In moving the rejection "of this Bill, I desire to say that I do so not only by the special request of the vestry of the important parish affected by it—Marylebone —but also by the wish of other public authorities in London, and especially of the parish a portion of which I have the honour to represent in this House. I make this statement in order to show that this is no narrow issue as between the parish of Marylebone and a certain electric lighting company, but that it is a matter which affects important parishes throughout this immense and thickly-populated area of the county of London. This Bill comes forward at a most inopportune moment, inasmuch as it is on the eve not of the creation, but of the coming into being of the great London boroughs on the 1st November next. It will be a matter of the gravest concern to every one of these great areas if at this moment the parish of Marylebone is to be placed in the position that a second electric lighting company is to be brought into competition with the existing company, with the result that the new borough authority, when it comes into existence, will either have to forego for many years the right and power to supply its own electric light, or will have to buy out at enormous cost the two companies. This is in no sense a party matter, and I believe I am justified in saying that the President of the Board of Trade has left it an open question, and that he desires the House itself to settle the issue. Neither is it a question of municipal trading, inasmuch as from time immemorial it has been deemed to be one of the primary duties of local bodies to control the lighting of the area for the management of which they are responsible. Seeing that the formation of these new metropolitan boroughs was carried in this House by a majority of the votes of hon. Gentlemen opposite, and in opposition to the wishes of many on this side, I would point out to those who desire to treat this as a party question that if they pass this measure they will practically be handicapping and weighting the horse that they themselves have backed. It is of the first importance that these new borough councils should have a fair field. They were created with the express purpose of bringing new municipal life into the administration of the great areas throughout the metropolis, and with a view of encouraging men of a superior class to join the local bodies. So far as the borough of Marylebone is concerned the new borough council will be practically identical with the present district, and by passing this Bill you will be placing it in a position in which it will be unable to deal effectively with the electric lighting of its area. I wish to be perfectly fair to the House in this matter. I have no intention of attempting to make a lawyer-like speech, but I will be perfectly frank, and give a plain statement of what has occurred. I will do absolute justice not only to the company which is promoting this Bill, but also to the company which now has possession of the electric lighting of Marylebone. I frankly acknowledge that the vestry have been at fault. In the year 1889 it allowed the Metropolitan Company to provide electric light, in view of the reserve powers granted to them by the Acts of 1882 and 1888, and having in view the risks, seeing that electric lighting was not in the advanced stage it has now reached, and it was, consequently, a highly speculative matter. The vestry, bearing in view those facts, agreed to forego the power which they might have obtained themselves to supply the electricity, and allowed the Metropolitan Company to undertake the duty. For a certain time the company did the work fairly well, but eventually, owing to the fact that the demand for the light in this great and rich parish enormously in- creased, the company became unable to give complete satisfaction to the inhabitants of the district. They were, moreover, handicapped by the fact that they were building a large generating station at Willesden. Some years later the vestry, overwhelmed to some extent by complaints from the inhabitants of the parish, applied for an Order to enable it to supply the electric light, and at the same time two other companies made a similar application, one of them being the company which is promoting the present Bill. What happened? The Board of Trade granted the Order, but left it to the House to decide whether or not the vestry should be allowed to compete with the existing company. The House— very fairly, as I think—decided in favour of the Metropolitan company, inasmuch as that company had borne the toil and heat of the day. It had entered on a risky undertaking, and, up to a certain period, had given satisfaction. Some years later the vestry applied again for an Order, and again failed, and it then brought in a private Bill with a view to buying up the Metropolitan Company, either voluntarily or compulsorily. The company opposed that, and the House of Commons again decided against the vestry and in favour of the company. What has happened now? The vestry have once more decided to apply for a Provisional Order, more especially in view of the fact that they are soon to be constituted a borough council. But, at the same time, another electric lighting company, which is identical with the St. James's Lighting Company—perhaps one of the best electric lighting companies in the metropolis—is also attempting to get a footing in the parish of Marylebone, and if it does so the local authority will eventually be obliged to buy it out at enormous cost. What does the company urge in favour of its scheme? I have here the document in which they put forward their claim to support. They point to the fact that in 1889 the vestry adopted a report of its Parliamentary Committee, stating that, "in the belief of the Committee, competition between two companies would be beneficial to the parishioners." No doubt, at that time, when the vestry were being harassed by complaints of the inefficiency of the supply, they, did believe that competition would be a good thing. Then the promoters go on to point out that at a meeting held at the Board of Trade on the 21st March, 1900, to consider the grant of the present Order, counsel for the vestry stated that "the vestry has always been in favour of competition in this parish, and they are still in favour of it." But what is the reply of the President of the Board of Trade, at the close of his remarks when he received the deputation in January? He said he thought the deputation would have "done some good in ventilating the subject, and in showing how burdensome the present state of things was, and how necessary it was that a remedy should be found" Well, that remedy has been found in a provisional agreement which has been come to between the representatives of the vestry and of the Metropolitan Company, to buy out the latter, and, therefore, whatever there may have been in the statement that the vestry favoured competition, that statement now counts for nothing. I notice in this document from which I have been (noting there is a statement, made prominent by the fact of its being printed in red ink, to the following effect —

" It is stated that since the notice of objection to the Second Reading was given a committee of the vestry have made a provisional agreement with the Metropolitan Company for the purchase of the undertaking of the latter company within the parish at an enhanced price. Neither party having the necessary powers to make such an agreement, it is ultra vires, and cannot be binding upon either party."

We know it cannot, but the vestry have done all that they can do by entering into this provisional agreement. I may further add that the existing Metropolitan Company, which formerly opposed this measure, distinctly contradicts the statement I have read, and says it can lie disproved by a reference to the Parliamentary Paper (Electric Lighting, Metropolis) (No. 189). The true position of the matter is stated in the Parliamentary Paper of 1889 (page 9) as follows—

"The Marylebone authorities object to more than one company having powers in their district, and have entered into agreements with the Metropolitan Company."

Seeing that this agreement has been entered into, and seeing also that the company which has a real status in the parish is at one with the vestry, I think I am justified in saying that it would be directly against the interests of the community to allow a second company to come in—a company which could not compote, a company which would never be in a position to compete, and which would do nothing more than, thwart the efforts of the new borough council to do its duty, and which would ultimately force that borough council to buy it out at a heavy cost. I may further state that the vestry has not only petitioned Parliament against this Bill, but it is prepared to oppose it at every stage. If you pass this Bill the new borough council will not be able, like some of its neighbours, to supply the electric current at something like 3d. per unit, and private householders will have to pay probably 6d. per unit, and business premises 5d., while the parish itself will have to go on paying £30 per lamp instead of being able to supply its own lamps at a cost of £20 each per year, as is done in the adjacent parish of St. Pancras. By passing this Bill you will be depriving the ratepayers of Marylebone of the opportunity of getting better and cheaper facilities for lighting; you will deprive them also of the opportunity of making a profit which could go to the reduction of rates; and, furthermore, you will be bringing in a new authority to tear up the streets of the parish. You must remember that Oxford Street and Marylebone Road both pass through this parish. In one year Oxford Street was opened up 178 and Marylebone Road 111 times. Is it not monstrous you should bring in another company to tear up these streets, to the great detriment not only of the inhabitants of the parish, but of the trade and of the entire community, causing as it does so much inconvenience and loss to the residents and the public? Finally, may I point out that if you pass this Bill you will be stultifying yourselves? This House has passed a measure creating borough councils throughout the metropolis, and at the beginning you are going to stab one of them in the back by preventing it performing one of its most important duties—namely, dealing with the lighting of the parish. By so acting you are taking a distinctly retrograde step in the matter of local government, and at the same time you will be doing a great injustice to the inhabitants of a large and important parish. I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time, this day three mouths.

I rise to second the motion. I do not propose to go over the ground so well covered by my hon. and gallant friend opposite. I simply stand here as a representative of a metropolitan and municipal authority, which feels that if this privilege is given to a private company in the case of Marylebone it will be given in the case of other municipalities, and that private companies, against the wishes of the local authorities, will be enabled to furnish what it is claimed it would be an advantage to the inhabitants of a municipality to have supplied by the local authority. Twelve years ago the Metropolitan Company was permitted, with the consent of the vestry, to furnish electric light to the parish. But the work has not been done satisfactorily; indeed, matters became so unsatisfactory that the vestry decided to avail itself of their reserve right to instal the light themselves. It accordingly applied for a Provisional Order, but some difficulty arose in regard to it, and Parliament refused it the power to instal, the House taking the view that when certain individuals had invested their money in furnishing what they believed to be a convenience to the inhabitants, no competition should be permitted. Yet, although competition by a local authority was forbidden, the House is now asked to allow competition by another private company. The parish says, and with absolute truth, that sooner or later this electric service must be furnished by the municipality itself, and when the local authority does take it over, instead of having only one company to buy out there will, if this Bill is allowed to pass, be two companies to be bought up. No doubt competition is a very good thing in the right place, but if it means that there must, in consequence of it, be a large addition to the rates, then the ratepayers are certainly not prepared to accept a proposal entailing such a liability. People who live in adjoining parishes realise that this is the thin edge of the wedge, and that what is made to apply to Marylebone to-day will be applied to other vestries to-morrow. Only to-day the vestry to which I have the honour to belong passed a resolution urging that this Bill should be opposed in every possible way. The President of the Board of Trade, in a debate on an exactly similar question a short time ago, said the House should always support municipality. Well, I ask the House to take that course to-day. The President of the Local Government Board has also laid it down as a general principle that when a municipality and a private company were applying for the same thing the preference should be given to the municipality. Now, what is the position here I Marylebone has applied for and been refused permission to instal, but it intends to again come to the House for power to supply its own electric light, as well as to buy out the existing company. In the meantime you are asked by this Bill to allow a private company to come in and establish itself. I venture to suggest that if the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board meant what he said the other day he will support the opposition to this Bill. Again, the right hon. Gentleman said——

Order, order! The hon. and gallant Gentleman is not in order in discussing a speech made on a different occasion and on another subject, in the present session.

I am sorry to have transgressed the rules of the House. I only desired to express my hope that the views uttered by the right hon. Gentleman not very long ago are still held by him. I would also like to point out that, after all, the person to be chiefly considered is not the municipal authority or the commercial company, but the consumer. If I understand aright, the consumer and the ratepayer are very nearly identical persons, and as a ratepayer I would point out that he, after all, is the proper person to deal with this subject, because he has, every now and then, the means of turning out his elected representatives on the local authority if they do not do their duty, whereas, if the lighting is in the hands of a private company he has no control whatever over the directors. The parish to which I belong is spending over £100,000 in laying new pavements, and what is our experience of private companies? We have asked a company which has legislative power to break up our streets to do what work they require before we repave them, and their reply has been that they intend to use their powers when they like. How much better would it be for work of this sort to be done by the municipality itself, instead of allowing a private company to do all sort of mischief by breaking up the streets and destroying the value of work done with the ratepayers' money. I hope that the House will not accept this Bill, but will postpone consideration of it until such time as the borough councils themselves have been created, and the ratepayers sure in a position to express their views upon the subject.

I will endeavour to put before the House the dry facts of the case, which lie to a great extent in a nutshell. This is a Bill which proposes to confirm a Provisional Order, and I only desire to say, in the first place, that in issuing these Orders the Board of Trade acts with a view to giving the House an opportunity of judging whether or not the Orders should toe converted into law. The position in regard to this matter is this. Tie supply of electric light in Marylebone has been bad for some years past and has been greatly complained of. It therefore became necessary that something tangible should be done to remedy the existing state of things. Two years ago the Vestry of Marylebone applied to the Board of Trade for a Provisional Order to provide a supply in competition with the existing company. Having regard to the state of affairs we did not hesitate for a moment to grant it, but it gave rise to considerable discussion. It was contended that it would have been unfair to the existing company to put it in competition with a rate-aided authority. However, the House agreed to read the Bill a second time, although later on the Committee rejected it, mainly, I believe, on the ground that rate-aided competition would be unfair to the company. Subsequently an important deputation, including many of the loading inhabitants, waited on the Board of Trade complaining of the quality of the light. Eminent doctors declared that it was impossible to carry on operations in consequence of the bad light; shopkeepers also complained, and the conductors of places of worship, declared that they could not carry on their devotions—they wanted more light. The deputation seemed to think that the Board of Trade had some means of putting these wrongs right, but, as a matter of fact, I had to explain that the Board of Trade was practically powerless, and that the only remedy for a grievance of this kind is to be found in competition. That is the real way in which existing evils, both in regard to price and quality, can be remedied. But the application of the vestry for a Provisional Order having been refused, is this House now to say that there shall be no remedy until some future time, when a new municipal authority has been created? The House must decide this question for itself. I have sympathy with the position of the vestry, but I must point out that, having already been refused power, they have not put in a fresh application. The hon. Gentleman says they have agreed with the existing company to purchase its undertaking, and that if it is carried out the vestry will then have the matter in its own hands. But I understand that that agreement requires ratification, and that it has not been definitely assented to by either side. If the House reads this Bill a second time I propose to move an Instruction to the Committee in order to safeguard the interests of the vestry in regard to any agreement which it may conclude. I shall propose that it be an Instruction to the Committee to consider the expediency of inserting a clause in the Order, providing that the Order shall not come into operation until a date to be decided by the Committee, and shall not then come into operation if the undertaking authorised by the Metropolitan Electric Supply Company (West London Order, 1899) shall have been purchased by the vestry of Marylebone or their successors. If the House passes the Second Reading, together with this Instruction, the Committee will then be able to consider the position of the vestry in regard to this agreement. I hope that, having regard to the undoubted fact that the supply of the electric light is defective, and that the vestry have been refused power to instal, the House will not relegate this matter again to the position in which it was six months ago, but that it will send the Bill to a Committee to consider all the questions raised by it.

only wanted to say one or two words as to the proper principle of dealing with matters of this kind. He hoped that the House would not give a Second Reading to this Bill. The facts were very simple. They already had a company in possession of the parish, and they had a vestry or municipal authority desirous of taking the lighting of the district into its own hands. Between the company and the vestry there was a provisional agreement, and they might take it for granted that if this Bill were thrown out that agreement would be carried into effect. Was it right, then, to introduce another company which the vestry would eventually have to buy out? As they knew, he was an opponent of municipal trading, but this was not a question of municipal trading at all, for the House had long recognised the principle that, where a local authority asked for powers to buy out an existing company, in order that it might itself supply the light, such power ought to be granted it. He did not believe any case could be quoted where it had been refused. When the vestry asked for power to compete with the existing company a totally different set of conditions arose, and it was felt by the House that the company should not be subjected to a rate-aided competition. If this Bill were carried they would have two authorities interfering with the streets, which was an unmitigated nuisance, and when the time for purchase came they would have two companies to buy out instead of one.

hoped that the House would give the Bill a Second Reading. Was it fair that, because a local authority had intimated that some time or other it would light its own district, private enterprise should be refused even a hearing before a Committee of that House? He regretted that, after the offer of the President of the Board of Trade to move an Instruction which would practically safeguard the interests of the local authority, the opposition to the Bill was being persisted in. The hon. and gallant Gentleman who moved its rejection had admitted that the promoters of this Bill were men of excellent position in the electric lighting world, and that they had an excellent record in London. It was admitted, too, that so far back as 1897 the vestry desired competition. So bad was the electric lighting that the vestry itself came to Parliament for a Provisional Order, but the House very properly declined to give a rate-aided authority power to compete with the Metropolitan Company. How had the situation changed? The opponents of this Bill said that it had changed because the vestry had entered into a provisional agreement to purchase the undertaking of the Metropolitan Company. He understands that that was not the fact. The vestry had never passed any such resolution at all. It was passed by a committee of the vestry against a powerful minority, and there were considerable obstacles to the carrying out of the agreement. In the first place the shareholders of the Metropolitan Company had to be asked for their consent. Next, Parliament had to approve the bargain, and finally the electors of the parish of Marylebone would have to ratify it, and he did not believe that that ratification was by any means assured, in view of the strong minority which opposed the passing of the resolution. He did not say it was not a bonâ fide agreement; it was a mere intention to agree, with many obstacles in the way. The shareholders of the Metropolitan Company had to be dealt with; the electors of the new borough council had to be converted, and so also had that body when elected. He did not say the vestry might not be so fortunate as to get Parliament to reverse its decision of 1898, and convert the electors in November next. The Amendment in effect said, "Notwithstanding all these obstacles in the way, you, the ratepayers and inhabitants of Marylebone, are to remain in a condition, as regards electric lighting, which everyone admits to be deplorable, or at any rate very undesirable." What did the proposal of the President of the Board of Trade amount to? That the State should guarantee the rights of the vestry if they were in earnest and successful in carrying out the bargain which they had made provisionally with the Metropolitan Electric Supply Company; and on the vestry being able to purchase the existing undertaking, the operation of this Bill should be postponed. What more reasonable, rational, and temperate proposal could be made? He submitted that the refusal of such an offer as that guaranteed by the Instruction to the Committee, threw a very considerable light on the ability of the vestry to carry out their declared intentions.

It will be unnecessary for me to occupy the time of the House at any length in seconding the motion of the hon. Member. The hon. Member for East Tyrone alluded to that portion of the country in which Dungannon is situated, and naturally it falls to my hon. friend to make the motion concerning it. I am asked by the Urban Council of Dungannon to identify myself with his opposition, and I am requested by the chairman of the urban council, who is also agent for Lord Ranfurly, Governor of New Zealand, and by the people of the neighbourhood to take a prominent part in laying before the House the opposition to this Bill. I do not wish to say a single word against the Board of Trade. The President of the Board of Trade has always shown himself most anxious and most earnest in developing the resources of the country. While not finding fault with the manner in which the Commissioner who was sent down in March conducted the inquiry, or with the report that he made, and while I do not wish in any way to reflect upon the general management of the Board of Trade, or the manner in which its representatives act on occasions of this sort, I wish to state that a remonstrance has been sent to the Board of Trade on the part of those who object to this Provisional Order. I regret that due effect was not given to that remonstrance, for if that had been done it would have prevented the expense that will be incurred by the urban council of Dungannon in opposing this Bill in Parliament. It is unnecessary that I should at any length follow the hon. Member in the statement he has made concerning the high price of gas under the management of the gas company, and the large dividend which is paid to the shareholders. I merely wish to say that the urban ratepayers are unanimous in asking the House to reject this Bill. If this Bill is passed the householders of Dungannon will suffer a great injustice, and the only remedy that will be left will be the adoption of the electric light. I ask the House to carefully consider that this is one of those opportunities given to local bodies of developing the resources of Ireland. If the House refuses to reject this Bill on this, occasion it will be striking a blow at the local government of Ireland and stultifying a measure which caused them much effort and was successfully passed through the House last session.

I wish to say two or three words on this, subject. I have, like the hon. Member for South Belfast, been requested by the people of Dungannon to move in this matter and to oppose the Second Reading of the Bill. I do so as a Member from the County Tyrone and in compliance with the wishes of a great many of the inhabitants. It is quite true that the price of gas in Dungannon has been abnormal. In the county the price of gas is 1s. 3d. per 1,000 feet less. than in the town of Dungannon. In the neighbouring towns it is. still less. The methods by which the gas company has carried on business are certainly not such as to commend it to public favour. After what has occurred, I think we must ask the House, to reject the Bill. We are now dealing; with a little town in Ireland, and I ask the House to do for that town what it has done for great towns.

Compared with the, other lighting questions before the House to-day and yesterday, this is no doubt a very small matter, but it is rather an important matter for the town of Dungannon, part of which is in my constituency, and that is the reason why I speak on the subject. The first thing the House has to bear in mind is that, until the Local Government Act of 1898, the town commissioners of Dungannon were debarred from either acquiring or erecting gasworks. They had no power. They were absolutely precluded, and therefore this company is in existence and has grown up. This company, which has been in existence a great many years, has had a rather curious history. It has an entire paid up capital amounting to £4,200. Under the Order it is proposed to make this capital into a sum of £9,000. What has taken place is this They have supplied gas to the town of Dungannon, and for the last thirty years the price of gas has varied from 7s. 6d. to 5s. 10d. per 1,000 cubic feet. They have paid dividends consistently of 10 per cent., and the profits, after payment of 10 per cent., have been used in extending the works. This inflated capital has been made through the consumers of gas in Dungannon being compelled by a monopoly to pay an exorbitant price. That is the second thing the House ought to bear in mind. I wish to call the attention of my right hon. friend the President of the Board of Trade to this matter. The gentleman who hold the inquiry was asked to go and inspect the works —this is really an important matter for the Board of Trade—and he declined to go. He stated that he had seen them from the railway as he passed. I rather think that on the question of inflated capital that is a fact which should be taken into account. The gentleman who inquired really did not inspect the works at all. Now the price of gas is 5s. 10d. per 1,000 feet. For fifteen or sixteen years it has been enormously in excess of the price charged by other companies in towns in the immediate neighbourhood. I think these are facts the House ought to take into account in dealing with the question, but when all is said and done this company is in possession. It has property which cannot be disposed of unless it is disposed of fairly and honestly. I have been appealed to by both parties. The chairman of the gas company is an old friend of my own—he formerly represented in this House the county a division of which I now represent—Mr. Thomas Dickson. Mr. Dickson, as representing the gas company, has given what I think is a perfectly fair proposal. This is a matter for purchase at a fair price. The town commissioners, now that they are entitled by law to purchase, have proposed to give the gas company £7,000 for the undertaking. Mr. Dickson has asked £9,000. He has, I think with perfect fairness, stated that the gas company is quite willing that £9,000 should be the maximum, and that the difference between £7,000 and £9,000 should be settled by the Government arbitrator. I recognise that as being a very fair offer. I have received a telegram stating that the Urban Council have agreed in principle to the purchase, and that the question now is one of price. I am going to make an appeal to my right hon. friend the President of the Board of Trade. I have been engaged for two days in opposing him, and I do not know that he will be in any very good humour for listening to any appeal I may make, but I am sure he will recognise the fairness of what I am going to ask. The question is merely one of terms, and the gas company have made an offer which cannot very well be resisted in principle by the Commissioners. What I ask is this: Do not pass this Bill to-day. By doing so you will give the gas company a statutory position which we ought not to confer while negotiations are going on. Will my right hon. friend agree to postpone this Bill for a fortnight? It has been through the House of Lords, so that it is perfectly safe. This can then be taken before an Unopposed Bill Committee, and all will end well. The local authority will get the gas company's undertaking, and the gas company will get a fair price for their undertaking. I hope my right hon. friend will make this concession, and although I have been opposing him yesterday and to day, I trust he will heap coals of fire on my head by agreeing to my proposal.

I can assure my hon. friend that I do not at all object to his opposition; I rather like it than otherwise. Of course, it must not be supposed that a Bill for confirming a Provisional Order is in any sense a matter promoted by the Government. It is merely an opportunity for the House to decide on the matter. My hon. friend asks for a postponement for a fortnight. Having regard to the circumstances and the facts he had brought before us, I do not think the House should resist that appeal.

It occurs to me that this is really not quite a satisfactory way of settling this matter. In fact, I question whether it is in order. We have had a debate on the matter, and surely we do not want on a future occasion to have that debate all over again. Now, with the facts fresh in our minds, the question might be decided. Dungannon has been very badly treated by this company; there is no law for its protection at all, there is no sliding scale; and I think the House is well advised as to what should be done under the circumstances. Having heard the facts and listened to the debate, I think we ought to decide this simple question, and if my hon. friend goes to a division I shall certainly support him.

In order to bring the matter to a point, I will move that the debate be now adjourned.

I am sorry this motion has been moved before I had an opportunity of speaking with reference to the proposal made by the hon. Member for South Tyrone, but I will endeavour to keep what I desired to say in order on the motion for adjournment. I have no objection to the proposal of the hon. Member for South Tyrone, although I do not think any legitimate ground was shown for keeping this Bill hanging in terrorem over the town commissioners of Dungannon. Still, I shall not oppose his suggestion, as it would not be a prudent thing to do under the circumstances. The hon. Member tells us that the gas company and the commissioners have come to an agreement in principle, but there is a great difference between coming to an agreement in principle and coming to an agreement as to figures. As I understand, the town commissioners are willing to pay £7,000. or nearly double the amount of capital ever subscribed to the undertaking. The chairman of the gas company wants £9,000, and in order to put pressure on the town commissioners of Dungannon to increase their offer it is proposed to keep this Bill hanging in terrorem over the commissioners, instead of doing as the House should do—reject the Bill. The hon. Member, having made a powerful attack on the gas company, suggests an adjournment in order to allow the gas company and the town commissioners to come to terms. I recognise that, without having specific instructions from the town commissioners of Dungannon, it would be taking a very serious responsibility to divide in face of that offer, and with the Bill accepted by the President of the Board of Trade. I am not prepared to take the responsibility, but I am entitled to demand, on behalf of the citizens of Dungannon, that if this compromise is agreed to the Government or the President of the Board of Trade shall give us a pledge that the Bill will be finally dealt with not later than this day fortnight. That is a matter of very great importance, as having once been withdrawn from the power of the House it may be pushed off until the end of the session, when the Irish Members may have dispersed, and then be passed. That would be a monstrous injustice, and we ought to have a definite understanding that the Bill should be placed on the Paper not later than this day fortnight.

I think the House would not be justified in keeping this Bill hanging indefinitely in its present condition, and I am clearly of opinion that the House ought to decide upon the issue not. later than this day fortnight.

I might point out, that the £9,000 asked by the gas company for their undertaking is exclusive of £1,739 balance of revenue, and also of the amount of coal in stock. These items if included would bring the price demanded up to between £11,000 and £12,000. I mention this as it may cause a disagreement in the arbitration. On behalf of the Urban Council, I accede to the adjournment.

Having seconded the motion of the hon. Member, I rise to thank the right hon. Gentleman for his very considerate reply, and to say I have no objection to the adjournment.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is the understanding that this. question should be taken about the same date as the Irish Estimates?

That, of course depends on when the Irish Estimates are taken.

That is what we want to know, as then the Irish Members will be here.

Has the right hon. Gentleman the representative of the Foreign Office any information to give the House regarding China?

The news received from various sources makes it clear that a large number of foreignersand missionaries of various denominations had taken refuge in the British Legation, which is besieged, and that the position in Peking is very grave—but we have no direct intelligence from Peking itself. A telegram has reached us from the Consul at Tientsin, dated 28th June, stating that the three arsenals known as the Eastern Arsenal, the Haikuan Ssu, and the Si-ku or Wu-ku Arsenal have been burned by the allied forces, with immense stores of powder and ammunition.

On behalf of the hon. Member for the Ecclesall Division of Sheffield, I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether General Sir A. Gaselee is now on the way from India to China with the Indian contingent; and whether General Gaselee will command the allied forces on land in China.

My answer to the first question is in the affirmative. In regard to the second, I cannot yet say what arrangements will be made as to the command and distribution of the allied forces.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War if he will say on what ground Lord Roberts has declined the application made to him by the Government to detach a portion of the army now serving in South Africa for China, having regard to the fact that upwards of 250,000 men are at present under the command of Lord Roberts in a country where it has been authoritatively stated that the war is practically at an end.

The Secretary of State for War is not at present prepared to give any information as to the subject of the hon. Member's question.

When will he be in a state of preparation?

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether the time has now come when Sir George White's Lady-smith despatches can be published.

I have repeatedly explained to the House that the publication of despatches rests entirely with the Secretary of State for War, and that I am not prepared to prejudice the exercise of his discretion by way of question and answer.

Are we to understand from the hon. Gentleman's answer that the House of Commons is refused this information?

I do not think that question arises out of my answer. The selection of the time of publication must rest with the Secretary of State.

I will call attention to this on the Army Estimates.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he is aware that Landrost Baumann, of Hoopstad, has in his keeping the rifle, revolver, and other arm's the late General Wauchope had with him when he fell at Magersfontein, and also some small trinkets belonging to the general, and has authorised Mr. Michael Davitt to state that he would hold these articles in safe keeping till some oppor- tunity presents itself of forwarding them to the family of General Wauchope; and whether the Government, having regard to the offer of Mr. Baumann, will take any steps to provide for the immediate forwarding of these relics, of General Wauchope to his relatives.

I understand that no official information has been received here referring to the hon. Member's question; but Lord Roberts has been requested by telegraph to make inquiries, and, if possible, to send home the articles mentioned.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he can state the number of cases of enteric fever admitted into hospitals at Bloemfontein during each of the eight weeks ending 12th May, and the number of men dying in those hospitals from this disease during the same period; and whether he can state the number of cases of simple continued fever admitted into hospitals in Natal, hospitals in Cape Colony, and hospitals north of the Orange River, respectively, with the number of deaths which occurred among these patients, whether subsequently transferred to the heading of enteric fever or not.

The hon. Member has given very short notice of a question involving so much statistical research, but I will do my best to satisfy him with my answer. The number of admittances for enteric fever into hospitals at Bloemfontein and of deaths from the same cause-in the eight weeks ended on 11th May— the week, for the purpose of these returns, ending on Friday—were:—23rd March; admitted, 88; died, 5. 30th March: admitted, 160; died, 9. 6th April: admitted, 166; died, 21. 13th April: admitted, 377; died, 34. 20th April: admitted, 263; died, 44. 27th April: admitted, 224; died, 54. 4th May: admitted, 226; died, 54. 11th May: admitted, 583; died, 65; making totals of 2,087 admissions and 286 deaths. That give a percentage of 13·7. The second question scarcely admits of an answer. I can only give the total admissions for simple continued fever, which were 5,860 and deaths only one. But I think the hon. Member will see that if a case was subsequently diagnosed as enteric fever the death would be set down as from enteric fever and not as from simple continued fever.

Can the hon. Gentleman say how many of the admissions and deaths were of noncommissioned officers, and how many of men?

I have the numbers of commissioned and non-commissioned officers and men in parallel columns, but it would be confusing to simply read them to the House.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he will state what steps were taken by the War Office to provide means for the application of the serum test (Widal's method) to the diagnosis of doubtful cases of enteric fever in general hospitals in South Africa; whether he is aware that this means of making an early diagnosis is largely used by hospitals and local sanitary authorities; and whether he will take immediate steps to provide every general hospital in South Africa with the skilled assistance and simple appliances necessary in those cases in which such provision has not yet been made.

No special steps have been taken beyond the general training of medical officers in this method of diagnosis. The test is being applied in South Africa, and Army medical officers are quite capable of carrying it out.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, seeing that private soldiers on active service are entitled to 6d. per diem in addition to free rations, whether he will explain why, when payment is asked for by soldiers in South Africa, they have been told that payment will not be made till the end of the war.

The hon. Member-has been misinformed. Soldiers on active service get free rations, including vegetables and groceries when possible, and they also get the 3d. messing allowance, but not the 6d. ration allowance. The ration allowance, however, is due to a soldier for any day on which he did not draw a ration, and the money is paid to him weekly if he desires. On a campaign, however, occasions may, of course, arise which preclude the possibility of such payment for a time.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been drawn to certain Minutes published in the Natal Witness, which have passed between the Prime Minister of Natal, the Governor, General Murray, and Sir Redvers Buller respecting the detention, opening, and suppression of letters and documents passing through the Post Office by the Censorship Department, and especially to the observation of the Prime Minister of Natal that the opening of private letters had been indiscriminate and unnecessarily rigorous and inquisitorial; whether he is aware that the Governor expressed by Minute agreement with his Ministers; whether, inasmuch as the matter has thus become public in Natal, these and any other Minutes on the subject which have passed between the Prime Minister and Governor of Natal and the generals referred to will be laid upon the Table of the House; and whether he will lay upon the Table any documents which have been issued by the Government, or those responsible in South Africa, prescribing or dealing in any way with the manner in which the censorship of telegrams or letters should be carried out in South Africa or elsewhere.

The Secretary of State has no objection whatever to the publication in this country of the documents which have been published in Natal. I do not know whether the hon. Member has seen the correspondence.

Yes, I have it. Will the hon. Gentleman answer the last paragraph of my question?

That should be addressed to the Foreign Office, as the general question of censorship is a much larger one, and refers to more than one Department.

I will put a question to the First Lord of the Treasury.

I wish to ask the Under Secretary for War a question of which I have given him private notice—namely, what explanation has the War Office to give for the removal from Netley Hospital of Private Robert Weir, of the 27th Inniskilling Fusiliers, who had served with his regiment all through the Natal campaign, and was sent home in an enfeebled state of body and mind, and of the deportation of this soldier, who is without a pension and has received no gratuity, to the workhouse at Enniskillen, where he is at present a pauper inmate.

I have received no notice, and it is obvious I could not have answered such a question under forty-eight hours notice.

I sent it to the War Office, and had a letter from the hon. Gentleman's private secretary.

The hon. Member must give longer notice.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether there was any reduction in the strength of artillery or diminution in the store of ammunition during the three years from July, 1892, to June, 1895.

This question does not admit of a single reply. The changes made in the artillery of the last ten or twenty years embrace changes not only in the number of units but in the number also of men and guns. The hon. Member had much better ask for a Return, which I shall be quite prepared to grant.

My question is clear —whether there was any reduction in the strength of artillery or diminution of stores in a specified period.

I quite see the object of the question. We all recollect there was a diminution of stores. But I put that on one side. What does the hon. Member mean by the rest of his question; does he mean a reduction of batteries, of guns, or of men? He will get the information much more clearly if he will allow me to give it by way of Return.

What was the information given to the Colonial Secretary, on which he based some recent observations?

Order, order!

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether a soldier incapacitated from all employment by illness contracted while on duty in camp in England and discharged as unfit for further service is entitled to a pension as if he had been on foreign service; and, if so, to whom should application be made.

The conditions are not quite the same, but application should be made to the same authorities, namely, the Commissioners of Chelsea Hospital.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War if he can state what progress is being made towards the construction of the contemplated rifle range near Withington Barracks, Lichfield; and if anything has been done in the matter in the last two months.

Since the passing of the Act confirming the Provisional Order for the acquisition of the land required for this range, the notices to treat have been served on the various owners concerned, and we are now awaiting their claims, when endeavours will be made to arrange terms by negotiation, but where this is not possible recourse to arbitration will be necessary. The construction of the range cannot be commenced until possession of the land has been obtained.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War what grant the Government pro- poses to make towards the expenses of Volunteer mounted infantry beyond the ordinary grant to Volunteers.

It has been decided to grant for this year an initial equipment allowance of £10 10s., an efficiency grant of £4, in addition to the ordinary capitation grant to provide for maintenance of equipment and hire of horses, and a special grant of 12s. for each day a Volunteer earns camp allowance, to cover the cost of providing and maintaining a horse in camp, and a travelling allowance of 3d. a mile to cover conveyance of horses to and from camp.

Does this arrangement apply to this year only, or is it permanent?

This year only. We are not prepared to deal with questions of permanent policy at this moment.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War if he is aware that at an inquest held on Saturday last at Shorncliffe Camp, on Sergeant Wilmshurst, of the Sussex Regiment, it was shown in evidence that there was not a single orderly of the Army Medical Corps in the hospital, and that Wilmshurst, when taken to the hospital in a fit, died before a doctor could be found; and in view of the comments made by the jury at the inquest, whether he can say what steps, if any, are now being taken to secure without delay an adequate staff for our military hospitals both at home and abroad.

No information has been received in the War Office of this incident, but inquiry will be made the staff of the hospital consists of a sergeant-major, a sergeant, two corporals, and fourteen orderlies of the Army Medical Corps, besides regimental soldiers. The hon. Member will see that I have to make further inquiry in order to give an exhaustive answer to this question. I put it to him and to other Members that when a question comes before me for the first time at ten or eleven o'clock in the morning at the War Office, it is impos- sible to deal with it satisfactorily before the House sits. I trust that more consideration will in future be shown to an already over-burdened Department.

I will renew the question a few days hence.

I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he is aware that the Royal Reserve Regiment of Hussars, now quartered at Hounslow, has been embodied for seven weeks, and had up to last week received no grooming kit and only sixteen saddles, so that the regiment is compelled to drag their horses round the barrack square with ropes and chains; and when the Department propose to make this cavalry corps efficient.

The requisitions for the saddlery and grooming kits were not received at Woolwich until the 20th June, the whole supply was despatched on or before the 28th June.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether, seeing that till last autumn the militia competitive examination consisted of Military law, tactics, fortification, and military topography, he will explain why the subjects of military law and tactics have been excluded from the course, and military history, consisting of the first 130 pages of Hamley's "Operations of War," dealing with the strategic movements in the Napoleonic Wars, substituted since the South. African War, such being a study of a system of military operations rendered obsolete by smokeless powder and the improvements in modern firearms.

The changes were made because it was thought better to have one instead of two examinations. But care was taken not to prejudice the chances of candidates who had passed the first examination under the old system.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he is now in a position to state whether Militia candidates doing duty with their embodied battalions will be forced to pass a competitive examination in September; and, if so, in what subjects they will be examined.

The subjects for the revised Militia examination were published in August, 1899. As I have stated in reply to a previous question, arrangements have been made to prevent hardship to those who have already passed the first examination under the old system. These arrangements would have been in force in March if an examination had been held; and they will be in force in September. I may point out the necessity for a competition examination depends on whether or not there are more vacancies than candidates.

Will there be a competitive examination in September?

I think almost certainly, but it depends whether the number of candidates exceeds the number of vacancies. If a greater number of gentlemen wish to enter the Army than there are vacancies for, then they must compete between themselves for the vacancies.

Will the officers now serving at the front be required to go through the same literary competitive examinations as those in garrisons? If so, it will be extremely hard.

It is difficult to deal with this matter in answer to questions. Care has been taken to make the examinations as equal as possible. It is impossible for the officers at the front to compete next September, and therefore a portion of places will be set apart and will be filled up on the nomination of Lord Roberts. As to officers of Militia at home or on the Mediterranean stations a difficulty arises, because commanding officers have been able to give leave to some, but have had to refuse it to others. We hope, however, to meet their case by granting a proportion of marks for every day of duty done, and every day on board ship, which will equalise conditions as far as possible.

Arising out of this answer may I ask whether in the case of Militia abroad, but not in South Africa, the examination of candidates will be held in England or at their respective stations?

The examination in these eases will be held at the respective stations for those candidates who are at their stations, and an allowance of marks will be made for everyday of duty done and for every day on board ship.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether in new designs for, or on points of detail in, the construction of Belleville boilers the Belleville Company is consulted; and, if so, what fee is paid, and what is the total sum so paid since the adoption of the boiler, over and above anything paid as royalty, and what is the total amount paid, and to be paid, as royalty.

The reply to the first part of the hon. Member's question is in the affirmative. The fee for this consultation is included in the royalty. The only extra payment to the Belleville Company beyond the royalty is for drawings which they supply. The actual amount paid up to date for royalty is £116,192, and for drawings £644, in respect of fifty-four ships. The approximate amount remaining to be paid for royalty in respect of forty-eight ships is £49,231.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, having regard to the technical character of the controversy as to the use of water-tube boilers on Her Majesty's ships, he could, for the convenience of the House, lay on the Table a Memorandum on the subject a few days before the discussion on Vote 8 of the Navy Estimates is taken.

I will see what materials for the discussion on water-tube boilers I can place before the House before the Vote is taken, but my own review of the case, which I am anxious to make as little technical as the ease admits, I propose to embody in the statement which I shall make to the House.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty when he will be in a position to make his promised statement respecting the new arrangements to be made on the termination of the Australian agreement sanctioned by the Imperial Defence Act, 1888.

I do not remember giving the undertaking to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but matters will remain as they are until the central government in Australia is formed under the Commonwealth Bill, when, of course, any negotiation would be easier. I may mention that, there being among our ships on the Australian station several suitable for work in Chinese waters, the Secretary of State telegraphed for the consent of the Australian colonies to their temporary withdrawal, which consent is necessary under the Imperial Defence Act. This consent was given in twenty-four hours, and in the most cordial manner.

May I ask if the cost of these ships sent from Australia to China is defrayed by the United Kingdom?

I think the Australian colonies are far more bent on helping us in China than on any financial question.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether any attempt has been made to ascertain the views of the Colonial and Indian Governments on the reorganisation of the military forces of the Empire; and whether the Government will consider the desirability of adding to the Committee of the Council of Defence representatives of the great self-governing colonies and of India.

I understand that opportunity has been taken to consult the authorities on the question referred to by my hon. friend. The Committee referred to in the question is a Committee of the Cabinet, and the Government, therefore, cannot add to it in the manner suggested.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware of the arrangements made for the education, during his minority, of Sirdar Bhai Shamshere Singh, the present chief of Arnowli and head of the Bhaikean family in the Punjab; and whether he will ascertain if there is any reason why the Sirdar should not be allowed a tutor competent to educate him in English, and in a manner becoming the position he is likely to hold on his coming of age.

This chief is at present only nine years old, and his brother six years old. The estate to which he is heir has only a moderate income, and is in debt. The arrangements for the education of these boys are made by the Court of Wards, subject to the approval of the Punjab Government, and under these circumstances there is much to be said in favour of a good native tutor until the lads are old enough to go to the Sirdar's college.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that Corporal Courtney, of A Battery, Kingston, Toronto, was on the 24th May ordered to march a squad of the battery to the canteen to drink the Queen's health in beer, to which he had a personal objection; and that, in consequence, he has been reduced to the ranks; and whether he will cause inquiry to be made into the case.

I have no information as to the incident to which the hon. Member refers. The administration of the Canadian Militia is entirely a matter for the Canadian Government, and Her Majesty's Government have no right or desire to interfere in a question which solely concerns one of the self-governing colonies.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that trustees in bankruptcy receive notices of assignments of debts due to creditors; whether it is the duty of trustees to assure themselves that assignments do in fact exist before parting with moneys in their hands; and whether he will take steps, by legislation or otherwise, to provide that trustees receiving notices of assignment should at once apprise the creditors concerned.

The answer to the first two paragraphs of the question is in the affirmative. With reference to the third paragraph, I am of opinion that there is no necessity for legislation.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will lay upon the Table of the House a Return showing what legislation, if any, has been adopted by and now 3xists in France, Belgium, Holland, Prussia, and Denmark, respectively, with regard to the limits of size of sea-fish allowed to be caught, imported or ox-ported, possessed or sold, as well as the penalties, if any, imposed by such legislation, the conditions under which such penalties are incurred, and the date of each law included in the Return.

Before the right hon. Gentleman answers the question, may I ask if he will include in any such Return a statement whether the legislation referred to is strictly enforced in those countries.

One can hardly ask a foreign Government if the laws enacted in its country are strictly enforced. I am making inquiries through the Foreign Office, and will consider when I receive the replies how far I can supply the information desired by my hon. friend.

Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire if there are any prosecutions in those countries?

I think that is rather beyond the scope of our inquiries.

Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to give us the information before proceeding with the Undersized Fish Bill?

I cannot undertake anything of the kind. Whatever may be the regulations in force in other countries, they have nothing to do with the passing of this Bill.

But that is one of the questions the House is asked to deal with.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, whether he will grant a Return of the amounts of free luggage which the various railway companies are under statutory liability to allow to the several classes of passengers over the different portions of their lines.

The Board of Trade are in communication with the Railway Association, and have said they assume-that the companies will have no difficulty in supplying the information. I shall press for an early reply.

I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General will he explain on what authority the registrars charge varying sums of from 1s. to 2s. 7d. for certificates of death of members of registered trade unions, who have funeral benefits attached to their societies, seeing that registered friendly societies only pay 1s. for such certificates, which is fixed by law, and whether he can take any action with a view of making the same charge for obtaining certificates for registered trade unions.

Perhaps the hon. Member will allow me to answer the question. Section 97 of the Friendly Societies Act, 1896, provides that for the purposes of that Act a certificate of the death of any member of a registered friendly society is to be given by the Registrar of Deaths for a sum not exceeding 1s., This enactment, however, does not apply in the case of the death of a member of a registered trade union, and consequently in such a case the ordinary fee of 2s. 7d. is payable for a certificate of death. I have no power to take the action suggested in the last paragraph of the question.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, in view of the fact that the notice issued by the Civil Service Commissioners, on 7th April, 1894, announcing a competition limited to registered copyists for eight appointments as abstractor or assistant clerk, stating the maximum limit of age for entry at sixty, it was contemplated to retire a successful competitor upon reaching that age.

Whatever may or may not have been in the mind of the authorities when that notice was issued, there can be no question that, under the general rule of the service laid down in Clause 10 of the Order in Council of 15th August, 1890, and Clause 18 of the Order of 29th November, 1898, a civil servant is liable to be called upon to retire at the age of sixty.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that the late Mr. T. J. O'Brien, of the Consolidated Accounting Office of the Supreme Court of Judicature in Ireland, was allowed a special salary amounting to £210 per annum for the discharge of the duties of Clerk in Charge of the Vote Account, and that, since shortly after Mr. O'Brien's decease in June, 1898, these duties have been performed by a junior clerk at a salary of £140, who recently presented a petition to the Lord Chancellor praying for an allowance similar to Mr. O'Brien's; whether the Lord Chancellor on receipt of the petition instructed the Accountant General to take steps to have these duties performed by a first class clerk; and, whether, seeing that the time of the three first class clerks is fully engaged by other responsible duties, and that it has been found impossible to get the work of the Vote Account done by the present first class staff, an additional first class clerk will be appointed; and, if not, whether an adequate allowance will be given to the junior clerk who has during, the past two years been discharging the duties connected with the Vote Account.

The junior clerk referred to (who is only nominally clerk in charge and receives all necessary directions from his superior officer) has the same salary as Mr. O'Brien's predecessor. Mr. O'Brien was allowed the exceptional fixed salary of £210 to compensate him for the fact that being outside the normal organisation of the Office, he had no right of promotion such as Mr. Wilson has, and was on a much lower scale of pay. Mr. Wilson's salary after thirteen years service will be £230, rising by £10 to £300 as against £210, fixed salary paid to Mr. O'Brien after the same period of service—and this irrespective of his chance of promotion.

I beg; to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that purchasers under the Ashbourne Act are only entitled to about £10 per cent. every ten years, while purchasers under the Land Bill of 1896 will be entitled to £14 after ten years; whether he is also aware that the sinking fund under the: Ashbourne Act is only 17s. 6d., while under the Bill of 1896 it is £1 5s.; and. whether there is any reason for not placing the purchasers under the Ashbourne Acts on as favourable terms as the purchasers under the Bill of 1896.

The first paragraph of the question appears to be based upon a misapprehension, for though the Treasury rules and tallies have been published so. far as regards the application of the decade system to purchases under the Ashbourne Act, they have not yet been issued with regard to purchases under the Acts of 1891 and 1896. There is no. authority, therefore, for assuming that the sum of £14 per cent. is correct. The facts are as stated in the second paragraph. The advances under the Ashbourne Act were made by means of the realisation of stock issued under the Local Loans Act at 3 per cent., advances under the Acts of 1891 and 1896 by the issue of guaranteed land stock bearing dividends at £2 15s. per cent., which is provided by the interest portion of the tenant purchasers' annuities, the balance of the annuity, £1 5s., being accumulated against the annuity. The Local Loans stock is not redeemable until 1912.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can give the number of originating notices served by tenants to have judicial rents fixed before the Sub-Land Commission at Listowel; whether he is aware that dissatisfaction exists in North Kerry owing to the delays caused to tenants by the fact of their applications to have fair rents fixed being delayed for such long periods; and whether he can say when the next sitting of the Sub-Land Commission at Listowel will be held.

There are 115 cases from the union of Listowel, in which the applications to fix fair rents have not as yet been listed for hearing before a Sub-Commission. Apart from the statement in the question, I am not aware that dissatisfaction of the nature indicated exists in the district referred to. Sittings of Sub-Commissions have been held for the disposal of cases from that district as frequently as has been found possible, having regard to the claims of other districts. It is probable that a list containing the majority of the 115 eases now outstanding will be issued towards the close of the present year, but no definite arrangements have as yet been made.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the real cause of the dissatisfaction is that the orginating notices were served so long ago as three years last March?

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if his attention has been called to a resolution adopted by the Board of the Limerick District Asylum pointing out the state of the law as regards the admission of lunatics in Ireland; and, seeing that after the magistrates, in conjunction with the medical officer called to examine insane patients, make the order for committal to an asylum, there is no power to compel the friends or relations of such patients to pay for their maintenance, even if they are able to afford it, whether power could be given to the authorities of asylums in Ireland to compel payment for patients so committed on ascertaining that the persons responsible for their support are in a position to do so.

No such resolution, I am informed, has been passed by the Board of the Limerick District Asylum. I may observe, however, that the power to compel friends or relatives of patients committed as dangerous lunatics, under the tenth section of the Act 30 and 31 Vict. c. 118, to pay for their maintenance could only be given by legislation.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that certain issues of the United Irishman, published at Ormond Quay, Dublin, were seized and confiscated by the Dublin metropolitan police and also by the constabulary; whether he can explain to the House the reasons for such seizure and confiscation; and whether he would state upon whose orders those seizures were made.

This question only appeared on the Paper this morning, and as all the official documents on the subject are in Dublin, I will ask the hon. Member to defer the question until Thursday.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, having regard to the fact that the uniform and clothing of the Dublin police are imported from England, although this force is largely supported out of local rates, and that the uniforms of the Royal Irish Constabulary, and the uniform and clothing used in the Irish Prison Service, and the Army clothing used in Ireland, are obtained also in England, and in view of the difficulty entailed on Irish manufacturers by the system of contracts established by the Government Department at Pimlico, whether the Government would consider the advisability of starting an Irish Government Clothing Department, so that local manufactures may be established on lines which would make it possible for the clothing used in Irish Government Services to be made in Ireland.

The contractors for the supply of cloth for the Irish police are all, I believe, resident in England, but the making up of the articles of clothing is, with the exception of helmets, in the hands of Irish firms. The subject of contracts for the clothing of the police has on more than one occasion engaged my own personal consideration. Proposals have been made to me that these contracts should be restricted to Irish firms alone, and that the existing system of inspection at the Army Clothing Department in London should be abolished. As regards the first proposal, every facility has been given to Irish firms to tender, and they have been supplied with samples of the standard patterns. It is impracticable for the Government to consent to the restriction of these contracts to Irish firms alone, but in the case of such firms the only requirement necessary to secure the adoption of an Irish made cloth as a sealed pattern is that it should stand the War Office tests. The suggestion that an inspection depot should be established in Ireland has been brought before the War Department, but they were unable to concur in it.

AS you have established an Agricultural Department to enable Irish landlords to improve their position, why not have an Industrial Department to give the people a chance of earning wages? As the Dublin people pay £30,000 or £40,000 a year, they ought at least to have a chance of having the clothing made in Dublin.

Are we to understand that the Royal Irish Constabulary are a branch of the War Office and under its control?

The clothing contracts are.

I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Board of Agriculture and Technical Instruction for Ireland if his attention has been directed to a series of experiments made by Mr. O'Sullivan, of Athea, in the county of Limerick, with a view of improving potato growing; whether he is aware that under this new system an increase of 80 per cent. in the crop is shown; and will the Department cause inquiries to be made into the matter.

My attention has been called to the experiments referred to in the question. I understand that Mr. O'Sullivan attributes the extraordinary increase in his potato crop to the action of electricity introduced through lightning conductors and distributed through the crop by means of wires. As both the parish priest of Athea and the county surveyor of Limerick are satisfied both as to the effect and the cause of this remarkable phenomenon, I shall have inquiries made on behalf of the Department.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say what the cost per acre of electricity is?

The Department has not made its inquiries yet.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Governors of Queen Anne's Bounty have assented to the proposed inquiry into the constitution of the Board; and whether the inquiry will be enlarged so as to include the powers as well as the constitution of the Board.

I have done my best to acquaint myself with the wishes of the Governors, and I do not think the reference need be altered.

There is upon the Paper an Instruction in the name of the hon. Member for East Mayo.^* The rule as to Instructions for dividing a Bill into two Bills is that the Bill must either be one which is in two parts itself, or which relates to two separate and distinct subject-matters, so that it may naturally and easily be divided into two Bills. It appears to me that this Bill is a Bill for giving relief or concessions to the tithe-payers in Ireland, and although the first section proposes to give a special relief to a special class of tithe-payers, this does not constitute such a creation of two distinct matters as to facilitate a division into separate Bills. Therefore I am of opinion that the Instruction is out of order; but I may point out that the same result may be obtained by striking out the first clause and amending the definition clause by amendments in Committee.

who was indistinctly heard, said this question did not appear to be quite so simple as the hon. and learned Gentleman apparently thought. There might be some justification for the Amendment on the ground that persons who had purchased an estate since 1872 upon which tithes were payable knew the exact position, and that any repayment or annuity payable out of the estate would have to be paid; but, on the other hand, hon. Members must remember the person who suffered the hardship was the vendor of the estate. He did not think it was possible to admit the principle of the hon. Gentleman's Amendment as regards estates sold between

^* The notice was as follows:—" That it be an instruction to the Committee to divide the Bill into two Bills, one dealing with the case of lay impropriate tithe-payers and the other with the case of ecclesiastical tithe-payers."

1872 and 1896, but he was prepared to consider the question raised by this and the later Amendment which the hon. Gentleman had set down before the Report stage, with a view to its being dealt with in one clause.

did not consider that the Report stage was the proper stage for the consideration of a matter of the kind raised by the Amendment he proposed. This was admittedly a blot upon the Bill, and it was essential that it should be remedied. If the Government were determined to pass a Bill against the wishes or desires of the Irish people by which a million and a quarter was to be given to the landlords, he would suggest that the Government should also at the same time give say £200,000 to tenants. He would be quite willing to withdraw his Amendment upon the promise of the right hon. Gentleman to put a clause into the Bill, of which fair notice had been given, if it were brought in before the conclusion of the Committee stage, so that it might be fairly discussed. The question before the Committee was one which greatly affected the Irish tenants. The Government passed for the benefit of those tenants the fortieth section of the Act of 1896. He voted against that section because he believed that instead of working for the benefit of the tenants it would work in favour of Irish land values, which, unfortunately, had been the case. Instead of the tenants getting the land which they desired, the Act had been availed of to put over the heads of the tenants, after they had made a market, these land grabbers. It was not the landlords who made the trouble, but the land grabbers, and those were the persons who were now to receive a bonus of 25 per cent. on their tithe rent charge, although they were clearly purchasers with notice. Take the case of the sale of the Muckross Estate, which had been purchased by Lord Ardilaun for £500,000; was he to receive a reduction of 25 per cent. in his tithe rent-charge because the men who lived on the bogs on his estate received 25 per cent. reduction on their rents? Was he in the same position as the ancient landed gentry, who had held their land since the time of Cromwell, in whose favour, perhaps, something might be said? The same state of things was going on all over the country, and, in his opinion, it was most unjust. Not only were those people to get out of paying their tithes, but at the end of a number of years payment was to be cut down by seven years. Supposing the Committee were dealing with an English Bill, and a man went to Token-house Yard and purchased a property to be paid for by fifteen annual instalments; was it just that a Bill should be brought in the next year whereby those fifteen annual instalments should be reduced to eight? That is what the Bill now under consideration did. He had not put the case for the Irish landlords who had struggled and gone down; they might have an arguable case, but these people had no case at all. In 1869 the present Chancellor of the Exchequer denounced the action of Mr. Gladstone as sacrilege; were they now to give the benefit of that sacrilege to the persons who purchased their property the day before yesterday? When Mr. Gladstone was pulling down the Irish Church he was destroying an ancient institution, though he did his best to be friendly with his enemies; but he would turn in his grave if he thought that those persons were going to benefit by his action. Much as he (Mr. Healy) objected to the Bill, he had put down no Amendments of an obstructive kind. The Amendment before the Committee was of a businesslike character, and, if the right hon. Gentleman could not accept it at the moment, he would withdraw it upon the promise of the right hon. Gentleman that he would bring in a clause during the Committee stage of the Bill, when it could be dealt with in a businesslike manner.

This Amendment is a valuable one, forming as it does a test of the bona fides of the Bill. We are told by the Chief Secretary that the Bill is introduced simply for the purpose of remedying a grievance. The hon. Member for North Louth brings in at the outset of the discussion an Amendment which deals with a case which the Government did not foresee. If this Bill is to remedy a grievance, why do not the Government accept this Amendment?— because the Government surely will not contend there is any grievance so far as the people who bought since 1872 are concerned; and it is quite true, as the hon. Member for North Louth said, that the land-grabbers who purchased estates in this way had purchased them recently. But there were a great many purchases of estates before the purchase Acts were introduced. In the interval which elapsed between 1872 and 1885 there were a great many people who purchased upon notice as regards the burdens that this clause deals with, and therefore the Government cannot contend for a moment that they have any grievance whatever. The particular clause we are now discussing deals with cases of terminable annual instalments. There is no question as to the tithe rent-charge. There was previously a variable charge, but it has now become an invariable charge. There is only the annual instalment by which these people purchased their tithes. As regards this clause it cannot be pretended that any person who has bought an estate in Ireland has any grievance whatever to complain of. I cannot imagine that the Government can offer any reason for objecting at all events to the principle of the Amendment.

I am ready to meet, as far as I can, the views of the hon. Member for North Louth. The Government will draw up a clause dealing with this question, as well as the subsequent question raised by the hon. Member, and will give sufficient time for the House to consider it. I hope, on the other hand, that this particular bone of contention is removed for the present, and that the Government will be able to get the Bill through Committee this evening. I think I ought to say that while I will endeavour to meet the views of the hon. Member as far as possible, I do not wish him to be under the impression that I am giving a pledge beyond what I have already indicated as to the date of limitation. I will endeavour to frame a new clause which shall meet the case as far as equity requires.

I think it would be much more satisfactory if the Government or the Committee were now to dispose of this Amendment. It must be borne in mind that it is not merely the hon. Member for Louth, or even hon. Members below the gangway, who are interested in this question, but that every Member of this House is more or less interested in the question which will ultimately, or may ultimately, affect the Imperial taxes; because every penny that is taken away from the Church Fund by the operation of this Bill diminishes the security which the British taxpayer has now in case of default being made in the caraying out of the Land Purchase Acts of Ireland. Therefore I do not think it is satisfactory of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to say, "If you are satisfied with my engagement to bring up a particular clause you must give me an undertaking that the debate will close to-night." I confess that, for my part, I will give no such undertaking. I disapprove of the clause in toto, but assuming that, for the purpose of this Amendment, that clause will stand, I wish to point out why I think the Amendment of my hon. and learned friend the Member for North Louth should be adopted by the House. I do not think many Members of the House exactly understand the case. It must be borne in mind that redemption of tithe rent-charge was a voluntary act on the part of the tithe-payers, after the passing of the Irish Church Act of 1869. No tithe-payer was bound to come forward and enter into that arrangement by which the tithe was redeemable at the end of fifty-two years, or any other time. It was altogether optional. He might have gone on paying the rent-charge as before. This was a privilege given to them either to redeem by twenty-two and a half year's purchase, or instead of that, by paying an annuity terminable at the expiration of fifty-two years from the date of the order, and calculated on the basis of £4 9s. per cent. That was altogether a voluntary act. I know many tithe-payers who redeemed by paying twenty-two and a half years purchase. There is no relief offered to them. There is no restitution made or sought to be made to them.

I do not think the right hon. Gentleman is now dealing with the point in the Amendment. I think the right hon. Gentleman might confine himself to that.