said he desired to ask Mr. Speaker's ruling on some points of order. The first was whether the Committee which had charge of the Bill had gone outside the Instructions of the House? On July 13th the hon. Member for North Louth (Mr. T. M. Healy) moved the following Instruction:—

"That it he an Instruction to the Committee to inquire into the advisability of extending the municipal franchise to all Parliamentary voters except lodgers, and of providing that the burgess lists shall be revised and made up by the same persons and at the same time as the Parliamentary Register, before the increased powers proposed to be given by the Bill are conferred upon the Corporation, and if they think fit to make provision in the Bill for the same."

On that Instruction Mr. Speaker said—

"It seemed to him that it was somewhat doubtful whether the Instruction was in order or not, and if it had been objected to be should have liked some further time to consider it in connection with the terms of the Bill. As, however, it appeared to be accepted by general consent, he did not think it necessary to raise any objection."

That was an Instruction to the Committee to extend the franchise, and not to deprive any class of the citizens of the franchise which they at present possessed and exercised. Clause 15, which the Committee embodied in the Bill, dealt with the franchise. The clause included on the list of burgesses, all persons on the Parliamentary register, omitting lodgers and persons qualified to appear on the register in respect of premises not situate within the municipal boundary. There was in Dublin a considerable body of persons entitled to vote in respect of the occupation of warehouses, shops, or offices, whose residence was not within the city but within seven miles of the boundary. The clause would disfranchise those persons, and he submitted that the Committee therein exceeded their powers. His second point of order was with respect to Clauses 19 and 20, which provided for minority representation. The hon. Member for Londonderry had an Instruction down specifically relating to minority representation, but on objection being taken by the Chief Secretary it was withdrawn, and he submitted that after that it was not competent for the Committee to deal with minority representation under another Instruction not specifically mentioning that subject. His next point of order related to the Instruction of the hon. Member for North Monaghan, which was:—

"that the Committee have power to make provision for an amendment of the law as to the election and tenure of office of aldermen, councillors, and assessors, and as to the employment and tenure of office of any officers annually elected by the corporation, or appointed by any persons nominated by the corporation."

The Committee had not confined themselves to the officers elected by the corporation; because the borough assessors were elected by the burgesses at large. Moreover, this clause relating to the borough assessors involved an additional burden on the Imperial revenue, and on that ground would be out of order.

On the point of order, Sir, is it not the fact that the guardian of order in Committee is the Chairman, and that it has always been held to be most inconvenient for Mr. Speaker to engage himself with what went on in Committee when he did not hear the arguments?

said that when he withdrew his Instruction, which referred merely to one form of minority representation, he withdrew it in favour of the other Instruction.

With regard to the Question of the hon. Member for North Louth, it is quite true that in all Com- mittees the Chairman is the guardian of order, and decides all points which arise in Committee. But when there is an Instruction from the House, and the Bill comes back from the Committee with matters in it which are outside that Instruction, then the whole matter is before the House, and it would be my duty to give my opinion as to whether or not the clauses of the Bill did go beyond the Instruction. Therefore, the hon. Member for the Harbour Division is entitled to my opinion on that point. As to the first clause to which the hon. Member has taken objection. The Instruction with regard to the franchise was to inquire into the advisability of extending the municipal franchise to all Parliamentary voters except lodgers. That was the material part of the Instruction; and it only gives powers to extend the franchise. As far as I have been able to make myself acquainted with the Act, the hon. Member for the Harbour Division is right in saying that the present municipal franchise includes persons living within seven miles of the boundaries who occupy tenements within the city. That franchise has been taken away by the clause, which is clearly beyond the Instruction. To take away a franchise is a serious matter, which no Committee have a right to do unless authorised to do it by the nature of the Bill itself or by an Instruction. If it be by an Instruction it ought to be by an express Instruction, or at least one drawn in terms clearly wide enough to empower the Committee to take away that franchise. In this Instruction there was no authority given to disfranchise, and to the extent to which it does so the clause is beyond the powers of the Committee. As to the point upon Sections 19 and 20, the Instruction of the hon. Member for North Monaghan was:—

"That the Committee have power to make provision for an amendment of the law as to the election of aldermen, councillors, and assessors."

Those are general words, and would, I think, include the power to give a minority vote. But then the point is taken that because the hon. Member for Londonderry put an Instruction on the Paper specifically referring to the minority vote, which was withdrawn, that the Committee could have no power to deal with the subject of minority representation under the Instruction of the hon. Member for North Monaghan. I think that is not so. An Instruction brought forward and withdrawn is as if it had never existed. All that the Speaker or the Chairman of Committees have to look to is the Instruction actually given to the Committee. With regard to Clause 23, the hon. Member for the Harbour Division is mistaken in supposing that the only offices which there was power for the Committee to deal with were offices held by officers annually elected by the Corporation. They were entitled, quite apart from those offices, to inquire into the election of assessors who are specifically named. But in that clause the Committee have also gone beyond their powers, because they have not only dealt with the offices of the assessors, but they have created two new officers—namely, two additional revising barristers—who are to be appointed by the Lord Lieutenant under the 20th & 21st Vict., chap 58. On referring to that Act I find that the powers of the Lord Lieutenant to appoint revising barristers are accompanied by the provision that their salaries are to be paid out of moneys to be voted by Parliament. It is quite clear that the Committee had no power to authorise the appointment of officers whose salaries are to be paid out of moneys to be voted by Parliament; and, therefore, that section is also out of order. Of course, the whole of the clauses from 15 to 26 are clauses which were put into the Bill only under the powers of these two Instructions; and the usual course where a Committee have only in part exceeded their instructions, is to refer back to the Committee those parts of the Bill in which they have exceeded their instructions. It is a matter entirely for the House and not for me, but I would suggest that, inasmuch as these sections from 15 to 26 form a code as it were, the proper course would be to refer the whole of these sections back to the Committee to deal with them, because it is impossible for the House to know exactly how far the Committee were influenced in framing one section by the form which they have adopted for other sections. That would seem to be the most reasonable course.

I understand, Sir, you have recommended the House to refer back to the Committee certain portions of the Bill. At what stage will a Motion carrying out that suggestion be appropriate?

It might be made now.

said that was the Motion he intended to make, of which he had given notice. It was in these terms, "That the Bill be recommitted to the former Committee." The hon. Member said he wished to put the House in possession of certain facts in regard to this Bill. It was a Bill of exceedingly narrow scope. It was promoted by the Dublin Corporation, and the exception he took to the clauses mentioned had reference to the permanent appointment of certain officers who came here from Dublin to promote the Bill, who appeared to have made a bargain with a certain Member of the House, and who, as the result of their visit to London, went home to Dublin with permanent appointments in their pockets, and their salaries increased. One of the assessors of the City of Dublin was a counsel who appeared before the Select Committee. No more scandalous use was ever made of private Bill legislation than that the very counsel who appeared before the Select Committee should, without notice to the citizens or Corporation, without the question ever being raised at meetings of the citizens, simply because he came in contact with the hon. and learned Member for North Louth, be enabled to go home with a permanent appointment, and his salary increased by £350 a year, while the citizens of Dublin who had the power of annually electing him, were deprived by this Bill of the power for ever electing him hereafter. The other case to which he referred was that of the Sub-Sheriff of Dublin. That gentleman never was an official of the Dublin Corporation, the Corporation never had anything to do with his appointment. Like all Sheriffs he was the mere nominee of the High Sheriff, who was appointed for the year. Now, the Sub-Sheriff was a personal friend of his own. Probably, in the course he was now taking he would incur the Sub-Sheriff's enmity for ever, but he would be unworthy of the position he occupied as a Member of Parliament, if he allowed this House to make itself the instrument of a corrupt bargain and a corrupt job. Why should the Sub-Sheriff of Dublin be made a permanent official when no other Sub-Sheriff enjoyed a permanent tenure? Why, because he was sent over by the citizens to promote this Bill, being Chairman of the Waterworks Committee, and in order to secure his sanction to fanciful provisions with regard to minority re presentation, that the other safeguards by which the hon. Member for Louth was showing his zeal for the Conservative Party in Dublin for the first time—why should the Sub-Sheriff be favoured in this way? He should be amazed if the English House of Commons would allow themselves to be made the instrument of a corrupt bargain of that kind, and if it did, all he could say was that the lesson it taught to the citizens of Dublin would be learnt by the people of Ireland. The citizens of Dublin had paid £8,000 for the promotion of this little Bill, and the result was that their own officers, elected annually, subject to the control of the Corporation and the citizens, now obtained a permanent appointment in order to square them to accept the fanciful provisions of this Bill. The hon. Member concluded by moving that the Bill be re-committed to the former Committee.

said it was a curious fact that the hon. Member should have spoken with so much heat. He claimed to have some slight knowledge of the question of the assessors. The question stood thus. Every Bill that had been brought in to extend the municipal franchise had abolished the office of assessor. That was felt to be a hardship, and when his Bill was going through Grand Committee last year, complaint was made of the abolition of the offices. He thought that the Solicitor General for Ireland was a Member of the Committee. When the complaint was made to the Grand Committee he asked the then Liberal Solicitor General (Sir F. Lockwood) to give these gentlemen a guarantee that they would be appointed Parliamentary Revising Barristers. He obtained that pledge, and it was in fulfilment of this pledge that the so-called corrupt bargain was entered into. The hon. Member who had just spoken and the hon. Member for Water-ford sat on the Committee, and they had not a word to say about the so-called corrupt bargain. That was the story with regard to the assessor. As to the Sub-Sheriff, he said that he was a man to whom he had not spoken for six years. [Laughter.] He was the strongest Parnellite in Dublin, and in a recent speech about him that gentleman announced that his action against Mr. Parnell would be remembered, not only for himself, but for his children's children—an eventuality which had scarcely yet arisen. [Laughter.] This gentleman held his office under an annual tenure, and when his Franchise Bill was going through the House of Commons, he was naturally alarmed at the possible loss of his office, and letters appeared in the paper which he believed were written by this gentleman. The Sub-Sheriff appeared to be of opinion that he was promoting a Franchise Bill for the purpose of hustling him as a political opponent. Accordingly, as Her Majesty's Government had acted in the case of Armagh when they extended the Franchise to Armagh, providing that the existing officials should not be dismissed except with the consent of the Lord Lieutenant, he thought it was only fair, when dealing with political opponents, that those gentlemen should hold office as in the past and during good behaviour. If this be Tammany Hall work, he was proud of it. Who were the gentlemen who objected to this annual tenure of the Sub-Sheriff? There was a Motion on the Paper of the hon. Member for North Dublin, who was in sympathy with the hon. Member for the Harbour Division. Was this a corrupt bargain? It followed his clause word for word, and if he was corrupt what was the position of the hon. Member for North Dublin? He provided a permanent tenure for his political enemy, the Sub-Sheriff; the hon. Member provided a permanent tenure for his political friend, the President of the Court of Conscience.

rose to order.

said that both hon. Members were travelling a little outside the question before the House.

I put down this Notice of Motion, and intended to propose it only in the event of the hon. Member's clause being passed.

said that the only point was as to the corrupt bargain. There was not a friend of his provided for by these Instructions, not a man who was not a bitter political enemy. He asked leave to move an Amendment to confine the Instruction to recommit certain clauses of the Bill on this ground. The hon. Member for the Harbour Division wanted to recommit the whole Bill; in other words, he agreed with the hon. Member for South Dublin, and wanted to fight over again all the question about the Water Clauses. As the Committee had considered this matter throughout, and as only two minute points were practically challenged, he thought it would only be a fair thing to refer the Bill back on the two clauses on which the action of the Committee had been challenged in the House. The clause he proposed gave the Conservatives of Dublin twice the representation they now enjoyed. The hon. Member for West Belfast, on the Derry Minority Clause and the Belfast Minority Clause, said that when passing Franchise Bills elsewhere, the Nationalists never provided for the Conservatives of Dublin. The Conservatives had now 11 seats on the corporation, and his clause would give them 15 to 20 seats. It was this which had roused the indignation of the hon. Member who knew so much about the "bosses" of Tammany Hall.

asked that the word "former" be omitted, and the Bill transferred to another Committee. He had now been eight weeks on the Committee.

I should accept the Motion to omit the word "former" and to have "a Committee" substituted.

asked whether he would be in order in moving that the Clauses 15 to 26 inclusive be recommitted if the Amendment was put first?

said that the hon. Member had already moved.

said that he had understood Mr. Speaker to say that it would not be possible to limit the Committee to a discussion of those portions of the Bill with reference to which they had exceeded their powers.

I move, Sir——

The proper course will be to deal with the Amendment now before the House. When that has been dealt with another Amendment can be moved.

Supposing that I desire to recommit the Bill in respect of clauses before Clause 15, could I make a Motion to that effect if this Amendment was carried?

Yes; if these words are struck out, then it will be open to the hon. Member to move to insert other words.

If the Amendment of the hon. Member for Louth is carried—namely, the Amendment to recommit the Bill in respect of certain clauses beginning with Clause 15, should I be in order in moving that previous clauses be also recommitted?

Supposing that this Amendment is defeated, then the main question will remain, "That this Bill be recommitted," and on that it will be open to the hon. Member to move that the recommittal shall be in respect of certain clauses.

But supposing this Amendment is carried?

I think the proper course to adopt will be to insert the word "only" after the words "Clause 23," in the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Louth. Will the hon. Member for Louth consent to that?

Yes, Sir.

, on a point of order, pointed out that the hon. Gentleman the Member for South Dublin had a Notice of Motion on the Paper to recommit the Bill in respect of some earlier clauses.

The Motion of the hon. Member for South Dublin is to recommit the Bill generally.

said that this Amendment was merely an endeavour to shut out from the consideration of the Committee every other question except the question of order raised by Mr. Speaker. The Chairman of the Committee was opposed to the inclusion of any of these clauses, and if this Amendment was carried, he could simply preclude the Committee from the consideration of any other question except the question of bringing these clauses in order. He appealed to the House to reject the Amendment.

said that the whole position taken up by the hon. Gentleman was that the Committee had acted ultra vires with regard to Clause 15.

said his Motion was for the recommittal of the Bill in respect to one or two clauses. It was only on the point of order that the question of ultra vires arose.

said that Mr. Speaker had ruled that Clause 15 was ultra vires. He moved an Amendment to recommit Clause 15 and other clauses, but Mr. Speaker decided that Clause 15 was ultra vires. The Government held the view that the whole of the clauses should be brought into harmony with the Instruction, and that was the effect of the Motion now made. The whole object of the proceedings of the hon. Member for the Harbour Division of Dublin was to kill the Franchise Clauses, and he now asked that if this Bill was sent back to the Committee, the House should not allow the clauses which had not incurred the objection of the Chairman to be dealt with again. The Committee having dealt with these clauses, no exception should be taken to them. He asked the House to agree to the Motion now made, that the clauses should be reconsidered only with a view to bringing them into harmony with the Instruction carried by the House.

was understood to say that he could only put the words "in respect to Clauses 15 to 26." If he put the remainder, "to reconsider the same, and bring them within the scope of the Instruction of the House," it would really be reviving the proposal which the House had already rejected on a Division.

said he understood that Mr. Speaker had advised the House that there might he a difficulty in the Committee bringing the two clauses into harmony with the Instruction of the House, without altering others. He did not understand that it was the intention of the House in its last vote that the whole question of the Bill should be reopened.

said that as the clauses were to be recommitted, it was necessary that the Committee should know on what grounds. He submitted that the Committee ought to know on what Instruction they were to act.

asked leave to withdraw his Amendment.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to a report of a case heard in Lambeth County Court on the 23rd July, in the course of which the plaintiff, George R. Glenie, of Heber Road, East Dulwich, clothing manufacturer, is reported to have stated in evidence that he made a suit of uniform for the Metropolitan Police for 1s. 3d.; and, whether there is any truth in this statement?

No, Sir, I have not seen the report of this case, but Glenie has stated in reply to an inquiry that the report is incorrect and that he really said (pointing at the same time to a constable in Court) "I can make a policeman's suit for one and eightpence." Glenie, in fact, has never made a uniform for the Metropolitan Police. As the right hon. Member is aware, stringent clauses are inserted in the police clothing contracts for the purpose of ensuring fair wages, and I have every reason to believe that they are successful.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether his attention has been drawn to notices which have been exhibited on the stances of the Glasgow Meat Market intimating that from and after this date no co-operative society will be supplied there; and whether the posting of such notices in public places constitutes a breach of the law; and, if so, whether any effort will be made to prevent the law being so infringed in future?

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether he is aware that a body calling itself the Traders Defence Association of Scotland is bringing pressure to bear upon employers with the object of causing them to intimate to the persons in their employment who are members of co-operative societies that they must either sever their connection with such societies or leave their employment, and that employers have in some cases posted in their works notices to that effect; whether he is a ware that a notice has been posted on stances in the Meat Market of Glasgow to the effect that, in compliance with a resolution come to at a mass meeting of master fleshers held in Trades Hall on Thursday, 25th June 1896, no cooperative society will be supplied at that establishment; whether, seeing the Meat Market of Glasgow is a public market, the proceedings above-mentioned, or any of them, constitute violations of the Truck Acts or of the law relative to conspiracy, or are otherwise illegal; and whether he proposes to take any action in the matter?

I am informed that notices of the nature referred to in this Question and in that of my right hon. and learned Friend opposite were posted in the Meat Market at Glasgow which is a public market under the management of the Glasgow Corporation. They were objected to, and by the instructions of the authorities were removed. As regards the general question of the legality of such notices, and the propriety of my taking action in any such matter, I have to remind my right hon. Friend that if any illegal practice is being carried on, it should be reported by the person or persons aggrieved in ordinary form by information to the Procurator Fiscal, when it would be considered in due course.

I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether he is aware that heaps of road scrapings and the contents of dustbins are deposited in different parts of Greenwich Park; whether during the hot weather such heaps give forth a disagreeable smell; and whether he will take steps to have the nuisance so caused abated?

For some years the Office of Works has been effecting improvements in the surface of the land in Greenwich Park, and has been endeavouring to promote the growth of grass, shrubs, etc. To this end, manure (road-sweepings but not dustbin refuse) has been used. With a view to avoid, as far as possible, the unpleasant smell complained of, instructions have been given to cover the sweepings with dry earth whenever work ceases.

I beg to ask the hon. Member for Thirsk, as a Charity Commissioner, (1) whether the Charity Commission have considered the questions arising in the year 1895 as to the administration of Peap's Charity, at Raunds, Northamptonshire, and have, in reply to an inquiry by the Parish Council and the present trustees, stated that the proceeds of the charity should be administered and applied by the whole body of the trustees, as constituted at the time of such application; (2) whether it appears that the then vicar of Raunds, the Rev. A. E. Oldroyd, applied to the national school both half-year's rents, paid in April and October 1895, without calling together the trustees; (3) whether he is aware that the new trustees of the parochial charities, nominated by the Parish Council on 22nd April 1895, were not summoned to a meeting by the vicar till October; that this meeting was originally called for 11th October, the date upon which the second half-year's rent was payable, then altered to 17th October, and the matter of Peap's Charity held over till 24th October, while the rents were paid to the vicar on the 19th; that the vicar declined either to attend any subsequent meeting of the trustees or to refund the rents for the trustees to administer and apply in pursuance of their duties; that, without consulting either the Parish Council or the trustees nominated by the council, he sent an application for a new scheme for the charity on behalf of himself and some of the former trustees of the charity; and that the Parish Council has passed a resolution declaring the draft scheme to be objectionable and unnecessary; and, (4) whether the Charity Commission will represent to Mr. Oldroyd that he has acted improperly in applying the rents of 1895 at his own discretion without the consent of the duly appointed trustees, and that it is his duty to repay those rents to the trustees for them to deal with according to law, and will also withdraw the draft scheme after the expression of opinion of the duly elected local authority of the parish.

The answer to the first paragraph is in the affirmative. The answer to the second is Yes, but, as to the rent of April 1895, it was received by the vicar before the appointment of now trustees was completed, and paid by him in a manner which the old trustees had sanctioned for many years. The Commissioners do not think there was any occasion for a special meeting of trustees in the case of the April rent. In reply to the third, I have to say that Mr. Oldroyd states that the appointment of trustees by the Parish Council was not communicated to him until about the beginning of October, and that the meeting then summoned by him for October 11th was postponed until the 17th, after communication to the trustees individually. It was actually held on October 17th, and the question of the disposal of the October rent of the charity was not raised at it by anybody. No resolution of the new trustees having been passed altering the method of disposal of the money, when the vicar as treasurer received the rent, he paid it into the bank to the same account as usual. Probably it will be sufficient if I answer to the last part of this paragraph and the latter part of the 4th, that the scheme will not be proceeded with in deference to the wishes of the Parish Council. The Commissioners have already informed Mr. Oldroyd that he made a mistake in his application of the rents, but they do not consider that this is a case of misappropriation sufficient to justify a requirement to replace which could only be enforced by an application to the Court.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board, whether it is his intention to allow the Hanwell School Managers to proceed with the erection of an infant block, in spite of the recommendation of the Poor Law Schools Inquiry Committee that the existing schools should not be enlarged (page 15); is it his intention to allow the Mile End Guardians to proceed with the erection at North Weald of a series of cottages, forming an artificial village for pauper children, in spite of the statements and recommendations of the Poor Law Schools Inquiry Committee; is he aware that each bed in a similar village, Hornchurch, cost £189 5s. 4d. (page 152), and a yearly expenditure of £38 6s. 7d. per child, whereas the boarding-out system cost £13 6s 9d, per child per annum, and with no capital charge; and will he advise the Mile End Guardians to board out the children chargeable to that union before involving the ratepayers in the proposed expense?

As regards the Hanwell School the latest proposal is the revival of a, previous scheme—suggested, I find, in 1894. But it was only received within the last two days and I have not yet had time to consider it, but I am in general sympathy with the views of the Committee with regard to the larger schools. With respect to the Hamlet of Mile End, I stated last May, that the Board had informed the Guardians in December 1893, that they were prepared to approve of the purchase of land at North Weald as a site for new schools, and an order was subsequently issued authorising the purchase. I further stated that, under the circumstances, if the Guardians desired and thought it necessary to erect schools on this land on the grouped cottage system, I should not feel justified in withholding sanction to their doing so. I also stated on the same occasion that I had no reason to doubt the approximate accuracy of the statements in the Question as to the cost of the schools on the Cottage Home system at Hornchurch and Banstead. The system of the boarding-out of children is one which has the entire sympathy of the Board, but at the same time they attach the greatest importance to a judicious selection of homos and careful supervision of the children boarded out. If the Guardians are willing and able to avail themselves of the system of boarding out to a much larger extent than at the present time, and the circumstances admit of it, the Board would view with favour any such proposal; but to attempt to force a Board of Guardians—assuming that I had the power to do so—to adopt that system, by refusing to sanction any other means of providing for the children is more than I should feel that I was justified in doing.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the Great Western and Midland Railway Companies, having established rates for the carriage of milk over their respective lines for distances between 40 and 100 miles at 1d. per gallon, empties free, are entitled to make a charge of 1⅛d. per gallon when conveyed such distances over the two lines combined, and when conveyed jointly over the Great Western, Midland, and Taff Vale lines, 1⅜d. per gallon; and, whether the Board of Trade could bring any influence to bear on these companies to make them give a through rate equal to that for the equivalent mileage on either of the two lines?

The companies referred to are entitled to make a charge a great deal higher than that referred to in the Question, but they put in force the rate mentioned, which is a considerable concession on their part. The Board of Trade are considering a complaint under Section 31 of the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1888, upon the subject referred to in the last paragraph of the hon. Baronet's Question, but very considerable difficulty is experienced in applying to a through rate a sum of two local rates.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, seeing there is no picture by Raphael in the National Gallery in Dublin, he will advise the Treasury to purchase the Colonna Raphael, now offered for sale to the authorities of the British National Gallery, for the National Gallery of Ireland?

I will communicate with my right hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury on this subject, but I am ignorant at the present moment as to whether the authorities of the English National Gallery are in treaty for the purchase of this particular picture, or as to the amount at which it has been offered for sale.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether the India Office has received a copy of the letter from the Amir of Afghanistan of the 4th December 1895, referred to in paragraph 4 of the Dispatch from the Government of India to the Secretary of State dated Simla, 22nd April 1896; whether he has received the information asked for in his Dispatch of 17th April respecting military operations and the fate of the tribes in Kafiristan; and, whether he will lay all the correspondence referring to Kafiristan on the Table of the House before the rising of Parliament.

A copy of the Amir's letter referred to has been received at the India Office, but it relates to other matters besides that referred to in the passage quoted, and it would not be in the public interest to lay it on the Table. My Dispatch of the 17th April was crossed by the letter from the Government of India of the 22nd idem. No subsequent reply has been received from the Government of India. There is no further correspondence relating to Kafiristan which I can lay on the Table.

I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether, when he stated that no claim for arrears for School Boards, under Section 97 of the Act of 1870, has yet been received, he had overlooked the correspondence of the Department with the Heckmond wike School Board, and especially their letter of 2nd June, and the reply of the Department of 4th June which said that their Lordships cannot now entertain the claim for the year ending 29th September 1894; and, whether in view of his statement that claims would be considered in a fair spirit, and if necessary, legal advice would be taken, he took legal advice with regard to the claim from Heckmondwike, and can now state the views of the Department with regard to the payment of these arrears?

The correspondence referred to in paragraph one of the Question has recently been brought to my notice. The whole question of the liability of the Government for arrears is under the consideration of the Committee of Council. They will take such legal advice as they may deemed necessary, but some time must necessarily elapse before a decision can be arrived at.

I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether, when the Education Department estimates the amount of money required for the service of the year, it knows what amounts the various school boards are entitled to under Section 97 of the Act of 1870, and makes provision accordingly, whether all the boards entitled to the aid ultimately apply for the amount due or not?

No, Sir; the estimate is based on the number of boards which, on a comparison with previous years, are considered likely to apply for the grant.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether an estimate can be given of the extent of the diminution which certain Indian railways have of late suffered in their traffic returns: and, whether it can be said how far the diminution is attributable to the drought and how far to causes of a more permanent nature?

The latest returns show a decrease of 619,950 tens of rupees in the gross earnings of Indian railways from the 1st January to 6th June 1896, as compared with the corresponding period of 1895. This decrease is attributable to short crops and some consequent scarcity—but not, so far as I am aware, to causes of a permanent nature.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether his attention has been called to the death of a workman named Hugh Gilheany, who was killed while in the employment of Messrs. Duncan and Sons, of Glasgow, in the month of June 1894; that his father Thomas Gilheany, of Ballinamore, county Leitrim, has made repeated complaints that the police in the Southern Police Station Glasgow, allowed his son's property to be carried oil by strangers; and whether he will order a full inquiry and direct that steps be taken to restore to Thomas Gilheany the value of his son's property which he lost through the action of the police?

I have nothing to add to the answer given to the hon. Member on the 27th February by my predecessor after full inquiry, when he was informed that the police were never in charge of the property referred to and consequently cannot be asked to restore the value.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, with regard to the proposals recently pressed on the Marquess of Salisbury by an influential deputation of the Chambers of Commerce for railway extension on the east and north-east of Burmah, in what direction and how near to the frontiers of south-west China it is desired to project such railway system; and, whether the concessions recently granted to the Rothschild Railway Syndicate include powers to construct these proposed lines on the frontiers of Eastern Burmah.

A line of railway is now in course of construction, starting from the Burmese Railway system, near Mandalay, and terminating near the western borders of China, at a point called Kunlon Ferry on the Salween River. The agreement with the new Burmah Railway Company gives powers to the Government of India to call upon the Company under specified conditions to construct such extensions of the Burmese Railway system within the frontiers of Burmah as the Government may think desirable.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland if the Government have come to any, and what, decision as to the conduct of Head Constable Howe, Queenstown, in regard to the charge of perjury tried at the Cork Assizes against a woman named Barnett; whether he is aware that Judge Holmes, in his charge to the jury, said that the idea of sending the children to an industrial school could not have originated with her, for a woman like that would know nothing about an industrial school. They were sent out by the head constable to beg, so that they could be admitted to an industrial school. The whole proceeding, from first to last, was really a sham, in order to have a child who ought not to be sent to an industrial school sent there. He was disposed to think the question of religion was a material question in the inquiry, for it was the duty of the magistrates to avoid sending a Roman Catholic child to a Protestant or a Protestant to a Roman Catholic school; whether he is further aware that at the trial the Crown Prosecutor, Mr. Ronan, read a statement made by the prisoner when she was tried at the petty sessions, to the effect that she was put up by Canon Harley and his daughter in Cork and Canon Daunt in Queenstown to say and do everything she did say and do; why these reverend gentlemen were not called as witnesses by the Crown; and, do the Government intend to take further action?

As regards the first paragraph, an official reprimand has been conveyed to the Head Constable, and he has also been deprived of the opportunity of competing at the forthcoming examination of Head Constables for promotion to the rank of District Inspector. If the hon. and learned Gentleman desires an answer in detail to the statements in the remainder of the Question, I will ask him to postpone his inquiries until Monday next, as the papers are over in Dublin; but I may state that I have carefully considered the case, and that, on the facts as already brought under my notice, it is not the intention of the Crown to take further action.

I beg to ask the hon. Member for the Thirsk Division, as representing the Charity Commission, whether the trustees of St. Cross Hospital, Winchester, have under their scheme of management power to erect new buildings, and to make important alterations in the existing buildings, without the consent of the Charity Commissioners; and whether the Charity Commissioners have the power to interfere with the action of the trustees if damage is being done to the ancient buildings of the hospital?

The trustees have power, under the scheme of May 17th 1881, to expend out of the unappropriated surplus income of the charity such sums as shall be deemed by the Charity Commissioners sufficient, in adding to or otherwise improving the present hospital buildings, so as to provide additional rooms for the residence of brethren; but only with the previous sanction of the Commissioners, expressed in an order under their official seal. No such additions or improvements can be made except in accordance with plans and specifications which shall have been approved by the Commissioners acting upon the advice of the architect.

On behalf of the hon. Member for South Donegal (Mr. J. SWIFT MACNEILL), I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland—(1) whether it has been brought under his notice that the Bundoran Loan Fund case, decided some short time ago by County Court Judge Webb against the Loan Fund Society, was reheard on appeal by the Right Honourable Justice Madden at Lifford Assizes for county Donegal a few days ago; and that Mr. Justice Madden varied the decision of Judge Webb by dismissing the case on the merits, and refused to state a case on the application of counsel for the society; (2) what compensation it is proposed to make M'Geever and Gallagher, who were the defendants in actions at Petty Sessions, Quarter Sessions, and Assizes, brought by the Bundoran Loan Fund Trustees; (3) what remedy does he propose to apply to the proceedings of the Loan Fund Offices; and (4) whether he has considered the advisability of granting a full and searching Inquiry into the working of the Loan Fund system?

My attention has been directed to a report of the proceedings referred to in the first paragraph. I am not aware that the defendants in these proceedings, who were in the position of ordinary litigants, have any claim to compensation. They have certainly no such claim on the Crown. I hope to be able to make a statement shortly respecting the matter alluded to in the last two paragraphs.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state the number of prosecutions brought by the police for drunkenness and bad conduct in the village of Carnlough, county Antrim, since the police at Glenarm have been supplied with bicycles to patrol the district?

The system of cycle patrolling at Carnlough, which is less than three miles from Glenarm, was only established on the 10th instant, and is in addition to the ordinary system of foot patrols. No prosecutions have been instituted by the police since that date, as the Petty Sessions are only held on the first Monday in each month, but a case of assault will be brought before the magistrates at the Petty Sessions to be held on Monday next.

I beg to ask the Attorney-General for Ireland if he is aware that two brothers named Maguire, at present in gaol on a charge of alleged murder, were inarched handcuffed to each other through the public streets of Omagh, from the gaol to the courthouse, on the 18th July instant, it being market day. By whose authority was the practice in such cases of conveying prisoners in a van departed from; and, will he take care that in future no such proceeding as this shall recur?

On the 23rd instant I stated in reply to a similar question addressed to me by the hon. Member for Mid Tyrone that there was no foundation whatever for the allegation that the prisoners referred to were marched through the streets to the jail or courthouse on the occasion mentioned, but that they were conveyed in the prison van in accordance with the invariable practice.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Foreign Office has yet received any official Dispatches concerning the opening proceedings of the Cretan Convention at Canea on the 13th inst., the alleged part taken by the Military Governor, Abdullah Pasha, in the official proceedings, contrary to usage, and the alleged recall of Abdullah Pasha, as Military Governor of the Island; and, if so, will the information be communicated to the House?

The answer to the hon. Member's question is in the negative.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the statement of the Lord Chancellor on 11th June, he will institute an Inquiry into the moneys and fees received by or on behalf of High Sheriffs of counties in pursuance of their office, with the object of redressing the admitted grievance of requiring individuals to bear part of the cost of the administration of justice and of the execution of the law.

The profits of Under-Sheriffs formed the subject of inquiry by the House of Lords Committee of 1893 and 1894, and figures bearing on the question will be found in the report and evidence by that Committee. It is very doubtful whether anything further could be ascertained by Government, which has no power to compel Under-Sheriffs to disclose their profits.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster-General, if he has received a numerously signed memorial requesting that James Larkin, Drumhrackin, Carrickmacross, should be appointed postmaster for the district; and, whether he will grant the prayer of the memorialists?

A memorial asking for the establishment of a sub-office at Drumbrackin, Carrickmacross, has been received by the Postmaster-General and is under inquiry. The result shall be communicated to the hon. Member.

I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether he has considered the possibility of taking advantage of the contemplated alterations in Parliament Street, in order to construct a subway from some point in the vicinity of Downing Street to Palace Yard, for the convenience of Ministers, officials, and messengers?

The subject of the construction of a subway from Parliament Street into New Palace Yard has been brought forward before the Committee on the Appropriation of Sites for Government Offices, but has been deferred by them for further consideration until next Session.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster-General (1) whether he will arrange that the whole time to be saved by the acceleration of the night mail service between London and Dublin will be devoted to increasing the interval in Ireland between the arrival and departure of the mails, and thereby afford two hours additional time for correspondence, to the great advantage of many important towns and cities in Ireland; and (2) whether he will also arrange that the day mail be accelerated to the same extent as the night mail?

No, Sir. It is not practicable to do what the hon. Member suggests in the first paragraph of his question. The night mail from Euston to Holyhead cannot leave Chester before the train bringing the Scotch mail from Warrington arrives at that town, and similarly the up Irish mail must reach Chester in time to secure a connection with the down Scotch express at Warrington. If the hon. Member's suggestion were carried out, neither of these results, both of which are of the greatest importance both to Scotland and Ireland could be secured. The day mail packets will be accelerated by half an hour, but it would not, be justifiable to increase the heavy expense which would be involved in the acceleration of the day mail trains.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he can arrange in competitive examinations for sorterships in the London Post Office that Dublin and Edinburgh should be made centres for examination; and, whether it is the usage in all other Civil Service examinations that Dublin and Edinburgh are made centres?

The arrangements as to centres for examination in case of open competitions rest with the Civil Service Commissioners, and it is understood to be the practice of the Commissioners to make Dublin and Edinburgh centres on all occasions when there are enough candidates at those places to justify the expense. There seems no reason for exceptional arrangements in the case of open competitions for sorter-ships.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he can state the Act and the section thereof under which the payment of damages and costs incurred by the Irish Board of Lights in Harrisson's case was authorised; and whether he can state the amount of such payment?

The payment of damages and costs by the Commissioners of Irish Lights in Harrisson's case was authorised under Sections 658, 660 and 677 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894. As already stated in my previous replies, the Commissioners paid Harrisson £130 damages and costs, and their own costs amounted to £289 2s. 2d.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the Board of Inland Revenue will ascertain whether the Commissioners of Land Tax are periodically summoned for the election of Commissioners of Income Tax; whether he is aware that in some districts the Commissioners of Income Tax are practically a self-elected body; and, whether the Board of Inland Revenue will take the necessary steps to cause the Commissioners of Land Tax to be regularly summoned at reasonable intervals for the purpose of filling up vacancies in the office of Commissioner of Income Tax?

The Commissioners of Land Tax are not summoned periodically for the election of Commissioners of Income Tax. They are summoned whenever the Board of Inland Revenue are requested by the Income Tax Commissioners to convene a meeting for the purpose of electing Income Tax Commissioners by reason of the list of these Commissioners becoming exhausted or deficient. If the Board of Inland Revenue were in any case satisfied that the list was insufficient, they would take action to have the list filled up.

, asked whether it was not the case that in many parts of the country the Land Tax Commissioners were not summoned for a great number of years, and that as a matter of fact the Income Tax Commissioners were a self-elected body, and whether in these circumstances he would take the necessary steps to cause the Land Tax Commissioners to be summoned?

The Income Tax Commissioners are not a self-elected body. Certain Income Tax Commissioners are appointed by the Land Tax Commissioners for the County or Hundred. There is also a reserve list of Income Tax Commissioners who do not serve until there arc; vacancies in the original list; and whenever it is necessary to fill up the reserve list, then the Inland Revenue must summon a meeting of the Land Tax Commissioners to fill up the vacancy.

I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether he will make the necessary arrangements by the commencement of next Session for extending the telegraph now in operation between the House and the Smoking Rooms to the Dining Room and Library of the House.

There are, I am informed, no funds to make the extension this year; but the question will be considered with regard to next year's estimate.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to a checkweigh case held before his Honour Judge Green how, at the Wakefield Courthouse, 21st July 1896, re George Ford, check weighman, of Sharlestone Colliery, who sued James Skitt and John Robinson for 2s. 8d. each for arrears of wages, and, whether his Honour's rulings and verdict in this case are in accordance with the clauses of the Coal Mines Regulation Acts, dealing with check weigh men's wages, when he decided that the check weigh man was not entitled to collect money from the men to cover the costs of weigh sheets, whereon to record the men's weight, costs incidental to collecting the money from the workmen in the pit yard, or any other costs incidental to the weighing of the coal on behalf of the workmen.

My attention had not previously been called to this case. I have no power to review the decision of a Judge on a point of law, and in the present case, of which the hon. Member has been good enough to send me a report, I can see no reason to doubt that the Judge's decision was in accordance with the Act, and that, while a check weigh man's wages are recoverable under the Act, the other items mentioned are recoverable only under an agreement.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can inform the House what steps are being taken to obtain and organise a transport train which is necessary to enable food to be collected at Mafeking, and thus allow the reinforcements by Imperial troops and others of the small forces now at the disposal of Sir Frederick Carrington for the operations against the rebels in the Matoppo Hills, which operations appear likely to be seriously prolonged if the available transport cannot be shortly assembled to feed the troops engaged?

I can only repeat that the British South Africa Company and the Imperial military authorities are straining every nerve to increase the foodstuffs in the country. Even the rinderpest regulations in the protectorate will be relaxed if it can be done with safety in order to facilitate the sending forward of food supplies. I have under consideration the feasibility of employing camels.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War what action the War Office are taking with regard to the Officers of Her Majesty's Army (other than those who have been tried with Dr. Jameson) who were concerned in the late raid in the Transvaal?

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, if, when he makes his promised statement at the conclusion of the Jameson trial, he will include a statement as to the position of the Officers of Her Majesty's Army who were concerned in the late raid into the Transvaal; or if the Under Secretary of State for War will afterwards make a statement dealing with this subject?

I regret I am yet unable to reply to the question of the hon Member. The matter is still under consideration.

Can the hon. Gentleman say when he will be in a position to reply?

I will give the hon. Gentleman notice when I am in a position to answer the question.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can state if the final Report of the Royal Commission to inquire into the Financial Relations between Great Britain and Ireland will be issued for the information of the Members of the House and of the public before the close of the present Session?

This is not a matter over which I have any control, but I have ascertained from the office of the Royal Commission that it is probable that some copies of this Report may be presented to the House before the end of the Session.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, will he explain why, although letters for the Continent posted in London before 6 p.m. leave Cannon Street by the Continental mail train at 8.5 p.m., letters posted before 9 a.m. do not leave by the 11.5 a.m. Continental train.

The hon. Member appears to have been misinformed. Letters for dispatch by the 11.5 a.m. Continental train can be posted at the General Post Office by 9.15 a.m. or up to 9.30 a.m. with a late fee. The circumstances do not, however, admit of later posting than at present at the District Offices.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if he has received a Resolution from the Limerick Chamber of Commerce directing attention to the serious loss to the trade of the city in consequence of the frequent late arrival of the morning mails, and requesting the Postmaster General to make arrangements for the running of a special train from Limerick Junction to Limerick when the morning mail train is late; and, whether the postal authorities can see their way to remedying the grievances complained of?

The Postmaster-General has received a copy of the Resolution referred to. The contract for the mail service on the Waterford, Limerick and Western Railway is now under revision, and the question of the connection between the mail trains at Limerick Junction will be considered in the negotiations with the Company for a new contract.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can explain why, though grants are made to the Anglican, Swedish, and Norwegian mission schools in Zululand, no grant is made to the Roman Catholic mission schools conducted by the Oblate Order, which are doing equally good work?

I have no information as to the educational work of the Roman Catholics in Zulu-land, but I will call for a Report on the subject. I gather that they have only recently established themselves in that country.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will lay upon the Table the Letter or Statement of the Lord Chief Justice regarding Mrs. May-brick's case?

No, Sir; it is unusual, and, in my opinion, undesirable, to lay on the Table of the House representations received by me on behalf of a convict, and I see no reason for departing from the practice in the present case.

asked whether the representation was made by the Lord Chief Justice in his capacity as a Judge or in his private capacity?

asked whether any representation had been made lately, and, if so, what was the date of such representation?

No representation, so far as I am aware, has been made within the last few months. A great many representations were made to me in the course of the autumn, including the representation from the Lord Chief Justice, not, I need hardly say, in his capacity as Lord Chief Justice, but as one who was concerned in the trial, and who has been intimately connected with the case.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury how soon he expects to be in a position to say whether the Irish treason-felony prisoners will be released by the clemency of the Crown, or before the sixtieth anniversary of Her Majesty's reign?

Before the right hon. Gentleman replies to that Question, I desire to ask him whether it is not the invariable custom among the civilised nations to exercise clemency on happy occasions of this kind towards political offenders?

I do not know bow far it is the practice among European nations to celebrate happy events in the manner suggested by the hon. Gentleman. But whilst not desiring to commit myself to any judgment as to whether it is a wise course or the reverse, I do not think the time has arrived for the consideration of the matter.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say when the time will arrive for its consideration?

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury when the Military Manœuvres Bill will be gone on with?

also asked what business would be taken on Saturday, and when Supply would again be taken?

The business I propose to take to-morrow is the Uganda Bill, Third Reading; Locomotives on Highways Bill, Report as amended; the Telegraph Money Bill, Committee; Public Works Loans Bill, Committee; Housing of the Working Classes (Scotland) Bill, Report; the Stannaries Bill, Committee; and the Bishopric of Bristol Bill. These Measures, as everyone knows who has followed them, are, I believe, likely to be disposed of in a very brief space of time; and if we, as I hope, are so fortunate as to finish them early, there are a few controversial minor Bills with which I think the House will desire to make progress also. I shall not ask the House to sit to any unreasonable time to-morrow, but the Bills I have mentioned we must get before we rise. With regard to the business next week, the first business will be the Scotch Rating Bill, and until I know what progress will be made with that Measure I cannot give the day on which we will take again Supply. With regard to the Military Manœuvres Bill, it was one of those Measures which, as I told the House, I confidently expected would pass in the course of the present Session. But since I made that statement it has come to my knowledge that the opposition to the Measure is of a much more formidable character than I had reason to believe, and I am afraid the discussions in Committee would take a longer time than the House can afford at the present period of the Session. Under those circumstances, I do not think it would be desirable to proceed with the Measure this year. I make that announcement with less regret, as it would not be possible to have manœuvres this year even if the Bill were passed before the end of the Session. I will consult with my hon. Friend who is in charge of the Bill, and who has shown a conciliatory disposition in dealing with the various suggestions made to him—["Hear, hear!"]—to see what we can do next Session to promote an object which is on both sides regarded as desirable. ["Hear, hear!"]

asked the right hon. Gentleman whether, considering the Amendments to the Scotch Rating Bill which the Government had placed on the Paper, and the desirability of Scotch opinion being consulted in regard to those Amendments, he really proposed to go on with the Bill this Session?

The operation of the Amendments put down by the Government will be to bring the Bill more into harmony with the views of the late Lord Advocate and I see no reason for departing from our determination to proceed with the Bill. ["Hear, hear!"]

asked what Estimates would be put down the day Supply would be next taken?

I think I have already said the Army Votes and the Scotch Votes will be taken next.

I beg to ask the Attorney General whether his attention has been called to the report of the trial of "Oetzmann v. Long," on 6th July, in the High Court, before the Lord Chief Justice, in which the case turned upon the payment by the defendants of corrupt commissions to a confidential servant of the plaintiff; whether he has read the Lord Chief Justice's summing up as to these corrupt bargains, in which he states, that if the evil continued to exist as it had existed in the past, the Legislature must take measures to put an end to it; and that no case of such importance had come before the Court during that sitting; whether he is aware that this is at least the third case of the kind within a few months in which the Lord Chief Justice has given judgment in equally emphatic terms, and that this system of commercial bribery or secret commissions which is thus condemned is widespread; and whether, having regard to these important judgments of the Lord Chief Justice and to the gravity of the whole question, he will institute an inquiry under the authority of Parliament in order to ascertain the extent and the working of the evil, with a view to remedial legislation?

My attention has been called to the language of the Lord Chief Justice in the case of "Oetzmann v. Long." While entirely agreeing with his Lordship's remarks as to the mischief occasioned by the practice of payment of secret commissions, the existing law is, in my opinion, sufficiently strong to prevent, and, if necessary, to punish any illegal practices in connection therewith. I am not satisfied that any inquiry is necessary or any legislation desirable.

asked the President of the Local Government Board whether any arrangement had been come to between the New River Water Company and the East London Water Company in regard to the water supply of East London.

Yes, Sir. I am glad to say that within half an hour of answering a question on that point in the negative, yesterday, I received a telegram informing me that the two companies had come to an arrangement by which the New River Company would be able to provide the East London Company with an additional supply of three million gallons daily. [Cheers.] I may also state what I think will be generally satisfactory to the House, that the East London Company have readily agreed to the suggestion which I made to them some few days ago. The directors, I understand, met yesterday, and this morning I received a communication from General Scott, the water examiner to the Board, to the following effect:—" The secretary has informed me that the directors are most anxious to do all in their power to alleviate any distress occasioned by the present drought, and that the company will undertake to defray to any reasonable extent the cost of distributing receptacles for storing water, to the poorest class of householders, who do not possess vessels suited to the purpose. The secretary will communicate at once with the local authorities with a view to giving effect to their intention." (Hear, hear.)

I desire to ask the Home Secretary a Question of which I have given him private notice. It is if he has decided whether Dr. Jameson and his colleagues are to be treated as first-class misdemeanants?

Yes, Sir. After considering all the circumstances I have thought it my duty to advise the clemency of the Crown—[cheers]—and the sentence is commuted into one involving the treatment of the prisoners as first-class misdemeanants. [Renewed cheers.]

said that if the House really knew all that had been done in carrying out the recommendations of the Departmental Committee, they would not be disposed altogether to agree with the hon. Gentleman, who had found very unnecessary fault with the proceedings of the Home Office. He was the last to deny to the Departmental Committee full credit for their labours in the matter, not only in behalf of the cab service of the Metropolis, but the Home Office itself, which, as the hon. Gentleman said, was most unfortunately responsible for this service—["Hear, hear!"]—though he did not agree with him. He had given the hon. Gentleman from time to time full information of what he had done in consequence of the recommendations of the Committee. In no respect had he gone back from any of the intentions expressed by his right hon. predecessor in office, and, as regarded the general recommendations of the Committee, he should think there never was a Committee which had succeeded in enforcing so many of their regulations upon a Department. Generally speaking, there were about 17 recommendations, and he had up to the present carried out seven; one required legislation, and a Bill had this Session been carried through Parliament by the Under Secretary. He was confident that the cabmen, if they considered fairly and candidly what had been done, would think that the Department had loyally endeavoured to carry out, both in spirit and in letter, the recommendations of the Committee. With reference to inspection, there was now one inspector to about 1,000 cabs, and in his opinion the inspection was now adequate. The result was that there had been a distinct gain to the character of the cabs of London by the withdrawal of the worst kind of cabs. As to the privilege system, he believed the worst feature about it was the name. ["Hear, hear!"] He was, however, aware of the sentiment which prevailed among cabmen against the system. He found, when he succeeded to office, that his right hon. Friend opposite had, in answer to a question by the hon. Gentleman, agreed to communicate with the railway companies and ask them to agree to a conference on the subject. The advantage of the privilege cab system did not lie in any pecuniary benefit derived by the railway companies, or in any privilege to the drivers; it lay rather in the convenience to the public. ["Hear, hear!"] The railway companies maintained that it was only by the system of having in hand a certain number of cabs whose presence they could always rely upon in circumstances where there was likely to be a heavy drain, such as a race meeting, that the requirements of the public could be met. No one holding his position, or who was in any degree responsible for regulating the cab trade of the Metropolis, could do other than put in the forefront of considerations the convenience of the public, so long as it was consonant with the liberties and rights of the cabdrivers. That was the objection taken by the railway companies. It was not a question of money; from first to last it had been represented to him as purely a matter of public convenience. A conference with the railway companies having been agreed to by his predecessor, he summoned the representatives of the railway companies in London to come and talk over the subject with him. He had the assistance of two members of the Departmental Committee, and he put it to the companies whether any proposals could be submitted by them on the subject. But he failed to arrive at any solution of the question, it being held that the convenience of the public was best met by the present system. Then followed, at a later period, and after correspondence, certain proposals, the moderation of which he recognised. He was not going to commit himself by saying whether or not the companies ought to accept them, but he felt that they afforded a basis on which an arrangement could be made. He then inquired whether the companies could accept the proposals or submit counter proposals in order to arrive at a compromise. At present he had received but one answer, and he regretted to say it was not a very favourable one. He could assure the Committee that he was trying his best to arrive at a solution of the question by an amicable arrangement with the railway companies. The points to be borne in mind were, the general convenience of the public, and the fact that the stations of the companies were private property. If station cabs were abolished, then it would be open to the railway companies to establish their own cabs, as they had established their own private omnibuses.

said that if the companies provided their own cabs the only demand that would be made would be that they should be licensed on the same terms as the other cabs throughout the Metropolis.

said that was another question altogether. The hon. Member said that nothing had been done about the radius. He believed that the cab trade was divided on the subject, but he understood that the vestries were in favour of the extension. This, however, was a matter of detail which he was ready to consider. As to the register, that was kept by every district inspector. Stables were regularly visited, and the date of the inspection was shown in the register. The general result was that the attention of the local authorities had been called to about 50 insanitary premises, and the evils connected with them had been remedied. He agreed that the grievance connected with sub-letting ought to be met. A regulation had been drafted providing, as a condition of the licence, that a cab should not be sub-let, and a breach of it was punishable by suspension or revocation of the licence. If the County Council or the vestries were to signify their willingness to take over the shelters, he did not think that any objection on the part of the Home Office would be made to those shelters becoming public property. Then, of course, the ratepayers would pay for them.

Would you give a public grant?

Certainly not. The shelters were supported by public contributions, which had been cheerfully given. He hoped that no unpleasant measures would be resorted to on the part of the cabmen, because one difficult point in connection with the settlement of the cab dispute had not yet been disposed of. He assured the Committee that he had done his best to try to bring the parties together, and, short of legislation, he could not do more. But he was not without hopes that the sentimental grievance complained of might be met, and if he found that anything could be done to help he would cheerfully give his assistance. The hon. Member, however, was wrong when he said that a very small proportion of the recommendations of the Committee had been adopted. He could, if time allowed, show in detail that there was scarcely one of them which had not received the most minute attention and fullest consideration.

was grateful to the Home Secretary for what he had done in this matter, and particularly for the facility with which he had passed the Bilking Bill. He regretted, however, that the right hon. Gentleman had not been prevailed upon to pass that Bill in its entirety. The Home Office deserved great praise for the strong way in which Sir Edward Bradford had prevailed on the police to treat the cabmen more civilly than formerly. A marked change of tone and attitude on the part of the London police had occurred in the last 18 months towards the cabmen, especially in the neighbourhood of the Strand, Drury Lane, Regent Street and Haymarket after 11 o'clock at night. He believed that that was mainly due to the action of the right hon. Gentleman and his predecessor, and of Sir E. Bradford. The police had been given to understand that cabmen were but human, and that in cold weather, when fares were perhaps scarce, they might be pardoned for sometimes giving sharp answers. The cabmen reciprocated this kindly treatment. He was glad to hear that the Home Secretary had condemned 50 cabyards, but there were at least 150 which he might condemn with advantage in the next few weeks. The keeping of a register of defective cabyards was a step in the right direction. On the subject of the radius, he quite recognised that cabmen could only be tolerated on the condition that they subordinated their own interest to the general convenience of the public. If it was for the benefit of the public that the radius should be extended it must be done, even against, the wishes of the cabmen. He thought, however, that upon investigation it would be found that a majority of the cabmen were in favour of the change. He thanked the Home Secretary for having asumed the rôle of mediator between the cabmasters and the men, and for having tried to induce some of the railway companies to take steps in the direction of the abolition of the system of privilege. He urged the right hon. Gentleman to persist in his endeavours. If he did so, perhaps in a year the privilege system would have disappeared. Speaking roughly, about 1,500 cabs were privileged. Their number had been tremendously exaggerated. The system of privileged cabs was objectionable, and was often the cause of obstruction in the streets, for people who failed to get cabs in a station—Victoria, for instance—had to take their luggage on to the pavement outside, where non-privileged cabs could take up luggage. That was not convenient for the public, and it encouraged outside cabmen to collect round the station, with the result that the traffic was sometimes obstructed. If the Home Secretary were to make the railway companies adopt the system prevailing at Waterloo station, where a cabman was only charged a penny for admission, he would be doing good work. A system which was good enough for Sir Charles Scotter, one of our ablest railway managers, to adopt at Waterloo, was good enough for other railway companies. He trusted that by some means the Home Secretary would succeed in abolishing the system of privilege, which no one could defend.

remarked that the recent administration of the Factory Acts and Coal Mine Acts by the Home Office had been such as to give general satisfaction. In consequence, however, of the large number of our industries and the complexities of the laws relating to them, the need for more inspectors was increasing. An ever-augmenting number of Members of that House desired to see more money spent in useful objects like the promotion of the efficiency of the Home Office inspectorate. Where expenditure was necessary in order that legislation might have practical results, and might not remain a dead letter, it ought to be incurred. He recognised that to increase largely the present staff of very highly-paid Home Office inspectors would be a costly process, and he knew also that there was a very natural disinclination to intrust the great powers conferred by the factory and coal mining legislation of this country to less well-paid men who might not be fully competent to discharge the duties of the position. His view was that it might be possible to make a division of duties, and to have male and female assistant inspectors of a lower grade, who would be eligible for promotion to the higher posts if they did good work. Undoubtedly, if an absolute line was drawn, as it was in the Navy between officers and non-commissioned officers, there could be no hope of getting a first-class body of men. But if the best men and women felt that there was no bar to their rising to the higher ranks, then he believed it would be possible, without paying very large salaries all round, to get a very valuable body of assistants. There was a larger question he would like to touch upon, and that was whether a Government like the present, with a large majority, and especially a Conservative Government, would not do well to turn its attention to the limits of work between the various offices of State. The labour work of the Home Office did not clash, but it was mixed up, with the labour work of the Board of Trade. At the present time there were three Departments which applied to the same persons for information—namely, the Registrar of Friendly Societies, the Labour Department of the Board of Trade, and the Home Office. They were continually asking for exactly the same statistical information. He would be the last in the world to say a word against the Labour Department of the Board of Trade, which had rendered very valuable services. If there had been any failure on their part it had been because they had not a sufficient staff, or means to bring their work up to date; but he must say that in the long run he thought the Government ought to face this problem of the partial amalgamation of offices. It was a matter which was, perhaps, too large for the consideration of the Committee. It could probably only be taken in hand by the Government, and therefore he wished to press it upon them.

said he had known one or two cases of men who, having very considerable acquaintance with factory work, had been appointed to the inferior grade of inspectorship and put on to work in which their experience in factories was of no use. He certainly thought it would be well that such men should have an opportunity of rising to the higher grade, where their experience would be useful. There was a small grievance to which he would like to call the right hon. Gentleman's attention, connected with police pensions. It was a distinct, grievance that an old soldier who joined the police was not entitled to reckon his service in the Army towards his pension, whereas a civil servant was. That seemed to him a great anomaly, for which there was no reason. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would give the matter his sympathetic attention.

said the question actually before the Committee was the Amendment moved by his hon. Friend behind him to reduce the salary of the Secretary of State. He need hardly say that that was not an Amendment for which he had much sympathy; but probably his hon. Friend felt that that was the only way of bringing the subject he had introduced before the House. He desired to acknowledge in the fullest way the complete continuity in the administration of the Home Office, and he earnestly trusted that the administrative work of the Home Office, particularly in that sphere of activity which concerned the health and industrial condition of the working population, might come to be regarded as entirely outside the sphere of Party controversy, and that, whatever developments that system might undergo, would not only be acquiesced in, but welcomed, and carried on in the same spirit in which they had been begun. He was quite certain that that had been the case during the last 12 months. With regard to the cab question, it was no doubt an anomalous thing that the time of the House of Commons should be taken up with the discussion of the purely local matter of the regulation of cab traffic of the Metropolis; but so long as this function was intrusted, not to the local authority, but to the Home Office, there was no alternative but to raise the question in this way. In the course of the dispute which took place two years ago, when he had an opportunity of making the close acquaintance of the cabmasters and men, on one occasion he said there was, at any rate, one point on which they were at one, and that was the privilege system; but he was not then asked to take notice of it, and he had never expressed any opinion as to whether the privilege system was or was not a desirable system. He did not think it was desirable that a Home Secretary should take up a definite line on that subject, because it would disqualify him for the position of mediator between the two parties. It appeared to him the wisest plan was to bring in the railway companies in conference with the Home Office, and to see whether some via media could not be adopted. He should certainly think that a system which was so condemned, and which was a source of friction amongst the vast majority of proprietors and cabmen, was a system into which it would be as well to introduce such modifications as would remove the repugnance it excited, and he could not help strongly expressing his hope that the Home Office might see their way to arrive at a new arrangement which would be equally convenient to the public and satisfactory to the men. With regard to the point raised by the right hon. Baronet near him, when he was at the Home Office he sought to give effect to the view that the staff of inspectors should be reinforced by men receiving smaller salaries and of a lower educational calibre, and he did create 25 assistants, for whom the Committee were now asked to vote nearly £3,000. He believed that the creation of that class of assistants had been, on the whole, a valuable and useful experiment. They had done a good deal of work which ordinary inspectors could hardly be called upon to do, and they had saved an enormous amount of time and trouble in clerical and other work. By the creation of this class Her Majesty's inspectors were relieved of a great many of their smaller duties, and secured more time for the discharge of their more important duties. He agreed that when a man entered the lower class he should not be debarred from promotion to the higher class if and when he showed himself fitted for the transfer. But it was impossible to hold out any promise or expectation to men who entered the service under these conditions that, as a matter of right, they should be entitled to promotion to a higher class.

Not if they passed another examination?

said that was not what the men wanted. The applicants for the post of inspector were like the sands of the sea-shore, and the process followed was that a preliminary paper scrutiny took place. Some half-a dozen or a dozen of those who appeared upon paper to be best fitted for the post were entered for a competitive examination, by which the matter was decided. The inspector's assistants were not debarred from entering for that competition. If they showed that they had the same qualifications, or qualifications derived from experience, as the gentlemen selected from outside they would have as good a chance—indeed, a better chance—of being sent in for examination. He was glad that the Home Secretary had added to the number of female inspectors. Under the Factory Act of last year a great many provisions, especially provisions dealing with laundries, had been introduced into the law which affected female labour, and he was quite satisfied from recent experience that these provisions could not be efficiently enforced except by female inspection. In reference to the inspection of mines, he wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he was in a position to say how the experiment of subjecting quarries to the jurisdiction of the Inspector of Mines had worked, and whether the number of accidents to life and limb in quarries had appreciably diminished.

asked the Home Secretary to say that, in the interests of peace in the cab trade, he would do his best to get the privilege system abolished, Unless a more sympathetic statement were made on that point he would take the opinion of the Committee upon it.

said that from the beginning he had never ceased to do his best to bring the two parties together, and to reduce the points of difference to the narrowest possible limit. All he could say was that he was willing to continue these efforts. The Home Office had done a great deal more in the matter than the hon. Member was willing to admit. He was not prepared to say that the control of cabs should be handed over to the County Council. He was responsible for the control of the Metropolitan Police, and until the House determined that that control should pass to the County Council it would not be proper for him to make any proposal which would depend upon such a change. He was very grateful for the way in which the services of the Home Office had been spoken. Very important legislation was passed by the late Home Secretary, especially with reference to factories. The carrying out of that legislation had not been an easy matter, and a great deal of credit was duo to the late Chief Inspector of Factories, who had just retired, for the successful working of the new Act. Considering the many difficult points raised and the different interests affected, there had, on the whole, been very little friction. Most of the provisions of the Act had been adopted by those concerned, and from all accounts the Act was working satisfactorily. With reference to the appointment of additional assistant factory inspectors, the right hon. Gentleman the late Home Secretary had appointed 25 of a lower educational calibre, but who were more intimately acquainted with factory work than men of higher education. He thought that was a good experiment, and so far as he knew it was working satisfactorily. There was nothing to prevent those assistant inspectors from rising to the higher posts, if on competitive examinations they were found to possess the necessary educational and other qualifications. He had made this year two appointments in connection with the work under the particulars clause of the Factory Act. So far as he knew, the result of the examinations for assistant inspectors had resulted in adding very useful men to the public service. He agreed with the right hon. Gentleman, his predecessor in office that the inclusion of a large number of laundries within the operations of the Factory Act had made it specially desirable to add to the staff of lady inspectors, and he was taking steps in that direction. Much good had been done in the interest of the female workers of the country by the appointment of those lady inspectors. Allusion had also been made to the relief which had been given to the inspectors in the matter of clerical work. The Home Office had opened 18 new offices in the various large centres and had made provision for the appointment of 40 new clerks. There was now a factory office in every district, and each district inspector had a clerk to relieve him of clerical work, which had enormously increased of late, and thereby give him more time for the work of inspection. He did not know whether those clerks would be continued, for he thought it possible that in some cases the Home Office would be able to utilise the services of the assistant inspectors in the discharge of the clerical work in addition to their work of inspection. The Factory Act was a difficult Act to work, but on the whole it was working satisfactorily, and he desired to thank the officers of the department for the way in which they had discharged their duties. The right hon. Gentleman had said that he had not provided for any additional assistant inspectors of mines. That was perfectly true. The view he; took, and the view taken also by the inspectors, was that, despite the great addition to their work, they would rather wait until they saw how the Coal Mines Bill, now before the House, operated before they asked for extra assistance. Speaking generally, the new special rules affecting quarries were becoming more and more extended in operation with the general consent of both small and large owners. He believed that the operation of the rules tended to diminish the loss of life, but at present he could not give any figures on the subject. He thanked the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Fife for his kind expressions as to the manner in which he had tried to carry on the traditions of the Home Office in all work affecting factories. He had been asked whether arrangements could not be made to allow the previous service of old soldiers who entered the police to count for purposes of pension. That was a matter in which he could do nothing, as it depended on a Treasury regulation.

rose to call attention to the question of the release of the Irish prisoners now undergoing penal servitude for treason-felony. This question had previously been invariably raised from an Irish Nationalist standpoint, and the Motion for the release of the prisoners had been presented in a way which prevented him from supporting it, but it seemed to him, viewing the matter from a British standpoint, that there were certain considerations which ought to be taken into account. He need not say that he had no sympathy with those who represented these men as heroes, who had nothing to regret in the crime of which they had been convicted. He, therefore, had nothing to say against the refusal of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary to accept a Motion for their release. But the heinousness of the crime of which these men had been convicted should not prevent the House from giving a fair consideration to the points advanced in their favour. It was urged, for instance, that they were the dupes of other men, and that they were receiving a more severe punishment than was given to the Walsall anarchists who, though convicted of the same offence, were only sentenced to 10 years' penal servitude. He was not considering the Walsall case; but there was another case exactly in point—that of the Italian anarchists, Farnara and Polti. That case only differed from that of the Irish dynamiters in being more heinous, for Farnara was a refugee, while the Irishmen at least believed themselves to be at war with this country. Yet Farnara was only sentenced to 20 years' penal servitude, which was actually equivalent to a sentence of 16 years. No Irish prisoner, therefore, ought to receive a heavier sentence than 20 years, and, therefore, none of them should remain in prison more than three years from the present time. The Home Secretary would have an opportunity of revising the sentences before the sixteen years had expired; but if he proposed to reduce the sentences, it would be in the interests of public policy to make the announcement as soon as possible. Polti only received a sentence of 10 years, because the judge said that his youth made it evident that he was the dupe of Farnara. There were four of the Irish prisoners who were entitled to the same consideration. One was 23, another 22, and a third 22 at the time of sentence, and a fourth, Deveney, was, according to the prison doctor's report, "undoubtedly of weak intellect." It was a crying shame that this last man should be longer detained, because it was obvious that he could only have been a dupe in such a complicated and dangerous conspiracy. Although he had not been able to vote in favour of the unconditional release of the Irish dynamiters, he should in future make no objection if the Home Secretary saw his way to releasing them all immediately. No political capital would be made against the right hon. Gentleman if he released the prisoners. The whole of the Nationalist Party desired the release, and Ireland had this claim on our consideration, that it was more free from crime than any other country in the civilised world at the present moment. It was a most unfortunate thing for any Irishman to be able to point to the treatment of Irish prisoners under English law, as being more severe than that of other prisoners convicted of the same offences. He should not move the reduction standing in his name.

said that the present Government were in a peculiarly strong position. They could do what their predecessors were afraid to do, and advise Her Majesty to exercise the clemency of the Crown. He went a great deal further than the hon. Member, because he held that the Home Secretary ought to look at this matter from the point of view of public policy. Hardly a week passed but he received reports of great meetings held in different centres in South Africa urging the Government in this respect to follow the generous example of the President of the South African Republic; so that this had become a question of great public interest throughout the civilised world. He contrasted the treatment meted out to the Irish prisoners with that accorded to Dr. Jameson and his fellow raiders. He did not condemn the action of the Home Secretary in the case of Dr. Jameson; on the contrary, he I was glad he had resolved to treat them as first-class misdemeanants. A Conservative Member came to him last night and begged him to sign a petition to the Home Secretary to intervene and procure more decent treatment for these men. He signed the petition and was glad he did so, but at the same time he could not forget that when colleagues of Conservative Members to the number sometimes of half a dozen were stretched on the plank bed and exposed to every form of insult and degradation, no Conservative Member in those days thought it worth his while or duty to hawk round a petition asking for a mitigation of treatment for their own colleagues with whom they had been in the habit of conversing. He had passed through that ordeal on more than one occasion, though, thanks to medical interposition he never lay on the plank bed, as a number of his brother Members had. He carried no bitter memories with him, but he trusted the lesson would not be lost on the present First Lord of the Treasury, who would remember the days when he passionately pleaded that no mitigation of treatment should be allowed to the Irish Members. Time brought its revenges, and it was with a certain sense of gratification that at the request of a Conservative Member he signed the petition in the interests of Dr. Jameson. He signed it because he had always considered it a disgrace to any civilised Government to treat a political prisoner like a common felon. Thousands of men English Governments had put in prison in Ireland for political crimes, whom they had systematically, and of malice aforethought, subjected to the present forms of prison treatment, forms, some of which could have no object but to insult and degrade and madden men, just as educated and as accustomed to a good system of living as Dr. Jameson. Their motives were as unselfish, but that was not taken into consideration. He even recollected in those old days when Irish Members asked for a lightening of the insults and outrages committed on their comrades in prison, that habitually their demands were received with shouts of laughter from the Conservative Benches. He did not know what Dr. Jameson's politics were, but whether they were Conservative or not, he would never wish, even in regard to his bitterest enemy, to desire to see him for a political offence subjected to the insults and punishments the Irish prisoners had suffered.

supported the Motion of his hon. Friend. He had listened with intense gratification to the statement made by the Home Secretary with reference to the change of treatment of Dr. Jameson and his friends. He believed that this act of clemency on the part of the Home Secretary would be hailed with universal satisfaction throughout Great Britain and Ireland to-morrow; and if the Home Secretary would only go a little further in the same direction, and exercise the prerogative of clemency towards the Irish prisoners, he was certain that neither he nor his colleagues would ever regret it. It was only fair to these men to bear in mind that notwithstanding the enormity of their sentences, no loss of life, not even the destruction of any property was brought home against them on trial. He did not wish to mitigate the offence for which they were put on their trial, but it was only right and fair that the Committee should bear in mind certain circumstances connected with them when taking into consideration the Motion of his hon. Friend. These men could not in any circumstances receive a fair trial in London. At the time, feeling was much excited against them, and when there was a strong prejudice in the public mind it was almost certain that the administration of the law would err on the side of severity rather than on the side of leniency. What had these men endured already? They had been in prison for 13 long years. Had their crimes been even greater than they were, those long, terrible, weary years of punishment ought to satisfy justice. He would go so far as to say that there was not to-day among the civilised nations of the world a Government which treated its political offenders as harshly and vindictively as England treated her political foes in the past. In the last few years he had come in contact with a number of Russian exiles who had undergone long years of imprisonment in Siberia, and he said that there was no comparison between the treatment meted out by Russia to her political foes in Siberia and the treatment to which our political prisoners were subjected. When he was released after nine years of imprisonment, four other prisoners accompanied him. Only two of the five were now alive. The punishment those men had endured had affected their health so much that they had passed into a premature grave. He appealed to the Home Secretary who was as humane a man as had ever exercised the prerogative of the Home Office, to release these men, not only because of the long time they had been in prison, but in view of the fact that the nation was about to celebrate the 60th anniversary of Her Majesty's reign.

said that the Committee would not expect him to follow the last two speakers in dealing with the act of clemency which he had announced to the House that day. He was glad to acknowledge, however, that what he had thought to be his duty appeared to meet with the general approval of the House. ["Hear, hear!"] He thought that the last speaker had exaggerated the evils of our prison system when compared with the punishment inflicted by the Russian Government in Siberia. So far as he had studied the inquiries instituted last year by the late Home Secretary, he could safely say that from year to year our prison system was becoming more and more humane, and however severe it might have been in old times, at least those who had the conduct of it now could not be accused of being wanting in the feelings of humanity. He was now asked to extend amnesty to the Irish treason-felony prisoners now in Portland. He was willing to admit that there was much in the conduct of these unfortunate men, much in their motives as far as they were known, which might be called political, and he was ready to admit that they were convicted under the Treason Felony Act. But he reminded hon. Members that their offences were grievous, that they employed bombs and dynamite, with the possibility and apparently with the intention of destroying innocent life. This was a very serious offence, and one which could not be described as merely a political one. He was not able to make any fresh statement that day. He had said on a former occasion that these prisoners ought to be treated in all respects as the Home Office was in the habit of treating other prisoners sentenced to long terms of imprisonment, and he had explained that it was the custom of the Home Office to review long sentences at stated periods, and when the proper time arrived there would be no departure from that custom in this case. He had paid constant attention to the question of the health of the prisoners, and he had been more liberal in allowing them to have interviews with their friends. He was glad that he had been able to be indulgent in this respect, especially as the privilege accorded had not been in any way abused. With regard to two or three of the prisoners he had just received a medical report which contained matter for serious consideration. In considering the question of the health of the prisoners, he was always ready to give them the benefit of the doubt, and it had been his inclination to release prisoners who were proved to be suffering grievously. He feared that he could add nothing to the statement which he had made on this subject at the beginning of the Session.

hoped the right hon. Gentleman would reconsider as soon as possible the cases of the men whom he (Mr. Morton) had classed with Polti, because they had actually suffered five years more penal servitude than Polti was sentenced to.

thought that the time had arrived when all Party feeling might well be laid aside in considering this matter, and when the question should be looked at from the point of view of mercy only. Perhaps in the interests of the prisoners themselves, it would be well to leave the Debate where the right hon. Gentleman had left it, but there was one consideration which he felt he must urge. The Home Secretary had that very day wisely exercised his prerogative of clemency in the case of Dr. Jameson and his colleagues. That act would be popular with all parties in the country, no matter how severely they might condemn Dr. Jameson's action. But why would it be popular? Because people believed that Dr. Jameson was misguided, that his was not a purely criminal offence, and that a higher motive than a criminal motive governed his conduct. How could the Home Secretary draw a distinction between Dr. Jameson's case and the case of the Irish prisoners? The right hon. Gentleman said correctly that the Irish prisoners were engaged in an action which might probably have caused the death of innocent people. But, similarly, when Dr. Jameson started on his raid, the lives of innocent and helpless men were threatened. The men who were likely to be shot if they stood in the way of Dr. Jameson's force were as innocent as any of the men whose lives might have been sacrificed by the treason-felony prisoners. He urged the Home Secretary to continue to give consideration to the cases of these men impartially and mercifully; to exercise that mercy which his political predecessor probably felt that he could not exercise on account of his political relations with the Irish Nationalist Members. Could it be said that justice had not been satisfied? These misguided men who believed, wrongly, no doubt, that by their action they were serving their country, had now been in prison for many years. It could not be said that it would be dangerous to the State to release these men who were in a helpless and miserable state, and probably on the brink of the grave. If they were released, in all likelihood nothing more would be heard of them. He believed that public opinion would support the right hon. Gentleman if he determined to exercise clemency in favour of these prisoners.

thought that the course of extending clemency to Dr. Jameson was the true and proper course to have taken, and that it would be unjustifiable on their part to draw needless inferences from what had taken place. But he believed that to be the true course to take with regard to all political prisoners. It was a source of satisfaction to them to hear from the Home Secretary that he was watching the health of the treason-felony prisoners, and maintaining a favourable disposition towards them.

wished to ask a question about two pluralists whose salaries were borne upon this Vote. The first case was that of the accountant of the Home Office, whose maximum salary was, properly speaking, £600, but who had a special allowance with the result that he received £700. This gentleman, however, was also a pluralist, as he received £50 a year as auditor of the Patriotic Fund. He held that it was objectionable that a man should fill two offices and draw two salaries. The other case was that of an inspector of coal mines and collieries, who received £300 a year as professor of mining at the Royal College of Science, South Kensington. There was a General who received an extra £300 a year as professor of mining at the Royal College of Science at South Kensington. He could not be an inspector of coal mines and give lectures at the same time. That was a particularly obnoxious case of pluralism, and he trusted by the calling attention to these pluralists he would strengthen the hands of Ministers, and prevent the creation of any more.

wished to call attention to two questions which he had put to the right hon. Gentleman some time ago. One had reference to the open quarries of North Wales, and the other to the Merionethshire mines. Departmental inquiries had been held into both these matters, and the right hon. Gentleman admitted that the recommendations of neither Committee had been fully carried out, and that in two of the largest quarries, the Penrhyn and the Dinorben quarries, the special rules suggested had not been put into operation. This was an extremely serious matter from two points of view. In the first place, the smaller quarries had adopted these special rules and were open to prosecution, but in the two most powerful quarries the rules had not been adopted, and the rules under which they worked were not enforceable at law. The matter was all the more serious because the manager of the Dinorben quarry was himself a member of the Departmental Committee, and not only assented to the rules, but actually assisted in drawing them up. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would make an earnest effort to secure the adoption of these rules in those two great quarries. With regard to the Merionethshire mines, the House had constantly been engaged in passing-Statutes relating to the safety of mines, and the result had been a great decrease in the number of fatal accidents in underground mines. Whereas in the decade from 1873–1882, the number of accidents was 2·57 per thousand, by 1893 it had been brought down to 1·71. In South Wales, the most dangerous district, the numbers had decreased from 3·3 to 2·85. But in the Merionethshire mines the numbers were in 1875 4·38, in 1877 6·73, and in 1892 3·42 per thousand, or an average of 3·23, twice as high as in the coal mines. The Committee appointed to inquire into the condition of these mines 12 or 18 mouths ago, made 43 recommendations, of which nine required legislation, but 11 of which could be met by special rules. In Merionethshire at the present time there were a number of codes of special rules, and one recommendation of the Committee was that there should be one code for the whole of the county. In reply to a question the right hon. Gentleman had told him that the chief inspector was endeavouring to secure the adoption of special rules. Had he been asked by the Home Office to draw up special rules in accordance with the recommendations of the Committee, and could the right hon. Gentleman say that he would take prompt steps to secure their adoption? The Metalliferous Mines Act was passed 21 years ago, and every inquiry under it in North Wales showed that it overlapped to a certain extent the Factories and Workshops Act, and that precautions adopted under the Coal Mines Act had not been adopted under the Metalliferous Mines Act. He desired to press very seriously and earnestly on the right hon. Gentleman the responsibility which lay on him to bring the administration and legislation on Metalliferous Mines to the same level as that adopted with reference to coal mines and factories and workshops.

assured the hon. Gentleman that the Home Office had not been unmindful of the extreme importance of the subject he had brought to the attention of the Committee. The inspectors had been pushing the adoption of special rules with the greatest prudence and tact, and at the same time with energy, and he could assure the hon. Gentleman that the figures he gave a day or two ago of the number of quarries in which special rules had been adopted, did not represent by any means the amount of work done. The adoption of these special rules was by no means in a backward condition. With reference to the large quarries, he was in correspondence with the owner of the Penrhyn quarry, and in the event of his not being able to settle the matter with him, it would go to arbitration; and in a very short space of time he hoped the special rules would be adopted.

asked whether the right hon. Gentleman could explain how it was that Mr. Vivian, the manager of the Dinorben quarry, being himself a Member of the Committee and joining in recommending these rules, did not put them in force in his own quarry.

said he could not give any explanation of that. He could only say that he had not been able yet to get the rules adopted in that quarry, but in that case, also, if the rules were not accepted, the matter would be settled by arbitration. With reference to the Report of the Merionethshire Committee, considerable progress had also been made. He could assure the hon. Gentleman that the subject had not been lost sight of, but substantial and real progress in the line he desired was being made.

said it was the opinion, not only of the quarrymen but of the inspector, that as much protection as could possibly be afforded would be given by the adoption of these rules. The remedy was in the hands of the Home Office. Under the Factories Act they could compel Mr. Vivian to adopt these rules. It was for him to object, but surely he could not object to rules which he himself had recommended should be enforced in other quarries. He hoped the Home Office would take immediate action.

said he could not compel the adoption of the rules except by having recourse to arbitration. As to the recommendation in regard to metalliferous mines, he could not promise legislation next Session; but it would be a great satisfaction to him if he found himself able to pass a Bill on the subject.

called attention to the case of Mrs. May brick, and urged that she should now be released. The case had created enormous interest, and no less a personage than the Lord Chief Justice of England had recently expressed an exceedingly strong opinion upon it. Mrs. Maybrick was tried by a judge who, in his earlier days, exhibited very great knowledge of his profession. But at the time of this trial, as was known to every man, woman, and child in the country, that judge was not in a proper frame of mind to conduct such a case. The motives supplied by the Crown formed a very important feature in the opinion, not only of the judge but of the jury, in regard to the guilt of the prisoner. She was found guilty, and the only Court of appeal in this country, the Home Secretary, after reviewing the evidence, came to the conclusion that the jury were not justified in returning a verdict of murder. It was a well-known principle of English law that it was better that 999 guilty persons should be acquitted than that one innocent person should be convicted. In this case the only Court of Appeal found that the evidence did not justify the conviction, and he submitted that the time had arrived for reconsidering the matter. This woman had suffered enormously. If she did not commit this offence, and no less a personage than the Lord Chief Justice had suggested to the Home Office that the evidence was not conclusive, her sufferings must have been great indeed. If, on the other hand, she was guilty of the attempt to murder, he thought justice had been met by the long term of imprisonment she had undergone. He urged that the time had come when Mrs. Maybrick should have the benefit of the doubt which unquestionably existed by being released from imprisonment.

assured the hon. Gentleman that he required no pressure from the Committee to lead him to reopen this much-vexed case; it had taken up a very large portion of his time during the autumn and winter. One of the first promises he made after his accession to office was, that he would devote his best abilities to consider any facts, old and new, that might be put before him. In consequence, a large volume of papers was submitted to him, and, on the suggestion of the Lord Chief Justice himself, he consulted the Lord Chancellor on the matter. He went most carefully into the case, and he came most emphatically to the opinion that it was not his duty to advise the Crown to exercise any further clemency.

desired to mention a matter relating to the public records now deposited at the Home Office. Some of these records were extremely valuable, and a great amount of interest was taken in some of them at present by Welsh scholars. But considerable difficulty was thrown in the way of those who desired to consult them, and vexatious formalities had to be gone through. All he asked was that persons who desired to consult old documents, such as those dealing with the French invasion of Pembrokeshire in 1797, should be allowed to do so without having to go through the long and delaying formalities enjoined by the Home Office.

called attention to the large number of explosions of petroleum oil lamps which occurred during the year, resulting in the loss of many lives and the destruction of much valuable property, and hoped the Home Secretary would give the matter his attention.

said a Committee had been appointed to inquire into the explosions of lamps through the use of dangerous mineral oil, and had given a large amount of time to the investigation of the difficult subject. It had not yet finished its labours, but he hoped that it would result in suggesting means for the prevention of those deplorable accidents. With regard to the matter raised by the hon. Member for Flint Boroughs, papers down to 1772 were open to inspection in the Record Office without any permission being required. But in regard to Home Office papers from that year, which contained many confidential documents that could not be made public, the regulations were, first, that the permission of the Home Secretary should be obtained, and secondly, that any extracts made should be submitted for approval to the Home Secretary.

said the subject of the proposed inquiry into the papers relating to the French invasion of Pembrokeshire in 1797 was to clear up aspersions which had been cast on a Nonconformist body, that they were in a conspiracy with the French to aid them in invading England.

said he would inquire whether the restrictions could not be removed in the case of the papers referred to.

suggested the Home Office might follow the example of the Swiss Government in distributing warnings and cautions in connection with the careless use of petroleum in lamps.

desired to call attention to the importation of foreign prison-made goods. He did not complain of no legislation having been introduced dealing with the subject. He would confine himself to a few administrative questions. Towards the end of the last Parliament a long Debate on the subject had been raised by some of the present occupants of the Treasury Bench. Those Gentlemen complained that the then President of the Board of Trade had not exercised his power to prevent the importation of those foreign prison-made goods.

I would very much like to know what powers I could exercise in the matter?

said he was coming to that point, as the right hon. Gentleman would see if he gave him his attention. The complaint was made by the right hon. Gentleman's colleagues that his predecessor in office had not exercised his powers in the matter. A great deal of political capital was made by the Unionist Party at the last election on this question, and one of the most eloquent passages of the President of the Board of Trade's election address was devoted to the necessity of steps being taken. On many occasions questions had been asked as to how the Government were progressing, and last year the right hon. Gentleman said that he was going to pursue a policy of inquiry. After 18 months of office nothing had been done. Some months ago the right hon. Gentleman said that he had communicated with foreign Governments, that replies had been received from all but Germany, and that he had telegraphed for that reply. When the right hon. Gentleman was asked to circulate the correspondence, he replied that he would prefer to wait until it was complete; and he gave a definite pledge that, before the Board of Trade Vote was taken, the whole correspondence would be circulated. Hon. Members were still without that correspondence. He wished to know what were the dates of the communications to foreign Governments, the dates when the replies were received, and when the correspondence would be circulated. He further asked the right hon Gentleman, in the event of representations being being made to him under the Cheap Trains Act, 1883, about insufficient workmen's train accommodation between Kirkcaldy and Kinghorn, to exercise the powers which he possessed if the case were made out.

said that he had no objection to giving the assurance asked for. He was only too glad to take every opportunity of seeing that the Acts were properly carried out. As to the question of prison-made goods, he did mention it in his election address as requiring attention, and he was certain that the working classes of this country would not regard with equanimity the importation of prison-made goods. If he had promised to circulate the correspondence before the Board of Trade Vote was taken, the promise must have been conditional on the correspondence being ready. Germany had again and again been asked to reply, but none had yet been received, though that was the only reply still wanting. If there were no prospect of receiving a reply soon, he would consider the advisability of issuing the correspondence without it. There were two courses of action open to the Government. One was to try and get foreign Governments to join in friendly arrangements by which these goods should be retained from home consumption. The other was to introduce legislation prohibiting importation. It was desirable to escape the latter alternative if possible, because legislation of that kind was not easily framed or carried out. Moreover, restrictive legislation on imports was not in harmony with the general spirit of the day. He could not give the dates of the correspondence, but there was no delay whatever. It would undoubtedly be the duty of the Government to legislate, if it became necessary, as soon as there was a chance of passing the Bill.

said that the Debates on this subject that took place before the last General Election were very different in character and tone to the Debates that had taken place since. Before the last election some of the gentlemen occupying the highest posts in the present Ministry endeavoured to impress upon the House that this question of prison-made goods was a real question of great importance. Now, however, the subject had been relegated to the pigeon holes of the Board of Trade. The President of that Department had been asked over and over again to produce the correspondence which had taken place with foreign countries on this subject. Was there any reason why that correspondence should not be produced? If so, what was the reason? He claimed that they were entitled to have this correspondence in extenso, and he trusted that none of it would be held back on the plea that it was confidential. The right hon. Member ought to disclose at once all the information that the Board of Trade had been able to obtain upon this question, so that they might ascertain how far the statements made by the Party opposite during the General Election were true. At the time of the election a large number of the working classes really believed what hon. Members opposite said about this question. How had they been treated? The subject had been shelved from month to month, and the information which ought to have been published was being still withheld.

reminded the Committee that when the question of prison-made goods was discussed in the late Parliament, the then President of the Board of Trade expressed his willingness to institute an inquiry. The present Secretary of State for the Colonies, however, declared that he would have nothing to do with an inquiry, and that the matter was of such vital importance that something ought to be done at once. The President of the Board of Trade then said that he was advised by his permanent officials that nothing could be done, and that it was impossible to discriminate between a prison-made brush and any other brush. The right hon. Member for West Birmingham thereupon said:—

"Make us the family physician; give us the fees, and we will produce the prescription."

Well, the right hon. Member and his colleagues had now got the fees, but what had become of the prescription? The present President of the Board of Trade had refused to produce the prescription; he had turned his back upon the patient who was declared last year to be suffering from so grievous a malady, saying—

"Do not bother me; your ailments are of no importance at all."

The electors had been treated badly in connection with this matter. The President of the Board of Trade had allowed the electors of the country to believe that he had a prescription in his pocket and was prepared to produce it. The right hon. Member said last year—

"Exercise patience; I am in communication with Germany and other countries."

But since then nine months had elapsed, and he had been repeatedly pressed to publish the correspondence that had taken place. The right hon. Member that evening had made light of the matter, and evaded the question. As this correspondence was kept back they were entitled to assume that it proved that the aspect of the matter was not such as was ascribed to it in the election addresses of the President of the Board of Trade and the right hon. Member for West Birmingham. What was there of such importance in the correspondence that even the House of Commons could not be taken into the confidence of the Government? The real fact was that the right hon. Gentleman's own officials on the Board of Trade derided this idea. They knew that this notion, which misled London and so many other constituencies at the last election, was a perfectly preposterous one, and the right hon. Gentleman could not fly in the face of his officials. He would like to see the sort of letters the officials of the Board of Trade had been writing, and the Returns that had been made. Had the right hon. Gentleman communicated with the Consuls abroad, and, if so, what answers had he received? Why had they not been published? In the course of the Debate on the Estimates last year the Secretary for the Colonics intervened. The right hon. Gentleman was conveniently absent that night. He knew the value of this idea as an electioneering expedient. He knew perfectly well that there were thousands of electors who would be misled by the talk about foreign-made goods, and the right hon. Gentleman wilfully misled the electors of this country. The Secretary for the Colonies said last year that the policy of the late Government was to minimise the importance of the question of prison-made goods, but—

"our policy is different. We do not minimise its importance. We are prepared to move in the matter. We will conmunicate with those foreign Powers, and, if they will not accede to our request, we will legislate."

Had the President of the Board of Trade any statistics with regard to these goods? How did they affect trade in this country? If it was only out of courtesy to the House of Commons, and in order to enlighten the electors, who were wilfully deluded at the last election, the information asked for ought to be given.

said that this Government had now been in office 18 months.

No, no! Not 12.

Whether it was 18 or 12 months, the declaration they made on this subject was made some months before they took office, and it was certainly 18 months since they took the question up. They declared that the former President of the Board of Trade had refused to exercise the power he possessed in order to deal with this most pressing question. They tried to turn the Government out of office on the question, declaring that it was a most vital question affecting the well-being of the working classes, and the working-classes thought that if this Government were returned to power, one of their first acts would be to deal with this important question. Yet 12 months after they came into office the President, of the Board of Trade said, "Tell us what we can do." That was an admission that all the flowery orations of the Member for West Birmingham was so much clap-trap, intended to delude the electors. The British workman seemed to have been forgotten during the present Session, and the House had that night made an admission that practically nothing had been done, and that nothing was going to be done. He would ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he could not allow the House now to have this correspondence. Germany had had quite sufficient time to reply, and he did not see why the correspondence should be kept back simply because Germany had not been courteous enough to reply. Could the right hon. Gentleman tell the House now what was the purport of the replies he had received? Did they encourage him in the belief that this question was going to be settled? Was it to be a question of settlement, or would legislation be necessary? He thought that, in view of the declaration the right hon. Gentleman had made that the correspondence was to be issued before the Vote was taken, he would not think it unreasonable that he should now be asked what the purport of the replies he had received was. He should be sorry if he was compelled to take a Division with regard to the delay in producing the correspondence, and therefore he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would give to the House some further information.

thought the humorous position of the subject could hardly be appreciated by those who were not in the last Parliament, like the right hon. Gentleman. ["Hear, hear!"] It was a very interesting commentary on the way in which political questions were raised in this country by an Opposition who were anxious to find an opportunity of attacking the Government in power. In the Debate which took place in 1895 immense importance was attached to this subject. The House was told that the trade of the country was very severely affected, and particular appeal was made to the Government to relieve the working man of a great hardship. No one was keener on that occasion than the present Colonial Secretary, who dwelt on the carelessness and indifference of the Government to the interests of trade and the working men. It was his duty on that occasion to tell the House that, so far as the information of the Government went, this was a matter of infinitesimal importance. That statement was not accepted. It was supposed that the Board of Trade know nothing about the matter, and they were upbraided with an indisposition to take the steps which were immediately necessary to remedy the evil. The Colonial Secretary in particular represented himself as being in possession of some means that would be adequate to meet the case. During the rest of the Session the then Government were frequently pressed on the question. A Committee was appointed, and their Report, which was made in the autumn, entirely bore out the statements that had been made on behalf of the Board of Trade, and showed that this was a matter of infinitesimal importance. The matter was brought up when the Estimates were discussed in the House in August last year. On that occasion the President of the Board of Trade told the House that diplomatic methods were being tried, and he remembered appealing to some of his friends to give the Government a chance of seeing what they could do by diplomacy. He was bound to say that, having consulted the Foreign Office on the subject, he had an idea that there was not very much to be obtained by that means. The Government, however, were more sanguine, and now, after the expiry of 11 months, the right hon. Gentleman was not able to state what diplomacy had done. This was the way in which questions were apt to be handled in the House. They knew all along that this was a mere piece of demagogism. They knew that it was being worked for electioneering purposes; but they did not expect that through the whole of this Session the Government would have shown such a complete indifference to their pledges.

said the two hon. Members who preceded the right hon. Gentleman had spoken in a tone of indignation altogether unwarranted by the importance of the subject itself, or by anything that had been said or done by any Member of the Government. It was true there had been delay in publishing the correspondence, owing to the fact that a reply had not yet been received from Germany. But, as hon. Gentlemen must know, there was no chance of legislation this Session on the subject, and it, therefore, did not seem necessary to publish the correspondence until it was completed. If, however, a reply from Germany was not received soon, he would place himself in communication with the Foreign Office in order that what they Lad got of the correspondence should be published. They had nothing to conceal, and were anxious to place the whole of the information in their possession before the House. The purport of the communications generally was sympathetic, but they did not lead him to suppose that it would be possible to come to an understanding on the subject. The right hon. Gentleman had spoken of the humour of the situation represented by the Debate in 1895. It struck him that the humour of the situation was that the right hon. Gentleman, having tried to close the Debate by promising an Inquiry, changed his attitude on finding that that was not satisfactory to the House, and that the Government were likely to be defeated.

I did not change my attitude, which throughout had been that the matter was of infinitesimal importance.

agreed; he did not think the matter a large one, having regard to the extent of the importation of foreign prison-made goods; but the principle of admitting these goods was a large one, and it was to that principle he believed that the majority of the House was opposed. The humour of the situation was that the right hon. Gentleman, having offered an Inquiry, accepted a Motion condemning that principle. His (Mr. Ritchie's) attitude had been perfectly consistent. He had always stated that he thought the question should be settled by negotiation rather than by legislation. They had endeavoured to obtain a settlement by negotiations, but the replies, though sympathetic, did not lead him to believe that they would result in any arrangement.

said he did not suppose that anybody would dispute the consistency of the President of the Board of Trade. They welcomed from him the statement, made in a guarded way, to the effect that this was a small matter.

I said in so far as the importation is concerned it was not a large question, but the principle was.

said the right hon. Gentleman distinguished between the question and the principle; the one was large and the other small. The right hon. Gentleman had said that nothing said or done by any Member of the present Government would justify the indignation which had been expressed by his hon. Friends below the Gangway. The right hon. Gentleman was not in the House 18 months ago when this question was discussed. He (Mr. Robertson) sat through the whole Debate, and he remembered what was said by a right hon. Gentleman who was now a Member of Her Majesty's Government largely on the strength of the speech he then made. He referred to the Secretary for the Colonies. The right hon. Gentleman then said that this was not a political question, but from that night it would be. There was no question, continued the right hon. Gentleman, upon which the working classes of this country had more generally made up their minds than upon this, and there was not a single Member who sat for an industrial constituency who could hold an open meeting and carry a resolution there against the principle of his hon. Friend. But what was the principle for which his hon. Friend contended? Downright restriction of the importation of prison-made goods. That was the principle which the right hon. Gentleman declared the working classes of the country had then made up their mind upon. They did not want inquiry; they wanted restriction. What was the present Government doing? Had they produced any restriction? The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Chamberlain) fixed a special taunt on that occasion upon the working men Members by observing that they were conspicuous by their absence. Where was the right hon. Gentleman who made that taunt now? Why was he not on the Treasury Bench?

I hope the hon. Gentleman will not pursue at length a retrospective survey of what happened in the last Parliament. Such discussion is scarcely regular.

said he had not the slightest idea of doing anything like that. He did not intend to pursue the subject further. Nothing had been done by the President of the Board of Trade. Let the right hon. Gentleman go home with his salary in his pocket, but with the confession that the Government in this, as in many other things, had failed to carry out the pledges on the faith of which they won their big majority.

complained of the unsatisfactory manner in which inquiries into the loss of vessels at sea were conducted by the Board of Trade. What was required for the protection of the ocean-travelling community was a searching investigation, and that was impossible owing to the mode in which the Inquiry was held. There was no real and sound reason why the procedure in relation to the loss of a ship of the Mercantile Marine should not be assimilated to the procedure in relation to the loss of a ship of Her Majesty's Navy. The result of the Inquiry into the loss of the Drummond Castle showed great recklessness and want of seamanlike skill in the captain; and it was reasonable and fair to ask whether there was any previous experience which might have led the owners to consider whether they did their duty in intrusting to that officer the command of the ship. He had found that both the captain and the chief officer of the Drummond Castle had been not remotely twice in trouble; and it was therefore natural for him to ask the President of the Board of Trade for the production of the ship's log. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade agreed that the ship's log should be presented at the Inquiry; but when they were asked for, the counsel for the Board of Trade protested that it was the first they had heard of the demand, and there was a long dispute before the books were produced. Again, he asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he would obtain the Lloyd's Registry Survey of the injury to and repairing of the Doune Castle; and the right hon. Gentleman refused. Yet those documents were produced, and proved to be the most important of the whole Inquiry. The President of the Board of Trade had informed the House that only one or two plates of the vessel were indented, but the evidence of one of the partners of the firm showed that the damage was much more serious. The captain said he thought that he had touched a piece of floating wreckage, and that the shock was so slight the incident was not entered on the log. Yet when the vessel was examined in dock it was evident, from the damage, that she must have struck a piece of detached rock. These misleading statements were laid before the public in a letter to the newspapers, a most extraordinary circumstance, seeing that Sir Donald Currie himself presided at the, private inquiry. He wished to show that these Board of Trade Inquiries were, as now arranged, misleading, because an unnatural attitude of neutrality was forced on the Board of Trade which prevented any exhaustive examination of the facts. As far as the Board of Trade were concerned, the Inquiry into the Drummond Castle, disaster would have been value-loss. He regretted that the President of the Board of Trade had refused to print the evidence given at the Inquiry, because it settled, among other things, the vexed question as to whether a ship's boats should be in-swung or out-swung. There was no reason why the boats should not be always out-swung; and if they had been on board the Drummond Castle all hands might have been saved. There was another reason why he very much regretted the decision of the Board of Trade, because the Committee would remember there was very much complaint of the conduct of the captain of the Werfa; but really he had no option, for, if he had signalled at night to the Drummond Castle, it was quite clear the Drummond Castle would have had the right and, in self-defence, would have made a crushing claim for salvage. He wished the right hon. Gentleman had seen his way to print the evidence, but whether he did or not, it would be printed, because he did not think any greater publice service could be done than by publishing the whole of the evidence. He begged to move the reduction of the Vote by £500.

did not think the hon. Gentleman had made out a case for printing the whole of this voluminous evidence. There never was a case in which the facts were more simple. The Drummond Castle was undoubtedly lost through the careless navigation of her master, through his neglect to avail himself of the means on hoard in Lord Kelvin's sounding apparatus of taking soundings. With regard to the Inquiry of the Board of Trade, he was no particular friend of those Inquiries. He did not think they were perfectly conducted, and in his opinion it would be better to replace them by something like the old fire inquiries which used to be held when there was a fire in the City. The Board of Trade was conducting what was practically a prosecution against one of their particular friends, the Member for Perthshire, who had always stood by them, whether in the rule of the road or in any other matter. But in this instance, for once, the result of the Inquiry had been complete and satisfactory. With regard to the boats being out-swung, he had to point out that by so doing there would be great risk of their being carried away. Nobody, except in the most favourable weather, would have the boats swung out. There was another matter which lay at the root of these disasters, and it was this, that the shipowner, while he had been most unjustifiably interfered with for years by the Board of Trade, nevertheless had an immunity which ought not to belong to him in the statutory limitations of his liability. That, he contended, was entirely contrary to public policy. The liability of a railway company was unlimited, and the result was that they required no Board of Trade to look after railways. [Mr. LOWLES: "There is a railway department of the Board of Trade."] He knew that, and they had done nothing but mischief. Not by the superintendence of the Board of Trade, but by the care and vigilance produced by a long series of tremendous verdicts with great damages, that the railway companies had attained their present position. That was the way to deal with shipowners, to leave them absolutely unlimited for the wrongs they committed.

said that whatever might be the case with regard to the operation of the rule limiting the liability of shipowners to so much per ton, it could not be necessary or useful to the owners of the great passenger lines, because in the case of railways there was virtually no competition. But in the case of the great passenger lines there was keen competition, and the injury suffered by a great passenger line when it lost a vessel was an injury greater than could happen in any other way, and, therefore, he did not believe that any additional securities were needed. He could bear testimony, from his short experience of the Board of Trade, to the extreme care exercised in the great passenger lines, and he could certainly say that with regard to the Castle Line. The moral of the loss of the Drummond Castle was simple, and he did not think it could be increased by the issue of the printed evidence. The moral was that the greatest danger which was run at sea arose from a neglect to use the lead. More than half the cases, probably two-thirds of the cases, in which accidents occurred to British shipping were traceable to neglect of the use of the lead; and an accident of this kind ought to bring home to the captains of the mercantile marine the supreme importance of using the lead in approaching a dangerous coast.

agreed with the observations of the right hon. Gentleman, and he thought that the report of the Committee fully bore out the statements made that the loss of the Drummond Castle was due to the neglect of the precautions with regard to the use of the lead, especially on a dangerous coast. Probably one of the results of this disaster would be to bring home this fact more closely to the minds of captains. Having regard to the very large number of voyages which those great passenger ships made, and the number of passengers they carried, it was very remarkable how small the loss of life was, and how few were the accidents. This showed that, generally speaking, they had nothing to complain of as to the manner in which the captains navigated their ships. He believed that, with regard to the Castle Line, although their ships had passed this dangerous coast many hundreds of times, this had been the only occasion on which loss of life had occurred. The Committee would see how impossible it was to endeavour to re-try the case in the House of Commons. He regretted that his hon. Friend had taken up the attitude he had assumed with regard to the position of the Board of Trade, and what it had done in connection with this Inquiry. The hon. Gentleman was dissatisfied with the action of the Board of Trade, and practically he said that, had it not been for the friends of those who were lost, very little evidence of value would have been obtained. No stone was left unturned by the Board of Trade in their endeavour to get evidence from every quarter; and he was satisfied that a most valuable portion of the evidence at the Inquiry was the evidence procured by the Board of Trade. He had more than one communication with his hon. Friend before the investigation took place, and he told the hon. Gentleman that, if there was anyone who could throw light on the accident he would take care to have him produced at the Inquiry. The hon. gentleman went to the Board of Trade and communicated with the authorities there, and they repeated his offer to the hon. Member and expressed a willingness to help him in every effort in order to elucidate various points connected with the accident.

said that the right hon. Gentleman had declined to call a most important witness—Captain Vaughan.

said he never declined to call him. He told the hon. Member that the Board of Trade were not prosecutors in this case, and they were willing to call every one who could throw light on the subject. He also told the hon. Member that the ship's logs were called for at the Inquiry, and they were produced. In defence of the Board of Trade he could assure the hon. Member that he went carefully through the brief pre pared for counsel, and that a more complete specification of every point that ought to be produced and insisted upon at the Inquiry could not be imagined. If his hon. Friend was under the impression that the Board of Trade did not endeavour, by every means in their power, to throw all the light they could upon the causes of this disaster, he was much mistaken. Nothing would be gained by a publication of the evidence, and he must adhere to the answer which he had already given on that point.

said that passenger ships ought to carry furniture and bedding of a buoyant nature. An exhibition of life-saving appliances was being held at the present moment in Holborn. A bed made of cork shavings and fibre was shown, which was capable of keeping several people afloat for a long time. The Board of Trade ought to insist that the benches on the deck of a vessel should not be fixed, so that they might be used as buoys in cases of disaster.

said that in all large passenger ships there was a cork belt in every berth capable of keeping any man afloat. The Board of Trade did all in their power to secure that there should be adequate life-saving appliance on board ships. As to the cork beds referred to by the hon. Member, he did not think that many hon. Gentlemen would like to sleep upon them.

said that, in order to test the opinion of the Committee upon the question of prison-made goods, he would move formally to reduce the Vote by the sum of £100. The Committee divided:—Ayes, 52; Noes, 135.—(Division List, No. 361.)

asked in what form the reports of the Sub-inspectors of the Railway Department would be utilised, and whether they would be introduced into the annual Report, in the same way as the Reports of the Sub-inspectors of Mines? He also asked how many inquiries into fatal accidents had been held by the Sub-inspectors. Formerly inquiries into fatalities to individual railway servants were only made when they were of sufficient public interest to get into the Press, and lead some public man to demand an Inquiry. The number of Inquiries had very materially increased since the appointment of the Sub-inspectors, but were still only made in about one in six fatalities. A third point to which he desired to direct attention had reference to coroners' inquests. The present state of the law left the discretion as to the attendance of a representative of the Board of Trade at coroners' inquests into railway fatalities with the coroner. He maintained that in these cases the facts would be brought out better by a practical and scientific expert than by a legal functionary, and he suggested that a circular might be addressed to coroners on the subject by the President of the Board of Trade, or through the Home Office. With regard to these inquests it was too frequently the case that the coroner refused to grant a hearing to representatives of the deceased or of Trade Unions of railway servants, even when they were represented by solicitors. He thought that fatal accidents to railway servants should be investigated in the same manner as fatalities in mines and in factories. In the latter investigations, the coroner was compelled to have a representative of the Home Office present; and the presence of a representative of the Board of Trade was equally needed at railway cases, because it was only by the questions of a competent and informed person that the causes of accidents in many cases could be ascertained. He found that fatal accidents to the men employed on railways were three times as numerous as accidents in factories, and two-thirds of the number of those that occurred in coal mines. He was sure that if the Board of Trade was represented at those inquiries, it would tend to decrease the number of rail way accidents. He would also like to know whether the right hon. Gentleman had any statement to make in regard to the promise he made last year to consider the question of increasing the number of assistant inspectors. If that were done, the Board of Trade could be more frequently represented than now at inquiries into railway accidents.

said that for eight years he had called attention to the inadequate medical attendance given to poor emigrants on Atlantic liners, and also to the total want of such attendance in case of sailors who went on long voyages. Nothing, however, had been done to improve matters. There was no adequate medical provision on board the transatlantic steamers not of the first class. He knew a case where the plates of the ship's hospital had been unscrewed to convert the space into saloon passenger accommodation. The water supply was not sufficient. Sometimes 300 emigrants had to depend on one tap, turned on only at certain hours, for the whole supply for every purpose. If the doctor's tried to do their duty they would be dismissed. The columns of the medical journals had been devoted to this question for years. He knew a liner which was used for passenger service three or four days after cattle had been discharged. There was no sanitary accommodation on board; the vessel was three days in a storm; her 300 emigrants were battened down; and the condition of filth became so execrable that the stewards almost revolted, and the medical officer fainted on going below.

asked the President of the Board of Trade to tell the Committee what his Department had done in regard to the still further reduction of railway rates for home produce in the way of bringing them down to the level of the rates for the more favoured foreign produce. Now that the great railway companies were flourishing they could afford to reduce their rates?

stated that while for two tons and upwards the difference made by the railway companies in their rates was inconsiderable, upon quantities under two tons they had increased the rates from 50 to 75 per cent. The result was that, in a poor country like Ireland, the vast majority of the traders were heavily handicapped in competition with their richer rivals. This was a grievance which came home to the poor and small farmers of Ireland. He pointed out that in 1894 the increase of the Great Northern Railway Company was £30,000; in 1895 it was £40,000; but the traffic had not increased. There was scarcely a railway company whose dividends had increased from 1¼ per cent. to 2¼ per cent. since 1893. While, therefore, the traffic had decreased, the dividends had increased, on account of the railway companies getting their rates advanced in 1893. The money came eventually out of the consumers' pockets. He asked for an investigation, and hoped that the rates would be brought back to what they were in 1893. He further called attention to a level crossing near Castleblaney, and the danger thereby caused to the lives of the people.

said that he had no power to interfere with level crossings or platforms authorised to be constructed by Acts of Parliament. He could, however, make representations on subjects of that kind to the railway companies, and was always ready to do so when it appeared to him to be desirable. With regard to any unjustifiable advance in railway rates, he would point out that aggrieved traders were given a remedy by the Railway and Canal Traffic Act of 1888. The Board of Trade had no power to compel a company to alter their rates. But the Department had brought pressure to bear upon companies, and the result was that there had been a considerable modification of the rates in a large number of cases. In his last communication with the companies he had taken note of the concessions which they said they would make, and had urged them to make those concessions public. He had been asked how many Inquiries into fatal accidents had been held in the past year by the inspectors of the Board of Trade. The number of such Inquiries had considerably increased. In 1893 there were 450 accidents and one Inquiry; in 1894 there were 479 accidents and eight Inquiries; and in 1895,442 accidents and 70 Inquiries. Thus, although the number of accidents in 1895 was less than in 1893, there was an enormous increase in the number of Inquiries. There was also a great increase in the number of Inquiries held by sub-inspectors, and he was glad to be able to say that so far the sub-inspectors had been an undoubted success, and had contributed largely to the more satisfactory state of things that now existed. With regard to the attendance of sub-inspectors at inquests and the publication of their reports, he had been in communication with the sub-inspectors, and they told him, without hesitation, that they were altogether against the publication of their reports. They said that these reports were made for the information of the inspectors only, and were likely to be much more useful if they were not published. Then, with regard to attendance at inquests; there again, they considered that if they were called on to attend inquests their usefulness would largely decrease, and that the inquiries they made by night and by day would enable them to see the working of the lines and the mode in which the work was done was of far more service in preventing accidents than any attendance at inquests. The hon. Gentleman had drawn an analogy between the action of the inspectors of the Home Office in attending inquests and that of the inspectors of the Board of Trade; but the inspectors of the Home Office occupied quite a different position. There was a statutory obligation cast upon the Home Office to have continuous inspections of mines and factories, and those inspections were carried out by inspectors appointed for a district. Naturally those gentlemen could give considerable information to coroners. The case was different with the railway inspector. He was very glad, indeed, to bear testimony to the good work done by the sub-inspectors, and he could assure the hon. Gentleman that if any necessity arose for increasing their number he should not hesitate to do so; but at present he did not think there was any necessity for an increase.

thought that the publication in some form or other of the reports of sub-inspectors was of real importance in introducing reforms in the working of railways, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would further consider the question. He did not understand the idea of the sub-inspectors when they said that their reports were only made for the information of the superior inspector, and he thought that the publication of the notes made by them on the cause of a fatality would be of public service.

apologised to the hon. Member for Cork (Dr. Tanner) for having omitted to refer to the point raised by him. All he could say was that the hon. Gentleman had again and again made statements similar to that he had made that day, but he had never given any particulars. It was quite impossible for him to make an investigation into a charge unless it was properly formulated. If the hon. Gentleman would give particulars as to the name of the ship or otherwise, which would enable him to examine into the matter, it would receive his careful attention.

suggested that the right hon. Gentleman should apply to his own medical inspectors in the different ports for information. He would not give names because a reign of terror prevailed, and these men would be discharged for doing their duty.

said the right hon. Gentleman had not answered the question as to the unfair competition created through railway companies carrying foreign goods at special rates.

asked how many Votes the Government proposed to take?

said he had hoped that they should have finished the Board of Trade Vote at an earlier period of the evening, in which case they would have gone on with the Votes in their order. It was, however, now quite manifest that they could not expect to get the remaining Board of Trade Vote and the Local Government Board Vote in a reasonable time to-night, and these Votes had, accordingly, been passed over. He understood that there was no objection to the Lunacy Vote. He was informed by the Treasury that the Stationery Office Vote was absolutely exhausted, and that Vote must consequently be got that night.

said there were some important points to be raised on the Stationery Vote, and he suggested, if the Vote were taken that night, the report should be put down for a time when the matter could be reasonably discussed.

asked that an opportunity should be given on the Local Government Board Vote for the discussion of the Poor Law Schools Commission.

said the duty of the Leader of the House was constantly to try to get fourteen horses into ten stalls. [Laughter.] But he would do his best to see that the important Votes got the best places.

thought the proposal of the Leader of the House a very fair one and one the Committee ought to accept. ["Hear, hear!"] There were only two more days for Committee of Supply. The right hon. Gentleman had promised to bring on the Army and the Scotch Votes the next day, and he hoped that on the last day a prominent position would be given to the Vote for the Local Government Board, which was really the most important Vote left.

I understand that the view of the Committee is that the Local Government Board Vote is the most important remaining Vote; and that, if the Stationery Vote is given to us to-night, that the Report of that Vote will be the most important report outstanding. If that is the view of the Committee, I will endeavour to carry it out.