HC Deb 18 February 1876 vol 227 cc501-25

SUPPLY—considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

(1.) £43,489, House of Lords Offices.

(2.) £50,006, House of Commons Offices,

(3.) £58,010, Treasury.

(4.) £90,178, Home Office.

(5.) £63,196, Foreign Office.

(6.) £34,755, Colonial Office.

(7.) £145,958, Board of Trade.

(8.) Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £2,773, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1877, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Lord Privy Seal.

MR. MONK

said, that the Vote had usually been objected to on the ground that the office of Lord Privy Seal was practically a sinecure, and useless. The only excuse offered for maintaining it was that it enabled the Government to confer the office upon some excellent and valued Member of the House of Lords who might be able to give attention to matters which the heads of other Departments were unable to do. He could not but think that the parties responsible should perform those duties, and not the Lord Privy Seal, who was not responsible. He would not move the rejection of the Vote himself, but he would vote with any hon. Member who would challenge it.

MR. JAMES

supported the opposition to this expenditure, and expressed his regret that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich, when in office, had not done away with this appointment. There was a strong feeling in the constituencies against sinecure offices.

SIR ANDREW LUSK

said, he should like to ask whether it was true, as was said, that there were no duties connected with the office; because, if not, there was no occasion for the Lord Privy Seal to have a chief clerk and an establishment costing the country £750 a-year.

MAJOR O'GORMAN

said, it was a monstrous thing that they should be called upon to vote the money without any information of the duties attached to the office. It would only have been respectful to the Committee if some explanation on the subject had been given them by a Member of the Government.

MR. DISRAELI

said, that the subject had been so often before the House, and had been so completely and recently discussed, that he had not thought it necessary to rise before, more especially as the few Gentlemen who had addressed the Committee did not appear disposed to persist in their objection to the Vote. The office of Lord Privy Seal was one not only of great dignity and antiquity, but also of great utility, and, far from thinking that because the Lord Privy Seal had not a Department to organize and manage he ought not to be a Member of the Cabinet, it was because he had no Department to manage that his presence in the Cabinet was often of the greatest advantage. The office had been held by many experienced and eminent men. Lord Halifax—one of the most efficient public men of our generation—was Lord Privy Seal, and the present Lord Privy Seal had presided over the most laborious Department of the Government. It was, indeed, a great advantage to a Government to have such men as Lord Halifax and Lord Malmesbury available for general consultation and advice. There were many duties which the Lord Privy Seal was called upon to discharge, which it was impossible to indicate on an occasion like the present; but he had sometimes allotted to him some of great delicacy and importance, when it could not be expected that a Secretary of State or the President of a laborious Department could give the time required for such performance. The Lord Privy Seal was always ready to attend to such duties. The present Lord Privy Seal represented also an important Department—the Admiralty—in the House of Lords, and was there to give information when it was asked for. He remembered that Lord Malmesbury was intrusted in a former Government over which he (Mr. Disraeli) presided with negotiating a matter which the Members for Ireland ought not to consider insignificant. When it was necessary to hold communications with the Roman Catholic clergy and other Bodies in attempting to bring about an arrangement on the Education question, the person intrusted with the negotiation was the present Lord Privy Seal. He appealed to the Committee to support the Vote, which any one who had had experience of the Government of this country must feel to be necessary, and which the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Gladstone) two or three years ago had vindicated to the complete satisfaction of the House.

MR. MITCHELL HENRY

said, that last year the Prime Minister, upon the question of the publication of the debates, had attributed to him the wish to form a "Speech Preservation Society." He ought now to admit that if such a society existed it would save a great deal of public time, and serve a useful end, for during every Session since he had been in Parliament he had heard a debate on this particular subject. The vote he should now give he would admit would not be the same that he had first given, because the reasons advanced by the late and present Prime Ministers appeared to him to be overwhelming in favour of the Vote. If there were any proper record of these debates and the explanations given by the Minister, hon. Members would not be always called upon to repeat the same objections to this Vote.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 145; Noes 50: Majority 95.

(9.) £33,500, Charity Commission.

MR. GOLDSMID

said, he had formerly complained of the want of celerity on the part of the Endowed Schools Commissioners in dealing with schemes for the management of endowed schools. Since then the House had transferred the endowed schools to the Charity Commissioners. The Chief Commissioner, Sir James Hill, a man of great ability, recently died, and in his place the Government had appointed a right hon. Gentleman against whom he desired to say nothing—Sir Seymour Fitzgerald—who had been incapacitated by illness from attending to the duties of the office. The result had been that if the former Commission was slow, the present Commission was slower, for the work which was before too much for three men had to be discharged by two. He believed several schools were awaiting the next step in the settlement of their schemes; and yet that no communication of any kind had been made to them for the last two or three months. He, therefore, desired some information as to the prospect of this deadlock being removed.

MR. MONK

desired to know, whether there was any qualification for the office of Chief Commissioner; and, if so, what it was?

MR. W. H. SMITH

said, it was unfortunately true that the late Chief Commissioner died suddenly in the month of September, and the new Chief Commissioner had been suffering from illness since his appointment. It was possible that the death of the former Commissioner, the necessary delay in filling up the office, and the illness of the present Chief Commissioner might have retarded the business of the Department; and, although no representation on the sub- ject had reached the Treasury, he would undertake that inquiry should he made and measures taken, if possible, to facilitate the business forthwith. As to the qualifications for the office, he believed one of them was that the Chief Commissioner should be a barrister of 12 years' standing.

MR. GOLDSMID

appealed to the Vice President of the Education Department to say whether any arrangement could be made to expedite the work of the Commission. Had not great delay occurred in reference to some schools in the country? He was well aware that the duties of the Commissioners could not be interfered with by the Education Department. Still, as the House had no organ through whom to communicate with the Commissioners, they were obliged to appeal to the Treasury Bench for information.

VISCOUNT SANDON

said, he was glad to have the opportunity of saying a few words. He had no business to interfere officially with the Charity Commission; and, like his Predecessor in office, he had given the House a pledge not to do so. It was only due to the present Chief Commissioner it should be known that he had been suffering from a severe attack of typhoid fever, and in his anxiety concerning the duties of his office he allowed a Commissioner to come to his bedside to dispose of some official business. The result was, he was thrown back seriously and his recovery rendered doubtful, and the medical men prohibited any further communication with him on official matters. Of course, the business of the office had necessarily suffered, first, from the death of the late Chief Commissioner, then from delay in filling up the vacancy, and, lastly, from the lamentable illness of the present Chief Commissioner. The Lord President took all the official steps he could to forward business, and used the power conferred upon him to enable one of the other Commissioners to sign certain official documents. In that way he had removed all the difficulties he could, and he need hardly say the Department was anxious that the business of the Commission should proceed with all possible despatch.

SIR ANDREW LUSK,

calling attention to the great cost of the Commission, asked whether a large portion of it could pot be borne by the charitable funds, for the due management of which it was called into existence?

MR. W. H. SMITH

said, the question had been seriously considered by the Treasury whether it was expedient, and, if so, possible, to keep up the Charity Commission by taxing charities. But great difficulties stood in the way. A great portion of the work performed was of a voluntary nature, and if a tax were imposed on the receipt and administration of their funds, it was quite open to the great majority of charities to remove their funds from the inspection and control of the Commissioners. On the whole, great public good was done by the management of that body; the operation of the charities being brought under the light of day rather than withdrawn from the Charity Commission.

Vote agreed to.

(10.) Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £22,893, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1877, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Civil Service Commission.

MR. BAXTER

rose to call attention to the increase of the Vote by the addition of £500 to the salary of the Chief Commissioner. The Second Commissioner received £1,200, and an additional Commissioner had been appointed. As no greater duties had been devolved on the Commission than were formerly performed, he wished to know why there had been an increase in the salaries of the Commissioners of £1,700?

MR. W. H. SMITH

said, that it had been found necessary to appoint Mr. Walrond, the former Secretary, a third Commissioner, and Lord Hampton had been appointed First Commissioner on the death of Sir Edward Ryan. It was true that the duties of the Commission were not of a wider character than those which they had discharged on the previous year, but still they had been growing in importance and magnitude for a long time past. They were in a very large degree independent of any public Department. The duties discharged by the Commission were most delicate and responsible, and it was therefore desirable that the Commission should be a strong one, having the confidence of Parliament. The Government, therefore, thought it advisable to appoint Lord Hampton to the position of First Commissioner, as he was a statesman of great experience in public and official life, and it was desirable to have some one in Parliament who would be able to account for the action of the Commission, in case it should be questioned. The increase of salaries had for a long time been promised, and he believed was very well deserved by the officers of the Department.

MR. BAXTER

said, he had not found fault with the appointment of Lord Hampton, but the Secretary of the Treasury had given the Committee no information as to the necessity for appointing an additional Commissioner and increasing the salary of the First Commissioner. If any one was inclined to question the Vote he should support him.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, the constitution of the Civil Service Commission, as now arranged, was similar to that of other public Boards, such as the Inland Revenue Board, where a Chairman and two Commissioners received the same rate of remuneration as in the present case. It was difficult to say that there had been any immediate increase of duties as compared with last year, but there could be no doubt that for a considerable time past the importance of the Civil Service Commission had been increasing; and under the Order in Council which had just received Her Majesty's approval it was probable that more duties would be thrown upon the Commission than it now discharged. Hitherto the Commission had been in a position both important and invidious, and when their conduct was challenged it was difficult to say who was responsible. The object of the Government in placing Lord Hampton, a Member of the other House, at the head of the Commission was that there might be some one who could authoritatively explain the policy and proceedings of the Commission. Like the Audit Office, they acted to a considerable degree as a check on the proceedings of other Departments, and must be in an independent position, not subject to the direction of any Department over whose proceedings they were intended to be a check. By putting the Commission on a more important footing, they were doing what they could to strengthen it in the eyes of the public, and enable it more efficiently to hold its own in the various important duties it had to discharge. He thought the work to be done by the Commission was fairly worth the money proposed as compared with that paid in other public Departments.

MR. MONK

asked, under what Act of Parliament the new Commissioner had been appointed; and why the Vote was introduced in a different manner from the other Votes, the Act under which the salaries were authorized not being quoted?

MR. W. H. SMITH

reminded the Committee that the Civil Service Commission was not constituted under an Act of Parliament, but by Order in Council.

LORD ROBERT MONTAGU

did not think the reasons given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer sufficient to account for the increase of the Vote. It seemed that the work of the Commissioners would be more in future; but in that ease they should wait, and not have their salaries increased before they had the work to do. He thought £2,160 was too much to pay for bringing the Civil Service Commission into symmetry with other public Departments.

MR. MACDONALD

said, he should move the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £1,700, for it was evidently time that the House should put a stop to the contemplated increase of all the Estimates. It was said that the work to be performed was of a delicate character. If it was considered that the person appointed to perform it was 76 years of age, it ought to be delicate work indeed.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £21,193, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which "will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1877, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Civil Service Commission."—(Mr. Macdonald.)

MR. MUNDELLA

said, he would support the proposed reduction, though larger than he would have desired; but it did appear as though what had been done was something like the creation of a sinecure. Sir Edward Ryan was very advanced in years, and a great deal of work could not have been required of him. But on his demise two gentlemen had been appointed to do the work which he had done—Lord Hampton with a salary of £2,000 a-year, or £500 more than Sir Edward Ryan had, and a new Commissioner, with £1,200 a-year. With the prospect of bad trade and a declining revenue, there would probably be a Nemesis, and the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer might find it as much as he could do to make ends meet.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, he felt bound to correct what was no doubt an unintentional misrepresentation of something which had fallen from him. What he stated was, that comparing this year with the last there was no special increase of work, but there had been a considerable increase of late years, and a still further increase might be expected in consequence of the new Order in Council. It should be remembered that Lord Hampton, though of advanced years, was a man of energy, was every day at his office, and took an active part in the discharge of his duties. He would have thought that anyone who had sat in the House of Commons with Lord Palmerston would not have laid down the rule that men advaneed in years were not able to work. Lord Hampton had by nature a great desire for work, and it had never before been suggested that he had ever flinched from it. As to the other Commissioner, Mr. Walrond, he had for many years ably filled the office of Secretary, and had well earned his promotion and the small increase of pay which accompanied it. Certain other arrangements had been made in the office which had led to the promotion of gentlemen who had been engaged in the Department, and whose salaries it would have been only reasonable to have raised even if these arrangements had not been made. The office of Secretary had been conferred upon Mr. Horace Mann, who had been acting as registrar, and he took some additional duties, and received a very small addition to his salary. Mr. Headlam, who had for many years been acting as chief examiner, was now promoted to the office of director of examinations, with an addition to his salary, which had been well earned by 20 years' valuable service. When it was said that there was no additional work, it must have been forgotten that the examination of officers in the Army had of late years been added to the duties of the Commissioners. He must repeat that as Questions were often asked in Parliament as to the conduct of the Commissioners, and the Government could only say that they were an independent body with whom Ministers could not interfere, it was an advantage that there should be some one—not necessarily in the House of Peers, though in that, too, there might be some advantage, inasmuch as he would be more dissociated from polities—who could give the necessary explanations and speak with authority.

MR. BAXTER

said, the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer appeared to intimate that in consequence of the raising of the salaries, there had been a certain amount of saving in the office. But, on the contrary, though no additional clerks had been appointed, there was an absolute increase of £2,160 a-year in the office itself and £250 for writers.

MR. DILLWYN

said, he agreed with the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Mundella) that this was like the creation of a sinecure. For many years past the tendency of Parliament had been to keep down the Estimates, but now that we had got a new r⃩gime economy was at a discount. Not one valid argument had been adduced for giving the increase of salary to Lord Hampton.

MR. E. J. REED

contended that the men who had been all their lives in a particular Department, and had served the country faithfully, were entitled to advancement when an opportunity arose. If the opposite rule were to be adopted, and persons from outside brought into an office to supplant those who had all along worked in it, great damage would be done, and the class of Civil servants must inevitably be deteriorated. Nobody could object to Mr. Walrond'a promotion.

MR. ANDERSON

said, the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. E. J. Reed) had not touched the point which would cause the Vote to be looked at with suspicion. A vacancy in the Commission occurred, and the Secretary was most properly appointed to fill it; but, beyond that, the objection was to the appointment of a new man, besides and above the other two, as an ornamental Commissioner, who received £500 more than was given to the working Commissioner who had been his predecessor.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

protested against the idea that Lord Hampton was in any sense an ornamental Commissioner. [Laughter.] He meant a merely ornamental Commissioner. Lord Hampton had taken to his work with all the zeal he had shown in other Departments; he was thoroughly mastering the work, and there was no question of a sinecure at all. The appointment was made simply with a view of strengthening the Commission, and placing it on the same footing as the great Revenue Departments. The importance of an office was a good deal measured by the salary of its Chief, and the re-organization of the office on this scale had done something to strengthen its position. It was true that, notwithstanding a reduction effected by Mr. Headlam's promotion—a junior examiner being appointed with £300, instead of £800, a-year—there was not a saving in the whole office, but an increase. But the position of the persons in this office had been for several years under consideration by the Treasury, and it was felt that as their duties were increasing they deserved some increase of pay.

MR. WHITWELL

agreed that a stimulus was necessary to keep an officer in good heart. The chief objection of the opponents of the appointment was that where a vacancy occurred advantage was not taken of it to advance all those who formed the staff of the service a step in promotion. Nothing could have been more annoying to these worthy, steady, hardworking men than to find a nobleman from the outside promoted over their heads.

MR. SAMUELSON

asked, whether there was any precedent for the appointment of an outside gentleman to a prominent position in the Civil Service at the age of 76?

SIR ANDREW LUSK

said, it was pleaded by the Government that there was a great deal of new work to be accomplished in the office. If that were so, he should like to know what it was, and who was doing it, for he observed that the staff was, with the exception of Lord Hampton, exactly the same as last year.

MR. GOLDSMID

reminded the Committee that while this appointment had been made of a nobleman to the highest office in the Civil Service at the age of 76, it was a rule of the service that men in a lower grade should be superannuated at the age of 60. Was this fair? Moreover, it was true that the late Sir Edward Ryan performed his duties with great ability at the age of 85; but how was it that three Commissioners were now required to do the work previously done by two, including one Commissioner aged 85?

MR. M'LAREN

said, he wished to point out the proportions in the increase of the Vote in question. Last year the Vote was £20,000; this year it was £22,000—that was to say, there was an increase of 10 per cent. It was said there had been an increase in the work of the Department, but the same thing was said by every one of the Departments every year. Why, then, should there not be 10 per cent of an increase allowed to all the Departments? The expenses of all the Departments, deducting the National Debt and Crown Land offices, amounted to £45,000,000, and if an increase of 10 per cent were allowed to all the Departments there would be a total increase of £4,500,000.

MR. JAMES

suggested that henceforth the Civil Service Estimates should be introduced by a speech in the same way as were the Army and Navy Estimates.

MR. BIGGAR

said, that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not answered the objections urged, and unless the matter was fully explained he should move to report Progress.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, he would be exceedingly sorry for it to be supposed that he was wanting in respect to any Member of the House. He had given the only answer he could give, and he had no doubt that to most hon. Gentlemen it was satisfactory; but it appeared that there were other hon. Members to whom his explanations were not satisfactory. If they were not satisfied he was sorry, but he could not help it. With regard to the question of the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Samuel-son), he was not able at present to call to mind any precedent for the appointment of a gentleman of the age of Lord Hampton; but this he could say, that in appointing Lord Hampton the Government had appointed a man who was thoroughly competent for the work.

MR. SHAW LEFEVRE

asked whether, if Lord Hampton should take a different view of any question affecting his Department from that taken by the Government, he would still be under the influence of the Government? [The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER: No.] Then was he to be independent of the Government? [The CHAHCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER: Yes.] That was unfortunate, and quite contrary to usage. It was a doubtful precedent to appoint to an office of the kind a Peer of Parliament, who in the office he held should be perfectly independent of the Government which appointed him or of any succeeding Administration during his tenure of office. [The CHANCELLOER of the EXCHEQUER: The Ecclesiastical Commissioners are in the same position.] That was true enough; but the Ecclesiastical Commissioners were not paid by the Government, whereas Lord Hampton was. He thought it would have been far better had the Government, in selecting a successor to Sir Edward Ryan, appointed Mr. Walrond, a gentleman of great experience and ability, thoroughly acquainted with the Department, and who had gained the confidence of all connected with it.

MR. RAMSAY

said, he objected to the Vote on the ground that no case had been made out for increasing the number of permanent officials in the Department.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 62; Noes 87: Majority 25.

Original Question again proposed.

MR. MUNDELLA

said, the facts were so plain and the defence was so lame, that he thought at least one more division should be taken on the matter. He had to express his regret that the name of Lord Hampton should be mixed up in such a transaction. The Government had set a bad precedent in appointing to an important office one of their supporters whose age, in all human probability, would soon render him incapable of discharging the duties for which he was to receive £2,000 a-year. He would move that the Vote be reduced by £500.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £22,393, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31 at day of March 1877, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Civil Service Commission."—(Mr. Mundella.)

MR. ANDERSON

said, he could not see why, if Lord Hampton was not to do more work than his predecessor, he should receive a higher salary. He would therefore support the Amendment.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 63; Noes 79: Majority 16.

MR. BUTT

drew attention to the large sum derived from stamps paid by candidates for examination in the Civil Service.

MR. J. W. BAROLAY

said, those fees were a heavy tax on competition.

MR. W. H. SMITH

replied that the fees had been paid since the foundation of the Civil Service Commission, and there had been no change during the last few years. They were very varied, some being very small sums, while others amounted to £2 or £3. He would endeavour at some future time to give the hon. and learned Member such information on the subject as he desired.

MR. WHEELHOUSE

complained that boys from the country were placed at a disadvantage by having to incur much larger expense than competitors from London or the neighbourhood in coming up for examination.

MR. MELDON

asked why those fees were exacted?

MR. W. H. SMITH

said, he found the system in existence when he came into office, and did not feel it to be his duty to deprive the Exchequer of any funds. As these young gentlemen, were seeking to obtain a reward which they could not get in ordinary life, it seemed only fair that they should pay some small amount of the necessary charge for ascertaining their qualifications.

MR. J. W. BAROLAY

inquired on what authority the Commissioners levied the tax?

MR. W. H. SMITH

said, he had no doubt they had the authority of the Treasury, but was not able to answer offhand.

MR. BUTT

considered that these sums, however small, were opposed to the principle of open competition.

Original Question put, and agreed to.

(11.) £18,619, Copyhold, Inclosure, and Tithe Commission.

SIR ANDREW LUSK

expressed a hope that the Commissioners would not in future legalize such inclosures as had caused so much difficulty in regard to Epping Forest.

MR. W. H. SMITH

said, he was not aware that the Commissioners had had anything to do with the inclosures of Epping Forest. Two of them were barristers who had given particular attention to the law as it affected land, and the third was well known in agricultural matters.

Vote agreed to.

(12.) £8,600, Inclosure and Drainage Acts, Imorest Expenses.

(13.) £46,065, Exchequer and Audit Department.

(14.) £4,496, Registry of Friendly Societies.

MR. COWN

said, he noticed an increase of nearly £1,500 in the Vote. Was that due to the cost of carrying out the Friendly Societies Act of last year?

MR. W. H. SMITH

said, it was, and he was afraid it would be larger next year, as there might be some additional charge for actuarial service. The item would be a permanent one.

Vote agreed to.

(15.) Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £693,287, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1877, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Local Government Board, including various Grants in aid of Local Taxation.

MR. MELDON,

in rising to move a reduction of £1,000 on the portion of the Vote applicable to the medical department, said, his object in doing so was not to oppose the sum voted by Parliament for public vaccination expenses in England, about £10,000 a-year, but to point out the injustice done to Ireland in that matter. The only State grant of any kind made to Ireland for the purposes of vaccination amounted to £400 a-year, and the medical department of the Privy Council withheld from that country the assistance in regard to the supply of vaccine lymph which it ought in fairness to receive. Medical men in Ireland were now obliged to take lymph from children's arms, and as the people had a strong objection to this practice vaccination had become extremely unpopular. The difficulty arose from the defective supply of vaccine lymph. Up to 1871 Ireland was supplied to a great extent with vaccine lymph, through the Cow-pock Institution in that country; and a greater supply could be obtained, if thought desirable, from England. In 1871, from some unexplained cause, it seemed good to the Privy Council to change the system in Iréland. The Cow-pock Institution in Dublin could not supply the whole country, and the Government offered to supply vaccine lymph if the Institution would reduce its charges from 2s. 6d. to 6d. The Cow-pock Institution complained of the conduct of the Privy Council. He did not grudge any increased Vote for England, but he was compelled by the Forms of the House to adopt the course he did to obtain justice. He would conclude by moving the reduction of the Vote.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £692,287, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 3Ist day of March 1877, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Local Government Board, including various Grants in aid of Local Taxation."—(Mr. Meldon.)

MR. M'LAREN

suggested whether it would not be advisable to postpone the consideration of the Vote until after Wednesday, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer had arranged to have a meeting with Scotch Members in reference to questions affecting Scotland similar to those which the Vote raised with respect to England. It would be better to hear what the right hon. Gentleman had to say on these subjects before passing the Vote.

MR. SCLATER-BOOTH

said, that with regard to the remarks of the hon. and learned Member for Kildare (Mr. Meldon) as to a breach of faith between the Privy Council and Ireland, he would have taken measures to inform himself on the subject if the hon. and learned Member had given him Notice of his intention to raise the question. He should be happy if the hon. and learned Member would confer with him on the matter. With respect to the suggestion of the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren), he did not see that any arrangements which the Chancellor of the Exchequer might make in relation to Scotland could possibly affect the arrangements under the Vote.

CAPTAIN NOLAN

said, that what Irish Members desired to draw attention to was the fact that, proportionately keeping in view the different conditions of the two countries, more money was expended for vaccination in England than for the same purpose in Ireland. Ireland had of late suffered terribly from the want of vaccination; and, while he should be sorry to reduce the Vote for England, he thought that this was a proper opportunity for calling attention to what the state of matters in Ireland was.

SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH

said, that with reference to the grievance complained of in the case of Ireland, he had not had any opportunity of ascertaining what had previously been done in the matter, but suggested that if the hon. and learned Member for Kildare (Mr. Melden) would call attention to it again, he should endeavour to inform himself more fully, and if it could be shown that there was anything in the present system which operated against compulsory vaccination in Ireland, he should be most cordially disposed to make the necessary change.

MR. M'LAREN

said, he did not agree with the President of the Local Government Board that the question of the arrangements under the Vote did not affect the case of Scotland. Under the head of medical department in the Vote, there was an expense of £24,900 for vaccination, &c. in England; yet the allowance to Scotland was only £500. The grants in aid to Poor Law schools in England was £36,500, while Scotland did not get a shilling. In England, the medical officers and inspectors of nuisances got £60,000, while in Scotland not one penny was given. Now, all these Votes for England ought to be objected to if Scotland was not to be properly treated in regard to the same matters; but he did not wish to raise a discussion until after the interview with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He therefore thought his request for a postponement of the Vote was a reasonable one.

DR. WARD

said, he thought it was a matter well worthy the consideration of the Government whether free lymph should not be given to Ireland. In 1871 the system of giving free lymph was brought to a close; but there was the significant fact that following that there was the greatest outbreak of small-pox known in Ireland for 30 years.

MR. W. H. SMITH

explained that none of the charges were new; and, while admitting that the remarks of the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Captain Nolan) were deserving the attention of the Government, he hoped the opposition to the Vote would be withdrawn.

MR. MELDON

said, he thought the Vote ought to be postponed. The people of Ireland had reason to be dissatisfied that while £10,000 a-year was voted for vaccination in England, only £400 was voted for Ireland. He should, therefore, feel it was his duty to take the opinion of the Committee, as that was the only practicable opportunity they would have of dealing with the matter.

LORD ROBERT MONTAGU

explained the advantages that resulted from vaccinating children from arm to arm—that was, from taking the vaccine matter on the eighth day from the arm of a previously vaccinated child and introducing it into the arm of an unvaccinated child. Such a mode of vaccination was called the "living" vaccine matter, which was found to be far preferable to "dead" vaccine matter, often found to be acrid, and sometimes putrid, a state which was apt to produce serious consequences to the patient.

MR. WADDY

said, he could not understand how knocking off the lymph for England would get it for Ireland.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

did not see why the Vote should be postponed on account of the pleasure he was going to enjoy from an interview with the Scotch Members on Wednesday. What was proposed for England was what had always been done for England, and if there were circumstances which required a distinction in the case of Scotland that was a separate question. If he understood them aright, the Scotch Members did not want less done for England, but more done for Scotland. How the case might turn out upon examination, however, he did not know, and would rather not discuss now.

MR. J. W. BARCLAY

remarked, that although the Scotch Members had brought the subject forward on former occasions, they had not pressed it, trusting to subsequent Votes to put the matter right. That course had not met the reward they expected, and therefore now they must insist on the question being taken seriously into consideration. He would move that the Chairman report Progress.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. James Barclay.)

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

thought it would be better to settle each case on its own merits. Scotchmen really had no cause to complain.

CAPTAIN NOLAN

said, that six times as much was spent for vaccination per head of the population in England as in Ireland; and Irish Members only wished to bring Ireland in this respect up to the English level. They did not wish to reduce the English Vote, but the Forms of the House compelled them to bring the matter forward in this shape.

MR. DILLWYN

said, the object of the Scotch and Irish Members could hardly be attained by reducing the English Vote. He was always prepared to support the Irish Members in any way he could; but he could not on this question vote for a reduction of the English Vote, especially as it had not been shown to be too large.

MR. SCLATER-BOOTH

explained that the present Vote had been readily agreed to for years; the various items of it sprung out of Acts of Parliament which were still in force.

DR. CAMERON

said, he considered that there were two ways of treating the matter—by leaving local funds entirely to themselves all over the country, or by subsidizing local funds in every part of the Kingdom alike. Either they must do away with the unequal grant of contributions by taking advantage of the exigencies of the Government, or obtain a promise that equal justice should be done to Scotland and Ireland as to England.

MR. SCLATER-BOOTH

thought that the Vote ought to be agreed to on its merits, and the other matters discussed on a subsequent occasion.

MR. M'LAREN

said, he had not proposed the reduction of any Vote for England. He had merely mentioned the fact that England got £25,000 a-year for vaccination purposes, including the payment of medical men, and Scotland only £500, while Scotland paid between a sixth and a seventh of the whole national Revenue. Last year the Chancellor of the Exchequer had an interview with the Scotch Members on the subject. They had great pleasure in listening to him, and all went away in great good humour, having no doubt from the right hon. Gentleman's kind words that he would make all right. Now, however, on returning to the Estimates they found the old rigid figures. The English expenses under the item bad increased from year to year, while the Scotch Grant for medical expenses was the same as it was 20 years ago.

MR. RAMSAY

said, he would be glad to hear the grounds on which the Grant was made for teachers in Poor Law schools in England, and what was the corresponding Grant in the case of Scotland. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated that favours to Scotland were included in the Estimates. He (Mr. Ramsay) was not aware of any item in which favour was obtained by Scotland. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had referred to the grant in aid of pauper lunatics. He was kind enough to make a concession to Scotland in consideration of the system under which lunatics were cared for in Scotland, which was altogether different from the English system. But the Scottish Members would never object to have the law relating to lunatics administered in the same way in England as it was in Scotland, and to let the Grant become what it might if the same system was adopted. But it must not be said, where the law was so entirely different, that a favour was granted to Scotland. He had to complain of the difference between the Grant for teachers for pauper schools in England and what was done in Scotland. [Mr. SCLATER-BOOTH explained that there were no exclusively pauper schools in Scotland.] He would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to direct him to any Grant corresponding to the £36,600 proposed to be voted for the payment of teachers in Poor Law schools in England. Scotland had no such Grant. But the Scotch were taxpayers into the Imperial Treasury in the same way as the people of England. But although there were no schools in Scotland exclusively for teaching pauper children, there were a great number of the children of the poor educated at the expense of the parochial boards, and they asked that, the circumstances of Scotland being considered, they should get a Grant in proportion to the taxes they paid. They asked no favour—only justice; nothing more. That these Totes were the same from year to year was the matter of which they complained. So far they had got nothing more in consequence of their representations than courteous words. They wanted evidence of the sincerity of those words. No other course was open to them than to challenge the Votes put before them; because it was not competent by the Forms of the House for any hon. Member to propose an augmentation of a Grant.

MR. J. W. BARCLAY

said, that after what had been elicited from the Government he should withdraw his Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Question again proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £692,287, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1877, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Local Government Board, including various Grants in aid of Local Taxation.

MR. WHITWELL

asked, whether the £330,000 voted last year in aid of pauper lunatics in this country would be required, as the Committee had no information in reference to the expenditure of that Vote before them? He would also like to know, whether in future the sum of 4s. per week would be allowed for the maintenance of such lunatics in workhouses?, He believed that there was an increase of lunacy in the country, and that the question of the proper management of lunatics would have to be discussed sooner or later by that House.

MR. SCLATER-BOOTH

said, that the sum mentioned was within a fraction of that which had been required. So far as the Returns went, there was no growth of lunacy in this country out of proportion to the increase of the population. As to the 4s., he hoped soon to see the day when full provision would be made for the lunatics in workhouses.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Original Question put, and agreed to.

(16.) £15,026, Lunacy Commission.

(17.) £50,250, Mint, including Coinage.

SIR WILLIAM FRASER

said, the abolition of the Mastership of the Mint was to be regretted: it gave a Minister means of rewarding great scientific merit it had been held by Sir Isaac Newton and other very distinguished persons. He should be glad to know from the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer who was responsible for the coinage and designs at the Mint? Of late years a great deterioration had taken place in the designs; not very long ago a large coinage of sovereigns had to be recalled. As to the silver coinage it was most discreditable: some one might be found who could turn out coin worthy of the country.

MR. ANDERSON

expressed his surprise at the moderation of the Vote, and inquired whether the idea of acquiring a new site for the Mint had been abandoned?

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, that though nominally he was responsible, yet, in fact, the working of the Mint was under the direction of the Deputy Master, who was most attentive to his duties, and most anxious in every way to produce work which would be profitable to the office which he held. He was quite sure that if at any time his friend Mr. Fremantle came to him with a proposal on this subject his suggestions would receive warm support. But Mr. Fremantle laboured under this difficulty, that the Mint was by no means in the condition in which it ought to be. The service was carried on there in constant fear and trembling lest there should be a breakdown of the machinery, and suitable machinery could not be substituted without causing a stoppage of the work. Under these circumstances both he and his predecessors in office had been anxious to procure a site for the erection of a new Mint, the cost of which in the long run would not be very expensive, as they would be able to recover a large proportion of it by the sale of the existing Mint. Some two years ago there was a proposal to purchase another place, but it failed; and at the present moment negotiations were in progress to purchase some premises in the neighbourhood of Waterloo Bridge. They had been going on for a good many months, and, he hoped, would be successful. If that were so, it would be their duty to bring the question before the House. As to the coiner and engraver, payment was made for the work done, and that was all he knew of the matter.

MR. MUNTZ

said, that it was a mistake to suppose that silver and copper coinage was carried on at considerable cost to the country. So far from that being the case, there was usually a profit of about £100,000 a-year. He hoped the Deputy Master would be enabled to present to the House a profit and loss account in connection with the matter.

MR. ANDERSON

thought the site of the present Mint was better than any other that could be procured; but having gone over the place, he felt bound to admit that the building was so badly arranged that it would be impossible to make the necessary improvements without stopping the works, and therefore the only alternative was to erect a new Mint on another site.

SIR GEORGE BOWYER

put it to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether the removal of the Mint to such a close neighbourhood as surrounded Waterloo Bridge might not be attended with injurious consequences to the health of the inhabitants.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, he would admit that the residents in the neighbourhood of the proposed new site had objected to the erection of the Mint there, because the manufacture involved the production of injurious or disagreeable gases. But the Committee that two or three years ago sat on the transfer of the Mint, and before whom that point was strongly urged, pointed out that there was no necessity for such being the case. There were two processes employed in minting coin —one which evolved smoke and gases, and the other that did not; and the former process was, he believed, carried on in a neighbouring refinery that did not belong to the Government. An undertaking was offered before the Select Committee that if the Mint were brought into the neighbourhood of the Savoy, as he hoped it would, no melting should be carried on which would cause these gases to be evolved, and he would undertake that care should be exercised in these particulars.

SIR ANDREW LUSK

said, the only fault he had, in common with the public, to find with the sovereign was that he got too few of them. The present Mint was in a very inconvenient place, and the building occupied a large space that might be better and more usefully turned to account, being better suited for docks, railway termini, or similar purposes. He did not see why the Mint should be kept at the East End if it was unhealthy, as was said, and the poor people be punished. It was better that it should be at the West End, where the inhabitants were better able to employ a doctor and take care of themselves than were the poor in the East. He hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would carry out the ideas shadowed forth, and give us a Mint worthy of the country, situated in a place more convenient and better adapted for its purposes than the present structure.

MR. LOCKE

objected, as he had done from the first, to the erection of a new Mint on the Thames Embankment. That Embankment was not intended for such a purpose, and if a Mint was erected there it would be as great a nuisance as gasworks and other buildings which were so strongly objected to, and some of which had been already removed. He should really like to know why the place for coining money should be removed from its present position. It had long occupied the site. There was ample space for all purposes, a large sum had been expended on the building, and the people and businesses of the neighbourhood were adapted to the circumstances. He trusted the Chancellor of the Exchequer would inform the Committee where the new Mint was to be placed, and hoped the Thames Embankment, which ought to be an elegant place, but unfortunately was not, would not be selected as the new site, for no one could think it would be improved by such a class of building. He could only account for the desire to remove the Mint from its present locality, from there being somebody behind who wished to acquire the site for building ground for their own advantage.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, the best answer he could make to the hon. Member for Southwark was to say that whenever the Government were in a position to make a definite proposition to the House they would do so, and then the House would be able freely to discuss it. The site upon the Thames Embankment upon which it was proposed to build the new Mint belonged partly to the Duchy of Lancaster, partly to the Metropolitan Board of Works, and partly to the Marquess of Salisbury, and it was in the neighbourhood of the Savoy.

Vote agreed to.

(18.) £17,334, National Debt Office.

House resumed.

Resolutions to be reported upon Monday next;

Committee to sit again upon Monday next.