HC Deb 13 July 1887 vol 317 cc681-709

(11.) Motion made, and Question proposed,

"That a sum, not exceeding £28,020, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1888, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Offices of the House of Lords."

MR. LABOUCHERE (Northampton)

It may be said, speaking generally, that in this country the big salaries are much too big, and the small salaries much too small. It appears to me that there are very few persons who have so much too much as the Lord Chancellor. Now, I find under this Vote £4,000 is voted for the Lord Chancellor. That salary is for presiding in the House of Lords. The Lord Chancellor has two functions; he is a Judge, and he is President or Speaker of the House of Lords. As a Judge he receives £6,000 a year, and as Speaker of the House of Lords £4,000 per annum. His salary, consequently, is £10,000. Although he may only be a short time in Office, when out of Office he receives a pension of £5,000 per annum. Now, all this is very excessive. There was a time when the Lord Chancellor presided as Judge in the Chancellor's Court; but at the present time he does nothing but fulfil his duties in the House of Lords. It is perfectly true that he is, I believe, technically President of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council; but if he attends this Committee once or twice in a year, that is certainly as often as he does attend. He does, of course, preside over the House of Lords when it sits as a Judicial Court of Appeal; but if the hours during which the House of Lords sits as a Judicial Court of Appeal and the hours during which it sits as a Legislative Body are taken together, it will be found that the House does not sit, on an average, one quarter as long as this House. It seems to me, therefore, that if our Speaker gets £5,000 per annum, it is very clear that the Lord Chancellor would, or ought to, be satisfied with £ 8,000 per annum. Heave the Lord Chancellor's £6,000 alone because I cannot touch it, for the reason that it is charged on the Consolidated Fund; but there is the £4,000 in excess of the £6,000, and, considering the pension and the very little he has to do in comparison with the Speaker of this House, I think it is very legitimate and reasonable to reduce his salary by the sum of £2,000. This will leave him £8,000 per annum, and also leave him the enormous, even colossal, pension which he receives. It may be said—no doubt it will be said—that the Lord Chancellor's judicial functions am important. But there are others who sit in the House of Lords on judicial matters, who sit there just as frequently as the Lord Chancellor, but who receive nothing. Lord Bramwell, for instance, sits there as a Peer, and if that Gentleman chooses to have himself made a Peer, as a lawyer he really must expect to do something for it. If he thinks it an honour and glory, let him pay for it. I am perfectly certain that £8,000 per annum ought to satisfy any reasonable man. I could find plenty of men just as good as most Lord Chancellors who would take the place for a great deal less. I beg to move the reduction of this Vote by the sum of £2,000 in respect of the Lord Chancellor's salary.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Item of £5,545, for the Department of the Lord Chancellor, be reduced by £2,000."—(Mr. Labouchere.)

MR. BRADLAUGH (Northampton)

I am sorry to disagree with my Colleague on this matter. The Lord Chancellor presides in the House as Lord of Appeal day after day, and when he does this I think he earns his salary. I do not think the salary of the Chief Judge of the Chancery Division, who, to accept the position, must forego a very large professional income, is too much. But there is a complaint in reference to the appeals in the House of Lords which would induce me to support the Motion for the reduction of this Vote. Suitors have very great reason to complain of the exceeding delay between hearing and judgment. The other day I addressed a Question to the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General (Sir Richard Webster) upon this point. It turned out that these several appeals have been waiting judgment for many months —two or three for over six months, and one for a longer period. This delay is absolutely ruinous to the suitors, and while I think that the Chief Judge of the Chancery Division should be properly paid, and that a lawyer eminent enough to occupy that position is not too highly paid at this sum, I do not think that suitors ought to be positively ruined by the long delay in the delivery of judgment.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 72; Noes 182: Majority 110.—(Div. List, No. 298.) [3.40 P.M.]

Original Question again proposed.

MR. LABOUCHERE (Northampton)

I now beg to move to reduce the Vote by the sum of £2,100, which is made up of £500 in respect of the Clerk of the Parliaments; £600 in respect of the Clerk Assistant; £800 in respect of the Black Rod; and £200 in respect of the Yeoman Usher. Now, these gentlemen occupy equivalent positions to certain officers of this House. The Clerk of the Parliaments is the same as the Chief Clerk here; the Clerk Assistant in the House of Lords is the same as the Second Clerk in this House; Black Rod is equivalent to the Serjeant-at-Arms, and the Yeoman Usher is equivalent to the Deputy Serjeant-at-Arms. Taking into consideration official residences and other details shown in the Estimates, I have estimated that the salaries of these gentlemen exceed the salaries of our officers by the amounts I have stated—namely, £500, £600, £800, and £200. I think the Lords of the Treasury and everybody in this House will admit that the duties of the officers of the House of Commons are as important and far harder than the duties of the officers of the House of Lords. I am not prepared to say that our officers are not underpaid. [Sir ROBERT FOWLER: Hear, hear!] But I cannot, as the hon. Baronet knows, move that their pay shall be increased—no private Member can do so. All I contend at present is that the salaries of the officers of this House should be the same as those in the other House, who hold equivalent positions. I am sure that I shall have the vote of the hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Fowler), because the real fact is that, if I were to carry this Motion, the result would be that the pay of our officers would be increased, because the Conservatives have a majority in this House, and they are not likely to cut off anything from the House of Lords. Therefore, those who are in favour of economy or for reduction of the salaries of the House of Lords may vote for my Motion, and those who are in favour of economy and not for reduction, but who desire that our officers' salaries shall be increased, may also vote for my Motion. I do not know whether this Motion will be accepted by the Treasury, but I have pointed out how everyone can vote for it. If my Motion is opposed I shall certainly go to a Division.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £25,920, he granted for the said Services."—(Mr. Labouchere.)

SIR ROBERT FOWLER (London)

I agree with the hon. Member for Northampton that our officers are underpaid, and on that I shall have something to say at the proper time; but I entirely differ from him in believing that the officers in "another place" are overpaid. He says that those who serve Her Majesty in high offices are overpaid, while a great many servants of the Crown in inferior positions are underpaid. I stated last year, and I repeat it now, that I do not know any servants of Her Majesty, with the exception of two, who are overpaid. I really think that my hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General (Sir Richard Webster) and the hon. and learned Solicitor General (Sir Edward Clarke), who have the right of private practice, are too highly remunerated. With these two exceptions, I do not know anyone, from the Prime Minister and Lord Chancellor down to the humblest person in the service of the Crown, who is overpaid. I see present a great authority on this matter, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Henry H. Fowler), who lately occupied the position of Secretary to the Treasury. I do not think he will tell the Committee that, considering the work he was called upon to do when he was Secretary to the Treasury, he thinks £2,000 a year was too large a salary for him. Now, as to the amount of the salaries of the officers of the House of Lords, I might remind the Committee that the salaries are based on agreement between the two Houses. In former days certain fees were taken by the House of Lords, out of which they paid their officers. These fees were given up to the Consolidated Fund on condition that the officers should be remunerated according to a certain scale. The House of Commons, therefore, is bound in honour not to reduce the salaries paid to the officers of the House of Lords.

MR. SYDNEY BUXTON (Tower Hamlets, Poplar)

Surely this House is entitled to reduce the salaries of the officers of the House of Lords if it thinks fit. My hon. Friend the Member for London (Sir Robert Fowler) will remember that in former days the Pay-master General received fees and other emoluments from his Office, but that these were commuted for a salary, which salary has now disappeared, the Pay-master General receiving nothing at all. If it was competent for the House to do this in the case of the Paymaster General, surely it is competent to do it in the case of the officers of the House of Lords, though I am far from saying that I think the experience should be carried to the same extent. I, undoubtedly, agree with the hon. Baronet the Member for London that the Attorney General and the Solicitor General are very greatly overpaid; but I think, in addition, that the officers of the House of Lords are overpaid, and that our officers are underpaid. Surely in this matter there ought to be equality between the two Houses—either the House of Lords' officers ought to have more work to do, or they ought to be paid less. At present they have far less work than our officers, and are paid very much more. I cannot see on what principle we are to allow this gross inequality to continue to exist. It cannot be argued that the officers of the House of Lords ought to be paid higher salaries because they have the honour to serve a non-Representative Assembly, while our officers have the honour of serving those who represent the people. I hope my hon. Friend (Mr. Labouchere) will go to a Division.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR (Liverpool, Scotland)

I am rather surprised that the Members of the Treasury Bench regard this question as one which does not require discussion. I think the case made out by my hon. Friend (Mr. Labouchere) is unanswerable. Why, Sir, it is a universal complaint that the hours of this House now are so long as to test the strength of the very strongest man in the House. After all, Members of Parliament are in a very different position to the officers of the House, because they are able to leave the House—and do leave the House—for hours every evening, while the officials are not able to leave the House. I have seen you, Sir, go through an amount of fatigue, which not even the strong political differences between us have prevented me from sympathizing with you over. There are other officers of the House who suffer fatigue as great. Take the Serjeant-at-Arms and the Deputy Serjeant-at-Arms, compare the fatigue through which these gentlemen go with that of similar officers in the House of Lords. Why, the officers of the Upper House are, comparatively speaking, lotus eaters in Elysian fields. To say that officers so differently circumstanced should have different and higher salaries is one of the most monstrous absurdities I have ever come across. What is the reason, is it because these gentlemen, being officers of the House of Lords, are to be regarded as superior beings to their brethren in the House of Commons? I think we have got past the day when the amount of gilt braid which an officer wears is to be any test of the amount of salary to be received from the taxpayers of this country. I am sorry we have not the advantage of the presence of the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington (Lord Randolph Churchill). We all admire the strong attitude the noble Lord has taken up in regard to economy; but surely this is just one of the matters in which economy may be promoted. Hundreds of thousands of pounds every year might be saved by economy in such matters as these. I know there are very conflicting opinions as to the strength at which our combatant forces ought to be kept. It is in salaries and in bloated pensions that economy must be attained. I am surprised that the proposal of my hon. Friend (Mr. Labouchere) has so far been loft without the courtesy of a response from the Government.

THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON) (Leeds, N.)

I hope it will not be for a moment thought, that I meant any discourtesy to the hon. Member (Mr. Labouchere) in not rising before this. We are accustomed to this annual Motion, and really the question has been argued so often, and the facts been stated to the House so frequently, that it is not unreasonable to suppose that hon. Members are in possession of all of them. I may point out to the hon. Member for the Poplar Division of the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Buxton), who referred to the Office of Paymaster General, that although the salary of the Paymaster General has been abolished, there is no work which the Paymaster General has to do; therefore, the position of the Paymaster General is hardly a case in point. The salaries of the officials of the House of Lords are fixed by a Committee of the House of Lords.

Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR

What right have they to fix them? We pay for them.

MR. JACKSON

I may point out, further, that an arrangement was come to with the House of Lords by which the fees paid in respect of Private Bills and by suitors are paid over to the Exchequer. Supposing you say you have nothing to do with these salaries of the House of Lords, they would be perfectly justified in retaining the fees which they receive in the course of the Business which they transact in that House. [Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: Monstrous!] The hon. Gentleman opposite applies strong language to the arguments which I am endeavouring to put before the Committee. What I say is this—that it is perfectly clear that this arrangement was come to between the two Houses; and I think no one can contend that it is an unreasonable argument that in consideration of handing over the fees that they receive the House of Lords should have some voice in deciding the salaries they were to pay their own officers. I would point out that there is another way of looking at this matter. The hon. Member has spoken of the heavy work which is imposed upon the officers of this House. To that statement no one can object; but though that may be a reason for increasing the salaries of the officers of this House, it is no reason for decreasing the salaries of the officers of the House of Lords. I have no doubt if the gentlemen filling the posts of officials in this House could have their duties lightened everyone would welcome the change. I trust, however, the hon. Gentleman will not call upon the Committee to go to a Division on this question. It is perfectly clear that the salaries are fixed by a Committee chosen from both sides of the House, and that the fees received in the other House are paid over to the Exchequer. I am not prepared to say whether these foes are higher or not.

MR. CHILDERS (Edinburgh, S.)

I think the explanation of the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury has just given is not quite definite, and I should like to have from him a little more information. The question, if I remember rightly, is this. In former days the fees of the House of Lords covered all their expenses, and the House of Lords claimed the right to retain their fees and to settle the salaries of their own officers. As a matter of fact, they settled the salary of their Chairman of Committees and their superior and inferior officers, and when they had paid these Gentlemen there was a balance left which it was customary to invest as a fund out of which superannuations were paid. I think I am accurately describing the state of things which existed. But that system of things has entirely ceased to prevail, and at the present time the fact is that the fees which are received by the House of Lords do not by much exceed half their expenses. The expenses are given at £43,000, and the fees at £22,000. There is, therefore, now an exactly opposite state of things to that which formerly prevailed, when the public were not called upon to pay anything towards those salaries; and what is the result? Formerly the salaries were paid out of fees, and without the knowledge of the public; but now it has become absolutely necessary to put the salaries on the Estimates; because, unless you did so, and the salaries were voted by the House, there would not be a sufficient amount of money out of which to pay them. The Secretary to the Treasury must remember that formerly the Chairman of Committees in the House of Lords received a salary considerably in excess of that paid to the Chairman of Committees in this House; but that was felt to be unjust, and the arrangement was altered within the last few years, and the salary of the Chairman of Committees of the House of Commons is now the same as the salary of the Chairman of Commit- tees of the House of Lords. Well, taking that in the light of a precedent, as it now becomes necessary for us to vote the salaries of the officers of the House of Lords, it is surely advisable for us to vote those salaries in an intelligent manner—that is to say, we must consider, having regard to the amount of work done, what are fair and reasonable salaries. I should be very sorry, on the very limited information which we possess upon this matter, to criticize all the salaries of the officials of the House of Lords in detail. Before interfering with those salaries, they certainly should be subjected to more minute criticism than can be given on the spur of the moment; but it does appear to me to be monstrous that the Clerk of Parliaments should receive £3,000 a year, whilst the Clerk of the House of Commons receives a much smaller salary. The work done by the Clerk of the Parliaments does not at all compare with the work of the Clerk sitting at the Table of the House of Commons. Unless I am very much mistaken the Clerk of the House of Lords sits after dinner during a very small fraction of the total number of days that the House is in Session, whereas the Clerk of this House has to sit here constantly until 2 or 3 o'clock in the morning.

MR. OSBORNE MORGAN (Denbighshire, E.)

He has sat here, during the present Session, until 25 minutes past 2 in the morning.

MR. CHILDERS

My right hon. and learned Friend tells me that the Clerk of this House has to sit here until a period averaging to 2.25 a.m. Everyone knows that the work of the Clerk of the Parliaments is vastly smaller in amount than that of the Clerk to the House of Commons. Well, surely the time has now come when those holding the purse have the advantage in the matter; and if the Exchequer is called upon—which used not to pay those salaries—surely, I say, the time has come when we should use a rational discretion in settling these amounts. I would say, therefore, that unless the Secretary to the Treasury gives us better reasons than those which he has advanced at present, I do not see how we can resist the Motion of my hon. Friend. I hope the Secretary to the Treasury will corroborate strictly what I have said, for I must confess I have spoken from memory of what was the state of things some years ago.

SIR JOSEPH BAILEY (Hereford)

Those offices in the House of Lords are, at the present moment, held by gentlemen—gentlemen on whom no imputation has ever been passed. They are doing their work, so far as I know, admirably. They are gentlemen who have calculated their expenditure on, an understanding that they are to receive the salaries at present paid to them. They have undertaken the duties of their office at those salaries, and I think we should be doing them a great injustice if, without any notice at all, we were to reduce their salaries by the very considerable amount proposed. At the same time, I must say I was very much struck by arguments which came from the other side. I see no reason why the officers of the House of Lords should be paid higher salaries than the officers of this House, and I trust that whenever any of the offices in the House of Lords become vacant the Government will consider whether some economical arrangement cannot be made on the re-arrangement of the salaries of those officials.

MR. HENRY H. FOWLER (Wolverhampton, E.)

The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has forgotten that the principal office amongst those to which he refers has lately become vacant, and that the whole of this controversy arises out of the fact of that vacancy having been filled by patronage, the salary being retained at its old amount. The Secretary to the Treasury is incorrect in stating that this is an annual Motion. It has not been annually raised, but is simply made in consequence of the arrangements adopted when the office of Clerk of the Parliaments became vacant not very long ago. When that office became vacant there was a general feeling that Lord Farnborough, then Sir Thomas Erskine May, should have received the appointment. If he had received the appointment no objection might have been made, as it would have been regarded as the reward of an honourable and illustrious career in the service of this House. But instead of that a gentleman was appointed who was already in receipt of £2,000 a-year from another position. The present occupant of the office has only held it for two years; therefore we may take it that, so far as he is concerned, the matter is still sub judice. With regard to what has fallen from the hon. Member for the City (Sir Robert Fowler), he seemed to assume the justice of the old doctrine that public servants are underpaid. I will not respond to his challenge as to the officer he referred to; but I would point out that the Secretary to the Treasury keeps much longer hours, and works a great deal harder, than any clerk in the House of Lords. There is no imputation against the gentlemen who discharge the duties of these offices. They are gentlemen of high character, and I have no doubt that the clerical duties in the House of Lords are discharged quite as well as those in the House of Commons. But what we ask for is that the officers of the two Houses should be treated on a level. If there were any real mathematical apportionment made of salary according to work, there is no doubt that the officials of this House would receive the higher salaries of the two, because they keep much longer hours, and do much heavier work. But I think that no one has asked for that. No one desires that there should be an inequality between the two Houses; but we do ask that there should be equality. I think that unless the Government will give us some promise that some investigation shall be held to see if those salaries cannot be brought into something like a fair principle, I shall, like my right hon. Friend the Member for South Edinburgh (Mr. Childers), feel it my duty to vote with the hon. Member who has moved this Motion.

MR. JACKSON

The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Edinburgh (Mr. Childers) is quite right in his statements as to the facts. He has referred to the circumstance that the fees in the House of Lords do not equal the amount paid to the officers of the House of Lords; but I would point out that there are two reasons for that. Since the time that those fees were taken in payment of the officers of the House of Lords, there has been a considerable reduction made in the amount charged to the public. That, of course, has all been to the advantage of the public. I may point out, further, that this year the receipts paid into the Exchequer only amounted to £22,000. That is a very small figure compared with the amounts which have been paid in on previous years. I notice that in 1882–3 the amount was as large as £39,008. The falling off is due partly to the reduction of the fees, and partly to the reduction in the amount of private business. No doubt, it will be the duty of the Government to carefully consider the position of affairs whenever a vacancy arises. I take it that no Member of the House would wish to interfere with the arrangements already made. The superannuations to which reference has been made are paid out of the Invested Fee Fund. I have given the Committee all the information I can. I promise that consideration shall be given to the subject, and no effort shall be wanting on our part to reduce these salaries whenever occasion arises.

MR. CHILDERS (Edinburgh, S.)

The hon. Gentleman has corroborated what I said, and I am obliged to him accordingly. Now, what is his promise? Let us have it very precisely. If the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury is not able to do so, will the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury (Mr. W. H. Smith) promise us that whenever a vacancy arises the new official shall not be paid more than the salary which is paid to the corresponding official in this House? That is all we want, and if the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury or the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury would give us that assurance, I appeal to my hon. Friend (Mr. Labouchere) not to proceed with his Motion. I think that what I suggest is a very equitable arrangement.

THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH) (Strand, Westminster)

I will undertake, on behalf of the Government, that the subject shall receive consideration in the spirit in which the right hon. Gentleman suggests it should be considered. I cannot undertake absolutely that on the voidance of any office the salary shall be fixed precisely on the scale on which the salaries of the officials of this House are paid. The right hon. Gentleman is aware that there are circumstances which might make that impossible. I will give him an engagement, however, that we will at once give our consideration to the whole question, with a view to the reduction of the cost of that Establishment, and with a view of placing the salaries of the officers of the House of Lords, whose position compares with officers in this House, upon the same level. The right hon. Gentleman will understand the hesitation I have in giving the positive engagement he desires.

MR. CHILDERS

I think the undertaking of the right hon. Gentleman might be accepted. So far as I understand the right hon. Gentleman, while not undertaking that in each individual case there shall be an exact parallel between the salaries of the officers of this House and the officers of the House of Lords, undertakes that the spirit of such a parallel shall be observed so far as possible. He promises that the future form of this Estimate shall be upon that basis, and I must honestly say I do not think we can ask more than that.

MR. W. H. SMITH

I will undertake to open negotiations with the other House, with a view to carry out this arrangement at once.

MR. LABOUCHERE

We have got something, but not quite all we want. I can perfectly understand the difficulty of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House (Mr. W. H. Smith) pledging himself as to what would be done in the other House. It seems to me that he will have a good deal of difficulty with his Colleagues in the other House; and, therefore, I think that the right hon. Gentleman will himself be glad if we were to strengthen his hands by a strong expression of opinion on the subject. If I may venture, for once in my life, to speak in the name of the right hon. Gentleman, I will urge the House to vote in favour of my Amendment.

MR. MOLLOY (King's Co., Birr)

The proposition made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Edinburgh (Mr. Childers) seems to be one rather of compromise than of justice. He speaks of the officers of the House of Lords being remunerated on the same scale as the officers of this House. I object to such an arrangement entirely. The officers of this House do ten times the amount of the work the officers of the House of Lords do, and yet we are asked to assent to a proposition that the officers of the two Houses shall be paid at the same rate. I do not think such a proposition is a fair one, and I have always maintained that the salaries of the officers of this House ought to be raised, owing to the amount of work our officers have to do. I object to any understanding or arrangement which will put the two sets of officers upon the same level.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR (Liverpool, Scotland)

I do not want to detain the Committee long, but I must say a word or two upon this question. Let me, in the first place, call the attention of the Committee to the extraordinary difference in the situation that has taken place since the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury's first speech. The hon. Gentleman, when first he rose, led the House to believe, quite unintentionally no doubt, that all this money which the House of Lords was entitled to spend was derived from the fees obtained by the House itself. I know the hon. Gentleman is incapable of misleading the House; but certainly that was the impression left on this side of the House until the real facts of the situation were brought to light by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Edinburgh (Mr. Childers). Now, as to the question of fees, does the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury mean to imply that those fees are the private property of the House of Lords? These fees are given for public purposes and are public fees. Therefore, Sir, to talk of the fees paid in respect of the work of the House of Lords as a justification of the House of Lords is an abuse of the meaning of the word "fees." But, as a matter of fact, a great part of those salaries so voted by this House comes out of the pockets of the taxpayers, because £26,000 is paid, and £22,000 alone comes from fees. Let me claim the attention of the Committee to one or two facts in connection with this Vote. I find that the Black Rodreceives £2,000, and in a note it is stated that this officer also receives emoluments as an Admiral on the retired list, and is provided with an official residence, and also receives fees for his own use as an officer of the Order of the Garter. Black Rod—an institution which is certainly more ancient than useful—gets, in addition to fees and emoluments and an official residence, £2,000. Take the case of the Clerk of the Parliaments. I say that in the mighty maze of jobs contained in these Estimates there is not a job more gross than that surrounding the office of Clerk of the Parliaments. The Clerk of the Parliaments receives the salary of £2,500, and an allowance of £500 for a house—£3,000 a-year for about an hour and a-half perfunctory work daily during six months of the year. I defy hon. Gentlemen opposite who represent constituencies in which there are many agricultural labourers or working men to defend his vote in favour of giving £3,000 a-year to a gentleman who does work that in any newspaper office in. London would be paid for at the rate of 30s. a-week. [Laughter.] Hon. Members opposite laugh. I suppose they think that it is something like blasphemy to apply anything like a marketable standard to the supply of individuals in the other House. To any question in which dockyard labourers, for instance, are involved, the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer applies the most rigid commercial rules; but when a gentleman with gilt braid and sword and black rod, and a member of the aristocracy and a retired Admiral, is concerned, all the economical leanings of the Chancellor of the Exchequer disappear. For my part, I am entirely dissatisfied with the promise given by the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury. All he has done is to promise that he will use his best efforts. As my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) has put it, we will endeavour to strengthen him in his efforts by defeating him in the Division Lobby. I maintain that the officers of the House of Lords ought not to be paid as well as the officers of this House. I maintain that they ought not to get half the salary of the Clerks of this House, for they do not do one-tenth the amount of work.

MR. SHAW LEFEVRE (Bradford, Central)

I think it is well to remind the Committee that the House of Lords, besides being a Legislative Assembly, is also a judicial tribunal, and sits during the day time during the Session, and also sits for the transaction of judicial work during the Recess. The officers of that House are employed not merely during the hour and a-half in which I believe the House of Lords occupies itself on the average daily in legislative 'work, but also during the day time from 11 o'clock till 4. The Clerk of the Parliaments is an important judicial officer, and it is necessary he should be a lawyer of some experience. Having said that I think that, on the whole, the House may be satisfied with the undertaking of the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury—namely, that he will communicate with the officers of the House Lords with a view to establishing an equality between the salaries of the officers of that House and the officers of this House. It is obvious we cannot alter the salaries of the present officers, and a new arrangement can only be made whenever vacancies arise. I should like to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury to another point—namely, the official residences of some of the officials of the House of Lords. When I was at the Office of Works I was extremely anxious to increase the accommodation of this House, and it occurred to me that some of the officers of the House of Lords who are employed a very much shorter time than the clerks of this House and other officers of this House might, perhaps, as well receive an allowance instead of official residences, and that their residences might be given up to public purposes. I find, for instance, that the Librarian of the House of Lord receives a salary of £800 a-year, and is provided with an official residence containing 12 bedrooms. He is a bachelor, and therefore it appeared to me it was not unreasonable that the residence might be devoted towards increasing the accommodation of this House. The Black Rod is, no doubt, an important officer; but he has an official residence almost as good as that of the Speaker of this House. It is a very extensive house, altogether out of proportion to the salary he receives. It appeared to me not unreasonable to ask the House of Lords that that house might be appropriated for Committee purposes, and in that way increase the accommodation generally of this House. I think there is a great deal to be done in this way without interfering with the dignity of the House of Lords or interfering with the work of the House of Lords. I mention these matters with a view to future arrangements.

SIR JOHN SWINBURNE (Staffordshire, Lichfield)

Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury would be prepared to postpone this Vote until he has had an opportunity of communicating with the Clerks of the other House. Perhaps he will also state what are the exceptional circumstances to which he alludes. If we look at this matter from a practical point of view, we know perfectly well that directly a vacancy arises in any one of these official appointments it is filled up immediately, and then we are told it is too late to alter matters, and we must wait until the officer dies or a vacancy is created in some other way. I suggest to the Government that they should postpone the Vote until they have had an opportunity of communicating with the Clerks of the other House upon this subject.

MR. W. H. SMITH

I think the hon. Baronet will see that it will be exceedingly unwise, having regard to the period of the Session (July 13), to postpone a vote of this kind. I have undertaken that the matter shall receive the consideration of the Government. I will also undertake that the suggestion made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Bradford (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) shall receive consideration at the same time. I assure hon. Gentlemen it is the desire of the Government to effect every economy in our power.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 120; Noes 184: Majority 64.—(Div. List, No. 299.)[4.40 P.M.]

Original Question again proposed.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

Will the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury be kind enough to tell us what are the miscellaneous expenses under Sub-head N?

MR. JACKSON

The expenditure under this head during the last 10 years seems to have fallen off very much, because I notice that instead of it being £992 it is now only £300. The item covers certain expenditure of a miscellaneous character, including poundage of per cent receivable by the Accountant in the Department of the Clerk of Parliaments on the Bill and Bar fees.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

Does the item include anything for the purchase of newspapers?

MR. JACKSON

No.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR (Donegal, E.)

With regard to the percentage of 1¼ on Bill and Bar fees, I should like to point out that these fees amount to something like £20,000 or £25,000 a-year; but, instead of being paid over as other receipts are paid over by every Department of the State to the Exchequer, the House of Lords appropriates them to itself, and, besides paying the poundage of 1¼ per cent to the Accountant in the Department of the Clerk of Parliaments, the House of Lords uses the money for the purpose of supplementary superannuation allowances to the officers of the House of Lords. I believe the Treasury itself has never sought to defend the present system. When before the Public Accounts Committee a Treasury official was asked whether any individual was interested pecuniarily in the retention of the fees of the House of Lords, his answer was—"I think the Accountant officer in the office of the Clerk of Parliaments will have to answer that question." The Treasury itself could not answer it, and therefore I presume it is useless to ask the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury to answer it now. The Fee Fund is now over £30,000 a-year. I believe some portion of it is paid into the Exchequer, but the Treasury has no check or control over the Fund. They are equally without check or control upon the superannuation allowances of the officers of the House of Lords; they check, and control, and very often limit the superannuation allowances of other officers; but the officers of the House of Lords elude all Treasury supervision. I ask the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Jackson) to explain to the Committee the system under which this Fee Fund is worked; to state what information the Treasury really possess in regard to its incomings and its outgoings, and whether the Treasury propose to alter the present system?

MR. JACKSON

I think it right to say, in the first place, that I ought to have said, speaking of the poundage of 1¼ per cent paid on Bill and Bar fees to the Accountant in the Department of the Clerk of Parliaments, that the poundage was limited to a maximum of £250 a-year. With regard to what the hon. Gentleman says about the fees which are paid over, I may say that since the question was brought before the Public Accounts Committee I have given instruction for some inquiry to be addressed, with the view of endeavouring, if possible, to put the Fee Fund, so far as audit is concerned, in the same position as other accounts, and with the view of ascertaining what can be saved, and with the view of seeing, if possible, whether the account can be dealt with in the same way as all other accounts.

MR.ARTHUR O'CONNOR

I should like to know whether the proposed scheme will involve the submitting of the superannuation allowances of the officials of the House of Lords to a vote of the House of Commons, or will the present system continue under which the House of Lords provides superannuation for its own officers out of a fund under their own control?

MR. JACKSON

Every hon. Gentleman knows these superannuation allowances, although they are not bound to be submitted, are submitted to Parliament as a matter of fact.

MR. R. T. REID (Dumfries, & c.)

Will the hon. Gentleman tell us what is the difficulty in making a frank statement to the House of Commons. Why should not the Government have equal control in regard to the expenditure of the House of Lords as they have in regard to the expenditure of the House of Commons?

MR. JACKSON

If I may make a full and frank statement in answer to the hon. Member, I may say that the only reason why I have not spoken very decidedly on the point is, that the question only arose and was brought to my attention at the meeting of the Public Accounts Committee about a fortnight or, three weeks ago. Really, from the pressing work one has to do at this particular season of the year, there has certainly been no time to look into the matter.

Original Question put, and agreed to.

Resolutions to be reported.

Motion made, and Question proposed,

"That a sum, not exceeding £33,909, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during1 the year ending on the 31st day of March 1888, for the Salaries and Expenses in the Offices of the House of Commons.

SIR ROBERT FOWLER (London)

I wish to say a word upon this Vote. I wish to appeal to my hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Jackson) as I appealed to his Predecessor (Mr. Henry H. Fowler), and as I appealed to the late Lord Frederick Cavendish, to take into consideration the fact that the officers of the House of Commons are most inadequately paid. [Lord RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: Oh, oh !] The noble Lord says "Oh, oh !" but I maintain that the salaries of the officers of this House are most inadequate; as I said half-an-hour ago, in my opinion all those who serve Her Majesty are generally underpaid. We must bear in mind that these salaries were fixed at a time when money went a great deal further than it does at present—that a salary of £2,000 a-year does not represent what a salary of £2,000 a-year did 20 years ago. On the other hand, the work of the officers of this House has immensely increased; we sit to much later hours than formerly, and "Counts-out" are now of very rare occurrence. I agree with hon. Members that the officers of this House ought to be placed on the same level as the officers of the House of Lords; but I should level up and not level down. I do not think that the salaries of the officers of the other House of Parliament are too much; but I do think that those of our officers are scandalously too small, and therefore I make an appeal to my hon. Friend (Mr. Jackson) to take the matter into consideration. The Committee will recollect that the salary attached to the position which you, Sir, so worthily hold was taken into consideration some 10 years ago, and it was then resolved that the Chairman of Ways and Means should be put on an equality, so far as remuneration was concerned, with the Chairman of the House of Lords. What was done in regard to your Office, Sir, ought to be done in regard to all the other offices. I trust the matter will receive favourable consideration.

MR. MOLLOY (King's Co., Birr)

I do not quite agree with the observations of the hon. Baronet the Member for London (Sir Robert Fowler). I do not agree with the proposition that the amount of money paid to the officers of the House of Lords should be in any sense equal to that paid to the officers of this House, because one must take into consideration in a matter of this kind the amount of work to be done. I presume that the offer of the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Jackson) was that he would consider this question of salaries as a whole, and not as relating simply to the House of Lords. [Mr. JACKSON: Hear, hear!] I am glad I have not misunderstood the hon. Gentleman. Certainly I have never suggested any lowering of the salaries of any of the officers of this House; their work is very hard, and of late it has been enormously increased. They sit here night after night from a quarter to 4 o'clock to, upon the average, half-past 2 o'clock in the morning. I should like to recall the attention of the Committee to the remarks made just now by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Bradford (Mr. Shaw Lefevre)—namely, that the Librarian of the House of Lords not only receives a large salary, but is also granted an official residence containing 12 bedrooms. Now, he is enabled to go home every night, say, at 8 or 9 o'clock. [An hon. MEMBER Half-past 5 o'clock.] I like to be generous, and, therefore, I put the hour at half-past 8 o'clock. I cannot understand why the Librarian of the House of Lords should be granted an official residence, while the Chairman of Committees of Ways and Means, who is in attendance every night, and often sits until 2 or 3 o'clock in the morning, should have no official residence. The Librarian's place in the House of Lords is an exceedingly pleasant one, after all. Compare the peace which surrounds the situation with the turmoil of this House, through which you, Sir, so very often have to sit. It is a monstrous thing to say that the Chairman of this House should be occupied here till the small hours of the morning, and then have to trudge home, no matter what the state of the weather may be—because it is not always that a conveyance can be had—while the Librarian of the House of Lords should be supplied with an official residence with 12 bedrooms in it. You, Sir, also hold the position of Deputy Speaker of this House, and is it reasonable that the Deputy Speaker of the House of Commons should have no official residence, while the Librarian of the House of Lords is supplied with one? I beg the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury to look into this matter, and see that justice is done. I object to any increase in the Estimates, but I do not look upon this as entailing an increase of the Estimates; I look upon it simply as a question of justice, and I think we shall lower our own dignity and be unjust to those who are in the service of this House if we do not see that they have not only the same advantages, but even greater advantages, considering the work they are called upon to do, than those who hold sinecures in the House of Lords.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR (Liverpool, Scotland)

The hon. Baronet the Member for London (Sir Robert Fowler) has indulged in that flabby talk which makes all efforts at economy difficult. If I were an extremely wealthy man, I should be happy to give a subscription towards the payment of the officers of this House; but I think it is monstrous to add anything more to the burdens of the taxpayers. I may point out that there is a very easy way of minimizing the laborious duties of the officers of this House. What is it that doubles, or trebles, or quadruples the labours, not only of officials, but also of Members of this House? It is the monstrously absurd hours to which this House sits. We are the only Legislative Body in the world that does not meet at a reasonable hour of the day, and separate at a reasonable hour of the evening. I should say that, on the average, the Legislatures of the world meet at about 12 o'clock in the day, and separate at about 6 o'clock in the evening, except towards the end of the Session, when Bills are being hurried through. Now, if the Speaker, or any of us, were to come down at 12 o'clock in the day and go home at 6 o'clock, we would have no complaint of overwork either from Members of the House or from the officers of the House; and I should say that, with all respect to you, Sir, if our hours were changed in this way, £2,500 would be a good salary for work extending over six hours a-day for six months in the year. I wish my fortune would bestow upon me equally large favour. Now, if my hon. Friend the Member for the Birr Division of King's County (Mr. Molloy) desires to raise the salaries paid in this House, he may count upon the support of the hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Fowler), who is not averse to large expenditure of public money for any purpose whatever; but he certainly must be prepared to encounter very considerable opposition on my part. Now, I want to call the attention of the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Trea- sury (Mr. Jackson) to a small, but very important, matter. I assume that the Secretary to the Treasury, in company with some official of this House, has control of the internal arrangements of the House, including what is called the Reading Room in which newspapers are supplied. I want to ask the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury on what principle of inquisitorial canons newspapers are supplied for the use of hon. Members? Unfortunately, we have to recognize the fact that there are some differences of political opinion in this House. We are not all of the same way of thinking, even on such subjects as the government of Ireland, and small questions of that kind. I ask the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury if he will see that there are newspapers in the Reading Room which will furnish pabulum and enjoyment for hon. Members of different political opinions? I read with great interest every day many newspapers from the politics of which I entirely differ. Anyone holding such opinions as I do, and living in London, has to read a great many newspapers whose opinions are disagreeable to him. What would be thought if, because The Times newspaper happened to contain some very disagreeable statement, I were to suggest that The Times should be excluded from the Reading Room? Everybody would say I was carrying partizan feeling to a length entirely unheard of. I maintain that the Irish Members have just as much right to have in the Reading Room newspapers representing their views as English Tory Members have to have their newspapers representing their views. Why am I deprived of the weekly pleasure of reading United Ireland in the Reading Room of this House? Why does the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury deprive himself of the enormous amount of advantage and edification to be found in the columns of that newspaper? [Mr. PENROSE-FITZGERALD: Hear, hear!] I observe that a Tory Member opposite, representing an English, constituency, but of Irish nationality, agrees with me in that opinion. I am glad the hon. Gentleman for once agrees with me, and I trust I shall have his support in affording Members of the House an opportunity of receiving the political edification which the reading of United Ireland entails. Are we to be told in this temple of liberty what newspapers it may suit our political morals to road and what newspapers it may not suit us to read? I protest in the strongest manner against this Inquisition of the Holy Office which the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury is endeavouring to establish in this House. I shall look this week to see whether the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Penrose-Fitzgerald) and myself, as well as other Members of the House, are afforded an opportunity of perusing the contents of United Ireland.

MR. JACKSON

Perhaps I may shorten matters by saying that, although the hon. Member (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) has read me a very useful lecture, I have no power whatever in the matter he has raised. [Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: Who has?] The management of the Reading Room does not come within the purview of the Secretary to the Treasury, but of the officers of the House. [Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: What officers?] The Serjeant-at-Arms, I believe. I trust that even if United Ireland were placed in the Reading Room I should not be compelled to read it. I have no doubt I should derive from the perusal of its columns a great deal of valuable information; but the onerous duties of my Office exclude me from the reading of many newspapers.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

May I explain that I do not wish to compel the hon. Gentleman to read United Ireland; but I feel sure that its literary ability, and sound political moderation, will commend it to the perusal of the hon. Gentleman. Of course, I will not take the extraordinary step of moving any reduction of the Vote in regard to this matter; but I ask the Secretary to the Treasury to use his influence with the officers of the House that Irish Members may be afforded an opportunity of reading newspapers which represent their political views.

MR. MOLLOY (King's Co., Birr)

My hon. Friend was a little precipitate in thinking I desired to increase the salaries of the officers of thi9 House. The point I endeavoured to lay stress upon was that the Librarian of the House of Lords, and other similar officials of that House, have official residences; while our Deputy Speaker and Chairman of Ways and Means, and two of our clerks, doubtless, who are kept here night after night, have no residence supplied them. What I want to know of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Jackson) is, whether arrangements cannot be made by which the residences in the House may be tranferred to those who really require them?

MR. ISAACS (Newington. Walworth)

The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Molloy) seems to forget it is necessary to consult our officers as to whether they would like to have residences supplied them in this building.

MR. MOLLOY

I speak generally, and not with reference to the present holders solely.

MR. JACKSON

As the hon. Gentleman desires, some inquiry shall be made. The difficulty I feel is really one of principle. Personally, I am entirely opposed to private official residences. An official residence very often puts the occupant of an office to a great deal of additional cost, and I am quite certain it puts the country to a great deal of useless expenditure. Anyhow, I will take care that the matter is inquired into.

MR. W. H. JAMES (Gateshead)

I should like to say a word upon the point raised by the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. T. P. O'Connor). The Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Jackson) seems to have forgotten that on the Supplementary Estimates the question of the supplying of United Ireland among the papers supplied in the Reading Room was raised, and on that occasion a correspondence was read which had passed between an hon. Member and the Serjeant-at-Arms. The Serjeant-at-Arms declined to make any alteration in the system which then prevailed. When the discussion took place—now some months ago—an hon. Member opposite (Mr. Finch-Hatton), who is no longer a Member of this House, but a Member of the other House, expressed his anxiety to have an opportunity of reading United Ireland, and even went so far as to suggest that the supply of back numbers would be advisable. It does appear to me that it is exceedingly arbitrary that newspapers of every type and class of opinion should not be supplied for the reading of hon. Members. During the discussion upon the Supplementary Estimates the Government promised to use their influence to secure that United Ireland should be supplied for the reading of Members. I should like to know whether this promise has escaped the memory of the hon. Gentleman?

MR. LABOUCHERE (Northampton)

It really is a monstrous thing that the officers of this House should have the power of saying what literature we shall read, and what literature we shall not read. The thing is perfectly absurd. I am sure that if an intimation were received from the Government that it was desirable that United Ireland should be received here, it would be received. Such a recommendation would be acted upon by the Serjeant-at-Arms. In the interest of hon. Gentlemen opposite, it is desirable that United Ireland should come to the Reading Room. They are always quoting from it, and it is as well that they should have an opportunity of verifying all their quotations. I generally peruse Conservative newspapers; I know what Liberal newspapers are likely to say, and I am curious to know what Conservative papers think. I know that some Gentlemen have a perfect thirst to read the contents of United Ireland, and I do not see why the Serjeant-at-Arms should deprive them of the pleasure of perusing the paper. I hope the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Jackson) will use his influence in order to secure a copy of this paper being laid on the table of the Reading Room.

MR. JACKSON

I am sure hon. Members of the House will sympathize with me when I say I am most desirous not to interfere with duties which really do not belong to me. This is a matter which does not come within the purview of my Department, but belongs entirely to the Department of the Sergeant-at-Arms. I will, however, call the attention of the Sergeant-at-Arms to the desire expressed by hon. Members, and I hope that the desire will be satisfied.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

I am perfectly satisfied with what the Secretary to the Treasury has said, and now I hope he will allow me to bring another matter before him. I want to point out that the admission to the portions of this House open to journalists is a most valuable concession to newspapers. It is, pecuniarily, a valuable concession, and no daily newspaper is really able to compete successfully with any newspaper in the same city, except it has exactly the same privileges of entrance to the Reporters' Gallery and also to the Lobby of the House asits contemporary. Will the Committee believe that this state of things exists—namely, that a newspaper representing one set of political opinions in a city has an opportunity of having a representative in the Reporters' Gallery and a representative in the Lobby, and that another newspaper, representing another set of political opinions, is denied the privilege of having a representative in the Lobby. Everybody who has any association with newspapers knows that the Lobby of the House of Commons is the Bourse of news in this country, and that no newspaper which is not able to have a representative in the Lobby is able to supply its readers with anything like a satisfactory and able account of the state of political and Parliamentary feeling. Now, Mr. Courtney, I confess in this matter to no Party feeling, my sole desire being that equal facilities should be given to newspapers of all shades of opinion. The case to which I allude is this. In the city of Edinburgh there is a paper, as everybody knows, called The Scotsman. It is a paper conducted with the greatest editorial and business ability. Recently, a paper has been started in that city called The Scottish Leader. The Scotsman represents what is called Liberal Unionist opinion upon the great controversy now before the country. I regret that; but, at the same time, I should be very sorry to propose that The Scotsman newspaper should be deprived of all and every form of facility which it requires. Now, will it be believed that this state of things exists?—The Scottish Leader, which represents Home Rule opinion upon the Irish Question, is deprived of the opportunity of sending a representative into the Lobby of the House of Commons. I, as a journalist, maintain that The Scotsman newspaper reaps, in this preference, as great an advantage over its rival—The Scottish Leader—as if the Secretary to the Treasury were to make it a present of £10,000 a-year. [Laughter.] Hon. Gentlemen opposite laugh. Do they know anything about the matter? If it will please hon. Gentlemen, I will lower my figure, and say £5,000. Perhaps that will satisfy the commercial instincts of hon. Gentlemen. Is it fair the privileges of this House should be used in this grossly unjust manner? The Secretary to the Treasury says this is not his De- partment. Whose Department is it? Are we to be told there is any body of men in this House who can disregard the authority and mandate of this House? In the absence of information on the point, we look to the Secretary to the Treasury. Upon these Estimates he is the mouthpiece of the Government in this House, and I trust he will see fair-play done between the different political organs of the country.

MR. CONYBEARE (Cornwall, Camborne)

I do not understand why the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Jackson) should disclaim responsibility in this matter. We do not ask him to interfere unduly with the duties of the officers of the House; but we want him to use his influence in seeing that justice is done. This is not merely a question of the supply of United Ireland. There are many papers which ought to be found upon the table of the Reading Room—Reynold's, for instance, which is the only democratic paper I am acquainted with, ought to be supplied for the perusal of hon. Members. I do not want to give any special facilities for this or that paper; but what I suggest is that there should be a Suggestion Book in the Reading Room, in which suggestions as to the supply of newspapers and the like could be entered. There is another matter to which I wish to refer. I see the assistant in the Members' waiting-room receives £80 a-year. This assistant has very long hours indeed, and therefore it seems to me his remuneration is exceedingly small. I am not anxious to add to the burdens of the country by making wholesale additions to salaries; but what I do want the Committee to understand is that not only is the salary for this official very small, but he has to wait three months before he is paid. We have been discussing the question whether artizans and labourers shall be paid weekly; why should officials of this House have to work three months before they receive their pay? If the Secretary to the Treasury cannot see his way to suggest an increase of the salaries of the poorly-paid officials of this House, I trust he will see they are paid more frequently. Then there is the case of the servants and the refreshment rooms. We are told that £1,000 a-year is granted to the Refreshment Department. I do not say that that is too much, or too little; but what I wish to point out is, that the servants have to be on duty for very many hours. They have to be in attendance until the House rises. I think that when the Sittings are unduly prolonged, they should be granted some extra remuneration. I trust these points will receive the consideration of the Secretary to the Treasury.

MR. LABOUCHERE (Northampton)

My hon. Friend the Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) has alluded to the fact that the correspondents of certain newspapers are precluded from the privilege of entering the Lobby of the House. There is a kindred point to which I wish to call the attention of the Members of the Treasury Bench, and it is that the correspondents of foreign newspapers are not allowed into the House. Now, the correspondents of English newspapers are permitted to enter the French Chamber, the German Chamber, the Austrian Chamber, and there is a strong feeling—

It being a quarter of an hour before Six of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to report Progress.

Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.

Committee also report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

Forward to