Bill to provide sanitary supervision and sufficient accommodation in the dwellings of the cottiers and cottier tenants of Ireland and of the cottars, crofters, or sub-tenants of the Islands and Highlands of Scotland, together with an adequate amount of ground cultivable as allotment or croft-Presented (The Lord WAVENEY); read 1; to be printed. (No. 174.) upon CHURCH PATRONAGE (SCOTLAND). Return stating the number of parishes in each county in Scotland of which the patrons have renounced the pecuniary compensation of the abolition of their rights of patronage one year's stipend of each parish to which they were entitled under the Act of 37th and 38th Victoria, chap. 82. (1874); also the number of patrons have retained their right to such comparishes in each county in respect of which the pensation: and Highlands of Scotland in the opera- | manent and perpetual. He could not tion of the Bill was that in the year of say how much he was indebted to their the Great Famine of 1846, which was so Lordships for the hearing they had given devastating to Ireland, there was also him; and he would not further delay a considerable amount of distress in Scot- them by dwelling on other parts of his land. Finding that to be the case, he proposal, which, when the Bill came on conceived that as this was a general Bill for second reading, he would be prepared he thought it was better to deal with to explain. the sanitary condition of the cottiers and cottier tenants of Ireland and Scotland in one measure. The Scotch cottier or crofter, so long as he paid his rent, did not expect to be removed, and there was in a sense something like the Ulster system of fixity of tenure; but there was a system among them known as club farming, where a holding was divided among a certain number of proprietors. They each contributed towards the cultivation of the farm, and it was not for want of endeavour on the part of the occupiers of these districts that they failed. The sources from which he had derived his information induced him to believe that the state of the same class of people in Scotland was very much like that which prevailed in Ireland. A great deal of money had been expended in Scotland on the improvement of the crofters. As much as £810,000 had been expended at Stornoway; but it had not produced those good results which had been anticipated, nor had it improved the morals of the people. It was stated that a piece of ground of from four to six acres of arable land on which £6,000 had been expended, and it was able to maintain the cottier for only six months. He knew a district of a mile and a-half long and half-a-mile wide, where the health of the people suffered for want of sanitary arrangements. A house in that district stood on a rocky knoll; but for the want of sanitary care the house had become a den of fever. He had known cases where fever, to use a scriptural expression, had burned. into the walls of the people. Now, he would like to direct their attention to similar dwellings in the Highlands of Scotland, where, although the air was clear and bracing, and there was an absence of that melancholy main of which they heard so much in connection with Ireland, there was also a low state of health which nothing but the absence of sanitary regulations could account for. His Bill was simply intended to secure inspection of the dwellings of the cottier class, and to insure that it would be per Lord Waveney Also Return showing the total value of the compensation thus surrendered or retained respectively in each county by the patrons; also by the Crown as patron of Crown livings. The the total value of the compensation surrendered value of the compensation to be computed upon the average sum paid as stipends to ministers of parishes for the five years following 1874.(The Earl of Minto.) Ordered to be laid before the House. BRITISH HONDURAS (COURT OF APPEAL) A Bill to authorise the establishment of a Court of Appeal for Her Majesty's Colony of British Honduras-Was presented by the Earl of KIMBERLEY; read 1a. (No. 167.) House adjourned at a quarter before Six o'clock, to Monday next, a quarter before Five o'clock. HOUSE OF COMMONS, Friday, 22nd July, 1881. MINUTES.]-SELECT COMMITTEE Report- Committee-Report-Land Law (Ireland) [135- | sibility whatever in any of the schemes 225]; Metropolitan Board of Works (Money) [204]; Removal Terms (Scotland) [8]. Committee Report Third Reading Seed Supply and other Acts (Ireland) Amendment [217], and passed. Third Reading-Incumbents of Benefices Loans Extension [213]: Public Loans (Ireland) Remission [212], and passed. * Copyhold Enfranchisement Withdrawn comm.) * [195]. The House met at Two of the clock. PRIVATE BUSINESS. 16091 EARL OF HARDWICKE'S ESTATE BILL.-[Lords.] THIRD READING. Order for Third Reading read. passed by the recent Scotch Educational Commission. Those schemes are referred to us as a matter of courtesy, and we have always given our best advice. With respect to the latter part of the Question, as to what course was con(re-templated by the Government in regard to the Educational Endowments Bill, I have to inform him that we have nothing at all to do with the matter. MR. LABOUCHERE said, he should like to know something of the nature and tenour of the Bill. It was a Bill of 64 pages, and had already passed through the House of Lords. He thought some explanation of these Private Bills ought to be given before the House was asked to pass them. ["Oh!"] Hon. Members might cry "Oh!" but he wanted to know-and he thought the House should know before they passed these Bills to settle large estates-what was their real nature. He, therefore, hoped some hon. Gentleman would rise to explain the Bill now before the House. Bill read the third time; Verbal Amendments made; Bill passed, with Amendments. QUESTIONS. 19061 EDUCATIONAL ENDOWMENTS (SCOTLAND) BILL-SHAW'S HOSPITAL. MR. J. W. BARCLAY asked the Vice President of the Council, Whether he has taken into his consideration the proportion of two out of nine governors, as provided by the scheme dealing with Shaw's Hospital now on the Table of the House, for the representation of the public on such governing bodies as contemplated by the Government in the Educational Endowments (Scotland) Bill, and what course he will take in the matter? MR. MUNDELLA: In answer to my hon. Friend, I beg to state that the Educational Department have no respon ARMY-COAST DEFENCES. MR. J. STEWART asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether the Commission appointed to consider the question of the coast defences of the Country have yet reported; if not, whether he can state when the Report may be expected; and, whether the Report when made will be published? MR. CHILDERS: In reply to my hon. Friend, I have to state that no such Commission has been appointed; but that an official Committee-Naval, Military, and Civil-presided over by Lord Morley, the Under Secretary of State for War, is steadily investigating the defences of commercial harbours. Their Report will be a very valuable one; but I cannot now say when I expect it to be completed, nor could I, under any circumstances, undertake to lay the whole of it on the Table, as much of it, from the very nature of the case, must be strictly confidential. NAVY-DOCKYARD ESTABLISHMENT, GIBRALTAR. SIR JOHN HAY asked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether there is any intention to reduce the Dockyard establishment at Gibraltar? MR. TREVELYAN: In 1876 the entry of trade boys or apprentices taken from the spot to some of the principal trades was commenced with a view to their eventually taking the place of some of the highly-paid artificers sent out from the Home Yards. The period of agreement of the latter has now expired, and as the boys have completed their time and become men, arrangements have been made for the return home of those sent out from the Home Yards. This is being carried out in accordance with a Report recently received from the captain in charge at Gibraltar. The Reports from several officers are now before the Board; but, to the best of my knowledge, no Lord has had an opportunity of considering them, and the matter has made no official progress whatever. COMMERCIAL TREATY WITH SPAIN (NEGOTIATIONS). MR. O'SHEA asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether Papers relating to the negotiation of a Commercial Treaty between Great Britain and Spain will be laid before Parliament during the present Session? SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: I doubt whether the negotiations will have sufficiently advanced to allow the Correspondence on the subject to be laid before Parliament during the present Session without injury to the Public Service. THE MAGISTRACY (IRELAND)—MR. CLIFFORD LLOYD, R.M. MR. O'SULLIVAN asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If it is true that Mr. Clifford Lloyd refused to take as bails for Mrs. Coleman, a farmer, named Thomas O'Donnell, who is rated over sixty pounds per annum, and a man named James Baulton, the owner of house property in Kilmallock; and, if so, if he will state why he did refuse substantial bails like those and commit the woman to prison? MR. W. E. FORSTER, in reply, said, he had obtained information from the Constabulary as to this matter. He was informed that it was not the case that Mr. Clifford Lloyd refused to take for Mrs. Coleman the joint security of T. O'Donnell and J. Baulton. T. O'Donnell did not offer, and in the case of joint security it was necessary that both should be qualified. MR. PARNELL asked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Whether the committal of the aged woman Margaret Coleman to prison for six months, in default of finding bail, by Mr. Clifford Lloyd out of Petty Sessions, was not a direct contravention of the Petty Sessions (Ireland) Act, and therefore illegal? He wished further to ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman whether, before a decision was given in such a case, there should not have been two magistrates present, and not one? THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. Law), in reply, said, Mr. Trevelyan that the acceptance and refusal of bail was within the ordinary powers conferred on magistrates, but was not subject to the provisions of the Act referred to. With respect to the sentence of six months' imprisonment said to have been passed on Mrs. Coleman, he was informed that she was not sentenced to that imprisonment, but that the magistrate committed her to gaol merely in default of her finding bail, and that she was detained there a day or two until the bail was obtained, and she was then released. MR. PARNELL: Was it not in contravention of the Petty Sessions (Ireland) Act that she was committed for six months? THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. Law) admitted that it would have been wrong for the magistrate so to decide a case of prosecution for a specific offence; but, as he had already explained, the woman was not convicted of an offence, nor was she committed for six months. MR. PARNELL: Was she not distinctly sentenced to six months' imprisonment in default of finding sureties? Was that not in violation of the Act, and should not two magistrates have been present, if such a sentence was to be pronounced? THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. Law): I have already pointed out that she was not sentenced to six months' imprisonment. No doubt the hon. Member is correct in saying that two magistrates should have been present in a case where a person was committed; but, as I have said, this was not a committal for six months. MR. O'SULLIVAN: I should wish to ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman whether it is not the fact that three respectable persons offered bail for Mrs. Coleman whilst she was before the magistrates, and that they were refused? THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW): I do not think such bail as the hon. Member refers to was offered; but I am unable to say, and cannot answer the Question without Notice. AUSTRO-SERVIAN COMMERCIAL TREATY. LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether by the Treaty consents, there will be no objection on the part of Her Majesty's Government to lay on the Table the private correspondence on the subject. LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: Where it is stated in the Despatch of Mr. Locock that coal, iron, and railway material could be introduced into Servia, duty free, from Great Britain ? between Austria and Servia the follow- vitch, whose permission will be asked, ing articles are exempted from all duty on entering into Servia :-1. Machinery of all kind and agricultural implements; 2. All railway materials, plant, and rolling stock; 3. Coal; whether by "the Most Favoured Nation Clause" between this Country and Servia of 1880, British goods of these denominations would not have been equally exempt from import duties into Servia; and, if he would explain why Her Majesty's Government have foregone advantages which British trade and industry might have reasonably expected to derive from the possession of these privileges at a moment when considerable enterprises for national development are contemplated by the Servian Government? SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF asked, Whether there exists in the Foreign Office any Telegram, Memorandum, Despatch, or other document relating to the discussion with the Servian Government on the duties on iron and steel, dated between the 22nd June and the 14th of July; and, if so, whether such document or documents can be laid upon the Table? MR. CAINE asked, Whether, under existing treaties with Servia, coals, Railway iron, and Railway materials are admitted into that country free of duty? SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: It is not stated in the Despatch of Mr. Locock. The noble Lord will find that, in the Treaty between Austria and Servia which has been laid before the House, coal and railway material and rails are exempted; and we obtain the advantage of the clauses in respect of those articles by our "Most Favoured Nation Clause" in our existing Treaty with Servia. I may also point out that we likewise obtained advantage of the optional, ad valorem or specific duties obtained by the Austrian Treaty, and by our "Most Favoured Nation Clause." SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF: Coal and railway material are mentioned as being exempted in the Tariff annexed to the Austrian Treaty. Agricultural machinery is also mentioned as exempted. There are three or four exemptions. Now, how does it happen that the exemptions, which apply to coal and railway material, do not extend to agricultural implements? SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Because there is a declaration between Austria and Servia. If the hon. Member wishes me to give chapter and verse, I shall be glad if he will give Notice of the Question. The reason is that these are articles to which exception was taken, and which Austria claimed as goods in the nature of Frontier traffic, and under the head of Frontier traffic is included agricultural implements. We objected all along, through a large Correspondence, to these articles being included under the head of Frontier traffic. By the concessions we have made on that point we have obtained a reduction from 8 to 5 cent duty on woollen and cotton goods. SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: The Question of my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough (Mr. Caine) contains the answer to the chief portion of the Question of the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock. All railway materials and coal imported from Great Britain into Servia are admitted free of duty. As regards those articles, Her Majesty's Government have not, therefore, as the noble Lord supposes, foregone any advantages to British trade and industry. As regards machinery and agricultural implements, in which, from their nature, but little trade with this country is done, Her Majesty's Government have consented, as I have already informed the noble Lord only on Tuesday last, to make certain concessions on condition that the duty on woollen and cotton yarns, in which this country is much interested, is reduced from 8 to 5 per cent. In reply to the Question of the hon. Member for Portsmouth, I may state that the negotiations were con-ney General, If his attention has been ducted almost entirely by Mr. Gould and M. Marinovitch, and that if M. Marino per POST OFFICE-TELEGRAPHS ACT, 1863 TELEGRAPH WIRES SEC. 42 drawn to the forty-second section of "The Telegraphs Act, 1863," under which the THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES), in reply, said, the Question was closely connected with two Questions which he had attempted to answer formerly. When the telegraphs were transferred to the Postmaster General, there were no express words rendering the Crown liable to be placed in the same position as the Companies. Legally and technically it could not be so, for the Crown could not be subjected to an action for wrong. But local authorities need be under no apprehension as to their responsibility for injuries arising from accident. If an accident should arise, the consequences would fall upon the Postmaster General. The public bodies were responsible for seeing that the telegraph poles were erected in proper positions, so that they might not be likely to cause injury to the public, and any dispute between the local authorities and the Post Office might be referred to arbitration. But when the poles were erected, the Postmaster General took charge of them; and he, without question, would legally answer that the Crown could do no wrong. But as he could not allow the local authorities to interfere with the poles when they were once erected, he had the correlative duty of seeing that they were properly maintained; and, if injury arose, it had been admitted that compensation could be claimed. In substance, it rested with the public bodies only to see that the poles were properly erected in the first instance. MR. W. H. SMITH understood from the answer that, in the event of accident arising from the breakage of the wires suspended from house to house in London, and erected prior to the transfer to the Government, or erected since by the Postmaster General, damages arising from such accident would not fall upon the local authority. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES) said, the inference was right in substance as to the wires of the former Companies, or those erected by Mr. W. H. Smith the Postmaster General; but there might be private wires that the Postmaster General had nothing to do with. But as to the wires he took from the Companies or had erected since, as far as he (the Attorney General) could see, the public bodies in whom the streets were vested would not be liable. ENDOWED INSTITUTIONS (SCOT- SIR DAVID WEDDERBURN asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, in consideration of the opposition to the Provisional Orders dealing with Endowed Institutions in Scotland now on the Table of the House, and which there is no opportunity for discussing, he will withsion on the Educational Endowments draw these Orders until after the discus(Scotland) Bill? who was much interested in one of the MR. WEBSTER said, as a Member Provisional Orders, he asked the Prime Minister whether it was competent for him, or for the Secretary of State for the Home Department, to take any such course as proposed in this Question; and whether it was not the statutory duty of the Secretary of State, after he had approved of, to sign such Provisional Orders, to be laid on the Table of both Houses of Parliament? thought the second Question contained MR. GLADSTONE, in reply, said, he substantially the answer to the first. The laying of the Orders on the Table was an drawal of them was a step that could not absolute statutory duty, and the withbe undertaken on account of any temporary difficulty. Consequently, the answer to the first Question would be in the negative. SOUTH AFRICA-THE CAPE COLONY -THE ADMINISTRATION OF BASUTOLAND. MR. CROPPER asked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether he has had any correspondence with the Government of the Cape Colony on the proposal that the Colonial Office shall resume the direct control of the administration of Basutoland; and, if so, whether he will inform the House if any conclusion on that subject has been arrived at? SIR CHARLES W. DILKE, in reply, said, the Correspondence on this subject |