in the House; whether the Local Government Board Inspectors allege, when cases of extreme destitution are pointed out by the local clergy, that there is no money available; whether he would consider if drainage works could be started with advantage in this district; and whether, to prevent further cases like Colreavy's occurring, he will order relief works to meet the acute poverty existing there?

Two of the Board's Inspectors visited the divisions named in the question last month, and carefully inquired into the condition of the people. No exceptional distress was found to exist in the district. I am informed both by the Local Government Board and by the local police that the man referred to did not die from hunger, as alleged, but from comsumption, from which he had been suffering for the past two years. The police also state that there was food in the house at the time of his death, and the neighbours of the family also state there is no truth in the allegation that the man died from hunger. The Inspectors assure me that they never stated there was no money available to meet cases of extreme destitution. The relieving officer is supplied with funds for providing for any cases of sudden and urgent necessity that may arise. The Local Government Board advise me that no necessity exists at present for undertaking relief works in this district.

I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware that Malcolm Campbell, a crofter at Garrabost, near Stornoway, Island of Lewis, recently beg an to improve his house by rebuilding it of stone and lime instead of turf, and by providing two doors, one for his family, and the other for his cattle; that when the walls were two feet high the factor of the landowner intimated that, if the work were proceeded with, and two doors put into the building, the structure would, under the Estate Regulations, be pulled down; that, as a result of this threat, the house was built with one door only; that after the house was finished the sanitary inspector summoned Malcolm Campbell for contravening the Public Health Act by constructing his house with one door only for the admission of both people and cattle, and that Sheriff Deputy Campbell, at Stornoway, gave judgment requiring the said Malcolm Campbell to provide two doors to his house before the 12th June, 1895; and whether he will consider the desirability of taking steps to protect small tenants in the Island of Lewis from Estate Regulations which conflict with the law?

The Sheriff of Ross and Cromarty reports to me that Malcolm Campbell recently commenced to alter his house, but that in doing so he built only a thin dwarf partition, seven feet high and four and a-half inches thick, between the dwelling room and the byre, leaving a space of six feet open to the ridge of the roof, and having a doorway in it for the passage of cattle through the dwelling-house into the byre, there being no separate entrance to the byre from the outside. In doing this he contravened the Estate Regulations issued to the crofters both in Gaelic and English, and did not act under any other or contrary instructions from the Estate officials. In the course of proceedings taken against him by the Sanitary Authority he was required by the resident Sheriff to build a solid partition nine inches thick between his house and his byre carried up to the roof, and to make a separate entrance to the byre from the outside. I may add that the Sheriff is of opinion that the Estate Regulations are in this respect perfectly proper and consistent with law.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether the attention of the Foreign Office has been called to the examples of torture inflicted in Bitlis prison, a list of which appears in The Daily News of the 14th instant; whether a similar statement has been communicated from authoritative sources to the British Embassy at Constantinople and to the Foreign Office; and what action the Government intend to take with regard to the matter?

The statement referred to, which appeared in The Daily News, has not reached Her Majesty's Government. Her Majesty's Ambassador at Constantinople was instructed in March last to call attention to the reports which were received from various parts of Asia Minor of the ill-treatment to which prisoners were subjected. He will be asked whether he has received any authentic information as to the tortures said to have been inflicted in the prison at Bitlis, and if such should be the case, to represent to the Turkish Government the necessity of a strict investigation.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the necessity that the execution of the reforms to be introduced into the Armenian provinces should be under direct, adequate, and continuous European control, he is able either to state the nature of the special provisions by which that object is to be carried out, or to lay the text of the Joint Note upon the Table of the House?

It would be undesirable to make a public statement as to the terms of proposals which are now under discussion between the Ambassadors and the Porte.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty—(1) whether there is any probability of the Channel Fleet visiting Invergordon this summer; and (2) whether he is aware that the anchorage at Invergordon is one of the best in Scotland?

I am unable to answer the first question at present. The excellence of the anchorage at Invergordon is beyond dispute.

If the right hon. Gentleman is unable to answer the question, will he be able to do so during the next few days? Will the right hon. Gentleman be able to answer the first paragraph of the question a week from now?

I think not. The Channel Fleet is to proceed to Kiel for the opening of the Baltic Canal, and the decision as to their future movements will not be taken just yet.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if he has received a communication from the Lord Mayor of Belfast, requesting that the Channel Fleet may visit Belfast this summer during their cruise in the Irish Channel; and if he will favourably consider this request in the interest of the Navy, and direct such a visit, which would be highly appreciated.

The official communication from Belfast has been received, and the question of the ports to be visited by the Channel Fleet after its return from the opening of the Baltic Canal will shortly be considered.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War why the price of Martini-Henry rifle ammunition (which had been for a number of years £3 2s. per 1,000) was raised last year to £3 13s. 9d., and why the present price of carbine ammunition, which contains a smaller charge, is £4 3s. 3d. per 1,000; and, whether he can see his way to reduce the price of the ammunition, which is a heavy charge upon Volunteer battalions that frequently buy a considerable quantity?

The prices are taken from the vocabulary of stores current at the time. In the edition of 1886, which gave the lower price for Martini-Henry ammunition, the cost was that for which the cartridges were produced in the ordnance factories. The cartridges for which the higher price is quoted in the 1893 edition are obtained almost exclusively from the trade, the ordnance factories being mainly employed in making cordite ammunition. The higher relative cost of carbine ammunition results from the smaller quantities required.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it will be necessary to introduce a Bill to give effect to the Convention entered into by Her Majesty's Government and the Government of the Netherlands for the reference of the claims of the captain, owners, and crew of the Costa Rica Packet to arbitration; and, if so, whether he can indicate the probable date of its introduction?

It will not be necessary to introduce a Bill for this purpose in this country.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, whether he is aware that the Royal Artillery Canteen at Dover are selling mineral waters to other regiments and to retired officers at a price with which local makers, who have to pay rent, rates, taxes, and wages, cannot compete; and, whether the canteen is allowed to supply other persons than those of the regiment to which he belongs?

The regulations allow the Royal Artillery Canteen at Dover to sell mineral waters to other regiments. I am informed that they do not sell to retired officers or to any persons not on the strength of the garrison.

I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether any steps are being taken to provide better accommodation for the Royal College of Science in Dublin; and whether any design for the necessary buildings has been or is being prepared?

I am in correspondence with the Treasury and the Irish Office on this subject. The Professors of the College have prepared some block plans to show their requirements.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can give the House any information as to the reported failure of the negotiations for the admission of Newfoundland into the Dominion of Canada; and, on whom the responsibility rests?

We are not as yet in a position to make any statement in regard to these negotiations.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Board of Control of Lunatic Asylums in Ireland invited 12 architects to submit anonymously designs for the proposed Portrane Lunatic Asylum; that the letter of conditions inviting competition stated, amongst other things, that a Committee of Selection would select not more than three out of the 12 competitors, and place them in order of merit; that the Committee of Selection did select three, and stated that they were of equal merit; that the Board of Control thereupon obtained estimates upon the three designs, and when they were obtained adopted the design which would cost, according to the official surveyor's report, £30,000 more than one, and £48,000 more than the other of the designs which had been adjudged by the Committee of Selection to be of equal merit with that adopted, thus imposing a grave additional burden upon the ratepayers; that the methods pursued in the conduct of the competition for designs and in their selection have been condemned by the Council of the Institute of Architects of Ireland as violating certain fundamental conditions regulating the competition, on the faith of which generally the competitors submitted their designs for adjudication; that they had hold that, in view of the facts no adjudication has taken place within the meaning of the conditions; and, whether representations will be addressed to the Board on the subject, with a view to their adopting steps for holding a fresh competition?

This question is to be brought before the Board of Control at its meeting to-morrow; but I think my hon. Friend will be good enough to postpone the question until they have come to a decision.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Irish Government have agreed to the rules drawn up by the Commissioners of Education in Ireland regarding the Christian Brothers' Schools?

I forwarded my reply to the Commissioners, as I stated to the hon. Member it was my intention to do. The Commissioners have that reply under their consideration, and in the meantime I do not think it would be courteous to that Board publicly to indicate the purport of it.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if, when he mentioned the fact of contractors mixing frozen meat with home-killed meat, he meant home produce killed at home, or imported beasts merely killed at home?

The home-killed meat, of which 40 per cent. must be supplied, may consist either of home produce killed at home or of imported beasts slaughtered at the port of disembarkation. There would be great I difficulty in distinguishing between them.

May I ask whether, in these circumstances, any soldier is ever certain that he has the chance of enjoying the roast beef of Old England?

May I ask whether it would not be a fair description of the English soldier that he is "mainly manufactured abroad"?

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he has come to any conclusion as to the advisability of taking steps this Session to assimilate the Jaw of Ireland with that of Scotland with reference to power for obtaining land for the enlargement of small holdings in congested districts?

The Congested Districts Board, by whom this matter was specially considered at their meeting on the 10th inst., are aware that there are large tracts of land that could be used for the purposes of enlargement of the holdings of small occupiers and the promotion of migration in congested districts. The Board, however, are of opinion that it will be impossible to give due effect to this important department of their work unless additional funds are placed at their disposal and compulsory powers given to them to acquire such lands at their just value.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Local Government Board will make advances to Boards of Guardians for the purpose of purchasing spraying machines for the protection of the potato crop; and whether he will advise the Board of Works to make loans on the same terms as for reclamation, &c., to enable small farmers to purchase spraying machines and hand separators for the improved manufacture of butter?

I am informed that neither the Local Government Board, nor the Board of Works, nor the Congested Districts Board, has power to make advances to Boards of Guardians, or to individuals, for the purpose mentioned by my hon. Friend. Experiments have been made by the Irish Land Commission in recent years for the purpose of testing the value of certain applications as preventatives of the spread of potato disease. The results of these experiments have been most successful, and directions, in leaflet form, have been widely circulated throughout the country by the aid of Boards of Guardians, the Constabulary, and local persons. The Congested Districts Board have also supplied spraying mixture to persons in possession of spraying machines, and this season it is proposed to expend a sum of £1,200, or perhaps more, in the purchase and distribution of spraying mixture. I make these observations in order to show that the Government has been alive to the importance of a matter which so largely concerns the interests of the Irish farmer, and I would add that it appears to me that landlords have it in their power to supplement the efforts of the Government very considerably in this direction, as well as to further their own interests by corning to the assistance of their poorer tenants and supplying them with the appliances which have been found by experience to be so valuable in checking the ravages of the potato disease. I am glad to see it stated in the Press that one landlord, Lord De Freyne, has ordered as many as 75 spraying machines, which he intends to present to his tenantry as a gift.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland when will the Local Government Board send the valuer to value the plots of land for the labourers in the parish of Emly, County Tipperary; and why has the Local Government Board delayed such a very long time about getting those valuations made (under the Labourers' Act) in Emly and Rhodus?

I am informed by the Local Government Board that the scheme for the erection of labourers' cottages in this parish is not yet ripe for the appointment of an arbitrator. Appeals have been lodged against four of the 80 cottages sanctioned by the Board's provisional order, and these appeals must be heard by the Privy Council before the scheme can legally be carried into effect. When the Order in Council shall have been issued, the sanitary authority can apply to the Board of Works to appoint an arbitrator to assess the compensation to be paid for the lands authorised to be acquired. The appeals will be heard before the Privy Council on the 5th June.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he is aware that a resolution was passed by the Wexford Board of Guardians on Saturday last, pointing out that there is great dissatisfaction in the Bannow district owing to the decision of the postal authorities to erect a telephone in Bannow Post Office, and not a telegraph for which the ratepayers gave a guarantee of £35 a year; that there is not one word about a telephone in the deed signed on behalf of the Wexford Board of Guardians and the postal authorities; and that the guarantee was given for a telegraph only; and, whether, under the circumstances, he will advise the postal authorities to carry out their part of the contract?

As I informed the hon. Member in reply to his previous question, there has been no departure from the terms of the contract for a telegraph office at Bannow. The telephone is a telegraph both in law and in fact, and is largely used for ordinary telegraph purposes.

I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland under what authority the Prison Commissioners reduced in 1892 the salary of the Medical Officer of Ayr Prison from £80 to £70, the former sum having been fixed by the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury in 1879?

A Treasury Committee appointed by the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury to consider the salaries of prison medical officers and chaplains in Scotland reported on 5th June, 1889, that in the case of medical officers and chaplains—

"who do not give their whole time to the service each case will of necessity be considered by the Prison Commissioners on its merits whenever a vacancy occurs."

The Report received the approval of the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury on the 25th June, 1889, and on the vacancy occurring at Ayr in December, 1891, the Prison Commissioners reported to the Secretary for Scotland on the merits of the case, and the Treasury approved of the salary being £70. The present Medical Officer accepted this salary on appointment.

I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland where an application is granted under the Local Government (Scotland) Act for an alteration of parish boundaries would he provide by his order for the repayment of the expenses originally incurred in providing school accommodation for the parish which is diminished in area?

I am prepared to take into consideration any claim which may be made for financial compensation where an Order under the Local Government Act alters the boundaries of School Board districts, and to provide for such compensation where the claim is made out by a Supplementary Order. But each case must be judged on its own merits, and I cannot admit that an alteration of area is always a ground for payment to that diminished district.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to the numerous cases of mutilation of horses, sheep, pigs, and other animals, recently reported as having occurred at Blakeney, in Gloucestershire, and to the prosecutions for certain of these offences; and whether he will state what steps are being taken to put a stop to these cruelties?

My attention has been drawn to the crimes mentioned in the question. It appears that in the last 16 months 15 serious offences have been undetected, two of them being maiming of animals. I have been, and still am, in communication with the police on the subject, who are using every effort to protect property and detect the offenders; and have made a considerable addition to the men on duty for this purpose.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General if envelopes can be impressed with halfpenny postage stamps at the Inland Revenue Office, Somerset House, on the same or similar conditions as paper and cardboard can now be impressed with postage stamps of other values when presented there?

Envelopes, if unfolded, can be impressed with halfpenny postage stamps at Somerset House on the same conditions as unfolded envelopes can now be impressed with stamps of other values, but the regulations affecting cardboard are different.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he has considered the case of the survivors of sixteen candidates who passed into Addiscombe at the first examination, held in December 1859, under paragraph 17 of the regulations for admission for cadetships in the Engineers and Artillery of Her Majesty's Indian Forces under Clause 34 of the Acts of 21 and 22 Vic., chap. 166; whether, after being sworn in as Indian Cadets, they were, after the decision was taken to amalgamate the Services, sent for and informed by Sir Frederick Abbot, the Governor of Addiscombe, that it was not proposed to appoint any more Officers to the Indian Artillery and Engineers, but that these cadets would retain all their rights and not be losers by the change, and by a similar promise, when they joined at Woolwich as Commissioned Officers, were induced to volunteer for general service, and in fact were appointed to and served in India, and were furthermore paid the £100 promised to those who obtained Commissions in the Artillery and Engineers of the Indian Forces, by the regulations under which they were examined for cadetships, and were in effect treated as if they had passed into the Indian Service; and whether, as one of the four surviving Officers concerned has recently been retired upon a pension of £450 a year, instead of the Indian pension to which he was entitled, it is proposed to adopt the same course with the remaining three Officers concerned; and, if so, on what ground the engagement into with these gentlemen by the Indian Government is now annulled?

These Officers entered as students at Addiscombe with the expectation of joining the Indian Artillery or Engineers; but before their college course was finished, appointments to those corps had ceased, in consequence of the transfer of the Indian Government to the Crown; and as the only military opening available, they joined the Royal Artillery or Royal Engineers. The Officers were never in the Indian Corps; and I regret to say that their claim to be treated for pension as if they had been in those corps cannot be recognised. There is no record of any authority having been given to the Governor of Addiscombe to hold out any such promise to the Cadets, as is referred to in the hon. Member's question.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been directed to the case of Mr. Kunhi Kannan, deputy collector and magistrate of Calicut, in the Madras Presidency, who was some years ago tried, convicted and imprisoned on a charge of having taken a bribe from an accused person whom he had tried in his capacity as magistrate; whether he is aware that the conviction of Mr. Kunhi Kannan rested almost entirely on the evidence of this accused person, who swore that he had had to call in a certain sum which was due to him on a mortgage, which sum he had handed over to Mr. Kunhi Kannan; whether he is aware that since Mr. Kunhi Kannan's conviction evidence has been forthcoming, in the shape of proceedings in a Court of Law, which prove that the sum which was due on the mortgage has not been called in, and therefore could not possibly have been paid to Mr. Kunhi Kannan; whether he is aware that the Madras Government, on whose prosecution he was convicted, have refused to grant any inquiry into this case, or any redress for the wrongful conviction to which he declares that he can prove he has been subjected; and, whether Her Majesty's Government will take any steps to secure that an opportunity be afforded to Mr. Kunhi Kannan to establish his innocence?

In consequence of a question put by my hon. Friend the Member for East Bradford last year, this case was fully considered, and I have nothing to add to the reply which I gave on the 2nd April 1894.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India—(1) whether he has received the report called for from the Government of India regarding the alleged setting aside of the Maharajah of Bhurtpore from the government of his State; (2) whether he is aware that the present Maharajah only ascended the throne on the death of his father about 14 months ago; and that the Government of India notified that the British Resident would conduct the Government for the period of 12 months; and (3) could he state the grounds on which the Maharajah has been set aside?

My reply to the first and second questions of the hon. Member is in the affirmative. As to the third question, the Government of India were satisfied of the incapacity of the Maharajah to discharge his duties as Ruler of the State, and I have officially approved of their action.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland what is the number of extra police in the county Tipperary, and what is the amount of the annual charge for them upon the county funds; whether there is anything exceptional in the condition of the county in respect agrarian or ordinary crime; and when it may be expected that the extra charge for police in the county Tipperary will cease?

The extra police in the county Tipperary at present numbers 30 men, who are all stationed in the South Riding alone, and the annual charge to the county in respect of this force is about £1,000 per annum, or slightly over one halfpenny in the pound at the valuation of the Riding. The county, at the present time, is in a most peaceable condition. Since August last the extra force has been reduced from 60 to 30 men, and this was only accomplished by breaking up several police stations, to which considerable local opposition was given. The Inspector General informs me that, having regard to the police necessities of the Riding, it is not, at present, possible to dispense with any more stations.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether a despatch was sent home in January last conveying the recommendations of the Indian Government on the subject of leave and pension rules for the European officials (non-civilian) in the Indian Service; and when a decision may be expected?

Such a despatch was received, and a reply was sent on the 11th of April giving the Secretary of State's decision on most of the points mentioned; but in a few cases the Government of India were asked to reconsider their proposals.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether it be the fact that peaceable British subjects, natives of India, are liable to be expelled without trial from the Transvaal; and, if so, what is the crime alleged or disqualification on account of which these British subjects are punished; and whether the Government will take steps to make public in India the fact that natives entering the Transvaal are liable to expulsion without trial and with violence by subordinate military officers in the employment of the Boer Government, so that intending emigrants may not be exposed to unnecessary indignities?

The hon. Member is mistaken in supposing that British-Indian subjects can be expelled without trial from the Transvaal. The Government does not propose to take the steps suggested in the second part of the question.

pressing for a further answer,

explained, that the dispute had been referred to arbitration. The Report of the Arbitrator had only just been received, and there had not been time to consider it.

The hon. Gentleman has four times declined to give an answer. Can he tell us what were the alleged grounds upon which these British subjects were deprived of the opportunity of earning their own living?

The complaint against them was the infringement of certain local sanitary laws. I have not refused in any case to answer the hon. Member. I have always informed him that an arbitrator was inquiring into the dispute, and we wished to see what the arbitrator said.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has any information with respect to the projected Boer expedition into the territory of the Native Chief Magato; and, whether, in the event of the Boers attacking Magato, British subjects will be permitted to enter into the service of a foreign Government for the purpose of carrying on hostilities.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether Her Majesty's Government have received information that the Boer Government are about to send a large command against the Basuto chief, Magato; whether this has been done because Magato has refused to submit longer to the exactions and taxes of the Boer officials; and, whether this is the same Magato who gave support to the British in the war of 1881.

I have no official information as to the supposed rupture between the Government of the South African Republic and the Native Chief Magato. As at present advised, I do not see that Her Majesty's Government would have any reason or ground for interfering with British subjects who chose to take service under the Government of the South African Republic in an affair of police of this kind. I have little doubt but that Magato was one of the native chiefs who offered support in 1881, but I should remind the hon. Member that Sir Owen Lanyon at the time refused all such offers on the ground that to call in the natives would be a political blunder and a crime.

asked whether the Magato territory was in the limit of the Transvaal as defined by the Convention of 1884?

said, it was certainly within what was recognised as the Transvaal Republic

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether the legal advisers of the Crown have yet given an answer with reference to the case of Mr. Ruff, late Inspector in the Metropolitan Police Force, and whether their opinion was favourable to the claim that Mr. Ruff's pension should be reconsidered; and, whether he would concede Mr. Ruff's claim, rather than throw upon him the trouble of litigation: and afterwards, if it should be found to be necessary or desirable, to take steps to make the law upon the point clearer?

I have received an opinion of the law officers of the Crown in this case, but, in my opinion, the matter is of so much importance that it is desirable that an authoritative decision should be obtained in a Court of Law. Mr. Ruff has been informed that if he will carry the appeal to an issue, his reasonable costs for legal assistance will be paid, and he has now stated that he accepts this offer, and has given the necessary instructions to his solicitors.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether it is a fact that the promoters of the Sale of Intoxicating Liquors (Ireland) Bill have been promised, on behalf of the Government, a day or days in the present Session for the discussion of the provisions of that measure after it has left the Grand Committee; and whether, in view of Irish opinion he will consider whether the time might be devoted to the Boards of Guardians Bill and the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act (1887) Repeal Bill.?

said, he did not know that what the hon. member had stated was a fact, and in the present state of business he could not give any undertaking.

asked when the Coercion Act Repeal Bill would be proceeded with?

I cannot say or give any undertaking.

Arising out of that, may I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer a question suggested by the Chief Secretary—whether he will give an undertaking, in view of the position which the repeal of the Coercion Act occupied in the Programme of the Government before the last General Election, that that Bill will be proceeded with before the Irish Sunday Closing Bill.

I must have notice of that. It is a difficult question to answer off-hand.

May I ask whether it is true that the Chief Secretary declared that the repeal of the Coercion Act would be the first business of the Government after they came into power, and instead of that we are to have a Sunday Closing Bill and a perpetual Coercion Act.?

I never made any such declaration.

Does the right hon. Gentleman deny that in a speech at Newcastle-on-Tyne——[Ministerial cries of "Order!"]

The hon. Member asked a question, and has received an answer.

May I ask the indulgence of the House, as the right hon. Gentleman has given a denial of the statement, to put a question—whether I am correct in stating that he declared at Newcastle——[Ministerial cries of "Order!" and Chair!"]

That is the same question which I ruled that the hon. Member could not ask, as he has received an answer.

Then, all I can say is, the Government have broken their pledges and behaved disgracefully.—Subsequently Mr. W. REDMOND said, that he wished to offer a personal explanation as to a statement he had made with regard to the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland. He had said that he understood the right hon. Gentleman to deny that he had stated at Newcastle-on-Tyne, before the last General Election, that the work of repealing the Crimes Act, commonly called the Coercion Act, would be, if not the very first, at all events one of the first, pieces of business which the Government of the right hon. Gentleman would proceed with. Would the right hon. Gentleman deny that? [Renewed cries of "Order!"]

Order, order! This is not a personal explanation. It is a demand for a personal explanation from another hon. Member.

submitted that he was entitled to ask the question of the right hon. Gentleman.

The hon. Gentlemen has asked a question and has received an answer to it.

The right hon. Gentleman cannot deny it.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General, whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that on a gentleman tendering lately for payment, through his bankers, a postal order for 1s. issued in 1886, which he had discovered amongst his papers, it was returned dishonoured; that an official demand for 1s. 6d. as commission, in addition to the halfpenny originally paid for the order, was made before the postal authorities would refund the shilling; and that the owner declined to pay 160 per cent. and preferred to let the matter drop; and whether, as the Post Office has the use of the money at compound interest, and the delay in presenting an order is obviously due to accident, he will in such cases allow payment of the whole, or at least the greater part, of the sum represented by the order, without enforcing the letter of the penal regulation as to delay in presentment?

My attention would not be called to such a case, because the course followed is that prescribed by the 1st Section of the Money Orders Act 1880. I have no power to alter the provisions which Parliament has seen fit to make on the subject.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether, when the Government of India became entitled some years ago to purchase the Great Indian Peninsular Railway, the Bombay and Baroda Railway, and other railways in the West of India, they waived that right for a period of years; and, if so, what is the yearly loss now to the revenues of India due to such waiver; what consideration did the railway companies give for the concession, and what gain is now accruing to the revenues of India from the consideration given by the railway companies; and whether he will lay the whole Correspondence upon the Table of the House?

In 1870 the Secretary of State relinquished his right to purchase on the first opportunity and modified the contracts of the Companies in the circumstances described in paragraph 8 of the Railway Report for 1869–70 by the Government Director of Indian Railway Companies. I cannot say what has been the pecuniary advantage or disadvantage of the modifications of the Contracts, as I do not know what would have been the price at which the railways could have been purchased by Government under the terms of the original Contracts. Correspondence on the subject was presented to the House in 1874.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether he can now state the terms of the peace between Japan and China; and whether he can state what alterations have been made in the original terms of peace in consequence of pressure from certain European Powers?

A statement cannot be made till the terms have been officially communicated by the Powers concerned.

I beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the Lord of the Manor of Penkelly Wallensis, in the county of Brecon (a Brecon Manor formerly belonging to the Crown), has recently entered into an agreement with the Merthyr Tydfil Local Board to sell to them, as his private property, 78 acres of land, being part of 650 acres known as Torglase Common, within the said Manor and in the parish of Llanfrynach, in the said County; whether he is aware that the said Lord of the Manor claims as his private property the whole of the said common (650 acres), notwithstanding that no Inclosure Act relating to the same has been passed nor any other process of law carried through; and whether he will have this case inquired into with a view of better protecting the rights of Commoners?

Perhaps my hon. Friend will allow me to reply to this Question. The Board of Agriculture have no cognisance of the agreement to which my hon. Friend refers, nor have we any authority to determine whether or not the lands in question are commonable lands. In any case, however, a Lord of the Manor cannot by any action on his part prejudice any rights which the Commoners may possess. I have no power myself to institute any inquiry on the subject, but, under the Local Government Act of last session, the District Council may, with the consent of the County Council, aid in the maintenance of common rights, where the extinction of such rights would be prejudicial to the interests of the District.

I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the fact that 2¾ per cent. Consols are now above par, Her Majesty's Government can see their way to reduce the rate of interest now charged by the Public Works Loan Board to a rate not exceeding three per cent., with a view to the relief of Local Rates.

The Local Loans Fund was established by the late Chancellor of the Exchequer as a self-supporting fund. It has to pay interest at three per cent. on the stock representing the amount advanced. This stock is irredeemable till 1912. After paying this interest, together with the expenses of management and the annuity set up to make good the losses incurred in the past, these charges exhaust almost the whole amount received for interest, leaving a margin only of £8,000. It is apparent, therefore, that no reduction of the present rate of interest can be made compatible with the solvency of the fund. According to my observation, in these days the municipal authorities have very little difficulty in borrowing in the open market at a very low rate.

I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, as Leader of the House, whether his attention has been called to a statement communicated to The Sydney Morning Herald by Sir Maurice O'Rorke, Speaker of the House of Representatives in the Colony of New Zealand, of the results of the operation of a time limit of half-an-hour for speeches in that legislative body, in accordance with a new Standing Order adopted at the beginning of last Session; and whether he will consider the advisability of introducing a similar Standing Order into this House?

Oh no, Sir; I think the limit of half-an-hour is a great deal too long.

I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will confer with the Opposition with a view of ascertaining if, by the withdrawal for the present of the part of the Crofters Bill which includes some additional counties, they would consent to its being committed to the Scotch Grand Committee?

said, he desired, before the Chancellor of the Exchequer answered, to ask him whether he was aware that, in the opinion of many Scotch Members, the extension to additional counties was one of the most valuable parts of the Crofters Bill, and that if he abandoned it to facilitate the opposition of hon. Members he would encounter much more formidable opposition in another quarter.

Before the right hon. Gentleman answers, does he understand that my aim was to save the ship?

In a day or two I hope to be able to make a statement on the subject, which I hope will relieve the difficulties that have arisen and deliver me from the cross-fire of questions.

In consequence of that reply, which is unsatisfactory here and will be elsewhere, I beg to give notice to the right hon. Gentleman, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, that I prefer not to oppose the Government. [Cries of "Order."]

The hon. Member must give notice of the question in the ordinary way.

Then, Sir, I will put it on the paper for to-morrow.

I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can state to the House the percentage of Income Tax collected in England and also in Scotland; whether the collections are more satisfactorily and more cheaply carried out in Scotland than in England?

said, that it was the fact that the Income Tax was more fully paid in Scotland than elsewhere. That was, no doubt, due to the fact that there was less intolerance of taxation in Scotland than in any other part of the United Kingdom.

I think it would be convenient to the House if the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer would state the course of business for the next few days.

If, as I hope, the Second Reading of the Finance Bill is passed to-night, and we move the Speaker out of the Chair on the Civil Service Estimates to-morrow, it is proposed to take the Welsh Bill on Monday and Tuesday, and then to proceed on the Thursday and Friday with the Committee on the Finance Bill.

When does the right hon. Gentleman intend to proceed with the Local Veto Bill? Does he intend to proceed with it before the Whitsuntide holidays?

I shall proceed with it as soon as I conceive that it is consistent with the business of the House that I should do so.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with reference to the proposed West Highland Railway guarantee, whether he will consent to lay upon the Table any Papers or Correspondence in connection therewith, subsequent to the Report of 1890?

I will lay on the Table such papers or correspondence on this subject as will explain the action taken by the Treasury since the date mentioned.

asked leave to bring in a Bill to amend the law relating to Friendly Societies. He said the Bill was based on suggestions made by a conference of Friendly Societies which met in January last, and which represented over 2,500,000 of members, and funds to the amount of nearly £19,000,000. The Amendments proposed were of a non-contentious character, and were principally intended to carry out improvements in the working of the Friendly Societies Acts which a 20 years' experience of them had shown be necessary. There were, however, two Amendments which he ought especially to mention, because he believed that if embodied in the law they might save a far-reaching effect on the habits of thrift and forethought of the working classes. One of these was to enable existing juvenile societies to amalgamate with the adult societies, with which they were connected, and the other was to allow any society to make a rule admitting members at one year of age, and thus to permit a child once admitted to a society to continue therein without a break during the whole of his life; and, at the same time, to make it possible, by a small payment, begun in infancy, to provide for a pension in old age.

said, this was a very important subject, and he trusted the Government would afford some time for its consideration. If Parliamentary debate was to be of any use, the House ought not to be asked to discuss grave and serious charges of this character between Twelve and One o'clock in the morning. Leave given, Bill presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday 17th June, and to be printed. [Bill 250.]

who had given notice of the following Amendment—

"That, in the opinion of this House, the Beer Duty should be readjusted with a view to the relief from taxation of home-grown barley and hops; and that import duties should be imposed upon foreign barley and hops used for brewing purposes,"—

said, that he proposed to make some slight modification in the wording of his proposal, with the view of eliciting a more general consensus of opinion in its favour. It would not be necessary for him to furnish evidence to show that a grave crisis existed in agricultural affairs, and that a very large portion of the agricultural community were actually on the brink of ruin. That statement would not be seriously challenged. It had been admitted by Ministers themselves both on public platforms and on the floor of the House. But when any remedy for this acknowledged evil was suggested, this unanimity unfortunately came to an end. The remedies proposed covered a very wide and diverse field. Some advocated the dog-eat-dog style of remedy—that one section of the agricultural community should be invited to plunder the other section; that one class should feed upon the property of another. Then there were those who held theories as to the changes that should be adopted in the methods of cultivation. It was said that wheat, barley, and oats could be obtained in unlimited quantities on better terms from outside, and that agriculturists should turn their attention to the rearing of poultry and the growing of fruit. That was the egg and jam theory. It was not likely to commend itself to practical persons, especially after the recent experience that had attended efforts in that direction. And agriculturists were further deterred from embarking upon this system of agriculture when they found that foreign and colonial communities, by means of bounties on exports of agricultural produce, even dairy produce, were prepared to deal with any phase of English competition. Parliament had been invited to do something to relieve agricultural distress, and in response they had this Bill, which added very seriously and materially to the difficulties which faced the barley-growers in this country. This additional duty of 6d. on the top of an already large impost was distinctly a tax upon both English barley and English hops. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that the abolition of the malt tax, the predecessor in title to the Beer Duty, had been generally approved in agricultural circles. He (Mr. Lowther) had not been in a position to criticise the Budget scheme of 1880 in the House of Commons as he was temporarily out of Parliament at that time, but he had availed himself of extra-Parliamentary opportunities to denounce the substitution of a Beer Duty and had taken advantage of his position of greater freedom and less responsibility to characterise that proceeding in terms which perhaps went beyond what Parliamentary restraints might prescribe. He had not hesitated to denounce the much-vaunted repeal of the Malt Tax as a financial juggle, and he feared he had added a transparent humbug and swindle, and a proposal which he did not think the meanest yokel in any corner of the three kingdoms would be taken in with. He considered the repeal of the Malt Tax one of the most gigantic impostures ever palmed off upon Parliament, because it did nothing whatever to relieve the home producer from the burdens under which he groaned, and so long as the foreign competitor, who paid no taxes at all, and who had the means of locomotion at his command, was enabled to compete on equal terms with the home producer, who had to pay all these taxes, so long would the inequality remain, and there would be no relief to the agricultural community. He could not understand why a tax on beer instead of upon malt should be any advantage to the producer of barley and hops. These views on the subject, to which he gave expression on the occasions to which he alluded, received strong confirmation so soon as this new principle was reduced to practice. He thought it would be scarcely doubted that the duty, as it at present existed, was far more onerous on the grower of barley than the old Malt Tax was in former days. Under the existing system, inaugurated by the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Midlothian, in 1880, by which the Beer Duty took the place of the previously existing Malt Tax, the burdens had fallen far more seriously on the growers of home barley. He found that this contention was put forward by many competent authorities of practical experience in the brewing trade. He had received many communications on the subject, including one which had reached him from the representative of a large brewing firm, in which that proposition was laid down. He had also in his hand a printed document signed by the Chairman of the County Brewers' Society, who distinctly said that by the present system English barley was placed at a very serious disadvantage. Other correspondents assured him that the Malt Tax was far less onerous to the home producers of barley than the imposition in its present form. As to the effect of this change, so far from proving a benefit to agriculture, its operation had proved exactly the reverse. As to the views of the agricultural community on this subject, he thought it would be found there was a very large consensus of opinion amongst the barley and hop-growing districts of England in favour of some remedy for the present state of affairs. What he had ventured to sketch out in the motion which stood in his name was a readjustment of the Beer Duty, which, he thought, the Chancellor of the Exchequer held out to them the other day as being the idea he principally favoured—[The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER was understood to dissent]—though he did not give them any details as to the method by which that should be carried out. He certainly understood the right hon. Gentleman had viewed such suggestions with favour, and, in common justice to the English producers, some readjustment of that kind should take place. In the Motion he had put upon the paper he had suggested that a duty should be placed on foreign barley and hops which entered into competition with British produce. The Chancellor of the Exchequer the other day took some objection to the views which were put forward by several Members regarding the ingredients which were used for the making of beer. He understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that it was not the use of the so-called substitutes which militated against home-grown barley and hops, but it was the competition from abroad. It was possible, no doubt, that the free use of ingredients such as those which were referred to in the previous debate might have tended considerably in the direction then indicated; but he believed, with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that, in the long run, the foreign competition was in reality the enemy. Foreign barley was coming more and more into use, though, when it could be obtained at prices which would prove remunerative, he was told that good English barley was preferred, as a rule, to the foreign samples. In the proposals he had sketched forth he had not asked that a duty should be placed on all barley and hops coming to this country, but had confined his proposal to imports used for brewing purposes only, as there were some persons who held the theory that foreign barley was useful for cattle-feeding purposes. He himself however, did not think much of that view, and there were plenty of other things to feed cattle upon.—[An HON. MEMBER: "It is good for pig feeding."]—He was rather an extensive cattle-feeder himself, and he never, under any circumstances, used barley at all. Owing to the very large importation of wheat flour into this country as a feeder of stock he had felt very severely indeed the want of the home-grown acticle called corn offal, so valuable for feeding purposes; and pig-feeders would find that in the wholesale introduction of flour from abroad a very heavy blow was dealt at the pig-feeding industry of this country. In his judgment, the proposal he now made would enable the Chancellor of the Exchequer, by putting a reasonable duty upon foreign hops and barley, to recoup himself for the money taken from him by the exemption from taxation of home-grown articles, and would also leave him a surplus in hand to carry out some of his financial operations. As to the action taken by many agricultural bodies on this subject, he would warn the right hon. Gentleman and the House against accepting the resolutions and statements of many agricultural Chambers as truly expressing the agricultural view. He held in his hand a resolution which had been adopted by the Central Chamber of Agriculture. He had had the honour to belong to that body for a good many years past, and it contained among its members a large number of personal friends for whose judgment he had the greatest respect. But that Chamber and many of the associated Chambers with which it was connected were largely dominated by what was known as the suburban fringe of agricultural community; that was to say, by those who lived in or near large towns, consisting in many cases of millers and middlemen, and persons whose interest was in many respects, rather against the home producer. Owing to the fact that these gentlemen for the most part resided in close contiguity to the places of meeting of the Chambers, their relative influence and voting power were largely in excess of their due weight. As a test of the real opinion of the agricultural world, he would rather point to the proceedings of such a representative conference as that which was held in St. James's Hall a few years ago, and at which a resolution was passed by an enormous majority to the effect that the continued imposition of rates and taxes on home-grown produce, while foreign produce was free from all such contributions, was an injustice and an anomaly which ought to be removed. He would warn the right hon. Gentleman against being led to believe that the agriculturists of England had gone back from that resolution because some weak-kneed resolutions had in recent years emanated from far less representative bodies. As he might be told, he was suggesting a return to Protection, which was viewed with such horror by many estimable Members opposite, he did not shrink from saying that he was in favour of recasting our fiscal system in the direction of protection to native industries. And when he spoke of native industries he did not confine himself to agriculture alone, but included the great bulk of the employments of the people. Public opinion, he believed, had largely changed on this subject during recent years. The cheap loaf had grown wondrous stale. People had learnt that it was no use having a cheap loaf if they had no money to buy it with. To stand with empty pockets and idle hands outside a shop which was full of tempting loaves might be very well for economists and philosophers, but the occupation possessed few attractions for more practically minded people. It would not be denied that opinion outside this country was now virtually unanimous against the one-sided system which we alone endorsed; whilst in this country a large body of opinion was already formed, and was continually increasing in favour of a reconstruction of our fiscal system. He would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he did not think the revenue from beer was raised in a manner which was objectionable, and that it was egregiously misspent—he referred especially to the sum which the right hon. Member for St. George's, in despair of what to do with it, threw at the heads of the County Councils, to be by them spent on what was called technical instruction. That money had, in his opinion, been squandered and wasted in a great many districts to which it had been sent.

Would you give it to the Treasury?

Yes, I would certainly. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer would resume the old position and let the County Councils provide technical instruction out of their constituents' pockets instead of the national purse, he would deserve the thanks of the great masses of the rural districts. As a County Alderman he had had opportunity of seeing how these matters were arranged. Technical instruction was understood by this House to be instruction other than ordinary book learning, but he had found Latin, Spanish and Portuguese actually sanctioned by the Science and Art Department under the name of technical instruction. In other words the doctrinaires and crochet-mongers had been allowed to have their way, and the money granted by Parliament with the view of enabling agricultural communities to make themselves acquainted with various subjects that would assist agriculture, had been absolutely wasted, and a mischevious system of expenditure encouraged. A log-rolling system prevailed in County Councils with regard to the distribution of this windfall from the pockets of the brewers. A County Councillor representing an urban district would say:—

"Oh! I cannot be a party to agriculture getting all this, unless you give something to the High School in my town."

And he had found as much as £50 a year given in the form of a single scholarship out of this fund to promote higher and secondary education, which was certainly never contemplated by Parliament, the assurance having been given that the money was for the encouragement of technical instruction only. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would see that the money derived from beer was spent in really national objects, and not given to local bodies to be fritted away on the log-rolling principle. Now, with regard to the Amendment, he proposed to meet his right hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby by incorporating in his own Amendment the Amendment which his right hon. Friend proposed to move, so that his own Amendment would read: That in the opinion of this House the Beer Duty should be readjusted with a view to the relief from taxation of home grown barley and hops, inasmuch as a duty on beer is a tax on British agriculture, and has materially tended to the recent reduction in wages and employment of agricultural labourers. The proposal as thus amended, of course, differed substantially from the proposal of which he originally gave notice, but, as it now stood, it would afford the Chancellor of the Exchequer an opportunity of undertaking to re-adjust the Beer Duty in a manner which would be less oppressive to a class, which the right hon. Gentleman would admit, deserved some consideration and relief at the hands of the Exchequer.

seconded the Amendment as amended. He was as much against the duty on beer as any Member of the House, but he could not have supported the latter part of the original Amendment, as he was strongly against protective duties in any form whatsoever. He fully believed that the repeal of the Malt Tax was one of the greatest evils that had overtaken agriculture, and he would be glad to see that tax re-imposed, and the Beer Duty done away with. He was opposed to this increase of 6d. in the duty on beer, while he was utterly opposed to any form of prohibitive or protective duties. There was, no doubt, a difference, as the Secretary for India pointed out in his able speech on Indian Finance earlier in the Session, between Protective Duties, and Duties raised entirely for purposes of revenue; but it was not now the occasion or the time to discuss that question. That time might yet come when the revenue from beer and spirits should be materially diminished under Local Veto, if ever such a Bill were passed, and were to have the effect anticipated by its supporters—when the revenue from alcoholic drinks might be destroyed; but that time had not yet come, and, looking to the results of recent elections, was not likely to come. He opposed this duty purely from his earnest belief that agriculture could not bear the additional tax, which would, in fact, affect all classes engaged in agriculture, and all kinds of agricultural produce. It was a gross injustice in the present depressed state of agriculture. Wheat could not be grown now even to pay for its production, and now barley was to be rendered unremunerative to the farmer, who had been compelled to look for his profit to barley and oats. Barley had been affected by every addition to the duty on beer, and with it labourers' wages. Ever since last year the price of barley had been steadily falling, and within a week after the Budget was introduced last year, barley went down 2s. per quarter. That was foretold by everyone conversant with the Malt Trade. The House was afterwards told by the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Whitbread) that—

"much depended upon whether the brewers believed the tax would really be for one year only"

as to whether they would alter the specific gravity or quality of their beer; but the hon. Member also stated, in clear words, that if it lasted longer than one year, brewers would look about for cheaper substitutes with which to make their beer. The brewers never made any secret that they were only the persons through whom the tax was collected; they would not really pay it, and would either pay less for their malt or find substitutes. That the brewers had already begun to look out for cheaper substitutes was proved by the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself, who stated that the brewers had not lost by the tax, but that a large amount of money had come into the revenue. That money must, obviously, come out of somebody's pockets. The consumers had not paid it, as he had not heard of the price of beer being increased. He was afraid that brewers did not believe in the great and vaunted concession made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to his friends, and even large firms who had, up to last year, never used sugar, had now begun to use it. But whether that were so or not, maltsters had reduced their price for British barley. Last year, he recollected, that a large farmer had told him that he had sold 400 quarters at 12s. per quarter; he got it malt, threshed it early, and it was in good condition, and he expected a good price. A quarter of barley used to pay a fortnight's good wages, but now it would only pay a week's at the reduced scale. Consequently, it was not only the farmers, but the labourers, who suffered from this increased Beer Duty. Wheat was now little grown, except to supply the necessary straw. Barley and oats were the chief crops. But the price of the chief corn crops affected other agricultural produce, notably, the price or value of fat, and especially of store cattle. He was, early one morning last September, in a large cattle fair. Trade was paralysed. A large and well-known buyer of fat and store cattle told him that he could not give full value for store cattle because his clients could not pay it on account of the bad prices of all corn, and the want of money. Again, why should the national beverage of England be taxed more than Ireland's or Scotland's whisky, especially when the tax is indirectly injurious to a depressed industry? He objected to it altogether as an indirect tax on the raw material. It was neither paid by the trade, the brewer or maltster, the middleman, or the consumer; but was a direct tax on barley, affecting both farmer and labourer, whilst there was no fairness in the Beer Duty when the tax on spirits was reduced, even if the trade and consumer paid; but to put a direct tax on barley, and select any product of agriculture for extra duty now, was injury added to insult. Again, it should be the duty of a temperance Chancellor of the Exchequer, earnestly in favour of Local Prohibition, to look out for new sources of revenue, and not rely on alcohol. But, supposing for a moment that the consumer would pay the extra 6d. on beer, why should the Chancellor of the Exchequer tax the beer of the labourer and artisan instead of the brandy and soda and the whisky and soda of the more wealthy? He spoke most unselfishly, for, whilst he would prefer good beer, he unfortunately drank whisky. There were also several other intoxicating liquors besides beer and spirits, and he hoped and believed that the people of this country, and especially the farmers' labourers and artisans would clearly understand the Budget in conformity with all Government legislation during this Parliament; and there seemed to be no time for any English legislation except taxation. The so-called "predominant partner" was only fit to be taxed! English beer and barley were to be taxed by Irish votes, and there was no time to do anything for depressed agriculture but add to its burdens! He opposed this tax now, and would do so on every stage and in every way which the forms of the House and the Closure would permit. He now begged to conclude by seconding the Amendment.

said, that if he could perceive what agriculturists themselves were agreed upon as to what was required to meet the evils of which they complained, ho would readily unite with them in trying to find, if possible, a solution. But the difficulty was that he could not ascertain what they considered to be a proper solution. What caused him despair was that agriculturists made up their minds that the crying injustice under which they suffered was the malt tax, and that the repeal of that tax would be the greatest boon and blessing to them; but no sooner was that carried out than they were told that it was the greatest curse that was ever inflicted on agriculture. It was a little discouraging when, after such a demand as that—a demand unanimously made—was conceded in the hope of benefiting agriculture, they should be told that they were inflicting the greatest injury on that interest. Now what was this resolution? It was to part at once with ten millions of money. That might be a very simple thing to talk about, but in the face of the expenditure which the country has determined to incur, to strike off such an amount as this from the revenue of the country would be a very serious matter.

said that what was asked for was a readjustment of the duty.

said that might be all very well; but they might readjust a man's situation by taking all the money out of his pocket. The contention of the right hon. gentleman was that there should be no tax on beer, and then the argument was that the duty should fall on barley. If hon. gentlemen opposite desired it, let 5d. more be put on the income-tax. That was really what their proposal came to, if hon. Gentlemen opposite would only consider their own interest in those matters—for he had previously said, and now repeated, that if they chose to strike off those indirect duties the burden must fall on direct taxation. If they struck off a revenue of ten millions off beer, they must substitute for it 5d. more on the income tax. In those circumstances, did hon. Gentlemen think they would be any better off, or that the agricultural interest would be in any way improved by a readjustment of that character? With regard to the 3d. which went to technical education, if the right hon. Gentleman had the support of the author of that 3d. and of the Members of the County Council behind him who shared his views that that money was wasted, he should not at all regret to see it brought into the exchequer. There had been a very large expenditure, and that expenditure had to be met, and the question was whether they could have a better form of meeting it than that which the Government had proposed. He would call the attention of his right hon. Friend to the fact that if the whole of the beer duty was removed to-morrow they would not raise the price of barley one single 6d. He had asserted that before, and he was only repeating what he was sure the late Chancellor of the Exchequer would agree with. Supposing there was no malt tax or beer duty at all, the brewer would always use the cheapest materials to suit his purpose. There was no doubt that the cheapness of barley improved the profits derived from keeping pigs, and also benefited agriculturists in other ways. It was said that the duty on beer had diminished the price of barley, but he would ask had it diminished the price of wheat? Everybody knew the price of wheat had fallen a great deal more than that of barley. From the year 1880, when the new system was introduced, to 1894, barley had fallen from £1 13s. to £1 4s. 6d., while wheat had fallen from £2 4s. to £1 2s. The fall in the price of wheat, however, was not due to the beer duty, because the price of wheat had fallen all over the world. If his right hon. Friend believed that it was due to free trade, why was not the agriculture of protectionist countries flourishing? What did the right hon. member think of the language of the agrarian party in Germany, and could he find a protectionist country where agriculture was thriving now? [Cries of "France."] They would find that the agriculturists of France were quite as loud in their complaints. He had taken some pains to inform himself on the subject, and he had found that the complaints in protectionist countries with reference to the prices of grain and of produce were quite as loud as they were in free-trade countries. The payments which had to be made in produce had forced produce on the market in a way which had lowered prices. He hoped that hon. Members were not going to vote for the Amendment under the impression that if this extra 6d. upon beer were taken off barley would be 6d. a quarter dearer; this was a complete delusion, for it would make do difference whatever, except that the whole of the ten millions would go into the pockets of the brewers. The brewers would buy their materials just as cheaply, and therefore this Amendment would throw away an immense revenue. He believed the system adopted in 1880 of putting the tax on the beer instead of on the malt had worked on the whole to the advantage both of the receivers and of the payers of the tax; but he should be perfectly prepared to consider the subject and to discuss it upon a future occasion. So great a change as going back from the policy adopted in 1880, however, was one that could not be undertaken in the month of May in making provision for the finance of the year, and he hoped, therefore, that the Committee would not support an Amendment which, if adopted, would throw away a revenue of ten millions.

as a representative of an agricultural constituency, joined most emphatically in the protest which had been made against the utter neglect with which the Government had treated agricultural interests. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had really gone out of his way to inflict a most unnecessary burden on an industry which was already almost at its last gasp. If he thought the tax would fall on the brewers he should still think it unfair to continually torment one interest, but it had been very widely admitted that this tax would ultimately fall upon the farmers, and through them upon the agricultural labourers. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had found it necessary somehow or another to raise money for a deficit, but what had been the policy of the great Liberal Party which, especially at election times, posed as friends of the agricultural labourer? They had deliberately selected out of others this particular industry for additional taxation. Recent events had proved that the constituencies had seen the real value of the sympathetic utterances which was all they got from the other side of the House. Was there no other source from which the Chancellor of the Exchequer could get this sum? The right hon. Gentleman had been good enough to say he would be only too glad to do something for the relief of agriculture, but could find no source from which to get the necessary revenue. If he would only consent to a change in our fiscal system he would find numberless sources of taxation. He did not know whether many Members had taken the pains to see what an enormous revenue might be raised from a very moderate imposition of duties upon competing foreign products. The imposition of a duty of 2s. a quarter on foreign oats would bring in £500,000; a duty of 4s. a quarter oil foreign maize would bring in £1,500,000; and a duty of 4s. a cwt. on foreign hops would bring in £40,000. By this means they could protect a British industry, and stimulate British trade. Reference had been made in that Debate to the distressed state of Agriculture, which was the direct result of our fiscal policy. There was an historical document in existence, the contents of which were possibly not known to many Members of that House. He referred to the protest of Peers against the Repeal of the Corn Laws. The depression of agriculture had not come upon us suddenly, but was the foreseen consequences of the abandonment of sources of revenue to which the Chancellor of the Exchequer could return if he wished. The document to which he had referred was very interesting. The following were the reasons for the Peers' protest:—

"(1) Because the repeal of Corn Laws will greatly increase the dependence of this country upon foreign countries for its supply of food; (2) because there is no security or probability that other nations will take similar steps; (3) because it is to be apprehended that the removal of protection may throw some lands out of cultivation; (4) Because it is unjust to withdraw protection from the landed interest while that interest remains subject to exclusive burdens imposed for purposes of general, and not of special advantages; (5) because the loss to be sustained will fall most heavily on the least wealthy portion of landed proprietors, will press immediately and severely on the tenant farmers, and through them, with ruinous consequences on the agricultural labourer; (6) because indirectly injurious consequences will result to the manufacturing interest, and especially to the artisans and mechanics from competition with the agricultural labourers thrown out of employment; (7) because the same course will produce evil results to the tradesmen, retail dealers, and others in country towns, not themselves engaged in agricultural pursuits, but mainly dependent for their subsistence on their dealings with those who are so engaged; (8) because a free trade in corn will cause a large and unnecessary diminution of annual income, thus impairing the revenue of the country, at the same time that it cripples the resources of those classes on whom the weight of local taxation now mainly falls."

He thought there was more than one lesson to be learnt from the document which he had just read. One was that, at any rate 50 years ago, a more accurate forecast was made of what would be the result of this legislation by the House of Lords than by the House of Commons; and that might lead certain rash politicians to consider whether now the country was not likely to obtain sounder advice and wiser counsels from the House of Lords upon great public questions than from the House of Commons. These considerations might, perhaps, cause those to pause who were so eager for the destruction of the Second Chamber. He hoped there were signs that before long this so-called Free Trade would disappear, and that they would once again take a common-sense view of the matter. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had told them that the low prices of barley and oats were due to foreign competition. He was glad the right hon. Gentleman had made that admission, because if he really believed that foreign competition had led to low prices, the remedy was in his own hands. He also rejoiced that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sleaford had returned to his old love and had advocated the imposition of a duty upon foreign barley. He wished to call attention to two remarkable speeches delivered in that House by the right hon. Member for St. George's, Hanover Square, and the right hon. Member the Leader of the Opposition respectively. What had they said? The right hon. Member for St. George's, referring to the question of the possibility of the land of this country going out of cultivation said:—

"It is a stupendous question and I think it right that we should face it, and that no preconceived notions, no formulas, should prevent us from facing the consequences. Whatever remedies are proposed, they should be treated with earnestness, they should not be scoffed at, but should be looked upon as an earnest endeavour to solve a question as grave as has ever been submitted to us."

The Leader of the Opposition speaking on the same point used curiously enough, nearly the same expressions. He said:—

"Supposing, as is theoretically possible, that the result of the existing system of international industry was, that the whole land of England was turned out of cultivation, and every agricultural labourer was driven into the manufacturing towns—it may take place, and if so, you would have to take into account other considerations than these purely economic arguments which are the basis of Free Trade. If such a possibility is going to come upon us, it will strain all our statesmanship in dealing with absolutely novel and unexpected circumstances, and some cherished formulas must be thrown over if we are going to deal with it."

What did the right hon. Gentleman mean by this? He hoped the words meant that the right hon. Gentleman recognised the possibility, nay the probability, of dealing with the question after his return to Office. Any statesman who would have the courage to face the question and to make the reconstruction of our fiscal methods the basis of his policy would command, he believed, a support in the country which would cause so-called Free Traders opposite no little surprise.

said, that it was always a pleasure to listen to the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, because he expressed the honest sentiments of his mind; and, although those sentiments were somewhat out of date, they were received with respect as coming from one of the few survivors of a party which had very nearly disappeared. He was specially glad that the hon. Member had brought before the attention of the House the protest which was recorded by Members of the House of Lords on the occasion of the repeal of the Corn Laws. He would recall to the hon. Member's memory the fact that during the 34 or 35 years immediately following the repeal of the Corn Laws, agriculture in England enjoyed uninterrupted prosperity. But in the time of the Corn Laws there was almost continuous distress. Four inquiries were held upon the subject of agricultural distress between 1815, when they were imposed, and 1836; and tens of thousands of men were out of employment. The workhouses were crowded with able-bodied people, and the gallows were groaning with the weight of the unfortunate creatures who had been driven by want and misery to break the law. The land of the country was of less value, and the labourers were paid at a lower rate than during the 30 years that followed the repeal of the Corn Laws. He had compared the average price of a quarter of wheat, barley and oats conjointly in the 30 years preceding the repeal with the average price in the corresponding period subsequently to the repeal. He found that the average price of the conjoint products was almost exactly the same in the two periods. The difference did not amount to 1s. The price was about 114s. a quarter while the Corn Laws lasted, and it was within a few pence of the same amount during the first 30 years of Free Trade. There was the clearest evidence that Free Trade and agricultural prosperity had run together, and the country's experience of Protection was not such as to make us anxious to return to that system, but at the same time he fully admitted that in the last 15 years agriculture had been going down hill under Free Trade at an alarming rate. He had before had opportunities of explaining what he believed to be the causes of this depression. Ever since the great change was initiated under which one of the precious metals was deprived of its old position, and the currency of the leading Western nations thus became restricted, prices had been gradually falling. Last year the great fall was, in his opinion, the direct result of the closing of the Mints in India and the repeal of the Sharman Act in America. When the closing of the Mints was discussed in the House, he said it would inevitably drive prices here down much lower. These, however, were not the questions which he had risen to discuss. He wished to make a few observations upon the statements that had been made respecting the Malt Tax. Complaint had been made of the repeal of the tax, and a desire expressed for its re-imposition. He remembered the long agitation having for its object the repeal of the tax. It was not until 1880, when the right hon. Member for Midlothian took the matter up that they were successful in obtaining its repeal, which generations of agriculturists in England had earnesly contended for. What the advocates of the abolition of the Malt Tax asked for was the total abolition of the tax; but he was one of those who were glad even that the transfer of the tax to beer was made, and he was still grateful to the Government that effected it. When hon. Gentleman talked about the reimposition of the Malt tax as a beneficial change for the poor, he would not advise them to preach that to the agricultural labourer. In the county to which he belonged the labourers had the good sense to brew their own beer, and they were able to do it now without a farthing of taxation. There was nothing that had been done by Governments in past years which was so thankfully remembered by the agricultural labourer as that which had enabled him to get his malt almost at the price of barley, and to brew good wholesome beer without any taxation at all. He honestly believed County Councils might with advantage use some part of the money provided for technical education in teaching the people in agricultural districts how to make homebrewed beer where they did not know how. In that way, he believed, a great boon would be conferred upon the people. With regard to the effect of this tax upon the farmer, if a comparison was made between barley and wheat, it would be found that they had now changed places. Farmers always used to make the more money out of wheat, but now the case was reversed. To-day, of all the things produced on a farm, that which had suffered least in price was the best barley, Even last year it realised something like 40s. a quarter, and when he compared the fall in the price of barley with that of wheat or oats, or cotton, or iron, or sugar, or any of the great products of the world, he could not find that there was any reason to find fault with the change of this particular duty. He would like to see in the House a greater spirit of economy. He thought the voting of £4,000,000 for the Navy last year a great step to take; but this year £2,000,000 have been added. He went into the Lobby against that great expenditure, and he had thought to have seen some of his agricultural friends opposite going into the same Lobby. If the House insisted on this increased expenditure, the money must be found. It was insane to cry out about taxation while hon. Members opposite urged the House on to increased expenditure. He thanked the House for allowing him to say these few words, but, as one who had worked hard for the repeal of the Malt Tax, and had been gratified by receiving expressions of thankfulness from the agricultural labourers in his own county, he could not allow what had been said about the Malt Tax to pass without challenge.

wished, by way of personal explanation, to state that he did not intend to advocate the entire repeal of the Beer Duty, but to confine his Amendment to the increased duty. He believed the word "increased" was in the Amendment of his right hon. Friend, and he now wished to have it inserted in his own Amendment. He did not wish to do anything irregular, but he wished it to be understood that he did not intend to advocate the entire repeal of the Beer Duty.

wished to point out how entirely the interests of town and country were bound up in this question. Depression in agriculture meant depression in the towns. It increased very much competition in the labour market, and, therefore, any Amendment or proposal that would tend to mitigate the present unfortunate condition of agriculture was to the direct advantage of the towns, and so to the constituency which he had the honour to represent. The hon. Member for Suffolk had confined himself to the first 30 years after the introduction of free imports, and he was particularly silent as to the last 20 years, and as to the present condition, not only of the rural but also of the artisan population. The hon. Member drew a harrowing picture of the state of affairs which he believed to exist in 1844 and 1845, but why did he not speak of the state of affairs which authentic documents on the Table showed to exist at the present time? There were now hundreds and thousands in receipt of poor relief and large numbers of unemployed, and although at harvest time, and in other ways, they might be able to make up a fair livelihood, the rate of wages in the winter was falling lower and lower. Although he generally agreed with his right hon. Friend below him, he would forgive him for saying that he cordially preferred his Amendment before it was altered. He would confine himself to the first part of the Amendment, that was the relief from taxation of home-grown barley and hops. When an agricultural question was under discussion the Minister for Agriculture promptly left the House. It was, indeed, astonishing that, when everyone in the country recognised the present distressing condition of agriculture, the responsible head of the Agricultural Department should refrain always from contributing to the Debates in the House when an agricultural question was brought forward.

He spoke yesterday on a Bill.

He spoke yesterday on an entirely different subject.

I was defending my colleague from the statement that he was always absent from the House whenever the subject of agriculture came up. Yesterday there was an agricultural subject and to-day there is not.

asked what was the question of relieving home-grown barley and hops from taxation but an agricultural question? Was it a manufacturing subject, or an artisan subject? He contended that it was the duty of the Minister for Agriculture to be present in the House when any agricultural question was under discussion. But however that might be, it was perfectly clear to anyone who had listened to the course of the Debate, that although the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had taunted his right hon. Friend with having altered his Amendment and made some arrangement with his right hon. Friend opposite, he had not touched on the salient point of the Amendment, namely, the paramount necessity of doing something to relieve the agricultural depression. Had the right hon. Gentleman studied the facts in this question of barley? If he would look at the last statistical abstracts published he would see that the production of barley, like that of wheat, had gone down year by year. He had taken out the figures from the "Statistical Abstract." In 1884 there were produced in Great Britain 73,000,000 bushels of barley, and in 1893, with a considerable increase of population, only 59,000,000 bushels, being a decrease of 14,000,000 bushels. In the same period the production of wheat fell from 80,000,000 to 49,000,000 bushels. All this time barley produced by foreign labour was imported free into this country. Between 1884 and 1893 the importation of foreign barley increased from 12,000,000 bushels to nearly 23,000,000 bushels. Therefore, in these ten years the importation of foreign barley nearly doubled, while the production of home-grown barley largely diminished. How was the English farmer to live in these circumstances? How was adequate employment to be found for labourers if at every step the farmer was met by this gross and unfair competition? If the Chancellor of the Exchequer refused to make the foreigner bear some portion of our taxation, the only alternative was to relieve English farmers from some of the burdens thrown upon them. The Chancellor of the Exchequer seemed to refer with delight to the depression in agriculture prevailing in France and Germany. He would not pretend that there was not any depression in those countries, but he would say the depression there was not anything like so accentuated as was the agricultural depression in this country. He had been present in the French Chamber of Deputies more than once when the subject had been under discussion. What did the "Statistical Abstract" reveal with regard to the state of agriculture in France and Germany? Did it show that the production of wheat was going down from year to year in France? Did it show that acre after acre was going out of cultivation, and that great difficulty was experienced in obtaining employment? No; on the contrary, we found absolutely a different state of affairs. In 1889 there was 297,000,000 bushels of wheat produced in France, and in 1892 the production had risen to 301,000,000 bushels.