I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the provisions of the 33rd Section of the Act 5 and 6 Vic., c. 106 (which provides that the expenses of applications for change of season for fishing in Ireland, and all proceedings consequent thereon, shall be defrayed by the person or persons who shall have signed such applications), have been complied with by the Inspectors of Irish Fisheries; and, if not, will he say why this law has not been observed; and, will he direct that in future the Inspectors of Irish Fisheries shall not entertain any such applications until all the expenses consequent thereon shall have been defrayed by the persons making them?

I am informed that the expenses referred to have not been defrayed by the applicants, because the Inspectors were of opinion that if such a course had been insisted upon the poorer classes of fishermen would have been precluded from making applications, but I will inquire further into the matter.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, is he aware that, by order of Dr. Stewart, Sanitary Inspector, a fisherman named James M'Namee, of O'Meath, County Louth, had his fish taken from his cart in Portadown on Monday, 12th August, and destroyed, on the ground that they were unfit for human food, without an opportunity being afforded him of procuring independent testimony as to the soundness of the fish, which he alleged to be quite good; is it the case throughout the Kingdom that fish sold on Mondays must necessarily have been caught not later than the previous Friday night or Saturday morning; and, as Dr. Stewart has previously condemned the fish of O'Meath dealers on Mondays in Portadown, will the Government see that some precaution is taken by the police to secure this class of men from unnecessary interference with their calling?

I am informed that a prosecution at the suit of the Sanitary Authority is pending against M'Namee in this matter, and under the circumstances it is inexpedient to discuss the case at the present stage.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty, with regard to the case of Surgeon Lea, of H.M.S. Ringarooma, who, doubting the mental fitness of Captain Johnson for the command of the ship, had him put on the sick list, whereupon the Captain put the doctor under arrest, from which he was released almost at once by the Senior Naval Officer of the Port; what was the finding of the Court Martial convened by Admiral Bridge to try Surgeon Lea whether he is aware that the Court ruled that they had not anything to dc with the question of the Captain's health and refused to hear evidence on the point of his mental fitness, and also refused Surgeon Lea's offer to produce medical evidence; whether telegrams and reports have been received at the Admiralty from Sydney, where the Court Martial was held, and what decision has been come to on the question; what length of service has Surgeon Lea had; and whether it is a fact that his record is an untarnished one?

This question has been framed by the hon. Member in terms which are calculated to convey an altogether false impression of the facts, which are briefly as follows:— On the occasion in question the Captain of the Ringarooma was engaged in exercising the crew at general quarters, and in the course of his inspection of the arrangements for battle, had occasion to find some fault with the Surgeon as to the arrangements for the wounded, after which Surgeon Lea followed the Captain on deck, accompanied by a member of the sick berth staff, and endeavoured to remove him from the command of the Ringarooma, on the ground that he (Surgeon Lea) had placed him on the sick list, and that his case required observation. For this gross act of insubordination and contempt, Surgeon Lea was placed by Captain Johnson under arrest, and was subsequently tried by Court Martial, found guilty, and dismissed from Her Majesty's Service. His release from arrest by the Senior Officer was no doubt governed by the requirements of the medical service at the time, and was, in accordance with the Queen's Regulations, without prejudice to his trial by Court Martial. Ho was released from arrest in order that be might be changed into another ship for the time, otherwise the Ringarooma would have been without a medical officer. I should add that the ship was in harbour, and that other men-of-war were there also, and a Senior Officer, to whom, if there had been any real ground for believing the Captain incapable, Surgeon Lea might have gone to make the proper representation. The proceedings of the Court Martial have been carefully reviewed by the Judge Advocate of the Fleet, who has advised the Board of Admiralty that the ruling of the Court as to the reception of evidence was correct. No telegram or reports have been addressed, so far as I am aware, to the Admiralty from Sydney, except a petition from Dr. Lea himself; nor could any such communications affect a question of naval discipline or the finding of the Court Martial. Surgeon Lea had 12 years' service, and his record up to his late offence was untarnished. This, however, cannot affect the sentence of the Court Martial, which the Admiralty confirm.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department—(1) if his attention has been drawn to the case of John Kelsall, who was convicted at the Manchester Assizes, held in May, 1892, for the manslaughter of his wife by throwing a lighted paraffin lamp at her, the case against Kelsall resting almost entirely upon the evidence of the only eyewitness, his sister-in-law, Elizabeth Curran; (2) whether he is aware that Curran (as reported in The Times of 6th March), was subsequently convicted on her own confession with having committed perjury at Kelsall's trial, was sentenced thereupon to seven years' penal servitude, and Kelsall released from prison; and (3) if he can make any compensation, or compassionate allowance to John Kelsall?

The facts of this case are as stated in the first two paragraphs of the Question, and have received my careful attention. After full consideration of all the circumstances, I am of opinion that I should not be justified in departing from the decision of my predecessor not to advise the grant of any compensation or compassionate allowance to John Kelsall.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether Duffileh is included in the territory still leased to the King of the Belgians as the head of the Congo State, and left to His Majesty by the Franco-Congo Treaty; and, whether a British post has been established there by a recent expedition?

Questions connected with the lease granted to the Sovereign of the Congo State cannot be discussed with advantage while the question of the transfer of the Congo State to Belgium is still unsettled. We have heard that Major Cuningham visited Duffileh and made a treaty with the Chief, to whom he gave the British flag, but did not establish a post.

Surely the question whether Duffileh is included in the territory is a question of fact and not a question of policy.

Duffileh is, as the right hon. Baronet says, in that portion of the valley of the Nile which was leased under Lord Rosebery's agreement to the King of the Belgians; but, as I have said, questions connected with this matter cannot properly be discussed while negotiations are pending.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, if he will cause the Local Government Board for Ireland to wind up the scheme for the erection of labourers' cottages in Carrickmacross Union, which was commenced in 1883; is he aware that the solicitor who had the carrying through of the scheme, and who resides in Dundalk, cannot be got to furnish his account to the Guardians: and, what steps he proposes to take in the matter?

The fourteen cottages included in the scheme in question were reported by the Local Government Board Inspector to have been built in March, 1894. It appears that the bill of costs has been furnished, but has not yet been fully taxed. The clerk of the union states that the solicitor appearing for the Guardians before the taxing master, informed him recently that he feared taxation could not be finished before October.

I beg to ask the representative of the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that there is no parcel post between this country and the United States of America: and, whether, in view of the enormous trade and passenger traffic between the two countries, he will make an effort to bring about this reform?

The Postmaster General is fully alive to the absence of a parcel post between this country and the United States, and intends to prosecute the efforts of his predecessors towards the establishment of such a post.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether an application has been made to the Irish Land Commission by Mrs. Caroline Blake, of Renoyle, Connemara, and by her son Robert Blake, for money to purchase the grass land of the Renoyle estate, leased to them by Mr. Henry E. V. Blake, Mrs. Blake's son, who is heir to the property and nominal owner, the said estate being heavily mortgaged; and whether, taking into account the fact that the lease is granted to relatives, and the fact that the grass land proposed to be purchased is the only good land available for the tenants upon other parts of this estate, in the event of the Congested Districts Board considering their condition, he would advise the Land Commission under such circumstances not to advance the necessary purchase money?

Before the right hon. Gentleman answers, I would like to ask whether the tenants referred to in the 2nd paragraph of the question, or any of them, are persons in respect of whom it was proved before the Judges of the Parnell Commission that they had been guilty of the cruel destruction and mutilation of cattle and sheep upon the lands in question?

The supplemental question is not altogether relevant. In answer to the question on the Paper, I have to say applications were made in December 1894, by the parties named in the question, for advances to enable them to purchase their holdings on this estate, which is for sale in the Land Judges Court, but as they were unable to comply with the requirements of the Land Commission Court the applications now stand "withdrawn," and there are, therefore, no purchase proceedings now pending in the matter.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that on Friday last an Orange drumming party was allowed by the police to parade the Catholic quarters in Stewartstown, county Tyrone, followed by a crowd armed with sticks; and, that, having exploded fireworks in the square, they proceeded to smash the windows of Catholics in West Street, and attacked the Catholic church with stones, breaking the glass in the windows near the altar; did the police make any arrests, or summon any of the offenders; and what steps will be taken to prevent a repetition of this conduct?

I am informed that a number of Orangemen paraded the streets of Stewartstown on the night of the 16th instant and passed through the Roman Catholic quarter of the town, which they have always hitherto done, that being the way into the town. Windows were broken in five houses in North and West Streets and four panes of glass were broken in the Roman Catholic chapel. There was an extra force of police in the town no the occasion, in addition to the local force, and the drumming parties were accompanied from place to place by the police, who, however, owing to the darkness of the night, were unable to detect the persons who broke the windows. I may also mention that two members of the drumming party were struck with stones thrown by the opposite party. The police are using their best exertions to procure evidence on which to proceed against the guilty persons.

asked whether it was a fact that the Protestants of Stewartstown were allowed to parade through the streets of the Catholic quarter, while Catholics were not allowed to parade through the Protestant quarter?

I am afraid I must ask for notice of the supplementary question.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) whether his attention has been directed to the proceedings at the trial at Howth Petty Sessions, county Dublin, on Monday last, of three persons charged with offences arising out of attempted street preaching by certain Protestant missionaries, when the presiding magistrate was a Protestant clergyman, the Rev. Mr. Mahaffy, while the accused were Catholics; (2) whether he will inform the House how often, previous to the hearing of this case, the Rev. Mr. Mahaffy has attended Petty Sessions since his appointment to the magistracy; and (3) whether the Lord Chancellor will take any steps to prevent Protestant clergymen acting as magistrates in such cases as that mentioned?

My attention has been drawn to the proceedings at the Petty Sessions referred to, which were prosecutions for assaults no the police, who, in the performance of their duty, were endeavouring to protect the preachers from the violence of the mob. The adjudicating magistrates were the resident magistrate of the district and the Rev. Mr. Mahaffy. I am informed that the latter gentleman was appointed to the Commission of the Peace in October 1888, since which date he has seven times attended the Howth Petty Sessions. One of the defendants, who was convicted and fined 40s. and costs, or a month's imprisonment in default, has given notice of his intention to appeal. I do not think the facts of the case require me to give an affirmative answer to the third paragraph of the question.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, of the men prosecuted on the occasion referred to, four were convicted of an assault on the police and bound to the peace, although the only evidence against them was that they had blown horns; one was convicted of the same offence and fined, although the very constable who was alleged to have been assaulted gave the accused a good character and would not swear, that he had intended any assault; and one other was also fined, although three witnesses swore that he was at home in bed when the alleged assault took place; and, if the facts be as stated, the Lord Lieutenant will remit the fines in the two last-mentioned cases, and, if possible, discharge the persons bound to the peace from their recognizances with a view to marking his disapproval of a prosecution and a magisterial decision so well calculated to bring the law and its administrators into contempt.

In one of these cases an appeal has been taken, and pending the result it is obvious I cannot consider any of the sentences. Moreover, local inquiry would be necessary to substantiate the facts alleged in the question.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland—(1) whether he is aware that, owing to the excited and threatening attitude of the Orange crowd at Lisbellaw on 2nd July, the Catholic temperance excursionists, to avoid a conflict on their return there, were compelled to leave the train at Maguire's Bridge Station, three miles from their destination; (2) whether, when the chapel bell has been rung on the occasion of evictions in the south of Ireland, the police frequently interfered to stop it; and why, when the Protestant bell was rung at Lisbellaw to collect the Orange party, the police did not similarly interfere; and (3) will he take steps to ascertain the ringleaders of these disorderly proceedings at Lisbellaw, and, if possible, bring them to justice?

I understand that Maguire's Bridge Station, at which the excursionist party detrained, was the proper station for them to alight at. But, be this as it may, it appears, as I stated yesterday, that a contingent of the party did, in point of fact, take the train on the outward journey in the morning at Lisbellaw without being molested in any way. As regards the first part of the second paragraph I am not aware of the particular occasion to which the hon. member refers, as he gives no details. I have already pointed out that no breach of the peace at Lisbellaw on the date mentioned occurred, and that everything passed off peaceably. The police were fully alive to their duty and were in a position to prevent disturbances, no matter by what route the excursionists returned.

Can the right hon. Gentleman inform me why there was no breach of the peace on the occasion in question.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, how many prosecutions took place for added water in butter this year outside Cork Market?

The number of prosecutions for breaches of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act by the addition of water to butter during the current year throughout Ireland has been 16, resulting in 10 convictions and three dismissals. This is inclusive of one prosecution in which a conviction was obtained in Cork City.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, whether, under a new Warrant framed under the late Government, and shortly to come into operation, while a few officers will be put into the Ordnance Store Department on high salaries, upwards of 40 officers will be deprived of their appointments in that department, and remanded to their regiments; and is Government prepared now to adopt such a Warrant?

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, whether he can state the percentage for reserve and discharged soldiers employed in the Ordnance Store Department, and in the Ordnance Factories, in manual or other labour, or in clerical work?

From the latest returns it appears that in the Ordnance Factories 10·3 per cent. of those employed are reservists, or discharged soldiers or sailors. In the Ordnance Store Department the percentage is 59·4; and in the Inspection Department 40.

I beg to ask the Representative of the Postmaster General, whether his attention has been called to the different charges made for compound-word telegrams—for example Port Said being charged as one word by the Eastern Telegraph Company and two words by the General Post Office; and whether he will give instructions that all compound words of names, places, and things be in future charged as one word?

Under the International Telegraph Regulations, to which this country is a party, Port Said is chargeable as one word in the address of a telegram to that place. It would also be so charged in the text if written as one word. The practice of the Eastern Telegraph Company and the General Post Office in this respect is identical. With respect to the second paragraph of the hon. member's question, the Postmaster General fears that it is impossible in a matter of this kind to avoid some inconsistencies, but the broad rule at present in regard to inland telegrams is that all compound words to be found in recognised dictionaries, and which are written as such by the senders, are to be charged for as one word. The names of towns and villages in this country are also so charged; but the Postmaster General is not prepared to allow compound names of other places or of persons to pass as single words.

asked why "St. Leonards" was charged as one word while "Charing Cross" was two words. [Laughter]

was understood to say that Charing Cross was neither a town nor a village.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India—(1) whether he has any objection to lay upon the Table of the House the recommendations made by the Government of India in order to prevent the supersession of Staff Corps officers by those in the Line; (2) will he explain why certain officers of the Staff Corps, who entered the Army as Sub-Lieutenants, are denied the privilege accorded to all others of counting service out of India before joining the Staff Corps to an extent not exceeding two years, although the duties performed by these Sub-Lieutenants were identical with those performed by other officers of that rank who have been allowed to count all their service from date of first commission, and although all the officers who entered the Staff Corps from the Royal Marines have been granted the above-mentioned privilege; and, (3) whether he is prepared to consider the advisability of allowing every officer to count towards pension all his service out of India before joining the Staff Corps, to an extent not exceeding two years?

I have no objection to lay upon the Table of the House the Papers regarding the supersession of Staff Corps officers by those of the Line. As regards the second part of my hon. Friend's question, I may explain that although officers who join the Staff Corps from British regiments are allowed to reckon two years' service out of India for Indian pension, such service, being out of India, is governed by the rules of the War Office. The service of the officers to whom my hon. Friend refers was service on a temporary commission, which, under War Office rules, does not reckon for pension. I see no reason for altering the rules on this subject.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether his attention, has been called to the fact that the following civil bill officers, viz.: Halpin, Manders, Nelson and Young, who are attached to the Kildare County Court, are in the habit of acting as inspectors for the Conservative Party at the Parliamentary revision courts; whether it is regular for county court officials and sheriffs' officers to take an active part in political organisations: whether he is aware that the county court judge of Carlow, who is also county court judge of Kildare, prevented a Carlow civil bill officer from appearing as a party inspector in Carlow Revision Court; and, whether he will take steps to prevent the above-named civil bill officers, and all sheriffs' officers, from appearing as party inspectors in the revision courts at the forthcoming revision for the county of Kildare?

I have not yet been able to obtain a Report on this question, and must ask the hon. Member to postpone it for a day or two.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty, with regard to the recent strike of the electrical workers at Ponders End, and the alleged dismissal of a girl from Messrs. Swan and Edison's works for joining the Women's Union, a branch of the Electrical Trades Union, whether a reply from the Company has now been received by the Admiralty; and, if so, to what effect?

The Edison Company offer a distinct denial to the allegation that a girl had been dismissed from their works for joining the Women's Union, and that their Manager had stated that any girl joining the Union would be dismissed.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, whether a Treasury Minute has been issued recently modifying the conditions under which compassionate allowances are given to soldiers who served in the Crimean and Indian Mutiny campaigns; and, if so, will he state its purport?

No Treasury Minute has been issued on this subject, but it has recently been arranged between the Treasury and the War Office that all qualified candidates who are 65 years of age, or who, being under 65 years of age, are certified by an Army medical officer on the active list to be totally incapacitated by permanent bodily infirmity for earning a livelihood, should at once be granted special campaign pensions.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, if he proposes to introduce into the Evicted Tenants Bill financial proposals of a similar nature to those contained in the Bill of the late Government?

I cannot go beyond the statement made by the First Lord of the Treasury on Monday last.

asked whether, in considering the question, the right hon. Gentleman would bear in mind that such a grant would be quite as acceptable to the landlords as to the tenants?

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he will introduce a clause into the promised Land Bill allowing the tenant, in case of eviction for non-payment of rent, to set off his interest in the holding against the arrears of rent?

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, if his attention has been called to the fact that dissatisfaction exists in Ireland owing to the working of Section 7 of the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1887; and whether, in the promised Bill for the amendment of the Irish Land Acts, he proposes to repeal that clause?

I can give no undertaking that the Bill will contain the proposals suggested in these questions.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether any progress has been made towards a settlement of the claims put forward in the Memorial of the outdoor officers of Her Majesty's Customs, which was sent to the Treasury on 6th February last; and, if not, whether he will give the matter his attention, with a view to an early decision?

The Memorial in question was referred to the Board of Customs, who are now considering it, and will report upon it to the Treasury. I will see that there is no undue delay.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, whether he is aware that the mail trains to Scotland and other places on the London and North Western Railway, with the exception of the Irish mail, carry third class passengers; will he inquire why passengers by the Irish mail are placed in a less favourable position than passengers to other places served by the London and North Western Railway; and will the Government endeavour to have provision made in the future for carrying third class passengers by sea and rail in connection with the Irish mail service?

I have communicated with the London and North Western Company, and gather from the reply that the Post Office contemplate some alterations in the arrangements for the carriage of Irish mails, and that in connection with such revision, the Company will give careful consideration to the hon. Member's point. The Postmaster General has already had the matter before him, and I will communicate further with him on the subject.

I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to a Report by Mr. Seaton, the Station Master at Kildonan, who was appointed Official Receiver of all gold found by the diggers lately experimenting on the Kildonan gold-field, which report appears in the Highland News of the 17th instant, and states that the diggers had to hand over all their gold to the receiver, not obtaining any wages in the meantime, and that they were compelled to confine their operations within a small prescribed limit, and were prevented from working in the bed of the burn where the gold is known to exist, also that the test, so far as it has gone, may be held to have proved that there is gold in paying quantities in the bed of the burn; can he state what are the conditions under which His Grace the Duke of Sutherland holds a lease to mine for gold in Sutherlandshire, what area is contained in such lease, and what royalties are payable to the Crown, and what conditions of working are imposed by the lease; Has the Crown, as lessor, any control over this gold-field; and what course does the Government intend to adopt with a view to its future development?

The Commissioners of Woods have not seen the newspaper report referred to, and can say nothing as to the first part of the question. The Duke of Sutherland does not hold a lease to mine for gold in Sutherlandshire. He has a Crown grant in ordinary feudal form, giving him the right for ever to the gold within all his lands. This grant was made pursuant to a Scotch Act of Parliament passed in 1592. The royalty payable to the Crown is fixed by the Act and in the Grant at 1–10th part of the gold obtained. The Grant contains no working conditions. The Crown has not attempted to exercise any control over the alleged gold-field, and is believed to possess none.

I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether there is any hope of Clarence Lanes, Roehampton, being shortly opened to the public; and when the correspondence on the subject between the Office of Works, the London County Council, and the Wandsworth Local Board will be laid upon the Table, in accordance with the promise made by the right hon. Member for West Leeds on the 14th of June last?

I am afraid there is no immediate prospect of Clarence Lanes being opened for public traffic. If my hon. Friend will move for the Papers, they shall be laid upon the Table at once.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether representations have reached him that there is not proper inspection of the cattle slaughtered in Australia for exportation as frozen meat to this country; and whether any steps can be taken by the Department towards the improvement of the present system of inspection?

Yes, Sir, representations to the effect indicated in the question were made to the Board of Agriculture early in the present year, and information was obtained as to the measures taken in certain of the Australian Colonies to prevent the exportation of meat unfit for human food. The information was communicated to the Local Government Board, with whom it would rest to consider whether any further measures for the security of human health in this country are necessary and practicable.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether Lord De Freyne or his Agent have applied for the forces of the Crown to carry out any further evictions on the De Freyne Estate, Roscommon; and, if so, what number of tenants are to be evicted, and when; and, will he inquire into the circumstances of the cases before giving the necessary force to evict them?

So far as I am aware, the Sheriff of the County Roscommon has applied for protection in the carrying out of one eviction on this estate on the 27th instant. On the general question of giving protection to the Sheriff, or his officers, in the execution of decrees of the judiciary, I conceive the hon. Gentleman is himself fully conversant with the law and the imperative duty of the Executive in the matter, and I need, perhaps, hardly remind him that my predecessor was called upon to give protection in the execution of decrees on this property a year or two ago.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, whether, in view of the fact that the latest Parliamentary Document on the subject of the proposed West Highland Railway, in Paper 280 of last Session, is dated 29th July 1892, and in it the Treasury declare the proposals of the promoters as quite inadmissible, he will lay upon the Table further Papers to show the grounds on which the Treasury now support the proposed guarantee?

If the hon. Member will refer to the Return he quotes, he will see that the scheme which the Treasury rejected in their letter of the 29th July 1892, was very different from the scheme which they approved in their letter of the 16th June 1892 (printed in the same Return), and which it is now proposed to confirm. There having been no change of attitude, there are no further Papers to explain it.

asked whether there had been no correspondence since July 29, 1892?

The information I have is that there have been no further Papers. I will inquire whether there are any.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether the Cyprus Report, 1894–95, has been received; and, if so, when will it be issued?

The Report for 1894–95 has not yet been received. The Report for 1893–94, which was delayed owing to over-pressure of work in the Chief Secretary's Office, is only now about to be distributed to Members.

May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that the last Report was issued in June of that year?

Yes. The delay is unfortunate, but it is due to the fact that there has been tremendous pressure on the Chief Secretary's Office at Cyprus. Owing to the condition of the Colony, every effort has been made to keep down expense.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, if he will lay upon the Table the evidence given before Sir John Kirk on his late mission to the Brass River?

Neither Sir John Kirk's Report nor the evidence have yet been received, and it is, therefore, impossible for me to give any undertaking in the matter.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board, whether he can take any steps under the law, as it now stands, to protect this country against the importation of milk from countries where foot and mouth, pleuro-pneumonia, or other infectious diseases exist, which are liable to be communicated not only to cattle but to human beings, and are consequently dangerous to public health; and, if the existing law is defective in this respect, will he ask for further Parliamentary powers in the ensuing Session to enable him to cope with this acknowledged evil.

I have no powers under which I could prevent the importation of milk into this country. The question as to the prevention of such importation is a matter which would concern other Departments as well as the Local Government Board; but the whole question will receive my consideration.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether he will consider, in conjunction with the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, the possibility of reducing the issuing of tunics to sergeants and constables to one in two years, and supplying in the alternate year a smart serge jacket for use during ordinary day duty in the summer and by police engaged in office or indoor work, as in many provincial forces, and possibly with a lighter headdress than the felt helmet?

The question of supplying the Metropolitan Police with a lighter headdress and clothing for summer wear has been repeatedly before my predecessors, and the result of their consideration of the matter has invariably been a decision that, on medical and other grounds, the change would be undesirable. I shall be willing, however, to give the matter my consideration and to confer with the Commissioner of Police. ["Hear, hear!"]

asked whether a light summer uniform was not supplied to the police in many places in the country.

Certainly. I am perfectly a ware that that is the case in many of the police forces in the country. [" Hear, hear!"]

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, if he can state how many meetings the Committee appointed by the late Government to inquire into the importation of prison made goods has held, how many witnesses it has examined, and what it has done since the resignation, three months ago, of the two Members who refused to be a party to further delay; if he will undertake that no avoidable delay shall take place in giving effect to the unanimous Resolution of the House of Commons on 19th February last, declaring it to be incumbent upon the Government at once to take steps to restrict such imports; and, if he has already taken, in conjunction with the Prime Minister, any steps, or proposes to take any, to bring about a reduction in. the traffic, or in the meantime to mitigate the injury done to British trade and labour by the competition in British markets of foreign convicts.

The Committee on the importation of foreign prison-made goods have, since the resignation of the hon. and gallant Member, and of Colonel Bridgman, held five public meetings, at which 12 new witnesses were examined and one former witness further examined. The number of questions to witnesses put and answered at these meetings was 1,346. The Committee have subsequently been engaged in the preparation of their Report, and the Chairman hopes to be able to place it in my hands before the end of the Session.

asked, whether the House would have an opportunity afforded them of seeing the correspondence which had passed between the Foreign Office and the countries in question.

I will consider that point.

asked whether the goods referred to were imported in any considerable quantities.

Yes.

No doubt when we get the Report we shall see the quantities which are imported, but I gather that, whatever may be the quantity, the House of Commons is opposed to the principle. [Cheers.]

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, whether in view of the opposition to the continuance of the Indian Cotton Duties expressed in Lancashire during the recent electoral contest, it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to suggest to the Government of India, or whether the Indian Government is itself prepared to abolish those duties, and to find alternative methods of taxation or economies in official salaries and expenditure generally to meet the deficit at present existing in the finances of our great Eastern dependency, and to meet the probable increased deficit which will arise when the outlay on the Chitral Expedition has to be paid for, and will be further increased by an annual charge for the maintenance of a military station in the Chitral district?

The hon. Member raises a series of controversial questions as to the Ways and Means of the Indian Government, to which it is impossible to reply adequately within the compass of an answer to a Parliamentary Question. If he will be good enough to raise them on the Indian Budget, I shall then be able to deal fully with them.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the Channel Fleet will visit Ireland this year; and, if so, whether Belfast Lough can be favoured with their presence?

It is not contemplated that the Channel Fleet will visit Belfast Lough or any part of the Irish Coast this year.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he could state to the House what is the total number and acreage of the mountain holdings in Carnarvonshire which have been sold to the tenants; what is the total number and acreage of such holdings which have been re-purchased for quarrying purposes; what is the total sums for which they were sold and for which they were re-purchased; what is the total number and acreage of such holdings which have been enclosed and reclaimed by the tenants or their predecessors in title; and what is the total of the rentals which the tenants are now required to pay?

This Question appeared for the first time in to-day's Notice Paper, and I learn from the Office of Woods that they cannot give the information at such short notice, nor indeed before a week has elapsed. If he will allow me, I will consult with the hon. Member as to how far the preparation of this elaborate Return would serve any useful purpose.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been directed to the frequent explosions from the use of inferior paraffin oil imported from abroad; whether he can state what steps are taken by the inspectors employed by his Department to investigate cases where loss of life occurs from these explosions; and whether it is intended to reappoint the Select Committee that inquired in the previous Session into matters connected with the use of petroleum?

answered the Question, and said: My attention has been called to the great number of explosions of paraffin oil, though I cannot express an opinion as to whether they are due to the inferior quality of the oil, to the use of unsuitable lamps, or to other causes. The Home Office Inspectors have no power whatever to make inquiries in these cases. The necessity of legislation on this subject has been frequently urged, and a Select Committee to consider the question was appointed in 1894. My predecessor hoped to obtain a Committee in the last Session, but circumstances prevented it. I shall consider the matter during the Recess with a view to the re-appointment of the Committee if that be found practicable.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that there is a strong feeling in. Londonderry and the surrounding district against the enforcement of Section 16 of the Factories Act, 1895, in connection with the shirt industry; and whether he will receive representations on the matter from the representatives of employers and employed?

My attention has been already called to this matter, and I have directed the Chief Inspector of Factories to make special inquiries; any representations from the representatives of employers and employed will be carefully considered.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether it is the intention of the Land Commission to reserve judgment in all appeals listed between now and March; and, if not, in what cases, and on what principle will such cases be selected?

I presume the Land Commissioners will exercise their discretion in all such cases as those referred to by the hon. and learned Member; but I see no public advantage to be gained by seeking to elicit from them any general statement of their intentions in the matter. ["Hear, hear!"]

asked whether it would not be of great public advantage to suitors who might intend to appeal in the matter of fair rents, and also for solicitors and other persons interested, to know when their cases were likely to be heard?

said that it might perhaps be in the interest of a portion of the public that they should have that information, but he saw no general public advantage to be gained from eliciting this information from the Commissioners.

asked whether it would not be for the public advantage that they should know when applications for fair rents would be heard?

The hon. Gentleman is now asking me another abstract question, which I must respectfully decline to answer.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he can state the number of lifeboats, with the necessary crews and equipments, that are established and maintained on the coasts of the United Kingdom for the preservation of life and property in cases of shipwreck, out of the Mercantile Marine Fund?

The lifeboats at Ramsgate and Fair Isle are now the only lifeboats under the superintendence of the Board of Trade. The former is the property of the Royal National Lifeboat Institution, but the Board of Trade pay the crew. The latter was established and is maintained out of the Mercantile Marine Fund.

asked whether the Merchant Shipping Act did not impose upon the Board of Trade the duty of providing lifeboats?

said, that the Act imposed upon the Board of Trade the duty of providing lifeboats in cases where no lifeboats were already provided.

asked whether the section of the Merchant Shipping Act did not expressly state that the Board of Trade were to provide lifeboats unless the lifeboats were provided from some other source?

said, that was a matter which depended upon the interpretation of the Act, and he could offer no opinion with regard to it.

gave notice that he should call attention to the matter upon the Estimates.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, having regard to the fact that Part II., Section 240, paragraph 5 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, provides that the master of a ship, for which an official log is required, shall enter every case of illness or injury happening to a member of the crew and the nature thereof, whether he can state any sufficient reason for the entire omission of the number of such accidents in the monthly issues of the Labour Gazette of the Board of Trade; and whether he will undertake that in future issues of that organ the Returns of such accidents, which are easily accessible, will be given in like manner with other industries on shore?

I will consider whether in future issues of the Labour Gazette it is practicable to supplement the Return of deaths of seamen now published by a Return of accidents, but I do not think it necessary to include cases of illness.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he intends in the present Session of Parliament to deal with the question of town parks in Ireland?

The reply to this question is in the negative.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, considering the intention of the Admiralty to permanently enter in the Navy several lieutenants and sub-lieutenants of the Royal Naval Reserve as lieutenants and sub-lieutenants, a certain number of lieutenants' commissions per year could be offered to Naval warrant officers, provided they could pass the examination that sub-lieutenants do now, at Greenwich in mathematics, and at Portsmouth in pilotage and torpedo work, and be recommended by their captains as being fit for the position.

The Order in Council which enables the Admiralty to enter on the permanent list of the Navy several lieutenants and sub-lieutenants of the Royal Naval Reserve carried out a plan adopted by the late Board of Admiralty, though the present one accepts the full responsibility of it. This entry of officers is an exceptional measure intended to meet a temporary emergency; but it is not intended to weaken or supersede the system—which has been in force for many years with most satisfactory results—of entry into the executive commissioned ranks of the service solely through the Britannia. ["Hear, hear!"]

hoped the President of the Board of Trade would do all that lay in his power to the appointment of railway inspectors, but he was afraid that some of the difficulties were almost beyond the powers of the Board of Trade. He thought many of the accidents arose from the structural defects of the carriages. In America the Pullman car, which was universally used, allowed the coupling of the carriages to be done mechanically, and thus many accidents were avoided. He asked the right hon. Gentleman if the Departmental Committee of the Board of Trade, appointed by the late Government to inquire into the manning of merchant ships, would make a report. He thought it was very desirable that the Select Committee which was appointed to inquire into the new system of fog signals, should also make a report; he thought there were enough Members of that Committee still left in the House to come to a decision, and he believed there was very little difference of opinion among them. Having referred to the importation of milk.

said, that question could not be discussed under the Vote.

said, the President of the Board of Trade had absolute control over the importation of certain articles of commerce, and ho had the power to prohibit certain articles that were not marked under the Merchandise Marks Act. [Cries of "No."] If the right hon. Gentleman had some power of that kind he should be glad to receive some assurance from him on the subject.

asked when the report of the Committee on the Manning of Merchant Ships might be expected. There was a great deal of interest taken in the matter by the Mercantile Marine and shipowners, and any information on the subject would be very gladly received. As to the re-appointment of the Committee on Fog Signals, he doubted whether a sufficient number of the Members of that Committee had survived the General Election as to be able to present a Report which could be regarded as authoritative and thoroughly satisfactory, and under those circumstances he thought it would be better to postpone the matter until next Session. With regard to the railway sub-inspectors, his experience at the Board of Trade was more than enough to satisfy him that those officers were extremely useful, and were doing valuable work in the interests of the public, as well as of the railway servants. He would remind the hon. Member for Northamptonshire that an inquiry by a sub-inspector was not necessary in the case of every accident. The Board of Trade had full power to hold an inquiry in every case, whether fatal or not, in which the circumstances made it desirable to do so. If there was anything in the case which made technical evidence necessary, or which required elucidation on particular points, a sub-inspector was sent at once to supply it. The causes of many accidents were obvious, and official inquiry into them was therefore unnecessary. He could assure the Committee that the permanent officials of the Board of Trade were fully alive to the importance of this matter, and that a sub-inspector was sent to investigate the circumstances of an accident whenever it was thought further light ought to be thrown on the case. The reports of the sub-inspectors had been found in many cases to be extremely valuable in calling attention to points which might escape the notice of persons not engaged in, or not acquainted with, railway working, and in suggesting remedies for the prevention of accidents. He was bound to say that the Board of Trade had no reason to complain of the conduct of the railway companies in this matter, for they had always shown readiness to follow out, if possible, any recommendations that were made as the result of the inquiries held.

said, he had no wish whatever to make any reflections on the administration of the right hon. Gentleman at the Board of Trade. What he complained of was that, through defects in the law, railway servants did not receive as much protection from inspectors of the Board as was given to miners in the cases of fatal accidents.

desired to draw the attention of the President of the Board of Trade to the important question of preferential railway rates, for the great body of traders looked to that Department to act in their interest in this matter whenever it was possible for it to do so. It was hoped that in the next Session a Bill dealing with this question—

submitted as a point of order that the question of preferential rates with a view to future legislation could not be raised on this Vote.

asked whether an hon. Member was not entitled, on the question of preferential rates, to ask the President of the Board of Trade for a pledge that he would deal with the matter.

said, the general rule in cases of this kind was that, so far as the administrative action of a Minister was concerned with any particular question, that question might be discussed. But a question of future legislation could not be properly discussed on the Vote for the salary of the Minister.

said, he would only further express the hope that the right hon. Gentleman would take every opportunity in his power of diminishing the preferential rates.

wished to say a few words with reference to the appointment of the railway sub-inspectors. The hon. Member for Northamptonshire appeared to think that the Board of Trade should send a sub-inspector to inquire into every case of fatal accident on the railway, but there were many cases in which it might be unnecessary to do so. The proposal meant more than, perhaps hon. Members would suppose, and this might be shown by the number of fatal accidents that occurred on our railways. During the last 14 years the average number of fatal accidents yearly was 500, and of nonfatal accidents 2,500, making a total of 3,000 accidents every year—amostserious fact. Railway servants suffered much less from what might be called train accidents than from accidents of a different class, and the object of appointing sub-inspectors—who were railway men possessing technical knowledge of the work—was to endeavour, if possible, to diminish this appalling number of accidents. In that respect the Board of Trade had, with the means at their command, done excellent work for the public. Though it might not be necessary to make official inquiry in every case, yet the circumstances of every accident were brought to the knowledge of the sub-inspectors, and investigation was made whenever the facts seemed to require it. When it was found, for example, that more than an ordinary number of accidents occurred on a particular line, or in shunting operations in a particular yard, a sub-inspector visited the locality and ascertained for himself the reason, or cause, of the unusual number of accidents. Not unfrequently it was found that a goods yard was insufficiently lighted, than which there was no greater danger to railway servants, and means were taken to get the defect remedied. All the work now discharged by railway servants was subjected to the inspection of those officers, and whenever an accident occurred which, in their opinion, ought not to have happened, or which was not properly explained, they immediately instituted an inquiry, and it was by those means that it was sought to reduce the present appalling death-roll through railway casualties. After all, prevention was better than cure, and it was in this direction that the work of the sub-inspectors was most useful. They were performing their duties admirably, and he was sure he could say that the officials of the Board of Trade were as anxious as any Members of that House could be to do all they could to diminish the number of accidents. He was sure that the President of the Board of Trade would be only too glad if an end could be put to this terrible death-rate, and that he would appoint more sub-inspectors if necessary. They were not expensive officials and did their work with great efficiency and success.

said, that they had heard more than once in that Debate that prevention was better than cure. The statement of the right hon. Gentleman below him (Mr. Mundella) as to the number of accidents that occurred on railways every year showed that the railway companies had still a great deal to prevent. The majority of accidents occurred to shunters when engaged in coupling. Some time ago he brought to the notice of the Board of Trade an exceedingly ingenious arrangement for the self-coupling of carriages. The Department would render a great service to railway servants if it were to invite engineers to submit for approval a self-acting coupler. He wished to know whether the President of the Board had any means of controlling the speed of railway trains. They had all read in the last few days of the railway race between London and Aberdeen. Every day now there was a competition between the companies to do the distance in the shortest time. Every morning a dash was made to get first to Kinnaber. The trains were driven at speeds of 70 and 80 miles an hour. Reference was made on a former occasion by the hon. Member for Batter-sea to the strain imposed upon the engine drivers and guards, but there was also a great strain upon the engine and carriages. At present it was seen from the accounts that there was to be no limit to the speed of these trains. Every morning a record was being made. If this kind of thing went on he feared that some day there would be a tremendous smash, involving great loss of life, and exceeding any railway disaster which had ever harrowed the public mind. If there was to be no limit of speed, it should be remembered that there was a limit to human powers and the strength of material. Giving the railway companies all credit for their desire to test what speed could be reached, they expected the right hon. Gentleman, if he possessed the necessary powers, to take care that these competitions were not carried beyond the line of safety. Coming to safety of life at sea: on the subject of bulkheads he would like to refer the right hon. Gentleman to the Report of the Bulkhead Committee, which sat two or three years ago. That Committee made a number of excellent recommendations, but hitherto no legislative effect had been given to them. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would take them into consideration with a view to legislation, Another matter to which he desired to call attention was the crowded condition of the excursion steamers on the Thames. Two evenings ago he saw one of these steamers, and could not help thinking that in case of accident the loss of life might be exceedingly serious. He knew that, by the Board of Trade Regulations, life-saving appliances must be kept on board these vessels, but he also knew from actual observation that these appliances were not inspected as they ought to be. There might be a sufficient number of boats on board a ship, but it did not follow that they were in good condition. They were exposed month after month to the heat of the sun, and when placed in the water would probably leak like sieves. Then the means of lowering them wore often very insufficient. He trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would take steps to ensure that the life-saving appliances on these vessels were kept in good order. On the river They, two nights ago, a man on a steamer either fell or threw himself overboard, and his life was lost because a boat could not be lowered in sufficient time to rescue him. He congratulated the right hon. Member opposite, who was so thoroughly familiar with commercial questions, in his appointment as President of the Board of Trade. He was afraid that the right hon. Member was perhaps not equally conversant with maritime matters, but he was convinced that every question brought before him would command his close attention.

said, that everyone who knew how high the death-rate was among railway servants and how very low the death rate was among those who travelled by railways in proportion to the number of journeys taken, must recognise that it was reasonable that the protection given to railway servants by modern legislation should be great. Protection ought to be given, not as it used to be in the interests of the public alone, but in the separate interests of the men themselves. He raised no objection to the appointment of sub-inspectors or to the increase of their number, if that should be deemed desirable. It would, however, be only right to make conditions respecting these appointments. In the first place, a mere sub-inspector should not be held competent to hold inquiries of a judicial or quasi-judicial character, conferring a power to compel the attendance of witnesses, and to issue coercive process. In the second place, these sub-inspectors should occupy as impartial a position as possible. They would be concerned chiefly with the collection of information and the preparation of reports which would probably be considered confidential. If they were to be men who had been in the service of railway companies, it would only be fair that some inquiry should be made into the circumstances under which they had terminated their railway connection, in order that the public might know that they were not actuated by any animosity against a railway company.

asked whether the Board of Trade had power to compel the Highland Railway Company to use continuous automatic brakes on their passenger lines, and if the power existed, whether it was exercised. He also wished to know whether the Board of Trade had taken any steps to abate the foul atmosphere on the underground railways of London. Two years ago, he said, this matter was brought up, but nothing appeared to have been done. With regard to the leading officers of the Board of Trade, his experience of them was that they were not in all cases so energetic and anxious to put things right as one would expect. On one occasion he brought under the notice of Major-General Hutchinson what he contended to be a dangerous platform of a certain railway station, which was constructed on a curve, and he got a letter in reply to say that the station could not be altered. It was only by pressing the matter on the Board of Trade and the railway company, and by sketching out a plan himself, which was adopted later on, that the objectionable arrangement was altered. Now, the officers of the Board of Trade should do their own work, and it should not be necessary for a Member of this House to do their work for them. As to the practice by which the observations of a railway company were read off by the Minister as a sufficient answer to a question put in the House of Commons, he characterised it as unbusinesslike and absurd.

was sorry the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down should have considered it necessary to cast any reflection on the officers of the Board of Trade, because he was satisfied, even from his short experience of them as President, that they were not open to the strictures the hon. Gentleman had passed upon them.

interrupting, said he referred to one gentleman only, and not to the staff. Some of them were most energetic, but they had too much work to do. The President himself was insufficiently paid. [Laughter.]

thought that the hon. Gentleman spoke in more general terms of the officers of the Board of Trade than, perhaps, he was aware of, and his reflections were not, he believed, well founded. As to the so-called absurdity of sending questions affecting the conduct or liability of a railway company to the company for their observations, he was of opinion, on the contrary, it was a fair and proper thing they should have an opportunity of making such observations as they desired when any accusation or complaint was made against them. And if the hon. Gentleman supposed that the observations so received were accepted as sufficient, he was under an entire mistake. These were carefully analysed, and if it was considered that the answer was a sufficient or quasi-sufficient answer, then the House of Commons was put in possession of the reply of the accused company or individual. That was a practice which he thought would meet with the approval of the House of Commons. ["Hear, hear!"] But it was only one of the steps taken by the Board of Trade in order to satisfy themselves and the House of Commons with regard to any question raised. When the hon. Gentleman said the Highland Railway Company did not use continuous automatic brakes he presumed he spoke from knowledge. The statement was not altogether in accord with the information in the possession of the Board of Trade, but he could assure the hon. Gentleman that if the complaints he made on this matter turned out to be well founded—inquiry should be made at once—then the Board of Trade would take such action as they thought desirable in the interests of the public. Then, with regard to the underground railway, he rather thought that if the Board of Trade were to embark on a campaign against foul atmospheres, they might begin a little nearer home [Laughter], but he was afraid that neither in regard to this House nor the underground railway, had he Board of Trade the power which the hon. Gentlemen desired them to exercise. As a frequent traveller himself on the underground system, he would only say that, if the Metropolitan Railway consulted their own interests they would endeavour to take steps to put an end to that which was a general complaint by all who travelled on their line. ["Hear, hear!"] On the question of sub-inspection, he desired to associate himself with he observations of the right hon. Gentleman his predecessor in office. In all natters which tended towards the safety of life, whether of railway servants or any other class, he hoped the hon. Member for East Northampton would permit him to associate himself with him in an earnest endeavour to bring about a diminution of those accidents which they all deplored. He thought, however, that to nave a dual inquiry into the particular class of cases referred to would not be satisfactory. It would involve a considerable amount of expense, and he did not think the cases came within the same category as mining accidents. Wherever a fatal accident occurred, and it appeared to the Board of Trade that there were circumstances which removed it out of the ordinary run of accidents, then the Board of Trade directed an inquiry. But in a great number of cases no such circumstances arose. There was no reason to suppose that the inquiry before a coroner and with a jury did not really bring out all the facts of the case. All these matters were most carefully watched at the Board of Trade, and wherever there was anything out of the ordinary course an inquiry was directed. He was glad the hon. Gentleman was satisfied with the manner in which the sub-inspectors had conducted the inquiries which had come before them up to the present. Since last November there had been inquiries by sub-inspectors into 45 fatal accidents—a very large increase in the number the hon. Gentleman stated to the Committee—and 187 inquiries into cases of injury. It was satisfactory to think that the Board of Trade had attention specially directed to this considerable number and had special inquiry made in the matter. ["Hear, hear!"] He agreed with his predecessor that this was not only valuable in itself, but the inquiries were also valuableas bringing to the knowledge of the railway companies much information which they readily availed themselves of, and the ultimate result was that arrangements were made by the railway companies which prevented these fatal accidents. He could assure the hon. Gentleman that the matter should not be lost sight of, but should be carefully watched by the Board of Trade with a view to securing special inquiry wherever it seemed necessary. ["Hear, hear!"] He would at once fall in with the suggestion the hon. Member had made as to the reports of the sub-inspectors, and would take care that in the next published Report there should appear summaries giving adequate information of the reports of the sub-inspectors.

Will the right hon. Gentleman also furnish what information he can as to the structural changes, following these reports, which were made by the railway companies to obviate such accidents? That is the best result of the work of the inspectors.

would undertake to see if the information could be supplied. The hon. and gallant Member for Eastbourne had asked him about the Manning Committee. He was told that the Report of the Committee had been drafted. As to the Committee on the rule of the road at sea, he was told the position was this. Before Parliament dissolved the whole of the evidence had been taken, and there only remained the consideration of the Report. No one would like more than he to see that investigation pursued and the Report presented, and he had been making every effort to see whether it was possible to get together a Committee in the present Session, composed of the old remaining Members, with some other Members added, in order that they might obtain a Report. But he feared he must abandon all hope of being able to do that, because, although all the Members from the Government side of the House remained, five Members from the other side had disappeared [Laughter] and out of those who remained more than half had paired, so that it would be hopeless, he was told, to attempt to get together a quorum during this Session. He quite agreed with the late President of the Board of Trade, that if they were to have a Report it must be one which would carry weight, and it would never do to have the Report issued from a small remnant of the Committee. He had, therefore, come to the conclusion that it would be better to refrain from attempting to proceed further with this Committee during this short Session, but at the very commencement of next Session he would ask the House to again appoint it, with a view to coming to a conclusion upon a subject of very great and pressing importance. As to the question of side-lights, they might hope for a speedy Report on the subject. The hon. Member for Dundee had alluded to a self-coupling arrangement, and had rather suggested that the Board of Trade should take that or some other self-coupling scheme under their protection, and, ho presumed, should advise railway companies to adopt it. To do that would be for the Board of Trade to take upon themselves a responsibility they had always declined to adopt. The railway companies must take upon themselves the responsibility of obtaining the best instrument with which to carry on their work. These companies were, in his opinion, very enterprising people, who would avail themselves of the best means possible to them for the purpose of making the safety of their lines greater than it was. ["Hear, hear!"] His hon. Friend had also referred to the race to the north between two railway companies, and had asked if that was a matter in which the Board of Trade could exorcise a power of control. There, again, he did not think the Board of Trade had any power of the kind his hon. Friend suggested, nor did he think it would be wise for that Department to lay down rules as to the speed of trains, or to take upon themselves a responsibility they could not fulfil. It would hardly do fur a public Department to make recommendations they had not the power of enforcing. He could only hope that the common sense of these two railway companies would speedily put an end to what he was sure most hon. Members who had not much experience in these matters thought was attended with a certain amount of danger. ["Hear, hear!"] He himself did not speak as an expert, and he believed it was contended that there was on increased danger by the increased speed, but, whether there was or not, he was afraid it was a matter where the railway companies must act entirely upon their own responsibility. His hon. Friend had also asked him if he had seen the Report of the Bulkhead Committee. He had seen that Report, and he must say he thought it would be highly in the interests of the public if the recommendations of that Committee were adopted. The hon. Member had asked him if he would introduce legislation compelling all steamers to be fitted with bulkheads. Before the Government could propose legislation of so drastic a character as that, there ought to be a very strong public opinion behind them. He was bound to say he thought the time would arrive when it would be for the Government to consider whether some step in the direction the lion. Gentleman desired ought riot to be taken. He believed a great advance was being made by ship owners and shipbuilders in the matter, and such being the case, it would be rather unfortunate for the Government to propose legislation of the compulsory character suggested, although he did not shut out from his purview the possibility of something being done in that direction by legislation at some future time. As to the suggestion that the life-saving apparatus on board steamers should be frequently inspected with a view to testing its efficiency, this was a duty which already belonged to the Board of Trade, but ho would take special care that inquiry was made into the matter without delay. Two hon. Gentlemen had raised the question of railway rates. He took no narrow view of the importance of the matter. He did state the other day, in answer to an hon. Member, that the interpretation of the Act with regard to preferential rates was a legal question, and as to that he believed there could be no possible doubt. His hon. Friend the Member for Preston, asked—

"Are you going to rest simply upon that position; don't you propose to take any steps at all in order to do something' for the agricultural industry which is suffering so much at present"

There were two methods which might be adopted—the one was the passing of some legislation of a drastic character, and the other was the making of friendly representations to the railway companies themselves. He confessed he was opposed to worrying great industries, whether they he railway or any other industries. He did not believe that, in the long run, very much good resulted from what he might call a policy of worry, but he did believe a good deal could often be done by a policy of conciliation. It was quite evident to him, and it must be evident to everybody who had studied the subject at all, that the interests of the railway companies and of the traders, whether agriculturists or not, were identical. ["Hear, hear!"] For its prosperity a railway company must depend largely upon the prosperity of the whole trade of the country, and that trade could not be in a prosperous condition if the agricultural industry was depressed. Feeling the great importance of the question, he hoped, before the House met again, to take some steps with the view of seeing whether, by some friendly arrangement and agreement, reductions might not be made in the rate of carriage which would give some amount of satisfaction at least to the agricultural industry and others. The Great Eastern Railway Company had begun, or were about to try, the experiment of very considerably reducing the rates between station and station. He trusted that such an excellent experiment would be a success and be largely followed by other railway companies. In conclusion he had only to say ho should endeavour, while at the Board of Trade, to listen to and to carefully consider all questions that were brought before him, from whatever quarter they might come. ["Hear, hear!"]

said he was delighted to hear the right hon. Gentleman say he had read the Report of the Bulkhead Committee. There had been a very recent illustration, of the value of bulkheads; for it was quite evident that, had the Seaford not had substantial bulkheads, many, if not all, of the souls on board that vessel would have been lost. There was still a great annual loss of life at sea, and he, as a practical seaman, maintained that it, or much of it, could be prevented. He hoped the new President of the Board of Trade would not be afraid to speak out plainly to the shipping companies of the country. There were shipping companies—such as the Cunard and White Star Companies—of whom all ought to be proud. Those companies conducted their business on proper lines, and with due regard to the safety of the people on board their ships. Often the attempt was made to prove that the loss of life at sea was decreasing every year; he thought the loss of life in the case of a certain class of vessels was largely on the increase. If, for instance, they excluded the large liners, and confined their observation to the cargo or "tramp" steamers, it could be proved most easily that the loss of life was on the increase—or, at least, as large as over. Much could be done by the Board of Trade to lessen the loss of life if they would only grapple with the question in a determined manner. Sailors and firemen did not want any favour; but they did ask for justice and fair play. If an improvement could be made with a view to reducing the loss of life, they expected the Board of Trade to insist that it was made. He would like to know, for instance, whether the right hon. Gentleman could give any promise that at an early day some alterations would be made in the matter of the accommodation provided for merchant seamen. Under the Merchant Shipping Act, it was only necessary to provide for each seaman 72 cubic feet of air-space in the cabin; the Royal Commission recommended 120 cubic feet. By law a convict was allowed 380 cubic feet, and a pauper over 600 feet. Surely a sailor or fireman ought to be provided with as good accommodation as a convict. Better accommodation meant an alteration of the law; but the right hon. Gentleman himself could bring about an improvement on the 72 cubic feet by requiring the ironwork in the interior of the forecastle to be entirely sheathed with wood. In the matter of the ventilation of a ship's forecastle, he did not believe there had been any improvement during the last 40 or 50 years. Frequently the only ventilation was obtained from the doorway. Again, in a largo number of steamers the lamp lockers were inside the forecastle, and the fumes from those lockers the men had to breathe. Explosions had often occurred in the lockers, and a considerable number of the crow had, in consequence, either been burnt to death or suffocated. Water closets were frequently placed against the doors of the forecastle, with unpleasant results. Why did not the Board of Trade attend to these matters? There was a regulation that there should be sufficient natural light in the forecastle to allow a man to read a newspaper in any part of it; but that was a regulation he rarely found complied with on the hundreds of ships he visited yearly; and the men had to keep lamps lighted night and day. He also knew some ships sailing the coasts with the road from the forecastle so narrow that one man was sufficient to block it, which was a great source of danger in the event of a collision or of any sudden mishap. Surely the Board of Trade had sufficient power to insist that this passage was constructed on such principles as would serve a reasonable chance for the men in the forecastle to escape in any sudden emergency. Much could be done, even under the existing regulations, to considerably reduce the loss of life at sea. For instance, the Board of Trade had sufficient power under the Merchant Shipping Act to secure that no sailors or firemen who did not understand orders given in the English language should be employed in the service. But foreign sailors and firemen, unacquainted with English, were constantly engaged; and as a consequence, there was great confusion in emergencies at sea, because these men, not understanding the orders of the officers, did not know what to do. In the Merchant Shipping Act there was a section which provided that at the signing on of a crew the agreement must be read to the men, and its terms must be understood by them. But how did the Board of Trade fulfil their duties in that respect? He had seen crews composed of seven or eight nationalities signing on at Cardiff, and although not two out of every ten men understood a word of English, the officer of the Board of Trade went through the farce of reading the agreement to them in English. This sham, which was an everyday occurrence at every port of the United Kingdom, ought to be put an end to. The right hon. Gentleman had said he believed the Board of Trade officers thoroughly inspected the life-saving appliances on board ship. He could assure the right hon. Gentleman that on most of the ships he visited the boats had not been out for years, and if required, they could not be got over the sides in three or four hours, not to speak of 15 or 20 minutes. He was not referring now to passenger ships. On these steamers the lifeboats were well looked after, and were put over the side in the presence of the Board of Trade officer. His observations applied entirely to the "tramp" or cargo steamer. He once challenged the captain of one of these steamers that he could not get out his boats in four hours. The captain tried it on, and it took four-and-a-half hours before the boats were over the side. Seeing that they had in every port of the kingdom a Board of Trade Surveyor, he thought it was the duty of those officers to see that the life-saving appliances of every ship were in proper working order before she were allowed to leave port. He also wanted to know whether the Board of Trade intended to compel ship owners employing Lascar seamen to give them at least 72 cubic feet of space each, enjoined by the law. It was a disgrace to ask a man to live even in 72 cubic feet of space. But the poor Lascar was compelled, in spite of the law, to live in 36 cubic feet of space. The matter was become most serious in the interest of British sailors. Ship owners, finding they could stow away a large number of Lnscars in a small space, were employing them in preference to British seamen. He believed there were about 20,000 Lascar seamen in the British mercantile marine; and as there were about 26,000 other foreigners in the service, by-and-bye the British sailor would become so scarce, that he would be regarded as a curiosity. He thought the Admiralty ought to encourage the growth of British seamen is the mercantile service. If they did not they would regret their neglect if war broke out; for it would be no use to have the ships if they had not also got the men to work on board them. He would like to know whether the President of the Board of Trade could give the number of ships whose provisions had been inspected during the past 12 months. He was very sorry the Act applied only to vessels going on long voyages, because the ships whose provisions really required looking after were ships engaged in the foreign trade in the Mediterranean, the Black Sea, and the Baltic. With regard to the quantity of food, there was no law which allowed the Board of Trade to regulate the supply of food to the crew, but the Board supplied articles of agreement, which set forth certain articles, such as beef, pork, rice, and so on. He thought it was a mistake for the Board of Trade to force a scale of that kind without putting in the quantity of food that ought to be supplied. As the Board of Trade had no power to enter the quantity, it would be better not to mention the items at all. Next Session he intended to introduce a Bill—which he hoped the Board of Trade would support—to fix a reasonable provision scale. Much difficulty was created on board ship by the fact that the men did not get the proper kind and quantity of provisions. If the ship owners would only be reasonable in the matter, without being extravagant, it would be better for the ship owners as well as for the men. On the lines where the men were well fed, they kept the same men for several years; but where the men were not well fed, they were glad to leave the ship at the end of every voyage. He was glad that the President of the Board of Trade had promised to consider the question of supplying statistics as to the number of accidents occurring on ship-board. He saw no difficulty, because, according to the Merchant Shipping Act, masters were compelled to report all cases of accidents occurring on their vessels. These returns were sent to the Registrar General of Shipping and Seamen; and he was sure it would be a great revelation to many when these statistics were published, because the number of accidents was enormous. One case in particular had been brought under his notice. The steamer Joseph Soils, of Hull, left that port a few weeks ago for the Baltic laden with coal. A man was sent to the hold to trim the cargo, and while there he struck a match, and a serious explosion followed inflicting severe injury on the man. It appeared that there had been ventilators to the hold, but they were broken some time ago and the holes plugged up. It was the duty of the Board of Trade to see that vessels were properly fitted with ventilators; and he should like to know why that was not done in this case. As the sailor was not able to get compensation under the Employers' Liability Bill, it was hard on them to be injured in this way. They looked to the Board of Trade as their great-grandmother; and it was a shock to them when the Board neglected its duty. As to lifeboats, it was remarkable that, though the Board of Trade was required by the Merchant Shipping Act to maintain out of the Mercantile Marine Fund an efficient Lifeboat service, with proper crews and equipment, nothing was done. He said nothing against the Lifeboat Institutions, which had done the work fairly well; but he failed to see why seamen should have to depend entirely on a voluntary system. In every town there was a fire brigade maintained by the public authority; and no one would think of defending our voluntary fire brigades. The life of the sailor was as good as any other man's and as valuable to his wife arid family. Yet in spite of this requirement having been on the Statute Book over 40 years, the Board of Trade now only maintained one lifeboat, and paid the part cost of another. Thousands of lives were risked every year on the coasts, and nothing was done. Probably it was because the sailors in the port had had no representative of their own in Parliament. He hoped the Board of Trade would give consideration to the matter; because, unless they did their duty, he should take every opportunity of bringing up the question again and again. The money would come out of the Mercantile Marine Fund, to which the Shipowners contributed.

said that on the Vote for the Salary of the President of the Board of Trade, he desired to call attention to the right hon. Gentleman's action, contemplated or commenced, in regard to the importation of foreign prison-made goods. That subject occupied a very prominent place in the electoral addresses of the supporters of the Government, and yet not one of them had addressed a question to the Government about it. The other night, in answer to a question, he was informed that the President of the Board of Trade had been in communication with the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, who had communicated with foreign Governments. In the last Session, the right hon. Member for West Birmingham said that this was a question of supreme importance; that our national industries were being ruined; and that it admitted of no delay. The whole case of the supporters of the Government was that these prison made goods could be stopped, and should be stopped, at the ports of England. But now those gentlemen began to appreciate the difficulties of the position. Instead of attempting to stop the importation at English ports, the Government were asking foreign Governments to stop the exportation at their ports. Was it not evident that the same class of difficulties which attached to one course of action attached equally to the other—the difficulties, namely, of distinguishing between goods made in prison and goods made elsewhere. And if we, who, according to the right hon. Member for West Birmingham were so profoundly interested in keeping out these goods, either could not or would not prevent their importation, was it reasonable to expect that the Governments of Germany, France and Switzerland, who had on interest in the matter, would be able or willing to prevent their exportation. The case of Germany was probably the most important of all foreign countries. He did not know whether the right hon. Gentleman was aware of the fact that the case as regarded Germany was complicated by these facts—that the administration of German prisons was not an Imperial affair. The prison administration was in the hands of the Local Governments of the States which composed the German Empire, that was to say in the hands of 26 separate Local Governments. Therefore the Foreign Office had to deal not with one Government, but with 26 separate Governments. The point was I referred to in a despatch from the Foreign Office in Berlin. He (Mr. Pickersgill) might say parenthetically, that the matter had been treated by the President of the Local Government Board as if the idea of communicating with Foreign Governments on this question was entirely new. Most hon. Members of the old Parliament were aware, on the contrary, that there was a somewhat bulky White Book which contained a large mass of correspondence in the past between our own Government and Foreign Governments on this subject. We had asked for certain information, and the Minister at Berlin replied:—

"The inquiries in the first instance have been limited to Prussia, and there will be some difficulty in collecting the materials required oven for Prussia alone, and naturally much more if the enquiries are extended to the other States of the Empire."

If there was this extreme difficulty and delay in obtaining information then, how much greater was the prospect of protracted delay, even assuming the German Government to be friendly, in securing the concerted action of no fewer than 26 independent authorities? Did the Government think that the German Government would be particularly anxious to help it? The German Government would throw upon the British Government the onus of excluding prison-made goods from its ports of entry. He drew this inference from the line of reply adopted by the German. Government in its communications. Complaints had been raised, for instance, as to the most improper proceeding followed in German prisons of affixing the trade marks of Manchester firms to prison goods. The subject was investigated and the German Minister denied that the marks of Manchester firms had been affixed, but he admitted that the trade marks of foreign firms (not English) had been affixed to the goods; and he added:

"The Prussian Minister of the Interior had forbidden this practice in future. The assertion that goods of the above description had been imported into England was in itself improbable in view of the English law of Merchandise Marks. If any doubt still exists in England on the subject the British authorities would doubtless be in a position to make further investigations at the English ports of entry. The Imperial Government do not feel called upon to make any further inquiries into the matter, more especially as certain articles in Manchester and Birmingham papers make such unfair attacks on German industry that the conviction is forced upon us that the agitation has different objects than to ascertain the truth."

What was it that the German Government even with the best intentions in the world could do for us? What was the system of prison labour in Germany? Many hon. Members were aware that there were two main systems. The first was the contract labour system in which a man from the outside came into the prison and supplied the plant and the machinery, getting the labour of the convicts, and disposing of the surplus produce of the prison labour. According to the terms of the contract with the German Government he disposed of the surplus produce absolutely at his own discretion, subject only to the limitation in some cases that the produce must not be sold within 10 miles of the prison of origin. The other system was the State system, under which the State supplied the plant and the machinery and disposed of the surplus product to small merchants who might or might not export eventually; but the German Government had no means of being acquainted with the final disposition of the goods when the sale had been effected. There was now, and had long been, going on in the interests of German industries a great agitation against the product of the prison labour of Germany being put on the market, a great agitation created by the working men of Germany against the system of prison labour. But the German Governments had resisted the force of that agitation. Was it reasonable to suppose, therefore, that those Governments which had so long withstood agitation would now, by prohibiting exportation, take action to intensify competition with their own free subjects? No Government could do that; it was unreasonable to ask the German Governments to prohibit the exportation of those goods, while the goods, in spite of local agitation, were competing with the products of their own free subjects. The only alternative, therefore, would be for the German Government to put an end absolutely to its long-standing system of prison industries.

The hon. Member has on doubt given very careful consideration to the action of the German Government with regard to goods made in Germany, but I fail to see how he connects that action with the President of the Board of Trade in this matter.

In this way. The right hon. Gentleman announces a certain policy. I am showing the absolute futility of that policy by putting forward reasons in regard to which it cannot be reasonably supposed that the German Government could possibly consent to the representations which the right hon. Gentleman is proposing to make.

Any change in the policy of the country would have to be carried out by Statute, and the proper time to discuss that question would be when, if ever, the right lion. Gentleman brings forward a Bill for that purpose.

The case is not hypothetical. I raised this question the other night, and I was met with a flourish of trumpets, characteristically, by the President of the Local Government Board, who announced that the President of the Board of Trade had, through the Foreign Office, entered into communications with the German Government on the subject. I am criticising that administrative act, and I am endeavouring to show the absolute futility of such a proceeding. Rightly or wrongly (the hon. Member continued) the German Governments had stood to their present system of prison industries. They believed that the substitution of manufactures for the old treadmill system had a beneficial effect on the morality of the prisoners, and they regarded them as a most important factor in the social reformation of the occupants of the prisons. It was most unreasonable to suppose that the German Governments, in addition to the practical difficulties he had set out, could lend an attentive ear to the ridiculous representations which were going to be made to them. The right hon. Member for West Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain) had attacked in a most unusual manner, I think I may say in a vulgar manner, the late President of the Board of Trade, sneering at him as one who received fees and was not able to announce a policy, saying that he, at all events, had a" prescription" to deal with prison-made goods. Now, however, the right hon. Gentleman and his immediate dependents accepted fees to the tune of £9,000 a year, which was a high price to pay for a prescription, but the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues had done absolutely nothing to show what his prescription" was like.

said, he was not in the least surprised that the late elections in London and elsewhere had stimulated the activity of the hon. Member, and had roused his indignation. It was said that one of the great planks of the Tory platform at the late Election was the stoppage of prison-made goods. He pointed out to the hon. Member that they had the resolution of the House of Commons, and he thought they might be excused if they put that resolution into effect without waiting for the report of any Committee. He was not going into the subject so as to arouse the indignation of the hon. Member by speculating on what the German or any other Government might do. One thing was certain, if the Resolution was to be effectively carried out, it would undoubtedly require legislation. That was not kind of work they were likely to do in the present short Session. Then the question arose, were they to leave the matter altogether alone? The Committee had not yet arrived at any conclusion, but, as he had said, it was not necessary to wait for the Report of the Committee in order to give effect to the Resolution. The right hon. Gentleman opposite thought that the proper course was to appoint the Committee; but the present Government did not think so. They regarded the Resolution as being binding upon them. They were unable, if they desired, to legislate. Surely under these circumstances the hon. Member might think it a praiseworthy thing that they should say to the German and other Governments,

"These goods an; being sold here. Do you think it a neigh bourly thing that you should send thorn here when you prevent them going on your own market?"

It is absolutely untrue that the German Government prevent these goods being put on their own markets. They are only prohibited within 12 miles of the prison of origin.

That is a limitation to a certain extent, but Germany is not the only country which placed restrictions on these goods. ["Hear, hear!"] Then he said without hesitation that the working classes regarded with some indignation the importation of goods made in foreign prisions; when prison-made goods were not allowed in their own markets. [Hear, hear!"] Therefore it was, he thought, a praiseworthy step for the Government to approach foreign Governments in a friendly spirit on this matter. They had considered it to be their duty to enter into these negotiations, and, even if it were productive of no good, there was surely no ground to complain. He tried in vain to ascertain from the speech of the hon. Member whether he was or was not in favour of the importation of these goods. The hon. Member said that Germany would snap its fingers at the Government, but let him tell the hon. Member that, if there was any chance of the negotiations being successful, speeches like his in the House of Commons were not likely to assist, but the reverse. [Cheers.] As to the great loss of life referred to by the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, it was deplorable. The hon. Member had made suggestions which were valuable, and some of them were at present under consideration, although he did not think they would have the effect he supposed. As to excluding foreign seamen from British ships, that was impossible.

said, that his suggestion was that all foreign seamen or firemen on British ships should understand the English language.

said, that would practically exclude foreign seamen ("No")— well, a large number of them. If they tied down the merchant shipping industry they would drive the trade, to some extent, away. As to the cubic feet of space allowed to Lascar seamen, he reminded the hon. Member of the Indian Act, under which the space was much less, and it was well known that Lascars could make themselves happy and comfortable under conditions and circumstances which would not be agreeable to English sailors. The Merchant Shipping Act said that certain expenses were to be defrayed out of the Mercantile Marine Fund, so far as they were not paid by any private person. It was admitted that the National Lifeboat Society did their work fairly well, and yet the hon. Member said—

"Disestablish this organisation, discard their voluntary gifts, and put the expenses which they meet upon the public funds."

Such a proposition was not at all likely to find favour with the Committee. If the work were inefficiently done, if there were good cause of complaint, then there would be some grounds for the proposal. In answer to the hon. Member, he said the Merchant Shipping Act did not impose the duty upon the Government; they found the service was provided for out of voluntary funds; and it would be impolitic to take the matter out of the hands of the society. If the money were taken out of the Mercantile Marine Fund, it could only be at the expense of some other service, performed by the aid of that fund, such as the proper surveying of ships or the lighting of our coasts; and the lighting was not so good that we could afford to divert money from that fund to purposes that were otherwise provided for.

said, he wished to ask two questions. The first was whether the statement which the right hon. Member had just made applied to Indian prisons, in which goods were made that were sent to foreign countries, competing with their industries to an extent far exceeding the examples which had been given of interference with the industries of this country. The second question was whether the Government would prohibit the manufacture in our Indian prisons of carpets for exportation. He understood that splendid carpets, made in Indian prisons, were to be found in one of the palaces of the German Emperor, and also in Windsor Castle, and that these carpets were of a quality which could not be produced anywhere else. As to the lifeboat question, it was discussed at some length in the late Parliament; grievances were alleged with reference to the lifeboat service, and abundant evidence was adduced to justify inquiry. The right hon. Gentleman would do well to give sympathetic consideration to a matter which so much affected the lives of sailors and travellers by sea.

challenged the hon. Member for South-west Bethnal Green (Mr. Pickersgill) to make the same speech in his own constituency. At the General Election no question stirred the working classes so much as this did. In his own constituency, he knew from personal inquiry that the mat-making and brush trades had been very injuriously affected. He looked to the Government to do something to stop this terrible mischief; and he did not care very much how it was done. The President of the Board of Trade had a wide acquaintance with the men of East London, who wanted to earn an honest day's pay for an honest day's work. This unfair competition pressed hardly on many of them, and stopped it must be. It was only courteous that in the first instance representations should be made to a friendly Power like Germany. It would be bad enough that goods made in our own prisons should compete with honest free labour. The people of the United States did not allow a single article made in their own prisons to compete with free labour outside. There would be a storm of indignation in that country if prison-made goods entered into competition with other goods as they did in this country. He looked with confidence to the President of the Board of Trade to stop this evil. As a London Member, he was pledged to the eyebrows that some steps should be taken to find a remedy, and to spur on the Government if they showed a lack of energy in dealing with the question. He did not say this by way of threat, because he believed the Government was the best we had had for some time; but he represented one of the poorest constituencies, in which this competition was very severely felt; and he appealed confidently to the Government to find a remedy. If there were difficulties in the way, Statemanship existed for the purpose of dealing with them. If friendly representations failed some more drastic steps must be taken to put a stop to the evil. With a confidence, which he believed would not be misplaced, he looked to the right hon. Gentleman to keep this matter before him, and by some means to stop this unfair competition with our own free honest labour.

said, the President of the Board of Trade had admitted that for his part he did not know how the policy of stopping the importation of prison-made goods was to be carried out. The late Government recognised the evil and said they had not got a remedy. The right hon. Member for West Birmingham then said—

"Let the Government resign and we will find a remedy, but we are not going to lend our prescription while they take the fees."

He went on to say—

"It is not right or proper that the Government should sit there and say they have no remedy."

The late Opposition had now got the fees, and what was their prescription? It was the sending of post cards or letters to foreign Governments, fishing for a remedy which they themselves were unable to find. [Opposition cheers.] The plain truth was they had no more policy than the late Government had with regard to this question. If they had one why did they not state it? Their policy was simply to write to foreign Governments and for a time stave off the demands based upon the expectations which had been held out at the General Election. The Committee had heard with satisfaction what the right hon. Gentleman had said about railway rates, which, at all events, was not a Party question; and anything he could do to meet the grievances complained of would be heartily appreciated in the constituencies. ["Hear, hear!"]

said, there could not be any dispute as to what was the policy of the late Government on the importation of prison-made goods; they minimised the importance of the question, and said the importation of prison-made brushes was so small that it could not have any injurious effect upon the brush trade of this country; and they offered to appoint a Committee, which was objected to on the ground that enquiry would involve unnecessary delay, while it was possible to take immediate steps to avert the mischief. The late Government, finding they were not supported by their own followers, reluctantly gave way and assented to the carrying of a Resolution which imposed upon them the duty of dealing immediately with the question of restricting the importation. The late Government did nothing, or, rather, they appointed the Committee which had been refused by the House. The late Government had five months in which to deal with the matter and they did nothing; but this Government was expected to take action in a few weeks.

The prescription was ready.

But there might be more than one, and the first might have to be followed by a second. No Government could well avoid trying first what could be done by amicable appeals to the Governments of other countries to consent to the cessation of a practice which was injuring our home trade. Bare courtesy required that we should approach other Governments, before we took any further steps, at all events to ascertain whether they were willing to prevent the exportation of prison-made goods. But the "resources of civilisation" were not exhausted [laughter]; and he could assure the hon. Member behind him that the pledge which he gave to his constituents, and which others gave in their private capacity, was a pledge which the Government was prepared to carry out. But in view of the fact that they had made representations to foreign Governments, it would be most improper that he should indicate what further steps they might take in case the results of those representations proved to be unsatisfactory. ["Hear, hear!"] The Government were quite in earnest; they had considered how this importation might be restricted; and they would take steps to restrict it if their present operations proved to be insufficient. ["Hear, hear!"]

said, that a matter of infinitesimal dimensions had been dealt with at the General Election as if it largely affected the trade of the country. He would not say anything that could injuriously affect the correspondence with other countries; it would not be fair to the Government to do so; and he could not say that at that moment they were entitled to ask the Government to say what their further remedy was to be. As to the Committee which he appointed, he believed it was a necessary Committee, composed of impartial and capable men whose enquiries were likely to throw light on the subject. It was appointed, not merely to ascertain the extent to which prison-made goods were imported, but also what measures could be taken to stop them; and the Government were quite entitled to say they would wait for the Report of that Committee. Any Bill they could bring in this Session would be of a tentative kind. The whole matter had been dealt with in a way which was out of proportion to its importance. As he had said before, there were only one or two trades, and those not important ones, that were in any way affected. That conclusion would be arrived at by any one who read the correspondence which had been presented to the House. He believed the injury done to the brush trade was extremely small. The importation affected one or two trades only, and, as far as he could ascertain, the possibility of dealing with the evil, such as it was, by restrictive measures, involved consequences disproportionate to any evil sought to be removed. Therefore the opportunity of commenting on the tactics pursued at the General Election would arise again, when probably they would have the further prescriptions of the Government before them.

said, that hon. Members opposite had exhibited a new-born interest in the question which they did not manifest in February, when he carried the Resolution, on which the late Government ought to have taken action at once. They appointed a Committee and did nothing.

Enquiries were being made all the time.

Enquiries! What enquiries?

With the result of showing, among other things, that a brush, which the hon. and gallant Member displayed here as being prison-made, was not made in prison at all. [Loud laughter.]

asked why he was told that now for the first time? Why was not that allegation brought before the Committee? He traversed the statement now made as being directly contrary to fact. No question was raised in the Committee as to the origin of that brush which he produced in the House. This, however, was not a personal question between himself and the right hon. Member for Aberdeenshire; it was a question of the injury done to British trade by the importation of the labour of foreign convicts. The Committee was appointed in defiance of the House of Commons. Colonel Bridgman, who then sat for Bolton, did all he could to secure that the Committee should sit every day, in order that information might be obtained quickly; but the late Government did not sympathise with this object. Now, the late President of the Board of Trade told them that this was an infinitesimal matter, and that the injury to British trade was extremely small. What did he know about it? If he knew all about it, why did he appoint the Committee? If he had so much information, why did he not lay the facts before the Committee? Had the right hon. Member read the Report of the Committee? No. It was appointed to gain time. It sat as seldom as possible, and called as many witnesses as possible, and everything was done to stave off inquiry and prevent the late Government acting on the unanimous Resolution of the House of Commons. The Member for North-East Bethnal Green had developed an interest in the matter because he found how much it was appreciated by his constituents, and another good reason was the extremely narrow majority by which he was returned to this Parliament. [Cheers.] He, himself, was convinced that the President of the Board of Trade was genuine and sincere when he said he was determined to deal with this question. In his address to the electors of West Bristol, he said that the immigration of pauper aliens and the importation of foreign prison-made goods were questions of pressing importance. The House must therefore put the fullest confidence in his dealing with this question, and was he to be blamed because, in conjunction with the Prime Minister, the first day he went to the Board of Trade he tried by friendly negotiations to stop the importation of prison-made goods? On the contrary, he was deserving of every praise, and those who represented the trades deeply affected were extremely grateful to him and the Prime Minister for the zeal they had shown. The Report of the Committee, and the evidence given before it, would show that this was not a small matter. It might affect comparatively few trades, but those trades were suffering severely by the importation of prison-made goods. Many were unable to obtain employment, or only earning 5s. or 6s. a week with the greatest difficulty. Yet the right hon. Member for Aberdeen said this was a matter of infinitesimal importance. It was a growing trade which must be stopped. The present Government would stop it, and do that which the late Government failed to do.

remarked that it had been said that during the recent Elections no question had stirred the hearts of the working men of London like this of the importation of prison-made goods. Then they must have been a pigeon-hearted lot. What did this great electioneering cry "boil down" to? It was to be solved either by a Committee of the House taking evidence, or the Government writing polite notes to foreign Governments. When the Committee on the subject reported, it would be found that a mountain had been made of a mole-hill. This importation did not affect our trades or industries, except in the smallest degree. The hon. Member went on to draw attention to the salaries of inspectors of railways. They seldom visited Ireland, and through their imperfect supervision the Scull and Skibbereen and Tralee and Dingle Railways were a disgrace. After the former line was passed by Major Hutchinson, of the Hoard of Trade, the permanent way was so badly laid and ballasted that exasperated travellers often had to get out and push the trains on. Owing to the steep gradients on the Tralee and Dingle line, a terrible accident occurred soon after the line was opened, by which several persons were killed and others injured. The effect of the accident was to smash the rolling stock, and damages were claimed against the Company which ultimately fell upon the barony and plunged it into hopeless debt. The consequence to the barony had been very serious, and he hoped that the matter would receive the careful attention of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade. This line had been opened under the authority of a Government officer, with the result that this accident had occurred and the barony had had to suffer for his neglect or incompetence. In the circumstances he did not think that it would be unfair to ask the right hon. Gentleman to put some pressure upon the Treasury to take steps to relieve this unfortunate barony from the debt in which they were involved through no fault of their own. He should also like to ask the right hon. Gentleman a question as to the present condition of the Fastnet lighthouse. Some three or four months ago a promise was made by the late Government that the matter should be inquired into. He did not press the right hon. Gentleman for any specific declaration on that occasion with regard to this subject, but he desired to impress upon him that the question was of great importance, seeing that the lighthouse to which he referred was the last that ships sighted on leaving these shores for America, and was the first that they saw on their return voyage across the Atlantic. The lighthouse was placed on a very dangerous coast, and therefore he hoped that the best attention of the Department would be given to its condition.

said, that he only rose for the purpose of making one or two observations on the subject of the importation of foreign prison-made goods. That Committee had no right to intefere with the importation of foreign goods of any kind. He objected to any restriction whatever being placed upon the rights of the British consumer to purchase goods in the cheapest market. He recollected the time when upon exactly the same grounds objection had been made to the importation of foreign sugar in respect of which a bounty was paid.

Order, order. I must remind the hon. Gentleman that he must confine his remarks to matters connected with the action of the President of the Board of Trade. This has been a very wide discussion, covering a great number of subjects, and I must ask the hon. Gentleman to conform to my ruling.

said that he had no intention of running counter to the Chairman's ruling, and therefore he would not pursue the subject.

said, that he desired to call the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the importation of impure petroleum and paraffin oil which was a source of great danger to the community. A large quantity of that oil was of an impure character, and was consequently most dangerous, and within the last few weeks a very serious explosion had occurred from its use in the town of Elphin, near were he lived in which two lives were lost and several people were injured. He had been told that the Home Office had no control over the importation of such oil and therefore he now addressed himself to the right hon. Gentleman, the President of the Board of Trade.

The matter does not come within the cognizance of my Department. The Board of Trade has nothing to do with it.

said that the Board of Trade was bound to deal with such matters under the Act of 1879.

I can only repeat that my Department has nothing to do with the matter.

was proceeding to discuss the question further when—

I think that the hon. Gentleman must make it quite clear in the first place that the Board of Trade is concerned in this matter. The right hon. Gentleman, the President of the Board of Trade, speaking with full authority, has said that the Board of Trade has nothing to do with the subject. I must ask the hon. Gentleman to prove by quoting the words of an Act of Parliament that the Department is responsible for the importation of this dangerous oil; otherwise I must rule that his remarks are out of order.

said that he would read the principal provisions of the existing Acts of 1871, 1879, and 1881, which were as follows:—

"(1) Petroleum is defined to include any rock oil, Rangoon oil, Burmah oil, oil made from petroleum, coal, schist, shale, peat or other bituminous substances, any products of petroleum, or any of the above-mentioned oils (1871, Section 3); while petroleum, to which the Act applies, is defined to mean not all petroleum (in the ordinary sense of the word), as it has done in the former Acts (see ante), but only such petroleum as gives off, when tested by the D bel close test, an inflammable vapour at less than 73° Fahrenheit (Act of 1879). (2) A detailed system of testing is provided, whereby the degree of inflammability is to be determined (1879, Schedule 1). (3) The owner or master of every ship carrying petroleum to which the Act applies is required to give notice to the harbour authority on entering any harbour (1871, Section 5). All harbour authorities are required to frame and submit for confirmation by the Board of Trade by-laws regulating the places of mooring of ships carrying petroleum, and the places where they are to land their cargoes, and the times, modes of, and precaution to be taken on such landing. The Board of Trade have power on default of any harbour authority to make by-laws (1881, Section 4)."

That refers solely to the control of ships carrying petroleum.

said it went further. He contended that the Act had been evaded, and that oil of an illegal and inferior description was being admitted. In Tuam, for instance, a few months ago, a house was burned through the inferior quality of oil in a lamp, and the safety of the entire town endangered. A lady had been killed this week at Cleffoney, in the County Sligo, from the same cause.

interposing, said, that as far as he had been able to gather, the section quoted by the hon. Member referred entirely to the control of ships arriving with petroleum on board. If the hon. Gentleman had any case of that sort to refer to, he might be in order; but the general control of petroleum did not rest with the Board of Trade.

said that he had raised the question upon this Vote because he had consulted the authorities and had been told that it arose under the Vote for the Board of Trade.

said that it was a very natural error into which the hon. Member had fallen. The Board of Trade had to control the bye-laws of the harbour authorities, but, once those by-laws were approved, all connection with the Board of Trade ceased; the administration of bye-laws being in the control of the local authority.

urged that the Board of Trade had power to enforce the by-laws.

said that his department had no power to enforce the by-laws. This and other departments having once approved of bye laws, it lay with the local authority to carry them out.

thought that the Board of Trade ought, in any event, to be responsible, for it was their fault for giving effect to bad by-laws. [Cheers.]

Any question of administration of by-laws cannot possibly be dealt with on this Vote. I would refer the hon. Member (Mr. Tully) to Section 7 of the Act which he quoted to me, in which it is distinctly laid down that the regulations with regard to the storage of petroleum fall within the control of the local authority. I must therefore rule any further discussion of this subject to be out of order.

desired to know whether the Board of Trade were prepared to appoint a labour correspondent for North Wales, where there were at present no statistics with regard to labour movements, wages, and matters generally affecting the capital and labour in that part of country. He trusted that the President of the Board of Trade would be able to give some satisfactory answer with regard to that question. He thought it important that labour correspondents should be appointed in all parts. Proceeding to deal with the administration of foreshores by the Board of Trade, he remarked that he had raised the question last year, and thought he elicited a distinct promise that the foreshores should not be alienated without prior notice to the local authorities. At Cardiff and Swansea, for instance, he knew of very valuable foreshores being sold to strangers, without the local authorities having had the option to acquire them. He raised the question again now, because he believed that the undertaking which he elicited from the Department last year had not been carried out. He asked the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Ritchie) for an absolute undertaking that orders should be given to the representatives of his Department not to sell foreshores without first giving the local authorities the option of acquiring them. No substantial part of the revenue of the Board of Trade was, he asserted, derived from these alienations. His own view was that it was a mistaken policy to part with foreshores at all. ["Hear, hear!"] He knew that replies had been returned by the Board of Trade to local authorities who had applied to lease the foreshores that the Department did not part with them to local authorities, who, without having rights over the foreshore were without the power of enforcing regulations of order or even of decency at some watering-places. He desired to ask the President of the Board of Trade, first, whether he would give positive instructions that foreshores should not be parted with to adjoining owners, or other private proprietors, without giving a prior option to the local authorities to purchase them, or to lease them, if only for a short term, or from year to year. Secondly, he would ask whether, in watering-places and small towns, he would give instructions to representatives of Departments to enable the local authorities to acquire leases of the foreshores, this being the only possible way in which those authorities could enforce order thereon. The third point which he wanted to call attention to was that of the inspectors fisheries. He was not complaining that the sum allotted to them was too large. On the contrary, he was sorry that the Government had not made it larger. But, as at present conducted, this inspection of fisheries was a perfect farce. In the last report of the inspectors of fisheries, he found that about the only thing they had done in regard to fresh-water fisheries was that they had sanctioned the imposition of licences in two or three cases. That was about all. He would like to know whether the President of the Board of Trade would do something to make the inspection much more real than it was at present.

said, that in the column with regard to the agricultural condition of the various districts throughout the kingdom there was no information as to the agricultural condition of Wales. He urged that the question of inspection of fisheries was one of practical importance in Wales.

said, that as to the first point which had been raised the Board of Trade were not at all responsible; their inspectors saw that the rolling stock was sufficient, but with regard to the gradient of the line they had no authority whatever. As to the question of a Labour Correspondent in North Wales he had not lost sight of the matter, and had been in communication with the head of the Department in connection with the matter, and he knew that he was doing his best to find a Correspondent who would be satisfactory. With regard to the fisheries he understood that the administration of fisheries lay in the hands of local authorities. As to the question of the foreshore, it was the invariable practice of the Board of Trade to approach the local authority before any alienation took place, and nothing was done until they were convinced that it would be in the public interest. If the hon. Member had any particular case which he desired to put before him he would be glad to inquire into it. In regard to the question raised by the hon. Member who had just sat down he would see whether the omission in regard to agriculture in Wales could be remedied. In reply to Mr. LOUGH—

said, he was afraid he could give no information as to the Indian carpet trade.

said, he must point out the unsatisfactory position the Government took up upon this question. This trade was infinitely more important than the brush trade which existed in England and other countries.

said, the hon. Member was not in order in making an attack upon the Indian Government on this Vote.

said, the right hon. Gentleman had not answered him with regard to the granting of leases of the foreshore.

said, he would inquire into it.

referred to the question of harbour accommodation in the western fishery districts.

said, if the hon. Member had some particular place in view and would make representations about it he would inquire into the matter. The policy of the Government in regard to these harbours had been not that they should contribute money for the harbours, but that they should make advances to the local authorities, or in some cases to companies, at a low rate of interest, to enable them to make the harbour required for fishery accommodation. Where there was a primâ facie case he would certainly send down an inspector.

thanked the right hon. Gentleman for his promise with regard to the appointment of a Labour Correspondent in North Wales. He (the speaker) had raised the question repeatedly in the House, and he was gratified to find that at last his representations would receive attention. With regard to the distribution of the "Labour Gazette," he asked that the publication should be placed in Library of the House.

said, the right hon. Gentleman had addressed a remonstrance to a Foreign Government about their prisons when in our prisons some of the very same work was carried on, and he thought such a remonstrance was a very extraordinary step for a Government to take.

pointed out that there were four Assistant Secretaries, whose salary was £1,000, rising to £1,200 per annum. One of these gentlemen had received £300 from the Mersey Dock Board, and, he thought, the Government were entitled to the whole of their services. If the Board of Trade wished to impose additional work on them, and the work was worth more money, that would be a different matter, but the present system, he contended, was altogether bad. He criticised the appointments held under this Vote.

said it was not uncommon for a man to receive a personal allowance which, when the office became vacant, did not necessarily attach to that, particular office.

contended that the present system was one of favouritism.

hoped the Committee would agree to the Vote. The matters referred to by the hon. Member were not such as could be considered while the present occupants held their offices.

called attention to the great cost of obtaining Provisional Orders for harbour improvements. It was extremely unsatisfactory that a large portion of the money collected to improve harbours should be taken for fees and legal expenses before one penny was spent in carrying out the objects of the Provisional Order. The Scotch Fishery Board, he believed, felt very strongly in the matter. They had a small allowance from Parliament to assist in maintaining and providing small harbours, and in trying to administer this money to the best advantage in any particular case they were met at the outset by large legal expenses. He believed a large part of the expense charged was absolutely unnecessary, and he was confident that if the Board of Trade would undertake to carry through the Provisional Orders, great saving might be effected. The money to improve harbours was obtained in sixpences and half-crowns from the hard-working fishing population, and the people naturally complained when they found that much of the money went into the pockets of the lawyers in obtaining the Provisional Order. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would give the Committee an assurance that he would look into the matter.

said, that under the circumstances the hon. Gentleman would not expect him to make a long statement on the matter. The Provisional Order system was set up to cheapen the mode of obtaining an Act of Parliament, and so long as Acts of Parliament were required, certain formalities would have to be gone through. He had not been long enough at the Board of Trade to ascertain the nature of the charges in connection with that Department, but he would undertake to look into the matter.

said, he wished again to express the hope that the right hon. Gentleman would give his attention to the matter of personal and special allowances made to certain officials, and would endeavour to put a stop to the unsatisfactory system as soon as possible.

said, he had not been sufficiently long at the Board of Trade to enable him to express any strong views on the question. He did not wish to say anything that might appear to reflect on what had taken place, or to give promises which he might not be able to carry out; but the hon. Member might be assurred that, having brought the matter under his notice, he would give attention to it.

said, he wished to draw attention to an item in the Estimates in connection with the Labour Department of the Board of Trade, which he was surprised had not attracted the notice of hon. Members. He referred to a charge of £3,700, stated to be "Allowance to the Comptroller for remuneration to skilled investigations, and for clerk hire." The sum did not appear in the Estimates for last year, and absolutely no explanation of the item was given in the present Estimates. He understood that the sum was allowed to an official, himself in the Civil Service, and in receipt of a salary, for the engagement of clerks from the outside, who were not in the Civil Service, and who became really the personal clerks of the Comptroller. He objected to this system as very unsatisfactory and open to great injustice.

said, this was a matter that came under his cognizance when he was President of the Board of Trade, and he might explain that the money was incurred in connection with the Labour Department, because it was found necessary to engage the services of experts and men of special qualifications outside the Civil Service. The Department was a new one, and in the opening work it was desirable to obtain exceptional skilled aid. At the same time he was ready to admit that the principle acted on in this case was one that should not be extended.

said, that if he thought the arrangement was merely a temporary one in connection with the Labour Department he should have nothing more to say; but he found that the same system had been going on, and was growing in the Bankruptcy Department of the Board of Trade.

appealed to the Committee to now allow the Vote to be taken.