I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty—(1) how many men of the Coastguard and how many of the Naval Reserves (first and second class) were embarked for service during the recent Manœuvres; (2) whether it is the intention of the Admiralty to redress a long standing grievance of the Coastguardsmen relative to their shore pay, which is 2d. per day less than when afloat; and (3) whether he can see his way to redress a grievance of the Naval Reserves, "that when afloat they shall have pay equivalent to that of the union rate of wages in the Mercantile Marine?"

Seventy-eight chief officers and 1,196 men of the Coastguard were embarked in coastguard ships, and 575 Royal Naval Reserve men (comprising 232 first-class, 314 second-class, and 29 firemen) were embarked in various ships. The Royal Naval Reserve men were borne in addition to full complements. There is no proposal before the Board to give coastguard men re-engaged pay of 2d. a day. With regard to the third question, I am unable to see what bearing the union rate of wages in the Mercantile Marine can have on the wages of the Naval Reserve men, whose conditions of service are perfectly different, and who enjoy retainers, which are not paid, so far as I know, by private shipowners.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies—(1) is it intended to make any alteration in the arrangements connected with the Church of St. Paul, Valetta, built by the late Queen Dowager Adelaide for the vise of the Anglican community in Malta, which have existed for the last 50 years; (2) can the correspondence on this subject be laid upon the Table of the House; and (3) is there any truth in the report that this Church, as thus given by the late Queen Dowager, is now to be converted into a Military Chapel?

The Church of St. Paul, Valetta, which was built at the expense of the late Queen Adelaide for the use of the Protestant inhabitants of Malta and Her Majesty's Land and Sea Forces employed there, has hitherto been served by the Chaplain to the Government. Last year, in answer to an address from the Council of Government of Malta praying for the abolition of the salary of the Chaplain, the late Secretary of State said that when the office became vacant the question of its abolition would be considered; and subsequently he approved of a proposal made by the Governor, with the concurrence of the present Chaplain and of the Bishop of Gibraltar, that the present Chaplain should retire on a pension and that the office should thereupon be abolished provided that arrangements were made for protecting the interests of the non-military portion of the congregation of St. Paul's Church. The question of the arrangements to be made for that purpose on the abolition of the Chaplaincy are still under consideration. When the correspondence is complete, I will consider whether it can be laid. The answer to the third question is in the negative.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether representations have reached him complaining of the superannuation allowances to the police in Scotland being on a considerably lower scale than such allowances are in England; and whether he will take steps to redress the inequality of pension rights by raising police pensions in Scotland to the same level as in England?

In reply to the hon. Member, I must refer him to the answer given by me yesterday to the hon. Members for the north division of Ayrshire, and for Peebles and Selkirk.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate—(1) whether he is aware that the recommendations made by a Royal Commission presided over by Sir James Fergusson in 1878–9, with regard to grocers' licences in Scotland, still remain unacted upon; and (2) whether, before the next Session of Parliament, he will consider the propriety of giving legislative effect to those recommendations.

I am aware of the fact stated in the first part of the hon. Member's question; and in reply to the second part, I can at present give no undertaking as to legislative proposals for next Session.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, whether he will cause inquiries to be made of the chief constables of police whether there are still prevalent the evils arising out of the imperfections of the Law regulating grocers' licenses in Scotland, which were reported by the Royal Commission of 1878?

I will consult with the Secretary for Scotland as to the propriety of making the inquiry suggested by my right hon. Friend.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, if he will ascertain from the Board of Works whether they can improve the approach to the pier at Dingle by using their new dredger to remove the mud which is filling up the channel and making the pier inaccessible except in high tides?

I understand from the Board of Works that it is doubtful whether their dredgers would be suitable for removing the mud deposits in Dingle Bay, and that, moreover, it is questionable whether a channel to the pier could be excavated and kept open, without continual dredging and considerable expenditure. However, I am making further inquiries in the matter.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, if he will draw the attention of the Congested Districts Board to the advisability of improving the landing place at Ballydavid, county Kerry, and also of constructing a small boat slip at Lack, in Dingle Bay; and, he will urge on the work of constructing the pier in Scraggane Bay, so as to give employment to the people of the locality during the winter?

I am not in a position to express an opinion on the merits of the proposals made in the question, but they shall be brought before the Congested Districts Board at its next meeting.

I beg to ask the Undersecretary of State for War, if he will consider the case of Sergeants of the permanent staff of the Militia serving on Militia engagements (under par. 609 of Militia Regulations), with a view to placing them on the same footing as regards pay and pension as non-commissioned officers of the permanent staff who are serving on Army engagements?

This question has been fully considered, and the Secretary of State is unable to add anything to the reply given by the late Secretary of State to a similar question put to him on the 8th May, last year, by the hon. Member for South Leitrim.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, with reference to the numerous statements in the French Press that it is untrue that France ever accepted the hypothesis of the creation of a buffer State on the two banks of the Mekong, whether this hypothesis was accepted by France in the two Protocols dated 25th November, 1893, the first signed by the French and English delegates for the discussion of the buffer State on the Upper Mekong, and the second signed by the Marquess of Dufferin and M. Develle?

The hypothesis of a buffer State or intermediary zone was accepted by the French Government, and the Protocols in question were printed in the Parliamentary Blue Book, Siam, No. 1, 1894.

I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that in the Annual Report of the Committee of Council on Education a general statement of income and expenditure of all School Boards is furnished, but that in the case of denominational schools aided by Parliamentary grants the amount of the annual grant is the only financial detail given; and whether, in view of the large expenditure of public money by denominational schools, he will in future reports furnish, by means of a separate table, the details of their expenditure, and thus place them on the same footing as School Boards?

The hon. Member will see, on referring to the Return given in the Annual Report, that it is for School Boards, and not for individual Board Schools. A Return such as that which the hon. Member desires was presented to this House in August 1894, and, I hope, will serve the purpose of the hon. Member. He will see, from the bulky character of the Return, and the mass of detail involved in it, that to give it annually would be a very costly matter.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty, whether, on the occasion of the opening of the North Sea Canal by His Majesty the German Emperor, the German ships of war, in pursuance of official instructions, entertained the officers of Her Majesty's ships present to represent the nation; whether the cost of returning such hospitality was wholly, or in a large measure, borne by the officers of Her Majesty's ships; and, whether any entertainment allowance has been granted to the officers other than Flag Officers; and, if not, whether, in view of the official character of the Feêtes, the Admiralty will favourably consider the propriety of making such an allowance, and thus relieving the junior officers of a portion of the very heavy expense entailed upon them.

The question of the expenses incurred by the officers of the Channel Squadron in entertaining the foreign officers during the late international festivities is under the consideration of the Board of Admiralty. The subject is surrounded by many difficulties; hospitality is frequently extended by British naval officers to foreign officers in many parts of the world, and often the expense of its exercise by a small ship on an obscure but necessary occasion falls as heavily on the individual officers as entertaining on a large scale does on a large ship on an international occasion. Something has been done already with regard to the expenditure of the Channel Squadron during the visit of the Italian Fleet at Portsmouth; but, as I have said, the question is under consideration.

Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the general question of making an allowance as a matter of course to all officers and not as a matter of special concession to those of the Channel Squadron?

That is just one of the difficulties with which the question is surrounded. If, as a matter of course, British officers who entertain foreign officers are to be recouped their outlay, the act of hospitality would be regarded as losing much of its grace and spontaniety; and to give a general permission to naval officers to entertain those of other countries would not be in accordance with the traditions of the Service or the means of the Exchequer. I can assure the hon. Member the Lords of the Admiralty are not anxious to impose on naval officers any expenses which they cannot bear; but the lavishness of expenditure on hospitality might depend very much on whether it came from the resources of the State or the pockets of naval officers.

Is there not a general allowance of this kind already made to superior officers in the shape of table money, and could not a similar allowance be made to inferior officers on whom the charge for hospitality falls with great severity?

The Admiralty look upon it as part of their pay. The Admirals of a station where there is occasion for little hospitality receive the same as others, and they regard it as part of their pay. I can assure the hon. Member we have no wish to approach the question in any spirit of illiberality, but I do not think we can possibly make a general rule.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether he would lay upon the Table of the House a copy of the Correspondence which has passed between the Home Office and the French Government with reference to the case of Dr. Herz; and also a copy of the Report of Dr. Russell Reynolds on the prisoner's state of health in 1893, and his subsequent Report?

I cannot see that any good purpose would be served by laying upon the Table of the House the correspondence referred to. Speaking generally, that correspondence has been limited to a representation as to the serious condition of Herz's health and the impossibility of removing him to London, and an inquiry whether the French Government persisted in their requisition for his surrender, to which a reply in the affirmative was returned. Sir Russell Reynolds has three times visited Herz and reported on his health; his reports are confidential in their details, and it would be contrary to practice to publish such documents. Her Majesty's Government are now in communication with the French Government with a view to a fresh convention being come to which would enable the Act of last Session to be put in force.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, whether he is aware that on a recent occasion, at the Central Hotel, Portsmouth, refreshments were refused to Regular Soldiers and Volunteers on the ground that they were wearing Her Majesty's uniform; and, whether the Military Authorities contemplate taking any steps with regard to the renewal of a licence for the Central Hotel, at Portsmouth?

Soldiers in uniform were not excluded from the public bar of the hotel in question, but from a bar which was alleged to be a private bar. The law on this question was stated as follows by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouth, when Home Secretary:—

"It was not legal for the innkeeper to exclude the soldier, but it was not to be understood that he could be compelled to admit him into every room. The wearers of the Queen's uniform, so far from being subject to such exclusion, ought to be treated with special honour."

Steps are being taken locally with regard to renewal of the licence of the Central Hotel, and meanwhile the house has been placed "out of bounds."

I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether his attention has been drawn to the promise of the late Vice President on 29th March, and if he could devise any reasonable means, even by an Act of Parliament itself, by which the Berriew Scheme could be brought before Parliament for such discussion as it ought to have received, he should be very glad to adopt that means; and whether the present Government would introduce a Bill repealing the Order in Council which brought it into effect.

My attention has been drawn to the matter referred to by the hon. Member, and the Government are prepared to introduce a Bill this Session to repeal the Order in Council which brought the Berriew Scheme into effect. The Government hope, after the promise given by the late Vice President, to be able to pass the Bill as an unopposed measure; but the hon. Member will understand that, if there is any opposition, it will not be possible to proceed with the Bill during the present Session.

I beg to ask the Civil Lord of the Admiralty, whether his attention has been called to the case of Robert Rigden, who was injured in Chatham Dockyard in August 1893; and, whether the Admiralty have verified the information placed at their disposal by the hon. Member for Rochester in June of this year; and, if so, whether they will reconsider their refusal to augument Robert Rigden's pension?

My attention has been directed by the Noble Lord's question to the case of Robert Rigden. The information placed at the disposal of the Admiralty by the hon. Member for Rochester is contrary to the information already in the possession of the Admiralty; but, it is not considered necessary to verify it, as the pension already awarded to Rigden could not in any circumstances be augmented, without going beyond the provisions of the Superannuation Act, which neither the Admiralty nor the Treasury have any power to do.

I should like to ask the hon. Gentleman, whether he will consider the propriety of granting an independent inquiry, as there is an absolute conflict of testimony, between those who inform me and the Authorities of the Admiralty?

I will certainly consider that point, if the noble Lord desires it.

I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether it is the intention of the Government to continue the grant of £3,000 per annum to the University of Wales?

A grant of £3,000 was made for the last financial year (1894–95) for preliminary expenses of the University. This, I understand, was found insufficient, and my predecessor undertook that a Grant of the same amount should be made for the current financial year. Provision for this will be made in the Supplementary Estimates, which will shortly be in the hands of hon. Members.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, whether he will consider the propriety of taking steps, either by further regulations or by amendment of the law, to require more distinct marking on goods of foreign origin, and in particluar on articles of foreign-made glass?

The right hon. Gentleman will probably remember that a Select Committee of the House of Commons on the administration of the Merchandise Marks Act, 1887, reported that they were unable to recommend the compulsory marking of all goods. They were of opinion that it would seriously restrict trade and virtually destroy the business of warehousemen, commission agents, and small masters, and that such an enactment would of necessity involve the insertion of a clause in any international convention imposing similar obligations on this country in respect of goods made in England but sold abroad. I have not myself studied the Report referred to, but will make it my business to do so.

asked whether he was aware that the manufacturers of this country took a different view.

said that might be so, but he presumed that the position they took up was put before the Committee. It was after considering the pros and cons of the matter that the Committee arrived at the conclusion they did. In answer to Mr. PROVAND (Glasgow, Blackfriars),

said the date of the Report of the Committee would be found in the Library.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the result of the promised action of the Home Office in regard to the illegal tables of fees and charges adopted by the burial boards of Bishop's Stortford, Weston-super-Mare, Walton-on-Thames, Aylsham, Soham, and Uxbridge; and whether, in view of these and other cases of the like kind, he will take steps to ensure that no tables of fees and charges in parochial cemeteries shall in future receive the approval of the Secretary of State which are not in conformity with the requirements of the law in regard to fees for interments in the consecrated and un-consecrated parts thereof respectively?

The burial boards of Bishop's Stortford, Walton and Aylsham have now adopted and put in force satisfactory tables of fees. In the other three cases correspondence is in progress with the prospect in each case of a satisfactory settlement. The defects in these and similar tables have arisen, not from the Secretary of State having approved fees which are not in conformity with the law, but from the burial boards printing in their tables, without proper explanation, fees not approved by the Secretary of State. Care will be taken in the Home Office, in the future as in the past, that no fees are approved, but such as are in conformity with law.

I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, how much British money has recently been expended in Newfoundland under circumstances under which relief from taxes is habitually refused in England; and what Vote will be presented on which the appointment of an Imperial Relief Commissioner can be discussed.

About £15,000 was expended by the Special Commissioner in the relief of distress in Newfoundland, in addition to which he gave guarantees amounting to about £7,000. The sum which will have to be paid under these guarantees will depend on the success of the fishing operations. A vote will be proposed for the sum of £20,000 on this account in the Supplementary Estimate of the amount required in the current financial year for sundry colonial services, and the subject can be discussed on that occasion. I may add that the circumstances in Newfoundland under which this relief was given have, happily for us, never been paralleled in this country; but, nevertheless, although generally cases of distress must be dealt with by the local authorities and out of local funds, there have been occasions of an exceptional character upon which Her Majesty's Government have felt justified in giving assistance, even in England, while in Ireland it has been matter of common occurrence.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been directed to the proposal to dissolve the Ballymahon Union; whether he is aware that in the majority voting for this Motion were a number of ex-officio members of the Board who rarely attend the meetings to transact the ordinary business of the Union, whilst local opinion is strongly against this proposal, and the Report of the Local Government Board Inspector shows that it would entail a serious financial loss to the ratepayers of Ballymahon; and whether, under the circumstances, the Local Government Board will consent to the proposal being carried into operation?

I am informed that a special meeting of the Board of Guardians was held on the 31st July ultimo to consider the proposal to dissolve this Union, with the result that nine elected and five ex-officio guardians voted in favour of amalgamation with adjoining Unions, and seven elected Guardians against the proposal. It appears from the calculations made by the Local Government Board Inspector that the ratepayers would probably be called upon to pay a slightly increased rate in the event of dissolution whilst the other Unions concerned would gain in this respect. The entire matter is now, however, receiving the consideration of the Local Government Board, who have not yet decided whether they will give effect to the wishes of the Guardians in the matter.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he can state if it is the intention of the military authorities in Ireland to have the military barracks in Boyle occupied by an infantry detachment during the winter months; and whether he can state if there are any military reasons why the practice carried out by previous Governments of stationing troops in Boyle should not be continued?

It is contrary to the present military system to break up battalions into small detachments, a course which is found to be bad for discipline and for efficient military instruction. The barrack at Boyle having only accommodation for a small body of men, is occupied at present by the Permanent Staff of the 5th Battalion of the Connaught Rangers. It has not been occupied by other troops since 1890, and it is not proposed to remove troops there from other stations.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in regard to the merchant steamers which earn a subvention as armed cruisers, but are stationed in the North Pacific Ocean, those members of the crew who are also Royal Naval Reserve men are enabled to re-enrol as Reserve or to receive the retaining fee due to them unless they report themselves personally in the United Kingdom, a step involving the giving up their employment, and the expenditure of time and money in making the journey home; and, whether steps can be taken to obviate these difficulties, and to permit of the enrolment and re-enrolment of members of the Royal Naval Reserve in such stations as Esquimault and Hong Kong, and the payment at those naval stations of the fees that may be due for service in the Reserve?

The question has recently been under the consideration of a departmental committee appointed by the late Board of Admiralty, and it is proposed to obtain statutory authority to amend the Act for the establishment of Royal Naval Volunteers (22 & 23 Vict., c. 40), so as to give power to enrol and re-enrol men abroad, and for the payment of their retainers.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Report on the recent troubles on the Brass River by the Special Commissioner, Sir John Kirk, has yet been received; and whether the information thus obtained will be laid upon the Table before her Majesty's Government come to any final decision as to any new arrangement for the administration of the territories concerned?

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Sir John Kirk's Report, re Niger territories, will be issued to Members during the present Session; and, if not, how soon before will it be made public; and, whether there is any truth in the rumour that it is proposed to hand over to the Royal Niger Company any part of the territory of the Niger Coast Protectorate?

The Report of Sir John Kirk has not yet been received; nor can a promise be given that it will be laid before Parliament. It is a Report intended for the information of her Majesty's Government on various questions relating to the administration of the Protectorate. Until it has been received no decision will be taken on the matters affected.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether, in reference to the successful experiment recently made at Dunkirk in the transmission home of wages due to British seamen discharged it foreign ports, facilities will now be afforded in other ports besides Dunkirk?

The transmission experiment at Dunkirk has been made under somewhat exceptional circumstances, and the Board of Trade are anxious to have further experience of the operation of the system there under more normal conditions before deciding to extend it to other continental ports. The experiment at Dunkirk will, therefore, be continued for another year before any further steps are taken.

Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what the cost has been for the first year?

My recollection is the cost has exceeded the receipts by about £120. Of course the right hon. Gentleman knows there was a large transmission of wages through the Post Office before the experiment was tried.

Fifty-two and a half per cent, last year.

It was not more than 10 or 15 per cent, more than it was before.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the Report of the Departmental Committee which has been investigating the question of an improved status to Warrant Officers has been considered by the Board of Admiralty; and, if so, whether any decision has yet been arrived at?

The question of the pay and position of Warrant Officers is still under consideration, and no decision has yet been arrived at.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the Royal Artillery Canteen at Dover has commenced the manufacture of mineral waters, and is endeavouring to trade for the supply of other regiments; whether it is with the sanction of the Government that the military have gone into competition with manufacturers and labourers engaged in this branch of trade; whether the Government will insist that regular trade wages are paid by these military manufacturers to their employÉs, as is required of all other caterers for Government contracts; and whether the Government intend to allow these military manufacturers to contract for the supply of the Army in Ireland, to the injury of the mineral water trade, which is one of the few prosperous Irish industries?

The Regulations do not forbid the canteen of one battalion to sell to that of another, but inquiry will be made whether this privilege has been abused in this case. There is no intention of allowing the supply of other units to be extended in the manner suggested in the question.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether the Return, No. 397, of the Commissioners of Peace, Ireland, ordered to be printed 6th July, 1895, will contain all the appointments to the Commission of the Peace made by ex-Lord Chancellor Walker; and, if not, whether he has any objection to grant the further Return?

I am informed that the names of all persons to whom the Commission of the Peace has been issued by the late Government will be found in Return No. 397 referred to, and Return No. 463 of the Session of 1893, of which the former is a continuation.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether it is the intention of the Government to introduce next Session a Public Health Bill for Scotland?

I am unable to say whether any Bill dealing with the subject mentioned by my hon. Friend will be introduced next Session, but the propriety of doing so will be carefully considered.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether he will lay upon the Table a copy of the safeguards connected with the liquor traffic in Bechuanaland, referred to in Her Majesty's Speech from the Throne.

The papers which will be laid on the Table will include the information desired by the honourable Baronet.

I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether he will lay upon the Table of the House the correspondence that passed between him and the Promoters with regard to the proposed guarantee to the West Highland Railway. And what was the date of the communication that he made to Mr. Cameron of Lochiel, in which it is alleged that he promised to press forward this Bill during the present Session.

Correspondence on this subject was laid on the Table in May last. There has been none since the present Government took office. The two last Governments promised a guarantee to the promoters of this railway; and when the late Government resigned a notice stood on the Order-book of a Resolution to carry it into effect. Soon after I accepted office, I was asked by Mr. Cameron of Lochiel, who, I understand, is largely interested in the district, whether I would fulfil the promise made by my predecessor, and introduce a Bill on the subject in this Session. I replied that I felt myself bound by the promise of the late Government, and would do my best to introduce a Bill this Session, but that the arrangement of business rested not with me, but with the Leader of the House.

Is it a fact that the right hon. Gentleman stated that he would endeavour to push forward this Motion during the present Session?

Certainly.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the first public announcement of the intention of the Government to press forward this guarantee for the West Ireland Railway was made at a political meeting held in the interests of the hon. Member for Inverness-shire the day before the polling? [Cheers.]

said he did not know what use might have been made of his letter, but it was written long before the polling.

The right hon. Gentleman has not given me the date.

It was soon after I took office.

asked whether the Bill was not abandoned in the last Parliament because regarded as contentious, and yet the present Government intended to introduce it?

said he hoped, with the sanction of the Leader of the House, to introduce the Bill, and, if it proved to be contentious, it would fall under the rule already stated to the House.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty, whether it is the case that the compensation for loss of kit to the surviving officers and men of H.M.S. Victoria has not been yet fully paid, and what is the cause of the delay?

The final balances of compensation to the men were settled in May, 1894. Compensation on the then existing scale was made to officers in September and October, 1893, and a further compensation under the new regulations recently approved was made last month.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether, having regard to the great fall in prices of cattle and agricultural products in Ireland, and to the fact that the oat, hay, and flax crops are barely half an average crop, he will take steps to secure an immediate revision of judicial rents in Ireland, and will he bring in some such measure of relief for Irish farmers during the present Session?

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he is aware that, owing to the abnormally low prices of staple Irish farm products, and to the losses entailed upon Irish farmers by the prolonged drought in the spring and the wet hay and corn harvest, it will be absolutely impossible for many of them to pay their rents in full this year, and, whether he will take steps to meet this emergency by passing a Bill for the temporary revision of judicial rents during the present Session?

I am informed by the Agricultural Department of the Land Commission, that it appears from the return of actual transactions collected by that department that during the present year the price of store cattle has been fully maintained throughout Ireland when compared with the prices of the past year. The returns also show that the prices of several of the agricultural products have not maintained the average prices of last year, though to what extent this slight fall may be of a permanent nature it is not possible to say.

asked whether the right hon. Gentleman would be kind enough to lay the information he had obtained upon this subject upon the table?

Certainly.

asked the right hon. Gentleman whether he was aware that the average price of butter in Ireland during the summer had been under 6d. a pound, and that even now the top price of butter in the Cork Butter Market was only 8d. a pound; and whether he was aware that the average price of oats on Saturday last in the Cork Corn Market was only 6d. per stone. He asked the right hon. Gentleman whether, in view of prices such as these and of the disastrous harvest in Ireland, it was not obviously impossible for the Irish farmer to meet his rent in full this year? ["Hear, hear!"]

asked whether the Gentleman who had supplied the return to which the right hon. Gentleman had referred had anticipated the price of store cattle in the fall of this year—a matter of more importance to the Irish farmer in respect of his power of meeting his year's rent than the spring prices were. In view of the probable action of the Government in prohibiting the importation of Canadian cattle into England and Scotland the matter was one of general interest.

said that it must be obvious to the House that he was not in a position to answer these detailed questions as to the prices of commodities. He must really ask hon. Members to put their questions down upon the paper.

asked whether the right hon. Gentleman could say whether the price of whisky had fallen. [Laughter.] No answer was given to this question.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he can state the progress made with the 25-inch Irish survey, and how many counties are at present mapped, and at what cost?

The whole of the County Dublin and portions of the Counties of Kerry, Galway and Roscommon have been published on the 25-inch scale, and resurvey on that scale is now proceeding in Clare, Galway, Kerry and Mayo, and in various towns of which plans are required by the Commissioner of Valuation. The total area surveyed up to the 31st December last was 4,751 square miles, the area published being 1,646 square miles. I am doubtful whether it will be possible for me to give anything but a very rough estimate of the cost of a single item only of the work of the Survey in Ireland, but I shall be glad to make inquiry on the subject and communicate with my hon. Friend.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a steam launch has been repeatedly asked for and promised to protect the fishermen at Galway and other fishing ports from trawlers which trawl within the legal limits; and whether the Government will give equal protection to Irish fishermen as that afforded around the coasts of England and Scotland by coastguards and steam launches?

Applications for a cruiser or gunboat to protect the fishermen at Galway and other fishing ports from trawlers which trawl within the legal limits have been made from time to time to the Irish Government. Where the circumstances of the case appeared to require it, application has been made by the Irish Government to the Admiralty, who have occasionally detailed gunboats and cruisers for duty in response to such requests. The question of sending vessels for the purpose rests entirely with the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty. The coastguards have instructions in Ireland, as in England, to report any breaches of fishery laws which come to their knowledge.

asked whether it was the intention of the Government to give the same facilities for the protection of fishermen around the coast of Ireland as were enjoyed at present by Scotch fishermen. Could not a steam launch or two be sent round the coast of Ireland?

I will consult the Admiralty on the subject.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that an application has been made for a free grant of £30,000 for Wicklow Harbour, and whether he will ask for that sum in the Irish Estimates?

Besides incurring considerable expense in employing Sir Alexander Rendel to examine the harbour, the Treasury have offered to cancel the outstanding unguaranteed loan of about £9,000, together with interest accrued since 1881, to reduce the interest on the guaranteed loan of £40,000 from 4¼ per cent, to 4 per cent., and to advance a new loan of £35,000, if the local Baronies and the Town of Wicklow will on their side guarantee its repayment. I understand that the charge which the Baronies and Town would thereby incur could be met by a rate of 2½d. in the £ annually, and that their average rating at present is only about 3s. 6d. in the £. As the Harbour is mainly kept up in the interests of the locality, the local authorities may fairly be expected to undertake this very small liability. In fact their reluctance to do so would seem to imply that in their opinion the harbour is unnecessary. I agree with my predecessor in the view that, in these circumstances, the Treasury would not be justified in making a free grant.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether, owing to the extra labour involved by the Fatal Accidents Inquiry Act, it is intended to appoint an additional sheriff substitute for Lanarkshire; and, if so, will he make it a condition of his appointment that he shall reside in Lanark, seeing that there is no sheriff resident in the Upper Ward?

In reply to the question of my hon. Friend, I have to inform him that it is intended to appoint an additional sheriff substitute for Lanarkshire, and that the question of his place of residence is now under consideration.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty what is the latest information as to the health of the Mediterranean Fleet?

I am glad to say that on the 13th of August the Commander-in-Chief telegraphed that the health of the squadron with him was perfectly satisfactory. ["Hear!"]

I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council what is the present position of the scheme for the constitution of the Central Board of Intermediate Education in Wales, and whether it is possible to pass the scheme into law in the course of the present Session?

This scheme has been approved by the Committee of Council, and is now before Parliament. The Statute requires that it should lie on the Table of both Houses for two months in the same Session of Parliament, during which time an address may be presented by either House, praying Her Majesty to withhold her consent from all or part of the scheme. It is therefore impossible that the scheme can be approved by Her Majesty in Council during the present Session. ["Hear, hear!"]

I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether the Report of the Royal Commission on Secondary Education will be laid upon the Table during the present Session?

The Report has been signed, and was sent to the Home Office on Saturday last for submission to the Queen. It will be laid upon the Table during the present Session, but copies cannot be in the hands of Members for a month, at least.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can state what reply has been made by the Boer Government and Volksraad to a petition recently presented to them, signed by over 30,000 non-Boer residents of the Transvaal, asking for Constitutional rights?

We have no official information on the subject, but we understand from unofficial sources that the prayer of the petitioners was not granted.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he will specially direct his attention to the marking of foreign-made watches, so that the intention of the Merchandise Marks Act may be carried out, and purchasers may refer either to the dial or the dome for their information, and not obscure recesses of the watch?

I shall be happy to give my attention to the subject referred to by the hon. Member; and if he can afford me information tending to show that the Act is being evaded I shall be glad to consider it most carefully.

I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he can state the reason why the Dulwich Gallery is now closed on Sundays; and whether he can exercise any authority to have the Gallery re-opened on Sundays in future, so as to afford opportunities of visiting the Gallery to those who are unable from their avocations to visit it on week days?

I regret that I am unable to give the hon. Member any information on this subject, as the Dulwich Gallery is not under the control of the Committee of Council on Education.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the undertaking of the Land Commission that judgments on fair rent applications listed after the 29th September next will be postponed until the proposed Land Bill has been passed next Session, applies as well to applications listed before the Civil Bill Courts as to applications before the Land Commission?

No; but I should be inclined to anticipate that the Civil Bill Courts would in this matter be disposed to follow the example of the Land Commission. As the hon. and learned Member is aware, the number of such cases coming before the Civil Bill Courts is very small compared with those coming before the Land Commission. ["Hear, hear!"]

asked whether the right hon. Gentleman's undertaking was to communicate with the County Court Judges on the matter as well as with the Judges of the High Court.

Certainly not.

Why not?

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether it is the case that while notices of Quarter Sessions are sent by the Clerks of the Peace to some Justices of the Peace, they are not sent to those who are Justices by virtue of being chairmen of District Councils; and, whether, if this be so, he will take steps to ensure that all Justices shall be treated alike in the issue of such notices?

I have not received any complaints of failure on the part of Clerks of the Peace to send out Notices of Quarter Sessions to ex-officio Justices. Possibly in some cases omissions may have occurred through the Clerk of the Peace not being informed of the names and addresses of the ex-officio Justices. The notices should of course be sent to all Justices alike.

Arising out of the right hon. Gentleman's answer, I should like to ask whether it is not the business of the Clerk of the Peace to keep a record of all Justices, including those who are Justices or Chairmen of District Councils?

I believe that to be the case.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if the Government would be favourable to the appointment of a Select Committee to consider the Laws relating to the Licensing and Control of the Liquor Traffic with a view to their Amendment?

In answer to the question of my hon. Friend I have to say that it is impossible that a Committee such as he suggests could be appointed during the present Session to do any effective work. The question, however, will of course be considered by the Government during the recess, and I shall be glad to give it my best attention.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he is now in a position to inform the House whether the Select Committee on Distress caused by Want of Employment will be reappointed in the course of the present Session?

My right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board has, I believe, communicated with the Chairman of the Committee which sat last Session, the right hon. Gentleman for the Stirling Burghs (Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman). He has not yet, however, received any reply. I am informed that the right hon. Gentleman is abroad, and therefore there has necessarily been some delay. I fear that if he is unable to serve it will be because some four or five Members of the Committee have been, by the fortune of war, excluded from our deliberations, and therefore there is no probability of any good result following from the reappointment of the Committee. I will consider the matter to the best of my ability. ["Hear, hear!"]

I beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works a question of which I have not been able to give him private notice, namely, whether he is aware that during the earlier portion of the afternoon there was a most horrible smell from the drains near the Bar of the House, and whether he will inquire into the cause of it and endeavour to put a stop to a state of things which is not uncommon in this House, and which is very prejudicial to the health of hon. Members.

The hon. Member has not given me notice of the question, but I will make inquiries into the matter at once, and see what can be done. ("Hear, hear!")

asked whether the Leader of the House could take the Foreign Office vote first to-morrow, as it would be for the convenience of hon. Gentlemen, seeing that a good many questions would arise upon it.

asked whether the right hon. Gentleman could give the House some general statement as to the course of business, and would say when he proposed to take up the Irish Estimates.

I think it would be inconvenient in some respects if the discussion on the Foreign Office Vote were delayed until a late hour. I will consider the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion that the Vote shall be taken at an early hour, and I will communicate our decision on the point to him in the course of the evening, with the view to meet the convenience of hon. Members in all parts of the House. ("Hear, hear!") With regard to what has fallen from the hon. Member for Mayo, I can make no statement to him until we see what progress we are making in Supply.

asked whether it was proposed to take the Votes in the order in which they were set down on the Notice Paper for that day, or whether it was intended by the Government to make any further changes in the order of Supply. ["Hear, hear!"]

It is the intention of the Government to take them in the order in which they appear on the Paper, but, as I said before, there is no iron arrangement.

asked whether the right hon. Gentleman would indicate whether he would sit that night till a late and uncertain hour. Yesterday the right hon. Gentleman was understood to say that the House should not sit till a late hour, yet it did so.

I am aware that the hon. and learned Gentleman and I do not agree in viewing a "late and uncertain hour" in the same way. [Cheers.] I did not mean, and I did not think, yesterday, that we were going to sit so late as we were compelled to do, by circumstances well known to the hon. and learned Member himself. [Cheers and laughter]. I hope we may be able to make good progress to-night without again making such undue calls upon the health and energies of Members. ["Hear, hear!"]

in rising to move—

"That John Daly, returned as a Member for the City of Limerick, having been adjudged guilty of felony and sentenced to penal servitude for life, and being now imprisoned under such sentence, is incapable of being elected or returned as a Member of this House,"

said that it was unnecessary to go back before 1870, because by the Treason-Felony Act of that year, section 2, it was provided that any person who after that date was convicted of felony and sentenced to penal servitude, should, until he had served his sentence or received a free pardon, be disqualified from holding any military office or from being returned as a Member to Parliament, or from sitting or voting therein. Hon. Members were perfectly well acquainted with the provisions of the section, and there was no doubt as to the course to be adopted. A similar state of circumstances arose in O'Donovan Rossa's case, when Mr. Gladstone brought forward a motion in the same terms as in the motion now before the House. The question arose again in the year 1875, when a similar motion was proposed by Mr. Disraeli; and again in 1882, when the motion was made by Sir H. James as Attorney General. He had, therefore, only to bring to the notice of the House the facts in regard to John Daly. On July 27, 1884, at the assizes at Warwick, John Daly was tried and convicted of treason-felony, and sentenced to penal servitude for life. This appeared from a paper which had been laid upon the Table of the House. Then there was a certificate from the Governor of Portland Prison, which was also laid upon the Table of the House, showing that John Daly was now in his custody, undergoing his sentence. No question arose here except the carrying out of the law. By the law of the land, upon which he relied, and by the precedents of Parliament he submitted this motion. ["Hear, hear!"]

said, he did not think that hon. Members would agree with the hon. Gentleman that this was quite so simple a matter as he tried to make them believe. In one sense the House had only to deal with the disqualification of a man returned at an election, but quite a different question arose as to the competency of the House and the right of the House to decide that question. It was quite true, as the hon. and learned Gentleman had just quoted, that a person convicted of felony could not sit in that House. On the other hand, they had a statute passed by the House referring this question of disqualification, and the question of examining and inquiring into the return to a writ to a special legal tribunal, and the question was whether, the House having transferred by statute to a judicial tribunal this duty, it was competent for the House to again exercise that jurisdiction. If it was, where was it likely to lead them? He was aware that he was precluded by the forms of the House from raising any question of the policy of releasing a person who had been unanimously elected by the people of Limerick, but he would like to be permitted to say one word in defence of the attitude taken up by the electors of Limerick. John Daly was a citizen of their town, pretty well known to all shades of men.

The hon. Gentleman would not be in order in commenting on that. I have no doubt he would, as he proposes, deal shortly with it, but it would lead probably to answer and debate on a matter which is not relevant to the Motion. Therefore I must ask him not to enter into that topic.

said he did not intend to raise the question of amnesty and he bowed to the Speaker's ruling, but he thought it was competent on the Motion to disqualify a particular Member to show that he ought not to be disqualified.

I have not said the contrary. If the hon. Member can show that he is by law not disqualified, it is competent to enter into that; but what the people of Limerick have done cannot affect the question. They have elected him; that is admitted, but the question is whether he was qualified by law.

said, that his object was to take exception to the procedure in the Motion made by the hon. and learned Gentleman, and he thought the time had come to place this question of disqualification of a Member returned for any constituency upon better and safer grounds than at present exist. He was aware, of course, the Motion made by the hon. Gentleman was not without precedent. They had had similar motions to that in the three last cases of the kind that had been examined by the House, but every time the Motion was made the same Amendment which he had now the honour to submit to the House, and in practically the same terms, had been made, and the question had turned mainly on the competency of the House, after having delegated to a judicial tribunal the duty of examining the return to a writ, to again take upon itself the duty of examining the writ and deciding upon it. The Election Petitions Act, 1868, chap. 68, sec. 50, enacted—

"After the next Dissolution of Parliament no election or return shall be questioned except in accordance with the provisions of this Act."

Everybody who had listened to the Motion made by the hon. and learned Gentleman knew perfectly well that in the Motion he had submitted he wanted the House to examine the return to a writ made by a constituency, and there was undoubtedly an assumption by the House of interference with the jurisdiction delegated by that Act to a judicial tribunal. There were two important facts to be considered in connection with the bearings of the section. In the first place the House had never, since the passing of the Act, at least in any case I have examined, interfered with the return to a writ except in those special cases of conviction for treason-felony.

pointed out that what the hon. and learned Gentleman had been referring to as to the competency of the House was expressly decided by the House in the third case, the case of Mr. Davitt, whose name he had not intended mentioning. In that case it was decided that the House must interfere, and that it was not for the Election Judges to do so.

said, that his point was that precisely. A similar Amendment was made and the question was debated, and one of the authorities of the House, whom he would like to cite, was a right hon. Gentleman who gave it as his opinion that the House was entering upon a very dangerous precedent. ["Hear, hear."] The words of the right hon. Gentleman were—

"There was great danger in acting as the Government proposed to do in the matter for this reason, that though the House had then on the Table the record of a conviction which showed that somebody in the year 1870 had bean convicted for treason-felony, there was no evidence of identity, or of the transactions which had taken place at the Election;"

and the right hon. Gentleman opposed the Motion which was then made on behalf of the Government. If they were to have the right of a person to be returned by a constituency to sit in the House determined on Party lines, the question ought to be submitted to a Select Committee of the House, and there ought to be an authoritative decision upon it. It was curious that the House had never questioned the return for a writ since the passing of the Act of 1867, except with regard to cases of treason-felony and murder; but, more singularly still, the House had not consistently kept in its own hands the right of examining into the qualification. In the case of O'Donovan Rossa quite a new principle was introduced, because this was a case where there was no sentence of death, and where attainder did not follow. The House decided in that case, even after the Election Petition Act had been passed, that inasmuch as O'Donovan Rossa was still undergoing a term of imprisonment for treason, he was disqualified. But in the case of John Mitchell, which was debated in the House in 1875, a still further step was taken by the Government of the day; Mitchell was not confined at the time of his election; he had been sentenced to a term of penal servitude, but had escaped from imprisonment, and it was contended that, not having purged the sentence, he was disqualified from sitting in the House. But even then some of the best legal authorities in the House questioned the action of the Government of the day, and an amendment similar to that which he had now the honour of submitting, opposing the Motion made on behalf of the Government of the day, was submitted by the Marquess of Hartington. On that occasion the Leader of the Opposition said, that, as he understood the matter until the case of O'Donovan Rossa, there was no authority for stating that any offence whatever, except one which was of a capital character, and upon which, of course, attainder followed, constituted a disability for a seat in the House. He was not disputing that the question of disqualification was settled by the statute, but he entirely denied the wisdom or right of that House, having delegated to a competent legal authority the question of examining the return for a writ, assuming the function which had thus been transferred to another tribunal. The passing of the Act of 1870, carrying with it the disqualification of particular persons, throw upon the tribunal they had established the right of examining into such matters. If the majority of the House decided practically that a person who was disqualified from taking his seat in the House should sit in the House, they would be going in the teeth of the statute. It was not creditable to that assembly that the qualification of its members should rest on such a shaky foundation. What was the tribunal which was to decide? In the case of John Mitchell the House disqualified him from sitting, and when the electors of Tipperary returned him a second time the House abandoned its functions and did not inquire at all into the matter. In face of such inconsistent action would the Attorney-General inform them what was the tribunal which really had to settle this question? Could a Sheriff on a nomination disqualify the person who was nominated because he was a felon? If so he thought a Select Committee should be appointed by the House to inquire into the matter and have it so determined. They had now three tribunals examining into the question; the Sheriff might do so, the Election Judges might do so, and the House of Commons was taking upon itself in the present instance the duty of doing so. As the question stood at the present time, so far from the matter being simplified by the Act of 1870, if the House of Commons was to keep jurisdiction over it, its duty would become much more difficult than it was now. It was not creditable that a law regulating the qualification of the Members of that House should rest upon so doubtful a basis. He therefore moved to leave out all the words of the Motion after the word "that" in order to insert the following words:—

"A Select Committee be appointed to examine into all the precedents as to the law of Parliament involved in the return of John Daly for the city of Limerick, and to Report to the House the steps that ought to be taken under the circumstances"

asked the Speaker, on a point of Order, whether, if the Amendment was negatived, it would not then be impossible to move any further Amendment. If the House decided that the words of the Motion do stand part of the question, he apprehended that it would be incompetent for a Member to move any further Amendment, and he would therefore respectfully ask whether the question could not be put in another form?

said, that he was following the ordinary practice in the case of Resolutions when an Amendment was moved to substitute other words for those after the first word "that." What the hon. Gentleman referred to, was the practice in dealing with the clauses of a Bill; but in the case of an Amendment to the Second Reading of a Bill, or a Resolution, the Amendment was put in the way he had just adopted.

said, the course taken by the Attorney-General, and the remarks he had made, showed that he had not taken any trouble to advise himself as to the course usually followed by Parliament in similar circumstances. This was evident from the absence from his Motion of the operative and peculiar pendant that "Mr. Speaker do issue his warrant for a new Writ." The course now followed was absolutely without precedent, and the Motion in its present form could have no operative effect whatever. It was a nullity. The House had hitherto proceeded in a particular way in regard to these transactions, because a matter of privilege, affecting the status of a man who was alleged to be unworthy of a seat in the House, was involved. Take the case of the last Grand Master of the Orange Lodges, Mr. De Cobain, who was expelled from the House.

He was never Grand Master of the Orange Lodges.

Grand Master in Ireland.

Never.

said, he was usually supposed to be, and boasted of being so. The treatment Mr. De Cobain received from the House was, in his opinion, illegal, and he protested and voted against it. The Motion in the case of Mr. De Cobain was one for expulsion, because he was an unworthy Member; and to go back to the days of Sadlier, and of other men expelled, the Motion was accompanied by the pendant that a new Writ be issued. In the case of Mr. Smith O'Brien, the Motion was made on the ground that he was attainted of felony, and his election was, therefore, held to be void. That case was followed by that of O'Donovan Rossa, but the Act of 1870 had not been passed when he was elected. The Motion in that case, as in that of John Mitchel, was of a different character, but it was followed by the pendant that a new Writ should issue. Then came the case of Mr. Michael Davitt, and the form pursued in that case was now followed by the Attorney-General with slavish ignorance. The Motion declared that Mr. Davitt "is" incapable—for the Act of 1870 had not passed, and Mr. Davitt could not be declared "was" incapable by Statute at the time of election. But Mr. Daly was elected after the passing of the Act of 1870, and the precedent of Mr. Davitt did not apply to the present case. It was clear that the Motion should be that Mr. John Daly "was" incapable, and the Motion was necessarily inoperative unless followed by Motion to issue a new Writ. Here was a Motion for the first time founded on the Statute of 1870, but the Motion read "is incapable." Further, there was a serious variance between the Return and the Motion. Mr. John Daly was convicted of "treason felony," but the Motion before the House declared the crime to be "felony." ["Oh, oh!"] The right hon. Gentleman, who was so anxious at the time of the Parnell Commission to get John Daly's evidence that he sent Mr. Soames on a special mission to get it, might have observed ordinary courtesy in speaking of Mr. Daly. He would call him the hon. Member for Limerick, and he thought they ought to give him the courtesy which his election to Parliament deserved. John Daly was not convicted of an offence against the ordinary law—[cries of "Oh!"]—but he was imprisoned for an offence against the Act of 1848—the Treason Felony Act—and at least he was entitled to a true description of his offence, and should not be classed as a felon with burglars, garotters, and wife-beaters. The record, as far as he knew—for he had not a copy—described the offence as "treason felony."

here handed across the floor to Mr. T. M. Healy a copy of the record.

said, he found the document rather lengthy, and he would not read it. In 1882, it was ruled by the then Speaker that it would not be in order to discuss the merits of the case on such a Motion, but suppose an Amendment were moved to the effect that John Daly be expelled and that a new Writ should issue, then the whole circumstances of the conviction could be discussed, together with the question whether he was or was not entitled to clemency. The question before the House was not one of simple legality as the Attorney-General had presented it, but was one of privilege. The hon. and learned Gentleman had said that the law was settled by the cases of Mr. Davitt and of Smith O'Brien. As a matter of fact, all that was settled by those cases was a particular kind of procedure, which procedure the hon. and learned Gentleman had not followed, because he had omitted the Motion for issuing the Writ. The Attorney-General had declared that the Government were bound by the Statute of 1870. He could not accept that view, for anyone who gave attention to the Statute must come to the conclusion that it was an Act for operation in a Court of Law. That House did not pass Statutes about its procedure; it passed Rules and Standing Orders. There was no Statute to regulate the Procedure in the case of Mr. John Daly, just as there was none to regulate the procedure in the case of Mr. De Cobain. The condition in the Statute was that a man must be sentenced to twelve months' imprisonment or more, but Mr. De Cobain was expelled from the House simply because a warrant had been issued against him. Therefore expulsion from the House did not depend upon the contents of the Statute, and this Resolution ought not to have been founded upon it. Mr. De Cobain, as a matter of fact, never did get twelve months' imprisonment, but was let off with six months. The precedent set in the case of Mr. De Cobain ought to have been followed. Mr. De Cobain was expelled from the House before conviction. [The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: "He was never tried."] The hon. and learned Member was mistaken, but as it was an Irish case that was not to be wondered at.

asked whether the hon. Member was in order in discussing the case of Mr. De Cobain.

said, that it was in order for the hon. Member to attempt to show that there was a parallel case to the one under consideration. The question of the weight to be attached to the parallel was not a matter of order.

observed that it was a matter for the jury. The Motion before the House would have no effect on the legal status of Mr. John Daly, whose disability existed now. What would affect him and the electors of Limerick was the issue of a new Writ, and to that point the hon. and learned Gentleman had not addressed himself. In previous cases a Motion for the issue of a new Writ had, he believed, always been made. Where now was the Motion for the issue of the Writ? In 1882, Sir Henry James put down a Motion for the issue of a Writ. Mr. Gladstone, in 1870, moved his Motion in regard to O'Donovan Rossa, and put down a Motion for the issue of a Writ. In Mitchell's case, Mr. Disraeli also put down a Motion for the issue of a Writ. It was left for the present Tory Party, which founded itself upon precedents, to omit this Motion. He submitted that they were entitled to have some light thrown upon this matter. At the time of Mr. Davitt's Election for Meath, in 1882, another gentleman had been nominated with him, and Sir Charles Lewis, then Conservative Member for Derry, drew attention to the fact in the House of Commons. In consequence of his arguments, which were endorsed by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Plymouth (Sir E. Clarke), Sir Henry James declared that as it was within the bounds of possibility that the gentleman nominated with Mr. Davitt might proceed to a Petition, he would allow the time within which a petition must be presented to elapse before moving for the issue of a Writ, and that time was allowed to elapse. Now, together with Mr. Daly, Mr. Francis O'Keefe, a former Member of this House, was nominated for Limerick. Was it not also within the bounds of possibility that Mr. O'Keefe might proceed to a Petition, and therefore ought not the precedent set by Sir Henry James to be followed? Neither the Attorney-General for England, nor the Attorney-General for Ireland, whose presence in that House every Irish lawyer must welcome, had said one word upon this important point. The fact was that the Government had not approached this subject with sufficient learning and research. It was unfortunate for the interests of House of Commons procedure that these questions involving privilege were generally considered in connection with the case of some Irish Member. When this House dealt with Irish Members, it was a case of "short shrift and a short rope." If they were now dealing with the case of the humblest Englishman, or with the smallest English question, the Law Officers of the Crown would not hesitate to devote hours to the consideration of the matter, and to treat it as of the highest constitutional gravity and importance. He deplored, as a Member of Parliament, the rather superficial way in which the Attorney General had addressed himself to this subject. He hoped that in the future, when the hon. and learned Gentleman had to deal with grave matters of this kind he would condescend to give the House a fuller exposition of its practice and of the law than he had done on the present occasion.

said, it would probably be for the convenience of the House he should say a word at the present stage. It was not the first time that the hon. and learned Member for Louth had criticised both his conduct and his knowledge of law.

Never the hon. and learned Gentleman's knowledge of law; merely his conduct.

went on to say that he would lay to heart the strictures of the hon. and learned Gentleman, and endeavour to profit by the advice he had given. Now, the point raised was that this matter ought to be left to an Election Judge. That was a question which had been already argued out. It was the subject of formal discussion in connection with Mr. Davitt's case in 1882, which was, as he had already stated, after the Election Petition Act was passed; there was in fact no case for a petition, but it was the right and duty of this House to declare that the return made to the Writ was no return at all. Therefore, although the hon. Gentleman was quite within his right in bringing forward this Amendment, there was no reason at all why the House should adopt the course of directing an inquiry which could lead to but one result. There could be no doubt at all that Mr. John Daly was convicted of treason felony, and that he was now suffering the sentence for which he was convicted. That fact was matter of common knowledge, and an inquiry in these circumstances would serve no reasonable purpose, and would be a useless waste of time. The hon. and learned Member for Louth had in the course of his observations been very severe on him for not moving that the Writ should issue. That, however, was not a matter for one occupying the position of Attorney General. Anybody might put that Motion down. Nobody knew better than the hon. and learned Member the rivalries that existed in days gone by with regard to who should make the Motion for the issue of Writs. There might be rivalry in some parts or sections of the House as to who should make the Motion. It did not appear to the Government that it was a question for them, though it was their duty to see that no unreasonable delay took place.

Does the hon. and learned Gentleman contend that Daly could not be a Member of this House up to the moment when the Writ was issued?

replied that in his opinion Daly could not be a Member of this House, and was not a Member of this House at the present time. ["Hear, hear!"] It was an absolute absurdity to suggest that this House was not bound by the law of the land. It could no more declare that John Daly was a Member of the House and was entitled to come here, than it could allow a woman or child to enter its walls as a Member of Parliament. He was distinctly of opinion that John Daly was not at this moment a Member, and could not be allowed to fulfil any of the functions or enjoy any of the privileges of a Member of this House. He was sure the learned Member would acquit him of any want of courtesy if he did not dwell upon the hon. Member's personal aspersions upon himself. He would lay them to heart, having sufficiently dealt with the various points raised by the hon. and learned Member.

said, that by Act of Parliament passed in 1868, it was declared that after the next Dissolution of Parliament, no election or return should be questioned except in accordance with the provisions of this Act, and the manner in which such election or return was to be questioned was by petition. No more sweeping pronouncement could be conceived than was contained in that section. The answer of the learned Attorney-General that this matter had been argued out before was no answer at all. On the contrary, the fact that the question had been argued before in the House suggested that there was a question and a serious question to argue. In truth, this matter could not be settled in a satisfactory mariner except by a Select Committee or some other tribunal which would take upon itself the investigation of all the precedents and facts. The House had committed illegalities before in such matters as these. Some 120 years ago, John Wilkes was returned to this House. He was returned more than once, and was more than once expelled from the House, and on one occasion his election was declare null and void, and not only so, but the House declared another person, who had only a minority of votes, entitled to take the seat. A few years afterwards, in 1782, a Resolution was passed by the House of Commons, declaring all its previous action illegal, and Lord Campden, in the House of Lords, stated that the action taken in regard to Wilkes had inflicted a greater wound on the Constitution than anything done during the whole reign of Charles I. The House of Commons might pass a Resolution expelling a Member, or declare that a particular person was unfit to sit in this House, but he submitted with great deference that the House of Commons could not make a law and could not create a disqualification which did not exist, and could not prescribe any way of avoiding an election, except that which the law had laid down. Now, in 1868, Parliament undoubtedly laid down the law in regard to this matter, as he had stated it—namely, that this House could not proceed to disqualify a candidate or declare an election void, except by way of petition. There was one further argument in support of the Amendment of his hon. and learned Friend and, it was this: A Return had been presented to the House of the conviction of a person named John Daly, and also a second return from the Governor of Portland prison declaring that a John Daly was now a prisoner in that place. The Attorney-General smiled at the suggestion that there was not sufficient indentification. Last Session the Earl of Selborne died. Everybody knew that Viscount Wolmer had succeeded to his father's title and position in the House of Lords, but the House of Commons did not proceed to take action without inquiry. Everybody knew that the gentleman who was then Earl of Selborne was sitting in the House of Commons; there was not a single human being in England who did not feel morally convinced that there was a person sitting in the one House who ought to be in the other. What was done? The late Chancellor of the Exchequer took the very course that was suggested by his hon. and learned Friend now, and moved for the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire whether the Earl of Selborne had died, and whether his eldest son had succeeded to the title, and should therefore take his place in the House of Lords, although Viscount Wolmer himself declared that he was his father's eldest son, and that his father was dead. There was another illustration afforded only a few days ago. That was the return of the two Writs for Monaghan, in which an error had been made as to the name of the hon. Member, in each case the gentleman who had been returned for the one division having had his name inserted in the Writ relating to the other division and vice versâ. Everybody knew that one hon. Member had been returned for North Monaghan and the other for South Monaghan, but the House was not satisfied, and actually went to the trouble of summoning from Ireland the Clerk of the Crown, commanding him to take a walk up the floor of the House and to alter the Writs in the presence of Mr. Speaker. Nor was this all. The two hon. Members were called upon to name the Divisions for which they had been returned, but the House would not believe even the two Members themselves, and another colleague had to get up in his place to corroborate their statement. On the ground that there was no proof of identification, and also on the further ground that they ought to settle this matter once and for all, he ventured to submit that the Amendment of his hon. and learned Friend ought to be accepted.

, remarked that the Attorney-General had himself demonstrated the futility of the Motion he had moved. He had told them that John Daly was not a Member of this House, therefore, the Motion did not either make a new law nor did it enforce the existing Law. If there was any doubt, and the hon. and learned Gentleman considered that the House of Commons should express its opinion as to what the law was, such a Motion might be made. But the Attorney-General was emphatic in his statement that the law was clear and that no declaration was required. On the other hand, the law being clear, if the hon. and learned Gentleman and his Government had desired to enforce the law, then his conduct would have been intelligible and his Motion would have been understood, because it might have been said it was the business of the House not to declare the law, but to enforce it. But the hon. and learned Gentleman did not contend that there was any necessity to declare the law, and did not take upon himself the duty of enforcing it, therefore, the Motion was a mere nullity having no effect, either legal or otherwise, and he was completely at a loss to know why the hon. and learned Gentleman had moved it. But there was both a question of law and of fact involved. The question of fact was the identity of the person referred to in the Motion, and the hon. and learned Gentleman asked them to decide that without any evidence whatever. Before the House was called upon to resolve any question of fact, the practice of the House had been to require that evidence of the most complete character should be given. In addition to the question of fact, which they were asked to solve without evidence, the Attorney-General had also asked them to declare their opinion on the question of law. The hon. and learned Gentleman thought the law was perfectly plain, but that was not so clear. That House had no power to make law, and if it passed twenty resolutions declaring the law was in a particular manner it would be perfectly open to any Member to get up and say that was not the law. The laws could only be made by the Queen, Lords and Commons. The tribunal to establish the law in this case should not be the House of Commons, but the Judges of the land. In the Bradlaugh case the House of Commons came to a certain conclusion, and the Courts of Law held that the law laid down by that House was bad and the opinion the House expressed was erroneous. Not only was the Resolution absolutely futile in itself, but it involved the dangerous practice of that House taking upon itself to discharge a duty for which it was not competent, and which the law had not imposed upon it, namely, the duty of deciding what the law was. It would be an absolute nullity to pass the Motion; it would neither make a new nor enforce the existing law. The hon. and learned Gentleman did not ask them to proceed to the expulsion of a Member; his case was that the seat for Limerick was already vacant, and that being so, they were engaged in a futile and useless discussion of a Motion which should not have been made.

remarked that we might almost hope the Attorney-General would yield to the appeal made to him from the other side of the House, and as he had not seen fit to move that a Writ should issue for the election of someone else as Member for Limerick, he would simply leave the matter where it stood. It appeared to him that Limerick, if it was represented, was represented in a way that must commend itself to everyone on the Government Benches. He had not the least doubt that the opinion of the constituency was very well represented, and that at all events the electors of Limerick had done something to reduce the over-representation of Ireland, which had so often been complained of by the Unionist Party.

I rise to a point of Order.

The hon. Member is not out of order.

I have said all I desire to say, sir.

May I ask the Leader of the House how long he will allow this place to remain without moving a new writ?

I should have thought that the Motion for a new writ rested rather with the Party to which the disqualified person belonged.

Do I understand that the Government make no Motion?

Not to-day.

was cheered by the Ministerialists on taking the Chair for the first time as Chairman of Committees.

commended the Ordnance Survey, but complained that, in the case of Ireland, the 25-inch map was not to be completed till the year 1918—probably rather longer than many hon. Members present would care to look forward to; whereas, in the case of England, it would be completed in 1910; while the Scotch counties would have their map completed in 1897. He could not sit down without expressing his thanks to the Ordnance Survey Department in Ireland for the manner in which they acted in the right-of-way case at Sutton. ["Hear, hear!"] They came in for some censure from the gentlemen whose property was affected; but a debt of thanks was due to the Surveyors for showing on the public map the spots where a right-of-way existed. He thought it would be extremely important that the Ordnance Survey should show the rights-of-way wherever they existed, because this would be a record for all time that those ways existed. One other suggestion was that, as these surveys could not now be introduced in a Court of Law as evidence on any point, an Act should be passed making these maps primâ facie evidence. In the Land Commission Court and the Land Judges' Courts in Ireland these surveys were accepted as primâ facie evidence. He would not go the length of making them absolute evidence, but they should, he thought, be made primâ facie evidence, and be available as such, for suitors in any Court of Law. ["Hear, hear!"]

was proceeding to call attention to a grievance of the workmen in the Ordnance Survey Department in Dublin in regard to holidays, when the hon. Member said that he found this did not arise upon the present Vote, and resumed his seat.

inquired what steps had been taken by the Board of Agriculture to carry out the Report of the Departmental Committee, which pointed out that the absence of Welsh-speaking officers from each of the Survey parties in Wales had led to mistakes of various kinds. He wished to know what steps had been taken to improve on that state of things. As far as he could ascertain, no Welsh officer accompanied any of the survey parties in Wales, and the consequence was that the names appeared on the map in an incorrect form. Wales was in the position of a foreign country in regard to language, and no survey would be attempted in a foreign country without the presence of a person acquainted with the local language. He hoped, not only in regard to Ireland, but in regard to this country, the survey parties would receive specific instructions to mark on every public map every public right of way which appeared to exist. A large number of roads and footpaths had been closed, and when this step was once taken the public were practically shut out from their use, for ever.

said, that in Scotland there was a society which had done more for the maintenance of rights of way during the past ten or twelve years than any other body in the country. The society had had under consideration on several occasions the question of rights of way on the Ordnance Survey maps, and they came to the conclusion that in Scotland at least they would not like to be limited by the number of rights of way laid down at present on the maps, because it was felt that the authorities were not sufficiently accurate in laying down all the rights of way. He joined with previous speakers, however, in urging that in the revisions of the maps the surveyors should be directed to be as careful and as particular as possible in laying down the rights of way on the maps. Three or four years ago the society in Scotland applied to the Ordnance Survey Department, asking to be furnished, for the purpose of their work, with copies of the Ordnance Survey maps in Scotland, but the society was unable to obtain what they wished. He urged that the Department ought to be a little more liberal in the distribution of the maps among public bodies.

asked for some declaration as to the intentions of the Government in establishing a Board of Agriculture in Ireland. In England the Board of Agriculture had been of great benefit to the agricultural interest, and there appeared to be no reason why a similar board should not be established in Ireland He also joined with his hon. Friends in pressing the importance of rights of way being mentioned on the maps, though the absence to mark a right of way would not, of course, be conclusive evidence that such a right of way did not exist. He called attention to the necessity of also including foreshore rights, mentioning a case of grievous hardship in County Dublin, wherein a railway company deprived the whole community of certain rights of taking sand and gravel. The employÉs of the Ordnance Department were not in as good a position with regard to pension and retiring allowances as servants were in some other public Departments. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would look into the matter.

said, it was exceedingly difficult to get ordnance maps, especially in country villages where they were much required. He believed it was impossible to get them anywhere in Ireland except in Dublin, Belfast and Cork. In France, on the other hand, such maps could be got without difficulty, and he suggested that the right hon. Gentleman should enter into negotiations with the Post Office, to see whether it would not be possible for ordnance maps to be supplied at the post offices throughout the country, especially in out-of-the-way districts. Then the price at which they were sold was much dearer here than in other countries. In Franco maps could be obtained for 4½d., and he submitted that this country ought not to be outdone in this matter of price. The reform he had suggested would be greatly appreciated throughout the country.

urged the importance of ordnance maps in litigation between landlord and tenant in the Land Courts in Ireland. Facilities should therefore be given to increase their distribution and sale, thereby conferring a great benefit on all classes in Ireland. He also called attention in the interests of history and geography, to the fact that the spelling of Irish names on these maps was at present grotesque and misleading, and he urged that the compilers should at least have competent assistance to obviate errors in this respect.

, said, he entirely appreciated the importance of the fact that the survey in Ireland was in a less favourable position, than the survey in other parts of the country. He, however, had only been in his present office a very short time, and it would be indecent for him to criticise the work that had been done by the department and by his predecessors. At the same time, he was impressed with the desirability of quickening the survey so that the public might have a valuable map easily obtainable at a moderate price—["Hear, hear!"]—of the locality over which they travel, or in which they reside. If he could in any way expedite the survey he should be glad to do it. With regard to the survey now going on in Great Britain, there was a prospect of the work being completed at a very early date, and when that was done the money which now had to be spent under that head would be available for allotment to other survey work. The whole question was one of expense. The Treasury would, naturally, resist any attempt to increase the expenditure, unless there was a clear expression of opinion on the part of the House that the expenditure was necessary in the public interest. He hoped he might be able to quicken the survey in Ireland by devoting to it a portion of the expenditure which was about to fall in, or by some re-arrangement to which he should give careful attention. With reference to the suggestion that the maps should be made legal evidence that was a matter which did not fall within his province, but he could mention the subject, which was, no doubt, important, to the Attorney General. Considering the heavy expense and the value of these maps they could not attach too much importance to them. As to footpaths, they were in almost all cases produced on the maps, but mere temporary footways made by men on the way to work for a time were not shown, as after the work was finished the paths disappeared. He should see that this matter received proper attention. The hon. Member for Flint referred to the difficulty of Welsh names. Maps of Wales issued subsequent to 1893 had been submitted to Welsh scholars for revision and correction before publication. An hon. Member had made a similar complaint with regard to Ireland, but there the difficulty was not so great as there was no such curious admixture of letters in Irish names as they met with in Welsh names. If a name appeared on the map wrongly spelt there was a danger that the old name would be lost, which was not a desirable thing. It was suggested that a Welsh-speaking person should go with the survey, and he should consider whether this system could not be adopted in Ireland as well. [An hon. MEMBER: "And in the Highlands?"] Yes, and in the Highlands. An assistant speaking Welsh and accompanying the survey could satisfy himself of the accuracy of the names, and, no doubt, this would meet the requirements of the hon. Member.

said, he had no objection to the present arrangement of Welsh scholars looking over the maps, but what was recommended by the Departmental Committee was, that the survey party should be accompanied by a person speaking Welsh. That had not yet been carried out. He asked whether that suggestion, which he regarded as most important, would be carried out.

said, that with regard to Welsh and Irish names, their object was to produce as accurate a map as they could, and if the change suggested could be carried out, he would see that it was done. With regard to a Board of Agriculture in Ireland, that was not in his province, and did not fall within the Vote. Legislation would be required. With regard to foreshores, that also was not a matter that he could deal with, but he should bear it in mind. The hon. Member for West Islington referred to the difficulty of getting these maps in different parts of the country, and in the villages especially, and he made the suggestion that the Post Offices should keep these maps. With regard to the cheapening of the cost of the map, efforts had already been made in that direction, and the difficulty was that the cheapening of the price of the map had not resulted in the increased demand for it which alone would justify it.

What is the lowest price?

said he was afraid he could not say offhand. If the cheapening were accompanied by an organised diffusion, a market might be gained; but unless something could be done in that way, the cheapening could not be carried out. He did not know whether there was any other point to which he ought to have made a reply, but he would be glad to give any further information in his power. His great desire was to take care that the Survey-Department should do its work efficiently. On the whole he thought the Department did its work admirably, and was admitted universally to be superior to that of any other country.

said, that questions of foreshore and rights of way were entirely outside the province of the hydrographer. He could not decide legal rights and it would be quite impossible to give any legal authority to the maps. The survey appeared to cost over £200,000 a year and the appropriations in aid came to about £6,000, or just about the cost of the paper and ink used in the preparation of the maps. He could not find any appropriation in aid in respect of the sum received for the sale of the maps, except that to the Irish Land Commissioner, about £4,000; and he would like to know where the proceeds were accounted for and what were the arrangements made for the sale of the maps. Did Her Majesty's Government receive the proceeds or did someone else? If Her Majesty's Government received them, where were they accounted for? Was there anything in the nature of a monopoly which limited the sale? He would be glad to know what were the arrangements under which the very large sale of those maps was carried out?

called attention to the fact that in making the survey no notice was taken of the erosion of the coast by the sea which took place, very much on the East Coast. He suggested that from time to time marks might be placed along the coast in order that the erosion of the shore might be properly marked.

said, there was no doubt a difficulty with regard to the sale of the maps in consequence of there being only one agent. It had been suggested that the system should be altered when the contract expired, but it did not expire for rather more than a year. The Department had at the present time under consideration a proposal by which that difficulty would be obviated. With regard to the proceeds of sale his hon. Friend would find at the bottom of page 52 a note to the effect that—

"The proceeds of the sale of maps, estimated to amount to £14,000 for the year 1895–6, are appropriated in aid of the vote for stationery and printing."

With regard to the suggestion of his hon. Friend the Member for Holderness, he could only say that he must be governed by the amount given to him, and unless that amount was increased it would be impossible to increase the expenditure. At the same time they would do all they could to produce a good and efficient map.

said, it was merely a question of putting up marks.

pointed out that the sum of £4,000 received from the Land Court in Ireland was appropriated in aid of this Vote, but the larger sum of £14,000 for England was put into the Stationery Vote. Surely that was very inconvenient. It seemed to him that one rule should be followed. Why should the Stationery Department have the proceeds of the sale of maps?

, said that a question was put by the hon. Member for North Louth, with regard to the votes generally. He should certainly do everything he could to make the votes as intelligible as possible to the House. There were already footnotes to each vote to show how far the particular service was met by the vote. As to the point raised by the hon. Member for King's Lynn, the present Estimates were not prepared by the present Government, and he was not quite sure on what principle the proceeds of sale were in some cases credited to this Vote, and in others to the Stationery Vote. The hon. Member for the Northern Division of the County of Dublin, complained of the insufficiency of the holiday allowed to labourers in the Phœnix Park. The hon. Gentleman assumed that they were employed by the Board of Works, but, if that was so, the question did not arise on this Vote. It was complained also that the assistants employed in the Ordnance Survey were not treated in the same way as regarded pensions as those regularly employed. That policy was considered in 1870, and it was found that the system of having permanent assistants was not a good one. Their salaries and wages were based entirely on the idea that they were not earning a pension, and were higher in proportion than they would be if pension rights were attached. The suggestion that the ordnance maps should be sold at post offices appeared to be one for consideration when the arrangements for sale, of these maps was under Division B. But many of the sub-postmasters in the country received small pay, and they might be unwilling to undertake that extra duty without extra remuneration.

wished to recur to the point raised by the hon. Member for King's Lynn, namely, that the agency for the sale of ordnance maps was a monopoly. He should like to know whether there was any stipulation in the contract as to the prices that should be charged to the public for copies of the maps. As to the sale of them by local postmasters, they might charge the same commissions local booksellers charged, but it would not make any material addition to their incomes, as so few maps would be required. But besides having permission to sell maps, local postmasters might be required to keep for reference maps for the area served by each post-office, making a small charge to each person requiring to consult them. The tithe commutation maps could be examined for a shilling, but that was too high a fee to charge for referring to maps the sheets of which could be bought at 2s. 6d. each. Accuracy in the spelling of Welsh names could not be secured by simply submitting them to Welsh scholars, who, in many cases could not have the necessary local knowledge; and, therefore, he asked the President of the Board of Agriculture to acquiesce in the suggestion that each company of surveyors should be accompanied by a Welsh-speaking officer, so that the spelling of local names might be assured by communication with local residents. It was impossible that Englishmen could properly set down Welsh names on official maps, and it was of the highest importance that they should be accurate, seeing that they were accepted as primá facie evidence in Courts of Justice.

said, he had already stated, in answer to the hon. Member for King's Lynn, that at present there was only one agent in England for the sale of ordnance maps. There was a second in Edinburgh, and a third in Dublin. When a Departmental Committee inquired into the question they reported that there was not sufficient evidence to justify an alteration of the existing system until the contracts expired, as he believed they would do next year.

Will it expire for Ireland next year?

could not say offhand, but he believed it would do so; and the Department had under consideration the possibility of improving the system by having more than one agent. He would consider the suggestion that the surveyors in Wales should be accompanied by Welsh-speaking officers, but it could not be determined upon without consulting the head of the Department, and ascertaining what the expense would be.

said, he hoped that when the Secretary to the Treasury next submitted Estimates he would frame them on some plan which would make it possible to understand them. Some years ago, when the new system of Appropriation Accounts was introduced by the then Conservative Government, the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for India in the late Government strongly opposed the new system as a constitutional innovation. But, in spite of the indignation then manifested by Front Bench men, they had adopted the system they so strongly opposed; and now we, had another muddle which made it impossible to understand this Vote. The Stationery Office supplied a certain number of things to the Survey Department and took credit for them. The Survey Department bought special papers, inks and instruments for map-making. He was astonished that the late Goverment, after protesting so strongly against this system, which made it almost impossible to compare the expenditure of one year with that of another, should in their last Estimates so far muddle and confuse matters. Whilst all other public departments obtained maps free, the Irish Land Court was charged £4,000 for them. The Admiralty accounts and the Stationery accounts were muddled by the transactions between them; and it was altogether as glorious a muddle as it could be. He hoped that, now the Liberal Leaders had given up their strong opinions with regard to the unconstitutional character of these Appropriation Accounts, and the House was practically agreed they should be continued, steps would be taken to improve the Estimates so as to let the Committee know in every case what it was they were asked to vote, and so enable them to compare one year with another, which it was impossible to do at present. The Secretary to the Treasury had been a keen critic on both sides of the House; all these were old stories to him; and it was to be hoped he would present the next Estimates in such a form that they could be comprehended, understood, and made the basis of comparison.

said, that with regard to the ten years' printing contracts, he wished to make a suggestion to the Secretary to the Treasury. He believed the contracts expired at the end of 1896. A Committee would be appointed early next year to consider matters connected with these contracts, and especially those ten years' contracts to which general distaste had arisen. He suggested that the Committee might inquire into the distribution of ordnance maps, and make suggestions on that subject too. The Committee would provide very convenient machinery for securing the benefits which the present and former Secretary to the Treasury sought to secure. His own suggestion about the sale of maps at post offices while kindly received generally had met with some objection. The new Secretary to the Treasury had soon become imbued with the bad traditions of his office, and had spoiled all the friendliness of his predecessor's attitude on the subject. He had dragged in the question of cost, which was what the Treasury were always dragging in. They pursued "a penny wise and pound foolish" policy. The distribution of ordnance maps by the post offices would not only cost nothing but be a source of revenue. A small commission would encourage the postal officials to sell them. This commission would be taken into account in fixing their salaries, and economy would be effected. With regard, however, to the exhibition of maps in post offices for the purpose of reference, he thought it better that they should be exhibited in public libraries or other local institutions.

reminded the hon. Member that parish maps were already on view at country post offices. If ordnance maps were exhibited at country post offices no inconvenience would arise; on the contrary, they would have the effect of attracting custom. He thought the suggestion that they should be exhibited at post offices was reasonable and moderate.

acknowledged the sympathetic spirit the President of the Board of Agriculture had shown as to the appointment of Welsh-speaking inspectors in connection with the Board in Wales. This was a subject in which the greatest interest was taken in Wales. The Welsh language was not difficult to learn, and was the most musical language in the world. He contended that those who were engaged in the preparation of ordnance maps for Wales should have a thorough knowledge of the Welsh language.

referred to the maintenance of Holy head harbour, and thought it should be left to the London and North-Western Railway Company, for whose benefit, chiefly, it existed. At present the Company received a small subsidy from the Government towards the maintenance of the harbour. But if the Company maintained the harbour, they would maintain it and do so more cheaply. He understood that the Company were willing to buy or rent the harbour. If they were they should be allowed to do so. The maintenance of the pier and harbour this year cost £1,150, but year after year £3,000 was asked for to repair and maintain the old wooden pier. What purpose did the pier serve that the taxpayers of the country should have to pay £3,000 a year for it. A better arrangement should be made, too, for the payment of the salary of the harbour master. He wished to draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Hanbury, Preston) to these points, and to ascertain from him what the views of the new Government were with regard to them; and whether the Government were prepared to give the Committee any information in relation to them.

thought that there was a good deal in the point which had been made by the hon. Member who had just spoken, that the Government were spending some £7,000 a year on Holyhead Harbour for the benefit of the passenger traffic of the London and North Western Railway Company. The money which the harbour had cost to construct ought to have come out of the capital of the Company. It could not be just that the Government should spend all this money every year for the benefit of a railway company, when not a single harbour of refuge existed on the whole of the Welsh coast for the protection of the fishermen. He could not understand why this large annual payment should be made for the maintenance of a rotten wooden pier. He hoped that the right, hon. Gentleman would agree to send an engineer belonging to the Harbour Department to investigate the matter upon the spot.

said, that of course hon. Members would understand that he had some difficulty in answering these questions, seeing that he had taken office so recently, and that he had not been in the last Parliament, while those hon. Members who took an interest in these subjects had doubtless paid some attention to them. The hon. Member for Caithness (Dr. Clark) and the hon. Member who had just sat down (Mr. Lloyd-George) had referred to Holyhead Harbour, which they maintained was kept up at the expense of the country for the benefit of the passenger traffic of the London and North Western Railway Company. He understood that the railway company paid a substantial rent for the use of the harbour, and the harbour must be kept up, even, if the company did not use it. With regard to the cost of maintaining the wooden pier, he himself thought that it might be advisable to replace that pier by a permanent structure. As to the case of the harbour master, it was said that he received a salary of £350 per annum in addition to a pension of £370. He must point out, however, that the harbour master had very important duties to perform, and that he had earned his pension by long service in the Navy. He was satisfied that hon. Members would not desire that the harbour master should be deprived of his well-earned pension. He had no doubt that if there had been anything improper in the transaction, the eagle eye of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Hanbury) would have been directed to it, and that he would have called attention to it.

said, that the right hon. Gentleman had called attention to the matter.

said, that most likely the right hon. Gentleman had had further opportunities of inquiring into the question since he had taken office.

said, that he did not think that it was fair that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade should have been put up to answer these questions, seeing that it was impossible that he could give the Committee any information with regard to them. He declined to believe that the right hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, was going to change his views with regard to this harbour master now he had got into office. He was quite sure that the right hon. Gentleman would adhere to the views he had professed on the subject when he was out of office. In all sincerity he maintained that the right hon. Gentleman was bound, now he was in office, to do his best to get rid of an abuse which he had previously denounced when out of office, and he believed that the right hon. Gentleman would do so. He therefore suggested that the matter should be left in the hands of the right hon. Gentleman, who would doubtless give it his attention during the autumn recess and be prepared to deal with it next Session. He however could not accept the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, that the right hon. Gentleman, now he had attained office, was justified in setting aside the views he had entertained on the subject when he was out of office.

said, that he certainly sympathised with the observations of the hon. Member who had just sat down. The right hon. gentleman the President of the Board of Trade had volunteered the somewhat important statement that the London and North Western Railway Company paid a substantial rent for the use of Holyhead Harbour. He found that that harbour had cost no less a sum than £1,300,000, and therefore a substantial rent upon such an expenditure ought to amount to some thousands a year. On looking through the Estimates, he could only find, under the head of "Appropriation in Aid," that a sum of £2,500 per annum was received for harbour dues, which certainly was not rent, and therefore he assumed that the rent paid by the Company did not appear under that head. He should like to know where the right hon. Gentleman got his information from, how much the rent amounted to and where it was brought into account.

said that he was sorry to differ from any of his hon. Friends, but he must protest against any idea of Holyhead Harbour being sold. It would be jumping out of the frying pan into the fire to dispose of that splendid and necessary harbour to any railway company. While he would like the scandal on the Estimates to be dealt with, he thought it could be better done by securing that sufficient rent should be paid to cover the expenses. He and his hon. Friends were not asking the Treasury to spend, but to save something. Why should Holyhead be different from Harwich and hundreds of harbours round the coast in being maintained at such expense to the public funds? The hon. Member for King's Lynn might leave the defence of the Estimates to his two right hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench. Heretofore the hon. Member had criticised the Estimates, and if he were going to abandon his position of sturdy opposition to defend the Secretary to the Treasury, who was well able to take care of himself, many people would be much disappointed.

hoped that the Board of Trade would send someone soon to look into the harbours of refuge on the Welsh coast, and would do it before the Board of Trade Vote came on, so that a more definite answer on the subject could be then given.

said, that this question of Holyhead Harbour had been dealt with under an entire misapprehension of the facts. The harbour was not built for the London and North Western Railway, or for communication with Ireland, but as a harbour of refuge for the protection of the shipping industry on the west coast. Until it was built the shipping in the Irish Channel was much exposed. The harbour was used more largely by the shipping than by the London and North Western Railway Company, and even more largely still by the City of Dublin Steam Packet Company, which was entirely independent of the Railway. There ought to be a difference made between the cost of the inner harbour and the very costly works at the breakwater.

urged, in disagreement with his hon. Friends, that Holyhead Harbour should be further extended and improved; and he had no doubt that the benefit to the mercantile marine generally would amply compensate for any expense incurred. That question had been brought forward again and again, and he regretted that, so far, the Government had not seen their way to effect improvements in this valuable harbour. Except Holyhead, there was not a single harbour on that coast into which a boat drawing more than eight feet of water could enter at low water. He supported the plea for better protection to the fishing industry.