On the Motion to go into Committee of Supply, to propose that an humble address be presented to Her Majesty praying that when, she granted any title or honour to any of her subjects she would be graciously pleased to accompany the announcement with a statement of the services for which the title or honour was bestowed, as in the case of the grant of the Victoria Cross.

To call attention to the state of affairs in the far East and move a Resolution.

To call attention to the inadequate production of food supply in the area of Great Britain in relation to the population, and move a Resolution.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, if he can state to the House the reason for the operations conducted during last year in the Persian Gulf by Her Majesty's ships Sphinx and Pigeon?

In consequence of quarrels between the Sheikh of Bahrein, who is under the suzerainty of Her Majesty, and other local sheikhs, the chief of the Ali-Bin-Ali, apparently supported by the Turks, established himself on the mainland at Zobara, opposite Bahrein, and about 200 dhows assembled there to attack Bahrein. In order to maintain the maritime peace to which the tribes are pledged Commander Pelly, of the Sphinx, was authorised to resist this demonstration provided he was satisfied that the dhows were assembled with a hostile purpose, and to liberate the Bahrein boats which had been forcibly detained. As the dhows after due warning refused to disperse they were attacked on September 6th, and 44 were destroyed. On the following day terms were arranged, and the peace of the Gulf re-established.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, whether cocoa butter is imported largely into this country from German and other foreign countries free of all duty, although containing as the principal ingredient in its composition the cocoa bean, which, if imported as a raw material for British manufacture, is saddled with a considerable duty; and, in such case, if he can inform the House what is the reason for this preferential treatment of foreign manufacture and departure from the practice of the Customs in importations containing dutiable ingredients, such as alcoholic spirit, of levying duty upon that ingredient?

The extent of the importation of cocoa butter is not accurately known, but there is reason to believe that it is about 200 tons per annum. It is not accurate to say that it contains as the principal ingredient in its composition the cocoa bean. The cocoa bean is chargeable with a duty of 1d. a lb. In the process of conversion it is estimated to yield about 50 per cent, of manufactured cocoa, which is accordingly charged with a duty of 2d. per lb., and the cocoa butter (which is a residuary product) is, in consequence of 2d. having been paid on the manufactured cocoa, admitted free. Inquiries have shown, however, that cocoa butter may still retain some of the essential qualities of the cocoa bean, and in that case the foreign manufacturer who keeps his manufactured cocoa at home and sends only his cocoa butter here, obtains a fractional advantage over the British manufacturer. The question whether any readjustment should be made in the present duty on manufactured cocoa with a view to imposing a charge on cocoa butter is a complicated one and requires further consideration which it is now receiving.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, (1) whether his attention has been drawn to the case of the late Mrs. Gilkes, who was knocked down by a bicyclist in the parish of Long Compton, Warwickshire, upon the 13th September last, and after lying unconscious for five days, died; (2) whether he is aware that the bicyclist gave a wrong name and address to avoid identification, and remained unknown until identified by the Oxford-shire detectives upon the 9th December; and (3) whether he will consider the advisability of devising means to prevent similar evasions of justice?

The answer to the first two paragraphs of the hon. Member's question is in the affirmative. I may add that the offender remained at the scene of the accident for some time to render assistance, and that he was afterwards arrested through the ordinary police agencies, and in consequence, I am told, of a confession made by himself. He was indicted for manslaughter, but as he had already paid £50 as compensation to the husband the prosecution was allowed by the Court to be withdrawn. Whether any means can be devised to facilitate the identification of offending bicyclists is a question of considerable difficulty which has been under consideration already. I shall be glad if any practical scheme can be suggested.

asked, whether the right hon. Gentleman's attention had been called to the fact that one of the hon. Members for Essex was run down last week by a bicyclist whose name and address he could not get.

said, they were all aware of the unfortunate accident which befel a colleague of the hon. and gallant Member for Essex, and if any means could be devised for securing that the persons who caused such accidents could be identified and brought to account it would be most satisfactory.

asked, whether the right hon. Gentleman would consider the advisability of appointing on roads on which cyclists frequently rode a number of young policemen [a laugh], as the local authority in London had done with distinct advantage both to the police and passengers.

said, he would be glad to receive any practical suggestions from the hon. Member.

inquired whether the right hon. Gentleman would see that the rules of the road as to foot passengers were observed.

asked if the Home Secretary was aware that in Italy cyclists were licensed, and that the owner of the cycle was obliged to carry a number.

was not aware cyclists in Italy were under any special jurisdiction. He would be prepared, with others more responsible than himself, to consider whether any means could be provided for securing the safety of passengers.

I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education, whether the Government intend taking any steps with regard to a Teaching University for London during the present Session?

The subject is under consideration; and it is hoped that an early decision will be arrived at as to the steps which it is expedient to take.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether, on the personal request, on the 6th of November last, of four of the Chartered Company's directors, and with the approval of the Commissioner of the Bechuanaland police then in England, or on what request was any, and what, arrangement made to place the Imperial armaments, and ammunition and military equipment and stores for the field, or any field guns, Maxims, or Gatling guns, then under loan to the Chartered Company, or under the control or custody of the Imperial Bechuanaland police, in the hands of the Chartered Company or its officers or administrators; and, whether any, and what, armament of guns or military equipment was captured by the Burgher forces, and whether any of it has yet been identified as having belonged to either the Imperial or Colonial Government?

In answering this and the next question I wish to say that, while I am anxious to give every information, I think the House will see it is desirable I should not be questioned as to the impending trial. When I saw the directors of the British South Africa Company on November 6 they did not make any request such as that mentioned in the question. Major Goold Adams, who I suppose is referred to as the Commissioner of the Bechuanaland Police, held no position in that force and was merely present to advise on topographical details. As has been already made known, it was a feature of the settlement which I made between the native chiefs and the British South Africa Company that the latter should have the administration of the borders of the Protectorate, and I told the High Commissioner to allow the Border Police to enrol with the Company and to sell to the Company any surplus stores or unsalted horses not wanted for the new Native Police. In pursuance of this arrangement Dr. Jameson appears to have purchased a fair quantity of miscellaneous stores, such as pants, putties, saddles, hats, &c., also two Maxims and two mountain guns, but no rifles or rifle ammunition. I assume that these four pieces of artillery were taken into the South African Republic and fell into the hands of the Burghers. As the Imperial Government had no property in these guns at the time of capture, I have not taken any steps for their identification.

further asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies (1) whether the territories (stated to be under the control of the British South Africa Company at the date of the incursion of an armed force into the South African Republic) extended to any area south of the 22nd parallel of south latitude, or northern boundary of the area declared by the Order in Council of the 27th January, 1885, to be Bechuanaland Protectorate, and to be bounded on the east by the South African Republic, or to any district south of the Molopo, formerly the northern boundary of the Bechuanaland Crown Colony declared by the Proclamation of the 30th September, 1885, to be British territory; (2) whether the armed force was collected and concentrated in the southern part of the Protectorate north of the Molopo and the Crown Colony, and in the Civil Commissioner and Resident Magistrate's District of Makefing in the Crown Colony, and in the town of Makefing, 230 miles south of the 22nd parallel of south latitude, from whence the road starts and runs due east to Krugersdorp; and (3) whether, when such armed force issued, on Sunday, the 29th December, 1895, into the South African Republican territories, the town and district of Makefing, and all the Crown Colony south of the Molopo, had become and formed, as and from the 15th November, in accordance with a Proclamation of the 9th November, 1895, part of the Cape Colony, under the British Bechuanaland Annexation Act, 1895, and, at the date of the incursion, subject to the Government and laws of that country?

In reply to the first paragraph of the hon. Member's question, I have to state that at the time referred to two areas south of the 22nd parallel of south latitude, videlicet the trans-Molopo territory of Montsioa and the territory of Ikaning, had been placed, by High Commissioner's Proclamation, under the direct administration of the British South Africa Company. No district south of the Molopo River was under the Company's jurisdiction. I am advised that the second paragraph of the question falls under the category of questions which will have to be dealt with at the trial of Dr. Jameson, and which I am therefore unable to answer in this House. The answer to the third paragraph is yes.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether he is aware that, on the 29th January, the Vicar of Blockley, Worcestershire, refused to proceed with a Burial Service in the cemetery adjoining the churchyard until Mrs. J. C. Reynolds, of Paxford, quitted the cemetery, stating that he made it a rule not to allow any person to be present at a Service at the grave who had not been also present at the service in the church; and that Mrs. Reynolds thereupon retired under protest; and whether the Vicar was entitled by Law to enforce such a rule?

I am informed by the Vicar that no such rule as that alleged in the hon. Member's question was attempted to be enforced, or is even in existence. A rule has, I am told, been in force for many years prohibiting the admission to the cemetery when a Burial Service is going on of persons not belonging to the funeral procession. Whether such a rule has legal validity or not, I have no authority to determine.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, with reference to the Local Government Inquiry recently held at Lurgan, whether he can state what frauds, if any, were proven against officials, contractors, or other persons in connection with the supply of goods to Lurgan Workhouse, and whether any steps have been taken in the matter by the Local Government Board?

It has been found as a result of the investigation referred to, that certain deficiencies did exist in the workhouse stores, and that the Union had suffered considerable loss during the past few years by the removal or loss of articles of clothing, &c. There was, however, no direct evidence to show whether the late master and matron of the workhouse had been guilty of fraud, or whether the deficiencies were the results of carelessness. These persons having ceased to be Union officers are not subject to penalties from the Local Government Board, but the Board have pointed out to the Guardians that they should consult their own solicitor as to whether there is evidence to justify proceedings being instituted by the Guardians against them. This matter will be considered by the Guardians at their meeting on the 27th inst. One of the relieving officers was proved at the Inquiry to have acted in contravention of an Act of Parliament by supplying goods to the workhouse, and he has been called upon to tender his resignation. The Guardians have also been informed that, owing to the fact that stock of material and stores of the workhouse had not been taken by them in accordance with the regulations, they are largely to blame for the loss sustained by the ratepayers.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the master mariners sailing to and from Belfast still complain of the inefficiency of the siren on Mew Island at the entrance to Belfast Lough; and that in foggy weather the steamers are frequently in dangerous proximity to the Island before the sound of the siren is audible, and whether the Commissioners of Irish Lights will state what was the result of their experiments with reference to Mew Island, and if they have since done anything to improve the danger warning; if not, what changes do they propose to make for the safety of the lives of passengers and seamen coming to and from Belfast?

, replying in the abscence of Mr. Ritchie: Since the reply given on the 19th August last to a question on this subject by the hon. Member, the Board of Trade have received no representations on this matter. In that reply, the President of the Board of Trade stated that, as the result of the experiments referred to, the Commissioners of Irish Lights had recommended the establishment of a second fog siren at Mew Island, and that this recommendation had been approved by the Trinity House and sanctioned by the Board of Trade. The Commissioners of Irish Lights state that the new siren has been ordered, and may be expected to be in operation within three months.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, is he aware that, out of £40,000 voted by Parliament for the erection of labourers' cottages in Ireland, a sum of £132 15s. 1d. was allocated to the Guardians of Carrickmacross Union; and that, when the Guardians of Carrickmacross Union applied to the Board of Works for their share of the allotment, they were informed it would be paid after 50 years; and, if he will take steps to cause the Board of Works to hand to the Carrickmacross Board of Guardians £132 15s. 1d.

The rule is that the capital sums payable to Boards of Guardians out of the Labourers' Acts Grant of £40,000 are applied in shortening the currency of the loans made by the Board of Works under the Labourers' (Ireland) Acts. This procedure has been followed in the case of the sum of £132 15s. 1d. allocated to the Guardians of Carrickmacross Union, with the result that the period over which the repayments will extend has been shortened by nine years. The Guardians were so informed on the 17th July, 1894.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether any portion of the £40,000 (probate duties grant) which was voted in aid of the liabilities under the Labourers' (Ireland) Act still remains; and, if so, how much; and, whether, as Boards of Guardians cannot claim payments from said grant after 31st March, 1896, he will recommend the Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury to authorise an extension of the time?

A sum of £13,575 14s. 3d., portion of the amount mentioned in the first paragraph of the question still remains, and a recommendation to the effect stated in second paragraph has already been made by the Irish Government to the Treasury. The matter is still under the consideration of the Treasury.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if District Inspector Bain, Newcastle West, is still in Ashanti; is he drawing any extra pay as a Volunteer with Sir John Scott's expedition, and is he at same time drawing his pay as a police officer; and, who is performing his duties in Newcastle West during his absence, and who is paying his substitute?

Mr. Bain was granted two months leave of absence for the purpose of joining the expedition to Ashanti. He has not yet returned to Ireland, but it is presumed he is on his way back. He will be allowed to draw his pay as a District Inspector whilst absent on leave. It is not known whether he is drawing any extra pay as a volunteer on the expedition. His duties at Newcastle West are performed by a District Inspector who is a supernumerary awaiting allocation to a station upon the occurence of a vacancy, and no expense to the public is caused by his acting as locum tenens there.

asked if it was customary for the Constabulary Authorities to give a District Inspector two months' leave?

inquired if there was any case on record of an English police official receiving leave for the purpose of going on a military expedition?

asked for notice of the latter. He believed that 50 days was the amount of leave granted in the course of a year. Sometimes that was extended to two months, but the additional ten days were taken off the leave of the following year.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he could see his way to suspend the alteration that he has lately made in the Fair Wages Clause in Admiralty shipbuilding contracts, until the House has had some opportunity of discussing and deciding the question at issue?

No, Sir. The wages clause in Admiralty shipbuilding contracts embodies verbatim the words of the Resolution of the House of Commons, and till the House of Commons comes to a different decision, I am not prepared to go beyond the scope of its decision. The hon. Member has himself strenuously contended that the addition by the Admiralty of the words "current in the district," to the words of the Resolution, carries with it an obligation on the part of the Admiralty to take the scale of wages "current in the district" into account in the award of a contract. He was unable to persuade his own colleagues in the late Government to take the latter course, which I, like them, consider wholly inadmissible. The insertion of the words desired by the hon. Member would only be a restriction on London firms, preventing them from competing on equal terms with the rest of the country, to the injury of the industry on the Thames.

said he would call attention to the matter subsequently.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) whether he is aware that, at the Petty Sessions held at Gorey on Friday, the 14th inst., three publicans, named Webb, Fortune, and Kehoe, were tried in open court for offences under the Licensing Acts, with the result that Kehoe was fined £2, and the cases against the others were dismissed; and that, on the same day, another publican, named Pelan, was also tried in camera for being drunk and disorderly on his own licensed premises, with the result that Pelan was fined five shillings. (2) Who is responsible for having the case against Pelan heard in camera; and if he can state why a distinction was made between his case and the cases of the other three publicans. (3) Whether it is customary to have offences against the Licensing Acts heard in camera. And (4) whether he will direct an Inquiry into the matter?

The first paragraph accurately sets forth the facts except that the date of the Petty Sessions was the 7th inst., and that the case against James Pelan was not heard in camera. What happened on the occasion was that the case was taken out of its order on the application of Pelan's solicitor and to meet his convenience; but it was tried in open court and not in camera.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he has considered the question of supplying something in the nature of a cheque book, where required, to any depositor in the Post Office Savings Bank, so as to enable such depositor, under sufficient guarantees against fraud or mistake, to pay at a moment's notice any debt or demand up to the value of his deposit; whether he would be prepared to recommend the issue for this purpose of books of postal orders, each order having a counterfoil bearing the same number and stamp, or whether any other system would seem to him preferable; and whether, by way of experiment, he will supply such cheque books, or equivalent facilities, to the treasurers of small friendly societies who may keep no banking account, and who wish to avoid the present liability to the expense of a telegram of withdrawal, or to the delay of two days?

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether his attention has been called to a scheme for Savings Bank Postal Orders, which proposes to empower the Post Office Savings Bank to issue in books of eight, at a charge of 1½d. each order, Savings Bank Postal Orders bearing a face value of 10s., 15s., £1, or £2, payable to the depositor only on demand at any Savings Bank Post Office on production of his deposit book; and whether in view of the statement of the late Postmaster General in his last Report that the system of withdrawal by telegram had met an un-undoubted want, efforts will be made to enable Savings Bank depositors, who are not prepared to pay the cost of telegrams, to place themselves in a position of being able to withdraw on demand sums up to £2 at any Post Office instead of awaiting correspondence by post?

Yes, Sir. The question referred to by the hon. Member for Canterbury has been carefully considered, and the Postmaster General is not prepared to introduce any such machinery as is suggested for facilitating the withdrawal of deposits from the Post Office Savings Bank. It must be remembered that the Post Office Savings Bank was established in order to encourage thrift, and the Government has no intention of converting it into a banking institution. This answer will also serve as a reply to the question asked by the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether, seeing that depositors in the Post Office Savings Bank only receive interest on each complete pound which has been on deposit for an entire month, he can state to what extent this system of computing interest, as applied to the six million accounts open, reduces the rate of interest below 2½ per cent., the amount nominally paid to Post Office Savings Bank depositors?

The Postmaster General has had a careful calculation made on this subject and finds that allowing for the circumstance mentioned by the hon. Member the average rate of interest actually received by depositors in the Post Office Savings Bank during the last three years has been £2 7s. 9d.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether a privately printed or officially printed postcard sent to a Foreign country, with the Royal Arms impressed above the word "postcard," renders the recipient of the card liable to a fine; whether he is aware that the fine is invariably imposed; and, whether he will at the earliest opportunity take steps to have this rule altered?

The ordinary official Foreign postcard bears no Royal Arms and therefore no question arises. An ordinary official inland ½d. card sent abroad with an additional ½d. stamp is not liable to a fine. A private postcard sent abroad with a 1d. stamp and bearing the Royal Arms is liable to a fine. The Postmaster General is not aware whether the Foreign post offices invariably endeavour to collect the fine. They should do so. It is not intended to alter the rule so as to allow persons manufacturing private postcards to place the Royal Arms on them.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that a number of private postcards have been surcharged, on the ground that a minute asterisk had been inserted between the words "Post Card" on the address side, with a view to connect them; and, whether he will give directions that the presence of this asterisk shall no longer subject the recipient of a postcard to a fine.

The Postmaster General has no knowledge of private cards having been charged on account of a minute asterisk inserted with a view to connect the words "Post" and "Card," but if the hon. Member will be good enough to furnish him with a specimen inquiry will be made.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether his attention has been called to the size and contents of the abstracts of the Factory Acts which have to be hung up in the factories and workshops; and, whether he will consider the possibility of issuing a short official handbook from which extracts could be made by the inspectors suitable to the different factories or districts?

The abstracts of the Factory Acts have been most carefully considered, and, notwithstanding the great extension of the factory regulations effected by the Act of last Session, the contents have been so condensed as to embody the new regulations without increasing the size of the abstract. There are ten separate forms of abstract applicable to different classes of factories and workshops. I do not think it would be possible to have such a handbook as the hon. Member suggests, but several useful handbooks of the Acts have been published, and are available for use.

asked if the right hon. Gentleman would consider the question of introducing a consolidating Act.

thought it would be very desirable to consolidate the Acts, but, in view of the possibility of some small Amendments being necessary in consequence of the haste with which the last Act was passed, he certainly did not contemplate the introduction of a consolidating Bill just now.

asked whether, pending consolidation, the right hon. Gentleman would do something to simplify the abstract itself, so as to prevent deputations of woodchoppers and other men waiting upon him to ask what they could do.

said, he had not had any difficulties of that sort brought before him, but if they were he would do what he could to simplify matters.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if, in view of the desirability of lessening the Sunday labour of postmen, he will cause inquiry to be made in those places having a Sunday delivery as to the convenience of delivering on Sundays only those letters and packets (except those posted abroad) which bear the word "Important" written above the address?

This is an arrangement which has often been suggested to the Post Office, but there are objections to its adoption. The Post Office has no legal right to withhold letters received on Sunday morning from delivery to the addressees merely because they are not marked "Important" by the senders. Letters can only be withheld from their proper delivery in due course of post at the request of the addressees, and when such request is made it must apply to all correspondence received, seeing that to divide the letters in order to send some only out for delivery and withhold the rest would not tend to diminish Sunday labour upon the whole. Apart from this, however, it is to be feared that the suggested arrangement might tend to frustrate its own object, as there is little doubt that advertising persons who desired to call special attention to their circulars and to ensure their being opened would seize the opportunity of marking them "Important"—[laughter]—and posting them for delivery on Sunday morning, and thus the number of letters received might be increased rather than diminished. [Cheers.]

inquired if the Post Office authorities were aware that in Belgium stamps were marked in such a way that letters bearing them could be held over the Sunday.

promised to make inquiry.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether the attention of the Government has been directed to the importation into these countries of mineral oils of a very explosive nature and of a low flash point; whether he is aware that the American producers are not allowed to sell to consumers in the United States paraffin oil with a flash point under 95 or 100 F., while they ship to these countries thousands of gallons of oil at a flashing point of 73 F. and under, and which are sold among a class of people who are ignorant of the dangers of using this oil; and, whether, in view of the loss of life which has taken place, the Government are prepared to insist that no paraffin oil will be imported into these countries under a flash point of 95 or 100 F.?

My attention has been drawn to the question of the importation of mineral oils. I am not aware that the law in America with regard to the sale of these oils is that producers are not allowed to sell, to consumers in the United States paraffin oil with a flash point under 95 or 100 F., while they can ship to these countries oil at a flashing point of 73 F. and under; in fact, I am advised that the law as to flash point varies in nearly every State, and that in some States there is no law at all. To prohibit the importation of petroleum with a flash point of less than 95 or 100 degrees would be prohibitive of mineral spirit which is required in many industries; but the question whether an amendment of the law in regard to flash point is desirable is one that will doubtless be carefully considered by the Select Committee which I hope will be appointed.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board, whether, in view of the difficulties attending the introduction of a workable scheme of State-aided provision for old age among the thrifty members of the wage-earning classes, the Government would be disposed to introduce during the present Session a Measure for encouraging thrift by the classification of paupers in workhouses according to merit, and the granting of out-door relief in deserving cases before savings are exhausted; and, whether the Local Government Board have information that a system of pauper classification according to merit has been, or is being, tried in any, and what, workhouses in England?

The regulations as to workhouse administration provide that the Guardians shall, as far as circumstances will permit, provide for the sub-division of classes with reference to the moral character or the previous habits of the inmates, or to such other grounds as may seem expedient. In many workhouses it has been the practice, in determining to what wards inmates should be assigned, to have regard to their general character and conduct; but there are some workhouses where a more distinctive classification as regards the aged poor has been or is about to be tried. I may mention, as instances, the Bath, Macclesfield, and Birmingham Unions. The subject generally is receiving my consideration, and I have recently had a conference with the several General Inspectors of the Board with regard to it; but I cannot hold out the hope that I shall be able to introduce a Bill this Session.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, whether the expert Committee which the Government intend to appoint to investigate schemes of Old Age Pensions will be a Select Committee of the House with outside experts added, or how otherwise it will be constituted; and, whether he can state what the terms of reference to the Committee will be?

The Committee will be a small one, and, in the main, a Departmental Committee. The exact terms of reference are not yet settled. The Committee will be asked to give practical guidance as to the lines which legislation shall follow.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he is aware that Clerks of Petty Sessions in Ireland are prohibited from acting as Poor Law Guardians or Members of Municipal Boards; and, whether, considering the unanimous protest made against this disability at a meeting of the Petty Sessions Clerks held in Dublin some time ago, and in view of the fact that no such disability is imposed upon the permanent Civil Servants of the Crown in Ireland, he will consider the desirability of removing this disability and restoring their civil rights to Clerks of Petty Sessions in Ireland.

Petty Sessions Clerks are prohibited from acting as Poor Law Guardians or Members of Municipal Boards under an Order made by the Lord Lieutenant in 1884. This Order was issued in consequence of complaints having been made that the Poor Law Guardianship interfered with the performance of the duties of a Petty Sessions Clerk, and because Poor Law contests in Ireland often assumed a political aspect and Guardians in their corporate capacity were often parties to proceedings at Petty Sessions. I am not disposed, upon the information at present before me, to recommend the withdrawal of the Order in question.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether, having regard to the circumstances connected with the recent murder at Hornsey, he will consider if it is desirable to offer a reward for the discovery of the murderer; and, whether, in consequence of the conviction held in the locality in which the murder took place that there is an insufficiency of police protection, he will take steps with the object of affording greater security to the inhabitants of that district?

I entirely sympathise with the object which the hon. Member has in view, but the difficulties of protecting country districts and houses situated with woods and fields behind them, as was the house at which this crime was committed, are so great that no force of police, however large, could guarantee complete security. The Commissioner of Police will, however, not hesitate to apply for additional men for this locality if he finds them necessary. I am not prepared to depart from what has been the settled practice of the Home Office for many years past, to decline to offer a reward for information in cases like the present.

On behalf of the hon. Member for the Holmfirth Division of the West Riding of York: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, if he can state, approximately, the population of the Transvaal, distinguishing between Natives, Boers, and Outlanders.

I would refer the hon. Member to the Parliamentary Paper C. 7,633 of 1894, which contains the latest official information on the subject. According to the estimate given therein the figures are:—Transvaalers and Orange Free Staters, 70,861; British subjects, 62,409; other foreigners, 15,558. In 1891 the native population was supposed to number about 650,000. The hon. Member is aware that the population of the Rand has largely increased since 1894, and that all the figures are subject to much controversy.

said, the right hon. Gentleman had alluded to the trial. Could he inform the House whether any arrangement had been made as to the time of the trial?

All questions with regard to the trial should be addressed to the Law Officers. [A laugh.]

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether it is his intention during the present Session to propose legislation to amend the Grand Jury Laws of Ireland, and to provide that the expenditure of the public county funds shall not be entirely in the hands of the landlords and their agents, without almost any representative of the people who provide the major part of the funds now at the disposal of that body, whose responsibility ceases as soon as they are discharged?

said, it was not the intention of the Government during the present Session to propose legislation to amend the Grand Jury laws of Ireland.

asked the right hon. Gentleman if he was aware that last July a Grand Jury was sworn on which there were 22 landlords and their sons and agents and only one representative of the people.

inquired whether, if it was not the intention of the Government to introduce legislation this Session, he would give some time to the consideration of the question. They had been promised by both Governments a reform of the Grand Jury laws for 54 year. In 1842 Royal Commissioners recommended——

Order, Order! The hon. Gentleman is not asking for information. He is giving it.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the infirmary of the county of Carlow is almost entirely supported by money voted by the Grand Jury of that county from the public funds at its disposal, and as there appear to be grave doubts as to whether the funds thus voted are applied in accordance with the law providing for and governing these institutions, and also as the accounts of this institution are not audited by a Government official, he will take steps to have the expenditure of these public moneys audited by a Government auditor, and see if the provisions of the law are carried out; and whether the incumbent of the Protestant Church in the town of Carlow has ex-officio any legal right to act as a governor of that body since the Disestablishment of the Protestant Church in Ireland?

I must ask the hon. Member to defer this question until Monday next.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has seen a Resolution passed by the Ballyvaughan Board of Guardians denying altogether the statements recently made respecting the Ballyvaughan Union in the British Medical Journal; and whether he will instruct the Local Government Board Inspector to make inquiries into the truth of the statements made?

I have seen a copy of the Resolution referred to. An inquiry has already been held by the Local Government Board's Inspector and it has been found that the statements made in the special report published by the British Medical Journal, are greatly exaggerated and in many important particulars at variance with the facts. If the hon. Member should desire to read the Official Report I shall be happy to allow him to do so privately.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, whether a large proportion of the meat supplied to the Army is chilled meat imported from abroad, and nearly all the oats provided for the Mounted Services are also imported; if so, what is the difference in the contract price of these two supplies respectively, and have any reports been recently furnished regarding their respective qualities?

Under the Regulations, supplies of refrigerated beef and frozen mutton to an extent not exceeding 60 per cent, of the whole supply may be issued to the troops. As regards oats, no question of origin is raised, provided they are up to the stipulated standard of quality. The separate prices for home and foreign meat cannot be stated, as tenders are called for for the combined supply within the regulated proportion. I may add that attempts are being made to extend the system of purchasing forage locally, and that the whole question of the supply of meat and forage is under consideration.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty, whether a large proportion of the meat supplied to the Navy is chilled meat imported from abroad; and, if so, what proportion does this amount bear to the meat supplied from home resources; what difference is there in the contract price of the two classes of meat; and, have any reports been furnished regarding their respective qualities?

At Portsmouth, Plymouth, and Portland the meat supplied to the Navy is slaughtered in the Government establishments. With these exceptions, the supply of dead meat is made under contracts, in which the condition is laid down that no refrigerated meat is to be supplied. The points specified in paragraphs 2 and 3 of the question do not, therefore, arise, so far as the Navy is concerned.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board, whether, in view of the fact, as shown in the last Report of the Local Government Board, that the percentage of unvaccinated children has grown in the Metropolis from 8·8 in 1872 to 18·4 in 1892, and in the rest of England from 4·5 in 1872 to 14·3 in 1892, he can state when the Report of the Royal Commission on Vaccination, appointed as long back as 1889, will be published; and, whether he will exercise his influence to hasten the publication?

I stated on Tuesday last that the Royal Commission on Vaccination were engaged in the consideration of their Report, and hope to present it before long. I attach great importance to the Report being published at the earliest date possible, and the Commissioners have already been made aware more than once of my views on the subject.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether any steps have yet been taken to establish a sub-post office at Finnor, county Westmeath, the application for which his predecessor promised to favourably consider?

The hon. Member is, I believe, aware that authority was given, in accordance with the late Postmaster General's promise, for establishing a post office at Finnor. But the authority was cancelled from the inability of the Department to secure the services of a competent postmaster at the ordinary rate of payment.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether it has been the practice of the Local Government Board in Ireland to require local authorities, who have acquired land under Section 57, Sub-section 1, of The Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1890, specifically for the purpose of Part III. of that Act, to obtain the consent of the Treasury, under Section 57, Sub-section 3, to the appropriation of the land for the purpose for which it has been acquired; and what the result of the correspondence between the Departments entered on with a view to assimilate the practice in Ireland with that in England, where no such consent is considered necessary, has been?

MEMBER further asked the Attorney General for Ireland, whether, in his proposed Bill to amend The Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1890, so far as relates to Towns Commissioners in Ireland, he will make it clear that Towns Commissioners have the same powers of acquiring land compulsorily under Part III. of the Act as other local authorities, doubts having been expressed as to whether under the Act as it stands they have such powers?

My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland has requested me to answer this question in connection with that numbered 42 addressed to myself. In reply to the first of the hon. Member's questions, I have to say that the practice in Ireland is as stated therein, and that the correspondence referred to has not resulted in assimilating the Irish to the English practice. In the Bill which I hope to introduce I shall endeavour to effect that object, as well as clear up the doubts referred to in the hon. Member's second question.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the defective passenger-traffic arrangements on the Mayo Branch of the Midland Great Western Railway Company of Ireland; whether he is aware that at present there are only two ordinary trains per 24 hours run each way on that part of the Midland system; and, is it within the power of the Board to compel the Company to run three trains, as on the main lines of their system; and, if so, will such power be enforced?

The Board of Trade have communicated with the Company, and are informed that it is not correct that only two ordinary trains run each way per 24 hours, as there are four down trains and the Limited Mail in addition—making five—and three up trains with the Limited Mail in addition making four. Any question of inadequate facilities is for the Railway Commissioners.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in considering designs of torpedo-boat destroyers, the Admiralty attach importance to securing the speed required with the minimum horse-power; and whether they also attach importance to a minimum displacement, and in ordering torpedo-boat destroyers last year stipulated that the displacement should not exceed 300 tons; and, if so, whether an increased horse-power and an increased displacement afford a reason for a higher price being paid to secure the same conditions of speed?

The inference implied in the question is not admitted; but it is impossible to enter into so highly a technical matter in the form of a question and answer, and I suggest to my hon. Friend that, if the past controversy between Mr. Yarrow and the Admiralty is still to occupy the time of the House, he should seek an opportunity of discussing it when Members of the late Government who were responsible in the matter can reply, and when other builders of torpedo-boat destroyers can have their version of the transaction in question placed before the House. ["Hear, hear!"]

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, in reference to the recent disturbances in Hyde Park, caused by the exhibition of certain Catholic emblems, whether proceedings cannot be taken at law to prevent an offensive exhibition, calculated to provoke a considerable class of Her Majesty's subjects to a breach of the peace?

Procedings can only be taken for violations of the Regulations contained in the Parks Regulation Act, 1872, and the rules made thereunder. The police considered that, in the case of the meeting last Sunday, there was no such violation; but if any persons consider that the meeting was an indecent or disorderly or unlawful meeting within the meaning of the Rules, or that they were wilfully annoyed within the meaning of the Regulations, by the use made of the parks, it is open to them to apply for a summons, and the police will afford them every proper assistance. Nothing further can be done without an alteration of the Regulations which govern the use of the park, and which are made by the Commissioners of Works and Public Buildings.

Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a very general feeling that an alteration of the Regulations is required?

That is a question which I am perfectly ready to consider.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether, having regard to the promise made by his predecessor, he is now prepared to appoint sub-assistant inspectors from among the ranks of practical workmen to assist the present inspectors of coal mines in the discharge of their duties?

The only statement which, so far as I am aware, was made by my predecessor in regard to this matter was in answer to a question of the hon. Member, and was to the effect that assistant inspectors had been appointed from among men who had had practical experience as workmen, but that he could give no pledge as to the future. I am not prepared to create a new class of sub-assistant inspectors, but the claims of candidates with practical experience will always be carefully considered by me, provided that they are also possessed of the necessary theoretical knowledge and other requirements.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether the jurists appointed more than six years ago to adjudicate on the claims of the bondholders and others in connection with the Delagoa Bay Railway have come to any decision; whether he will now state the real cause of delay; and, whether any representations have been made by Her Majesty's Government regarding the intolerable procrastination in coming to a decision, and to the loss and misery caused thereby to the parties interested.

The Award of the Arbitrators in the case of the Delagoa Bay Railway has not yet been given. The Court will meet at Berne on the 24th instant to commence the discussions preliminary to a decision, which, it is believed, will not be much longer delayed. The proceedings have been prolonged in consequence of the voluminous documents which have been laid before the Tribunal and the necessary preparation of translations. There has been no procrastination on the part of the Arbitrators. The delays which have taken place have been agreed to by all the parties concerned. Her Majesty's Government cannot interfere with the proceedings of the Tribunal.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, if he is aware that four deaths have recently occurred in the Cavalry Barracks, Dublin, from typhoid fever; and whether any official directions have been given for the sanitary improvement of the quarters in which those outbreaks are constantly recurring?

I regret to say that several cases of enteric fever, of which three have proved fatal, have occurred among the cavalry stationed at Island Bridge Barracks, Dublin. Immediately this outbreak of disease was known at the War Office steps were taken to ascertain the cause. Careful investigation was made locally, and Sir Charles Cameron made a searching inquiry. A sanitary expert was sent over from London. All improvements represented by the experts to be immediately desirable were at once ordered to be carried out, and the Secretary of State is considering whether, in view of the facts disclosed, it may not be expedient to find some other site for the barracks rather than spend a large sum in improving their condition.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether the Government propose to bring forward any Measures this Session to simplify or consolidate the administration of secondary and technical education in Scotland?

The matters referred to in the question of the hon. Member are now under consideration, with the view of determining whether any changes in the present regulations are desirable; but there is no intention of proposing legislation on the subject during the present Session.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, what would be the cost of constructing the Sark-Guernsey cable; what is the distance between the two places; whether he has enough surplus cable in stock to lay this line; what answer was given to the large and influential Petition presented from the people of the Channel Islands in favour of constructing the cable, and has he any objection to lay the Petition upon the Table of the House?

The cost of the cable, including the expense of laying, is estimated at £1,350. There would also be some expense for land wires, instruments, &c. About 7½ miles of cable would be required. The Post Office has sufficient cable in hand for the purpose. The receipt of the Petition was acknowledged at the time, but no full reply has hitherto been sent. I have no objection to lay the Petition on the Table. But the course is most unusual, and would be most inconvenient if it were generally resorted to.

I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education if his attention has been drawn to the statements that the Assistant Commissioner, who reported upon the Secondary Schools of the West Riding of Yorkshire, reported upon departments of schools which he is alleged never to have seen; if he has himself made any inquiries into such statements, and has satisfied himself that the Assistant Commissioner did make proper examinations before reporting, and if the organisation of the Department over which he presides makes any provision for redress to teachers whose reputation is unjustly assailed?

This matter is not within the province of the Committee of Council on Education. They have no knowledge of the matters referred to in the question other than that derived from the Report of the Royal Commission on Secondary Education. The Committee of Council have no power to order any Inquiry, nor have they any jurisdiction over the Assistant Commissioner.

asked the right hon. Gentleman whether it was not a fact that grave dissatisfaction had been caused by the Report in question, and whether he would not reconsider his decision with a view to making some inquiry which would give satisfaction to the parties aggrieved, or suggest some method by which they could obtain the satisfaction to which they were entitled?

replied that he had no official information on the subject. He had heard privately that such dissatisfaction existed, but, as he had said, the Committee of Council had no power to make such an Inquiry, nor did he think they could exercise such power without an Act of Parliament conferring it.

said, that, as Chairman of the Royal Commission, perhaps he might be allowed to say that Mr. Laurie was appointed by the Commission upon evidence which satisfied the Members at the time as to his experience and ability. He now understood that Mr. Laurie was preparing a full Report in reply to the charges that had been made against his Report, and he thought it was only fair that, until that Report was received and published, it should not be assumed that the charges were well founded. ["Hear, hear."]

asked whether the Royal Commission had power to declare that the Report of Mr. Laurie should be withdrawn, if they were of opinion that it should be withdrawn?

said that, if he might be allowed to answer that question, he might say that, the Royal Commission having reported to Her Majesty, had now ceased to exist, and could therefore take no action.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether it is the case that arrangements are being made to increase the stamp duties payable by litigants in County Courts in Ireland; and, if so, what the reasons are for such a step?

In consequence of the discovery of serious irregularities in the practice as regard fees in Irish County Courts, the Lord Chancellor of Ireland recently appointed a Committee to revise and codify the former schedule of fees and frame improved regulations. His Lordship informed the Treasury that he could not hold out any expectation of a considerable increase in the total yield as a consequence of such revision.

Arising out of that answer, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is the fact that the stamp duties in Irish County Courts were nearly doubled in the year 1877, and whether he will, undertake that they will not now be further increased without first giving an opportunity for having the matter discussed in the House of Commons?

When the Committee of County Court Judges, who are considering the matter, make their report, I will communicate with the hon. Member with the view of meeting his wishes, if posssble.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if the negotiation with France as to Newfoundland has reached a stage at which any statement can properly be made with regard to it?

Her Majesty's Government have recently agreed with the French Government to renew, during the approaching season, the modus vivendi of 1890, relating to the lobster fisheries on the Treaty coast of Newfoundland. No negotiations are at present proceeding in regard to the general question of the French fishery rights.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he proposes to make an inquiry into the case of lighthouse keepers, who allege that they are underpaid and overworked, and who have petitioned the proper authorities on various occasions during the last few years?

The question whether some improvement should not be made in the position of light keepers has been under the consideration of the Board of Trade; but they do not see their way to come to a final decision until the Committee at present inquiring into the Mercantile Marine Fund have made their Report.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if the post office in Enniskillen has recently been reported to the sanitary authority as in an unsanitary condition; and, if it is the intention of the Department still to continue the use of these premises for the post office there?

I must ask the hon. Member to postpone his Question, and allow reasonable time for making inquiries.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been drawn to the application of the Colwyn Bay Urban District Council for powers under Section 33 of The Local Government Act, 1894, with reference to allotments and local charities; whether he is aware of the delay that occurred in dealing with the application; and, whether he will give the matter his attention?

With regard to the question of allotments, the Board are awaiting a reply to a letter which they addressed to the Urban District Council on the 12th November last, asking for certain information with regard to their proposal. On the 8th of this month the Board reminded the District Council that they had not received the information asked for. No reply has, as yet, been received by the Board. With respect to charities, the Board on the 18th instant received certain information for which they had applied in December last, and, subject to the concurrence of the Charity Commissioners, the Board are prepared to issue the Order applied for.

I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education, whether Mr. A. P. Laurie was appointed to the post of Assistant Commissioner to the Royal Commission on Secondary Education on the recommendation of the Education Department, or by the Royal Commissioners?

Mr. Laurie's appointment was not made on the recommendation of the Education Department, but by the Royal Commissioners.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether his attention has been called to the Seventeenth Annual Report of the Prison Commissioners for Scotland, in which it is stated that as regards the few female convicts still in custody (28 in all) many of them are old women, more fit for treatment in a poor house than in an institution for inflicting penal servitude; whether he has made any inquiry into the matter; and whether any steps are to be taken for transferring these women from the prison to the poor house?

My attention has been called to the statement referred to by the hon. Member. I may mention that the procedure in the case of convicts in Scottish Prisons is the same as that followed by the Home Office, namely, that each case is, on medical or other grounds, brought before the Secretary for Scotland from time to time for consideration as to revision of sentence. I have made inquiry and am informed by the Prison Commissioners that by the operation of the ordinary law and existing procedure, the number of 28 mentioned in the question has now fallen to 20. The Secretary for Scotland considers, therefore, that these cases are properly dealt with under the present procedure.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty, whether provision will be made for the widows and orphans of the 48 men who lost their lives in November last through the foundering of a boat of H.M.S. Edgar?

The widows and children of the men who lost their lives through the foundering of the boat of Her Majesty's ship Edgar will receive the usual pensions and allowances fixed by the regulations for such sad occurrences. So far as is known at present only four of the men left widows or children.

Some of the sailors had mothers and sisters dependent on them, and I should like to know whether their cases will be considered?

The question generally will be considered in the same way as other cases arising from loss of life. The recommendations lay down the scale precisely.

asked whether the Admiralty proposed to bring this case more especially under the consideration of those who administered the Greenwich Hospital or the various other funds which could be devoted to such purposes?

No decision has been taken with regard to that.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury when the Supplementary Estimates will be circulated?

said, that in all probability the Supplementary Estimates would be circulated on Monday.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he can give any information as to the average prices of agricultural produce and cattle in Ireland for the first three years of the working of the Land Acts of 1881 and 1887 respectively, and also for the year 1895?

I am making inquiries into this matter in consequence of a Notice of Motion which the hon. Gentleman had already placed on the Paper for Tuesday next. Perhaps he will repeat the question on Monday.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, if he can say what day the Irish Land Bill will be introduced; and, is it his intention to endeavour to pass the Bill in time to relieve the judicial tenants whose rents fall due upon 1st May, 1896?

No date can be fixed at present, but due notice will be given when the time comes round for my right hon. Friend near me (Mr. Gerald Balfour) to introduce the Bill. As I understand the second paragraph of the question, the hon. Member seems to be under a misapprehension. No revision of judicial rents can come into operation until next year under any circumstances.

asked whether the right hon. Gentleman could tell the House approximately the date when the Government intended to introduce the Bill? He presumed the Government intended to introduce it before Easter.

We earnestly desire to introduce it before Easter, but, unfortunately, this year the Supplementary Estimates are very heavy, and I should not like to give a pledge about the introduction of any Bill until I see what treatment the Estimates receive.

asked whether the right hon. Gentleman was aware that, in consequence of the communications that passed between the Chief Secretary and the Land Commission at the close of the year, and the statement then made by Mr. Justice Bewley, a large number of tenants in Ireland who were at present entitled to enter the Court to have their rents revised refrained from doing so in anticipation of this Bill?

As the hon. Member is well aware, that does not make any difference as to the period in which the new rents can be paid. Even if the tenants had used their right to go into Court last year, that would not have hastened by an hour the period at which any revised rent would have become due.

asked whether the right hon. Gentleman had received representations from all parts of Ireland as to the urgency of the Land Bill for Ireland?

I have not received such representations, but I am well aware that there is a very strong feeling in Ireland on the subject.

asked leave to bring in a Bill for shortening the duration of speeches in the Commons House of Parliament.

said, he would briefly state the reasons why he submitted the House should take the somewhat unusual course of not giving leave to introduce the Bill. The Bill was one of an unprecedented nature. It proposed to interfere with the privileges and powers of this House in a manner which had never been equalled even by the most despotic monarch in the history of their country. The object which the hon. Member had in view could be attained by the House passing a Standing Order, which would have the same effect as that which he proposed to enact by law. If an Act of Parliament was broken in this House he was not aware that the Speaker had any power inherent in him to compel its observance. An Act of Parliament was a brutum fulmen unless it was accompanied with pains and penalties, and he took it that Mr. Speaker could not enforce them. If an hon. Member chose to go on speaking beyond the time proposed in the Bill, he doubted whether the Speaker could order him to sit down as he could under a Standing Order to that effect. It would therefore be a question of a magistrate and pains and penalties. They did not want anything of that kind in this House. Again, supposing such an Act to pass, and they wanted to alter it? Instead of altering it as they could a Standing Order, they would have to ask the permission of the Monarch and the House of Peers. They ought not to discuss such a Bill, and they ought not to allow it to be brought in.

submitted that if his hon. Friend was right, then Mr. Speaker Peel and the House over which he presided was wrong, for a Bill of precisely the same character was brought in and its First Reading agreed to. He would venture to suggest that perhaps his hon. Friend had opposed this Bill because he was not aware that such a Bill had been introduced during the interregnum which took place in his Parliamentary service, by reasons over which he had no control, between the time when he represented Stockport and the borough which he now so ably represented. It would be improper for him to go into the details of the Bill, and he would only remind hon. Members that in the Bill to which he had already referred there was a clause that assimilated its procedure to the House of Clerical Convocation. He was aware that his hon. Friend was a well-known speaker at those assemblies, and therefore it was possible that because that clause had been omitted from his Bill, his hon. and learned Friend objected to it. He could only say that this was a small measure which he had endeavoured to promote in the interests of hon. Members, and if the House did not give it a First Reading, their decision would be accepted with all due humility by himself.

, in seconding the Motion, said, he was glad that this Motion did not raise any Party question. It was one which ought to be regarded with as much favour by Gentlemen representing Welsh constituencies and sitting on the opposite Benches, as by those with whom he usually acted. The substance of the Resolution had been supported by non-political societies throughout Wales, and was in the broadest sense a national question. He was further encouraged by the fact that the replies given to questions by the last Minister of Education and the present Vice President of the Council were of the most kindly and encouraging character. The late Vice President, speaking on the 21st August, 1894, said that he had no doubt some place would be found for a Central Museum, and he could only say that when the time came he should be glad to apply the same system to Wales as was applied in Edinburgh and Dublin, and, although Chancellors of the Exchequer were persons who proverbially sat tight on the lid of the Treasury chest, the late Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir W. Harcourt), when appealed to on the subject, did not give any negative reply, but simply said that the Principality had not been neglected during the Session of 1894, and that the Government would always be ready to consider the claims of Wales. When the matter was brought up last year, the right hon. Member for Cambridge University stated that he must express his own most friendly feeling towards Welsh nationality, and his most earnest desire to see a Welsh National Museum established. There was therefore ample justification for bringing this matter forward. What was the request they made? It was that Wales should be treated proportionately to population on the same footing as Scotland and Ireland, in regard to Museum grants. Now how did Wales stand as compared with Scotland and Ireland in grants for Museum purposes? The Estimates passed in August last showed that Scotland received for a National Gallery and a Museum of Science and Art £17,032, while Ireland received for a National Gallery, Library, School of Art, Royal College of Science, Hibernian Academy, and Botanic Gardens, £31,254, making a total for Scotland and Ireland of £48,286 per annum. This did not include any expenditure on capital account. A magnificent building had been erected in Dublin, which had cost about £150,000 and had been erected as a natural corollary to the system of Intermediate Education which had been established in Ireland. Now Wales had started her system of Intermediate Education, and what they asked was that to complete the educational edifice she should receive in capital and income her proportionate share of Museum grants, in respect of which she at present received nothing. The museums, libraries, art galleries, horticultural gardens, and scientific collections which had been established in Scotland and Ireland had enriched the life of the Scottish and Irish nations, and he would never grudge money which was spent on institutions which not only gave the youth of the nation a better equipment for the battle of life, but added beauty and variety of interest to the national life. No objection could be raised on the ground that Wales ought not to be separately treated in this matter. Scotland and Ireland were parts of the United Kingdom, but they were separately dealt with in regard to Museum Grants. Wales repeatedly had received special treatment in all matters relating to Intermediate and Higher Education at the hands of both Liberal and Unionist Governments, and the object of the present Motion was the natural and logical sequel of the policy pursued towards Wales by both parties in regard to educational matters of a non-controversial character. Whatever might be said about Nationalism of a partisan character, there was, after all, a kind of Welsh Nationalism in which the representatives of Wales were all agreed, and the question raised by this Motion belonged to that kind of Nationalism; it lay outside the sphere of party politics, and he hoped no party spirit would be introduced into it. They might be told that they in Wales had their share in the British Museum. So had the people of Scotland and Ireland, and yet they had National Museums of their own. And of what use was the British Museum to Wales? He had no doubt that that great institution looked well after the antiquarian interests of the remotest regions on the surface of the globe—he only wished it could spare a little time to the antiquities of the Welsh people. He did not object to the British Museum delving into the antiquities of every distant country, but it paid so little regard to Wales that it was absurd to regard the British Museum as an effective substitute for a National Museum for Wales ["Hear, hear!"] When valuable collections of Welsh books and manuscripts, accumulated with the patient care and work of a lifetime, were about to be dispersed under the auctioneer's hammer, where was the British Museum? Why, they had not a single Welsh expert attached to that Museum to make purchases. For example, the collections of the late Mr. E. G. Salisbury, who once represented Parliament in Chester for some years, would have been absolutely lost to Wales so far as the British Museum was concerned. The other day they saw that Owen Glyndwr's badge had been sold in a London auction room for £70. Many excellent collections of ancient Welsh manuscripts like the one made by Ieuan Brydydd Hir had been scattered to the four winds, and the British Museum had failed to save them. Some had been entirely lost, and others were in the hands of persons who were ignorant of their value. One collection had been bought by a Scotchman, but fortunately, unlike many owners who imposed unreasonable restrictions on the copying of Welsh manuscripts, he was always ready to allow them to be consulted. He once wrote to a literary Welshman that he had several poems written by a bard named "A'i Cant." This was just as if a person had made a collection of paintings, and in writing to a connoisseur had said he had a considerable number of pictures painted by a man called "Pinxit." [Laughter.] In this case the manuscripts had fallen into good hands, but how frequently did it happen otherwise? Many a collector would put more heart into his work if he knew that his antiquities might be acquired by a National Museum. Another danger to which Welsh manuscripts were liable was one which could hardly arise in connection with a National Museum, viz.: the danger from fire. The magnificent Raglan collection of manuscripts in South Wales had been destroyed by fire; the Wynnstay Library in North Wales had been similarly destroyed, and in these and other conflagrations a great number of manuscripts, which could never be recovered, had been lost to the nation. Then there were a large number of manuscripts in the Record Office relating to Wales, which might be usefully handed over to a Welsh Museum. The records of the Second Cymmrodorion Society had been deposited at the British Museum because there was no Welsh institution to receive them. The records of Pembrokeshire had been sent to the Home Office for the same reason, and no one could now obtain access to them without waiting a long time, paying a large sum for transcripts, and undergoing other inconveniences. Welshmen were obliged to go through all these forms for permission to see their own Records. There were also the Ruthin Court Rolls and the Records of other Welsh Courts and Counties which could throw a flood of light upon the condition of Wales in the Middle Ages, but which would never see the light unless they could be transferred to Wales and dealt with by Welsh experts. At the present rate of progress at the Record Office, crowded as it was with documents and undermanned with officials, it would take centuries to overhaul the manuscripts relating to Wales, and he, hoped that the work would be given to an institution which could deal with them properly. He had said nothing about the scientific and utilitarian side of the museum. Some people regarded a museum as a mere storehouse of stuffed whales and bottled crabs and specimens of that description. They were evidently ignorant of the fact that in the countries where education was most successfully pursued, both for its own sake and for the material advantages it brought in its train, museums, libraries and art galleries occupied a much more important place than they did in this country. [Cheers.] Museums might be made in this country, as they were in America and other countries, of value to the trades and industries of the districts in which they were situated. He could give one instance to show how useful a museum might be made to Wales. In many mining districts mine shafts were sunk and abandoned. If mining companies were required to send to the local museum a tracing of the plans which they were already required by law to keep, showing the strata through which their shafts and drivings had passed, a quantity of information of great value to the miners of the future would be collected. A national library was the indispensable ally of a national museum. There was no country in the world where there was a greater love of reading among the peasantry. The literary aptitude they had shown in their local and national Eisteddfodau was proverbial. A nation which actually possessed a literary peasantry deserved to have a national library. An essential part of the Museum grant was the provision made in England, Scotland and Ireland for the establishment of galleries of art. Praiseworthy efforts had been made by a society, whose headquarters were at Conway, to establish the Royal Cambrian Academy of Art. That institution had been in existence for some years, and had done much for the cultivation of art in Wales. Their country was one of great natural beauty, many artists had made it their home, and it would be possible to create a school of art which would be a credit to the Principality. The great increase in art teaching, in consequence of the recent developments in technical instruction, had done much to stimulate and encourage natural talent in this direction. The objections to which he had referred had not been raised from the Treasury Bench. One objection, and one only, had been urged from that quarter to the proposal he had made last year and in 1894, which was in identical terms with the Motion now before the House. It was that Wales had no capital. But the Government did not surely expect them to create a capital for this particular purpose. The objection was merely put forward as a dilatory plea. What they asked was that the principle that Wales was entitled to the grant should be acknowledged, and then they would be quite ready, either through the University Court, or by means of a Joint Committee of Welsh County Councils, to formulate a scheme which would establish a museum in one part, a library in another part, and an art gallery in another part of Wales, all which would strengthen the museums and libraries now attached to University Colleges or otherwise, as might be found expedient. If they had one central and accessible spot, the difficulty would be solved, but as that did not exist, the important point was to ascertain the willingness of the Government to give them a reasonable share of the museum grant. They would then undertake to present a practicable scheme. The difficulty had been solved in higher education, and as this was also a purely educational question, it would not be hard to find a solution. The liberality of the Welsh people to educational institutions deserved acknowledgment. Was there a finer chapter in the educational history of any country than the efforts and sacrifices made by the Welsh people since the year 1880 for a complete system of education? What they asked was that that system should be completed in Wales as it had been completed elsewhere, by the adoption of those practical aids to teaching, and particularly scientific teaching, which had been found indispensable in other countries, and that a national museum, library and art gallery should be established to embody the historical, literary and artistic life of their country.

said, his constituents were greatly interested in this question, and therefore he begged to intervene for only a few moments in the Debate. The Motion had been brought forward by the Mover and Seconder in speeches which must have greatly impressed the House. He was quite sure that Members, on whichever side of the House they might sit, were of opinion that a very clear case had been made out for giving a grant to Wales similar to that which was granted to Scotland and Ireland. He would not like to go so far as the Seconder of the Motion, and to say that Wales was a distinct country or nation, but there was no doubt that Wales was the home of a particularly-interesting people, who had traditions and records stretching far back, and it was most desirable to gratify in every way the legitimate desires of that people to have their national records collected in a museum of their own. It was perfectly plain that where they had large industrial populations, such as they had both in South and North Wales, their educational requirements ought to be consulted, not only in the establishment of schools and colleges, but by the institution of a museum of this kind; because it was essential to a complete educational system. They had already granted a University to Wales, and it was only right that they should give her a National Museum also. He thought, so far as the necessity for this museum went, the case for Wales had been clearly made out. But the Seconder of the Motion referred to an objection which he thought was one of a rather serious character, when he referred to the difficulty of fixing upon a capital in which the museum should be placed. He tried to get over the difficulty by saying, "Oh, give us the money, and we will distribute it in some way or other over Wales." It seemed to him (Mr. Maclean), that it would be fatal to the idea of a national system to distribute the collection through the different parts of the Principality. They must have a central site where it could be placed.

begged to state that the hon. Gentleman had mistaken him altogether. The suggestion he had made was that the National Museum should be in one place, the Art Gallery in another and a Library in a third.

continuing, said, that that would be a very awkward arrangement that people should be obliged to go to one place for the Museum, to another for the Art Gallery, and to a third for the Library. They all knew that Wales was not exactly a homogeneous country. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Denbighshire, who was recognised as a leader of the Welsh Party opposite, told them the other evening that they on that (the Ministerial) side of the House, who sat for the great towns of Wales, only represented the English Colonies planted in the country; that the real Wales was to be found in the mountains, and that, in fact the Welsh population, as he represented it, consisted mainly of the hillside, or, as he supposed he should call them, the hilltop men. If that description were accurate, the best site for the museum would seem to be the top of Snowdon. But, of course, the bulk of the population really lived in the plains. There might be some rivalry amongst the different towns as to the site of this National Museum. He might be prejudiced in the matter, but he should say there was no town in Wales which could be compared for wealth, population and intelligence with the borough which he had the honour to represent. He dared say there would be competitors for the honour, just as there had been competitors for the honour of the birthplace of the poet Homer. What they really wanted was a National Museum, a Library and an Art Gallery established in Wales. He would suggest, as the best way of attaining that end, that there should be a conference of Welsh Members on both sides of the House to try and settle one way or the other where these institutions should be placed. In conclusion, he said he thought that this was a Motion which was worthy of their utmost sympathy.

thought that the difficulty raised as to the location of these institutions was easily got over, as was shown by the case of the British Museum, the library of which was in Bloomsbury, while the natural history building was situated in South Kensington. He wished to bear his testimony to the real desire there was in Wales for strengthening the museums that now existed. There were various ways in which a museum might be made to do good work in the educational advancement of the people. His experience was that the mineralogical and geological sections of a museum were especially instructive. People that would go with open mouths through other portions of the museum exhibited the greatest interest when they came to a department in which they found an exemplification of what they had learned in the technical schools. The geological section was always a centre of interest to young people. Museums, therefore, did great good in the places in which they were established; and the State did well to make grants for their maintenance and growth. Their growth was not much, but it was illustrated by the increasing uses to which they were put by the people. In Wales, however, the museums that did exist were starved for want of support.

said, his hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff had raised a difficulty as regards the site of the museum, with which it would not be difficult to deal. First let them get the grant, and if they got the grant he would undertake that the question of the site of the museum would be speedily settled, just as had happened in the case of the Welsh University Colleges. Every Welshman need be very thankful to his hon. Friend, the Member for East Glamorgan, for the way in which he had brought forward the Motion. But there was one phrase of his hon. Friend to which he took exception. It was the statement that Welshmen formed one of the oldest partners in the Imperial system. They were not only one of the oldest, but they were by far the oldest. Their ancestors had developed a very high civilisation at a time when the ancestors of English Gentlemen opposite lived in mud huts and ran wild in the woods, like the "noble savage" in the poem. [Laughter.] Welshmen did not grudge Scotland and Ireland their grants. But they said they were as distinct a nationality as these countries—indeed that they were a more distinct nationality than these countries. ["Hear, hear!"] They therefore did not make an ad misericordiam appeal for the grant, but claimed it as a matter of justice. ["Hear, hear!"] A museum was a great help to the education of the people. It was a sort of living education. He did not know anything that would help popular education more than a museum. And as there were no people in the whole of the United Kingdom who valued education more highly than the Welsh people; or who, during the past 15 or 16 years, had made greater sacrifices for education, he trusted that the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council—urged as he was to do so from both sides of the House—would obtain a grant from the magnificent surplus at the disposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to enable them to set up a National Museum in Wales.

was glad to associate himself with the Motion before the House. If the right hon. Gentleman would consent to modify it, in a way which he would indicate later on, he would heartily vote for it. He did not think the hon. Gentlemen who supported the Motion had stated the case for the Motion to the full. Indeed, in some respects they had understated the case. His right hon. Friend the Member for East Denbighshire, said that Wales was a distinct nationality. Why there were four distinct nationalities in Wales. First there was North Wales, where the pure blood of the ancient Britons and the classic language of the Celts were to be found—a language which was no more understood by the second nationality, the people of South Wales, than they of North Wales could understand the bastard, mongrel, provincial dialect of the South. [Laughter and cries of "No, no!"] Then there were the English-Welsh, or the Welsh-English who were as Welsh as the monoglot Celts, and who formed the increasing majority of the nation. The fourth distinct nationality were those who represented the Flemings of Pembrokeshire, the little England beyond Wales. The Welsh were a little divided among themselves. Antipathy was sometimes shown in South Wales to Members from North Wales who addressed meetings there; but that was a feeling which he hoped would be got rid of to some extent by the institution of museums. [Laughter.] As it took longer to go from Holyhead to St. David's than from Dublin to Paris, the difficulty in the way of establishing a museum hinged on the situation. But he thought he could solve the difficulty. There was a capital of Wales. It had been made a capital by general consent and not by Act of Parliament. He referred to Pengwern Powis, re-christened Shrewsbury [laughter], the central meeting place for Welshmen, whither the Welsh tribes went up together, if not to worship at least to talk, a sort of Welsh Jerusalem [laughter]. There was the great school of the West—Shrewsbury School—founded by the Welsh dynasty of Owen, sometimes erroneously called Tudor. [Laughter.] The history of the town abounded in instructive Welsh reminiscences. There, the Separatist King David was condemned by the Parliament of Acton Burnell to be hanged, drawn and quartered, a warning to Separatist Statesmen. [Laughter.] The alteration in the Motion which he would suggest was that the words "in Wales" be left out, in order to add "in some town accessible to all the inhabitants of Wales, and that Shrewsbury is the most convenient centre for a grand National Museum for the Principality." [Laughter.]

said, that there was a very strong feeling throughout the whole of the Principality in favour of having this National Museum; and while Scotland and Ireland were receiving £48,000 a year towards such objects Wales did not receive a single penny. Even larger contributions were made by the Governments of many foreign countries, notably Switzerland. Wales had not shown herself unworthy of or unable to appreciate such an institution as was desired; indeed, there was a strong literary feeling pervading the Welsh people. As to the purposes of this museum, it should be artistic, a storehouse for historical MSS., and a national library. In a recent number of the Nineteenth Century on a Public Record Office, Dr. Jessop had pointed out that such an office should not only be a warehouse for the safe custody of ancient muniments, but should be a library of reference open to all wishing to pursue serious research. Young men in Wales had often applied to him for assistance to pay their fares to London, in order that they might pursue some form of study at the British Museum. A national library would be a great boon to Wales. But was it the fact that Wales received towards educational objects so much money from the Exchequer as to invalidate her claim to a few thousands for a museum? Ireland received towards education £1,128,000, and with a population of 4,704,000 that came to 5s. per head. In addition she received £32,000 annually towards the Dublin and other museums. Scotland received £1,090,000 towards education, and a very large grant towards the Edinburgh Museum as well. Wales received towards education £315,000 per annum, and with a population of about 1,500,000 that came to 4s. per head. Wales received no additional grant for museums. Even if Wales were assumed to be as rich a country as England, this would be a great injustice; but Wales was really very much poorer, as was shown by an interesting return issued in 1892. In the year 1883, England paid for Income Tax under Schedule A at the rate of £6 4s. 2d. per head, while Wales paid at the rate of £4 8s. 1d. per head. Under Schedule D, England paid £9 11s. per head, while Wales paid £4 7s. In 1890, England paid under Schedule A £5 14s. 10d. per head, and Wales £2 1s. 1d. Under Schedule D, England paid£10 1s. 3d., and Wales paid £4 18s. 1d. Thus, as far as Income Tax returns went, Wales was not half as wealthy as England. In 1888–9, the amount of Treasury subventions paid to England was £803,688, or at the rate of 7½d. per head of the population. The amount paid to Wales in the same year was £36,624, or at the rate of 5¼d. per head of the population. If in this respect Wales received as much as England according to population, there would be an annual sum of £12,500 available, which would be nearly enough to build and equip a National Museum. But Wales had another plea besides poverty. Welshmen asked for help because they had helped themselves. Great sacrifices had been made by the Welsh people in the past for educational and literary purposes; and they appealed on the ground of simple justice for a favourable consideration of this claim.

said, that the museums which were under the direction of the Committee of the Council of Education were of a purely educational character. The Vote for their maintenance was included in the Educational Vote. He mentioned this because some hon. Members spoke as though the museum which they desired were to be a branch, not of the South Kensington Museum, but of the British Museum. If that were their intention, it was not covered by the Resolution. The Trustees of the British Museum were just as much interested in the antiquities and archæology of Wales as in those of any other part of the United Kingdom, and any valuable Welsh relics for which no suitable home had been found would find a fitting place of safety in the British Museum. But this Motion was probably made to secure for Wales a fair share of the grant for educational purposes. Now the museums established under the Science and Art Department were intended, not only as museums of reference for students, but as centers from which the distribution of objects of art and science suitable to an educational museum might be made to every part of the United Kingdom, and in that distribution Wales received her fair share, and any addition made to the museums would be in the direction of increasing the number of objects which could be circulated among the towns of the country and so be brought home to the people of the United Kingdom. Why was there no distributing centre in Wales? For this reason. In Ireland they were united that Dublin was their capital, and for Ireland the centre of distribution was, consequently, Dublin. In Scotland, Scotchmen were united in thinking that Edinburgh was the proper centre for distribution, and for students to come to pursue their studies. In England, London had, for this purpose, been chosen as the capital of England and Wales, for Wales had always been more intimately associated with England than Scotland or Ireland. He did not say the time might not come when it might be desirable to have a distributing centre for Wales to which Welsh students might resort to pursue their artistic and scientific studies. But this time had not come yet, because there was not yet a centre for educational purposes in Wales. When his predecessor made a sympathetic promise on the subject in 1894, he asked for the capital. When the subject was again raised in the short Session of 1895, he himself asked for the capital, and he was told there would be little delay in providing it, and he said at that time that the great obstacle in the way of dealing with the matter was that there was no particular place in Wales in which the Committee of Council on Education might place a museum if the Chancellor of the Exchequer provided the funds. There had been a good deal of development of Welsh education lately, and there was lying on the Table a Scheme for establishing a Central Board of Education for Wales. He looked with interest and curiosity to see where it was proposed that this Board should meet, as, probably, that might be the best place in which to erect a central museum for Wales, but he found that the Board was to meet in Shrewsbury in the County of Salop. [Laughter.] He presumed that the Board would determine what was to be the educational capital of Wales. When this was decided he promised hon. Members for Wales that the subject for erecting a Welsh central museum in the place decided upon would be given serious consideration. The right hon. Member for Denbigh said, "Give us the grant first and we will find the capital afterwards." [Cheers.] Hon. Members who had never been official Members cheered that, but he should have thought the right hon. Gentleman would have known better, because if he himself were to go to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for a grant to erect a museum, the first question asked would be—"Where is it to be erected?" and if the answer could not be given, he expected the Chancellor of the Exchequer would summarily dispose of the application. No doubt the Central Education Board would determine what the educational capital of Wales was to be. When this was settled, the Educational Department would consider the propriety of establishing a museum there. He was unable to support the Resolution, not merely because it was inaccurate to say Wales received no share of the museum grants of the United Kingdom—for she received the same share as Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool, or any of the great cities outside London received—but because the Resolution, if carried, would render necessary a revision of the Estimates and some amount being placed on the Estimates to carry it out. No such sum could be obtained at the present time for the reasons he had given. He did not say this was an insuperable objection, but the Department must first know where the money was got from. They could not have the grant first and decide upon the capital afterwards; they must settle upon the capital, and then ask for the grant. He hoped this Statement, which he made on behalf of the Committee of Council on Education, would be satisfactory to the hon. Members who raised this Debate.

The case has been so well stated by gentlemen who have much more knowledge of the subject than I have, that I would not have intervened in the Debate if the right hon. Gentleman opposite had not pointedly appealed to me. But, from the information I have, I think I can answer the only objection he has to this Resolution, and that conclusively. He says—"You must find your capital before you get your grant." Well, in commercial operations, we know that when the interest is guaranteed we find the capital is often found. [Laughter and "Hear, hear!"] I will give him a practical illustration of a case where the circumstances were extremely similar. I am told that in 1882 the money was sanctioned for University Colleges in Wales. There was then a contest between various towns which claimed to have the Colleges. The matter was referred to arbitration, and it was determined that the two University towns should be Bangor and Cardiff. Thereupon the money was given. ["Hear, hear!"] The right hon. Gentleman asks me, as a former Chancellor of the Exchequer, to endorse his doctrine. I am sorry I must contradict it altogether. If arbitration is resorted to in this case, no doubt a wise decision will be taken. The right hon. Gentleman raises no objection on the score of money. If the objection the right hon. Gentleman has made is the only one he has to offer, I will only say that, according to the measure of my means, when I was at the Treasury I did what I could. Those means were not very abundant, but the argument which influenced me most of all was that out of her limited resources no part of the Kingdom had made greater exertions for education than Wales. That was my opinion when I was at the Treasury. It is my opinion now, and I think the Treasury should help those who help themselves, and that from that standpoint Wales has a claim on the Treasury. The demand made is not great; the difficulties raised are not well founded, and I hope, in these circumstances, the right hon. Gentleman opposite will not object to recording this Resolution in favour of Wales having a central museum for educational purposes. Such a museum, to be of use to people who are not rich, must be close at hand. To say that the British Museum is available to the people of Wales is like saying anyone can have turtle soup who can afford to pay for it. But where you have a country where education is valued, and where the people are not rich, it is above all things necessary that the means of their education should be available to them and close at hand. [Cheers.] In these circumstances he hoped that there would be no objection on the part of the right hon. Gentleman opposite to allow this Resolution to be recorded, because he was sure that if they had the will they had the means to carry it into effect. ["Hear, hear!"]

said, he had taken an interest in this subject for many years and took part in the deliberations of the Select Committee which sat during two Sessions of the last Parliament to consider this most difficult subject. As a manager of schools, and as a member of the councils of training colleges, he had watched the conduct of teachers in their calling, and had felt admiration for them, and when they began to fail, under the stress of work and advancing years, he looked upon them with respectful sympathy. The hon. Member who had just spoken, perhaps somewhat exaggerated his case as regarded contract, still he thought on moral grounds the case could not be exaggerated. He remembered having a conversation with Mr. Forster upon this subject, and he was quite sure that if he had thought there had been any breach of faith, he would have been the first to move in order to fully fulfil that obligation. Mr. Forster had the strongest desire that teachers should have pensions and any movement in that direction received from him every encouragement and every support. He felt himself that whatever was the technical construction of an official document, the teachers had laboured during many years under a keen sense of disappointment. That feeling, he thought, was just, and he believed the time had now come when that disappointment should be removed and the fullest justice done to all teachers who had, inferentially and morally, any claim upon these pensions. There had been a grave misunderstanding on this matter between teachers on the one hand and successive Ministers on the other, but he hoped that before the present Government left office justice would be done. He would not venture to allude to the financial part of this case further than to say that he believed they could arrive at such a figure as would be amply sufficient to meet the case and to do full justice to all. If in the days of Mr. Forster there was great anxiety felt by him to pension teachers, the case had since become much stronger. The claims of the teachers had become greater because their numbers had increased. In almost every department there was a desire to pension those who, by age or infirmity, were no longer capable of doing good service. They had pensions in the police, in the army, in the navy, in branches of civil service and in municipalities throughout the country, and it was an act of signal injustice to the teachers not to give them a corresponding advantage; and not to afford them hopes of that support in old age, which was given to every public servant in various departments. But it was not only for the sake of the teachers that he desired it. He desired it for the sake of the schools. They desired to have in these days of progress a succession of teachers. The demands of the Department had increased, and the claims of the Department on the teachers as regarded intellectual proficiency were increased in the same proportion. There could be no doubt that many teachers of great merit who had passed many years in the service, were no longer able to meet those new requirements, and did not command in the market as high salaries as they were entitled to on the grounds of intelligence and merit. That acted detrimentally on the schools.

called attention to the fact that forty Members were not present, but a quorum was made by Members entering the House.

continuing, said, he regretted that an attempt should be made from his own side of the House to interrupt a Debate which so much interested the Members of the teaching profession. He wished, in a few words, to summarise what were the defects of the present system. First, it was eminently incomplete. Many deserving teachers had to go entirely without pensions; and the wise exercise of choice between those to receive pensions and those to be refused was very difficult indeed—in fact, almost impossible. Each individual teacher was the victim of constant uncertainty as to the future. No teacher, however meritorious, could be quite sure that his case would be considered an urgent one. This feeling of uncertainty must always be accompanied by a sense of hardship. A man who failed to obtain a pension felt that he had been treated with injustice. This uncertainty and risk must be highly injurious to the good work of a school. There was another aspect of the matter worth mentioning, and that was the difficulty of the task which the pension system imposed upon the Minister who had to administer it. He must feel that he could not hope to do justice under circumstances of extreme difficulty and embarrassment. A Minister of State ought not to be involved in such entanglement. This was not the first time he had spoken to the House on the subject. After the part he took on a Committee two or three years ago, he felt bound to submit his views to the present House, and to say a few words in support of that meritorious class of public servants, the teachers in the elementary schools. He felt that to deprive them of pensions would be a great wrong, while to give pensions to all who deserved them was to inspire all with new hope, to stir them up to new zeal, and to give them greater interest and emulation in the pursuit of their high and valuable calling. ["Hear, hear!"]

said, he could not allow the appeal made by the hon. Member for West Nottingham to pass without saying a word on behalf of men, some of whom he had known from 40 to 50 years, and almost all of whom, like himself, were getting old, some of them being 70 years of age. He considered they had a special claim, because they were made to understand that the Government would put them on the pension list. They ought to remember, as had been stated by the last speaker, that a teacher was practically past work at the age of 60, that at that age the strain of his past employment began to tell upon the brain and the nerves, and that he was really incapable of maintaining his best working standard after that. If he had not been placed in circumstances to save something for old age, it must be a dreary outlook for a man, as his powers begin to fail, and the consciousness must, more or less, unfit him for his work. Every man ought to have a sense of security that if he laboured earnestly for the community he would not have to face poverty in old age. The men who became teachers in the forties had very hard work to do; it was pioneer work which they had to do; they had to deal with stolid ignorance and indifference on the part of parents; they had to break ground and bring children under discipline, and on these rounds they had a very special claim. In those early days salaries were not what they are now, though even yet teachers are underpaid. If we were to have the best men to give the best education we must see that public provision was made for teachers which would put them in a position to do their work with devotion. If it were so willed, let them be made independent of pensions, but that had not been their position hitherto. When he was at college in 1846, and for many years afterwards, while there were a few prizes in the profession, the great body of teachers were paid on a scale which clearly precluded any provision for the future. He could trust to the sympathy as well as to the sense of justice of the President of the Council, because he had already appealed to him in the case of a teacher who had been incapacitated by a serious accident, and he got a reply that this teacher should have a pension. This was an indication of the disposition that prevailed, and he felt that he could leave this appeal in the hands of the right hon. Gentleman. On the general question he would ask why, if we pensioned old soldiers, we should not pension those who were more valuable to the community? A man who made money, it might be millions, might imagine that he did something for the community, but the teachers did more, because they made men, and moulded the characters of future generations. They developed the whole nation, and, when the nation learned to prize their services as it ought to do, it would not grudge them small pensions such as were now asked for on behalf of the early pioneers. [Cheers.]

said, that no one could have listened to the speech of the last speaker (Mr. Cameron) without being struck by the fact that it was dominated by an earnestness which must command almost universal sympathy in the House. He was glad to hear from the hon. Member the declaration that the future character of children was being moulded in the elementary schools, and he earnestly hoped that, when another aspect of this question was brought before the House, it would be remembered how important it was for the future of the country that the characters of the children should be moulded aright. He should like to associate himself with those who had addressed the House in their appreciation of the noble work and high character of those who were now engaged in teaching. They were men and women, not only of high character, but of great intellectual acquirements; and he should be the last man to say that for their ability and for their services they were overpaid. But when he had said that he should like to suggest the division of teachers broadly into two classes—those who were fairly well paid, and those who were very badly paid. When they were thinking of how they were best going to lay out their money, they would rather devote it to those who were badly paid than to those who were fairly well paid, and especially would they do that when the sum already expended on behalf of elementary education had reached its present enormous figure. Therefore he would like to remind the House that a general pension scheme would, in effect, be an increase of the emoluments of teachers, alike of the well paid, of the moderately paid, and of the badly paid, and the increase would come to a heavy figure in the Annual Estimate. He should be sorry that the Government or the House should for a moment forget that there was another charge which would be made upon the resources of the country on behalf of elementary education, and which should be devoted largely to the increase of the salaries and the emoluments of the teachers who were badly paid. Until the unfortunate teachers in the Voluntary Schools could be better paid than they are at present, and put more on the level of Board School Teachers, he should be loth to consent to any expenditure of public money which would help those who at present are much better paid. Although, undoubtedly, a great deal was to be said for the superannuation of teachers, yet much would depend upon the treatment of the other subject to which he alluded. Until the urgent demands of Voluntary Schools were satisfied, he should like to enter an emphatic protest against the devotion of money to the purpose of pensions, an object which, though good in itself, must stand second. He hoped the Government would not diminish by one halfpenny the sum they might devote to the great and important purpose to which he alluded. In order that that might be done, this granting of pensions, though good in itself, must take a second place.

desired to recall attention to the form in which the matter had been introduced by the hon. Member for Nottingham. They had not before them the question of the superannuation of teachers generally, on which many of them had strong feelings, but now they had to consider only the definite and specific case of certain teachers who were engaged in the work of education before May, 1862. In support of their claim, appeal was made to two Minutes of the Education Department. By that of 1846, unquestionably teachers entering the service had put before them the proposal of some species of superannuation, to some extent, to some amount. Although he did not go so far as to say there was a direct contract in the undertaking of 1846, because it contained the word ''may,'' and not ''must'' or ''shall,'' thus leaving it optional with the Department to say whether, in individual cases, an applicant was entitled to a pension, he yet held that there was a moral obligation which made it incumbent upon the Department to meet the cases of those who entered the service at that time. The restrictions that were introduced in 1851 were obviously a consequence of the large number of applications, and, indirectly, those restrictions were an acknowledgment of the fact that there was an undertaking and a moral obligation. There was, therefore, a strong case in support of the claims of teachers who entered the service, and one which merited the approval of the House. He earnestly hoped the House would give fair consideration to the proposal of the hon. Member on the conditions exactly described in the Motion, and not go further into the question of superannuation at large.

entirely sympathised with the observations made in the several speeches on the subject of superannuation, but with the leave of the House he would not enter into the subject that night. A former House of Commons unanimously determined that there should be State assistance in the way of pensions to elementary school teachers, and he earnestly hoped many weeks would not elapse before he was able to ask the House of Commons for leave to bring in a Bill to give effect to the Resolution of a former House of Commons. He would confine a few observations he had to make to the subject of the notice given by the hon. Member for Nottingham, which had reference entirely to the case of teachers who entered the service of elementary schools before 1862. In 1862, by that celebrated revised code, all pensions were put an end to, whether wisely or unwisely he need not now discuss. But the teachers after 1862 had not the same claim as those before, who were induced to enter the service of the State by a promise of pensions of some kind or another. He would not attempt to go into a defence of the Committee of Council on Education of days gone by. It was a matter of history, and although the language of the hon. Member for Nottingham was somewhat strong on the subject, he did not think he was called upon to take up cudgels for former Committees of Council on Education. All he had to do was to see that justice was done now. With regard to the teachers prior to 1862, they belonged to two distinct categories—those who entered between 1846 and 1852, and those who entered between 1852 and 1862. As regarded the former, it was admitted by the Government in 1884, and had been practically admitted ever since, that they had an undoubted right to a pension of some kind, and for many years past all teachers appointed prior to 1852 who had become incapacitated by age or infirmity, had received pensions from a fund upon which there had been no limit. The hon. Member for Nottingham said they had not had pensions of as great an amount as they were entitled to. He was afraid that was always a very vexed question in the public service. The Minute of 1846 did not specify any particular pension, but it certainly said that their pension was not to exceed two-thirds of their salary. He knew it was often contended by pensioners that when it was stated the pension was not to exceed two-thirds of the salary it was to amount to that. But it was a contention never admitted by any Department of the State with which he had ever been connected, and he did not know here was really a very strong case to clam a pension of that amount. At any rate, they had had a pension of some kind or other. As regarded those who entered between 1852 and 1862, the case had been much more cruel. In 1851 clear notice was given by a Minute of the Committee of Council as to what the amount of the pensions would be, because in 1851 it was expressly laid down that there would be 20 of £30, 100 of £25, and 150 of £20 each, and special gratuities amounting to £400, making altogether a sum of £6,500, which was to be the limit, after that date, appropriated to teachers of all classes—both those between 1846 and 1852 and those who entered after. It was a very meagre provision, and one which from the first, was unsatisfactory. As regarded teachers appointed before 1852, they were long ago taken out of that amount of £6,500, and were awarded pensions out of a fund to which no limit was attached. As regarded those appointed between 1852 and 1862 they were restricted for many years to this sum of £6,500, and not a penny more was spent by the nation in pensioning those unfortunate teachers. In 1892 Sir George Kekewich, then Mr. Kekewich, in his evidence before a Select Committee pronounced the amount of £6,500, though it had long been appropiated to teachers appointed between 1852 and 1862, as absolutely inadequate, and he said:—

"There is no sadder task that we have to consider than the pension applications, because we can only award to the most wretched and pitiable cases, and not to one quarter of these."

That was the state of affairs in 1892, and in that year there was a very cruel grievance on the part of these retiring teachers. It was not a breach of contract, because the amount in 1852 was specifically limited; but although it was not a breach of contract on the part of the State, it was a very hard and cruel measure which was meted out to these highly deserving public servants. He was, however, bound to inform the House that since 1892 that state of things had entirely altered, and the grievance which was so acute in 1892 existed no longer, because although this fund of £6,500 was limited in the Minute of 1851, the Treasury had favourably considered the case of those teachers on every occasion when the Committee of Council on Education had had occasion to apply to the Treasury. In 1893 an addition was made to this fund of £6,500 of £5,000, or nearly double. In December, 1894, a further addition of £1,425 was made to the fund; in June and November of last year a still further addition of no less than £2,155 was made, and he might tell the House that in the present year a further handsome addition had been made by the Treasury to the fund in order to enable that favourable consideration to be given to the cases which the hon. Member for Nottingham demanded in the notice he had given. Practically there was no limit to the fund, and all deserving cases of teachers appointed between 1852 and 1862, who were entitled to pensions, and who in the opinion of the Committee of the Council on Education ought to have them, would now be pensioned.

Is that for this year only, or will it apply to subsequent years?

could not pledge his successors or the Chancellor of the Exchequer's successors. This, however, had been done in the present year, and if he should remain in the office he now held he should ask for a similar grant next year, supposing that, in the meantime, the superannuation scheme had not passed through the House, as he hoped it would have done. This was rather done as a temporary measure to tide over the interval before the introduction of the superannuation scheme which the House had desired should be passed. All he could do was to assure the hon. Member for Nottingham, and other Members of this House who justly sympathised with this deserving class of public servants, that at the present moment there was practically no grievance at all. Of course there might be differences of opinion as to whether pensions ought or ought not to be awarded; but the Committee of Council on Education were at the present moment able to award to teachers who had entered their service before 1862 pensions in every case in which they thought a pension ought to be granted. He hoped the explanation he had made would be satisfactory to the hon. Member for Nottingham and other hon. Members of the House.

assured the hon. Member that he could not do otherwise than express a strong feeling with reference to the proceedings which had occurred in the park. He had endeavoured so to express himself the previous day when he said, and now repeated, that it was a great misfortune, to say the least, not only that intemperate language should be used on any subject in the park, but especially that such intemperate language should be used in discussing religious matters, and that there should be such an exhibition of sacred emblems as that which had excited the indignation of the hon. Member and his coreligionists. All right-minded persons regretted to see earnest and enthusiastic men, in advocating claims in support of their own view of the Christian religion, driven to act in such a way as unduly to exasperate the sentiments of those from whom they differed. The hon. Member asked whether nothing could be done under the Parks Regulation Act to put an end to these unhappy proceedings. He had endeavoured to explain the previous day, and in the answer which he had given that afternoon, that, so far as he understood the position and was advised, those proceedings were not illegal, were not disorderly, and that the police had no right or power to interfere. The right to hold these meetings was regulated by the Parks Regulation Act of 1872, and by the rules made thereunder by the Commissioner of Public Works and Buildings. Those rules enacted that—

'No public address of an unlawful character or for an unlawful purpose may be delivered, and no assembly of persons is permitted in the park unless conducted in a decent and orderly manner."

From a police point of view, he was advised that those meetings were not indecent and disorderly, although it was admitted that the gestures used and the exhibition made by the lecturer on more than one occasion did excite certain persons listening to him to commit an assault; still he was advised that the police had no power to interfere. The hon. Member might have heard of a celebrated case in which it was laid down that an assembly was not an unlawful assembly merely because it was likely to provoke a breach of the peace.

said, his question was not so much with regard to whether an assembly was lawful or not, but it was directed rather to a public and offensive exhibition calculated to lead to a breach of the peace.

said, that the Regulations made no mention of any exhibition of emblems. If, however, upon consideration, it was found to be possible to make Regulations to prevent improper exhibitions of emblems, he would be happy to consult with his right hon. Friend to see whether any improvement could be made in the Regulations of the park. But he was of opinion that the police could not have acted otherwise than they did. He hoped that some good might be effected by a general expression of opinion on the part of the House which might induce people to be more moderate in the expression of their convictions.

maintained, the opinion of the police to the contrary, that the exhibition in the park about which they complained was indecent, and if persevered in the result would be disorder, and he would be one of those prepared to justify the disorder. If the law was not prepared to deal with the lecturer, the people were justified in resenting the insulting expressions and exhibitions of the lecturer. Twenty years ago similar exhibitions took place in many parts of Lancashire, and the result was a loss of life and the wreckage of property. A lecturer named Murphy went through the towns of Lancashire and gave exhibitions of a most offensive character before Roman Catholics. Stalybridge was the scene of a riot, and the town was under a state of siege for nearly a month. He hoped that the right hon. Gentleman might be able to induce the police to alter their opinion, and to get them to use pressure within the law, as in Ireland, to prevent a serious disturbance.

said, it was a matter of regret to him that the hon. Member had not remained satisfied with the answer of the Home Secretary when the question was put two days ago. He believed that the right hon. Gentleman said everything then which reason and a due regard for public meeting warranted. He trusted that the right hon. Gentleman, in spite of the representations of hon. Members, would hesitate to interfere with the right of public meeting and free speech and the right of discussion in public places, even if ignorant and misguided men might abuse a right which was generally used with consideration to other people's feelings and to the advantage of the community as a whole.

said, he objected neither to the meetings nor the speeches, but to the insulting of the sacred emblems.

pointed out that the last speaker appealed to the Home Secretary to bring pressure to bear within the law, to exercise his position as Home Secretary to induce the police to anticipate disturbances by removing the cause of them.

said, he advocated the use of the right hon. Gentleman's authority to get the police to prevent these men from making exhibitions of sacred emblems, an exhibition which alone would cause disturbance in the park.

said, the hon. Member might personally not like the exposure of religious emblems, which naturally offended men of particular religious persuasions, but if the Home Secretary complied with the hon. Member's request where was this restriction going to end? If wafers to-day, why not political banners to-morrow? ["Hear, hear!"] He would rather that men exercised unconditionally the right of free speech at public meetings even to the point of actual abuse rather than see the right tampered with in any way whatever. The feature of English life which most forcibly struck visitors to this country, even from Ireland, was the freedom the working classes enjoyed in London for the unrestricted discussion of everything they considered to be a grievance. He was astonished to hear this demand for pressure within the law coming from Irishmen. He would appeal to his Irish friends not to press this matter further. If they did they would have every London representative against them, and the result would be excited meetings of Protestants and Catholics at this very spot in Hyde Park, and notoriety given to men who had misbehaved themselves and who would be flattered by the advertisement they had received. What he should like would be to see the latitude enjoyed in London extended at once to Dublin and every Irish city.

said, Catholics contended that the exhibition of religious emblems complained of was not only offensive but insulting; and it should really be considered a breach of the common law. If the Home Secretary had not power to deal with the matter under the park regulations, or under the common law, then the Act ought to be amended so as to make this exhibition an offence. The hon. Member for Battersea forgot that no charge of giving offence of this kind had ever been brought against Catholics in Ireland. What was complained of now was not the holding of meetings, but the use of language calculated to be offensive. He would rather submit to language of this kind than to interference with the right of meeting, but what was complained of could be remedied without such interference by preventing the exhibition of emblems in an offensive manner.

said, he listened with pleasure to the speech of the hon. Member for Battersea, who enunciated the principle of equal rights and liberties for all, and his views would commend themselves to every liberty-loving subject. It might be that emblems had been displayed in an offensive manner; he had no independent evidence one way or the other; but in Ireland they had to fight for freedom of speech from generation to generation; and in Dublin and Cork processions, with banners, emblems, and music not liked in the North had been tolerated by the executive, whilst men had gone to prison for getting up similar Orange processions in Ulster. ["Oh, oh!"] The hon. Member who introduced the matter had dealt with a difficult subject with good taste and in a manner which left little to complain of; and he hoped he should not offend hon. Members opposite if he said that by the Canon law of Rome there was no toleration for opponents of Roman Catholicism either in this world or the next. [Laughter.] He hoped all parties in London would avoid the needless giving of offence, and he had no doubt the result of the discussion would be still further to vindicate the rights and liberties of which Englishmen were proud.

had given notice of the following Resolution, which he was precluded from moving by the result of the division on the first Motion:—

"That in the opinion of this House it is desirable to introduce the principle of the institution known as the Initiative and Referendum, with the view of more fully securing the direct and continuous control of the Legislature by the people."

He said, he was rather taken by surprise that the Resolution had been reached so soon and that he had expected to have a longer time for researches necessary for the support of the Motion. Yet, if he did not avail himself of this opportunity, perhaps he would have none at all. There might appear to be something Quixotic in putting down such a resolution; but he was satisfied that those who believed in Democratic principles ought to lose no time in pushing them as far as they could. We were face to face with a formidable recrudescence of aristocratic ideas as to Government; more and more power was passing away from the bulk of the Members of the House into the hands of the alternating oligarchs of the Treasury Bench. The hereditary chamber had distinctly strengthened its position. Therefore, the democratising of our Constitution must be pursued more aggressively than ever, and at the same time security should be taken against the evils incident to Democracy itself. He would deal with the principle underlying the two institutions mentioned in the Resolution, without contending for every detail in the method of working out those institutions and of applying them to political life, which might have been adopted by those countries in which they were in operation. In all cases error of method must be corrected by experience, and such details were not of the essence of the institutions. To his mind what they substantially embodied was the right of the people to interpose at any time in order to control law-makers in their law-making work. Practically there could be only one species of what was called Initiative and that was the demand of the electors or of a part of them that a law should be passed, and then it became the duty of the law-making body to put the demand into statutory shape. And then under the Referendum the electors might say whether they were satisfied with the law as they find it to have been shaped into legal form by their representatives. It had often been said by opponents of these institutions that this was a dangerous power to be lodged in the hands of the people and might, in moments of excitement, lead to the gravest disasters. But it had not hitherto done so, and surely it was not beyond the Constitution-makers' ingenuity to suggest to the people safeguards by which they might protect themselves from that impatience and haste which human nature in its limitations was always liable, anywhere and everywhere, to make the means of bringing danger upon itself. There was only one species of Referendum. In saying this he was not forgetting that in Switzerland, in a certain class of Federal laws, and in some Cantons in the case of all laws, there was a compulsory Referendum, that was to say the laws made by the law-making body, whether on their own initiative or that of the electorate, must be submitted to popular approval or disapproval, while in other instances there was an optional Referendum. The electorate might interpose and veto a law or not according as their own inclination took them. But whether it be a compulsory or an optional Referendum, the people had it in their power with certain unimportant exceptions to forbid any Bill, though completely carried by the legislature, passing into law. Accordingly, taking the two together—the Initiative and the Referendum—the Swiss people had virtually the power of directing or forbidding their legislative body to legislate as they thought fit. The optional and compulsory Referendum although different in form were practically equivalent. If he were to make a comparison between them, he should say the optional Referendum was more just to the idea of complete sovereignty in the people. It gave more freedom to express opinion or withhold it as they judged suitable to themselves and their circumstances. What fault from a Democratic point of view, could be found with the complete power of the people to control positively or negatively, the action of the legislature. Yet it was from a certain class of professed Democrats that the professional opponents of all Democracy got their best help to oppose this extension of Democratic principles. But how could they consistently object to the sovereign people having the last word? There had been various instances in the history of Swiss Referendum in which the people had rejected certain measures and subsequently accepted them. Then it was said this proposal would destroy the Parliamentary system and reduce Parliament to a mere body of subordinate officials whose principal business was to put into shape the directions that had been given from outside. This was very much what was going on to his mind in Parliaments already—in a Parliament not a hundred miles from that House. All legislation was going—as all administration had long gone—into the hands of the co-optative oligarchies that sat on the front Benches. ["Hear, hear!"] There they were holding the positions they had acquired to command the law-making machinery which stood behind them and even if the Initiative and Referendum had that effect on Parliaments, it should not seem so terrible and lamentable a rule because it was nothing new and had been tested, and its results were not so terribly mischievous. As a matter of fact, what was the General Election but a rough and ready Referendum. In Switzerland it was reduced to a system and each measure was judged by itself alone and on its own merits, and they should not have a man elected for Free Trade and opposed on account of Disestablishment. Each question was taken separately and on its merits, and the consequence was the Party system with all its gigantic and gross evils was mitigated in comparison with what it was among ourselves. Then they were told people were not fit judges of laws. That was one of the old arguments used in the days of aristocratic domination against admitting the people to the franchise. The people are not fit to exercise the franchise said the opponents of our great grandsires. But history had tolerably corrected and brought up to date that unfortunate opinion. The people might not be fit judges of all the legal technicalities and necessary phraseology used in embodying the purposes they desired to see put into legislative shape, but they were as good judges as anyone of the main object of the law; and in that way they were competent when a law had been passed, and they had obtained information as to its working from sources open to them, to say whether the law suited their judgment and interests present or prospective. If that was not sound argument, where was the representative system to go to, because if the representatives of the people had passed laws of and which the people were not competent to form a proper opinion, to say that was to take the representative system away from its true basis. Many a man was fit to make choice of an expert, and it did not require special knowledge to choose an expert to clothe ideas in legal language and to judge of the amount of trust that could be placed in him by the ordinary action of common sense. He could not at such short notice go into all the objections that had been raised to this proposal, but he thought he had given a fair sample of them. ["Hear, hear!" and laughter.] He would, however, refer to one or two of the advantages it would confer upon the country. In the first place the ruling body would know, if a project of legislation were not initiated by the people, that there was no tornado of public opinion in favour of such project. In the second place it would bring about an attenuation of Party feeling which all must admit would be a great advantage, because it would take away in a large degree the incentive to get the "ins" out and the "outs" in, which at present was so harmful to public morality and to the most important public interests. The Members of the legislative body would know that their constituents would have the power of rectifying any legislative error that they might make and, therefore, there would be greater freedom in their legislation. The proposal, if adopted, would also tend to educate the people, who would be led to make research into history and to study political principles more carefully than they did at present. Since the system had been adopted Switzerland had been more peaceful and had flourished in every way, while they had striven to make their laws the best they could. Experience derived from Switzerland fully answered the objection that if the system were adopted in this country we should be subjected to the turmoil of an election every three months. As regarded the question of expense, one-third of the cost of an ironclad would more than defray the cost of a Referendum. The feeling in favour of this form of direct representation of the people was growing rapidly in America and in this country. On these grounds he had had no hesitation in laying this proposal before the House. ["Hear, hear!"]

said, that as a protest against the absence of the Ministers during the important speech which had just been delivered by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, he begged to move the adjournment of the House. ["Hear, hear!"]

seconded the Motion.

said, that although he entirely agreed in the censure upon Members of the Government which had been uttered by the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme, he must oppose the Motion as he had an important Motion upon the Paper.

said, the question to which he wished to draw the attention of the House was one which excited great attention in Ireland. There was no doubt that the administration of the Land Acts by that Commission went to the root of the land question, and probably affected the prosperity of Ireland more than any other which could be named offhand. Many a good Act had been spoiled by bad administration, and he contended that the system under which the Commissioners and Sub-Commissioners worked had done much to reduce the Land Acts to a nullity, and had deprived the tillers of the soil of the benefits intended to be conferred on them by the Legislature. Previous to the Act of 1891, the Commissioners were responsible to Parliament, but their salaries were then put on the Consolidated Fund, so that the public had no control over their decisions. This Act stereotyped officialism in the administration of the Land Act in a manner which was detrimental to the interests and prosperity of Ireland. The Assistant Commissioners were placed in the position of permanent civil servants, but as to that he had no damaging criticisms to make. Altogether, the administration of this Department cost the enormous sum of £86,000 a year. All the appointments were practically in the hands of the Chief Secretary. Complaints now came from all parts of the country, Ulster being more vehement in her protest and more prone to agitation than any other part of Ireland. [''Hear, hear!''] It was thought that instructions would be given to the Sub-Commissioners in pursuance of which rents would not be fixed on improvements, and that the principle of live and let live would prevail. But, under the blighting influence of the administration of the present Commissioners, there was dissatisfaction all over the country. In 1887, it became necessary that an Act of Parliament should be passed to deal with the condition of things; there was just the same necessity now. He did not exaggerate when he said that the present administration gave rise to feelings of resentment and wrong in every corner of the country. The farmers of Ulster had joined in the popular agitation. In Ulster there was more intense dissatisfaction and discontent at the administration of the Act, and at the personnel of the Commission, than in those parts of Ireland which were supposed to be identified with popular agitation. That, he contended, proved his case. It might be asked what alternative he would suggest. He thought some elective principle ought to be introduced into the system under which the Commissioners and Assistant Commissioners were appointed, so that the tenant-farmers, who formed the bulk of the community, should have some fair voice in determining what Gentlemen should be appointed to carry out the Acts. The statutory term of 15 years was running out in some thousands of instances, and, therefore, the case was urgent. The appointments might even be made by the Irish Parliamentary Party. He was sure they would be more just, more openminded, and more impartial, than their friends had been, and they would not consent to the appointment of rabid tenant righters on the one hand, or of rabid landlord partisans on the other hand. But if for a moment that proposal was considered too elastic, perhaps, he might suggest that the appointments might be vested in the elected representatives of Ireland as a whole. Every class of the community would thus be represented. These appointments might be entrusted, for instance, to a little Round Table or Select Committee, composed, say, of the hon. Member for South Tyrone, the hon. and gallant Member for North Armagh, and a few Members of the Nationalist Party. He had no doubt they would choose impartial and fair-minded Commissioners, who would administer the Acts in the sense in which it was intended they should be administered. His proposals might be considered crude and hasty. Whether they were deemed worthy of even a passing thought by the Chief Secretary or not, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would give the House some assurance that the present system would be abandoned, that the Commissioners would not in future be placed beyond reach of Parliamentary criticism as at present, that the system of administration should be subject to some elective and popular control, and thus command the confidence of the varied interests of the country.

assured the House that this subject was one which had long excited the most intense public interest in Ireland, and the strong opinions which were entertained as to the unfairness of the present administration of the Land Acts and the appointment of Land Commissioners were by no means confined to men who sympathised with the Nationalist Party in general politics. On the contrary, the Unionist farmers of Ulster and other parts of Ireland were just as much exercised in their minds on the question as were the Nationalist farmers. The greatest possible differences were observed in the judgments of the Commissioners in fixing fair rents, and it had been made obvious that in administering the Acts the Commissioners approached the question of fair rents in a very different spirit, one from another. In fact, so great had been this difference that the tenant farmers had come to believe that the fate of their cases depended in a large measure not upon the law, but upon the fact who was the particular Commissioner that heard them. He was ready to admit that in the political and social conditions of the country, it was a matter of enormous difficulty to obtain men in Ireland to administer the Acts who were free of all suspicion of political or social bias. It was one of the curses of the social condition of Ireland—that in consequence of agrarian and political disputes, it was almost impossible to obtain men to administer the Acts in whom the people would have confidence—men free from the suspicion of being so bound by social ties or relationship of interest, as to warp their judgments towards one side or the other. He would repeat that this was a great difficulty in the administration of the Land Acts, but, after all, it was only one of the many difficulties which had to be faced by those who governed Ireland under existing conditions. At the same time that fact did not relieve the Irish Government of finding some solution of it—of making such arrangements in regard to the appointment of Land Commissioners—on whose judicial impartiality the very means of existence of Irishmen depended—as would ensure the selection of men from whom the tenant-farmers and the people generally felt confidence they would get even-handed justice. The Commissioners were appointed by the Government of the day; and the present Government had the confidence of only a small section of the people. He would admit that in its general Unionist policy this Government had the support of a considerable section of the farming interest of Ulster, but he asserted without fear of contradiction that the administration of the Land Acts, and the appointments made in relation to them by the Government—or rather, he should say in this particular, by their predecessors—were not approved by even a large number of Unionists in the North of Ireland. The Government, therefore, were in a difficult position in this matter; they had to depend on the support and confidence of the landlord class only, and hence they would experience difficulty even with the best intentions in finding men who could, or would, in the belief of the people administer the Land Acts with strict justice. Another difficulty that any Minister would have to meet, in approaching the great task of the Government of Ireland, under the existing system, or in dealing with this particular matter of the administration of the Land Acts—a difficulty the present Chief Secretary would have to meet if he made any new appointments—was to keep free of the old and evil traditions of the Castle. Those traditions still prevailed, would dog the steps of the right hon. Gentleman, and would perhaps urge him also into the old course. It was impossible for any one who was unacquainted with the system of Government in Ireland to understand the different spirit in which appointments of any judicial character were made in the two countries. Fortunately in England the bitterness of Party spirit and civil strife had cooled down for many years but in Ireland those influences were still strong. In England, therefore, such appointments were made by the executive free of political or Party bias, but in Ireland they were made subservient to it. Hence he feared that whatever might be the nature of the Land Bill to be introduced, the people of Ireland would not be able to accept it with any hope of a substantial remedy of their grievances, or of obtaining a fair readjustment of their rents until a new departure was made in respect to the appointment of the Land Commissioners. There was one other point to which he wished to refer. There was an element connected with the appointment of the Land Commissioners which was foreign to the knowledge and experience of the English people, and it was hard to make them understand it. In this country nobody ever dreamt of extending to the Crown, or to any official or magistrate, any disrespect, or any political pressure, on account of the action of Her Majesty's ministers. Her Majesty and her Court stood high above such consideration in this country, and any such proceeding would arouse public indignation. But what was the case in Ireland? The Lord Lieutenant, who represented Her Majesty, was actually subjected to a system of attempted intimidation and boycotting if his administration of the law did not please a certain section of the people who frequented his Court. The intimidation which prevailed during the late Administration was well-known. Certain appointments were made which were highly approved by the great bulk of the Irish people, and immediately the ladies and gentlemen of the landlord class who frequented the Court in Dublin undertook to strictly boycott Her Majesty's representative, a more gross outrage than which by men professing to be loyal was never heard of. That boycotting was carried out in the strictest way, and with the grossest disrespect to the representative of the Queen, and it was boasted of by the landlord class. But the moment an Administration came over to Ireland which it was expected would give satisfaction to the landlord class the Castle was hardly large enough to hold the crowds that attended the levées. Such proceedings were scandalous and disgraceful. They in Ireland knew very little what they meant. They understood perfectly well the spirit that dictated them. It was a deliberate attempt, so far as it lay within their power, to intimidate and to put pressure on the Executive so as to administer the law in accordance with the minority in Ireland. He was exceedingly glad his hon. Friend had availed himself of that Opportunity of bringing to the attention of the House a question which the Chief Secretary would find to be a burning question in Ireland, and he could tell him that, until the question was solved in a manner satisfactory to the people of Ireland, there would be no confidence felt in the administration of the Land Law. The farmers of Ireland would not consent to recognise the judicial rents as fair rents so long as they were fixed by men in whose impartiality they had no confidence whatever. The hon. Member for South Tyrone, speaking, he thought it was in December, 1894, gave vent to his views as to the appointment of the Land Commission, and denounced it as being packed. The hon. Member for South Tyrone was then in a position of greater freedom and less responsibility, and he was at liberty to give voice to what he well knew to be the deliberate conviction of the farmers of Ulster. He supposed the hon. Gentleman would not be at liberty now to favour the House with his impressions as to the impartiality of the Land Commissioners. He fully recognised the enormous difficulties of this case, the difficulties of the Irish Executive, and the difficulties of this Government in getting impartial men. He was not going to propose an alternative scheme. He did not look upon the proposal of his colleagues as a practical proposal, but he did say that this was a difficulty which would remain, until it was solved, a burning difficulty in Ireland. It arose, in his judgment, from the very framework of the whole machinery of the Irish Government, when they had a gentleman who was placed in this position of being compelled to govern Ireland, without enjoying the confidence of the overwhelming mass of the population whom he had to govern. That was an anomalous and, practically speaking, an impossible condition of things. The evils of which they now complained, of which the right hon. Gentleman would hear until he was tired of listening to them, were evils which sprang, in his judgment, from the abnormal condition of Government, and he thought it would be found exceedingly difficult to remove them so long as such a condition of Government existed. If he were asked how the Land Commissioners ought to be appointed, he should say they ought to be appointed by a Minister responsible to the people of Ireland, and they could not get a Minister responsible to the people of Ireland. He confessed that, under these circumstances, it almost surpassed the wit of man to devise a system that would meet the difficulty. He did not pretend under present circumstances that he could propose a remedy which would have the slightest chance of being accepted by the Government, but there did exist a substantial and real grievance—a grievance which was complained of by Unionists as well as Nationalists and which, so long as it remained unredressed, would influence the farmers of Ireland to refuse to recognise judicial rents as just rents.

The hon. Member for East Mayo has told us that the farmers of Ireland, not merely the Nationalists but the Unionists, are suffering under a grievance, and that that grievance arises from the fact that they have no confidence in the personnel of the Land Commission, which is intrusted with the fixing of rents. I listened with some attention to both the speeches which have been made in defence of this proposition. The hon. Member for North Cork considered that the farmers of Ireland suffered under a hardship because the Commissioners, with whom rested the fixing of rents, were withdrawn from the criticism of Parliament. That is to say, because the judicial Commissioners are in exactly the position which is occupied by Judges of this realm. I have always understood, hitherto, that for a person exercising judicial functions to be withdrawn from the criticism of Parliament and from the power of dismissal by the Executive, was considered not a danger but a safeguard. We have heard in this House from time to time a great deal about the iniquity of the system of removable magistrates. I do not know whether the hon. Member for North Cork would desire a system of removable Commissioners and Sub-Commissioners. That seemed to be the natural inference from the principle he has laid down. The hon. Member referred specially to the Act of 1891, which he condemned as making the Sub-Commissioners permanent Civil Servants, and then a few minutes afterwards he said, he did not complain of their being made permanent Civil Servants, but his real complaint was that the Government of Ireland appointed these Gentlemen, and that practically the appointment was made by the Chief Secretary, and that the appointments which had actually been made had given rise to intense dissatisfaction. [Irish cheers.] The hon. Member has also said that the administration of the Act of 1881 and the Act of 1891 by the Land Commission, has deprived the tenants of the benefits they were entitled to enjoy under those Acts. I think it would have been desirable if he had given to the House some evidence of the assertion which he put forward. The whole case of the hon. Member, as well as that of the hon. Member for East Mayo, rested on mere assertion. The tenant-farmers, he says, are dissatisfied with the rents fixed by the Commissioners; therefore, those rents must necessarily be wrong. It is a curious state of things, indeed, to have it laid down that the rightness or wrong ness of the decision of a Judge is to be estimated entirely by the view taken of it by one Party to the suit. ["Hear, hear!"] If the hon. Gentleman had given us any evidence to show that those rents had been unfairly fixed, or that the gentlemen who were appointed to fix them were by their antecedents ["Hear, hear!" from Mr. SWIFT MACNEILL] more likely to favour the landlords than the tenants, he would have done something to prove his proposition, but up to the present time no such evidence has been brought forward. Within the short time that has been at my disposal since this Debate sprang up, I have taken the trouble to look carefully through the list of the Sub-Commissioners, both legal and lay, and the judgment which I have been able to form, after looking at the antecedents of those gentlemen, is that at least half the Lay Sub-Commissioners are gentlemen who might be expected rather to take the tenants' than the landlords' view, and the same is certainly not less true in regard to the Legal Sub-Commissioners. Of course, every Government in making these appointments endeavours to select gentlemen who would approach their task with as little bias as possible, but the difficulty, not only in Ireland but anywhere, is to find gentlemen at once competent to fix rents upon holdings and having a bias neither in favour of landlords nor tenants. I do not think that difficulty is peculiar to Ireland; it arises from the very nature of the facts and circumstances, but, as far as I can judge, it is quite untrue to say that the Sub-Commissioners as a class have been drawn from those who would be likely to favour the landlords' view of rent rather than, the tenants' view. The hon. Member for East Mayo told the House very candidly that he had no proposition to offer which it was the least likely that the present Government would accept; but what was the alternative to the present system put forward by the hon. Member for North Cork? It was that there should be introduced into the appointment of those gentlemen the element of popular selection. I should think this is the very first time that in this country it has been suggested that arbitrators who have to decide these difficult and delicate questions as between classes should be selected in any way by popular vote. Never, probably has such a suggestion been made before. I do appeal to the House just to consider what the result would be likely to be. Is it not clear that if justice is to be done as between landlord and tenant, and if it is impossible to get persons absolutely without any previous bias, what you ought to have is a certain number of gentlemen selected in such a way as fairly to represent both sides. That is what successive Governments have aimed at doing, and I believe, as a matter of fact, have succeeded in doing. It is very difficult for this House to sit in judgment on the decisions of these Commissioners. They are there acting upon evidence which they either acquire themselves by visiting the holding or the evidence of expert valuers, and on that they have to decide. How is it possible for this House to sit in judgment upon decisions given in such circumstances? The thing is impossible. If these Commissioners and Sub-Commissioners are not to be appointed in the way suggested by the hon. Member, is there any other way by which they can be appointed except by the Government of the day? I must confess I see no way myself, and while I am thankful to the hon. Member for East Mayo for believing that I have gone to Ireland with a sincere desire, in all the appointments I make, to hold the scales even ["Hear, hear!" from the Irish Members], I do not share his apprehension that the task is impossible. I do not think it is true that appointments are made in a totally different spirit in Ireland as compared with England. I have not had any appointments of Land Commissioners to make as yet, but I have had other appointments, and I can honestly say that I have not been prejudiced in the smallest degree by the fact that this Government represents in Ireland a minority. I have endeavoured to hold the balance even between the two Parties in Ireland. [Cheers from Irish Members.] The task of fixing rents will be admitted by everyone to be an extremely difficult task. Nevertheless, it is a remarkable fact—and this was brought out by the investigations of Mr. John Morley's Select Committee—that the Sub-Commissioners, although in the first instance they arrive at their valuations independently, do, as a general rule, arrive at approximately the same figure. Where there were differences between them, it was shown there were comparatively few cases in which that difference was not smoothed away, not by the decision of the Legal Commissioner, but by his acting as a sort of intermediary; and even where an appeal was made from the decision of the Sub-Commissioners to the Legal Commissioners the valuation arrived at in the latter case did not differ largely from that previously fixed by the Sub-Commissioners. In these circumstances I cannot say that I think the hon. Member who moved the Amendment, nor the hon. Member for East Mayo, has really made out his case. In my judgment the Sub-Commissioners have a most difficult and delicate task to perform, and one which they approach in a spirit of impartiality. ["Hear, hear!"]

observed that no matter what Acts that House passed if those Acts were not properly administered, legislation of the Irish tenant farmers would be a nullity and a farce. The result of the working of the Land Acts in Ireland for the last 14 or 15 years had to some extent justified that view They found of the 600,000 occupiers who had claimed reductions of rent under the Land Act, only 300,000 had their cases dealt with by the Land Commission. He submitted it was of the utmost importance that the fair-play and impartiality of the tribunal should be established. The Chief Secretary had said he thought no case had been made out against the impartiality of the Sub-Commissioners and that looking at the antecedents of the Commissioners at the very least it might be expected that one-half of the body took rather the tenants' than the landlords' side. That was a proposition which a study of the personnel of the existing Commission would show could not be sustained for a moment. The very names of the gentlemen who were appointed to administer the Land Act afforded ample evidence that two to one were in favour of the landlords rather than the tenants. When they found that 16 gentlemen, judging by the names, were followers of the Conservative administration as against eight on the other side, it shewed there was something wrong in the personnel of the Commission. The Land Act of 1891 had been described as a failure. On that point he thought there was a universal consensus of opinion. By the 28th Section, sub-Section 7 of that Act the Commissioners were withdrawn from the control of Parliament and converted into servants of the Crown. The Lord Lieutenant, as he understood the section, or the Lord Chancellor now created the Judicial Commission and the Judicial proceeded to create the Lay Commission, the House of Commons having no voice in the appointment or control of the men, whose names showed they were manifestly unfair to the interests of the tenant farmers. This was a most important question concerning the very life of the largest portion of the population of Ireland. He had had some experience of the difficulties that beset this question. As far as he had been able to see, the present working of the system was not, and could not be, satisfactory because of the course adopted by the Sub-Commissioners, when they went to value a holding. He was present not long since in Ballyhaunis, when a Sub-Commission was then sitting, the members of which, as far as he could judge, paid more attention to their personal comfort and convenience than to the interests of the tenants whose cases were before the Court. The Sub-Commissioners went out in a morning on a car and perhaps they overworked themselves to the extent of visiting two or three farms. The tenant was called upon to turn a sod of earth to show the depth of the soil, the Sub-Commissioners looked at it in a cursory manner, and then walked away. They did not go into the tenants' houses to see the poverty which existed, or make any effort to obtain from the tenants a confession of their efforts to eke out a living on these small farms. They too often performed their duties in a dilatory and perfunctory manner. Last Session the Chief Secretary for Ireland had given him a kind of assurance that steps were taken by the respective Departments in Dublin to insure that the men appointed to these positions had the necessary qualifications. But he had not been able to discover that any examination was held, and at any rate no machinery was provided for the purpose in any Act of Parliament. His suggestion to the right hon. Gentleman was that technical knowledge ought to be made the qualification for the position of Sub-Commissioner. There ought to be an Examining Board to test the qualifications of candidates. The success of the Land legislation, present and future, would depend to a great degree upon the confidence which the people had in its administration, and if the Chief Secretary wished the Land Acts to succeed, he would do well to give most careful attention to the matters which had been brought to his notice. It would shed great glory on the right hon. Gentleman's administration if he should succeed in creating an impartial Commission commanding the confidence of the people.

said, that this was a question which affected Protestants and Catholics alike. The tenant farmers of Ireland were unanimous in holding that a satisfactory settlement of the Land question was necessary, and that the Sub-Commissioners who were appointed should be in sympathy with them. He strongly advised the Government to appoint men who would enjoy the tenant farmers' confidence. The Chief Secretary had produced no evidence to show that they were satisfied with the existing appointments.

observed that what he had suggested was that there was no evidence to show that the people of Ireland were dissatisfied.

said, that not long ago, at a meeting which he attended, and which included a very large number of Protestants, a strangely-worded resolution was carried, asking the Chief Secretary to appoint Sub-Commissioners who would administer the Land Acts in a manner satisfactory to the tenants. The fact that such meetings were held ought to be sufficient evidence that the farmers were not satisfied with the way in which the Sub-Commissioners fixed the rents. The tenants ought to have fair treatment as well as the landlord. The Sub-Commissioners ought not to be appointed mainly from one class. At present the tenant-farmers knew that the duty of fixing fair rents was to a large extent discharged by men who were not in sympathy with them, and in those circumstances, no matter how fair the rents might be, there would always be a suspicion in the tenants' minds that justice had not been done to their interests. He mentioned that in the case of yearly tenancies the Sub-Commissioners made a reduction of 21·52, and in leasehold tenancies of 24·7; but the County Court Judge had made reductions in the one case of 23·4 and in the other of 27·7. What had been the result? Landlords, seeing that the County Court Judges were more free from the influence of the landlords, had withdrawn 10,374 cases out of 34,553 cases for the purpose of getting them tried before the Sub-Commissioners. The Chief Secretary had stated that there was no evidence showing that the people of Ireland were dissatisfied, but the hon. Member for South Tyrone received a copy of resolutions to this effect. The hon. Member was asked to attend the meeting in Ulster, but he wrote a letter stating that the present system was satisfactory. He should like to hear the views of the hon. Member who in times past had professed to be such a great friend of the tenant-farmers.

said, that though this might be a difficult undertaking it had yet to be faced, because if the people had no confidence in the administration of the laws by which they were governed it would be a long time before they were either satisfied or order and prosperity reigned. The Chief Secretary appeared to ask for some evidence. The report of the Select Committee teemed with evidence. He cited the case of a man who had spent a great deal of money on dwellings, but when he came into Court he found that it was obliged to charge him rent on the buildings which he had himself erected.

This is not a question of personnel. If anything, it was a question of law, and the Commissioners have to administer the law.

said he was speaking of the administration and interpretation of the law, and the class of persons who had to interpret it. One of the largest merchants in Belfast had a large farm which he held under the Marquess of Downshire. He expended a considerable amount of money in erecting buildings and making improvements, but he found that the Court charged him rent on the improvements which he had made and paid for. The man appealed to the Court above, and the same spirit which he and his hon. Friends complained of as existing in the Sub-Commissioners also pervaded the chief Court. As to the personnel of the Commissioners, that was a matter with which he hardly liked to deal, but he would give the case of a Sub-Commissioner, whose name, however, he would not mention. A Presbyterian farmer told him that this Commissioner had visited his land, and when going over the first fence, a single-stone fence, he put up his foot and knocked it down, and it took some trouble to put it up again. Such conduct on the part of Sub-Commissioners was not likely to inspire the farmers with confidence. Another Sub-Commissioner was examined before the Morley Committee, and that gentleman, who was supposed to have the necessary qualification for deciding on the question of fair rents, frankly avowed that, in his opinion, it would be far better for the landlords if the land in Ireland were allowed to lapse into a prairie state. Every day in the North of Ireland meetings were being held at which resolutions as to the appointment of competent Sub-Commissioners were being passed. He remembered a gentleman to have applied to a Unionist Member of Parliament to give him his influence in obtaining an appointment as Sub-Commissioner, and the reply was that he would not have the slightest chance if he was or ever had been connected with the Home Rule movement. He told this gentleman that he could not have believed it. Unless there was appointed a large number of Sub-Commissioners who had the confidence of the farmers of Ireland, it would be a thousand times better that no appointments at all should be made. The farmers of Ireland had looked with the greatest confidence to the Morley Committee, and he still hoped that the hon. Gentleman the Member from South Tyrone would be able to influence the Government to shape into law the report of that Committee, to which he was a party. There was no place in all Ulster where this was such a burning question as in South Tyrone. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be induced to seriously consider this question and to endeavour his best to devise some plan by which to appoint Sub-Commissioners who would have the confidence of the people and would act justly by both landlords and tenants.

called attention to the absence of any provision for the payment of the travelling expenses of County Councillors in Scotland, when they were travelling between their residences and the meetings of the councils. He said that this question was a matter of great concern in Scotland, where the County Council areas were much greater than in England, and where the facilities for travelling were very much less. He would confine himself to the Highland counties, leaving other Members to speak of the lowland counties. The difficulties of getting about in the Highlands—and especially in winter—were not realised by the English tourist who never left the beaten tracks. He was sorry not to see the Members for Argyllshire and Inverness-shire in their places, or they would be able to explain how remote were the places where the meetings of the County Councils were held from some parts of those counties. Again, Ross-shire extended 67 miles from east to west, and 58 miles from north to south; and it contained on the mainland 3,129 square miles or nearly 2½ million acres. Over and above the mainland, besides, there was the Island of Lewis, which was 45 miles long and from 15 to 30 miles broad. If English Members who could travel comfortably to and from their constituencies in a few hours went to the Highlands they would see the importance of promoting legislation such as he asked for, that would improve the condition of the people. He knew many places in the Highland counties from which a meeting of the County Council could only be attended at the sacrifice of a week. It would take three days to get to the place of meeting and three days to return. That was a sacrifice in time and money which the poor crofters could not make. Many of them were willing to give their time to attend meetings of the County Council if their expenses were paid. They would be excellent councillors, understanding, as they did, the wants of the people, but had not the means to pay expenses. They had not £5,000 a year, like some of the right hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench. It was difficult enough for them to keep body and soul together. What was the result? The result was that the County Councils of the Highlands were packed with landlords and factors; and those were the men who were consulted when any information was asked for about the people of the Highlands. The people were not consulted at all. He did not ask for the payment of first-class fare; it would be sufficient to pay third-class railway fare and cabin fare on steamers. If the people elected a man who could not afford to pay his fare, it was only right it should be paid for him. The charge would be insignificant, while the better attention to business would save the Highlands from the sad neglect from which they had suffered in the past. He did not ask for this specially for Ross and Cromarty, but for the whole of the Highlands. He pleaded on behalf of the whole of the Highland counties, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would give attention to the matter and introduce a measure which would operate before long and not stave matters off from Session to Session. Scotland had been too long neglected. Scotland meant to have more attention. Now he wished to call attention to the life of farm servants. The County, District, or Parish Councils should have power to arrange for half holidays for farm servants. Compulsory half holidays were advocated for shop assistants. Why should not Scotch farm servants be considered, who work from 5 o'clock in the morning until 6 or 7 at night and often later all the year round. They should have a little time regularly for recreation, and no bodies could better take action to provide it than the local authorities. Then, again, in the Highlands of Scotland compulsory powers are needed to obtain land, not by the landlord's philanthropy or by costly arbitration, but on fair and reasonable terms. Powers are also required to secure land for the residences of Sheriffs, Procurator Fiscals, and other Officers of the Crown, so that they may not be liable to eviction at the caprice of the landlord.

said, that as a member of the Ross-shire County Council, he hoped that the proposal of the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Weir) would be assented to, because, from an experience of some years, he was perfectly convinced of the desirability that the payment of certain expenses of county councillors should be allowed in the interests of the working of the County Council. The time of the county councillors which was taken up in travelling long distances to discharge their duties was very great, and they were also put to considerable travelling expenses. He thought that the Lord Advocate would recognise the claims which the county councillors had to consideration in this respect. In such districts as the Islands of Lewis the county councillors had much difficulty in doing the duty which their office imposed upon them. He thought, on the whole, that it would be of advantage if some allowance were made.

said, that he was sure that the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Weir) would not expect him to follow him through all the topics, relevant or the reverse, to which he had referred in the course of his address to the House in support of his Resolution. He, however, fully recognised the force of the appeal that had been made to him by the hon. Member for the Leith Burghs (Mr. Ronald C. Munro Ferguson), and he had no doubt that in the Highlands and Islands and in some of the larger counties, the county councillors had to undergo some hardships. To his mind, however, not only had no case been made out that night in favour of the Resolution, but no case, in fact, existed that would justify a principle that in itself was false and vicious being imported into the municipal life of the country. Hitherto it had been their pride that services of this character had been given freely and even at some expense and inconvenience, and he had very little sympathy with the demand that county councillors all over the country should be paid for their services. No doubt it might be said that the speech of the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty was limited to the case of the Highlands and Islands, but that was perhaps because upon the floor of that House his vision had no wider range, but certainly his Resolution was capable of a far more extended interpretation, and it was quite obvious that the terms of the Resolution were not confined to the Highlands and the Islands. The true principle that, in his opinion ought to govern that House in dealing with these matters, both in connection with county councillors and parish councillors was that where men were willing to undertake to discharge certain duties within certain areas, they should undertake to discharge those duties within those areas at their own cost and charge. He saw no reason for acceding to the far-reaching and most improvident change proposed by the hon. Member.