I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has received Copies of the Resolutions stated to have been passed unanimously by the House of Commons of the Dominion of Canada, and by the Legislative Assembly of the Province of Ontario, also of the Dispatch reported to have been sent by the Government of the Australian Colonies through the Premier of New South Wales, also of a similar Dispatch from the Government of New Zealand, assuring Her Majesty and the Government of the United Kingdom of their unswerving determination to make every sacrifice to perpetuate their connection with the British Empire; and whether, if received, he will lay the full texts of these communications upon the Table for the information of this House?

said, I have received copies of the Australasian Resolutions referred to, but the Canadian Resolutions have not yet reached me. When the latter have been received there will be no objection to laying all on the Table.

May I ask whether any notice can be taken of the fact that, on the passing of the Resolution in the Canadian House of Commons, the whole Assembly rose and sang "God save the Queen?" [Nationalist laughter.]

I would ask whether it is not a fact that the Legislative Body who had made the loyal demonstration referred to have complete management of their own internal affairs—in fact, Home Rule?

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether any information can be given to the House as to the recent fighting on several distinct occasions on the coast of British East Africa, and as to the prospect of peace being in future preserved upon that coast?

In April, 1895, a native chief, named Mubarakbin Rashid, rebelled against the administration. He has suffered repeated defeats; but, owing to the nature of the country, it has hitherto proved impossible to deal effectually with the roving bands of marauders who have followed his lead, and who fall on unprotected or weakly-held positions, and have on two occasions made attacks upon military stations, which have been successfully repulsed. With the view of finally suppressing the rising it has been decided to strengthen the local forces by the dispatch of an Indian regiment, and it is hoped that tranquillity will shortly be restored.

On behalf of the hon. Member for East Galway, I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, whether his attention has been called to the award made against the Tryhill Estate, county Galway, in connection with the cost of the Suck Drainage; whether he is aware that the total amount of rent of the land drained on 24 holdings amounts to £54 14s. 9d., and that the proposed annual addition for drainage is £51 8s. 2d.; and, whether, considering that this addition would be almost double the annual rent at present payable, and having in view the very low prices obtainable for produce, he will consider what can be done in relief of these tenants?

The Board of Works understand that this question refers to the estate of the late Bishop Gillooly, in the townlands of Tryhill East and Tryhill West. They have no knowledge of the rent. The circumstances are as follows:—In the draft award a charge of £30 17s. 10d. was assessed on the occupiers, and £23 (in addition to £8 16s. 6d. for maintenance) on the proprietor; but at the inquiry it was discovered that the tenants held under 99 years leases, and therefore, for the purposes of the Drainage Acts, are proprietors as well as occupiers, and are liable for the payment both of the occupiers' annuity, representing the actual benefit, and the proprietors' annuity, representing non-productive outlay. The result is that in the final award they are liable for £25 18s. 2d. as occupiers; £27 8s. 4d. as proprietors; and £8 11s. 11d. for maintenance. Total, £61 18s. 5d.; not £51 8s. 2d. The award was made under the provisions of the River Suck Drainage Act, 1889, and there is no power to make any reduction.

In the absence of the hon. Member for the Connemara Division of Galway, Mr. W. O'MALLEY, I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether the Post Office authorities will establish a delivery of letters to Carna, Connemara, County Galway, on Sundays?

The establishment of Sunday posts in the rural districts depends upon the fulfilment of two conditions: First, that there is revenue sufficient to justify the cost of the additional day's service; and, secondly, that the Sunday service is desired by persons receiving not less than two-thirds of the correspondence for the district affected. Inquiry shall be made whether the amount of correspondence for Carna is sufficient to fulfil the first of these conditions. If it should prove sufficient, a communication shall be made to the hon. Member, so that the views of the inhabitants on the second pact may be ascertained.

In the absence of Mr. W. O'MALLEY, I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether the Post Office authorities will extend telegraphic communication from Spiddle, County Galway, to Carna, Connemara, county Galway, in view of the fact that a steamer calls there once a week from Galway, and that serious inconvenience frequently arises when through any cause the steamer fails to come on the appointed day, and when such inconvenience would be obviated if telegraphic communication existed?

The Postmaster General will be glad to have inquiry made, and will communicate the result to the hon. Member in due course.

in the absence of Mr. W. O'MALLEY, I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether the Post Office authorities will establish a post office at Moyrus, Connemara, County Galway, the Postmaster General having already sanctioned a delivery of letters three times a week to that village, but in the absence of an office where letters could be left till called for, such deliveries are of little practical value?

The establishment of a post to Moyrus three days a week was attended with as large an additional outlay as the limited amount of correspondence warranted, and there are no grounds on which the Postmaster General could sanction further outlay with a view to establishing a post office there also.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if his attention has been drawn to the complaints by the citizens of Limerick, and expressed in the Cork Herald of 24th December last, to the inadequate postal arrangements in Limerick last Christmas; whether he is aware that on 23rd December last there was no delivery by the 7.10 evening mail, and same occurred on 24th December, and that on Christmas Day in Limerick there was no morning or noon delivery of letters; whether the postmen during those days worked 18 or 20 hours' continuous labour, the sorters being sent away to save expense; and, whether, by the employment of additional hands in future, and payment of overtime, provision will be made to prevent any future congestion and disarrangement at critical occasions in the Limerick postal exigencies?

The Postmaster General will have inquiry made into these allegations and communicate the result to the hon. Member.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland—(1) whether he proposes to apply to Parliament for money for the extension of Light Railways in Ireland; and (2) can he say at what period of the present Session he will move in the matter?

The reply to the first paragraph is in the affirmative. As to the second part of the Question, I should hardly think it possible to do anything in the matter before Easter.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland—(1) if he received, some time ago, a Resolution passed at a public meeting in Carndonagh calling for an extension of the Londonderry and Lough Swilly Railway from Buncrana to Carndonagh viâ Clonmany; and is he aware that Resolutions have been passed unanimously by the Innishowen Board of Guardians to a like effect; (2) is he aware that the First Lord of the Treasury, when Irish Secretary, had intended to construct this line, and was only prevented because of the failure of the money voted by Parliament for the making of light railways in Ireland; and if it has been represented to him that one of the chief industries of Innishowen, that of making shirts, will be jeopardised by reason of competition elsewhere in the county where light railways have been constructed, owing to there being no rapid mode of transit at present throughout this large and populous district with Londonderry; (3) if the Londonderry and Lough Swilly Railway Company have proposed to fully equip the line, and work it when made free of expense to the Government or the people; and (4) whether the matter has been considered by the Treasury, and what action they intend taking?

The reply to the first paragraph is in the affirmative. On the general question, namely, the construction of a line of railway between the points mentioned, I can only state at present that it is my intention to apply to Parliament for funds to provide the extension of light railways in Ireland, and that the case of the line proposed in the Question is being considered with that of others.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he has observed that, under the regulations requiring a periodical, in order to pass at the reduced halfpenny rate, to appear at intervals not exceeding seven days, and to contain a given proportion of news and articles relating thereto, many of the reviews, magazines, and other valuable monthly publications, and many periodicals containing numerous advertisements, are excluded from the benefit of that rate; whether he is aware that a large number of letters, postal orders, and parcels are dispatched in answer to advertisements, to the profit of the Department; and that many periodicals are filled out with "padding," in the shape of news and articles, in order to establish a claim to the benefits of registration as a newspaper; and whether he will introduce or support a Bill permitting all bona fide periodicals under a fixed weight to pass at the halfpenny rate?

Publications must be published at intervals of not more than seven days, and must consist wholly or in great part of news or of articles relating thereto, in order to be admitted to the benefit of the newspaper rate. The Postmaster General is not aware to what extent advertisements result in increased business to the Department; nor can he give an opinion as to how much of what passes as news is mere "padding," with a view to satisfying the requirements of the Act. The loss already incurred in the transmission of newspapers is so considerable that the Postmaster General would hesitate to increase it by sanctioning any extension of the privilege.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, if he is aware that the Carrickmacross Board of Guardians passed a Resolution requesting the Local Government Board for Ireland to sanction a reduction in the cost of stimulants from 15s. 7d. per inmate to 3s. 10d. in Carrickmacross Workhouse, which was refused by the Local Government Board for Ireland; and, whether 3s. 10d. per inmate is seven times more than is expended in either Clones or Monaghan Workhouses on stimulants?

A Resolution substantially to the effect stated was passed by the Carrickmacross Guardians in December, 1894. Their medical officer, however, pointed out that he prescribed stimulants only in cases where he honestly and conscientiously believed them to be the best treatment for the cure of disease, the prolongation of life, and the alleviation of suffering; and while he was prepared to carry out the order of the Guardians, the responsibility of his doing so must rest entirely with them. In consideration of this expression of the medical officer's view, the Local Government Board thought it prudent to remind the Guardians that under the Workhouse Rules the medical officer has discretionary power to order such stimulants for the sick poor under his care as he may consider necessary, and that the Guardians should not interfere with his discretion in the matter by a Resolution of the nature adopted by them, which proposed a hard-and-fast reduction without due consideration of the requirements of each particular case. The cost of stimulants per head of the inmates in the Clones and Monaghan Workhouses in 1893 was about 1d. and 6d. respectively.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board, if it is intended that there shall be a double Inquiry on each application for a loan to a Parish Council under Section 12 of The Local Government Act, 1894, or whether the Local Government Board will, in the case of applications for small amounts and possessing no special features, give their consent to any loan sanctioned after inquiry by the County Council?

It appears to me, at present, that there must be an Inquiry by an inspector of the Local Government Board before the Board sanction the raising of a loan by a Parish Council, but there will be no objection to the attendance at the Inquiry of a representative of the County Council, where this is desired by the Council. I quite agree that it is certainly undesirable that there should be a double Inquiry.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board, if he is aware that in the nine years, 1885–1893, the number of lunatics in England and Wales increased by 26 per cent.; what has been the increase in the last two years; whether there has been a similar increase in Scotland and Ireland; to what causes this rapid increase is due; and, if this is not known, if he will consider the desirability of having some inquiry into such a serious state of facts?

The increase in the number of lunatics in England and Wales, during the years 1885–93, was 15·5 per cent. and not 26 per cent., as stated by the hon. Member. The increase in Ireland, during the same period, was 21·8 per cent. The increase in England and Wales, during 1893 and 1894, was 2·5 and 2·3 per cent.; in Ireland, during 1894 and 1895 together, it was 5·7 per cent. I am not in possession of the figures for Scotland. The question of the causes to which this increase is due has, as the hon. Member will see on referring to the reports which were presented to Parliament last year, engaged the attention of the Lunacy Boards of all three countries. In regard to Ireland, a special inquiry into the subject was made in 1894, the Report of which was presented to Parliament in the same year. I will consult with the Lord Chancellor with a view to the attention of the Lunacy Commissioners being more closely directed to the question.

asked if it was not a fact that the Lunacy Commissioners attributed the increase in lunacy to the severe agricultural depression which had existed?

said, he was not aware that that was so, and he did not think it so appeared in their report.

asked whether the Commissioners attributed the increase in Ireland partly to the excessive use of tea, and that, though that was the case, they went on supplying tea in all the asylums?

said, he believed it was true that the Lunacy Commissioners in Ireland had mentioned the cause to which the hon. Gentleman had referred as one of the reasons for the increase.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, what was the number and what the aggregate tonnage of vessels employed in transporting the Military expedition to Ashanti, and what was the total strength of all arms and all ranks of the Military force carried by that number of ships and that aggregate tonnage?

The portion of the Ashanti Expedition which did not go by the ordinary weekly packets consisted of 788 officers and men, who were conveyed in two transports of an aggregate capacity of 8,862 tons gross and 5,511 tons net. In addition to the officers and men, the two transports conveyed a large quantity of stores, including ammunition, clothing, and provisions.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, (1) whether his attention has been called to the last Evictions (Ireland) Return, by which it appears that, of the 1,529 tenants who, during the quarter ending 30th June, 1895, have been at suit of the landlord converted into caretakers, 617 are in Ulster; (2) whether he can state the numbers for each of the four provinces of Ireland respectively for the quarters ending 30th September and 31st December last; and (3) whether this matter will be dealt with?

The figures are correctly quoted in the first paragraph from the Return for the June quarter. The Returns containing similar information for each of the four provinces for the September and December quarters were presented to Parliament on the 17th inst.

said, that since notice had been given of the Question, the Returns he asked for had been circulated. But he would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he was aware that the services of these notices of eviction disabled the tenants from going into court to have rents fixed, and that these were the class of tenants who most required it?

Yes, Sir, that is so.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether his attention has been called to the action of Mr. Plowden, a Metropolitan police magistrate, on the 6th January last, at the Marylebone Police Court, when, on the hearing of a summons against a parent for cruelty to his child, taken out by the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, he severely censured the Society's officer for inquiring as to what religious persuasion the child belonged, in accordance with the Act 57 & 58 Vic. c. 41, s. 48, under which the proceedings were taken; and, whether steps can be taken to prevent the magistrate from publicly rebuking the Society's officers for obeying the law?

The hon. Member appears to me to be misinformed as to the provisions of the Act to which he refers. The duty of ascertaining the religious persuasion of a child is imposed, by Section 8, the only section of the Act which contains any provision on the subject, on the court before which the child may be brought, and that only when it has determined to commit it to the custody of some person other than the parent, under Section 6. In the present case, I am informed, the officer of the Society had, before legal proceedings were commenced, called at the house of the mother, and, without disclosing the object of his visit, put various questions to her, including one as to the child's religion. The magistrate considered that this course was not justified by the Act, and expressed himself strongly as to the officer's conduct. I am not prepared to dissent from the view which he takes of the law or to criticise his action in the present case.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board, whether he is aware that, out of the four alternative days fixed for the poll for the parish council elections, three fall within Passion Week; and whether he will instead allow the poll to be taken on any day during the week ending Saturday 28th March?

The regulations provide that, if there is a poll for the election of parish councillors, it shall be taken on Monday, March 30, unless the County Council fix the previous Saturday, 28th, or the Tuesday, 31st, or Wednesday, April 1, following. The County Council can fix Saturday, March 28th, for the day of election if they deem it necessary on the ground of the three other days mentioned falling in Passion Week. I could not make the alteration suggested now.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether the chairman of a parish meeting would be liable to a fine if he were to convene the meeting for the election of the parish council for Thursday the 26th of March; and, whether the election would be held to be invalid by reason of the fact that it did not take place on the 9th of March?

The regulations which have been issued by the Local Government Board will not admit of the elections of parish councillors being deferred until Thursday, 26th March, as suggested by the hon. Member, and there would be no legal authority for holding the election on that day. It is clearly the duty of the chairman of the parish meeting to convene the meeting for the day prescribed—viz., 9th March, and the provisions as to the penalty apply where the meeting is not convened as required by the regulations.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that in the autumn of last year the Post Office authorities informed Messrs. Charles Letts and Co. that a pocket book, with a pencil attached by means of a sheath or loop running outside down the back, could be sent by pattern post in response to an order; whether large numbers of such pocket-books were so sent, but that the officials stopped and surcharged several of these books because the covers had been inadvertently marked "B post" (for book post); whether, for many years, publishers of pocket-books had been allowed to send tuck diaries, containing a pencil in the bend of the tuck, by book post; and whether, having regard to the wording of the pattern post and book post regulations respectively, and the fact that the pencil is in many cases specially prepared for writing on the paper of the book, he will in future allow such a book, fitted with pencil, to be transmitted by book post?

Messrs. Letts and Co. were no doubt informed that a pocket-book with a pencil attached could be sent by pattern post, but strictly as a pattern and not in fulfilment of an order. If any of the packets were marked "Book post" the inference would be that they were not sent as samples, and they would then be correctly surcharged. Pencils or other writing materials, even when attached to a book, do not come within the definition of a book-packet, but packets of the kind may have escaped the notice of the taxing officers. The Postmaster General cannot see his way to allow pencils or other writing materials to pass by book post.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that two letter carriers, who had been using their own bicycles for the delivery of letters in a country district, with the result of a great saving of time and fatigue, have recently been ordered by the local surveyor to perform their rounds on foot, although the roads are in excellent order; whether one of these letter carriers had purchased a new machine for use in his rounds; and whether he will instruct the surveyors and other officials of the Department to encourage the use of bicycles by letter and telegram carriers as much as possible, in accordance with the declared wishes of the Postmaster General?

The case to which the hon. Member is believed to refer is not, as he seems to think, a recent one. It is, on the contrary, two years since the postmen in question applied for permission to use their own bicycles, but their request was not granted from a fear that regularity could not be maintained. Last year, however, general instructions were issued on the subject, in accordance with which the two postmen have now been allowed as an experiment to use their bicycles.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, if he will explain the cause of the delay in completing the sale to the tenants on the estate of Colonel Boreaden, near Ballymahon, in county Longford, of their farms, agreements to purchase which they signed two years ago; and, will he call the attention of the Land Commission to the matter?

I understand that this case is practically in the same state as when my predecessor replied to a similar question addressed to him on the 17th June last. The Land Commission inform me that it rests in the first place with the Solicitors acting for the parties and with the Solicitor having carriage of the proceedings in the Land Judges Court, to meet the difficulties which have already been pointed out to them. I am looking further into the matter, however, in order to see whether anything can be done to expedite the proceedings.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, if, in accordance with the expressed desire of certain inhabitants of the district, he will direct that the troops stationed in the Artillery Barracks, Mulgrave Street, Limerick, will resume attending Divine Service at St. Munchin's Parish Church, Limerick, as customary heretofore?

The General Officer commanding the District has telegraphed as follows:—

"Officer commanding reports that he cannot trace that troops ever attended St. Munchin's Church, Limerick; and that it is very small, and would be most inconvenient for the Artillery."

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if his attention has been drawn to the frequent recurrence of the English morning mail arriving late in the city of Limerick, owing to the non-arrival in time at the Limerick Junction of the Great Southern and Western Railway service from Dublin, which company is subsidised by the Government for the carriage of the mails to the south of Ireland; whether he is aware that such delay occurred last Thursday; and, if any steps will be taken to prevent repetition of such delays?

The late arrivals of the day mail at Limerick during the past winter have not escaped the notice of the Postmaster General. They arise chiefly from the inability of the Waterford and Limerick Railway Company to keep back the Limerick train at Limerick Junction when the Mail from England is, from storm or other cause, late in arriving. The Post Office has been in correspondence with the Waterford and Limerick Railway Company upon the subject, but, owing to the connections to be maintained and to the fact that a large part of the line is single, there is much difficulty in arranging for a detention of the Limerick Mail train at the Junction on the occasions in question.

asked the right hon. Gentleman whether the right hon. Gentleman had received a memorial from the Limerick Chamber of Commerce regarding the subsidising of a special train from Limerick Junction to the city.

said, he did not know whether such a memorial had been received, but if it had it would have been considered.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if he can state what County Councils in England and Wales have appointed a County Medical Officer of Health, together with their salaries and other remuneration, and the terms of their appointment?

According to the latest returns received by the Local Government Board there appear to be about 16 counties for which the County Councils have appointed Medical Officers of Health. I shall be prepared to assent to a return giving the particulars referred to if the hon. Member moves for it.

On behalf of the hon. Member for South Leitrim, Mr. JASPER TULLY, I beg to ask the Secretary of the Treasury whether he can state, in view of the fact that there is no public lighting system in the town of Boyle, county Roscommon, that the Board of Works will be prepared to grant a loan to the Boyle municipal body, on the security of the rates, for the purpose of providing an electric system in the township.

A loan such as that referred to would come under the Public Health Act, and the Board of Works are not empowered to grant a loan under that Act except on the recommendation of the Local Government Board and with the consent of the Treasury, given only after such recommendation.

On behalf of the hon. Member for North Galway, Mr. D. KILBRIDE, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, (1) whether his attention has been called to the name of T. S. Porter, on page 24 in the last Return drawn up in pursuance of the Superannuation Act, 1887; (2) whether he is aware that Mr. Porter was formerly a sub-lieutenant, entitled to retire on half -pay amounting to £45 12s. 6d. annually, and was in 1888 appointed an Assistant Commissioner under Land Commission at £800 a year; (3) if he will state what are the duties of his office; whether he has served on any of the sub-Commissions; and (4) what were his qualifications when appointed to the office?

I have not seen the Return referred to in the first paragraph, though I am aware of the facts stated in the second paragraph. Mr. Porter is at present Superintendent of the Agricultural Department of the Land Commission, and performs duties of considerable importance in connection with the Congested Districts Board for Ireland, whose schemes for the improvement of agriculture in congested districts are undertaken by the Agricultural Department of the Land Commission. That Department also administers the Markets and Fairs Acts and collects and compiles returns of the prices of Agricultural produce. Mr. Porter was employed on the work of a sub-Commission between the years 1887 and 1892, and also acted as Valuer for the Land Commission Court of Appeal. Some of this gentleman's qualifications will be found in the Return presented to this House in 1891—No. 177 of that year.

In the absence of the hon. Member for South Wexford, Mr. P. FFRENCH, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the sum of £2,419 11s. 7d., due to the County Wexford Road Authorities for the year ending 31st March, 1894, out of the Probate Duties Grant, has been paid; and, if not, will he recommend its immediate payment, as the cess in Wexford for 1890 is unusually high?

I am informed that payment of the sum mentioned in the Question was ordered in November, 1894, and that it appears from the official records that the County Authorities have cashed all the orders sent to them.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, in view of the fact that large sums of money have been granted for technical education in England, the Government propose to spend any money during the present year on technical education in Ireland?

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to answer this Question. If the Question is to be understood to refer to the spending of public money on technical education in Ireland in other ways and on other subjects than at present, legislation would be necessary for the purpose, and, except as regards agriculture, the Government do not at present contemplate dealing with the subject this Session.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he is aware that at the last Land Sessions held before County Court Judge Roche, Q.C., at Downpatrick, where a tenant applied to have the judicial rent fixed for the second judicial term, it was contended by counsel for the landlord that, as the Land Law (Ireland) Act of 1887 made the fair rent run from the gale day next after the making of the application, and not as in the Act of 1881, only from the gale day next after the decision, it was incompatible with the present law to make application to fix fair rent in respect of second term before the last gale day of the fifteenth year; that otherwise the new rent would commence to run before the last year of the first judicial term had expired; and whether the Land Commission have given any instructions to the tenants on this point?

It is not known what views counsel for the landlord may have submitted to the Court in the case referred to, but it is understood that, notwithstanding anything in the Act of 1887, Section 8 (7) of the Act still remains in force, and some applications to fix a fair rent in respect of the second term have already been disposed of by the Courts, although the last gale day of the first of the statutory terms fixed under the Act of 1881, have not yet passed. The Land Commission have received no Report on the subject from Judge Roche, and have given no instructions on the point to tenants.

asked the right hon. Gentleman if that was the opinion of the Chief Commissioner?

said, he would make direct application to the Commissioner if the hon. Gentleman desired it, but he did not think there was any doubt about the state of the law.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, if his attention has been directed to a Question put to his predecessor in office in April, 1895, by the hon. Member for East Donegal as to the death, from exposure and cold, of Cornelius Rudden, on the mountain pass between Donagh and the Illies, in County Donegal, on the 28th February, 1895, and to the finding of the jury as to the necessity for a road at the place; and, as his predecessor, in reply to the hon. Member for East Donegal, promised to refer the matter to the Congested Districts Board for further inquiry, whether any inquiry was made by that Board; and, if so, what was the nature of such inquiry; and, if any aid will be given in making such a road by the Government?

The suggestion for the making of the road in question has, I am informed, been more than once under the consideration of the Congested Districts Board, but it was decided by them not to make it.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, what were the particular circumstances which led to the retirement on a pension of £504 17s. 6d. a year of the late postmaster of Belfast; whether this took place under Treasury Minute of the 15th August, 1890, or upon the grounds of ill-health; is he aware that since the date of his superannuation the late postmaster of Belfast has been appointed assistant secretary and collector to a charitable institution in Belfast at a salary of £100 per year, and with duties more onerous than those incident to his former position; what steps, if any, he means to take in order to stop the competition of State pensioners with other people anxious to obtain employment; and, whether, if Mr. Shepherd was not retired under Treasury Minute of 15th August, 1890, it would be possible to recall him to active duty by appointing to some less onerous position in the service?

The late postmaster of Belfast retired on the ground of ill health, which was certified by the local Medical Officer to the Post Office, and also, which was not strictly necessary, by another physician. As to his proceedings since his retirement the Department has no knowledge. The Government has no control over State pensioners except indeed that, if their health will permit and they are under 60 years of age, it can recall them to duty; and the terms of the medical certificate made it clearly undesirable in the public interest to retain Mr. Shepherd at the head of a large and busy office who, though not yet 60, will be so early next year.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, if he has any objection to state how ticket of leave convicts are classed with regard to reporting themselves to the police authorities, and especially with reference to the twenty who are allowed to report by letter, giving the circumstances and conditions under which the privilege is allowed?

The manner in which a convict at large on licence in the Metropolitan Police District is required to report himself to the police does not depend upon any mode of classification. If a licence-holder applies for permission to report by letter, his application is considered on its merits and always with a desire to accede to it if possible. The points especially taken into consideration are the nature of his crime, the nature of his employment, and the position and character of the people he is living with.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether his attention has been called to the verdict of the coroner's jury in the case of the Tylorstown explosion, in which the jury expressed their surprise that Her Majesty's inspectors had not made a thorough and systematic inspection of No. 8 Pit during the past 15 months, and recommended that practical working men be appointed as assistant inspectors of mines; whether he will take steps to ascertain from his predecessor the nature of the undertaking given by him last year to appoint such inspectors; and, how far he proposes to meet the recommendation of the coroner's jury?

My attention has been called to the verdict of the jury as reported in the newspapers. Full reports will be received in due course from the inspector for the district and the counsel who has represented the Home Office at the inquest, and, with the verdict of the jury, will be most carefully considered by me. With regard to the appointment of working-men inspectors, I have nothing to add to the answer which I gave to the hon. Member a week ago. In that answer I quoted the undertaking in the matter which my predecessor gave. It appears to me to be sufficiently clear.

Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to issue to Members of this House the evidence that was taken at the Inquiry?

Certainly, Sir. The Report will be issued in due course in the usual way.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, who was responsible for having the charge against James Pelan, of Gorey, of being drunk and disorderly on his own licensed premises, amended into a charge of drunkenness; who was responsible for having this case heard in camera, and who supplied the original information that the case was heard in open Court, which was afterwards admitted to be untrue; whether he is aware of any other cases under the Licensing Acts being ever heard in camera, and where they were heard; why a distinction was made between Pelan's case and the cases of three other publicans which were tried in open Court on the same day; and, whether he will direct an independent Inquiry as to who supplied the erroneous information supplied to him?

I have called for further and full reports in reference to the matters referred to, but as they have not yet reached me, I must ask the hon. Member to repeat the question on Monday next.

On behalf of the hon. Member for the Harborough Division of Leicester, Mr. J. W. LOGAN, I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board, whether, having regard to the fact that in rural districts many changes of tenancy take place on the 25th March, and that the date of a parish meeting for the election of Parish Councillors has been fixed for the 9th of March, and the polling, if any, for the 30th of March, a person who may have come to reside in a parish on the 25th of March, 1895, will be eligible for election, seeing that he will have resided in the parish the statutory period before any polling can take place?

further asked the President of the Local Government Board, is a person who came to reside in a parish on 25th March, 1895, eligible for election as a Parish Councillor by show of hands on 9th March, 1896, the day fixed for the parish meeting for election of Parish Councillors by the Local Government Board?

It will be convenient that I should answer this question and that of the hon. Member for the Tavistock Division at the same time. I have no authority whatever to determine questions as to the qualification or disqualification of candidates for election as Parish Councillors; but, so far as I can form an opinion on the question, I should doubt whether a person could be nominated at the meeting for the election of Councillors on the ground of qualification by residence unless he has during the whole of the 12 months preceding the day of the meeting resided within the parish or within three miles thereof.

I should like to ask, whether the effect of this Order for which the right hon. Gentleman is responsible will not be to disqualify a large number of men who would otherwise be capable of standing as Councillors, seeing that, in the rural districts, a large number of houses change hands on Lady Day?

That will depend upon what is ruled to be the correct interpretation of the law.

Will not the effect of this Order, if it is carried out, be the means of disqualifying a large number of people who, according to the spirit of the Local Government Act of 1894, should be capable of being elected?

Again, Sir, I have to say that that must depend upon the interpretation of the law.

said, it was within the power of the President of the Local Government Board to alter the Order if he thought it advisable; and he would ask him if he would do so in this instance, so as to prevent the disqualification of persons otherwise eligible for the office of Parish Councillors?

Order, order! That is going beyond the limits of the Question on the paper.

I would just observe that, whatever might have been the case some time ago, it would be quite impossible to alter the date now, for the reason that the notices have all been given.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, if he is in his present position next year, whether he will have an Order issued to prevent these people being disqualified?

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he can state when the Report of the Royal Commission on Vaccination (appointed in May 1889) will be presented to Her Majesty?

I am informed that the final Report of the Commission is now under their consideration, but I am not in a position to say more than that I hope to be able to present it to Her Majesty shortly.

Has anything been done to accelerate the Report:

I believe the President of the Local Government Board has communicated with the Chairman of the Commission, and has informed him there is a great desire that this Report should be presented.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate what progress the Tweed and Solway Fishery Commission has made with its labours; and when its Report is expected?

I understand that the Tweed Report is practically complete, and that the Solway Report is expected to be ready shortly.

inquired whether it would be possible to issue an interim report so far as concerned these particulars?

Usually when a Commission desire to have an interim Report they make one. They do not do so when they do not require one.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what powers under the Prevention of Crimes Acts the Chief Commissioner of Metropolitan Police conferred upon Inspector Drywood by his delegation, dated 13th November, 1891; and, under what statutory authority was this delegation made?

The delegation confers the power of: (1) receiving from licensees and persons under police supervision their monthly reports and notifications of place of residence, change of residence and intention to leave the district; (2) serving them with notices prescribing the time and place at which such reports and notifications are to be made. The delegation was dated 30th, not 13th, November, and was made under Section 20 of the Prevention of Crimes Act, 1871.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether he is aware that the statutory meeting of the Quarter Sessions for the county of Sutherland will be held on Tuesday next, 3rd March; and, whether any appointment has been made to the office of Clerk of the Peace, vacant through the death of the late Sheriff Clerk for the county; and, if not, whether any business can be legally transacted in the absence of a clerk?

It is hoped that the permanent appointment will be made in a short time. I am by no means sure that the legal objection referred to in the Question is a sound one; but I will do my best to obviate it before the meeting.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can give any information as to the tenour of the communications which have passed between Her Majesty's Government and that of Germany with reference to the re-opening of the Indian mints; and whether any change has taken place in the views of Her Majesty's Government since the date of those communications?

On November 8th Count Hatzfeldt inquired whether Her Majesty's Government were willing to discuss the Bi-metallic question in conference, in the event of the German Government deciding to do so. Lord Salisbury replied that he must consult his colleagues before expressing a definite opinion; but that he did not wish to exclude the idea of a conference if good grounds for holding it were shown. In a subsequent conversation, Count Hatzfeldt inquired whether the Indian Government proposed to re-open their mints, as the German Government considered this a necessary condition of any International arrangement. On December 6th he was informed that the re-opening of the Indian mints was not contemplated either by the Government of India or by Her Majesty's Secretary of State for India in Council. This being the case, the subject was not then pursued further. At a later date Count Count Hatzfeldt showed to Lord Salisbury the statement which the German Chancellor proposed to make in the Reichstag as to what had passed between them. Lord Salisbury made no objection to the statement, but with reference to observations made in the Reichstag he reminded Count Hatzfeldt that his reply had been confined to a statement of the facts as they then were, and had not been intended to imply any intention, one way or the other, for the future. The statement made by the First Lord on February 20th indicates the general views which Her Majesty's Government, after consideration, entertain upon the subject.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether there are any real grounds for the prevailing impression that British merchants and traders in and to Madagascar will shortly be subjected to fiscal and other disabilities which will not be laid on French traders in and to that island, or whether British traders may continue their business in the security that will enjoy the same fiscal and commercial conditions as their French competitors?

The new Treaty between France and Madagascar has not yet been communicated to Her Majesty's Government, and they are, therefore, not, as yet, in a position to express an opinion in regard to it.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when he will be able to lay upon the Table of the House the Papers with reference to Siam, and the negotiations prior to the signing of the Anglo-French Convention, as well as a Copy of the Treaty itself?

The Anglo-French Declaration about Siam will be laid next week with a Copy of the Dispatch to Lord Dufferin which has already appeared in the Gazette. As I have before stated it is not proposed to lay Papers relative to the previous negotiation.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, if he is aware of the cause of the delay on the part of the Board of Works, in forwarding to the Omagh Board of Guardians a sum of £240, sanctioned on 3rd February under the Labourers Act; and that, if the transfer of land is not completed at once, the labourers will not be able to crop the plots this year; and whether he will take steps to have the money advanced without further delay?

The delay of which the hon. Member complains was due to the need for preparing the requisite mortgages. The drafts were sent to the guardians on the 26th instant, and as soon as the deeds are completed, the first advance of £200 can be made.

I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, was it for one offence, or for several offences, that the wine merchant of Upper Sackville Street, Dublin, has been fined the sum of £300; if for more than one offence, how many; and what is the legal fine attached to each of the several offences?

Before the right hon. Gentleman answers the Question, may I ask him if this is the case of Mr. Adam Scott, and why there should be any hesitation, if a fraud has been committed on the public, in giving the name of the person and thus removing suspicion from innocent persons?

I should have no hesitation in giving the name if I knew it, but it has not been communicated to me.

I shall put a Question on the Paper on the subject?

With regard to the Question on the Paper I may say that the Inland Revenue authorities had reason to believe that the offence was committed on more than one occasion, but as the matter was not brought into Court it is not possible to speak of the fine as if it corresponded to a definite number of proved offences. The maximum penalty which can be imposed by the Court on conviction is £200 for each day on which the offence is proved to be committed. That may be reduced to £50, and I believe it would be generally reduced by the Court.

May I ask what form of trial took place in this case. Was the case heard in private or was it brought into Court?

The fine of £300 was a compromise. It was inflicted by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue under the discretionary powers vested in them by Statute.

Have they the power to condone a crime of this kind?

No, Sir; it cannot be described as a power of condonation. It is a discretionary power vested in them by Statute, and they were advised by the solicitor that it was better to deal with the case in that way owing to the difficulty of obtaining convictions in those cases.

Can the right hon. Gentleman give any explanation why the name of the offender was kept back?

Order, order! The Question on the Paper has been fully answered.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether it is a fact that the Admiralty, in issuing orders for contracts for their Department, have altered the form of order by leaving out of the terms of the Resolution of the House of Commons of February, 1891 (known as the Fair Wages Resolution), the words "current in the district;" whether he is aware that the proposed alteration destroys the full force of the Resolution; whether he has considered the effect of such alteration on the wages of the workmen of firms tendering for contracts; and whether the Government's proposal is final on this subject?

asked whether it was not the fact that the wages paid by firms who were generally asked to tender for Admiralty work are settled by mutual consent between the employers and the employés, usually through their respective associations; and, as the wages are fixed for a period, of the determination of which notice must be given, what the probable effect upon wages expended on Admiralty work could be?

asked whether the alteration had been made in consequence of representations which had been sent in to the Admiralty; and, if so, whether there was any objection to a copy of the correspondence being supplied to Members of the House?

With reference to the question of my hon. Friend below the Gangway (Colonel Denny), I should certainly have thought that the workmen in the employment of great firms would have been able to make satisfactory arrangements with their employers without the intervention of Parliament. In regard to the Question of the hon. Member for Oldham, I am not sure that I could give the correspondence. Certain representations have been made that the words "current in the district" hampered London industry; but I will enter into the matter further. In reply to the Question on the Paper, I have to say that the suggestion in the first paragraph is the very reverse of the fact. I have already stated in the House, in reply to another hon. Member that, in issuing orders for contracts, the Admiralty observe the precise words of the Resolution of the House of Commons. After some words of preamble, the Resolution ran as follows:—

"To make every effort to secure the payment of such wages as are generally accepted as current in each trade for competent workmen."

The words in our contracts are:—

"The wages paid in execution of such contracts shall be those generally accepted as current in each trade for competent workmen."

It is, therefore, an entire misapprehension to say that we have departed from the decision of the House of Commons. The words current, "in the district where the work is carried out," were departmentally added, and have now been departmentally omitted; but it cannot be too widely known that the words "generally accepted as current in each trade for competent workmen" remain unchanged. I am not aware that the proposed alteration destroys the full force of the Resolution. The words "competent workmen" and "current in each trade" contained in the Resolution remain as the House intended them to remain. I have considered the effect of such alteration on the wages of workmen of firms tendering for contracts. I desire to place all parts of the country on an equal footing, with a fair field and no favour, so that workmen in all centres of shipbuilding industry might share in Government work. It appears that discussions touching this subject will take place both on the 17th and 24th of next month, when I shall be glad to state my views on this question. As regards the effect in London, I have asked weeks ago to be supplied with information bearing on this question, but it has not been supplied to me.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what is the total number in the Metropolitan Police District of persons subject to the supervision of police under the Prevention of Crimes Acts (excluding convicts at large on licence); how many (if any) are exempt from the obligation to report themselves every month; how many are permitted to report themselves by letter; how many are required to make their monthly report personally; and, of the last-named class, how many (if any) are required to report themselves elsewhere than at a police station?

The figures which the hon. Member asks for are, in the order in which he asks for them, as follow:—111; none; three; 108; none.

inquired when the First Lord of the Treasury proposed to move for the appointment of a Select Committee to ascertain and report upon the construction and meaning of the new Sessional Order passed on Thursday night.

replied that he had given no promise as to the appointment of a Committee, and had only pointed out that that was one of the methods which might be adopted. It would be in the recollection of the House that he gave a pledge that, before the Government acted on the interpretation which he and the Government gave to the Resolution, the House of Commons should be asked to give its assent, and to that pledge he, of course, adhered.

asked what was the programme of Government business next week.

said, the first business on Monday would be the statement of the First Lord of the Admiralty, with the Speaker in the Chair, on the general subject of the Navy Estimates. After that statement the adjournment of the Debate would be moved, and the Naval Works Bill would be introduced. Thereafter they would go on with the Supplementary Estimates. On Friday, of course, the Estimates would be put down, and he imagined on Thursday also, though that would depend partly on the progress made.

said, if the matters in the statement of the First Lord of the Admiralty were of a novel and extensive character, it would be desirable that Members especially conversant with Naval affairs should have an opportunity of considering it, and they would desire that the Navy Estimates should not be taken at all next week.

suggested that, before asking for a final answer, the right hon. Gentleman should wait until he heard the statement of the First Lord of the Admiralty. He would remind him and the House that in any case it would not be the Naval Estimates that would be discussed on Monday, but Motions on the question that the Speaker leave the Chair.

asked when the Irish Estimates would be taken.

replied that he could not say, but full notice would be given beforehand.

asked if that answer also applied to the Scotch Votes. [Laughter.]

signified assent.

said, he was bound to admit that latterly much progress had been made towards the Government paying their proper contributions in lieu of rates, at any rate in the metropolis. Of the Returns he moved for last Session, only one—the London Return—had been presented; and he should like to know when the Provincial Return would be circulated. With regard to London considerable improvement had been made. In his own parish, Islington, the contributions had been nearly trebled—the increase being from £4,300 to £11,000. In Clerkenwell a similar improvement had taken place; and it was contemplated that all the Royal palaces which were not actually Royal residences—for instance the Houses of Parliament—should in future pay as public buildings. There was one marked improvement in this year's Estimates, and it was explained in this note upon the Supplementary Estimates:—

"Hitherto, in England and Wales, the rule has been to defer payment until after the close of the half-year in which the Rates, which form the subject of the Contributions, are made. It is in order to obviate this delay that Parliament is asked to provide the additional sum of £92,000."

He read this, not for the purpose of criticising it, but of welcoming the reform. Instead of keeping a sum of nearly £100,000 in hand every year for six months, Government property was to be placed on exactly the same footing as other property, and the payments would be in cash. What the Treasury did was to place itself in the position of ordinary ratepayers. He did not think he ought to do otherwise than express his very strong approval of the action of the Secretary of the Treasury, who had remedied an injustice, and, on behalf of the London parishes, he desired to pay a tribute to which he was eminently due. ["Hear, hear!"] But he would like to know when the Provincial Returns would be produced. He begged formally to move the reduction of the Vote by £100.

said, he believed the Provincial Returns would be circulated within a few days.

in reply to Mr. David Thomas (Merthyr Tydvil) said, with regard to the arbitrators, the charge was entirely owing to the inquiries held, in the east and west districts of South Wales, into the colliery accident.

approved of the expenditure. The result was settled rules for the whole district.

said, he thought this Vote required some few words of explanation. It seemed an extraordinary item.

said, the difference between the original Estimate and the expenditure no doubt was due to the fact that when it was framed the late Government did not contemplate a General Election last year. [Laughter]. The extra cost was due to the election petitions.

said, that shorthand notes were taken of these election petition trials for the information of the House.

asked for some explanation of the Vote.

said, the Committee would be glad to listen to any explanation the right hon. gentleman might have to offer as regarded the growth of instruction in drawing in elementary schools, and as to what was being done to extend manual instruction.

said, the policy had been carried out which was foreshadowed in the Estimates of last year, but more students had attended the classes, and they had earned higher grants than was anticipated.

quite understood there had been no change of policy, but the increased Vote asked for indicated a very satisfactory progress in the schools in drawing and manual instruction, and also in a greater average attendance. If the right hon. gentleman could give the Council some more detailed information on the point, it would enable them to realise more thoroughly what he thought was a very satisfactory symptom.

saw there was an increase of about 6,000 in the average attendance of children in elementary day schools who earned the drawing grant. There was an increased percentage of schools which obtained the higher scale of reward, and there was consequently an increase in the payment per unit of average attendance, showing that the children who attended the instruction in drawing had benefited more by the instruction than they did in the previous year. There was a greater increase than was anticipated in the number of schools earning grants for manual instruction. It was estimated that 1,009 would earn grants, and that the average grant per school would be £14 10s; 1,089 actually earned the grant. Besides the increase of grant to the ordinary elementary schools, there was an increase of £4,000 in respect of the training colleges. That was accounted for by the fact that there were two examinations of training colleges which fell into the one year; there were two payments, therefore, where ordinarily one would be made. Under the revised Regulations the students at the second examination were more successful than was anticipated. All this was extremely satisfactory from an educational point of view, and he was sure the small sum of £20,000 would be very cheerfully paid.

asked if there was any intention to propose a Supplementary Vote in respect to King's College.

did not think such a question could be raised, as there was no item in the Vote for King's College.

asked if the Vote was the result of the appeal made by a deputation which recently waited upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer?

said, that the question of King's College did not arise upon the Vote. With regard to the grant to the Cardiff University College, he had to say that £20,000 was promised by the late Chancellor of the Exchequer to the University College at Cardiff, on condition that it was met by a similar amount of private subscriptions. £10,000 was provided for in this supplementary Estimate, because something more than £10,000 had already been found privately. The remainder of the £20,000 was included in the ordinary Estimates for 1896–7, but similarly would only be paid over if a similar sum was found by private subscriptions.

said, the hon. Member for Islington (Mr. Lough) had asked whether this grant was in response to a deputation which waited upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer a short time ago. As the point had been raised, would the Government say whether any decision had been come to as to the University of Wales?

said, the Vote had nothing to do with the University of Wales, but it had to do with the building grant towards the Cardiff College. The point raised by the deputation was altogether different.

understood that £20,000 was promised on condition that another £20,000 was raised by private subscription; £10,000 had been obtained from private sources, and the Treasury now proposed to grant £10,000, thus making an entirely new bargain. It was one thing to say, "I will give you £20,000 towards £40,000," and a totally different thing to say, "I will give £10,000 towards £20,000."

said, the original bargain was that if £20,000 was raised by private subscriptions the Government would find another £20,000. Although the Government were now proposing to give £10,000, £14,000 had been provided by private subscriptions.

stated, in reply to Mr. LOUGH (Islington, W.), that the proportions of the Grant between the three kingdoms were:—England, 80; Scotland, 11; and Ireland, 9.

asked for some explanation of the Vote. This large sum, so far as he could ascertain from the note to the Estimates, consisted of tonnage dues levied on British ships, and had not been expended. He wished to know why those dues, levied at Constantinople and Smyrna for the maintenance of hospital accommodation for British seamen at those ports, had been allowed to accumulate, and had not been expended; and why such a large sum was required this year for the creation, or improvement, or increase of hospital accommodation at the places named.

said, he was not surprised at the Question put by his hon. Friend, for the Vote was one which required some explanation, considering its large amount compared with last year. The hospitals at Constantinople and Smyrna for British seamen were taken over some years since by the British Government, and from that time the annual cost of their maintenance was met by dues levied on British shipping at the two ports by the Consular authorities there. The money thus derived was devoted to the hospitals, and the balances were carried forward. That system prevailed up to 1870, when a change was introduced. In that year for the first time the dues and the balances were paid into the home Exchequer, and from that time up to 1894 the expenditure on the hospitals appeared annually in the Estimates of the House, and after 1885 had formed a part of the sum taken for the Consular Vote. That system gave rise to much complaint. Mercantile bodies, hon. Members, and other gentlemen connected with shipping, frequently complained of the character and amount of the dues levied, and it accordingly had been decided to revert to the old system of a separate hospital fund, which it was believed would cause less friction. The expenses of the hospitals would, therefore, as originally, be met from the dues levied on our vessels at Constantinople and Smyrna. As to the management of the hospitals, he might inform his hon. Friend that they were administered by separate committees composed of British residents at those two ports. The accounts of the committees were audited every year by the Auditor General and Controller General, and the Committees could not act without the approval of the Secretary of State. His hon. Friend appeared to be surprised at the largeness of the Vote. As he had pointed out, up to 1894 the sum derived from the dues had been paid into the home Exchequer, and in most of those years during which this had been done there had been a balance, which had accumulated in the hands of the Exchequer to a considerable amount—to a sum between £40,000 and £50,000. When the old system was reverted to the home Exchequer was asked to refund that accumulated sum to the hospital management, and it was decided to pay off the amount by instalments. Last year the sum of £6,000 appeared in the Estimates for the purpose, but the Treasury had since come to the conclusion that it would be well to pay off the remaining balance of the accumulation in a lump sum, and that fact accounted for the largely-increased amount in the Estimates. His hon. Friend desired to know why, under the circumstances, the amount of the dues had not been decreased, seeing that there had been this accumulation of balances. He was glad to be able to inform him that there had been a consistent reduction of the dues since 1871. In 1871 they were reduced at Constantinople from 1½d. to 1d. a ton (not to be paid twice by the same vessel in four months); in 1888 they were reduced from 1d. to ½d. a ton, independent of any time limit; and in 1890 they were reduced 1d. for every three tons register per voyage. At Smyrna the dues in 1885 were reduced from 2d. to 1½d. a ton; and in 1888 from 1½d. to 1¼d.; and there was no intention at present to increase them for the purposes of the hospitals. The only point now was to see that, the dues having been reappropriated to one fund (the hospitals' fund), they were made to subserve the necessities of that fund, and that fund alone. They would be kept as low as was compatible with the efficient maintenance of the hospitals, and certainly beyond the proper maintenance of these hospitals which should benefit British shipping and British trade there was no desire whatever to exact taxation from British shipping. He trusted that he had explained to the Committee the circumstances in which this sum appeared on the Votes, and also the principles under which these dues on British shipping were levied for the maintenance of the hospitals.

said that on the financial side of the question he was fairly satisfied with the statement of the right hon. Gentleman. It would be admitted, however, that it was possible for the accounts to tally so far as the audit was concerned, and yet the hospital from the medical, surgical, and sanitary point of view not to be as well managed as it ought to be. What medical, surgical, and sanitary supervision was exercised on behalf of the Government in respect of this particular hospital for which this large sum of money was asked? Did any naval surgeons call there to see our sailors who were suffering from accidents or disease, and whether the establishment was satisfactorily managed on the medical side?

, in looking at the total amount of dues for last year, pointed out that those dues were greatly in excess of the requirements of the hospital. Practically, more than £38,000 was required in the space of 20 years; so that £2,000 a year had been levied more than was required. He had not ascertained from the right hon. Gentleman, in whose hands would reside in future the power to say what the rates should be, or on whom the obligation would lie to make a reduction of the rates when warranted by the state of the funds.

said, that the control was primarily in the hands of committees of British residents in those ports, and it was to their interest to see the institutions well and economically managed. He thought that his hon. Friend's criticism as to the excess of dues was not quite fair. From time to time repairs were needed, and the balance fund was required for capital expenditure upon the maintenance of the hospitals. The Secretary of State was primarily responsible for them, and no question could be decided by the committees without reference to the Foreign Office.

Is it not the fact that the greater part of this money has been spent in building a new hospital at Smyrna? That is really how the money went.

said he must press his point once more. The right hon. Gentleman had told the Committee that the medical supervision of the hospital at Constantinople was under the charge of a committee of British residents and others; but did he not think that it was compatible with the neglect of the primary object of the hospital—the attendance upon British sailors down with fever or suffering from accident—for the British residents and others to convert the hospital into a convalescent home for the residents at Constantinople at the expense of the men who received serious injuries? Would the right hon. Gentleman promise that the ailments and diseases from which our sailors suffered should be one of the primary objects of this hospital, and that it should not be looked upon as a kind of chapel of-ease for a few British residents?

believed it to be perfectly true—he was speaking only from memory—that a few years ago it was determined to build a new hospital, and he hoped that it was finished by this time. The new hospital was very much needed, owing to the unhealthy site of the former building. It was not only necessary to consider the question of the amount of dues, but also the suitableness of the buildings, so that they should be in a thoroughly efficient and satisfactory state.

said, he had read a speech by the Colonial Secretary before Parliament met, in which the right hon. Gentleman foreshadowed a grandiose scheme to spend a good deal of British money to improve our properties in divers parts of the world. He noticed that the right hon. Gentleman was already carrying out the idea. For example, in this Vote there was a sum of £15,000 as a grant in aid of Dominica. A foot-note said, "this grant is required to meet outstanding liabilities on the current account of the island, which amount to more than £10,000, and to cover the cost of public works urgently required, to the extent of about £5,000." Like the right hon. Gentleman, he took an interest in these properties, but the difference between them was, that while the right hon. Gentleman thought that it would be better to develop them at the expense of British money, he would like to see them bettered, if possible, at the expense of the money of the Colonies themselves. There were a vast number of things in England on which expenditure would be desirable if they could obtain the money. Really, they must limit themselves to the charity which began mid ended at home. When we had no poor among us here, when we had all the public works that were required here, when we found that there were no persons in need of work in this country, then would be the time to go to Dominica and improve the property there, and pay off the debts of the people. But they had not arrived at that Utopia at home, and until they had he objected to this expenditure. He was no great believer in the West India Islands. So long as slavery existed in the island of Dominica it was wealthy, but since that time it did not appear to be an excellent property. It was about the last place where he should wish to spend British money. No doubt what would happen would be this. Other islands would say: "As you have paid money to better Dominica, the best thing we can do is to incur liability, and you would also pay it off." He moved to reduce the Vote by £15,000.

said, he found in this Vote that there were two sums asked for. He had no complaint to make about the second sum.

A reduction of the first item has been moved, and therefore a discussion cannot take place on another item.

pointed out that the Estimate was headed "Revised," but there had been no original Estimate. Now the Committee had before them a sum of £15,000, and it was an entirely new Estimate.

Where is the word "Revised."

At the head of the column, in small type. We get all our information in small type. The Estimate was revised from nothing to £15,000. Why had that been necessary? If the liabilities were outstanding, why could they not be allowed to outstand until the proper Estimates came forward, so that the Committee might be enabled to discuss them with more completeness than at this juncture?

wished to know why this grant was made specially to Dominica. He had always thought that the island of the West Indian group which most required development was Jamaica. Was it that Dominica had contracted debts, and, like the spendthrift son, come to papa to pay? And what kind of public works were they? Were they works connected with harbours, or roads, or light railways, or what?

I had always thought that the great objects of discussion in Supply were, in the first place, to put questions and to discuss the policy of the Government; and, in the second place, to secure economical administration of funds placed at the disposal of Her Majesty; but the hon. Member opposite has discovered a third object, and, as a jurist and grammarian, he wishes to discuss the manner in which the Estimates are put before the House. There is no doubt this is a new Estimate in the sense of being supplementary, and revised as compared with the original Colonial Estimate, and that, as it was not in the original Vote for Dominica, this may be considered as an entirely new Vote, although, as it comes within the expenditure of the year, it has to be placed on the Supplementary Estimates. The hon. Member for Northampton, in raising the question of policy, referred to a speech of mine delivered after the House rose last year, but that speech was only an extension and explanation of a speech I had previously made in the House, when I said I had convinced myself, after careful inquiry, that there were Colonies of the British Crown— and I referred entirely to Crown Colonies as distinguished from the self-governing Colonies—which were in the nature of undeveloped estates, and upon which expenditure of British money might be made with the greatest advantage both to the Colony and to the Empire. [Cheers.] I am perfectly prepared to say that Dominica is one of those cases. But the question hardly arises on the present Vote. What I contemplated, when I made the speech referred to, was the investment of British capital in those undeveloped Colonies with a view to their development, but I did not intend that that investment should be in the nature of an absolute grant. On the contrary, I anticipated, that it would only be made in cases where there was every probability that the investment would be productive and would be repaid. I did not anticipate that is to say, either immediate or ultimate loss to the taxpayer, because by the proposal I shall not be depriving the inhabitants of the British islands of assistance to which they are entitled; I shall be only asking that an investment of our superabundant capital should be made, and I shall only make the proposal if I think the investment will be profitable. The case of Dominica is altogether an exceptional one It is, I believe, one of the very richest islands in the possession of the Crown in the West Indies in the natural productiveness of the soil; at the same time it is an island in which practically nothing has been done, and to this day the very best Crown land in the island, amounting to about 100,000 acres, is absolutely unproductive because there are no means of communication. Differing in that respect from the French Colonies in the close vicinity of Dominica, we have made no expenditure at all for the development of the resources of the island. What has been the result? As long as slavery prevailed, and sugar plantations were profitable, the island managed to pay its way, but for many years it has been a constant struggle to make revenue and expenditure balance each other, and the struggle has always ended in the expenditure being larger than the revenue. In 1893, the late Sir R. Hamilton was sent out to report on the condition of the island, and he reported as to its natural resources and as to the absolute neglect of those resources up to the present time. He made certain suggestions for raising taxation and for diminishing expenditure, and further submitted that, if anything was to be done which would really set the island upon its legs, it must be by the employment of a considerable sum of money in making communications, without which it was absolutely impossible that the rich lands should be cultivated. Some of the suggestions of Sir R. Hamilton have been carried into effect; but, on the whole he was too sanguine. In the condition of Dominica it was of little use to raise the taxation. We have really almost reached the extreme point to which taxation can be carried under existing circumstances. On the other hand, attempts have been made to diminish the expenditure, and the result has been that expenditure that really ought to have been made on public works has been held over, roads have become useless because bridges have fallen into disrepair, and portions of roads have bee swept away, and the Colony has no money wherewith to repair them. Things have gone form bad to worse, and there existed, in 1895, a deficit of £10,000 as between income and expenditure, which was owing from the island to the Federal Treasury in Antigua. I instructed one of the Officials of the Colonial Office to go out and investigate on the spot the financial arrangements of Antigua and Dominica and the other islands, and he has made a most interesting and valuable report on the whole subject. He confirms us in the opinion that, as regards this deficit, it is absolutely impossible for the island to pay, and impossible also for the island to raise more money by way of loan. Consequently, the island comes to us in formâ pauperis, and I have asked from the Treasury a grant of £10,000 to clear off the deficit and start it afresh. We have asked, at the same time, for a further grant of £5,000 to carry out works which are absolutely necessary unless the public works of the island are to go into complete disrepair. In the first place, expenditure is necessary to put the hospital into proper condition. That is, in one sense, remunerative expenditure, because, when once made it will enable us to do without special accommodation to meet a most terrible disease which sometimes breaks out in the West Indies. Then there is a jetty, which was practically destroyed by a violent hurricane, requiring repair. The lighthouse, also, is in a bad condition, and there are portions of roads on which a small expenditure will be useful to keep communications open. Therefore, we are asking to-day, not a loan for developing the island, but a grant from the Imperial Exchequer to deal with an emergency. It has been asked, why is Dominica chosen for this charitable treatment? There are special claims in Dominica which do not constitute a precedent for any subsequent application. In the first place, after the island was conquered, a very large amount of Crown land was sold, and the proceeds, instead of being applied, as is always the case now, to the advantage of the island, were paid into the English Treasury. That was about 1780, and the sum is variously estimated at from £200,000 to £300,000. The result of that, of course, is that what would have been resources of the island to be applied to its development, have no longer been under the control of the governing authorities. That in itself constitutes a claim for generous treatment. I am sorry to say that the other claim is one that may fairly be based upon past bad administration. The loans which have been raised in times past for public works carried out in the island were applied in part under advice from this country, and the perusal of Sir Robert Hamilton's report will show that there is no doubt that the funds were not applied to the best advantage for the island, and we are, to a certain extent, responsible for the incapacity of the Administrators appointed by ourselves. It is upon those two grounds that I ask for the present grant. But I should not make a complete statement if I did not say that I propose at a later date to submit to the Treasury proposals for the development of the island which will come under the policy I submitted to the House last Session. ["Hear, hear!"] There are 93,000 acres of Crown land in Dominica which by common consent and by all reports contain some of the very best land to be found in the West Indies, which is suitable to many forms of tropical cultivation, and which could be worked advantageously at this moment, if only there were proper communications. But there are none. You cannot get at these lands by sea; there are no roads; and such a thing as a railway does not exist in the island. If it can be shown that by making communications, even at a considerable expense, these lands can be brought into cultivation, and if it can be shown that there are people willing to take up the land at a fair value when communications are opened, then that will be an investment which I shall be justified in asking the House to sanction. The result will be, in the first place, that Great Britain will lose nothing by making the loan, and, in the second place, the colony will be developed.

The right hon. Gentleman is now going away from the particular item of this Vote, and discussing future policy.

Then all I will say is that at a later day I may have an opportunity of explaining the policy to which the hon. Member is prepared to take exception.

said, that this question had occupied a great deal of the late Government's attention, and he hoped that, after the right hon. Gentleman's explanation, the Amendment would not be persisted in. The sum now asked for was in the nature of a compassionate allowance, and had nothing to do with the policy of development, which would have to be discussed later. He did not, perhaps, go quite as far as the right hon. Gentleman in wishing to spend money on the Crown colonies, but he knew that, in too many cases, such colonies, instead of being encouraged, had been discouraged by Downing-street from developing themselves. Personally he should give a favourable consideration to any proposals brought forward by the right hon. Gentleman, if it could be shown the possibility of loss to the British taxpayer was small and of gain to the colony very great. His experience in respect of Dominica entirely justified the attitude of the right hon. Gentleman. In the past we had robbed the island, and of late we had not administered it well; and, unless something were done by way of a compassionate allowance, the island would sink deeper into the slough and become useless to the Empire. This grant was better than others which had been given Mauritius, Newfoundland, and other colonies, where the money had been spent without productive result. Apart from any larger policy, this grant would enable Dominica to start on a better basis to carry out some of the public works which were necessary to her prosperity, and to be no longer almost a disgrace to the British Crown. ["Hear, hear!"]

said, that he had just returned from Dominica, which presented one of the most interesting of the colonial problems to be discussed by the House. The island was one of the richest in the West Indies in productive capacity, and he hoped the Secretary for the Colonies would give Parliament an opportunity of converting it from a disgrace to a credit to British Administration. There were no main roads in Dominica, and the planter on the Windward coast could not get his produce across the island, and, owing to the surf, had often to wait a whole year before he could get it aboard ship. A jetty was also badly wanted. He tried to cross the Island through the primeval forest, but in three days made only eight miles' progress and back. He reached that large distict of rich Crown lands at present entirely unprofitable. He also came across the traces of an old French road which was in use at the end of the last century. He hoped the Secretary for the Colonies would pursue his policy of developing the undeveloped colonies, (Cheers.)

said, that if the hon. Member had gone to other parts of the West Indies and Central America he would have found millions of acres of excellent land where there were no main roads. The produce was carried by mules along bridle-paths. The absence of roads did not prevent cultivation. The reason was that in the summer months these districts were infested with yellow fever. If the land in Dominica was so rich, why did no one take it up? There must be some special reason. He did not know how other Members fared, but it happened to him once a week that he received a letter from some person in some part of England saying that his grandfather, who had lived early in the century, had done something and had been robbed by the Government; and asking him to bring the case before Parliament in order that the money might be returned with compound interest. He always threw such letters into the waste-paper basket, and he thought the Colonial Secretary would have done better had he followed a similar course in regard to the dismal moans of the islanders of Dominica. The right hon. Gentleman said that we ought to give this £15,000 because in some mysterious way our ancestors had robbed the ancestors of the islanders of £200,000 in the last century. Then if we were to be just we should give the Dominicans £200,000. The right hon. Gentleman also said that loans which had been borrowed by the island had been frittered away by our Governors. But if we were to make ourselves responsible for the maladministration of money made by our Governors of colonies we would never hear the end of our liabilities. Surely if the island was such a wonderful place as had been described by the Colonial Secretary it ought to be able to find £500 per annum to pay the interest on this money, if it were advanced to them by way of loan. Remember the Dominicans were not poor people. They were planters who wanted to get rich by the labour of others. The House was often asked to spend money on public works in aid of the unemployed in this country, and had refused. But in this case the money was to be taken away from the people of this country and spent on wealthy, idle, lazy planters. [Cries of "Oh, oh!" and laughter.] He knew them well—he had lived amongst them, and they were lazy, lounging, drunken planters of the West India islands. He protested against such expenditure. His hon. Friend the Member for Poplar had said he was in favour of this Vote. He was not astonished. He had never voted for a single Estimate his hon. Friend had brought forward. His hon. Friend argued that he had voted money under similar circumstances for Newfoundland. Well, he (Mr. Labouchere) had protested against the Vote for Newfoundland, and he would continue to protest against wasting public money on such enterprises.

was sure that as the Vote was necessary for the prosperity of the island the Committee would assent to it. The statement of his hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster that it took him three days to make a progress of eight miles showed the necessity which existed for opening up the interior of the island. It was intended to turn Rossa, the principal town of the island into a municipality.

Then why not lend the money?

said, the idea was to clear off the deficit of the island, and then start Rossa afresh as a municipality when it would be responsible for its own debts.

pointed out that this money would have to come out of the pockets of the people, and the question was whether in the present condition of this country, it was wise to spend money for a purpose so remote? The hon. Member explained that it was intended to start the colony afresh. He should be glad if the debts of his constituency of Forest of Dean were wiped out and it were allowed to start afresh. It was said there were 93,000 acres of Government land in Dominica. In his constituency there were 23,000 acres of Government land which were involved in a similar manner, and he thought he could make out a stronger case for a grant to the Forest of Dean than a grant for Dominica. They had enormous taxes and rates in the Forest, which was entirely the property of the Crown—amounting to 6s. in the pound—and he thought it would be a hard case to ask the poor of a constituency of that kind to contribute towards an expenditure for an object in which this country's interest was so remote. Therefore, if the grant were asked because it would be an advantage to Dominica he would return a negative. But apart from that consideration, there was the question of honour. There might have been circumstances in the past treatment of the colony which called for the expenditure of this money. He had listened carefully to the evidence on that ground; and on the whole, he did not think it a sufficiently strong case to warrant a Vote of money for which they would have no return. He would, therefore, support the Amendment.

said, the question that the expenditure of the money would not be an advantage to this country was not so certain as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Forest of Dean assumed. If the island were developed and its trade increased there would be immediate advantage to the workers of this country. It was said that the money would be better spent amongst the poor of the Kingdom. He doubted whether such a policy would be wise. He believed the working classes of this country were more assisted by the development of the trade of the Colonies than by any unwise direct expenditure amongst themselves. He, therefore, supported the grant in the well founded hope that the development of Dominica would tend to the advantage of the working classes of this country.

supported the Amendment. Why should they spend money on a remote island in which it took three days to travel eight miles. The Secretary of the Colonies knew the Highlands of Scotland. ["Hear, hear!"] The right hon. Gentleman knew that there were many parts of the Highlands where there were absolutely no roads and that the people had nevertheless to pay road rates. With money at its present low rate, there would be no difficulty in getting an ample supply to make roads in Dominica through private enterprise. Why should this country sink £15,000 when the money could be laid out more profitably in the encouragement of working people in the healthy climate of our own island?

asked the right hon. Gentleman, the Colonial Secretary, whether the Vote included the journey of Sir Hercules Robinson.

said, it did not. It was caused by the extraordinary number of changes in the Governments. No fewer than five Governments went out of office.

called attention to the Vote because there was something which he thought needed explanation. It was composed of two items, and he confessed he did not know why they were lumped together. The cost of the Administration was a very distinct matter from the cost of the acquisition of the Mackinnon Road. In acquiring the property of the British East Africa Company, the original view of this Government was that the Mackinnon Road formed part of the assets which should be taken over by this country for the payment of £200,000. The Government later saw reason to change their view, and did not include it in the then stipulated price. Fresh negotiations were entered into and the Government increased the price by £50,000 which ought to have covered the Mackinnon Road. The reason given for the road not being covered by the original price was by no means satisfactory. It was said that the road was built by Sir William Mackinnon and leased to the British East Africa Company at a peppercorn rent, the company undertaking to bear the cost of the maintenance of the road. Under these circumstances the late Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs came to the conclusion that the road was not the property of the company, but of the executors of Sir Win. Mackinnon, but he could not understand why a beneficial lease on a peppercorn rent should not be considered a valuable asset of the company. The Foreign Office at that time did not think it proper to include it as an asset covered by the £200,000 and it was excluded. Under the increased price of £50,000, making £250,000 in all, there was no express exclusion of this road, and it would appear that the road was included and handed over to the Government with the rest of the assets of the company. If it were not so handed over it would surely have been a remarkable thing that a bare road should have been left in the hands of the executors while the British Government took over the whole of the rest of the property. He thought they ought to have some statement from the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs as to the exact price paid for the road and as to why the beneficial lease which the British East Africa Company had in this road on a peppercorn rent was sacrificed when the company's property was taken over.

said, that the British East Africa Company spent upon this road, in the first place, a sum of 5,000 rupees. They were not able to expend any more money upon it and Sir William Mackinnon, out of his own pocket, continued the construction of the road. When he died, this road passed to his executors. When the Administration was taken over last year, the Government at first thought of leasing the road from the executors, but, as the Committee would remember, in August last, the announcement was made of the immediate commencement of the railway. From that time the situation changed. It was found that the Uganda Railway would cross and recross the road at quite a number of places for the first 90 miles of its course, and it was feared that difficulties might arise in connection with plots of land adjoining the road. For these reasons it was decided by the Railway Committee who were managing the Uganda Railway that it would be desirable to substitute for the idea of leasing the road from the executors the pur- chase of it from them. The only question to be determined was the price to be paid. A very careful calculation, based on the actual expenditure which Sir Wm. Mackinnon had incurred, was made, and it was decided that a fair price for the acquisition of the road would be a sum of 61,000 rupees, or £3,400. That was the amount demanded in this Estimate, which would be required to complete the purchase.

thought his hon. Friend had elicited from the right hon. Gentleman a very interesting explanation, which would relieve them from the necessity of taking any steps with regard to the Vote, except to agree to it. He would, however, like some information as to the rest of this Vote for the Administration of the country.

said, that taking the £34,000 for the road, they had a sum of about £17,500 left. Of that £14,780 was the cost of Administration, including the military operations to which he had made some reference that afternoon in reply to a Question by the right hon. Baronet, and £2,820 was the payment to the Sultan of Zanzibar for his troops engaged in the course of those operations on the mainland.

said, he did not wish to anticipate the answer of the Secretary of State for India to a Question which he had on the Paper for Monday, but he ventured to suggest to the House that the charge for the Indian troops engaged in those operations should be borne by the Imperial Government and not by the Indian Exchequer.

said, he would not anticipate the luxury which would be enjoyed by his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for India on Monday. He might mention that in the neighbourhood of Mombasa there was a large number of native chiefs, members of an Arab aristocracy, who were continually fighting with each other. They commenced these acts of rebellion against the Sultan of Zanzibar before the British East Africa Company came into existence. For a time after that, they were fairly quiet, but during the past year they had renewed their activity, and their internecine warfare. Owing to the difficulty of composing the quarrels by those responsible for the Administration of the country, an Indian regiment had been sent over to Mombasa to put an end to the disturbances which interfered with the progress of the Administration. They hoped at a very early date to secure the pacification of the Arabs in that part of the country.

expressed the opinion that the Foreign Office was absolutely unfitted to hold the control of territories of this kind where military operations were constantly carried on. No one could have a higher opinion of the Foreign Office than he had, but he did not regard it as the proper Department for work of this kind. Cyprus was too heavy a burden upon it and now it was charged with these enormous territories in Africa. He believed it would certainly lead to a muddle, and to an increass instead of a diminution of wars so long as the Foreign Office was charged with interests different to those for which it was created.

desired to say a word or two as to the way in which this district had been managed during the few months since which it had been taken over by the British Government as compared with its management under the much maligned British East Africa Company. They now heard that troops were on their way to Mombasa. When the company were administering the territory they paid the principal native chief to keep him quiet. He submitted that if the simple process of paying modest sums had been continued until civilisation was more advanced they should not have lost the valuable lives they had lost in that district and a lot of good money would not have been wasted. There had been much said about the mismanagement of the Chartered Company, but he thought that having regard to what they heard of the British East Africa Company and what they heard from Zanzibar now, there was reason to think that the district was more carefully, more sympathetically, and more economically managed by the company than it was by the present or by the late Government. Speaking of the unhappy company which had now gone into the shades of history, he considered that its Members were entitled to some praise for the excellent manner in which they handled the affairs of the vast ter- ritory they controlled for over four years, and which was in striking contrast to its management since it had come under the Administration of the British Government.

asked whether judicious methods had been entirely abandoned by the Foreign Office. They had had a good lesson in British Administration in Central Africa under Sir Henry Johnston; that Administration had proved a success both in regard to military operations and in its civil government. Sir Henry Johnston was living there in the middle of the territory he had to administer. In operations of that character, being military operations, it was of immense importance to have the military authority in touch with the persons over whom he had to rule. He considered that if in the East African territory a similar course had been taken as that adopted by the appointment of Sir Henry Johnston in Central Africa, it would have been better and more conducive to the interests of all concerned.

(who was imperfectly heard) was understood to agree with the hon. Member for the Abercromby Division that the British East Africa Company had been unfairly attacked. His hon. Friend the Member for Holderness, asked why a similar course was not adopted in the case of British East Africa to that taken in the territory administered by Sir Henry Johnston. The situation they had to deal with just after they took over the country did not at present permit of it, and in consequence of one of the principal chiefs rebelling against the new Administration, they had to take certain measures which would otherwise not have been necessary. The Government were by no means anxious to pursue military operations. It was not with pleasure they did so. They wanted to pacify the district, and their one desire was to be freed from the necessity of such operations and to aid in the peaceful development of these countries. He looked forward himself to the time when these large possessions would be in a state of contentment and tranquillity, and when they might be able to appoint an Imperial officer specially to look after them.

observed that he did not see why this should be a Supplementary Estimate at all. It seemed to him an attempt to make good some repayments of local loans. He desired to ask a question or two with reference to this Vote. The first sum amounted to £65,000, written off, as he understood, in respect of loans for the redemption of waste lands in Ireland. What was the meaning of this, and why should it come into the Supplemental Estimates? Why should not an arrangement be made when they were dealing with the General Estimates? The next item related to a loan to the Waterford and Wexford Railway amounting to £30,000 or £31,000. There was a reference in the Irish Local Government Board's report to the fact that some railway upon which the Government had lent £30,000 or £40,000 had been sold for something like £4,000 or £5,000. Was this sum in respect of the loss made upon that town? Was it to get rid of this loss which was made by the sale of the railway? There appeared to have been only two annuities paid on the total loan to the Waterford and Wexford Railway, and now the whole of it was written off. He desired to know if this was a loss on the sum lent many years ago to Irish railway companies and whether there were any such loans outstanding?

replied that the subject of the Waterford and Limerick Railway Company's loan was governed entirely by the Act of Parliament of 1893, and the only way in which it arose in this Vote was because Parliament had to make good any deficiency in the assets of the Local Loan Fund in those cases where debts had been written off the Fund's assets by Parliament. In three cases out of six appearing on the Vote they were dealing with loans which had been wiped off by Acts passed during the year 1895, and therefore it was necessary to take it in the Supplementary Estimates because the assets of the Local Loans Fund had to be made good. These sums had been dealt with already by Acts of Parliament and as the amounts had been wiped off by Acts of Parliament they were bound by those Acts to repay the money by subsequent Votes. The reason a Supplementary Vote was needed was that under the Act they were empowered either to repay the Local Loan Fund by a lump sum, or a series of annual payments in the shape of annuities. It had been thought that, instead of allowing annuities to run on, spread over a larger number of years, it would be better to pay off the sum during the current year.

inquired what was the total sum expended under the head of Loans to Fishermen, provided for in the Crofters Holdings (Scotland) Act, 1886; how much had been repaid, how much had been cancelled, and how much was still outstanding?

said, the Vote was gone into when the Bill on which the Supplementary Estimate was based was passed a few months ago, but if the hon. Member wanted the information, and put a Question on the matter, he would endeavour to supply it.

said, this was a good object-lesson on the pernicious character of legislation by dole for local purposes. He and others had often protested against it, and if ever the Secretary to the Treasury wanted assistance to prevent the continuance of this mischievous legislation, he would receive it from himself and others sitting near him.

pointed out that of the total sum only £478 applied to the Highlands of Scotland, the rest of the money going to Ireland, whore £100,000 had been doled out. In many respects the Highlands of Scotland were in a more distressed condition than the congested districts in Ireland. He did not object to the latter getting money when they needed it, but the Scotch Members considered that the Highlands of Scotland, which needed it quite as much, should be treated with the same liberality.

joined in the protest of the right hon. Member for the Forest of Dean in protesting against legislation by doles. The original Estimate under the head of relief of distress in Ireland was only £18,000, and since then a sum of £116,000 in addition was required. He submitted that these doles, issued from the Imperial Treasury, did no good whatever, but only harm. They were wasted and "jobbed away" and demoralised those who got them. He was sorry to find that one of the first things his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury had done had been to multiply the amount of original dole by ten. He expected his hon. Friend would keep the Government straight. If he went on in this way he should have to consider his hon. Friend's salary. [Laughter.] Why should £18,000 be considered insufficient and his hon. Friend now come for this stupendous increase of £116,000? No doubt his hon. Friend was casting his eye on the death-duties. "There is such a lot of money going," he said. "We must do something with it. What can we do? There is waste land in Ireland, and the Waterford railway. Let us give £60,000 to the one and £30,000 to the other." Hence this Supplementary Estimate. He would not move a reduction or vote against it, but some protest was needed against the policy of Imperial doles for local purposes.

said, his hon. Friend had quite mistaken the object of the Vote. It had nothing to do with further loans whatever. What had happened was that under certain Acts of Parliament certain debts had been wiped off as far as the Local Loans Fund was concerned. If they could recover them, well and good, but they were bound by statute to devote money to cover the deficiency created in the assets of the Local Loans Fund. No new loans for England, Scotland, or Ireland were proposed. They simply proposed to fill up the deficiency in the Local Loans Fund created by certain Acts of Parliament. His hon. Friend talked of the large increase in the Vote this year as if there was a large addition to the doles. It was nothing of the kind. The larger portion of the increase arose from the fact that instead of going on repaying the Local Loans Fund as they might have done by an annuity spread over a series of years, they were paying the whole sum out of the revenue of last year. No extra money whatever had been spent.