HC Deb 25 July 1879 vol 248 cc1376-96

(1.) £22,150, to complete the sum for Merchant Seamen's Fund, Pensions, &c.

(2.) £23,100, to complete the sum for Relief of Distressed British Seamen Abroad.

(3.) £395,000, Pauper Lunatics, England.

MR. RAMSAY

called attention to the annual increase in this Vote. He had suggested to the Secretary to the Treasury, on a previous occasion, that any further increase in this Vote should not be allowed, and that a fixed sum should be paid, averaged on the payments of the last three years. Unless the Government would determine to stop this increase, he should consider it right to make a strong objection to the grant, and to obstruct the Vote.

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

said, he could not give the definite pledge asked for by the hon. Gentleman. So long as the principle was maintained that the rate per head should be contributed by the Government, so long, he thought, it would be fair to ask for this Vote. He was quite aware there was a possibility that cases might be brought into the asylums which would not be there but for this Vote. [Mr. SCLATER-BOOTH: No, no!] His right hon. Friend said that was not the case, and that the grant was not treated in that way; and he could only conclude, therefore, that the increase was a proof that lunacy was on the increase in the country. He thought it was only fair that the Government should assist the localities in keeping up these asylums; and, under these circumstances, he trusted the Committee would accept the Vote.

MR. RAMSAY

said, the hon. Gentleman was labouring under a mistake in assuming that the number of lunatics was on the increase. He denied that there was any foundation for such a statement. This increase was caused by the introduction of persons who properly should not be the recipients of curative treatment. Only such persons as there was a prospect of curing should be in the asylums. His opinion was borne out by the whole of the evidence taken before the Select Committee which sat upstairs; and if that were so, what justification could there be for permitting the annual increase of this grant? It was quite true that Parliament had sanctioned this grant per head; but that was no reason why it should be made permanent, and it was to its permanence and unnecessary increase that he objected. There should not be this annual increase without some corresponding advantage to the community. He admitted that it was the will of Parliament that it should be so; but he thought the principle was unsound on which the contribution was based.

MR. SOLATER-BOOTH

could not admit for a moment that the state of these lunatics was not the subject of constant and earnest attention on the part of himself and his officials. So far as his observation and judgment went, it was not the fact that lunatics were detained in public asylums who ought not, by law, to be so. In the opinion and judgment of some hon. Members, there were many persons who would be better elsewhere; but according to the law and practice of England, on which the lunatic asylums were established, these persons had a right to be there, and they could not be removed without a change in the law. They were sent to the asylums by the authority of the magistrates, and there was not the slightest reason to suppose that any collusion or malpractices prevailed.

MR. WHITWELL

said, the number of lunatics was clearly increasing, and in Scotland, especially, there was a constant increase. This year, the increase was 1,500. He hoped it would not be the case next year, too; but if it were, right hon. Gentlemen ought to feel it almost absolutely necessary to make some special Report on the matter. It was most unfortunate this large Vote was to be taken and passed at 2 o'clock in the morning, on a subject which required great consideration. But he was afraid, under the circumstances, they could not do otherwise than pass it.

MAJOR NOLAN

thought this contribution by Government to the cost of asylums most admirable, and he had very little doubt that the whole of the Irish Members would always support such a Vote. He did not believe there was an increase in the number of lunatics in the country. The apparent increase was due to the fact that the lunatics went from the cottages to the asylums, which was a very good thing. They were very much out of place in the poor dwellings of their relatives. They were much happier in the asylums, and it was much pleasanter for their friends.

MR. A. MOORE

said, he had no doubt that this was the true explanation of the increase in the numbers. These poor creatures were taken from their own homes, where they could not possibly be attended to, and placed in proper institutions. He demurred entirely to the statement that only cases which could be cured should be placed in asylums. What was, then, to be done with incurable lunatics? He might point out that while there had been a positive decrease in the number in Ireland, and only a small increase in the number in England, there had been an increase of eight times the number in Scotland.

MR. RAMSAY

said, all these statements justified his belief that there was no absolute increase in the number of lunatics, but that people were getting their patients off their hands by sending them to these institutions, where they were locked up. He did not confine his remarks to England, but made the same complaint as to Scotland. The same causes were in operation there. As long as this system was permitted to continue, so long would they find this grant increase. Whatever hon. Members might say, he believed that incurable lunatics were much better in private houses than when confined in asylums.

Vote agreed to.

(4.) £71,760, Pauper Lunatics, Scotland.

MR. RAMSAY

said, he had some remarks to make on this Vote. [Laughter.] Hon. Members might laugh, but he believed they laughed simply because of their ignorance of the importance of the subject; and he said that with the greatest respect for those who took an interest in this matter. He maintained that the great increase in Scotland showed that there was something wrong in this Vote. ["Agreed, agreed!"] Indeed, he was by no means agreed, and if he were troubled with these remarks of impatience he should take the first opportunity of moving to report Progress.

MR. P. MARTIN

said, he admired the adroitness with which Scotch Members appropriated so large a portion, of public money and took care to be the first to complain when they thought they could be with justice assailed. Therefore, no doubt, his hon. Friend the Member for the Falkirk Burghs (Mr. Ramsay) knowing well that a long standing Irish wrong existed which had been inflicted by the authorities in Scotland in sending over to Ireland each year Irish-born pauper lunatics, often dangerous, and obliged to be kept in chains during the passage, was wisely the first to criticize this Vote. The cruelty and illegality of this practice on the part of the Poor Law authorities in Scotland had been condemned over and over again in the Reports of the Irish Local Government Board. He trusted the remonstrances made would not be without effect. If any further instances of these illegal and cruel deportations come to his knowledge he would next year move to reduce the Vote.

Vote agreed to.

(5.) £22,095, to complete the sum for Pauper Lunatics, Ireland.

MAJOR NOLAN

asked whether any Bill was to be brought in to deal with the appointment of governors? Four years ago it was complained that the system was unsatisfactory by which the Lord Lieutenant appointed to these offices. That was hardly a good system; and though he knew it could not be done this Session he hoped if there was another Session the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary would bring in a separate Bill proposing some other arrangement.

MR. J. LOWTHER

was understood to say that either a separate Bill would be brought in, or the matter would be dealt with in the Grand Juries Bill.

Vote agreed to.

Resolutions to be reported.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £11,647, 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 1880, for the support of certain Hospitals and Infirmaries in Ireland.

MR. A. MOORE

said, the Vote was for hospitals and infirmaries under the control of the Board of Superintendence; but one portion of the money was entirely outside the control of that body. It was the last item—£500, for the Female Orphan House. He wanted to know why the Vote was placed before Parliament in a manner which was not candid and not straightforward. He was not speaking of the present Administration, for the Vote had gone on for many years; but he wished to point out, however, that this money was voted as being administered under the Board of Superintendence, whereas this institution was not under the control of that Board.

MR. J. LOWTHER

said, this contribution had been made ever since the Act of Union, and he hardly thought the hon. Gentleman would like to disturb the arrangement. This formed a separate Vote at one time; but many years ago it was added to this Vote. He believed the institution thoroughly deserved support.

MR. A. MOORE

said, the right hon. Gentleman could not mean to say he was going to laugh out the question in a manner like that. This Vote was placed before the country as being under the authority of the Board of Superintendence, whereas it was not so.

MR. J. LOWTHER

said, he would inquire into the matter.

MR. GRAY

asked some Member of the Government to tell him where this House was, and what it was?

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

said, the House was in the Circular Road, Dublin. It was supposed to hold about 200; but the number had since been limited to a smaller number. The Vote was begun in 1800, and had gone on ever since.

MR. GRAY

asked, whether the institution was devoted to any exclusive denomination? He knew most of the charitable institutions of Dublin, but could not recall this one to his recollection. The only one he remembered was one in South Richmond Street, outside which were most offensive placards with regard to the Catholic religion. That could not be the institution referred to. Was there any distinction on account of creed made at this House?

MR. J. LOWTHER

said, the only distinction he knew of was that males were not admitted.

MR. P. MARTIN

said, they were not to be cajoled in that way. His hon. Friend (Mr. A. Moore) had clearly hit a blot, and from this great reticence of the Government a suspicion was springing up in his mind that there was something wrong about this Vote. He should require some further information, or he would move to reduce the Vote by that amount.

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

said, perhaps he did not give the Committee so much information as he might have done; but, at any rate, he gave it all the information he possessed. This Female Orphan House was established by the Latouche family in 1790, and it was incorporated by Statute in 1800. The original buildings were erected by private subscription, and there were Votes to it from various grants from Parliament between 1815 and 1817. Very nearly £4,000 was voted for alterations. The House was situated in Circular Road, Dublin, and originally held 200; but the Government limited the number to 160. But the number in the House in March, 1878, was only 71. The children were instructed in reading, writing, the simple rules of arithmetic, geography, history, plain and fancy needlework, laundry work, and other things, for the purpose of fitting them for situations as servants, in which capacity they were always apprenticed. The income consisted of the interest on securities, £380; the nation's subscription, £200; annuities, £117; church collections, £240; and sundries, £30; making in all, £967. In the annual grant-in-aid of £500, the Vote was £1,675 till up to the years 1834–5; from then till 1848–9 it was £1,000; and after that date it sunk to £500, at which it had remained ever since. This Vote was then a Vote by Committees up till 1856–7; afterwards it was placed on the Estimates, where it remained until the formation of the general Estimate now under consideration, and it was then put among the other hospitals and charities.

MR. A. MOORE

thought it would be a pity to divide; but he had no doubt this was a very old and respectable job, and it was time it was looked into. He was not prepared to charge the people who received this money with proselytism; but he did know this Vote was strictly sectarian, and that only children of one religion were admitted. If the Government would undertake to bring this institution under proper inspection, so that they might have security that the money was not being wasted, he would be satisfied; but without some such assurance as that he should certainly divide.

MR. GRAY

said, the Vote could not be passed in its present form, for this institution was assuredly neither an hospital nor an infirmary. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary had probably overlooked the question whether this institution was confined to members of any particular religion. He was curious to know whether the Charter confined it to any particular denomination. He tolerably well understood now what sort of place this was, from the description, given.

MR. CALLAN

said, the statement in Thom's Directory was, that this was a Female Orphan House for destitute female children. It accommodated 120 children. Orphans from any part of Ireland were eligible. Besides being lodged, clothed, and maintained, they were provided with religious instruction. He would like to ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland the nature of that religious instruction—whether it was exclusively sectarian, and whether the place had proselytizing tendencies?

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (MR. GIBSON)

said, he did not think it was any part of the duties of the Attorney General to know the teaching of every orphan school in Ireland. If, however, the chaplain was the Rev. Digby Cook, whom he knew to be a Protestant clergyman of high character, he assumed that it was mainly a Protestant institution. He did not know whether, by its constitution, it was confined exclusively to the children of Protestants; but he believed it was very well managed, and he was not aware it had ever been mixed up with proselytizing tendencies.

MR. CALLAN

asked, whether any similar institution of strictly denominational character received a public grant of money? They had heard a good deal about giving money to public institutions not subject to inspection; and he thought it would be far better that this Vote should be postponed till the ordinary Irish Estimates next week, in order that this might be inquired into. He himself was under the impression that the Irish Votes were not to be taken till next week.

MR. J. LOWTHER

said, that had never been stated from that Bench.

MR. CALLAN

thought he had heard something to that effect.

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

was in the recollection of hon. Members that he distinctly said he would take non-contentious Votes, and that Irish Votes would be taken on Monday. He maintained that the Government had given very full and distinct information about this Vote, and there could be no mistake from its being put under this head. It was the object of the Treasury in preparing Estimates to get them into distinct classes, and it would be hardly worth the trouble to treat this one sum as a separate Estimate.

MR. RAMSAY

thought the suggestion that this orphanage should be under inspection in some way was worthy attention. He, however, thought, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, that this might be an excellent institution and very well managed. He begged to point out that while all this money was given to Ireland no corresponding grant was made to Scotland. That statement would relieve some of his hon. Friends of the feeling that Scotland was seeking what she was not willing to give to Ireland.

MAJOR NOLAN

observed, that his hon. Friend was wrong. This grant was guaranteed under the act of Union, and Scotland enjoyed similar grants under her Act, although they did not run in the same way.

MR. J. LOWTHER

could not admit that by placing this Vote in this place there had been any attempt to mislead the Committee; but he would promise to look into the matter, and, if necessary, to remove the Vote to another place.

MR. A. MOORE

said, the Committee had been misled, because it was represented that this money passed through the Board of Superintendence when it did not. This being an institution for children, it could not be called an hospital or an infirmary; but it might be put under the head of "Industrial Schools." However, as the Government had promised to look into the matter, they might very well let the Vote pass.

MR. GRAY

could not understand how a school could properly be described as an hospital. [An hon. MEMBER: Christ's.] The title was misleading; and it was also a mistake to set this Vote forth as subject to the Board of Superintendence.

MR. P. MARTIN

pointed out that this Vote was stated as an entailed application of monies to be expended and accounted for under, and pursuant to, the provisions of the 19 & 20 Vict. c. 110, s. 16. But it was now plain this was a mistake. The institution was not one of those contemplated by the Statute, or under the control of the Board thereby appointed. It was established and maintained for the reception and education, apparently, only of those orphans willing to be brought up and trained as Protestants. The Committee had been given no valid reason why this exclusively denominational grant should be continued. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in fairness, he could proceed with this Vote or whether he would not postpone it till they had more full information about it?

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

said, this all seemed to him very much like a storm in a tea-cup. What were the real facts? By a clause in the Act of Union, the United Kingdom was bound to provide a sum which had formerly been granted by the Parliament of Ireland. Amongst the institutions which the Parliament of Ireland handed over on this condition to the Estimates was this Female Orphan House. When, as far back as 1866, these Votes, which in the old days appeared separately, were collected together in one particular Estimate, and that, he ventured to say, was as fair a way as any that could be suggested. The description of each particular Vote clearly showed to any impartial man that the total was absolutely expressed in each one of the sub-heads, and the Vote was very fully explained.

MR. RAMSAY

begged to point out, with regard to the remarks of his hon. and gallant Friend (Major Nolan), that the amount given to the Colleges and Universities of Scotland under the Act of Union was paid in consideration of property which those institutions possessed, and which was taken from them.

MR. BIGGAR

moved to report Progress. They were promised that no contentious Votes should be taken, and this was a very contentious Vote. The only thing they could do was to go home. It was very irregular to vote large sums of money at that time in the morning.

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

MR. CALLAN

said, he found that this was an estimate of the amount required in the year ending 31st March, 1880, for charges connected with hospitals and infirmaries in Ireland under Act 19 & 20 Vict. c. 110, s. 16. He apprehended they were bound by that previous Vote. Now, on referring to the Act named, he found it was an Act for the better regulation of houses of industry, hospitals, and other places in Dublin supported wholly or in part by Parliamentary grants, and he found that Section 17, by which this Vote was legalized, was to the following effect:— In case the Board of Superintendence shall neglect to make such General Rules for the space of three months after being required to do so by the Lord Lieutenant, it shall be lawful for the Lord Lieutenant, by writing under the hand of the Chief or Under Secretary for Ireland for the time being, to make such General Rules, and from time to time to repeal, alter, or add to the same. Where in all this was there any authority for the Vote to the orphanage? Either this Vote had been placed where it was in ignorance, or it had been placed there by the assistants who had prepared it, for the purpose of misleading the House. It must be one of these two things. It was either then through ignorance, or for a worse purpose. However, he would only say, as far as these secretaries were concerned, and he would protect himself under no privilege in stating it, that he believed nothing was beyond their capability. He would certainly support the Motion to report Progress, for he thought it was only respectful to Parliament that the Chief Secretary should make some further inquiries.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON)

said, assuming this orphanage to come under the description of a hospital, the section was clearly wide enough to include it. It was a question of fact whether or not this particular orphanage was under the control of the Board. [Mr. A. MOORE: It is not.] Did the hon. Member speak of his own knowledge? [Mr. A. MOORE: There is a Parliamentary Paper on the subject.] He would put this Vote on broad grounds. It was obliged to be on the Estimates in consequence of a usage handed down to them from old times, beginning at or before the Act of Union. The institution was well managed, and was not in the slightest degree proselytizing, and if any further information were wanted it should be forthcoming frankly and freely.

MR. GRAY

pointed out that the specific direction that all these hospitals should be placed under the Board of Superintendence was not complied with. Section 18 also directed that the Board should make a special Report upon each charity, which should be submitted to Parliament. [The ATTORNEY GENERAL, for IRELAND (Mr. Gibson): Except when the Charter is inconsistent.] Clearly, at any rate, the Act was not complied with.

MR. A. MOORE

said, he had spoken to a member of the Dublin Hospital Board, and asked him why they did not report on this institution, and the reply was that they knew nothing about it. The money did not go through their Office, and that they had, therefore, nothing to report upon.

MR. MELDON

asked for the ruling of the Chairman on a point of Order. It was stated that this Vote was asked for under the authority of an Act of Parliament, and the Committee had no power to vote a single farthing unless it was to be spent under that Act. The Act which had been read provided that certain money which, had been granted should be spent upon certain institutions under the control of the Board of Superintendence. Assuming that this was a hospital, and assuming everything else, except the one point which had been proved that this hospital was not under the control of the Board of Super-intendance, he would ask, whether it was in the power of the Committee to vote this money? He certainly submitted it was not.

THE CHAIRMAN (Mr. SALT)

There is no question before the Committee as to the legality of the Vote. It has been put in this way for many years, founded upon an Act of Parliament and custom, and I can see that it is perfectly legitimate that the Vote should be put before the Committee as it is drawn up in the Estimates.

MR. MELDON

said, it had only now been pointed out, for the first time, that this Vote did not come under the Act of Parliament, and that this money was not under the control of the Board.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON)

said, assuming that this institution was covered by the definition of an hospital, and assuming that it got the money appropriated by Parliament, it would certainly come within the terms of this Act. It was another question whether the provisions of the Act were complied with; but that would not, in the slightest degree, impair the accuracy of the description at the head of the Vote. He would suggest to hon. Members that it was only reasonable they should allow this Vote to pass now, and on the Report either he or the Chief Secretary would be prepared to state exactly how the Vote stood.

MR. RAMSAY

was going to make the same suggestion in order to facilitate Business.

MR. O'DONNELL

had no objection to this Vote in consequence of its denominational character; for he did not see how an institution could be properly called educational, if religion were excluded. He did not, therefore, at all object to the item on that ground, even although there was no corresponding institution for Catholics; but he quite agreed that they should know whether the money was expended properly and under proper control.

MR. P. MARTIN

said, that was the real point. Was this Vote under the control of the Board, or was it not? It was conceded now it was not. He did not consider the Committee had been given the information they were entitled to demand. If the Vote was not postponed, he trusted the Motion would not be abandoned.

MR. J. LOWTHER

thought that it was better to postpone the Vote for the present.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Original Question, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £123,944, 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 1880, to make good the sum by which the interest accrued in the year ended 20th November 1878, from Securities held by the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt, on account of 'The Fund for the Banks for Saving' and 'The Fund for Friendly Societies,' is insufficient to meet the interest which the said Commissioners are obliged by Statute to pay and credit, during such latter mentioned year to the trustees of Savings Banks, and to Friendly Societies respectively.

MR. E. W. HARCOURT

Sir, before this Vote is allowed, I think it should be considered from what source the money which is asked for comes, and whether the transfer of this money is for the benefit of the people. I think this question is a social question of great importance, and social questions are apt to be put too much out of sight at present. All questions of this sort, which involve the well-being of great masses of the people, must be of great interest to every one of us. I will, therefore, ask the Committee to bear with me for a short time, while I attempt to lay the present position of Post Office Savings Banks briefly before them; and if that indulgence is granted, my grateful thanks will be due to the Committee, as I am aware the subject is a very dry one. All those who take any interest in encouraging thrift amongst the working classes must thankfully acknowledge that the Post Office Savings Banks are doing a great work in the country. What we wish to argue is that that work is capable of great extension. The Post Office authorities have laid down that Post Office Savings Banks can only be established where Money Order Offices exist. The consequence is that many places are permanently excluded from the benefit of Post Office Savings Banks. It would be impossible now to enter into any general statistics; but I will take the example of Cambridgeshire, which represents a fair average of the counties in England. In this county, we find that there is a Post Office in every 7 square miles, and a Post Office Savings Bank in every 22 square miles; that the places where there are Post Offices and no Post Office Savings Banks are as 81 to 38, rather less than two to one—that is to say, that one-third of the population are without Post Office Savings Banks. In 51 places there are no Post Offices, and the ratio of persons enjoying the advantages of Post Office Savings Banks are 11 to 7. 117,095 persons have Post Offices and Post Office Savings Banks; 58,388 have Post Offices, but are from 1 to 6 miles from a Post Office Savings Bank; 16,600 have no Post Offices, and are from 1 to 6 miles from Post Office Savings Banks. The sizes of places having Post Offices but no Post Office Savings Banks vary very much; and 2 may be named which, having populations each of over 2,000 people, are 4 and 6 miles respectively from Post Office Savings Banks. Many places, also, with Post Offices are smaller than those without them. Now, it is quite true that individual benevolence and individual energy often supply the wants that are created by the Post Office. I say created, because I think that sins of omission are as great as sins of commission. My contention is, that to depend upon individuals is not satisfactory. I could, if there were time, give instances of cases where the best intentions have been thwarted by want of capacity, want of order, want of business habits, and untrustworthiness of agents. I know of one collector who received 2s. 6d. on each subscription. The consequence was that, when £1 was offered him, he requested the donor to give him 5s. at a time, so that he might receive 2s. 6d. on each 5s. Another collector, who was parted with because it was supposed that he collected more than was required, set up for himself, no doubt, very much to his own advantage. I am well aware that the objection taken by the Post Office is a financial objection, and they say they are perfectly satisfied with the supplementary work which is being done for them by the public. It is very certain that where no Money Order Offices exist a different class of Postmasters can be employed; and, of course, any alteration would involve the payment of higher salaries. It is quite true that an old woman with 50s. per annum, and of average honesty, may be quite competent to pack letters and sell stamps, although she would not befit to manage the affairs of a Post Office Savings Bank. In passing, I may remark that even officers employed by the Government to superintend the Post Office Savings Banks are often very much underpaid, and the consequence is they sometimes shift for themselves. They lend to the poor at a higher interest than is given by the Post Office Savings Banks, and cases of repudiation are not unknown, whereby great discredit is brought upon the whole system. It ought to be a rule that all such traffickers should be dismissed at once and for ever from the Public Service. The remedy, I take it, for the financial difficulty is to be found in the employment of peripatetic officials. An office where a Post Office Savings Bank exists might send out to villages within a certain radius, one evening in the week, a clerk, at a small additional pay, to conduct the Savings Bank work for a couple of hours; and, I think, in localities where the want of such a convenience is felt, persons might be found who would be willing to guarantee any extra expense for the first year or two. If the principle is accepted, it might be worked out progressively, according to the experience of the Postmaster General, and I think there need be no displacement of those old ladies at 50s. per annum, who seem so dear to the Post Office. I do not think, either, that it is unfair to suppose that, as the Post Office is now making a profit of £150,000 per annum out of the Post Office Savings Bank, simply by the difference of interest given and received, and through not giving interest upon sums below £1, that an extension of business would bring an increase of profits. I know I shall be told that the Post Office has already tried the experiment of peripatetic officials; but I contend that their experiment was no fair test—it was only made for a short time upon a shifting population of navvies, and we all knew that habits of thrift take time to grow, and I think the experiment was worth- less. Well, now, what is done with the profit of £150,000 per annum which is made upon Post Office Savings Banks? Why, it is used to bolster up the Old Savings Banks, and to enable them to pay a higher interest than they can afford; and it is also employed as a means of pensioning the old actuaries. I hold this to be a very unsound proceeding. I know that the Post Office cannot escape at once from its liabilities respecting the Old Savings Banks; but if the Post Office Savings Banks are encouraged, and if they are established wherever Post Offices exist, the Old Savings Banks would in time be absorbed by them; for even now difficulty is found in obtaining fresh trustees as the old ones die out. Where the object is to encourage thrift the means must be taken to the very doors. Those who know anything about it know that the poor will not trudge three, four, five, or six miles after it, particularly when that very attractive mode of investment, the public-house, is close at hand. Sir, I do not think it is Utopian to hope that a great Department, making large profits, should either of its own energy, or by the force of public opinion, be induced to enlarge its border, and to embrace under its operations a large and important part of the community which at present it professedly ignores. Sir, it is not enough for a Public Department, which has the power, if it has the will, to fold its arms and to say that sufficient good is being done privately. I have already contended that private enter-prize is not satisfactory. The Post Office may rejoice over the labours of others, but it cannot claim it as its own work. Such supineness is not creditable, and will not be treated with either respect or patience by the public. The Post Office can and ought to open a Post Office Savings Bank wherever a Post Office exists. It cannot shove off its own responsibilities on to the shoulders of others. The assistance to local penny banks given by the Post Office can only be looked upon as a makeshift; such is the system of registered letters, whereby sums may be transmitted to distant Post Office Savings Banks. This does nothing to improve the security, and I hold that the Post Office is bound to give to investors that security which no private enterprize can offer. The issue of invitations to invest by the Post Office is well intended; but the fact is that villagers seldom read such documents, and still less seldom are influenced by them. It is impossible for me now to open the whole question of Post Office Savings Banks. Many improvements are urgently required; but at present I shall content myself with urging the one point respecting the opening of Post Office Savings Banks wherever Post Offices exist. I am well convinced of the possibility and expediency of this measure, and if I do not now succeed in convincing the Postmaster General, I do not despair of doing so at some future time; at any rate, my efforts will not cease until I have obtained my object, and with a view of bringing on a discussion on the subject, I now move, Sir, that the Vote before the Committee be reduced by a sum of £10,000.

Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; Committee counted, and 40 Members being found present,

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

said, as his hon. Friend (Mr. Harcourt) was anxious to have a discussion, and, looking at the hour of the night, he would move to report Progress. ["Go on, go on!"]

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson.)

MR. BRUEN

hoped the Committee would take notice of the fact that the hon. Member who moved the count had himself gone out.

MR. CALLAN

wished, as a matter of fact—["Order, order!"] He was rather anxious to call attention to a remark which had just been made. Surely, it was most unjust to object to the fact that the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar), after moving a count, should leave the House. Of course, to leave the House would be one of the modes of obtaining the object he had in view, and it was most unjust to try and make a marked man of him in that way.

MR. MELDON

suggested that the Vote should be withdrawn, and that they should go on with the rest.

MR. GRAY

said, there was no desire on the part of the Irish Members to discuss the other Votes; and, therefore, if this one was postponed, the Committee would get through, the others in a few minutes and save time.

MR. MONK

thought they ought to support Her Majesty's Government in the Motion just made. It was rather too late to go on voting money.

MR. WHITWELL

also hoped they would report Progress. The hon. Gentleman opposite the Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Harcourt) had brought up a very important and interesting subject, and the Vote was nearly £130,000. There was no one on that side of the House to support it.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 6; Noes 40: Majority 34.—(Div. List, No. 195.)

Original Question again proposed.

MAJOR O'GORMAN,

addressing the Chair from his seat, and covered, said, the hon. Baronet who moved that Progress should be reported voted with the Noes, and therefore voted against his own Motion. It was quite true; he would ask the Chairman for his decision upon it, if he pleased.

THE CHAIRMAN (Mr. SALT)

I do not understand the hon. Baronet to challenge the decision.

MAJOR O'GORMAN

The hon. Baronet moved that you report Progress, and then voted against the Motion himself.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

Not when the Question was put.

SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON

When the Question was put from the Chair, before the Division, I did not challenge it.

MR. CALLAN

It is the rule that when a hon. Member moves any Motion that he shall vote for that Motion, and especial notice has been taken of Members of this House which Members have voted against a Motion which they have themselves proposed.

MR. MELDON

I understand, Sir, you have given your decision on the point of Order.

MR. BIGGAR

I do not know what the Government mean to do. They do not know their mind on any subject. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer seemed just now about to rise, and then he changed his mind and did not do it. I do not know whether the Government intend that we should report Progress after moving it themselves.

MAJOR O'GORMAN

I beg, most respectfully, Sir, to suggest that you do your duty.

MR. MELDON

I think the hon. and gallant Member is out of Order in moving that you do leave the Chair with no Question before the House. The proper course is to put the next Vote, when it will be open to the hon. and gallant Member, if he should think fit, to move it.

THE CHAIRMAN (Mr. SALT)

There is a Question before the House which is a Motion for a Vote, upon which some discussion has already taken place, and during which discussion a Motion was made to report Progress. I did not understand the hon. and gallant Member to move that I do leave the Chair.

MAJOR O'GORMAN

Will you have the goodness to understand it now, Sir? ["Order, order!"]

MR. CALLAN

begged to second the Motion on these grounds. The Government, through the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury, had moved that Progress be reported, and then, in consequence of some inexplicable reason—unprecedented during his (Mr. Callan's) previous experience—they did not ask leave to withdraw the Motion, but they absolutely voted against it.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do now leave the Chair."—(Major O'Gorman.)

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

There can be no doubt that the hon. and gallant Member is perfectly in his right in his Motion. With reference to what has just passed, I will point out what the real facts are. There seemed to be, or, at any rate, the Government were under the impression, that there was a desire on the part of the Committee to go on. We were not at all desirous to keep the Committee sitting against the wish of the majority of hon. Members, and, accordingly, my hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury moved that the Chairman do report Progress. When that Question had been once put there was no power to withdraw it, and it had necessarily to be decided. But there happened, what so often happens. It appeared from the general conversation, and especially from observations made by the hon. and learned Member oppo- site (Mr. Meldon), and the hon. Member near him (Mr. Gray), and some others, that it was the desire of the large number of Members to make some Progress. Of course, we are quite ready to sit, and we thought it was the wish of others to do so; but the course proposed is that we should postpone the Vote, and then, if the Committee are willing to take the next two Votes, we should be glad to do so. Perhaps, the hon. and gallant Gentleman will withdraw his Motion.

MR. CALLAN

said, that at 20 minutes to 4 he thought they ought not to raise an important discussion, and, therefore, he did object to take these Votes. Personally, he should be very glad to facilitate Business; but on the next Vote he wanted to raise a discussion he could not raise at that hour.

MR. MONK

said, he was not at all aware why he had been called upon as one of the Tellers for the Ayes. His hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury had been guilty of a great irregularity; and they had had, in consequence, a very disagreeable scene in the Committee. The hon. Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Harcourt) was in possession of the Committee, when the Secretary to the Treasury rose, and interrupted him by moving to report Progress; he was entirely out of Order in so doing. The hon. Member for Oxfordshire, when it was decided that there was a full Committee, was in possession of the Committee; and, therefore, it was irregular for the hon. Baronet to move that Progress be reported. But having made that Motion, and given his voice in favour of adjournment, it was certainly a great irregularity on his part to vote against his own Motion. The Leader of the House had certainly not in any way mended the matter by the explanation he had just given. He (Mr. Monk) and his hon. Friend the Member for Kendal voted against going on with the Committee, because they did not think Votes of this amount and of this nature ought to be brought on at half-past 3 in the morning.

MR. GRAY

said, there was a very decided and unanimous expression of opinion that two Votes, which would involve no discussion, might be taken, and it was entirely due to the suggestions made by himself and his hon. Friends that confusion had arisen. Especially, he was concerned to be a party to making the suggestion, and he was very sorry it had involved the confusion whitch had arisen.

MAJOR O'GORMAN

begged to withdraw his Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Original Question, by leave, withdrawn.

House resumed.

Resolutions to be reported upon Monday next;

Committee also report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.