Commons Sitting of 2 August 1881

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Report—Artizans' and Labourers' Dwellings Improvement [No. 358].
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES, Class II.—SALARIES AND EXPENSES OF CIVIL DEPARTMENTS.
PUBLIC BILLS—Resolutions [August 1] reported—Ordered—First Reading—National Debt [236]; Indian Loan of 1879 [237].
Ordered—First Reading—Corrupt Practices (Suspension of Elections) * [238].
Committee—Report—Petroleum (Hawking) [222].
Considered as amended—Third Reading—Wild Birds Protection Act (1880) Amendment [226]; Superannuation (Post Office and Works)* [228], and passed.

QUESTIONS.

  MERCANTILE MARINE—LIGHTSHIPS AND LIGHTHOUSES—TELEGRAPHIC COMMUNICATION.
  MR. AKERS-DOUGLASasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether his attention has been called to the present want of telegraphic communication between lightships and lighthouses
  556
  and the shore; and, whether he will consider the desirability of establishing such telegraphic communication if possible before another winter?
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN MR. CHAMBERLAIN, in reply, said, his attention had been directed to the subject referred to by the hon. Member, and as to which communications had for some time been going on between the Board of Trade and the Trinity House. He was informed that the Trinity House hoped to be able to make a satisfactory Report on the subject in a short time.

  ARMY ORGANIZATION—THE NEW ROYAL WARRANT—MAJORS.
  MAJOR-GENERAL BURNABYasked the Secretary of State for War, If existing Colonels who were Majors before the 1st of October 1877, and who were eligible for promotion to Major General until the age of fifty-eight, but who under paragraph 77 (2) of the New Royal Warrant, are rendered ineligible for such promotion, and who furthermore thereby will be compulsorily retired at the age of fifty-five will be allowed "to serve and be eligible for promotion until the 1st of July 1885, up to the age of fifty-nine years, and afterwards up to the age of fifty-eight years," as in the case of Colonels who were Lieutenant Colonels before the 1st of October 1877; and, if this relaxation is not granted to all such Majors, whether it will be granted to Colonel Marter of the First or King's Dragoon Guards, who, being a Major, captured King Cetshwayo, and to any other Officers, who, being Majors before the 1st of October 1877, were also promoted for distinguished service in the field?
  MR. CHILDERS: No, Sir; I have no intention to relax the rule under which Colonels who were Majors only before October, 1877, will retire at the fixed age of Colonels' retirement—that is to say, at 55. Nor can I see any grounds for a special exception in Colonel Marter's favour. He is apparently only 48 years of age.

  ARMY REGULATION ACT, 1871—PURCHASE OFFICERS.
  MAJOR-GENERAL BURNABYasked the Secretary of State for War, If "purchase" officers who wish to retire from the Army and realize that value of their Commissions guaranteed by the State,

  557
  are (although the purchase system is abolished whereby promotion to a death vacancy has ceased to be a financial benefit to those in whose favour it existed) required to furnish a medical certificate of good health; failing which they are required to pass a quarantine of six weeks, in order that the State may benefit by not having to pay them should they die within that period; and, if such is the case, whether this procedure may at once cease, and all moneys derived thereby since the abolition of purchase may be paid to the executors of any officer who, having made application to retire, may not have survived the six weeks' quarantine in question?
  MR. CHILDERS: This is a matter entirely beyond my control. It is governed by the 3rd section of the Army Regulation Act, 1871, and no change in the rule could be made without an Amendment to the Act, which I see no reason to propose.

  CHINA—THE OPIUM TRAFFIC.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSONasked the Secretary of State for India, Whether his attention has been called to a letter from the Chinese Grand Secretary Li, in the "Times" of July 29th, stating—
  "That the single aim of his Government in taxing opium is to repress the traffic. Never the desire to gain revenue from such a source;"
  and, whether the Indian Government is taking any steps thoroughly to review our position with regard to the opium revenue, according to the promise of the Noble Lord the Secretary of State for India?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I have seen the letter referred to from the Chinese Grand Secretary Li in the papers, and I must say that a great many statements and arguments contained in that letter appear to me to be open to very great question. It is impossible for me to reply to those statements in the course of an answer to a Question, and I am sure that my hon. Friend would not wish me to do so. In reply to the latter part of the Question, I have to state that a despatch has been sent to the Government of India on the subject of the opium revenue, which I think contains all the instructions necessary in support of the statement which I made during the course of a debate here two months ago.

  IRELAND—THE ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY—ALLEGED BREACH OF THE PEACE BY A SUB-INSPECTOR.
  MR. FINIGANasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is a fact that Mr. Young, Sub-Inspector of Constabulary, Raphoe, County Donegal, who has recently been placed in charge of an extra Constabulary force in Gweedore, in the same county, on 28th June, when driving through the townland of Meenanilla, in company with Mr. Ramsay, Solicitor, Letterkenny, and Mr. Robinson, Head Bailiff to Captain Hill, provoked a breach of the peace by calling on Mrs. Gallagher to come out of her house and stab him with a grape; and, if so, whether he approves of such conduct by an officer of the Constabulary?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER,in reply, said, he understood Mr. Young and some men were passing the house of Mr. Gallagher with a prisoner. A crowd collected on the road to the barracks, and Mrs. Gallagher shouted some words in Irish, and took up a grape, an instrument used in potato digging. Her husband disarmed her. On a subsequent occasion the Sub-Inspector, with some men, passed the cottage, but neither saw nor heard anything of the woman.

  LAW AND POLICE (IRELAND)— POISONED EGGS.
  MR. FINIGANasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been directed to the fact that eggs poisoned with strychnine have been placed, for the preservation of game, in a wood, the property of Mr. Richard Longfield, Boherbee, County Cork, within three hundred yards of the houses of some of his tenants; whether the wood, containing a well from which these people are supplied with water, may be entered by several open gaps; whether four children belonging to one of Mr. Long field's tenants, a widow, on finding one of those poisoned eggs, ate it, and were instantly seized by an attack of cramps and vomiting; whether three of them were dangerously ill for many days, and the fourth for many weeks; whether the police authorities, as well as the dispensary doctor of the district, are not acquainted with this case; and, whether

  559
  the statutable notice required was given in this case?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER,in reply, said, that he found, on inquiry, that the statements contained in the Question of the hon. Member were true. Poisoned eggs for the preservation of game were placed within 300 yards of the houses of some of the tenants of the estate; and four children who, on finding one of the eggs, ate it, were seized with cramp and vomiting. He was glad to say, however, they had recovered. Mr. Longfield had caused every attention to be paid to the children, had paid the doctor's fees, and sent money to the parents. It appeared that notices of the eggs were posted in the wood, but were not sent to the Constabulary until after the accident. He had no doubt that what had occurred would be a great lesson to Mr. Long-field and to other persons; and he hoped and believed that such a thing would not occur again.

  ARMY (AUXILIARY FORCES)—MILITIA ADJUTANTS.
  MR. ROUNDasked the Secretary of State for "War, Whether he proposes that Adjutants of Militia who attain the rank of Major should have precedence over Majors of Militia Regiments?
  MR. CHILDERS: NO, Sir; not for regimental purposes.

  ARMY ORGANIZATION—THE NEW ROYAL WARRANT—PURCHASE CAPTAINS.
  MR. MOLLOYasked the Secretary of State for War, If it is obligatory upon the Purchase Captains to accept promotion to the newly-created majorities under the provisions of the recent Royal Warrant; or, can they elect to serve on until compelled to retire, under the Age Clause, at forty-two?
  MR. CHILDERS: In reply to the hon. Member, I have to state that, in making the promotions on the 1st of July last, when the Warrant of the 25th of June came into operation, we gave captains who had reached the reduced age at which retirement was compulsory, and who were also eligible and recommended for promotion, the choice between promotion and compulsory retirement. But I see no reason for extending that option to officers who have not reached the age for compulsory retirement.

  PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS—SUSPENSION OF CORRUPT BOROUGHS.
  MR. T. COLLINSasked Mr. Attorney General, Whether it is his intention to bring in a Bill to suspend until the next Session of Parliament Writs for the cities of Canterbury, Chester, Gloucester, and Oxford, and for the boroughs of Boston, Macclesfield, and Sandwich?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES),in reply, said, it was his intention to ask leave to bring in a Bill such as that referred to in the Question of the hon. Member that evening.

ORDERS OF THE BAY.

  SUPPLY.—COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

  KNARESBOROUGH COMMISSION.

    RESOLUTION.
    MR. T. COLLINSrose to call attention to the following statements in the Report of the Royal Commissioners appointed to inquire into alleged Corrupt Practices in the Borough of Knares-borough:—
    "We find that corrupt practices did not extensively prevail at the election of 1874. We find that corrupt practices did not extensively prevail at the election of 1880. We cannot close our Report, having regard to the conclusions we have arrived at, without expressing our regret that the expense of this inquiry should, under the 31st and 32nd Vic. c. 125, s. 15, fall on the ratepayers of the borough of Knaresborough;"
    and to move—
    "That, in the opinion of this House, having regard to statements of the Royal Commissioners, it is not in accordance with justice nor with the policy of the Act of 31 and 32 Vic. c. 125, that the cost of this inquiry should he borne by the ratepayers of the borough of Knaresborough."
    The hon. Gentleman said, he had no desire to delay the taking of Supply, and would not have brought the subject forward on the Motion for going into Supply if it were open to him to do so on another occasion. What the ratepayers of Knaresborough complained of was that their borough being pure—as boroughs went—had been saddled with a rate of some 4s. in the pound. He

    561
    thought this was a case in which the old maxim, De minimis non curat lex, would have applied; and if the rate had been not more than 6d. in the pound he should not have brought forward his complaint, although the principle was the same. Election Commissions dated back as far as 1850, when, under the Premiership of Lord John Russell, a Commission was appointed by Act of Parliament to inquire as to the proceedings at an election for St. Alban's. Two years later another Act was passed which practically perpetuated and made general the St. Alban's Act, and by that Act the cost of Commissions was defrayed from the taxes of the country. This state of things went on until 1867, when a Committee, comprising many of the experts in matters of electoral law, then sitting in Parliament, sat; and, on the Motion of Mr. Whitbread in that Committee, it was determined that in cases where corrupt practices had extensively prevailed the expenses incurred in holding the inquiries should be paid out of the county or borough rates of the localities. This seemed to him to be a very fair proposal; but he would remind the House that in the following year the scope of the Motion of Mr. Whitbread was enlarged, and provision was made that payment of the cost of inquiries should be laid upon the rates in all cases where the Judges reported that, in their opinion, this should be done. He could not but think that, in comparison with the other places in which Commissions had sat, Knaresborough was very badly treated. The object of the Legislature had been the prevention of corrupt practices, and they had refused to allow a Commission to be issued, where the Judge had reported that corrupt practices had not extensively prevailed, merely because a Member had been unseated. It was quite true that in this instance the Judge had reported that he believed that corrupt practices had extensively prevailed; but the inquiry had shown that that belief was not well founded. In such circumstances, it was contrary to the spirit, if not to the letter, of the Act that the borough should be called upon to pay a rate of 4s. in the pound in establishing its virtue. He might quote many cases in which the Government had awarded compensation where they were satisfied a mis-
    562
    carriage of justice had taken place. The case of Habron might be mentioned, as well as that of Barber. The issuing of the Commission was an act of inadvertence. The intention of the Act was never to fine the electors for merely isolated cases of corruption, such as was the case at Knaresborough, and therefore it no more fell within the spirit of the Act than the cases of Gravesend or Evesham, where the Members were unseated. He knew that at this period of the Session he was quite in the hands of the Government. It was impossible, without their assistance, to make any headway. He regretted, however, that the Prime Minister was not in his place, that he might make his appeal to him on the subject. He knew that, technically, he had no defence on the question of statutory liability; but he must say that the constituency had suffered from an accident, and this being a wrong created by an Act of Parliament, it was the business of Parliament to find a remedy.
    Amendment proposed,
    To leave out from the the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "in the opinion of this House, having regard to statements of the Royal Commissioners, it is not in accordance with justice nor with the policy of the Act of 31 and 32 Vic. c. 125, that the cost of this inquiry should he home hy the ratepayers of the borough of Knaresborough,"—(Mr. Thomas Collins,)
    —instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he was sure the House must feel that the hon. and learned Member had very fairly stated the case to the House, and that he was fully entitled to bring the exceptional circumstances under the consideration of the House. He also felt that there was a substantial grievance to bring forward; but, at the same time, it was impossible to give way to his Motion. The substantial Motion of the hon. and learned Member was that the expenses of this Commission should be borne out of the Imperial taxation of the country. He did not suggest any other means by which it could be met. In the first place, that could not be done without an Act of Parliament. Therefore, he asked the House to agree to a declaration, which must, of necessity, be fol-

    563
    lowed by an Act of Parliament, to relieve the ratepayers of Knaresborough from the cost of this inquiry. He was unable to see that either the letter or the spirit of the Act had been defeated. It must have been anticipated by those who framed the Act that Judges not being infallible might make Reports either upon evidence which, upon further inquiry, proved not to be well founded, or upon error. The hon. and learned Gentleman did not himself blame the Judges, and he might mention that this was the first case in which the result had been contrary to their Report. The case had often occurred of prisoners found guilty 'of crime, and afterwards proved to be innocent, but except in very rare cases the Crown did not compensate them, or even repay the expenses to which they might have been put in their defence; and in those exceptional cases in which compensation had been awarded it had been the subject of severe criticism. If the position of the hon. and learned Gentleman was correct, it would be necessary for the State to pay the expenses of any person who, on appeal to a higher Court, succeeded in having the judgment of the lower Court reversed. He quite agreed that the evidence did not support the Report of the Judges; but while he regretted that Knaresborough should have to bear this expense, he could not see how, so long as the law was as it was, any compensation could be made. The only satisfaction to the people was that they had got one compensation—they had proved their right to elect a Member, and they had secured the able services of his hon. and learned Friend.
    MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, it was admitted that the Judges were mistaken, and he felt the force of the Attorney General's argument that it was not competent for the Government to accede to the Motion in face of the Act of Parliament; but it was manifest that the law required improvement. He did not expect the law to be infallible; but in adopting a system of secret voting they had raised a great obstacle to inquiries into electoral corruption, and to judge from what he had read they would convert that which in most cases was corruption by a few into a wholesale system of corruption. It was clearly the duty of the Attorney General to bring this question forward again; and he could
    564
    only add that his hon. and learned Friend had clearly done his duty in bringing the facts connected with the constituency he represented before the attention of the House.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

  POOR LAW (IRELAND)—LIMERICK AND BELFAST WORKHOUSES.

    OBSERVATIONS.
    MR. A. MOORErose to call attention to the administration of the Irish Poor Law, more particularly in connection with Belfast workhouse. He reminded the House that he had called attention to the same subject last year, and had given considerable time to the matter; and as the result of his Motion an inquiry had been ordered, but that inquiry had been perfectly useless owing to the manner in which it was conducted. Several independent witnesses were silenced, and one, a Roman Catholic chaplain, who was dismissed for saying that the house was a nest of drunkenness, immorality, and vice was never called at all. He should have thought the proper way to conduct an investigation of that sort would have been to send down to the spot a perfectly independent person to act as Commissioner; but instead of that two Poor Law Inspectors were appointed, who had only recently been on the spot making inquiries, and these persons had exonerated the house from the charges made against it. He had not a word to say against Dr. Mackay, one of the Inspectors referred to, and he must say when the Chief Secretary's attention was called to the matter he at once did his best; but what he did complain of was that the Local Government Board had endeavoured, by every means in its power, to thwart and crush and defeat the inquiry. When he made the original statement he made a number of assertions, giving figures and facts, and no attempt was made by the officials to find out if those figures were correct or not. His statement was reported in The Freeman's Journal; but some of his facts and figures were not given, although he was bound to say that the reports in The Freeman were wonderfully full and accurate considering that they had all to be telegraphed. He had since been supported in his complaint by several of the Guardians of the Union, and had received the warm thanks of a

    565
    number of the ratepayers. It appeared to be generally admitted that the state of this workhouse was extremely unsatisfactory, and yet the inquiry was allowed to prove abortive. In reference to the specific charges which he had made, the charge of immorality was fully borne out by the facts which had been placed in his hands. There were cases of women who had been in and out of the house 60 or 70 times, and who were simply living upon the ratepayers, whilst they led abandoned lives. In other cases women who remained in the house became mothers under circumstances which showed that immorality prevailed in the workhouse. Touching those serious charges hardly a question was asked at the inquiry except one or two questions put to the officials, who could not be expected to give disinterested evidence. On the 14th of April, 1879, the matron complained that paupers were going about the house in possession of pass keys, and doing what they pleased; but not the slightest heed was paid to that charge at the inquiry. The matron was examined, but the question was not even put to her. Then it was alleged that there was a great deal of drunkenness in the house, and the way in which that was accomplished was that, by a combination, property of the Union was sold and disposed of in various ways—in this case surreptitiously introduced into the house. One of the magistrates at Belfast stated that in 1878 no less than 99 cases of drunkenness were brought before him from the workhouse. Yet there was not the slightest cross-examination on this point at the inquiry, nor any attempt made to account for and explain how that drunkenness took place. Another charge was that the old men in the house were put in the same rooms with young, idle, and evil-disposed vagabonds, who treated them with violence, and robbed them of the few coins that they brought into the house. On many occasions these old men had been subjected to the greatest insolence; but no such case was even alluded to at the inquiry. Of course, he knew that anyone would be resisted by the officials who tried to reform any department, and that was what had been done on the present occasion. The officials had endeavoured to cloak over the misdeeds at the workhouse and the remissness of the chief authorities
    566
    in Dublin. He hoped that public opinion would rise to the occasion, and that the Chief Secretary would give him some hope that sooner or later, when weightier matters had been disposed of, he would try to reform Irish Poor Law administration. It was quite hopeless to expect any improvement as long as all investigation was to be hushed up and to be set aside. As his Motion was generally directed against the Irish Local Government Board and the administration of workhouses, he would just give another instance of the policy of the Board. Owing, perhaps, to the attention which he had had the honour of exciting with regard to workhouse management, the Limerick Guardians took the matter up very warmly and determined to improve the condition of the children in their workhouse, and they spent a large sum of money in building a new school and decided to place the religious instruction of the children under the supervision of a number of ladies. The Local Government Board were perfectly aware of what was intended from the outset, and gave no sign of interfering with the plans of the Guardians. They waited, in fact, until great expense had been incurred, and then they came down with their obstructive policy and put their foot upon the introduction of these ladies to take care of the school. They put forward the reason that the proposed arrangement would interfere with the religious liberty of the Protestant children in the school. As a matter of fact during three years there was only one Protestant child in the whole school; and, therefore, that objection of the Board was simply frivolous. What would have been said if the managers of a Protestant school had been deprived of these advantages simply because one Catholic child might be affected? The fact was that it was not an honest excuse, but mere hypocrisy on the part of the Local Government Board, who professed to be so anxious with regard to the religious sentiments of a solitary infant in a Roman Catholic school, whilst in other parts of the country where Catholic children were in the majority Protestant teachers were imposed upon them without compunction. He had only to say that there was no Minister before whom he would sooner have the question brought than the Chief

    567
    Secretary, for he believed that Gentleman was one of the few men who would give his time and attention to so small a matter which was consistent with his humane and kindly career. He trusted before the right hon. Gentleman left his present post, and accepted some other Department, that he would take some decided steps with regard to the subject at issue, and would endeavour to remedy the evils complained of.
    MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he thought the hon. Member had rather under-estimated the difficulties which the Local Government Board had to deal with in making the inquiry referred to. He did not understand that the line taken by the Local Government Board was that they would not allow the children in Limerick Institution to be taught by Sisters of Mercy. What was objected to, as he understood it, was that the Sisters of Mercy should be appointed by an extraneous authority, and the matter had since been settled on the basis that the Sisters of Mercy should be appointed by the Board of Guardians, subject to the veto of the Local Government Board. That was acknowledged by almost everybody to be fair; and, therefore, he did not think the hon. Member was justified in blaming the Local Government Board. With regard to the workhouses, if the hon. Member meant to have brought the subject forward he ought to have put the matter on the Notice Paper, and then he (Mr. W. E. Forster) would have been aware of the intention, and would have been able to look into the subject. Instead of that what appeared on the Notice Paper was simply that the hon. Member intended to call attention to the administration of the Irish Poor Law. With regard to the inquiry referred to, he must say that he had read the Report which was drawn up on the subject, and he must say he thought it was drawn up very fairly, and that the inquiry appeared to have been conducted in a proper manner. The Local Government Board sent down two most able men—Mr. Robinson and Dr. Mackay—and full notice was given of the inquiry. Therefore, those who sympathized with the hon. Member ought surely to have come before the Commission, and given evidence in support of his case. All he could say with regard to the statements made by the hon. Gentleman was that he hoped they would be
    568
    fully reported somewhere, as some of them were much stronger than he had seen elsewhere, and he thought having been made in that public way they did require to be again considered. But when the hon. Member said that the Local Government Board ought to have sent down perfectly independent persons to make inquiry, he forgot that the case was one in which the action of the persons connected with the Local Government Board was complained of; and if the Board was worth anything at all it should be able to inquire into the fitness of the persons connected with it. He did not find that in Belfast there was any strong opinion in regard to the officials referred to, nor did he find that the hon. Member's opinions were strongly sympathized with in Belfast itself. With regard to sending down Inspectors to make the inquiry, it must not be forgotten that those persons under the statute had power to take evidence on oath, which other persons had not; and he must say, in justice to Mr. Robinson, that it would be impossible to find a gentleman more thoroughly impartial than he was, for he had no bias one way or other. On looking at the evidence he found Mr. Smith, the chaplain, stated that he was in and out of the workhouse daily, and he observed no improper conduct, or immoral or irregular association. It appeared that the evidence quite justified the finding of the Inspectors, who by no means wished to whitewash the Guardians, or anything like it. They also expressed their dissatisfaction with the relieving officer. After all it was a sort of trial, and it often occurred that when there had been a trial one side was not satisfied with the verdict.
    MR. BIGGARsaid, he thought in such a case it would be very difficult for a Commission to get at the facts of the case, as they would not know what question to ask, and how they were to find out what it was desirable to know. Knowing something of these matters, he was clearly of opinion that a great deal of mischief arose in such cases from the action of the ex officio Guardians. He contended that the ratepayers should select persons to represent them, while ex officio Guardians should not be allowed on any Board. In his own county (Cavan) he remembered a case where a coal contractor was convicted of a gross fraud in connection with his dealings with the

    569
    workhouse. An inquiry was ordered; but the ex officio Guardians taking his part prevented his punishment. He thought such proceedings ought to be put a stop to.
    Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.

  SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.
  SUPPLY—considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)

  CLASS II.—SALARIES AND EXPENSES OF CIVIL DEPARTMENTS.
  (1.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £330,173, 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 1882, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Local Government Board, including various Grants in Aid of Local Taxation."
  MR. COCHRAN-PATRICKsaid, he rose to move the reduction of this Vote by £20,000, part of the sum of £139,500 which was allowed for medical relief grants in England. He was sensible that the course he was taking might, at that period of the Session, be regarded as very inconvenient and unsatisfactory; but, at the same time, it was the only way in which he could give public expression to the very widespread feeling in Scotland that in this matter of grants in aid of medical relief, England and Scotland were placed in an unfair and unequal position. That matter had been so often under the consideration of Parliament that it would not be necessary for him to enter into details; but he asked the attention of the Committee for a few minutes while he recalled the leading circumstances of the case, and the principles on which he ventured to think these grants ought to be regulated. The facts of the case were few, and the principles were simple. When in, or immediately preceding, the year 1845 the attention of Parliament and the country was directed to the question of the Poor Law, nothing attracted so much public sympathy as the question of medical relief. The state of matters then brought to light—the deplorable condition of the poor with regard to medical relief—was almost inconceivable at the present day,
  570
  and constituted a disgrace alike to civilization and humanity. Without entering into particulars with regard to that point, which would be found in the Report of the Commission that sat at the time he had referred to, it would be enough for him to say that in 1848 the sum of £85,000 appeared for the first time in the Estimates as a grant in aid of medical relief to the poor. Of that sum, £75,000 was allocated to England and Wales, and £10,000 to Scotland; and at the time the grant was made it was understood that the latter represented one-fourth part of the total sum necessary to put the grant in a satisfactory position. But during the 33 years which had elapsed, although the amount allocated to England and Wales had risen to the alarming sum indicated in the Vote before the Committee, the amount allocated to Scotland remained the same—namely, £10,000. Now, he pointed out that if the principle of a fixed sum being given to Scotland was a right one, the same principle ought to be applied to England and Wales. On the other hand, if the principle applied to the latter of increasing the grants in accordance with local circumstances and taxation were a right one, then he failed to see any reason why it should not be applied to Scotland. He did not ask that the amount granted to England and Wales should be the same as that granted to Scotland, but that these grants should stand in reasonable and proper proportion to each other. There were several bases which might be taken with a view to adjusting that proportion. First, there was the basis of population. And it would be seen by a comparison of the population of England and Wales with that of Scotland, either that the grant to the former ought to be reduced by a sum larger than that by which he was now moving the reduction of the Vote, or that the grant to Scotland ought to be materially increased. Secondly, there was the basis of property and profits. But with regard to that he would remind the Committee that a large portion of the profits returned under the head of England and Wales really belonged to Scotland, because it was a fact that much of these profits belonged to businesses founded and managed with Scotch capital, the proprietors of which preferred to make their returns in London, Manchester, and other large cities.

  571
  However, it would be seen that, taking profits as a basis for the proportion, the same result came out. Either the grant to England and Wales ought to be reduced, or that to Scotland increased. Again, the sum paid by the two countries respectively into the Imperial Exchequer might be taken as a basis of proportion; and that view had been forcibly urged on the Committee already upon a former occasion by the late Member for the City of Edinburgh (Mr. D. M'Laren), who, for his services in this and other matters, deserved the thanks of all interested in the subject. Mr. D. M'Laren laid down that, according to the Returns of 1877, the amounts actually paid into the Imperial Exchequer for England and Scotland respectively were to each other somewhere in the proportion of £51,000,000 to £7,750,000; and although since the year 1877 there may have been some changes, the proportion remained substantially unaltered. In the last place it was possible to fix the proportion of the grants on the basis of the amounts locally raised for medical relief; and here the result came out even better than in the other cases, because in Scotland the total amount raised by local grants for medical relief was four times as much as was received from the Imperial Exchequer. Therefore, he submitted that whichever of these bases was taken, a sum would be brought out which ought to be deducted from the grant to England and Wales, or paid in the case of Scotland, considerably greater than that by which he was moving the reduction of this Vote. The House had had this claim for equalization so frequently before it that he and his hon. Friends were prepared for the arguments that would probably be urged against it. One of these had commonly been, that, admitting that this medical relief grant to Scotland was unfair and unjust, other grants in aid of local matters were in excess of what they ought to be. In respect of lunatics, for instance, Scotland received a larger sum than was strictly proportionate; but to this he demurred.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, he must point out to the hon. Member that this was purely an English Vote, and that only by way of illustration could the hon. Member refer to the Scotch question.
  MR. COCHRAN-PATRICKsubmitted, of course, to the ruling of the
  572
  Chairman. He was merely about to urge that the argument he had referred to might be an excellent one for some purposes, but that it was by no means applicable to the case of medical relief. Then another argument was that the circumstances and conditions which existed in England were different from those in other parts of the Empire. But he was bound to point out that, with respect to the proportion of the English grant, it was regulated by the proportion paid by the locality. That sum in England was indicated by the Vote; but in Scotland it was four times in excess of it, and Scotland, therefore, stood in that respect in a better position. Now, while he was not prepared to say of the system of grants in aid that it was the best or most satisfactory that could be devised, still it was the system that was in operation at the present moment, and until the House and the country had before them the details of any future measure that might be brought forward, he thought he was entitled to ask that the same principle should be applied to both England and Scotland. He hoped that the reply of the Prime Minister would not be put into the ordinary official and stereotyped phrases which for the last 12 years had been so often heard in connection with this subject.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £310,173, 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 1882, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Local Government Board, including various Grants in Aid of Local Taxation."—(Mr. Cochran-Patrick.)
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, the hon. Member in his concluding remarks had referred specially to himself, and had made an appeal which he was perfectly justified in making. For these reasons it might be convenient that he should at once give the explanation which the hon. Member had solicited. He must accompany that explanation, in some degree, with an apology to the Representatives of Scotch constituencies for his having been unable, owing to what he would call the abnormal circumstances of the Session, to take any steps in the direction indicated. Had the circumstances of the Session been of a normal character, the Government would have had more to say, and more to propose, in this

  573
  matter than he could now suggest, as he had nothing to propose except the Votes as they stood before the Committee. It must be remembered that those Votes were prepared and agreed to by the Treasury at least seven months ago, when it was impossible for them to anticipate the state of things experienced during the Session. He did not wish to enter upon that subject, but was describing why they had been able to take no steps for the rectification of this particular anomaly. He would not follow the hon. Member through the details of his speech; but he might say that the subject was not new to the Government. A great number of Gentlemen representing Scotch counties and burghs took great interest in this matter, and had on former occasions raised and gone through the whole of the points connected with it. The Government certainly quite agreed that one of two things must be done. Either there must be some comprehensive measure which, while introducing a change in the method of granting subventions for local purposes, would absorb that and other questions in an extended plan; or, if that should not be the case, they must look to a plan of equalization, such as that suggested by the hon. Member. Of those two plans he would greatly prefer the former, because his impression was that it would be accompanied by very great public advantages, and by something of a decentralizing process, which would tend to an enlargement of local powers that would be exceedingly useful in all the Three Kingdoms, but in regard to which the people of Scotland, he might fairly say, were not, at any rate, behind those of any other portion of the United Kingdom in their capacity for administration. Any plan of that kind would probably be not only a fiscal plan, but it would have to be associated with measures for the complete establishment of representative local government throughout the country. However, he entirely agreed—and he came now to the more definite portion of the plan—that if they could not have the more general plans there must be equalization adaptable to this and some other particular Votes, but that adoption must be immediate. He meant that they must not again present the Votes in the shape in which they now were. To that proposition he quite agreed. He accepted much of what had
  574
  fallen from the hon. Member on this subject, that the anomalies were too considerable, and that public opinion had been too much drawn to them not to allow of their removing of a great deal of the substantial dissatisfaction which justifiably existed upon this subject. He did not venture to look with any confidence to the course of Business, or to the proposals which it might be the duty of the Government to make in the next Session of Parliament. That would be premature, and he did not think it would be wise for him to indulge in prophecies of a definite character; but, with the feelings the Government entertained, he would not abandon the hope that they would be able to approach this subject with the more comprehensive views to which he had referred; but should they not be able to approach it with those more comprehensive views it would be their duty no longer to postpone particular equalizations, but to make careful examination of these Votes, and to establish real and substantial equality in the treatment of the two countries North and South of the Border. That, he believed, was what the hon. Member expected of him; and it was with a certain amount of satisfaction to himself that the hon. Member and his Colleagues had, in his position as a Member representing a Scotch constituency, an additional pledge, if such were requisite, that he was in earnest in the engagement which he now made.
  MR. COCHRAN-PATRICKsaid, after the very satisfactory statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, he would ask leave to withdraw his Motion.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Original Question again proposed.
  MR. RYLANDSsaid, he thought the Committee must have listened with the greatest satisfaction to the remarks which had fallen from the Prime Minister, because while the hon. Gentleman opposite might have just and reasonable ground for complaint with regard to the grant in aid of medical relief for Scotland, English Members had also ground for complaint that the Vote before the Committee had increased enormously year by year. He hoped, after the statement of the Prime Minister, that hon. Members might, upon the lines

  575
  indicated by the right hon. Gentleman, look forward to the whole question of local subventions being dealt with.
  SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, he had for the last two years called the attention of the President of the Local Government Board to the subject of workhouse schools. There was no doubt that pauper children were not receiving the education which they ought to have under the present system, and he had always urged that they should be allowed to go to the schools in the district, instead of remaining in the workhouse schools. He was glad to hear that this would be done wherever it was practicable. Hon. Members knew very well that the present system tended to keep children as paupers, and to make them feel that they were paupers, while the true object was to encourage feelings of an opposite kind, and to teach them that they must hereafter support themselves. This matter was one which undoubtedly ought to engage the attention of the President of the Local Government Board; and he would take the opportunity afforded by the present Vote of asking the right hon. Gentleman whether any steps had been taken to secure accommodation for children outside the workhouse schools, and what arrangements had been made to enable them to attend the schools in their various districts and localities?
  MR. DILLWYNpointed out that there was a great increase in this Vote for the present year. The Committee were asked to vote £2,949 more than in the previous Estimates for salaries and wages, £100 more for a number of smaller items, £650 additional for a national vaccine establishment, £550 extra for incidental expenses, besides £2,300 additional for teachers in the Poor Law schools, and £4,300 for Poor Law medical officers. These items made up a total increase amounting to the very large sum of £10,556, concerning which he hoped that some explanations would be forthcoming. For his own part, he quite agreed with the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) in saying that he would rather see the people themselves manage their affairs than that they should be managed for them by central offices; and he would like to see the central departments act as courts of appeal, instead of, as was too often the case, courts of interference. For these
  576
  reasons he regarded the increased expenditure of this Department with jealousy, and trusted the right hon. Gentleman would be able to state the reason for the large addition to the Vote of last year.
  MR. J. G. TALBOTsaid, he should like to supplement the remarks of the hon. and gallant Baronet the Member for West Sussex (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) with reference to workhouse schools. He thought his hon. and gallant Friend was justified in saying that this was a matter which ought to engage the attention of the Committee and the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board. But he wished also to say a word or two upon a matter cognate with that to which the hon. and gallant Baronet had referred. Something had been done in recent years in the way of boarding out pauper children. That was undoubtedly a most interesting experiment; but it was also one which required to be worked with great care and supervision. The large pauper establishments for the education of children in London, and which, he supposed, also existed in the large Provincial towns, were, he thought, necessary evils. They were certainly a step in advance of the workhouse schools referred to by the hon. and gallant Baronet; but, at the same time, he did not think they were as entirely free from the pauper taint as they ought to be. In his view, the better system would be to bring up the children entirely out of the atmosphere of pauperism. The boarding-out system he had alluded to was one that ought to be closely watched, in order that it might not degenerate into a system of farming out, which, as the Committee were well aware, was open to great abuses. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would state how far that system had been applied, and whether he could see his way to extend it in the urban and rural districts of the country?
  MR. RAMSAYsaid, he had on several occasions drawn attention in Committee of Supply to the subject adverted to by his hon. and gallant Friend opposite (Sir Walter B. Barttelot). He had no wish to detain the Committee by discussing the merits of the case, but would remark that the grounds on which the hon. and gallant Gentleman had founded his reasons for placing pauper children

  577
  in other than workhouse schools were sufficient to satisfy the Committee that the present system ought to be brought to an end. He trusted that an effort would be made to bring about a proper system of education for pauper children, and that the right hon. Gentleman would explain whether any progress had been made in that direction or not. This subject had been talked about for many years past; but nothing had been done in the way of carrying out the views of those who felt that the education of pauper children should not be conducted in establishments specially provided for them, where they became a sort of caste, but in the ordinary elementary schools, where they would learn to depend upon their own exertions for support, and not look to the workhouse as their home.
  MR. T. COLLINSsaid, it was only to be expected that there should be an increase in these grants, seeing that, during the last decade, the population of the country had increased by 4,000,000. He believed everyone would agree that, if possible, the children of paupers should be educated in the nearest elementary schools.
  MR. DODSONsaid, in reply to the hon. and gallant Baronet opposite (Sir Walter B. Barttelot), that it was the policy of the Local Government Board to encourage the transfer of pauper children from workhouse schools to ordinary elementary schools. The number of those transferred in this way was steadily increasing, and he might add that the standards were now assimilated in workhouse schools to those of the schools under the Privy Council; while the number of children boarded out under the system referred to by the hon. Member for Oxford University (Mr. J. G. Talbot) was between 700 and 800. He quite agreed with the hon. Member, and the authorities were quite alive to the fact, that the system of boarding out required that great care should be exercised to prevent its degenerating into one of farming. His hon. Friend the Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn) had drawn attention to the increase of the Vote; and with regard to that, he was afraid he must say that, unless and until the grant in aid was taken in hand, when possibly some reduction might be effected, the increase would continue. The principal heads of increase were those of wages and salaries
  578
  in connection with Poor Law schools and infirmaries. The former would be accounted for by the fact that the teachers were of a higher class than formerly, with higher certificates, and were entitled to higher pay in consequence. Precisely the same reasons operated in the case of the Vote for Medical Officers, who were, year by year, becoming men of a higher class, and, therefore, entitled to increased pay. To a certain extent, the growth of the Vote was owing, as the hon. Member for Knaresborough (Mr. T. Collins) had observed, to the growth of the population.
  MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYsaid, the Vote included a sum of £350 for analysis of water. He thought that was one of the most important subjects that could come before the Local Government Board. It was notorious that the water supply in many parts of London was extremely bad, and only recently there was an apprehension that the gravest consequences would result from its actually "giving out," to adopt an American phrase. There was a very good letter in the newspapers the other day upon that very point, in which it was suggested that the only remedy was to provide a continuous supply. Where there was a large, overcrowded population, there was always a chance of neglect, and the present system of providing only an intermittent supply worked very badly, and might, in cases of extreme drought, produce highly injurious consequences. The want in London of a continuous supply was a very serious one. Such a supply was given in a good many Northern towns of the Kingdom, and was found to work with great satisfaction; and he certainly failed to see why a supply of the same kind should not be provided in London. Of course, it would involve additional expense; but in a city like London that ought not to be a matter of consideration. He believed that the Water Scheme of the late Government included a provision for a continuous supply; and he hoped, now that they were under a Liberal Government, that there would be no occasion to regret that the policy of the late Government had not been carried out. He trusted to hear from the President of the Local Government Board that the question was seriously under the consideration of the Government, and that they were endeavouring

  579
  to provide some means for securing a better, a more regular, and in every way a more satisfactory, supply of water for the inhabitants of London.
  MR. DODSON: The hon. Gentleman has called attention to this item, which has reference solely to the supply of water for the Metropolis. The Vote is for a monthly analysis of the water supplied by various Companies in different districts of the Metropolis. These analyses are published monthly, and are very valuable, affording, not only information to the householders who consume the water, but also to the different Companies which supply it. It is highly desirable that both should be regularly informed of the nature and condition of the water supply. With regard to the intentions of Her Majesty's Government as to legislation on the subject, I would remind the hon. Gentleman of what I said the other night in answer to a question that was put to me. A Bill on this subject was introduced by the late Government, and it was only interrupted by the Dissolution of Parliament. That Bill was in the hands of the Home Office of the late Government; and my right hon. Friend the present Home Secretary, when he took Office, found the subject was being dealt with there. Accordingly, it was taken up by him last Session, and he had a Committee to inquire into the subject. The necessary Notices were given in the Autumn for the introduction of a Bill dealing with the establishment of a Water Trust for the Metropolis in the present Session; but a Bill of that kind necessarily touches very large pecuniary interests, and the Government felt that it was undesirable to introduce the Bill unless they saw a reasonable certainty of being able to carry it through. The prospect of Business this Session, I regret to say, has been such that they have not felt themselves justified in the circumstances in presenting that Bill to the House; but I can assure the hon. Member that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has not lost sight of the subject.
  MR. DUCKHAMsaid, he rose to submit the Motion which stood in his name in regard to Vote 16—namely, to move that the Inspector's salary, and the travelling, personal, and incidental expenses connected with highways in South Wales, amounting to £844, should be disallowed. The Committee would re-
  580
  member that last year he took exception to this Vote. He felt that it was unjust to the taxpayers of England that they should have to pay for the inspection of roads in South Wales, whilst the ratepayers throughout the Kingdom in every other part had to pay for the inspection themselves. There might be some explanation required to show why this anomalous state of things existed. It would be in the recollection of all the old Members of the House that some 40 years ago there was a very great disturbance in South Wales in consequence of the closeness of the different toll-gates on the turnpike roads. That dissatisfaction resulted in the destruction of the gates in different parts of the Principality. The Government then appointed a Commission to inquire into the whole circumstances of the case. That Commission reported in favour of many of the gates being removed, also in favour of no gates being allowed within less than seven miles of each other, and recommended that a Superintendent of Roads should be appointed by the Government, and that the sum of £225,000 be advanced from the National Exchequer to pay off the mortgages upon these turnpike trusts. That sum of £225,000 was to be repaid at the rate of £5 5s. per cent, the repayment to extend over a period of 30 years. Sir James Graham, who was then Secretary of State for the Home Department, recommended the adoption of the Report of the Commission, and the result was that an Act of Parliament was passed appointing a Superintendent of Roads. The money was advanced, and, to secure its repayment and the proper maintenance of the roads, the Exchequer had to pay the annual expenses of their inspection. But the money had now been paid off for upwards of five years. On the 9th of March, 1876, the final balance of the debt due to the Public Works Loan Commissioners was reported to be paid at once. Therefore, it appeared to him that, the money having been refunded, there was no necessity for the continuance of an Inspector at the expense of the National Exchequer. If such an Inspector was to be continued in South Wales, he thought the ratepayers of England and of North Wales had a right to complain, or to require that the Inspectors of their roads should be appointed by the Go-

  581
  vernment and paid for by the National Exchequer. Either one course or the other should be taken; and, therefore, he begged to move that the allowance of £844 for the inspection of the South Wales roads be discontinued, and that the Vote be reduced by the sum of £844, that being the amount at present paid to the Inspector of Roads.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I must point out to the hon. Member that the Question having been put from the Chair to reduce the whole Vote by a certain sum, it is not competent now to move the reduction of the Vote by any particular item.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked if it was not competent to move that the Vote be reduced by the sum of £844?
  THE CHAIRMAN: It is perfectly competent for any hon. Member to make a Motion to that effect, but not to move that the Vote be reduced by a specific item.
  MR. DUCKHAMsaid, that, under these circumstances, he would move the reduction of the Vote by that particular sum.
  THE CHAIRMAN: By what amount?
  MR. DUCKHAM: By the sum of £844.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £329,329, 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 1882, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Local Government Board, including various Grants in aid of Local Taxation."—(Mr. Duckham.)
  MR. PUGHsaid, the South Wales Turnpike Act provided that the Superintendent should be appointed and paid by the Secretary of State, with power to remove him and appoint another in his stead, if necessary. The further provision that the Act should expire at the time the money was paid off was not made. He thought that his hon. Friend the Member for Herefordshire (Mr. Duckham) was in error as to the date on which the money was paid off. The whole, he thought, had not been paid off as long as five years ago; but he believed it was paid off now. Perhaps the grant might be wholly indefensible in principle; but, looking at the circumstances as they stood, he thought he should be able to show the Committee that there were good reasons for not
  582
  withdrawing the grant at the present moment, even if they had power to do so under the terms of the Act of Parliament, which he doubted. He understood that the Government were coming forward next Session with a Bill which was to make a substantial contribution, in one way or another, towards the expenses of main roads. Whether that contribution would be made in the shape of giving up a certain portion of the assessed taxes, or in what other way, he was not able to say; but he gathered from what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board, and also from the Prime Minister, that there were good grounds for expecting a measure of that kind next Session. If that were so, it was not improbable that Superintendents or Inspectors employed by the Government would be required in order to see that the roads were kept in proper order. What had occurred in regard to the county which the hon. Member (Mr. Duckham) represented (Herefordshire) would prove his case. The roads there, formerly maintained as turnpike roads, had been made over to the different local authorities, and the various districts were now required to support their own roads; and in consequence of that they found it necessary to employ someone to superintend and inspect the main roads, in a similar manner to the officer who, in this case, was paid by the Government. The only difference was that in the case of South Wales the inspection of the roads was paid for by the Government, whilst in Herefordshire it was paid for by the local authorities themselves. No doubt, that appeared a hard case; but, looking at the fact that the whole question must necessarily form the subject of legislation next year, he thought the best course would be to leave the matter alone at present. He might remind the Committee that in the early part of the Session he had a Motion on the Paper, asking for an inquiry into the management of all the roads in South Wales—highways as well as turnpike roads. He had no doubt that inquiry was urgently needed. He believed every hon. Member would agree with him that the Highway Act at present in force in England was most unsatisfactory. There was a great deal to be said both for the South Wales Turnpike Act and also for

  583
  the South Wales Highway Act; and if an inquiry were made into the working of these Acts it would be of assistance to the Local Government Board with a view to legislation next Session in regard to England. Such an inquiry should be not only undertaken, but should be complete; and he believed it would be found that a great deal of injustice was produced in consequence of the existence, at the present moment, of a kind of dual management. For instance, they had a turnpike road running one way, and a highway road running alongside of it, or branching off from it. The turnpike road had one set of clerks and trustees, and the highway road had another set of officers altogether. In the interest of South Wales and the country at large he hoped the President of the Local Government Board would be able to say that the Government proposed to initiate an inquiry into the working of these Acts during the coming Recess.
  SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, he thought that the hon. Member for Herefordshire (Mr. Duckham) had done good service in bringing this question before the Committee, because there could be no doubt that it was one of those matters which showed the unsatisfactory working of the Highway Act as it at present stood. They had been long promised that that Act should be amended; and he ventured to hope that his right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board would be able to do something in that direction in another year. But, assuming that nothing was done, the hon. Gentleman the Member for Herefordshire would then be able to come with far greater force and ask that the people of England should have the same advantages extended to them as were now given to South Wales, and that their Surveyors should be paid in the same way as the Surveyors in South Wales were now paid. The right hon. Gentleman would then be on the horns of a dilemma. It would either be right that South Wales should have this privilege, in which case it would be right also that it should be extended all over England, or it ought to be discontinued in South Wales. The question was one which deserved the consideration of the right hon. Gentleman. Many promises had been made that assistance should be
  584
  given to the county rates in the direction of highway expenses.
  MR. DODSON: I hope that it will not be necessary to enter into a discussion of the Highway Acts, or generally as to the mode of maintaining the highways. The hon. and gallant Member for West Sussex (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) says that I may be placed on the horns of a dilemma, and that we should either provide Inspectors for all the different counties in England, or withdraw the Inspector for South Wales. The hon. Member for Herefordshire (Mr. Duck-ham) has moved a reduction of the Vote; and, on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, I must say that we cannot assent to it. In the first place, the Vote is for the salary and expenses of a gentleman who holds the post of Inspector during the present year, and who has been hard at work up to the present time in the discharge of his duties; and, moreover, if we were suddenly, and without notice, to get rid of his services, the county authorities have no power to appoint an Inspector in his place. Therefore, it is obvious that, for the present year, this Vote must be allowed to stand. My attention was called to the matter last year, I think by the hon. Member for Herefordshire. [Mr. DUCKHAM: Yes.] I should have dealt with the matter this year, but for the circumstance that a Committee of the House of Lords had been appointed to inquire into the whole subject of highways, and that I understood they would extend their inquiry to the South Wales district. Under those circumstances, I abstained from making any proposal to the House this year. I understand that the Lords have taken evidence with regard to South Wales, and I think that next year one of three things will happen. Either the House of Lords will have presented to us some recommendation on the subject, which we may think so valuable that we may adopt it, or the subject of highways in England may be legislated for generally, in which case this South Wales district would be included in the measure, or the House of Lords will not offer us any suggestion which we think ought to be adopted, or we may find ourselves, from the circumstances of the Session, unable to legislate for the highways of England and Wales generally. In that case it would become the duty of the

  585
  Government to deal with South Wales by itself, and it will be necessary to amend the South Wales Act so as to enable the County Boards in South Wales to provide for the payment of their own expenses.
  MR. DUCKHAMaccepted the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board, and, at the same time, confessed that he was disappointed that no steps had been taken in the matter. He had hoped that, having brought the question clearly before the Committee last year, something might have been done this year to alter the position of affairs. The hon. Member for Cardiganshire (Mr. Pugh) said that he was wrong in his dates. He believed his hon. Friend was mistaken, and that, on inquiry, he would find that his dates were perfectly correct.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Original Question again proposed.
  MR. O'DONNELLsaid, he rose to call the attention of the President of the Local Government Board and the Committee to a serious grievance arising under the present administration of the Poor Law Department of the Local Government Board. He had intended to move the omission of the item for the inspection of Workhouse Schools; but as he was now too late to do that, he would move the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £500. The grievance he had to lay before the Committee arose out of the manner in which the Act for the transfer of pauper Catholic children in the workhouse to certified Catholic schools, fitted for the reception of such children, was carried out. Down to the year 1862 the Catholic pauper children, the miseries of whose parents had forced them to go into the workhouse, were brought up absolutely as Protestants. There was no provision made whatever for their transfer to any schools in which they could be brought up in the Catholic religion. However, in the year 1862, an Act was passed enabling Boards of Guardians to transfer to certified Catholic schools Catholic pauper children; but as the onus of doing a duty of that kind was thrown on the Boards of Guardians, the Boards of Guardians throughout England were rendered arbitrary in the matter, and, with a few honourable exceptions, they had declined to avail
  586
  themselves of the powers of the Act, the result being that nearly all the Catholic children were still kept in the workhouse schools, which were, to all intents and purposes, Protestant schools. Upon complaints being made, a further Act was passed some years later, by which the Local Government Board was empowered, if it thought fit, to transfer Catholic children to Catholic schools. There had been placed in his hands proofs of the manner in which the Local Government Board was discharging the duty laid upon it by the Legislature. He had a statement made by the Rev. B. Wrigley, of Stratford, respecting the religious education of Catholic children at the West Ham Union Schools from 1874 to 1881. These children were, to a very large extent, of Irish extraction, and the Reports showed how they were treated in the West Ham Union Schools. He found, in regard to the opportunities of instruction afforded there, that children were permitted to attend Mass on Sundays, except in wet weather, or from any cause such as the prevalence of small-pox, or any other epidemic in consequence of which it was considered necessary to prevent them from attending. Such a cause was considered quite sufficient to prevent Catholic children from going out of the workhouse and attending any course of Catholic religious instruction. The result was that sometimes for a period of two months Catholic children in the West Ham Workhouse had been unable to attend Catholic worship. If they had been in the Catholic certified schools, means would have been provided for them to allow them to attend the worship precribed by their own religion. The only opportunity of instruction given to the Catholic school children was on Wednesday, from half-past 10 until 12 o'clock in the morning—only an hour and a half a week. No Prayer Books were provided by the Guardians for the use of the children on week days; but on Sundays those who were allowed to go to church were supplied by the Board with Prayer Books for their use during Divine Service. No Catechisms were provided by the Guardians, nor was the Catholic priest allowed to provide them himself. The Catholic priest made an application to the Board on November 29, 1879, to be permitted to provide Catechisms for the use of the Roman

  587
  Catholic children while the Protestant children were receiving religious instruction; but the application was refused. All Catholic children were required to be present at prayers daily. The priest objected to this; and, for a time, his remonstrance prevailed; but now they were all obliged to assist in these prayers. The children had thus only an hour and a-half during the entire week for religious instruction, and they were deprived of every opportunity of studying their own religion during the rest of the week; and, the priest being forbidden to provide books for religious instruction at his own expense, the result was that when the priest met his flock on the Wednesday for an hour and a-half, he found the children thoroughly imbued with those anti-Catholic prejudices which little children, mixing all the rest of the week with Protestants, were certain to imbibe. The most obsolete trash of bye-gone times, so far as religious prejudices were concerned, and which now only survived in the lowest classes of society, were instilled into the minds of these poor children. He might add that, for two years from 1874, the Guardians of the West Ham Union invented the most peculiarly ingenious system of religious persecution against these poor Catholic children that it was possible to devise; and he was sure that every Member of the House would be ashamed to think that any body of Englishmen could be guilty of such petty and wretched intolerance. From May, 1875, down to the year 1877, an alteration was made by the Guardians in their regulations, by which the Roman Catholic priest was only allowed one hour weekly—namely, from 8 to 9 in the morning, for the instruction of Catholic children, and as that was the time set apart in the school for recreation, these poor little children had the alternative given to them either of giving up their recreation or their religious instruction. The consequence was that, knowing they were shut out from the playground when their Protestant companions were enjoying recreation, they bitterly resented the regulation, and if they came in at all, they came in as mutineers, full of the worst feelings towards the priest, whom they regarded as solely to blame. That miserable persecution was kept up for the space of two years, and even now only an hour and a-half was given in the
  588
  whole week for instructing Catholic children in their religious duties. The result was that these children, though still on the books as Catholics, were, without exception, anti-Catholic. They refused to say their prayers when they came in for instruction, or to answer any questions with regard to their Catechism. They were deliberately deprived by the Guardians of the Poor of every opportunity of being brought up in the religion of their parents; and they were exposed during the whole week to the anti-Catholic influences which were brought to bear against them. The consequence was that although they were nominally Catholics until they reached 14 years of age, when they attained that age they preferred to rank themselves as Protestants. Every effort had been tried to remedy this grievance. Deputations of Catholic ratepayers had waited on the Board of Guardians; but all to no effect. But the Local Government Board had it in its power to provide a remedy. It was empowered by the Act of Parliament, wherever it thought fit, to remove Catholic pauper children to certified Catholic schools, and there were abundant schools of that character provided by the Catholics all over the Kingdom—infant schools, schools for children of more matured years, and schools in which, in addition to religious instruction, they were taught carpentry and many other useful professions. But because they were Catholics their rights were destroyed, and their parents' rights were destroyed in their persons, all because the Local Government Board refused to exercise the powers conferred upon them under the Act. Of course, the words of the Act said that the Local Government Board were only to exercise this power "if they thought fit," and this latitude had been exercised in a way which was highly detrimental to the interests of the Catholic children. The same complaint might be made with regard to the district school of Forest Gate, in Essex. There the children were allowed to go to Mass on Sundays according to a general rule; but, for religious instruction, the priest was only allowed to visit them one day in the week—on Monday, from 2 to 4 P.M.—and as he had to visit first the boys over seven years of age, and then the girls over seven years of age, there was only one hour for religious instruc-

  589
  tion to any single Catholic child. No Prayer Books or Catechisms were furnished, and those which were furnished by the Catholic clergy were soon destroyed or lost. The children themselves said that they were torn up by their Protestant playmates. In November, 1876, an application was made that Catechisms should be supplied by the Roman Catholic priests for the use of the children, to be distributed by the schoolmaster and mistress to the children at stated times, when Protestant children were receiving their religious instruction; but the application was refused by the Board. With regard to receiving the Sacrament and the administration of the Eucharist, it was the law of the Catholic Church that the Eucharist should be received fasting. That ordinance differed from that of the Protestant Communion. An application was made that at Easter time, when all Catholics were bound to receive Communion, a certain number of the children should be permitted to fulfil their Easter duty. It was necessary that in order to fulfil that duty they should go to Communion fasting on Easter Sunday morning; but the Board refused to allow the privilege, and one poor little girl who tried to refrain from taking breakfast, so that she might fulfil her duty, was forbidden by the schoolmistress, and even beaten with a cane until she did eat her breakfast. It was humiliating to have to relate to the House these miserable little stories; but the result in the Forest Gate School was just the same as in the West Ham Union School. The promise made to the Roman Catholics of the country was being kept to the ear, and broken in every other sense. There were not sufficient opportunities for bringing up Catholic children in the religion of their parents; and, of course, being continually in contact with Protestantism of the most coercive and ignorant kind, and being constantly bullied by Protestant children—for in Forest Gate the Catholic community only numbered 90 out of 650 children—and being subjected to raillery and abuse of every description, both boys and girls, long before they came to the age when they could decide for themselves what religion they would adopt, got ashamed and discontented with their own religion, and represented themselves to be Protestants. Even those who
  590
  attended the religious instruction provided for them maintained a hostile attitude during the religious service, and treated it with contemptuous derision. He would mention only one case, that of a girl 12 years of age, who was sent to the school by the Guardians of White chapel. She had been well instructed in the Catholic school in Spitalfields; but after a very short experience of her new abode, she found that she did not dare make the sign of the Cross, even when the nuns were present. She found, further, that the other children ridiculed her in the dormitory when she attempted to say her Catholic prayers at night, and that she was so laughed at and derided that she very soon abandoned all religious ideas. The general result was that these children soon picked up all the stupid stories about Catholicity which were in stilled into their ears, and when brought up for Catholic instruction they turned round and positively insulted the priest, saying that the Catholics worshipped images, that they adored the Virgin, and making use of all the other rubbish which in bye-gone days had been applied to the Roman Catholic religion. With regard to Forest Gate, he had with him a list of the Catholic children who were brought up under these anti-Catholic influences, and he found they included the names of Barrys, Sullivans, O'Connors, and others. That showed their Irish extraction. They were evidently the desolate offspring of poor Irish Catholic parents who came over here under the ægis of British toleration, and this was the manner in which they were brought to deny the faith of their forefathers. It was very pitiful and very wretched, and if the Boards of Guardians had any idea or knowledge of what was going on, the fact that they took no course to stop such a system of persecution was most astounding. At the same time, it must not be forgotten that the Local Government Board had the power to transfer these children to certified Catholic schools; and, therefore, the whole responsibility rested upon the Local Government Board. Thousands of applications had been made to the Local Government Board for the admission of pauper Catholic children into certified Catholic schools; but they had been left entirely without answer. It could only be said of the Local Government Board that the steps they had

  591
  taken certainly tended to nullify the benefits which were proposed to be conferred upon the Catholics by the Act of the Legislature. When an application was made to them for the removal of a Catholic child to a Catholic certified school, they required not only that the child should have been entered upon the books of the workhouse as a Catholic, but that the parents should also be so entered upon the workhouse books. Further, they insisted upon a certificate of the child's baptism; and in some cases a certificate of the marriage of its parents. If the parent was dead then they required a certificate of his burial, and so forth. These regulations involved an enormous amount of trouble and expense, and the trouble and expense were thrown upon the Catholic body in order to satisfy the requirements of the Local Government Board. It was the only case in which he believed such excessive precautions were taken. On all ordinary occasions the Register of the workhouse was allowed to be proof, and it certainly ought to be allowed as primâ facie proof, pending the bringing forward of some strong case to show that the child was not a Catholic. In this case these requirements were enforced when there was really no denial whatever of the Catholic religion of the child. The religion was admitted for all ordinary purposes; but whenever it was proposed to transfer a Roman Catholic child to a Catholic certified school then all the ingenuity of red tape was brought into requisition, and certificate upon certificate was required to be piled up before the Local Government Board would consent to look at the application. For years and years past, to all intents and purposes, the Local Government Board had declined to carry out the will of the Legislature, and in the hands of the Local Government Board the Act of Parliament remained a dead letter. Hundreds and thousands of applications had been left altogether unattended to. The list of Catholic children, who between 1871 and 1880 had attained the age of 14, and had received nothing but Protestant education, was very large. They had been induced to give up the religion of their parents rather than struggle with the school authorities. He had given an idea of the manner in which the Local Government Board construed their duties. What was going on
  592
  in the West Ham and the Forest Gate schools was going on in scores and scores of other schools; indeed, he was afraid that the same thing was practised in hundreds of Unions throughout the country. Every year applications were made to the Local Government Board for the removal of these onerous restrictions and precautions with regard to the multiplication of certificates; but the Local Government Board, relying upon their own interpretation of the words of the Act, which allowed the Local Government Board, "if they thought fit," to transfer the children, had simply not thought fit, and had left the Catholic children without Catholic instruction of an adequate kind, keeping them in a flagrantly aggressive anti-Catholic atmosphere under the influence of the worst kind of proselytism. By this means the faith of these poor little children had been stolen from them simply because they were the children of poor paupers whose circumstances had placed them under the Poor Law system of tolerant England. In formulating this grievance he was only able to lay the broad facts before the Committee. He had confined himself to as few points as he thought would be sufficient to establish the case. If the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Local Government Board desired more proof he would undertake to occupy a number of continuous Sittings of that House with the enumeration of cases of hardship of this kind which had taken place all over England. In conclusion, he would say to the Members of the House that it was not merely the grievance and the injustice that these children were deprived of the Catholic instruction to which they had a right, but they were not even brought up as Christians, because while they were nominally on the rolls of the workhouse as Catholics they were really receiving no Catholic instruction whatever, and not being Protestants they received no Protestant instruction, although when they reached the age of 14 years they generally declared themselves to be members of the Church of England. That was merely the formula adopted for showing that they had ceased to be Catholics. The fact of the matter was that these children were without even Protestant Christian education, and they were turned out upon society without having received any re-

  593
  ligious instruction at all. The result was that they were constantly found in the police courts, and it would be seen from the cases that occurred there that the major part of them were of Irish extraction. The result of this was that the Irish nationality suffered the blame for the misconduct of these children, who, really out of hatred of Catholicity, had not been allowed to receive a Catholic education, and, at the same time, had received no moral or religious instruction whatever. The list he held in his hand contained the names of hundreds who had been deprived of every kind of religious instruction and turned into the gutter of sin and vice because the Local Government Board, in 99 cases out of 100, declined to carry out the munificent intentions of the Legislature, and to place these children in a position in which they could receive religious and moral education. It had been suggested that one of the reasons why the Local Government Board no longer attended to the applications for the transfer of Catholic children was, in fact, that some of the officials of the Local Government Board had grown weary of the multiplication of applications. These applications were originally enforced in order to prove that it was a Catholic child who was being transferred; but the multiplicity of certificates now required to be produced was most obstructive to the interest of the Catholic claimants, and it turned out to be extremely worrying and unpleasant to the Local Government Board officials, who, in the first place, had insisted upon them. In point of fact, the very multiplicity of the restrictions and precautions required to be observed by the Catholic body had grown distasteful to the Local Government Board, and in order to get rid of the burden they refused to pay any attention to the applications. He could give instances in connection with schools in the Metropolis to justify this assertion. He hoped the present head of the Local Government Board would give the Committee some assurance that he would take immediate steps for the transfer, from one end of England to another, of every Catholic child in regard to whom due application was made for such transfer so as to insure that he should be brought up in the religion to which he belonged. No claim was made which would involve any increase of
  594
  money or increase of charge; in fact, he believed there would be a saving; but, at any, rate nothing more was demanded in any case than that the child should receive as much as a scholar would cost in a Protestant workhouse school. The Catholics were willing to take the children upon any terms if the Guardians would name their own figure. They were anxious to stand by these poor little ones and obtain for them a moral and religious training, and that freedom and liberty of conscience which ought to be respected in such poor helpless human beings.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member has not concluded with a Motion.
  MR. O'DONNELLsaid, he had intended to move the reduction of the Vote by £500.
  MR. MACFARLANEsaid, he had no desire to prolong the discussion; but the subject was one of great interest, and he had been for some years a Guardian in the parish of Marylebone. Some time ago he moved for a Return for the purpose of showing the cost of maintaining these children in the workhouse and in the certified Catholic schools. He believed when that Return was laid on the Table—and he was surprised that it had not yet been produced, as it was many weeks since he moved for it—that it would astonish some hon. Members of that House. As far as he remembered, there was one workhouse in London in which the average cost of each child maintained in the workhouse was very nearly £60 a-year; and yet the same workhouse authorities would only allow a starvation price to a certified Catholic school. There was a school in the East End of London where a large number of children were received. It received at this moment a very large number of very young children, and the sum paid by the Guardians was not sufficient to give them bread and water. The consequence was that the persons in charge of these children were continually begging in order to obtain sufficient means to feed the children without coming upon the rates of the Metropolis. As the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell) had pointed out, the Catholic authorities were willing to take the children for nothing sooner than their faith should be perverted in the workhouse in the manner which had been described; but he was sure it was not the intention of the Legislature, or the wish of the Pre-

  595
  sident of the Local Government Board, that the expense should be entirely thrown upon the Roman Catholic population in order to save the Metropolitan rates. When the Return he had moved for was produced, he meant to ask the right hon. Gentleman to use the legal powers of the Board as far as possible in requiring Boards of Guardians to pay the whole expense which was legitimately chargeable upon them, and to compel the Boards of Guardians to pay for each child what the cost of its maintenance would be in the workhouse. The hon. Member for Dungarvan complained that the children were not transferred, and he thought the hon. Member had made out a strong case against the authorities. He did not see why the Local Government Board should allow any Catholic child to remain in a workhouse school at all. The Board had absolute power to command the Guardians to transfer such children; but nothing except the exercise of the arbitrary powers possessed by the Board would induce the authorities to put in force the powers they possessed. It had been a great scandal and a shame for many years. He knew a workhouse school where the Catholic chaplain had to trudge two or three miles two or three days a-week in order to teach the children who were in the school, and who the Guardians refused to transfer. The Guardians thought that they were doing the chaplain a great favour when they allowed him to go in and give the children two or three hours' instruction a week for nothing. Such was the extraordinarily perverted view they took of their duty in the matter. They seemed to have no religious ideas in the matter at all, nor to desire to do unto these children as they would be done unto themselves. Men who were perfectly fair on every other subject were blinded by prejudice and ignorance when this question of religion came up. He had no doubt, as the hon. Member for Dungarvan had pointed out, that the result was most injurious to the State, because the effect was to turn out a large number of children who were neither Catholics nor Protestants, but who were simply nothing more than half-educated heathens.
  MR. HIBBERTsaid, he thought the hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Macfarlane) was in error in supposing that the Local Government Board had power to
  596
  transfer all Roman Catholic children to Roman Catholic schools. They had, however, the power of transferring Roman Catholic children on the application of certain persons; but it was impossible for them to override the wishes and decisions of the Guardians in respect to Roman Catholic children. He did not deny that there existed among many Guardians in this country a great amount of prejudice, and even intolerance, with respect to this question; but the Local Government Board would be glad to see all these cases treated in a broad spirit, and, as far as possible, in the spirit of the Act, which was framed so as to do justice to the Roman Catholic sentiments of the people. He denied the statement of the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell) that there was a great number of applications for the transfer of Roman Catholic children. If the hon. Member could substantiate what he had said he would have made out a strong case not only against the Boards of Guardians, but also against the Local Government Board; but he thought there was great exaggeration in the hon. Member's remarks. He had stated that from 1871 to September, 1880, there had been hundreds, and almost thousands, of cases in which application had been made for sending Roman Catholic children to Roman Catholic schools. He could not say what took place between 1871 to the time when the present Government took Office; but he did know that in the last 16 months there had not been before the Local Government Board more than 12 or 14 such applications. He quite admitted that there had been a great amount of dissatisfaction on the part of the dignitaries of the Roman Catholic Church as to the way in which Roman Catholic children were treated at Forest Gate School and at some schools in the Metropolis. [Mr. CALLAN: Every school.] He could not admit that, because, in a recent conversation with a very high dignitary of the Roman Catholic Church, that gentleman said that with respect to several schools there was no complaint at all. [Mr. CALLAN: Name, name!] The conversation was a private one, and therefore he did not think it right to give the name.
  MR. CALLANrose to Order, and protested that if a Roman Catholic dignitary was to be referred to in that way his name ought to be given.
  THE CHAIRMAN: That is not a question of Order.
  MR. HIBBERTsaid, he should be glad to give the name outside.
  MR. CALLAN: It should be given here.
  MR. HIBBERT MR. HIBBERT, resuming, said, that with respect to some of the cases that had been brought before them, the Local Government Board had so far overridden the wishes and decisions of the Guardians as to recommend that children should be sent to Roman Catholic schools; and in other cases they had recommended the transfer of Roman Catholic schools. In some cases the Guardians had shown that every arrangement was made for the religious instruction of the Roman Catholic children, that they were visited by Roman Catholic priests, and were able to attend services in their own churches; and, in such cases, if the Guardians had expressed a decided objection to those children being transferred, the Local Government Board had not overridden their wishes and decisions. For himself, if he found in any case that the children were being treated as the hon. Member for Dungarvan had stated, he should consider that the Local Government Board would be justified in overriding the decision of the Guardians and transferring the children to Roman Catholic schools. The hon. Member for Carlow said that in many cases the amount paid for Roman Catholic children was very low; but he (Mr. Hibbert) believed that in every case in which an order had been issued by the Local Government Board for the transfer of children they had required payment to be made equal to the cost of the education and maintenance of the children in the workhouse. An inadequate amount might have been paid where the Board had no control; and they had no control when the Guardians had themselves agreed to transfer children. In such cases they paid what they liked; but he thought the spirit of the Act was that an equal amount should be paid. Then, again, the policy of the Local Government Board, at all events since he had been there, had not been antagonistic to the Roman Catholic children or to the wishes of the Roman Catholics who desired to protect those children. They had desired, while, of course, taking notice of the wishes of the Guardians, to make every allowance for the strong
  598
  feeling of the Roman Catholics themselves. They wished to do fair justice between both parties; and, if they had any leaning at all, it was rather to carry out the desires and wishes of the Roman Catholics.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he could scarcely think the answer of the hon. Gentleman quite satisfactory. With regard to the powers of the Guardians, the Act declared that any Board of Guardians might send any poor children to any school properly certified and supported wholly or in part by voluntary subscriptions, and the managers of which were willing to receive them, and might pay for the maintenance of such children a sum not exceeding the total sum which would have been charged for their maintenance in the workhouse. And the 2nd section of the Act provided that, on the application of the parents or other persons specified, the Guardians might send the children to some school. There had been several discussions in the House as to the difference between "may" and "shall" in Acts of Parliament, and all the lawyers had agreed that "may" was practically "shall;" and he, therefore, thought the Local Government Board should regard the word "may" in this case as "shall." He thought, further, that the Guardians ought to be compelled to do these things, because they were recruited from the ranks of the shopkeepers who were remarkable for bigotry. They were of all classes of society the least capable of appreciating the fact that, as a governing body, they had nothing to do with forcing their religion on anyone else. The Local Government Board represented a higher class of society and of feeling on religious questions than the shopkeepers, and they should encourage religious toleration. He did not think they would have any difficulty, if they took strong action in the matter, with the conviction that they had the moral authority of Parliament with them; and he hoped they would, in all cases which came before them, interpret the clause to mean "shall." The next question was as to expenses. He might be inclined to agree that the Guardians could not be asked to send these children to Roman Catholic schools if they caused greater expense than they would at the ordinary Board schools; but there was in England and Scotland a Roman Ca-

  599
  tholic population, which, though for the most part poor, had been generous enough to endow a certain number of Roman Catholic schools. That was a thing which, as a matter of interest and of duty, the Government ought to encourage. Then, as to the question of facts, as between the hon. Member for Dungarvan and the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hibbert), the hon. Gentleman said there had been only a few applications to the Local Government Board during his presence there. Of course, that statement would go forth to the proper authorities; the authorities of the Catholic Church would be able to see whether there had been sins of omission in this matter, and if they found there had been, their efforts would compensate for lost time. He wished the Local Government Board also to consider another point. The hon. Gentleman was perfectly correct in saying that applications should precede directions by the Board. That was evidently the intention of the Act. But he found in the Act the words "God-parent of such child;" and as a large number of these children were orphans, he thought it would be well if the Government would accept applications for the transfer of children from the pastors of the districts.
  MR. HIBBERT: They do that.
  MR. BIGGARurged that the Local Government Board should apply a little more pressure to Boards of Guardians, in order to turn the balance in favour of Roman Catholic children. He did not desire to see them act unfairly towards the Guardians; but when it was found that the Guardians were disposed to favour Protestant children, he thought the Board would be justified in acting determinately against the Guardians. With regard to the religion of the pauper children, he knew that in Belfast, which was a very non-Catholic place, and where there had never been more than one Catholic Guardian on the Board at any time, a child was assumed to belong to the religion in which it was entered on the books until the contrary was proved, and the result was that in some cases, where there was room for controversy, fights of words took place. The Guardians in those cases gave a decision according to the evidence; but, as a rule, they threw no obstacle in the way of children being educated in the religion entered in the books. He thought that in England the statement of the
  600
  person who brought a child to the workhouse as to the religion should be accepted as sufficient, without the registration of birth or of baptism being required.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he was not at all surprised at this question having been raised, for there was a large amount of needless suffering endured by poor people in London, because they dreaded the danger of having their children proselytized if sent to the workhouse. He knew of numbers of children in London who ought, owing to the condition of their parents, to be in some institution for the relief of the poor, but who, because of that dread, were dragging out a miserable existence in the slums and purlieus, aided by such charity as the poor Roman Catholics could afford. He thought the words of the clause should be mandatory on the Guardians, and that was the interpretation put upon them by the right hon. Member for Ripon (Mr. Goschen) when he was President of the Local Government Board, and by Lord Devon. The right hon. Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld), when he was at that Department, said he did not think he ought to interfere with the Guardians on that matter, and the consequence was that the numerous applications made to the Guardians and to the Local Government Board were found to be a waste of time, and the great body of poorer Catholics became despondent and ceased to make applications. Of late the applications sent to the Board had, in a large number of cases, been treated with a fairness which could not be denied, and he wished to thank the President of the Board for that; but he hoped that an assurance would be given that in future every such application would be treated with the same amount of fairness. If that assurance could be given this discussion would not have been thrown away, and would be agreeably looked back to by the great body of Catholics throughout the country. He did not blame the Guardians or the Government, but he thought the Catholic bodies were to blame. The English Catholics were, in matters of this kind, more apathetic than any other body in the country, and they saw injustice inflicted on the poorer classes of their co-religionists in England without any reasonable effort to put an end to it. If they had taken the

  601
  trouble which other religious bodies had taken to secure representation on Boards of Guardians, he was satisfied that one-half the complaints that were being continually dinned into the ears of the Catholic Irish Members would never be heard at all. When he first became a Guardian of the poor in London he found that the Catholics in the workhouse of the Union to which he belonged had not been allowed to go to Mass for five months; and the admission of a priest was so arranged, once a week, that it was a perfect farce for him to pretend to administer to the religious requirements of the inmates. There were no Catholic Prayer Books issued to the Catholic paupers, although Prayer Books were supplied to the Protestants, and many Catholic children were being sent to Catholic schools. Well, he had not been on the Board a week before the Catholics were allowed to go to Mass, and he had not been there very long before Prayer Books were issued to them, and before the priest was permitted to attend the paupers at reasonable times. Every reasonable facility for continuing the observances of their religion which he could possibly have desired was granted to the poor Catholics, notwithstanding that he was but one Catholic against 19 Protestants on the Board. He was bound to say this—that in this Union, which, before, had been noted for its bigoted treatment of the Catholic children, directly there was a Catholic on the Board all the difficulties disappeared. The Catholics, he thought, were themselves to blame for what occurred in connection with Boards of Guardians. They did not attempt to obtain representation on them as they might and ought to do. He was very well satisfied with the declarations of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Dodson); and he sincerely trusted that after to-night the grievances under which Catholics had suffered in this respect would gradually disappear. But there were certain other points connected with the administration of the Poor Law which he would venture to submit to the right hon. Gentleman, and they were points which came under the item referred to by the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell). As to the old people in the workhouses, they had a right, if they were over 60 years of age and married, to have separate quarters; but he was perfectly certain that there
  602
  was not a single workhouse in which the poor people were even acquainted with that right. He remembered when he, very rashly, as it was supposed, asked the poor people in a workhouse he was visiting if they knew of the existence of this right, the master and matron and one or two Guardians with him expostulated, and said this was a thing which ought to be kept from the knowledge of the poor people, because it would be such a terrible nuisance to have them in the married quarters. Then, as to the little children in the workhouses—children who were too young to be sent to school—their condition in some cases was most pitiable. He could take the right hon. Gentleman to a workhouse in London in which there were a considerable number—some 13 or 14—little children, too young to be sent to school, who never left the yard in which they were cooped up. The yard was not more than twice the size of the House Table, there was nothing to break the monotony of the children's lives, the toys which had been given to amuse them being carefully packed up and put away on the top of a cupboard. The children were not looked after as they should be, and the consequence was that they grew up delicate and unhealthy and utterly unfit to bear the rough life that was inevitably their lot. Then there was another thing that the Inspectors of these schools would do well to inquire into. There was a practice amongst bandmasters of regiments to go round to the different workhouse schools belonging to the Metropolitan district for the purpose of selecting there from for enlistment into the Army for their bands the most promising boys. Some of these boys were induced or allowed to join the band when they were very young—eight or nine or ten years of age—at a time when they had no idea what enlistment into the Army meant. They were taken into the band on condition that they would afterwards go into the Army, and this was done without any real opportunity being afforded to the relatives of the boys of expressing their wishes on the subject. The relatives—and on this matter he was speaking from experience—were not given to understand that the law required that they should have the power of going before the Boards of Guardians and expressing their desires and wishes as to the employments to

  603
  which the children should be put. The Inspectors of the Department, he thought, would do well to look into this matter. He wished now to refer for a moment to an observation which fell from the Prime Minister, in reply to an hon. Member sitting near him, when this Vote first came on. The Prime Minister had said that he proposed next year to bring on this Vote in a different shape. He had gathered from the right hon. Gentleman that it was his intention to recast it. He would point out to the right hon. Gentleman that it was desirable that it should be considerably modified. As would be apparent to everyone who had listened to the debate that evening, the Vote was of a very heterogeneous character. The discussion commenced with some observations about medical relief in Scotland, then it went off upon the analysis of water, then they heard about roads in Scotland, and so on. Each of these subjects was sufficiently important to occupy a separate Vote; and he would venture to suggest to the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Vote that it would be desirable, if it could be done, to split it up into two or three different sub-Votes, in order that, in future, there might be something more like logical sequence and consistency in it. This would help to give hon. Members a clearer understanding of these matters, and, probably, to economize time.
  MR. BIGGARsaid, he should like to ask a question in regard to this Vote with reference to the payment of the analyst of water. He should like to ask to what extent analysts were employed by the Department? Personally, he thought it would be very desirable to extend the system of analyzing. Many articles besides water should be analyzed by some analyst who should be more or less responsible. The matter, he (Mr. Biggar) understood, was very much, if not entirely, in the hands of the local authorities at present; and he had reason to believe—in fact, he knew—that the local authorities neglected their duty in the most flagrant manner. He wished to know if it was not in the power of the Local Government Board to see that the local authorities employed analysts, and to see that the local authorities made the analysts do their duty, with the aid either of the police or the officers of health in certain districts?
  MR. DODSON: We have no power either to employ analysts or to compel others to employ them.
  MR. HEALYsaid, there was a certain amount put down for auditors' clerks. How was it that the auditors in England were allowed clerks, when—according to the Votes—none were allowed to auditors in Ireland? Everybody knew that the work auditors had to do was to tot up accounts and check them, and unless they performed the work for which they were appointed it was no use having them. If an auditor threw the work upon another person—upon his clerk—he was not an auditor at all, but the clerk was the auditor. The auditors who were appointed were, no doubt, very experienced men; but if they were unable to do the work, other auditors should be employed to assist them. Two clerks were put down at salaries of £30 a-year. Was it a fact that this small amount was paid to men whose duty it was to check thousands and thousands of pounds? If so, it was a most unsatisfactory state of things. He could speak from experience of the auditors in Ireland. They got through their work in a most conscientious manner, and spent days in checking the accounts of each particular Union. Did the English auditors do the same?
  MR. DODSON: The reason the auditors are allowed clerks to assist them, or work under them, is that the work has, of late years, been very largely increased. The auditors had, originally, only to audit the Poor Law Accounts; but now they have the School Board, Highway and Local Board Accounts to go through. Instead of employing more auditors, it has been found cheaper—and, at the same time, to work well—to appoint these clerks.
  MR. HEALYsaid, that surely the right hon. Gentleman did not mean to say that a clerk at £30 a-year should have imposed on him the responsibility of checking accounts amounting to hundreds of thousands of pounds? The thing was preposterous. An auditor who went into a town might be very tired, or unwell, and the whole duty might be thrown upon an unfortunate clerk. The result might be that the ratepayers were not protected; and to tell the Committee that it was better to have these clerks than proper, expe-

  605
  rienced auditors, was a statement to which he could not subscribe. If the auditors in England required clerks, so did the auditors in Ireland, owing to their duty in connection with the Poor Law having been merged into that in connection with the Local Government Board. They had the Town Clerks' Accounts as well as the Poor Law Accounts to audit. What he wanted was a satisfactory assurance that these clerks were not persons on whom a great share of the work of auditing was thrown—that they had not cast upon them the responsibility of asserting that the accounts of the Unions and Local Boards were correct.
  MR. DODSON: The whole responsibility of the work rests upon the auditor. I have never heard of responsibility having been imposed upon the clerks.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, that in the matter of workhouse administration there was another point to which he wished to draw attention—one which, he thought, the Inspectors would do well to take in hand—namely, the treatment in the workhouse of the insane and imbecile. The comments of the Inspectors on this subject, even in the past, had been repeated and emphatic. In their Reports 3 and 4 they said they had frequently found it necessary to order the removal of decidedly insane patients, who ought, in the first instance, to have had the benefit of the silent treatment. They said, also, that in some of the larger workhouses they frequently met with patients suffering from long-standing melancholia, when they had reason to believe that if they had been subjected to proper treatment at first it would have resulted in their being cured. It was to be regretted, they said, that false ideas of economy should be allowed to have weight, and that a course should be pursued which could not fail to be prejudicial to the patients, and ultimately lead to the increase of the number of insane dependent on the rates. It did seem to be a terrible thing to think—what, unquestionably, was the case—that there were in the workhouses of this country a number of cases which, if they had been only taken in hand properly, and removed to places where they could receive suitable treatment in time, would have been, at any rate, if not cured, at least greatly relieved, and brought back to such a state that they
  606
  could have been left in the hands of their relatives during the latter days of their lives. These people, being placed in the workhouses—which were, probably, the very worst places for persons mentally afflicted—were rendered hopelessly insane, and when they were taken to asylums it was found too late to do anything with them. The Inspectors said that it was customary to send to the asylums old, chronic cases, because they were troublesome, and that this often occurred where there were no special attendants for these cases in the workhouses. He would ask the Government to see that the Inspectors further inquired into this matter of the treatment of the insane. They would be astonished to find out how inadequate were the present arrangements. It was principally to country workhouses that objection was made. The Inspectors went on to say that, as to the management of workhouses, although the standard was higher than it was some years ago, yet, in many of the establishments, the treatment provided for imbecile paupers was open to grave objection. They found a want of supervision for epileptic cases, especially when the number of those cases was large.
  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  (2.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £8,195, 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 1882, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Commissioners in Lunacy in England."
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he wished to draw the attention of the Committee to one or two very simple facts in connection with this Vote, and the first was as to the population and the number of lunatics. In the year 1859, when the population was 19,500,000, the number of private lunatics was 4,900, and the number of pauper lunatics 31,000. In the year 1880, when the population had risen from 19,500,000 to 25,500,000, the private lunatics had risen from 4,900 to 7,600, and the paupers had increased from 31,000 to 63,000, so that where the population had increased 30 per cent and the private lunatics had increased considerably the number of pauper lunatics had more than doubled. That

  607
  was one fact which he wished to draw the attention of the Committee to. The other fact was this. He knew a case where a man, through reverses of fortune, distress, and poverty, was, for a time, out of his mind. He was treated as a pauper lunatic. He was a man of considerable intelligence, and well educated and quite able to take stock, from time to time, of his own condition, and to appreciate his own advance towards recovery, and also to appreciate the things he saw in the workhouse. This man, whilst he was there, found that the alleged pauper lunatics were remarkable for two things, and two things only—namely, they were incorrigibly idle, and they all had good appetites. When this man was within a week or two of his discharge, the inmates learnt that the Inspectors were coming round. Some 48 hours before the advent of the Inspectors, a number of patients, who, up to that time, had appeared remarkably well, evinced signs of unrest, which went on increasing as the hours advanced. The evening before the Inspectors came they would insist on dressing themselves up in feathers and cutting all sorts of antics. On the morning of the Inspectors' visit they all refused to eat their breakfast, and made use of every sign that their ingenuity could devise to induce every casual onlooker to believe that they were seriously affected mentally. The Inspectors came, the visit passed over, the feathers were dropped, and the appetites revived. The man had not spoken of all, but of a very large proportion of the cases. Well, this little story, he thought, would account, to a great extent, for the enormous increase in the number of pauper lunatics. There were a large number of people in the pauper lunatic asylum who ought not to be there, and who knew perfectly well that they ought not to be there; but the Government gave 4s. a-week for every pauper in the Asylums, and it answered the purposes of the Guardians to transfer people who were a little troublesome in the workhouses to those places. It would be well if the Government would carefully consider what steps should be taken to meet this action on the part of the Boards of Guardians. He must say he was not prepared to suggest any; but it was not his business to do so. But probably the Government might be able to find time
  608
  to bring about a thorough overhauling of the pauper lunatic asylums, and an investigation into the majority of doubtful cases—cases which were just sufficiently demonstrative to secure the keeping up of a staff which would not otherwise be required, and which gave that staff very little work to do. There was another question, as to the classification of lunatics in the workhouses; but that was a point on which he had already ventured to offer some remarks on a previous Vote, and he would not detain the Committee on it. However, there was one thing he had noticed on visiting more than one pauper lunatic asylum, and it must have struck everybody, no matter how casual their visit, and that was the utter want of occupation for the great majority of inmates. If there was one thing more than another calculated to help the restoration to a proper state of mind of a patient who had been suffering under mental aberration or melancholia, it was occupation. But the great majority of persons in pauper lunatic asylums were absolutely without anything but the merest show of occupation; and he was convinced that the life they led in these Asylums helped to confirm and render incurable any mental affliction from which they suffered. He was speaking only of the slighter cases. Then, as to the treatment of persons who were really fit subjects for treatment at the hands of medical men who dealt with cases of insanity. With respect to Colney Hatch Asylum, the District Visitors reported that the complaints of unnecessary detention were unusually numerous, and there were also very many complaints from both male and female patients that access to the medical staff was practically denied. Some of the patients knew the Chairman of the Visiting Committee by sight, and also the medical staff; but the patients were counted in wards periodically, but had no opportunity of making complaints. Then, again, the Visitors called attention to the method of keeping the case-book in this Asylum, which was certainly open to grave objections. The Act—16 & 17 Vict.—required that the case-book should be regularly laid before the Visitors for inspection; but the Visitors found that the entries as to the admission of patients were made on loose slips of paper, to be copied into the book when time would permit, perhaps after

  609
  the discharge or death of the patient. The Visitors reported that in regard to the case-book the Act was not complied with, and he would like to know what the Home Secretary thought of Directors who permitted such a system as that. But it was not so much a question of correct record in each case, or of the numbers of patients who were unable to make complaints, but as to the treatment of the patients.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member cannot discuss pauper lunatics generally under this Vote. The proper time will be on Vote 4, Class VI., where there is a special Vote for pauper lunatics.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he was showing why the Committee should not vote this money for the Lunacy Commissioners, who, he thought, had not done their duty, for if they had, the Visitors would not have had to report these shortcomings. They further reported that, being present in the women's dining-room during dinner, they were somewhat surprised at seeing many rats sporting about in the hall.
  THE CHAIRMAN: That subject does not properly come under the Vote for the Lunacy Commissioners. The subject the hon. Member is referring to will properly come under Vote 4 of Class VI.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORremarked that the first item in this Vote was the salary of the Lunacy Commissioners; and, with all deference to the Chair, he thought he was entitled to question the right of the Commissioners to have this £1,500.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I have already informed the hon. Gentleman that the discussion as to particular asylums comes on on another Vote, and cannot be taken now.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he should not discuss particular asylums; but he was endeavouring to show why the Commissioners, for whom pay was here charged, ought not to have their pay voted without, at any rate, some explanation of their apparent shortcomings. That was his idea in bringing before the Committee what he believed to be blemishes in the work of the Commissioners. It seemed to him that the Commissioners ought to insist, for instance, on reasonable occupation being given to persons committed to their care. It was their business to see that the inmates of the asylums had every reason-
  610
  able facility at their disposal for the recovery of their proper mental condition; but that was not done. In one asylum he found that five men out of seven had reasonable and healthy occupation; in another, only one in four. In one asylum six in ten were healthily occupied; but in another, only a short way off, only one in three. But as he failed to convince the Chairman of the propriety of the grounds upon which he made these remarks, he would quit that subject altogether, and say a few words upon the personal duties of the Commissioners. There were two or three things upon which they would do well to furnish information in their next Report. It was impossible, on an examination of the tables and statements given, to arrive at any reliable conclusion as to the rate of mortality in the asylums, although that was a very important matter. The Metropolitan Asylums Board furnished complete details as to the rate of mortality in the asylums under their control, and he would suggest that the Home Secretary should require the Commissioners in Lunacy to furnish similar information. He thought he had shown very good ground for the conclusion that the Commissioners had not justified the remuneration charged in this Vote, and he should therefore move to reduce the amount by £500 each, or £3,000. But as half the year had elapsed, there remained only half the financial year, he would now move to reduce the salaries by £250 each, or £1,500 altogether.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £6,695, 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 1882, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Commissioners in Lunacy in England."—(Mr. Arthur O'Connor.)
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: The course taken by the hon. Member is a somewhat singular one. The Lunacy Commissioners have hitherto been trusted largely by the country, and, as far as I know, they have had general confidence. But now the hon. Member comes forward with a series of charges against them of which no Notice is given, and to which, therefore, it is difficult for anyone on their behalf to make any response. Every one of the matters

  611
  touched upon by the hon. Member is a subject which might occupy the attention of a Select Committee; and it seems to me that the view now taken of the manner of dealing with the Estimates is upon every Vote to enter upon matters with which it is impossible to deal in Committee of Supply. The hon. Member has challenged the whole treatment of the lunatics of England; but is it common sense or reasonable that such a matter should be gone into upon this Vote, when the matter is one which could not be dealt with except by hearing witnesses? This matter has been dealt with in a proper manner by a Committee of this House so lately as 1878. "Within three years the whole of this matter has been investigated in the only possible way—by a Committee which went carefully into it day after day, and took evidence; and which, while suggesting that certain minor matters should be attended to, pronounced strongly in favour of the manner in which the Lunacy Laws had been administered. I venture to say that is the only complete answer to the charges made by the hon. Member. This House in Committee of Supply is wholly incapable of discussing this question. It has not the material, and it would be a waste of time to try to arrive at any conclusion. How are you to ascertain what is the cause of the increased number of lunatics? It is suggested that there are persons in these asylums who ought not to be there; but the Committee repudiated such a suggestion. It is also suggested that local authorities desire to fill the asylums with people who ought not to be there; but their object is to decrease the number of inmates. With regard to the Visitors having seen rats at Colney Hatch, I have read that in the houses of some of us—who are not lunatics, nor Lunatic Commissioners—there are rats; and that is hardly to be the foundation of a charge that these Commissioners are not competent for their duties. The hon. Member proposes to diminish the Vote which has for many years been given for these men, who have rendered public service; but to do that without any foundation for the charges made against them seems to me most unreasonable, and I must protest against the raising of questions, of which I do not dispute the importance, but with which it is utterly
  612
  impossible for the Committee of Supply to deal. If the hon. Member is dissatisfied, let him ask for a Select Committee; and if it appeared that since the last Committee sat any material circumstances had arisen to lead to the conclusion that the lunatics had not been properly treated, I would do anything I could to assist him. But it is unreasonable on the 2nd of August to raise a question with which this House cannot deal in Committee of Supply.
  MR. RYLANDSsaid, he rose immediately after the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, because he wished to say that he was not surprised the right hon. Gentleman should have expressed the opinion he had done as to the irrelevant nature of the criticisms upon the Vote to which they had just been listening. As an independent Member, acting with other independent Members, he felt very strongly indeed that the action of the Committee of Supply was, to a great extent, nullified by the course taken by the hon. Member for Queen's County (Mr. Arthur O'Connor). He (Mr. Rylands) would certainly not assist in delaying the Vote further.
  MR. J. COWENsaid, he thought it was only fair in extenuation of the course pursued by the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) to say that hon. Members were placed at great disadvantage in criticizing the Estimates, owing to the inconvenient time and manner in which they were brought forward. At the same time, he thought there was much force in what had been said by the Home Secretary, and he was of opinion that the accusations made against the Inspectors of Lunatic Asylums were not at all borne out by the facts. Still, the subject was one well worthy of consideration.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  (3.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £22,640, 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 1882, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Mint, including the Expenses of the Coinage."
  MR. RYLANDSsaid, he rose for the purpose of calling attention to an item

  613
  to which he had directed attention last year—namely, the Charge proposed for supplying silver to the Colonies. The Charge was for package, freight, and carriage of silver for the Colonies. While he did not object, in any way, to the practice of providing coinage for the Colonies, he did object to any charge being made under a Treasury Warrant, which had the effect of imposing the cost of providing the coinage upon the Exchequer of this country. The Treasury, under a Warrant dated June 14, 1871, declared that all the expenses should be paid by the Colonies; but that arrangement was altered in 1878, and since that year there had been a Vote for the freight and package of bronze and silver coin. He wished to point out to the Committee that there was no justification for giving that advantage to the Colonies, because we were allowing a very large amount of coin to be held by the Melbourne and Sydney Mints. He believed that the amount in 1879 reached £187,000, and, in addition, this country took back worn coin to a very large amount. He found that in 1880 the amount of worn silver coin received from the Sydney and Melbourne Mints reached no less than £87,614, and upon it there was a loss of from 12 to 14 per cent. So that in addition to this heavy loss upon worn silver, they were paying all the expenses of freight and packing. And while they were giving these advantages to the Colonies, advantages which, he thought, they had no right to receive, it appeared from last year's balance sheet, that there had been no less than £7,600 loss upon the transactions of the Mint during the last year. He would move the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £2,000, which was the cost of packing and freight, for the supply of silver and bronze coin to the Colonies.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £20,640, 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 1882, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Mint, including the Expenses of Coinage."—(Mr. Rylands.)
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, the charge for the freight of silver against the Colonies was only made in the case of Imperial coin sent there. In the case of Colonial coin taken by the Mint, the freight was included in the
  614
  charge; but it must be borne in mind that there was a considerable profit realized from the Imperial silver coin sent to the Colonies. It was true that they had, by the arrangements now in force, undertaken to recall their old and damaged coin, and pay all expenses; but under ordinary circumstances, even when silver was at its normal value, there was a substantial profit upon the coinage. He did not think that they could insist upon the Colony using our silver coinage and, at the same time, charge them with the expense of exporting it. Silver was now very much cheaper than it used to be, and the profit accordingly was much larger.
  MR. RYLANDSsaid, that what the noble Lord was stating was entirely contradicted by the balance sheet of the Mint. If he would look at the Report of the Mint, the noble Lord would find that there was an absolute balance of loss, without any charge upon the fixed amount of capital employed, of £7,658 upon the year.
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, that that loss was incurred in connection with the gold coinage, in regard to which no charge was made. It was somewhat curious, but it was nevertheless the fact, that the amount of coin called in bore inversely to the prosperity of the country. At times of prosperity, there was a greater demand for coin, and it was not paid into the Bank, and did not go to the Mint to be re-coined. The charge for re-coining old silver was heaviest at a time when there was not so much coin required for the use of the country. The result was, that in the year 1872, when the country was at the height of its prosperity, the profit to the Mint was £98,000; and at that time the Mint was sending out large quantities of new silver upon which it obtained a profit, while, at the same time, there was a very small amount of old silver paid in. The profit continued for two or three years, and it was not until 1876 that it became materially reduced. In 1877 the profit was only £22,000, and last year £12,858. But in the silver coinage sent out to the Colonies there was still a profit, and a substantial one. He did not think that they should insist upon the Colonies using our silver coinage, and then place them at the disadvantage of making them pay for the carriage of it.
  MR. HEALYcomplained that the Vote included a sum of £5 for an Easter offering to the Vicar of St. Botolph's Without, Aldgate, and another to the Sexton of the Tower. He wished to know what these charges meant?
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, the Mint was an old establishment, and these were old charges which had always been paid by the Mint.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Original Question again proposed.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he was sorry that he did not see in his place the President of the Board of Trade, because he would have suggested to the right hon. Gentleman that he should move again what he had once moved before, and what he (Mr. O'Connor), in the absence of the right hon. Gentleman, would venture to move now—namely, the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £2,000, being the amount charged for freight and packing the supplies of silver and bronze coin to the Colonies.
  MR. RYLANDSsaid, he had already moved the Amendment, and it had been negatived.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he had not understood the hon. Member for Burnley to move the omission of this particular item.
  MR. HEALYsaid, he should certainly feel inclined, unless the noble Lord the Financial Secretary to the Treasury informed the Committee that he would look into the items he had called attention to and give an explanation of them next year, to move the omission of the sum charged for an Easter offering to the Vicar of St. Botolph. They might as well be asked to vote an Easter offering to the Archbishop of Canterbury or Cardinal Manning.
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, he would give an explanation of that item upon the Report.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he did not understand the course taken by Her Majesty's Government. Only the other night they voted in favour of a proposal which they had strenuously opposed when in Opposition; and now there was another instance of a similar character. The President of the Board of Trade in former years had taken exception to this very item, and the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands),
  616
  having put down a Motion for the reduction of the Vote, certainly had moved it, but immediately afterwards withdrew it.
  MR. RYLANDS: That is altogether a false statement.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, he hoped the hon. Member would withdraw the expression which he had used, and which was quite irregular.
  MR. RYLANDS: I will withdraw it at once, and substitute "inaccurate statement." I did not withdraw the Motion for a reduction of the Vote, and if the hon. Member had been in his place at the time, he might have voted for it.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORobjected to the tone which the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) chose to adopt, and which was hardly Parliamentary. It was quite certain that the hon. Member was disinclined now to do that which he and those who acted with him always did when in Opposition—namely, carry their Motion to a division. It was a perfect farce to allow a charge of this kind to be passed quietly over when the Liberals were in power, and to be vehemently opposed when they happened to be out of Office. He would, therefore, move the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £1,000.
  THE CHAIRMAN: For what purpose does the hon. Member propose to reduce the Vote by £1,000?
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: For the expense of freight and packing.
  THE CHAIRMAN: That has been done already, and cannot be repeated.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he did not repeat the Amendment which had been moved by the hon. Member for Burnley, but he asked for a smaller reduction than that which had already been proposed and negatived. He thought he was fully in Order in making that proposition.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman is not in Order in moving the reduction of the Vote upon an item which has already been disposed of.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he wanted clearly to understand that ruling. A Motion having been made for the reduction of the Vote by a certain sum, and that Motion having been negatived, was it not competent for him to move the reduction of the Vote by a smaller sum?
  THE CHAIRMAN: I decline to be questioned by the hon. Member as to my ruling. I have ruled on this occasion that a Motion having been made on this particular subject, and having been negatived, the Motion just proposed by the hon. Member for Queen's County cannot be moved.
  MR ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he merely asked for information. [Cries of "Order!"]
  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  (4.) £10,142, to complete the sum for the National Debt Office.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he wished to ask the noble Lord the Financial Secretary to the Treasury a question with regard to this Vote. It contained an item for the Pensions Commutation Board. He wished to know whether all the expenses connected with the Commutation Board were stated on page 123, or whether there were any other expenses connected with the Board? He would also be glad to elicit from the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) whether he intended to proceed with the Notice he had given to move the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £1,000?
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHstated that all the expenses connected with the Commutation Board were included in the Vote.
  Vote agreed to.
  (5.) £17,438, to complete the sum for the Patent Office.
  MR. HINDE PALMERsaid, he had on several occasions when this Vote had been before the Committee called attention to the present state of the Patent Museum at South Kensington. At present the condition of that Museum was disgraceful, and the arrangements and dimensions of the Museum for containing the collection of Patents for objects which had made the country eminent, was altogether unworthy of the Nation. The condition of the Patent Museum had become a bye-word to every foreigner who visited this country. There was scarcely any arrangement for enabling visitors to inspect the Museum and see the models contained in it. The Museum should be of a most instructive character, for the purpose of inculcating technical education; but Reports had been made year after year
  618
  condemning the arrangements. He held in his hands a Report presented 10 years ago, and almost every year since a similar Report had been made by the Patent Office Commissioners. The Report 10 years ago was to this effect, that it was intended to make the Patent Office Museum an historical and educational institution for the benefit and instruction of skilled workmen employed in the manufactories of the country—a class who largely contributed to the surplus funds of the Patent Office. The Report went on to say that the Commissioners were in the possession of a large number of valuable models which were retained in packing cases for the reason that no room could be found for them in the Museum at South Kensington. This statement had been repeated year after year, and, notwithstanding, the Museum still remained in its present disgraceful position. He had on former occasions, and in former Parliaments, obtained from the Chief Commissioner of Works a promise that this Museum should be really made an efficient one. But from that time to this nothing had been done to improve the condition of the Museum, and it was made a bye-word and a reproach by every foreign visitor to the country. In America the Patent Museum was one of the best institutions of the country, and one of which America was naturally proud. And in Paris there was a most beautiful Museum of Patent Inventions—the Musee des Arts et Métiers—where all the inventions were arranged in a manner that enabled every visitor to see at once whether any invention he was contemplating had been anticipated, and he was thus saved the unnecessary expense of taking out a patent, which was very important and material to him. Both in America and in Paris the Patent Museums were kept up in a manner which did credit to those countries. The difficulty in this country, he was told, was this, that there were not sufficient funds to enable the Government to proceed to the construction of a Patent Museum. That, however, could hardly be correct, and to show that there was no foundation for such a statement he would call attention to the amount of the fees paid upon Patents. There was a surplus fund derivable from fees paid for Patents for inventions every year of nearly £150,000. That, as they all knew, was carried to the Consoli-

  619
  dated Fund, and the surplus fees paid in this way had accumulated year after year until they now amounted to nearly £2,000,000. Therefore, he did not see why they should be told that an Institution in which, as the Report of the Commissioners of Patents informed them, the working men of the country were so greatly interested, on the ground of the encouragement it would afford to inventions—that such an Institution could not be provided because there were no funds that could be utilized in constructing it. He would not take up the time of the Committee further than by saying this, as he now saw the President of the Board of Trade in his place, and as he knew the right hon. Gentleman took great interest in the question of Patents for inventions, he hoped to hear from the right hon. Gentleman that he was fully impressed with the necessity of not allowing the question to remain in abeyance year after year, but that something would at once be done to put the Museum upon a proper footing. He might add that, in the Report he had quoted, a very eligible site was recommended by the Commission—namely, the site of Fife House, at the back of the present Board of Trade Offices, in Whitehall Gardens. He believed that this site was very much in the same condition that it was a year ago when this Report was made, and he should have been glad to have put a question to the Chief Commissioner of Works upon the subject, if the right hon. Gentleman had been in his place. He agreed with the Patent Commissioners that the site of Fife House might be rendered available; but under no circumstances should the Patent Museum be allowed to remain in the condition in which it now was any longer. Seeing the large amount of the funds contributed for the Patent Office from the fees paid by inventors, it was, he thought, the duty of the Government to provide, as in the case of America and France, an Institution which should not only be useful, but should reflect credit upon the country.
  SIR HENRY HOLLANDsaid, that before the President of the Board of Trade answered the question put to him, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be able to give an assurance that the whole question of the Patent Office would be considered during the Recess. He knew that a debate had
  620
  already taken place upon the Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson), and he was sorry the hon. Member was unable to press forward that Bill to its final stage. It had been impossible for any private Member to obtain this Session the necessary opportunities for pressing forward a measure of that kind; but the debate which had already taken place must have shown the President of the Board of Trade how much importance was attached to the question, and the great amount of interest that was felt in it in the country. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be able to give the Committee an assurance that the whole question would receive careful consideration during the Recess.
  MR. WARTONsaid, he had nothing to state in reference to the Patent Office; but he wished to call attention to the peculiar way in which the accounts included in the present Vote were made out. He thought that, considering the very great importance of knowing what the salaries, wages, and allowances were, they should have some further information than was contained in a total lump sum. He thought it would be better to give the items connected with each respective department. There were three departments included in this Vote—the Patent Museum, the Designs Registry, and the Trade Mark Registry, all of them important departments. He had no desire to carp at the expenditure, or to criticize it at all; but it would seem that there had been a very considerable increase in the amount of charge. He wanted to know whether there had been an increase or not, and it had taken a long time to find where the increase was; ultimately, it turned out that it was in the cost of the special Indexing staff. There had been a total increase of about £2,600,and out of that sum no less than £1,760 was due to this one item. But in consequence of the way in which the accounts were tabulated there was nothing to catch the eye in any particular item. He thought that all important branches of expenditure should be distinctly stated and added up; and he would suggest that, in future, this account should be broken up into the expenditure of the various departments, and that proper totals should be given.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, it seemed to him a very great pity that all the expenditure in connection with the Patent Office should go to one central establishment in London. When they considered the difficulties which had to be surmounted in introducing any practical improvements in Patent machinery, it was quite plain that no mere casual observer in visiting the South Kensington Museum would be likely to gather ideas that would be useful to him in the development and improvement of any existing machinery or appliances that were used for superseding labour and simplifying mechanical power. Such appliances required a considerable amount of technical knowledge in order to enable a man to understand them and to appreciate the machinery, which was now turned to so many useful purposes. There were dotted over the face of England—he was sorry he could not say the same of Ireland—a number of centres of industry which made use in their peculiar occupations of different kinds of appliances. It therefore seemed to him that it would be a public benefit if the Institution at South Kensington were either duplicated or broken up. If it could be duplicated, one model might be kept at head-quarters, and another kept at those different centres of industry which possessed a technical school, to render such appliances of general advantage. For instance, the machinery used in the cotton trade might be sent to Manchester; at Sheffield there might be a Museum giving models of appliances connected with the trade in steel; and so on throughout the country. He believed that at Portsmouth there already existed a School of Naval Architecture, or something of that kind, which was of great use to those who were learning that branch of industry. He should like to obtain from the Government some expression of their views as to the establishment of local Museums of a special character in connection with the principal industries in England, and whether they proposed to continue the Patent Museum at South Kensington as the only place where the Patents of the country could be inspected. Certainly, in its present position it was almost wholly useless, and those who were interested in Patents for inventions seldom had access to it. There was one other point upon which
  622
  he wished to ask a question—namely, in regard to the police. He was glad to see that the President of the Board of Trade was now in his place. The right hon. Gentleman would recollect that there was a time when he had questioned the late Government as to whether the police employed at the South Kensington Museum also received police pay, together with the allowance they drew from the Patent Office. The right hon. Gentleman would recollect that, on a former occasion, he opposed the Vote; and he would ask the right hon. Gentleman if he would go with him into the Lobby against it on the present occasion?
  MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, he did not think that the hon. Member for Queen's County had properly represented the course he (Mr. Chamberlain) had taken on the occasion referred to. [Mr. ARTHUR O'CONNOR said it was reported in Hansard.] He thought not, as the hon. Member had represented the matter. He had certainly misunderstood the question which he (Mr. Chamberlain) had raised. What he was anxious to ascertain was whether the police, while being paid out of the National funds, were simply performing Metropolitan duties. He was answered at the time that the services paid for in the Vote were services wholly performed in connection with the National Museum, and as such were properly chargeable upon the Estimates. The hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton) had raised a question which was worth considering, and the noble Lord the Secretary to the Treasury would endeavour in the future preparation of the Estimates to give the total amount under different heads, as the hon. and learned Member suggested. The hon. and learned Member was perfectly correct in saying that the main increase in the Vote was owing to the addition made in the Indexing staff. On former occasions great importance had been attached to the rapid preparation of Indexes, and, at the suggestion of the Master of the Rolls, the work was being rapidly proceeded with. That, he thought, would account for the increase in the present year. In answer to his hon. Friend the Member for Midhurst (Sir Henry Holland), he might say that the whole question of the Patent Law would undoubtedly receive the careful

  623
  consideration of the Government during the Recess, and he hoped that it would be his duty next Session to bring in a Bill dealing with the subject in the spirit of the remarks which he had made on a recent occasion. He now came to the important question raised by the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. Hinde Palmer)—namely, the question of Patent Museums. There was no doubt that the Museum at South Kensington was not altogether in a satisfactory condition. It was so small that the inventions at present sent there could not be properly exhibited, and there was no room for any further extension. He did not think, however, that the reason why better provision had not been made was that which his hon. and learned Friend had supposed. At all events, he (Mr. Chamberlain) did not pretend to say that it was to be excused on the ground of lack of funds, although he might say that the question of funds was one of very considerable importance. He had no doubt that if they were to establish a Museum on an efficient scale, so as to give anything like a complete representation of English inventions, it would involve the expenditure of a very large sum indeed, probably something like £500,000. It was no answer to say that the money could be provided out of the fees paid upon patents. Of course, that was one source of income; but it went to the reduction of taxation generally. If the fees paid to the Patent Office were devoted for the building of a Museum, it would be necessary to increase taxation in some other direction. He (Mr. Chamberlain) was personally much interested in the matter, and he spoke with some practical experience, both of patents and inventions. At the same time, he must confess that if he had a sum of £500,000 to deal with, he would be able to use it with greater advantage generally than in the establishment of a Patent Museum. The Committee must consider, in the first place, what the object of the Patent Museum was to be. Was it to be merely a Museum of archaeological and historical curiosities? He did not depreciate the importance of such a collection; but they had the nucleus of one in the present Museum. For instance, it contained an illustration of the invention of the steam-engine; and specimens were given from the time of the "Rocket"
  624
  down to the present time. No doubt such a Museum was amusing, and, to a certain extent, highly instructive; but he did not think that such a Museum would justify the enormous expenditure to which he had referred, nor did he think that that was in the mind of his hon. and learned Friend, because his hon. and learned Friend said something about the advantage the Museum would be to inventors. It would be of no advantage to see such inventions as the "Rocket" steam-engine, which had been long superseded by other inventions. In order that an inventor should derive real advantage, he must have every important step in every important invention fully represented, and that, he believed, would be found to be a difficulty of first-class magnitude. His hon. and learned Friend spoke as if the problem had been settled in the United States. He could assure his hon. and learned Friend that that was not the case. A few years ago, when a great part of the Patent Museum of Washington was burned down, and a large collection of inventions was burned with the building, there was a general sense of relief and satisfaction, because the collection had already outgrown any possibility of useful reference. It had been laid down previously in America that a model of every invention should be deposited; and, consequently, the Museum was, theoretically, at all events, a Museum which contained every invention upon every subject. But he had seen a Report from the curator of a Museum in Washington to the effect that if the rate of increase continued there was no building in the United States, and no town in the United States, in point of fact, whose area would be sufficient to contain the models deposited. It was found, therefore, that if a Museum was to be of any value at all there must be a careful selection; and, latterly, in the United States the authorities had attempted to make such a selection. He was told only the other day by a gentleman who had recently returned from the United States, that the collection there was so large that there was no possibility of adequate exhibition, and if anyone wanted to see a particular model, it had to be hunted up by communication with the Curators at a considerable loss of time, because the person who desired to see it found it im-

  625
  possible to discover it for himself, owing to the want of room now existing for exhibition. He did not say that that difficulty was absolutely insurmountable; but it showed the necessity of confining themselves to a satisfactory and useful selection. But then arose the difficulty—who could tell what were useful inventions and what were not? Who could tell which of the present inventions would be most useful in assisting further inventions? Yet this was what they wanted in a Patent Museum—namely, that an inventor should he able to go there and gather useful hints and suggestions. It was absolutely impossible for the best expert to decide beforehand what invention should come under the head of the best inventions. He was not now discussing the question thoroughly, but he was only dealing with such points as had been suggested by the remarks of his hon. and learned Friend. He placed these observations before the Committee in order to show the difficulties which surrounded the question. At the same time, he would assure his hon. and learned Friend that during the Recess, when the other questions connected with the Patent Office were considered, the question of a public Patent Museum and a public selection of useful inventions would also receive careful consideration.
  MR. DILLWYNsaid, he was glad to have heard the remarks of his right hon. Friend. He agreed with every word his right hon. Friend had said. He thought it would be absurd to provide an Institution that should contain all the inventions of the country. It was a kind of myth which was never likely to be fulfilled. All that was necessary for any useful purpose was to give a good collection of drawings and specifications. They would be far more useful to inventors than any Museum of the kind suggested. His right hon. Friend said the probable expense of a Patent Museum would be £500,000. Now, he (Mr. Dillwyn) did not believe they would get a site for such a sum, and the total cost would be infinitely more. The expense of an adequate site would be enormous. They all knew what the cost of land in London was, and he was convinced that the mere purchase of the site for such a purpose would cover the whole sum mentioned by his right hon.
  626
  Friend. He had been very glad to hear the remarks made by his right hon. Friend, and he hoped they would tend to dissipate the expectations entertained by some persons, that the Government contemplated entering upon this gigantic and useless expenditure.
  MR. E. COLLINSsaid, he did not think that the remarks of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr. Hinde Palmer) had been altogether fairly treated. His hon. and learned Friend had directed attention specially to the Museum at South Kensington, and the tendency of his remarks was to show that that Museum was by no means sufficient for the requirements of the country. His hon. and learned Friend had not attempted to shadow forth the extensive scheme alluded to by the President of the Board of Trade and the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn). The views of the hon. and learned Member for Lincoln were moderate, and his hon. and learned Friend only wished to direct the attention of the Government to the insufficiency of the existing Museum, with the view of endeavouring to induce them to give the subject more consideration than it had yet received. His hon. and learned Friend had pointed out to the Committee that the sum derived from Patent Fees now amounted to £150,000 a-year. The exact sum was £144,000. That was a very large sum; and when it was borne in mind that the accumulation of the surplus fees amounted to £2,000,000, it might naturally be thought that a revenue so large and constantly accumulating would be sufficient to make provision for the proper collection and exhibition of models.
  MR. CRAIGsaid, he had no doubt that an exhibition of drawings and specifications would be useful, but they would not supersede the exhibition of models. A Model Museum must be of great utility. Let the Committee consider for a moment what the effect would have been upon a mind such as that of George Stephenson, if he could have been brought in contact with a Model Museum. The exhibition of models enabled a man with an inventive genius to mature his own inventions, and thus confer great benefit upon the general public, and every man who was acquainted with the subject must at once see that it was most desirable to have a better building than that which now

  627
  existed at South Kensington. If the arrangements were more complete many persons would come up from the country for the purpose of visiting the Museum—persons who were accustomed in their daily occupation to see machinery at work, and persons whose ideas would be sharpened by an inspection of the inventions of others. He thought it was incumbent upon the Government of the country, which depended so much upon manufacturing and mining industries, to improve, as far as possible, the tools with which the people worked, so that in the end they might cheapen the cost of production. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade had referred to the Patent Museum in America. There was no doubt that that was a very clumsy and heterogeneous collection, which there was no necessity for imitating. What he would advise was that the classifications pursued in the present building should be continued, but that the evils into which the Americans had fallen should be avoided, and we should soon possess a collection of models worthy of the greatest manufacturing country in the world. At the same time, while keeping up the intelligence of our inventors, and assisting the commercial well-being of the country, such a Museum would afford the greatest assistance to inventors in seeing whether the invention that was engaging their attention was already in existence or not. He believed that the idea of establishing a Patent Museum would be most popular, and that if it were carried out it would in many respects be a most instructive Institution for giving expression to the inventive genius of the country. He trusted, therefore, that the question would receive the attention which the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade had promised to devote to it.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade was probably right as to the effect of his previous speech. The question then asked by the right hon. Gentleman was whether the police who were paid out of the Vote performed duties exclusively for the Museum, and were paid for the duties so performed, or whether they received their police pay in addition? That was a question which he (Mr. O'Connor) would like to have answered. The right hon. Gentle-
  628
  man seemed to be satisfied upon the point now; and he hoped, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman would inform the Committee whether the policemen on duty at South Kensington were paid as members of the Police Force over and above the money they drew from the Vote.
  MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, he spoke from recollection. The hon. Member seemed to be speaking from a book; but he (Mr. Chamberlain) was quite certain that his recollection was accurate. He had been anxious to know whether the policemen who were paid out of the National funds were doing Metropolitan work, in which case he thought they ought to be paid out of the Metropolitan funds, and not out of the National Exchequer. He was answered at the time, and he believed that it was the fact that they were doing National work. Therefore, he had no objection to the Vote.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked if they also received pay as policemen?
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH: They are amply paid by the Treasury, and they receive no pay from the Police.
  Vote agreed to.
  (6.) £14,277, to complete the sum for the Paymaster General's Office.
  MR. S. LEIGHTONsaid, he had a Resolution on the Paper in regard to this Vote, which he regretted to have to bring forward as it might have the appearance of wasting the time of the Committee. This, however, was not his fault, but was the fault of the noble Lord the Financial Secretary to the Treasury; and when he stated the precise position of the matter he believed that the Committee would see that there was a good deal to be said upon it. The Vote about to be taken was for the Paymaster General's Office. The Paymaster General was the banker to the Suitors in Chancery, and as their banker he had something like a sum of £60,000,000 in his possession. A portion of that money consisted of unclaimed funds, or dormant funds. Several Acts had been passed directing that proper particulars should be given to Suitors in respect of this unclaimed money, in order that they might claim their own. These Acts of Parliament had been violated, and on account of the violation of them, he intended to move the reduction of the

  629
  Vote by the sum of £500. One Act of Parliament directed that every information should be given to the Suitors in regard to this unclaimed money, and that every three years there should be a list of names published. Now, in the first place, a list had not been published every three years. A list ought to have been published in 1876, 1879, and another would be due in 1882; but, as a matter of fact, only one had been published in 1877, and another a few months ago. In the next place, the Act of Parliament laid down that the list should be alphabetical, and it was not alphabetical. He would take, for instance, the letter "A," and he found an entry to this effect—
  "Ex parte Commission for executing the office of Lord High Admiral of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. The account of Mansfield, Harper, &c, infants."
  It was impossible for Suitors to find out their claims under such conditions. It might naturally be supposed that the fault was with the Paymaster General and with his officials; but the fault did not rest with him. It rested with the noble Lord the Financial Secretary to the Treasury and the Commissioners of the Treasury. He found that the Paymaster General had written a letter to the Treasury upon the subject only last year, in which he said—
  "I regret that the representations I have repeatedly addressed to the Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury upon the incompleteness of the audit, and the inadequacy of my staff even for the work now undertaken, and constantly falling more and more into arrear, have not received any response, and I have accordingly addressed a further letter to the Commissioners."
  But there was another letter even stronger—
  "I will not be held responsible for the possible consequences which may result from the insufficient supervision of pecuniary transactions of such magnitude unless I have further help."
  Last year the noble Lord the Financial Secretary to the Treasury said he would give additional clerks; but he now proposed actually to reduce the Vote by £400. The noble Lord had said on one occasion that if he (Mr. S. Leighton) would show him reasons for the publication of clearer lists, he would accede to his proposal. He thought it was very hard that the noble Lord should
  630
  require a reason for doing what common honesty would suggest. He might almost tell the Government to remember the Commandment—"Thou shalt not steal." He would point out that the other Public Offices, when they had money belonging to the public in their hands, had always given the information for which he asked. The India Office, the War Office, the Courts of Law, all published details of money in their possession, which belonged to others.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I trusted to the hon. Member being correct in stating that the Vote he refers to came under the head of the Paymaster General; but I find that the Vote comes under the Chancery Pay Office, Class III, Vote 4; therefore, the hon. Member is clearly out of Order.
  MR. S. LEIGHTONsaid, if the Chairman had made that observation earlier he would have been saved some trouble. He would renew his Motion at the proper time.
  Vote agreed to.
  (7.) £6,243, to complete the sum for the Public Works Loan Commission.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, on this Vote he wished to call attention to the West India Islands Relief Commission. He was under the impression that that Commission did not exist, and the noble Lord the Financial Secretary to the Treasury would be able to tell him whether his impression was correct or not. He (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) believed that the Commission was put an end to before the commencement of the period for which this Vote was taken; therefore, it seemed to him to be asking for a Vote which did not exist, and which had not existed during the proper financial period. This Relief Commission was to the West India Islands very much what the Public Works Loan Commission was to the United Kingdom, and its history it would be very useful to remember when they came to consider the value of the Public Works Loan Commission in this country. There was always this great danger, of the money advanced by the Loan Commissioners not being very well looked after—that was to say, the appropriation of it. He found in the Report of the Public Accounts Commissioner on this Vote questions and answers to the following effect. It was asked whether it was intended

  631
  that the necessary statements should be furnished with reference to the West India Islands Belief Commission Account? And the reply was—
  "Certainly; and it might be mentioned to the Committee that the work that the country had undertaken as to these loans involved a very considerable amount of labour. The accounts of the loans in arrear had not been examined for a long period, and to clear up doubtful cases extending over many years would entail a largo amount of correspondence and trouble. Two Acts had been passed which had cleared off considerable items of these arrears; but, of course, the Treasury had felt bound in no case to suggest a remission or composition of the loan until they were thoroughly satisfied that there was no possible means of recovering the amount due. The Treasury had now the West India Islands Relief Commission under their consideration, and had been in communication with the Commissioners on the subject of their loans. The Treasury had been instructed to offer certain terms to certain creditors, and had further given instructions that proceedings should be taken against them where the debts were not cleared up. The difficulty which arose as to these loans was that they were advanced, in most instances, to individuals. As soon as each of the branches of the Commission had finished its labours, the consent of Parliament would be asked to such remissions of loans as might be considered necessary,"
  That was the effect of the answer given before the Public Accounts Commissioner. As he had said, the West India Islands Relief Commission had ceased to exist; but the Public Works Loan Commission still continued, and the way it did its work was very much the same as the way in which the West India Islands Belief Commission had done theirs. The Board was simply a lending Board, and the duty of looking after the appropriation of the money fell upon the Local Government Board, which body had only a limited power of following the expenditure. An Act was passed two years ago enabling them to do what ought to have been done from the beginning, and the consequence of the delay had been that a large amount of money had been misspent, and a great deal lost beyond recovery, especially in connection with the different harbours of the country. He would not go into details with regard to the harbours, which were referred to at length in the Report of the Loans Board for 1879–80. Reference was there made to harbours both in Ireland and in England. In the case of one harbour in Wexford, the whole amount of money voted had never been issued to the Harbour Commissioners; yet, in the Report of the Public Loans
  632
  Board, he found the harbour people put down as debtors for a certain amount of money. It struck him as a strange thing, if these Commissioners were to receive a certain amount of money on account of harbour works, that they should be put down as being in arrear with their repayment of principal and interest when the total amount of principal had not yet been advanced. Perhaps the noble Lord would give him some explanation upon this point? Another thing he wished to ask was what was proposed to be done with reference to the loans to Harwich Harbour—whether the Government proposed to bring in a Bill to wipe off the loans, as loans in the case of the West India Islands Relief Commission had been cleared away?
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, with regard to the last question, it would more properly rise on Class I. in connection with the Harbour Votes. The Treasury hoped to receive back a portion of their money, and, therefore, they did not expect to have to wipe off the debt. As to the other harbour referred to by the hon. Member, the transaction occurred before his (Lord Frederick Cavendish's) time at the Treasury. It had never been brought before him; but if the hon. Member desired it he would make inquiries and give him an answer upon Report. With regard to the Report of the Controller and Auditor General with reference to the audit of these accounts, he was happy to be able to inform the hon. Member that the audit was now more complete and fuller than it used to be, and they might expect satisfactory results from the alteration. With regard to the West India Islands Relief Commission, the Treasury had deemed it advisable, in the public interest, to bring it to a termination some time ago.
  Vote agreed to.
  (8.) £11,567, to complete the sum for the Record Office.
  MR. J. COWENsaid, he did not wish to delay the Committee by any lengthened observations; but he wished to call the noble Lord's attention to the question of the publication of the documents issued by this Office, which documents were of great value. He desired to ask if some better facilities could not be given to the public for obtaining possession of the very valuable books which were issued here from time to time?
  SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS: I am afraid the Financial Secretary will think this matter is a hobby of mine, because I have so often brought it before the House. Hitherto I have been satisfied with the answer he has been able to give me with regard to the course he has taken; but I cannot too strongly press upon the Government, now they have accumulated this great mass of public information in the Record Office, that every precaution should be taken to preserve the documents from fire. One point I am particularly anxious to put before the noble Lord on this question, and it is this, that I am afraid the relations between the Record Office and the gentleman who has control over the Metropolitan Fire Brigade under the super intendance of the Metropolitan Board of Works, are not as satisfactory as they should be. I think in a matter of this kind, he who is looked to for keeping all the fires in the Metropolis down should be one of the parties consulted in the matter of the safe-keeping of the documents in the Public Record Office. As I am informed, the gentleman in charge of the Fire Office has never been consulted in any shape with regard to the records. The Record Office is entirely in different hands, and this gentleman knows nothing about the means to be taken should a fire break out there. He and his men would have everything to learn; and I really would impress upon the Government how desirable it is that Captain Shaw, one of the most valuable officers we have in this particular department, should be placed in the closest connection with the Record Office, and should be consulted about protecting it from fire.
  MR. HEALYsaid, that before the noble Lord rose, he wished to draw his attention to another point, and, perhaps, if he was not able to give an answer offhand, he would make a point of inquiring into the matter, and giving full information on Report. What he (Mr. Healy) wished to know was what the Government intended to do in the case of the old Irish manuscripts in Italy and Switzerland, which the Italian and Swiss authorities had very liberally offered to give up, on being assured that they would be placed in safe-keeping, either in this country or Ireland? He did not know whether the question
  634
  properly arose under this Vote; but it was a fact that very valuable Irish manuscripts were in the Library at Rome and in the Libraries of some of the Swiss towns; and they were considered of comparatively little value in these foreign countries. The foreign Governments would be willing to give them up to the custody of such a body as the Royal Hibernian Academy. What he wished to know was whether the keepers of the Italian and Swiss Libraries had put themselves into communication with the Government on this matter? The subject was one of national interest in Ireland, and he trusted the Government would give it the consideration it deserved.
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, it had not been brought to his knowledge that any offer of manuscripts had been made to any Department of the State by any Italian or Swiss officials; but he would make inquiries into the subject without delay.
  MR. HEALYsaid, he did not mean to say that communications had passed; it was more in the shape of an understanding between the officials of the two countries.
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, he would inquire whether the matter had ever been under consideration; if it had, at any rate it had not come under his notice. As to the important question raised concerning fires, he fully concurred with the right hon. Gentleman (Sir R. Assheton Cross) as to the extreme importance, not only of the Public Record Office, but of every Office of the State, taking the best precautions against the outbreak of fire. Whether or not the best arrangement would be to make the Chief Officer of the Metropolitan Fire Brigade responsible for the documents in the different Departments of the Government, he was not at present prepared to state; but he could promise the right hon. Gentleman that the matter would be considered. With regard to the question put to him by the hon. Member on that (the Ministerial) side of the House (Mr. J. Cowen) as to the facilities to the public for obtaining copies of historical documents, he would inquire whether these facilities could be extended, and whether a list could be prepared of all the publications which could be procured in the Office. The sale price of these documents was always

  635
  limited to the cost of printing and paper, no charge being made in respect of editing or preparing, or what he might call the mental work in connection with the records. He did not know whether further facilities could be given; but, if they could, he agreed with the hon. Member as to the importance of rendering these documents as accessible as possible to the public.
  MR. RYLANDSsaid, he would like to suggest that copies of the records should be sent to the Libraries of the various Provincial towns in the country where Libraries had been established by Act of Parliament, and were, therefore, of a permanent character. It was a very small thing to ask, and this was not the first time he had ventured to make the request. Considering the large Votes of money that Public Institutions obtained in London, it was a very small thing to ask that the local Libraries should have copies of the Record publications presented to them. Perhaps the noble Lord would undertake that the matter should be considered by the Government?
  MR. TORRENSconsidered the observations of the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) were very important, and deserved the careful consideration of the Government. He (Mr. Torrens) had not been aware of the possibility of their being able to obtain these documents from foreign Governments; but he might mention to the Committee a matter which was within his own knowledge. A valuable document connected with Irish history had been allowed to pass out of this country merely owing to the parsimony of those entrusted with the purchase of such things. The document in question had been offered over and over again to public bodies in Great Britain, including the British Museum and the Record Office. Terms had not been come to, and at last it had gone to Washington, and was now in the Museum of the American Capital. The suggestion which had been thrown out was very well worth the consideration of the Government; and he hoped such instances as that to which he referred might not occur again. He would suggest to the authorities of the Record Office, as well as to those of the British Museum, that it would be desirable in the existing advanced state of science that they should altogether dispense with the dangerous system of artificial lighting
  636
  which was now adopted. He had been struck, both at the Record Office and the British Museum, with the danger arising from the use of gas, and it appeared to him strongly desirable that this mode of lighting should not be applied to either of these places. There were no buildings in which a safe light was more essential than these repositories of ancient records and public documents. Therefore, he hoped before the Vote came on next year that something would be done in the direction of adopting a new method of lighting.
  MR. FINIGANsaid, he wished to make an observation on a matter which he considered deserved the serious attention of the noble Lord. He wished to ask whether the work of investigating documents in the archives of Venice was commenced in 1862; and whether when it was entered into it was not declared that it would last 13 years, and that the total cost would not exceed £5,000? Was it not a fact that this sum had been exceeded by £1,699? He should like to know how this expenditure was going on, and whether the Government proposed keeping to their original intention or varying from that? If it intended departing from its original intention, he should like to know whether it was intended to ask for further powers?
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, he thought that the further powers necessary were taken when the Estimates were passed. He believed the result of the investigations in the Venetian archives had been of almost unrivalled interest. The documents obtained had been of enormous value, and he believed that already, in all, 115 volumes of transcripts had been received in the Public Record Office in this way. He did not know whether the hon. Member or the Committee desired that this work should cease.
  MR. J. COWENwished to point out that the documents which had been obtained in Venice had a special reference to the matter the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) had mentioned. These documents distinctly referred to Irish history.
  Vote agreed to.
  (9.) £22,943, to complete the sum for the Registrar General's Office, England.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, with regard to the Report of the Registrar

  637
  General for England, he would ask whether it would not be possible to make it a little more complete on a very interesting point? He noticed on page 146 of the last Report that the record of violent deaths showed that there were of homicide cases 206 males and 168 females in the year, making a total of 374, or more than one a-day. Of suicides there were—males 1,299, females 465, giving a total of 1,764; that was to say, 33 suicides every week in England. That was a very interesting statement, but it did not include executions, which were over and above these figures. These figures included 91 murders of males and 110 of females, 115 cases of manslaughter of males and 58 of females. The figures were simply appalling; and to those hon. Members who came from a nation not given to habits of this kind it was enough to make them feel nervous to know that this was the state of things in the country in which they were obliged to live, at any rate, six months in the year. He had endeavoured to ascertain from the Registrar General how many cases had been brought to justice; but he did not find that the necessary materials were supplied. He believed, however, that 60 per cent of the cases of murder and manslaughter were not brought to justice. But the Registrar General, as he had said, did not appear to give information on that subject. He did not know whether it was in his province to do so; but if he could furnish the details, it would make his Report more complete and interesting.
  Vote agreed to.
  (10.) £295,000, to complete the sum for Stationery and Printing.
  SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTremarked, that this was always a heavy Vote and badly arranged; but he was bound to say that it was this year very much better framed than formerly. There were, however, many items with respect to which the Committee still stood in need of more particular information. For instance, there was a charge of £60,755 for the War Office, of which no particulars were given, the amount being simply put down as a lump sum. Hon. Members would see that this was a very large item, and he thought the Committee might very properly ask that some further information should be given
  638
  with respect to it than appeared on the face of the Estimate. The want of particulars was not only apparent in the case of the War Office, but there were several Departments for which a charge was made in the same way, and about which much more detailed information was desirable. He had no wish to delay the Vote, but simply rose to ask the noble Lord the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to give instructions that in future further information should be furnished with respect to the charges for the various Departments.
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, he should be happy to see further information given upon the subject referred to by the hon. and gallant Baronet opposite, if it could be done without overloading the Estimates. He was sure that hon. Members would agree that while every possible information should be given, it was by no means desirable that the volume of the Estimates should be made more bulky than at present.
  An hon. MEMBER said, he thought there ought to be no difficulty in arranging for more information of a necessary kind, seeing that so much was given that was quite useless.
  MR. J. COWENsaid, that this Vote was one of the heaviest in the Estimates, and required careful consideration. He believed the hon. Baronet the Member for Midhurst (Sir Henry Holland) had on a previous occasion suggested that a Committee should be appointed for the purpose of investigating the whole of this question; and he thought, if that were done, it would have the effect both of simplifying the form and reducing the amount of the Vote. It was difficult for anyone at that time to enter into an elaborate examination of these charges, and he certainly had no wish to do so; but anyone practically acquainted with the matter would perceive at once that on several items a considerable amount could be saved. A good deal of the paper used in the Department was of a kind that in the course of a few years would be found to be useless, while the printing would be unreadable, because the ink on the paper would disappear. The question, therefore, was one which required consideration. To spend money on paper that would not be permanent involved a distinct loss to the nation, and he thought these considerations were such, as amongst others

  639
  might fairly justify the Government in acting upon the suggestion of the hon. Member for Midhurst for the appointment of a Committee. With regard to the Foreign Office papers, it must be remembered that the better class of printing in connection with them meant higher wages, and this would account for the increase under that head. And not only was the printing costly, but it was badly done. As a practical printer, he was prepared to say that some of the Government work was printed upon paper and with ink that, in the course of time, would fade, and the reports become wholly illegible.
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, that this subject had been under most careful consideration for several years. With respect to the appointment of a Committee, he would remind his hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle that a Joint Committee of the two Houses had been recently sitting to inquire into the question of Parliamentary printing. The investigation of that Committee would undoubtedly embrace the points raised by his hon. Friend, and in the meantime he could assure him that every effort had been made to keep the expenditure under this Vote within proper bounds.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he wished to ask the noble Lord for some information with regard to the charge upon page 146 for the Gazettes of London, Edinburgh, and Dublin. He would like to know what became of the £32,000 profit arising from these publications? Because, if it went to the printer, he was at a loss to understand why the money paid to the printer for the publication of the Gazettes was included in the account which resulted in this profit being shown. On the other hand, he did not see why it should be credited to the printer, because the estimated extra receipts amounted to only £4,690. Under the circumstances, it was difficult to see what became of this large sum of £32,000. There was another point to which he wished to call the attention of the noble Lord. Of late years the Stationery Office had obtained power to extend its operations to India; and he understood that the Calcutta tradesmen had made representations to the Government upon this subject. They protested against the recent Order of the Secretary of State directing the Sta-
  640
  tionery Department to obtain its supplies in England instead of in India as heretofore, and they described it as unjust towards India, and inconsistent with the late resolution of the Government, to encourage private trade by purchasing its stores as far as possible in the Indian market. The Order of the Secretary of State had been made apparently in ignorance of the fact that the system of buying Government stationery in India had for some time worked well, and effected a large saving. He must say that, on the face of it, the representation of the Calcutta Trades Association was a reasonable one, and if it was a fact that the system of supplying the stationery from the Indian market had resulted in a saving, as compared with the system of supply from this country, it would be very difficult to justify the alteration made by the Secretary of State for transferring the business to England. There was another point arising on this Vote to which the noble Lord some months ago promised his attention—namely, the amount of money paid for printing in the Foreign Office, the authorities at which Department had a special printing office under their control. He had pointed out on a previous occasion that the rates of payment for work done in that Department were various, and in many cases above the rates at which the work could be done by the Stationery' Office. He was certain that the Controller of the Stationery Department had made representations as to the waste of money which took place in the Foreign Office in connection with printing; and he believed the noble Lord had stated that the matter should be inquired into, and the resolution arrived at stated to the Committee.
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, that the explanation of the point of the hon. Member for Queen's County with regard to the publication of the Gazettes was that the money was paid in stamps and not in cash, and did not, therefore, appear in the actual receipts paid into the Exchequer. With regard to the Foreign Office printing, his hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs had stated that the question was under the careful consideration of the Foreign Office; but it must be borne in mind that, although the printing done at the Office related to matters that were confidential, there were some

  641
  classes of work of a more strictly confidential character than others; and it would, he thought, be very questionable economy to risk publicity by an attempt to get the printing executed at a smaller cost. Nevertheless, every endeavour would be made to see if anything could be saved in the Department in question.
  MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDasked for an explanation with respect to the increase of £10,000 for printing, binding, &c, for the two Houses of Parliament.
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, he hoped that before long the Re-port of the Joint Committee of the two Houses upon the subject of Parliamentary printing would be in the hands of hon. Members. Although the arrangements with regard to stationery were not under his direction, the whole question was receiving the attention of the Government.
  MR. HEALYwished to ask the noble Lord a question with regard to the increase of £1,000 upon the amount paid last year to Mr. Hansard in respect of Parliamentary Reporting—an increase which he was glad to see, and about which he would simply inquire whether it was to become a permanent charge in the Estimates? He observed, also, a charge for a number of copies of the Debates purchased from Mr. Hansard, and presumed that these were distributed amongst the various Public Offices. Perhaps the noble Lord would afford some explanation upon these points? The noble Lord would be aware of the great interest taken by the public in the Irish Land Question, and that a large demand had been created for copies of the Irish Land Bill; and he wished to call the attention of the noble Lord to the fact that what he might call fancy prices were being charged for them. He would therefore suggest that, as in the case of other Parliamentary Papers, the price should be stated on the face of the Bills before Parliament, so that no extra might be exacted from the public. Then with regard to the charge for The Dublin Gazette. It was well known that this was published on Saturdays, and that it had been enacted by statute that proclamations of Irish towns and districts should appear in that Gazette. But, upon a recent occasion, when the City of Dublin was proclaimed—an event fol-
  642
  lowed by the arrest of the hon. Member for Tipperary (Mr. Dillon)—The Dublin, Gazette was not obtainable on the Saturday, but was kept back from the public until midnight on Sunday. Now it was something in the nature of a public scandal, and one which called for the notice of the Committee, that The Gazette office, which had only to do the cut-and-dried work of publication, should play into the hands of the authorities of Dublin Castle, by delaying the publication of this official record, in order to prevent the citizens of Dublin being made aware of the fact that their city was proclaimed. That act might be held to be illegal; and it might even follow that because The Gazette was issued on Sunday the proclamation was illegal also, and that the hon. Member for Tipperary was now lying in Kilmainham under illegal duresse. He trusted the noble Lord would make a statement on this subject on Report.
  MR. LABOUCHEREpointed out that the printing of the House of Commons cost more than that of the House of Lords. Confidential printing, conducted at the Foreign Office, was charged 26 per cent more for than when it was done elsewhere. He also wished to point out that every Member of that House received a ton weight of Blue Books every year. Within the last six years £55,000 had been saved in the expenditure on the Stationery Office, and he believed that a further sum of £10,000 per annum might be saved in that Department.
  MR. J. COWENsaid, he thought the increased expenditure with regard to Mr. Hansard's reports was fully accounted for by the increased amount of work done, and that the additional sum paid to that gentleman only compensated, and no more than compensated, for the additional labour thrown upon him. He thought that the House would be compelled very shortly to face the fact that either it must abandon Mr. Hansard's reports or pay him a larger sum of money, or that it must adopt some system of official reporting. Mr. Hansard's reports were admirably done, and the books were exceedingly well printed, and he believed their value was in no way repaid by the amount of this grant. There was no doubt that the late Chancellor of the Exchequer made an excellent bargain with Mr. Hansard, inas-

  643
  much as the payment did not at all come up to the expenditure incurred by that gentleman.
  LORD FREDERICK CAYENDISHsaid, his hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle (Mr. Cowen) had explained the real reason of the increased payment to Mr. Hansard, to which the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) had referred. Representations had been made to him (Lord Frederick Cavendish), at the time the Estimates were being framed, that, owing to the increased length of the Session, the arrangements which were made by the right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Stafford Northcote) with Mr. Hansard had not been at all profitable to that gentleman—in fact, that the arrangement caused Mr. Hansard extreme anxiety. Mr. Hansard had told him—and he had proved himself a true prophet—that, long as previous Sessions had been, he expected that this Session would be longer, and he had urged that he could not undertake the reporting of this Session unless an addition were made to his usual remuneration. It was in consequence of those representations that he (Lord Frederick Cavendish) had agreed to place in the Estimates of the present year an additional sum of £1,000. With respect to the suggestion that the cost of Bills introduced into that House should be printed on the face of the Bills, he regarded it as a very good one, and would inquire whether there was any good reason why it should not be adopted. Then, with regard to the publication of The Dublin Gazette on Sunday—
  MR. HEALY: It was delivered on Sunday. There is no evidence as to when it was published.
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHthought it was quite conceivable that circumstances might arise which would delay the publication of The Gazette, and render it necessary even to infringe upon the sanctity of the Sunday by the delivery of the paper on that day. The hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) had asked him whether any further reform could be effected in this Department. But he would remind the hon. Member that the Treasury had a most limited control over Parliamentary printing, which rested with Mr. Speaker.
  MR. HEALYwished to give Notice that he should again call attention to
  644
  the subject of The Dublin Gazette. He regarded the circumstance to which he had referred as raising a very important political question. With regard to the item for reporting, he wished to know whether it was intended that the extra grant of £1,000 would become a permanent charge? In asking that, he did not wish to detract from the value of Mr. Hansard's reports.
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHthought this would depend upon whether they were always to have such long Sessions. He believed the original proposal would have been sufficient for an ordinary Session; but if they were always going to have Sessions of seven or eight months' duration, although he was not able to say exactly what would be done, the arrangement would require to be reconsidered.
  Vote agreed to.
  (11.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £13,196, 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 1882, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of Her Majesty's Woods, Forests, and Land Revenues, and of the Office of Land Revenue Records and Inrolments."
  MR. PUGHsaid, in rising to move the reduction of this Vote by the sum of £2,000, he should confine himself to matters that were of general interest alike to the people of England and Wales. He had endeavoured to get an opportunity to bring this question of Crown Lands before the House in another form, but had failed in his endeavour, although he could assure the Committee that this was owing to no fault of his own. He was extremely sorry that he had not been successful, because there were many things that he desired to lay before the House which he did not think it would be right for him to bring at length under the notice of the Committee upon the Estimates. For the latter reason he should be very brief in his observations. A Return had been issued in the beginning of the year on the Motion of the hon. Baronet the Member for Radnorshire (Sir Richard Green Price), which showed the area of the unsold Crown Lands in Wales to be 85,000 acres, and the profit derived from them, in the way of rent, to be nil. The Return went on to say

  645
  that although no profit was received from this source, there were profits received from other sources—namely, the profits of mines, rents for sporting, estrays, &c. Now, with regard to the mines he contended that they should be managed in the way that would develop them most for the good of the country; but his charge against the Department with reference to the management of mines was that their policy tended to retard the development of the mines, and so do a very serious injury to the people and to the country. The terms demanded by the Commissioners of Woods and Forests were such as the Committee would see at once no private individual would insert in his lease. It was required that on every transfer of any mine there should be payable to the Commissioners of Woods and Forests not only a quarter of the profits, but one-fourth of the nominal profit on the sale of the mine. The only reason given for that provision was that it put a stop to speculation in mines. But a moment's consideration of this matter would show that the effect was in the contrary direction, because it was no hardship to speculators who received cash for their shares to pay over one-fourth of the money to the Commissioners of Woods and Forests. The effect, however, would be very different in the case of a man who had discovered a good mine, and who agreed to take no cash at all, but only paid-up shares. Supposing he was willing to sell for £1,000 over and above his expenses, the transaction could not be carried out unless he could and would find £250 in cash to pay to the Commissioners of Woods and Forests. He maintained that a provision of that sort was calculated to retard the development of the mining resources of the country. Moreover, he had known instances in which he believed that simply in consequence of the outrageous provisions made by the Commissioners, mines had been stopped, and a large number of miners had been thrown out of work, and anyone living in the neighbourhood of mines would understand the full significance of that fact. Not only were there lead mines in Cardiganshire, which, to a large extent, for this cause remained undeveloped, but there were also gold mines in Merionethshire, from which it was a fact that the Commissioners of Woods and Forests had in one year received
  646
  no less a sum than £2,000. Here, again, great complaint was made of the conduct of the Commissioners; but he should not trouble the Committee with the details, further than by pointing out that the practice appeared to be to deal with gold and lead mines in the same arbitrary and inconsiderate manner. Now, his proposal was to relieve the Department of all trouble and responsibility with regard to the soil and surface of these 85,000 acres of land, an arrangement that would allow for the reduction of the establishment to about the extent represented by the sum by which he moved the reduction of this Vote. He contended that the present system of control could not be maintained with advantage to the country; and he believed that if the full Return asked for, showing the receipts and expenditure, had been granted, it would have appeared that a large sum of money was being paid for no useful purpose whatever. He challenged the noble Lord in charge of the Estimates to say what the rents for sporting amounted to. As far as his own experience went the Commissioners of Woods and Forests occasionally got an English gentleman to take a lease, and to pay rent for a certain number of years; but although he was aware that such instances had occurred, he had never known or heard of any such lease being renewed. It sometimes happened, also, that a neighbouring landowner took one of these leases for the purpose of better preserving his own adjoining shooting; and they were, perhaps, renewed in cases of that kind. However that might be, he felt certain that the amount of revenue derived from the letting of sporting rights was exceedingly small. Next came the revenue from estrays, the meaning of which was the profit derived from the catching of stray sheep. Upon this subject he would remark that, having gone carefully into the question, he believed that the opinion in the country was that a great deal of wrong went on under the name of taking estrays. He had never been able to ascertain in what way the revenue under this head was made up or collected; but perhaps the noble Lord would be able to say something in explanation of this matter. He believed, however, that the Committee would agree that unless the revenue derived from this source was large and import-

  647
  ant, the sooner such a system was done away with the better. Now, with regard to the policy of the Commissioners of Woods and Forests. He contended that it was, as far as possible, to keep these lands in their present position, to prevent any inclosure or improvement; and he would go to the extent of saying that the Department of Woods and Forests, in preventing improvement, went a great deal further than any private landowner would dream of going. What had been the policy of the Commissioners with regard to the question of inclosure? He could trace it down from the year 1845, and even further back. He would point out to the Committee that several Inclosure Acts had been passed previous to that time, and that the share obtained by the Crown under those Acts was l–20th. In 1844 a Return was made to the House of the transactions which had taken place between the Duke of Newcastle and the Department of Woods and Forests; and by a reference to the Papers it would be found that they obtained a 20th share in respect of some of the land bought by his Grace, and 1–16th share in respect of other portions. But, coming down to later times, he would mention the case of Borth, a village in Cardiganshire, on the sea, the higher portion of which was much resorted to by tourists and strangers. The lower part was in the occupation of persons of whom he should not be wrong in saying that they were all, or nearly all, the owners of the freehold of their houses, but the possessors of no other property. The village was built on the shingle thrown up by the sea, and behind it was a morass many miles in extent. Now, it was said to be merely a question of time when this village would be washed away, unless something effectual was done to protect it—and something which the owners of the houses were not in a position to do unaided. At the back of the village there was an extent of Crown land; and, a few years ago, a movement was set on foot to get this land enclosed, part of it being set aside and sold for the purpose of raising money to protect the village from the sea. The whole of the facts were put before the Department; but, so far from doing what any private individual would have felt bound to do under the circumstances, the Commissioners simply ignored the
  648
  danger to the village, and refused to render any assistance, or to permit the inclosure, except upon the most inequitable and unjust terms. Since the time he referred to—1877—things had gone from bad to worse; and, as far as he knew, the Crown, or rather the country, had received no revenue whatever from this land. Then there was another case, in connection with about 2,000 acres of land in Carmarthenshire, called Llanllwin Mountain, which belonged to the Crown, and from which, he believed, no revenue was derived. There had been much correspondence on the subject between the people of the district and the Office of Woods and Forests. This was land much of it suitable for building purposes, and all for cultivation, and which, if so used, he had no doubt, would greatly benefit that part of the country. After the refusal of the Commissioners to accept the proportion of 1–12th, or any fixed proportion at all, they proposed that the people should appoint as arbitrator to decide the proper proportion one of several persoms whom the Woods and Forests Department were in the habit of employing. The people selected one accordingly; but that did not suit the Department, who clearly intended that the terms should not be carried out; and they, accordingly, insisted upon giving their own instructions to that gentleman, and refused to allow him otherwise to proceed. Those instructions were most unfair, and conceived entirely in the interests of the Department. It would, he believed, be absolutely impossible to carry out any inclosure upon such terms. The Crown retained the management of the land, and that, he thought, was to be deplored in the interests of the whole country. If the whole of these 85,000 acres were in closed, the portion allotted to the Crown could be sold in whatever manner the Crown thought proper, and it would be readily bought up by the miners in Wales, for the purpose of building cottages and making gardens, and inclosures for pasturage. The Department, by retaining the whole of this land, could derive no profit—but the result was that no tree could be planted, no fence could be made, and no drain or ditch could be dug. With reference to improvements, if a man wished to put up a fence, the Department acted in a way which no private

  649
  individual would adopt. The hon. Baronet the Member for Denbighshire (Sir Watkin Wynn) was the lord of many manors in North Wales, and whenever any of his tenants wished to make any improvement upon the land he was prepared to allow them to do so, upon their acknowledging his right and paying a reasonable sum by way of acknowledgment. That was how a landlord should act; but that was not the way in which the Woods and Forests Department acted. What they did in such a case was this. After a long correspondence they would allow two neighbouring owners to put up a fence between them at a nominal rent; and after the fence had been completed they would refuse any longer to receive the nominal rent agreed upon, and insist upon the payment of a rent calculated according to the improved value of the sheepwalks. In a case of which he knew, the rent charged was 2s. 6d. a-year; but before two years expired, after the fence was completed, upon which the owners had expended not less than £100, the Department, in the interests of the country, as they said, refused any longer to accept 2s. 6d. a-year, but demanded £7 or £8 a-year. There was another case where two tenants of one landlord, who had sheep-walks extending over a large tract of country, put up a fence as between themselves, without any help from the landlord. An offer was made to acknowledge the rights of the Crown, and to pay a reasonable sum in acknowledgment; but no acknowledgment was accepted, and the fence, he believed, had to be, and was actually, taken up. Were the Committee inclined to vote for the continuance of that sort of thing? It was a disgrace to any Public Department that such things were allowed to go on. He would not mention names in the matter; but he had a letter from the agent of one of the largest landowners in Cardiganshire—the agent himself also being in an independent position—stating that he had consulted with his employer, and they both felt bound to decline to furnish him with information, lest the estate should fall under the lash of the Department. He hoped some assurance would be given that this matter would be inquired into in some proper manner; and unless such an assurance could be given
  650
  he should ask the Committee to divide upon his Motion.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £11,196, 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 1882, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of Her Majesty's Woods, Forests, and Land Revenues, and of the Office of Land Revenue Records and Inrolments."—(Mr. Pugh.)
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHremarked, that the hon. Member had brought a series of very grave charges against the Commissioners of Woods and Forests. The hon. Member argued, in the first place, that £2,000 might easily be saved in connection with that Department. He had no doubt the hon. Member might be an economical administrator; but he had considerable doubt whether the hon. Member would be able to save £2,000 out of £1,600, which was all that was expended in Wales. In 1852 the receipts of the Department amounted to about £6,000; in 1881 they amounted to £13,770; and, in addition to that increase of Revenue, they had derived, from the sale of a large number of quit rents and other fixed rents, to the extent of £135,000, what would, amount to over £4,000 in interest. As to the charge of the hon. Member that the Department acted harshly and unjustly towards individuals brought in contact with them, and that the regulations respecting mining leases were such as to entirely check the development of mines, he found that the income had increased from £7,127 in 1868 to over £9,000 in 1881. That did not appear as if the provision with regard to mine leases had entirely checked the development of mines in Wales. With respect to that provision, he was not prepared to say whether it was wise or not; but it was introduced to check speculation in mines. He could not exactly understand the object of the hon. Member's remarks with respect to the sporting rights of the Crown. Did he wish the Crown to give those rights to certain persons free of any charge, or did he think they should obtain, as they now did, the best price they could on behalf of the public? As to sheep straying, the hon. Member seemed to suggest that the Crown appointed men for stealing sheep; but the

  651
  Crown did not appoint the men referred to. They were appointed by the Commoners, in order to prevent sheep getting on to the commons; and if those men did not rightly perform their duties, the people who should complain and deal with the matter would be the Commoners who appointed them. Then, with respect to the question of inclosures, the hon. Member said the Crown asked for too large a proportion of the value. There had been considerable difficulty in ascertaining what proportion the Crown should demand, and it was found that the amount had varied very considerably. The Woods and Forests Department had, therefore, recently adopted a rule that before they agreed to any inclosures there should be an arbitration between the Commoners and the Crown, in order to ascertain the fair proportion due to the Crown. In all such cases the Department offered to pay one-half of the cost of the inquiry, and it was found that the proportion received by the Crown in such cases had varied from one-tenth to one-half. The hon. Member had referred to one or two particular cases of hardship, and he should be extremely obliged if the hon. Member would give him the particulars of those cases, in order that he might investigate them. With regard to the lash of the Woods and Forests Department which had been alluded to, he did not believe that any such act of tyranny as that suggested would be exercised; and, at any rate, if the hon. Member would give him such information as he wanted upon this question, he would undertake that no one should suffer. Then, with regard to the final charge respecting fences, the hon. Member stated that the Crown had agreed to allow tenants to erect a fence at 2s. 6d. a-year, and had suddenly broken the bargain, and raised the rent to £7 or £8. He was bound to say that that charge was a great surprise to him, and if the hon. Member were to give him the particulars of the case he would have that also carefully investigated. The hon. Gentleman had recently changed the wording of his Amendment, which, as it stood for many weeks, proposed simply to strike off the salary of Mr. Howard, one of the Commissioners; but within the last day or two the form had been altered to a reduction of £2,000. Mr. Howard, even if all that had been
  652
  said by the hon. Member respecting him was correct, had done a large amount of work outside Wales, and it would not be fair to deprive him of all his salary. He had been suffering from a severe illness, and after he had discharged his duties for many years in the way in which he had discharged them, he (Lord Frederick Cavendish) was bound to say that he believed the charge of the hon. Member would be found impossible of proof.
  MR. PUGHsaid, he wished to make some observations upon one or two points in the speech of the noble Lord. A reflection of a very serious nature had been cast upon him with regard to the change in the form of his Motion. The Motion was originally in the form described by the noble Lord; but he was not then aware of Mr. Howard's state of health, of which he was extremely sorry to hear. He assured the Committee that nothing was further from his intention than to cast any personal reflection upon Mr. Howard. He simply put Mr. Howard's name in the Motion as being the gentleman in charge of this particular matter. He had always thought, and still believed, that had Mr. Howard been in proper health and strength these things of which he complained would not have occurred. He had not intended to refer to Mr. Howard's name at all in this debate; but as it had been brought forward by the noble Lord, he thought it right to explain why he had originally mentioned his name in connection with this matter. The noble Lord said that he (Mr. Pugh) had charged the Crown with asking for too large a share of the inclosures. He carefully guarded himself from saying that they asked for too large or too small a share, or from expressing an opinion at all upon the point, because he did not know what the proper share of the Crown was. He had no objection to the Crown having a proper share; but he thought the inclosures should be encouraged rather than discouraged. He did not know why the noble Lord should have put the particular question as to sporting rights; but what he wished was that whatever was done should be done for the benefit of the nation. His own opinion was that if these inclosures were made, and portions were sold, the Crown should not retain the sporting rights in order to harass the people with-

  653
  out receiving any substantial and adequate revenue there from. With regard to the question of sheep straying, he was at a loss to know how the Crown derived its revenue in this respect. If the noble Lord was right in saying that these men were appointed by the Commoners, he did not know how or when they were appointed; but he would make inquiries into the matter in order to understand how the revenue from this source was collected. He did not think there was anything he had said which constituted a charge against the Commissioners of having decreased the revenues of the Crown; but he did think the Crown were getting a certain sum of money which it was not for the advantage of the State to insist upon, and it would be much better for them to increase the sum which the noble Lord pointed out as the money they obtained from the sale of property, and to cease to get money by the harassing method of catching these stray sheep, and by the other methods he had referred to. As the noble Lord appeared to doubt whether such a reign of terror had been established, he would say that the letter to which he had referred contained this passage—which he would read to the Committee—
  "I am afraid any information I might give you on the above subject might bring me under the lash of the Office of Woods and Forests. Therefore, I think it better not to mention cases. I mentioned the subject to his employer, and he agrees with me."
  MR. CAINEsaid, he hoped the Government would pay no attention to the arguments advanced respecting the ground leases of mines. He had had great experience in these matters, and he knew that the conditions in the leases had had a wholesome effect in checking unwholesome speculation.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORobserved, that there was in this Vote an item of an exceptional character. At page 141, under the heading "Legal Branch," there appeared £1,200 a-year for the solicitor, and £250 for the clerk, and a further allowance of £1,080 paid by the solicitor as salaries for clerks. It appeared to him to be rather strange, and an unusual system in the Service, to farm out this clerical work, and he wished to ask what was the particular object of introducing or allowing this system in this Department, when, it had been
  654
  swept away in almost every other Department? The clerical work of the legal branch of this Department was farmed out to a solicitor, who employed such clerks as he thought fit, or put the money into his own pocket. Then there was another point to which he wished to draw attention. At the bottom of page 143 there was a note as to the Keeper of Records. He had £550 a-year, and he had also emoluments derived from fees; and there was an arrangement made with him whereby, if such fees fell short of £150, that sum was made good to him from a public fund. It was not made clear from what public fund this balance was paid, and he should like to ask the noble Lord if he could give him information on that point. He (Mr. A. O'Connor) noticed that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster groaned, as only the right hon. Gentleman could groan, when he (Mr. A. O'Connor) had risen. He would, therefore, ask the right hon. Gentleman a question as to another point.
  MR. JOHN BRIGHT: The hon. Member says I groaned. I beg to say that I did nothing of the kind.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he might have been mistaken; but if the right hon. Gentleman would remain in the House a little longer, he wished to put a question to him with regard to the property of the Duchy of Lancaster. He found in the Estimates an item showing that the Duchy of Lancaster had property in the Savoy, and that the Office of Woods was in some manner interested in the re-letting of a portion of the estates. He would ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he could inform the Committee if the arrangements had been completed, and, if so, what they were—whether the right hon. Gentleman knew anything at all about the property of the Duchy of Lancaster in the Savoy, its present condition, and whether there was or was not a rent paid to the Office of Woods? He would not ask more than two questions at once, lest they should be overlooked.
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, it was found to answer well to make the solicitor responsible for the work which had been referred to earlier on, and to give him power to employ a clerk, making an allowance for such a purpose. As to the other question put

  655
  to him by the hon. Member, it was arranged some years ago that if the fees of the Keeper of Records did not reach the sum of £150 the balance would be made good. These fees and this arrangement were looked upon as a part of the salary of this official.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he was sorry he had not elicited from the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster any information as to the property over which he was supposed to preside, and for which his Department sometimes paid rent to the Office of Woods, and sometimes did not, because the item this year was "nil."
  MR. JOHN BRIGHT: The matter to which the hon. Member endeavoured to call my attention does not appear to me to arise out of this Vote. The Duchy of Lancaster has property in, I suppose, 12 or 13 counties; and it is not likely that, on a summons like this, without Notice, I should be able, or even willing, to go into details with regard to that property. It may be sufficient to say that the income in respect of the property has greatly increased of late years. I do not attribute that in the least degree to anything that I myself have done; but some of my Predecessors have understood the affairs of the Duchy of Lancaster extremely well, and the property has greatly prospered. Hon. Members know that the income the Crown derives from the property is very much larger than it was a few years ago. At the same time, I must say that no one makes any complaint of the management of the affairs of the Duchy of Lancaster. Its tenants all over the country are uncomplaining and satisfied.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he had not touched upon this question.
  MR. JOHN BRIGHT: I am asked a general question as to the management of the property, and as to something which is said to be owing to the Office of Woods. I know nothing of that question; but if the matter is one that the Committee thinks it worth while to go into, and upon which the Committee desires information, if sufficient Notice is given I shall endeavour to furnish it. Upon a matter which does not come regularly under a Vote, it is customary for an hon. Member to give Notice of a question, so that a Minister may be prepared to give a satisfactory answer. As the Committee knows per-
  656
  fectly well, the expenses of the Duchy of Lancaster are not voted by Parliament, and do not come under the cognizance of Parliament.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he did not wish to make an attack on the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, but merely wished to know why a certain source of income connected with the Vote had been cut off, that source of income being the payment of rental by the Duchy of Lancaster to the Office of Woods on account of property in the Savoy. The interruption, he believed, was only temporary, depending upon the settlement or an arrangement of the details of the administration of the particular property. He had been anxious to elicit from the right hon. Gentleman who was connected with the property whether the arrangements which were in hand some time ago had been completed, and if so what they were; and also if he could tell them what the property was in the Savoy, and why the Duchy had to pay over in normal years any rent whatsoever. The thing was quite pertinent to this Vote, as the question was one of income. [Lord FREDERICK CAVENDISH dissented.] The noble Lord opposite shook his head; but it must be income as it was an extra receipt. ["No, no!"] When money was paid over by the Duchy to the Office of Woods the Office of Woods must be a gainer, and when they were going over this Vote it was perfectly fair for him to ask why a sum which generally came under it did not come under it this year.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  (12.) £25,765, to complete the sum for the Works and Public Buildings Office.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he was sorry that he should have to rise so often on these Votes; but he should not do so if other Members would take the same trouble in going over these questions that he did. There was something so patent on the face of this Vote that he could not pass over it. It set forth a comparison between the number of officials in the Office of Works at present and those who had been employed in former years. Although this year there was a Surveyor of Inland Revenue Buildings at a salary of £650, there was

  657
  last year no officer at that salary; in fact, on looking at last year's Estimates, they found there was no Surveyor of Inland Revenue Buildings, and no charge made for him. There were 10 first class surveyors shown this year against eight last year, and £ 2,143 charge as against £ 1,734 last year. But, as a matter of fact, there were not eight last year; there were only seven, and the amount charged was not £1,734, but £1,034. Then, again, lower down, there was one temporary clerk of works shown this year as against seven last year. But there were not seven last year; as a matter of fact, there were only three. Again, for temporary assistance in the Office in China in this year's Estimate £ 350 was put down as against £ 330 last year; but there was no such item as £ 330 charged last year. In the same way the figure put down for travelling expenses for last year was inaccurate, and throughout the Vote all the figures appeared to be wrong and misleading. There was another point upon which he should like some explanation. Under this Vote the Appropriation Account showed that £45,000 was received by the Office of Works for Southwark Prison; but the Finance Account showed the item to be £45,100. It was very unfortunate that such discrepancies as this should occur.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, the discrepancies in question were easily explained. There had been a transfer from the Inland Revenue Department to the Office of Works of certain officials. Therefore, whilst there had been no increase in the numbers, the charges were put under different heads, and the account was rendered somewhat complicated.
  Vote agreed to.
  (13.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £10,000, 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, 1882, for Her Majesty's Foreign and other Secret Services."
  MR. GORSTsaid, that if he could get any support at all from any part of the Committee he intended to divide against this Vote. He did not think they could discuss it at any great length at this period of the Session; but they had discussed it some time ago in Committee under a Foreign Office Vote. It seemed
  658
  to him that the existence of such a Vote as this in their accounts was not at all creditable to the Administration, and it was a remarkable thing to him that the whole of the money granted for Secret Service appeared to be spent every year. He found it very difficult to believe that it could be necessary to spend the whole of this money; but, at any rate, if such a charge was to be made for the Public Service of the country, the Ministers of the various Departments which were concerned in the expenditure ought, at least, to certify that the money had been spent, and that it had been spent on the Public Service. He believed they were told, when the matter was last under discussion, that the money was only accounted for by the Treasury, and that the Ministers of the other Departments were not called upon to certify as to payments made, and that it would be inconsistent with the character of the Service if that was done which the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir William Harcourt) seemed to think was done.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: The Ministers of the various Departments do certify.
  MR. GORSTsaid, he did not believe it. The Vote, as it stood, was objectionable; and if it were to be allowed at all, Ministers should be required to certify that the money had been spent in the Public Service. He did not believe the Secret Service money was at all necessary; and if any hon. Members would support him he would take a vote upon the subject.
  MR. BROADHURSTsaid, he wished this Vote could be got rid of altogether. It was a source of great uneasiness and regret to many people that it should exist at all. Many working men believed that a large portion of this money was spent amongst very violent agitators, who were sent to take part in working men's political and other movements for the purpose of leading working men to extremes. ["No, no!"] Well, he was only saying that which he knew to be a very general opinion amongst working men, and he was not stating whether or not that opinion was correct. It was very generally believed that the late Administration was seriously misled as to the state of public opinion by the expenditure of a part of this Secret Service money. This was a very gene-

  659
  ral opinion; and he was bound to say that he, at that time, had himself shared in it. There were men in London who, it was perfectly well known, forced their company upon workmen and pushed themselves into every movement that was started. These people were always making the most extreme and the most ridiculous proposals in order to lead practical men astray, and the opinion was that these persons were very frequently fed out of the Secret Service money. Well, then there was another very general impression abroad amongst a large number of the electors, and it was this—that Members of Parliament received pay for attending and sitting on Committees and Royal Commissions—[Laughter]—and this, he could assure the Committee, was really a serious matter, and he, unfortunately, had been a victim to the ridiculous belief. The opinion outside was that Members of Parliament got five or six guineas a-day for sitting upon Committees, and that those who had been unfortunate in not having been placed on a sufficient number of Committees during a year had the deficiency made up to them out of the Secret Service money. [Laughter.] This, no doubt, appeared to be very ridiculous; but he was perfectly sincere in assuring the Committee that this opinion prevailed. Many electors, to his knowledge, had said—"If this man was not going to Parliament to make something out of it, would he come amongst us to spend so much money for the purpose of getting returned?" This was a very general impression, and a very distressing case was brought under his notice less than 14 days back—in fact, it came into his office in the Strand. A friend of his came to him and congratulated him that, since he had been in Parliament, from the various secret modes of paying Members of Parliament, he had received sufficient money to enable him to set up a carriage and pair and four servants. Well, this statement had caused him a considerable amount of regret—in the first place, because of the terrible state of ignorance it displayed amongst a large number of people; but he was bound to admit that by far the greater cause of regret was the fact that it was not true. For these reasons, and many other reasons which he did not consider it necessary to detail to the Committee at this time
  660
  of night, he would suggest that this very extraordinary and suspicious item in our National Expenditure should be got rid of. If it were absolutely necessary that secret information should be obtained, he would pay for it by some other means than by putting down the lump sum of £30,000 a-year. He hoped the noble Lord would be in a position to tell them next year that he was able to abolish the Vote altogether, so that this great cause of suspicion might be removed from the minds of the electors.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: The hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) said that, in his opinion, the Ministers who expended this money ought to be personally responsible, and ought to certify that it was spent in the Public Service. I stated across the House that they do so at present; whereupon the hon. and learned Member, with that courtesy and good taste he always exhibits, replied—"I don't believe it." I should have imagined that any man who has sat in this House for any length of time could not have been ignorant of one of the most elementary points of detail in connection with the discharge of Ministerial functions here. I should have thought that everyone knew that the Minister who is responsible for the expenditure of any portion of the Secret Service money makes a declaration in writing, stating that he hereby certifies that the actual amount which has been expended by himself for Secret Service is so many pounds; and on the strength of that certificate the Comptroller and Auditor General certifies to the correctness of the account.
  MR. GORSTasked what the right hon. Gentleman was quoting from?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I am quoting from the certificate that every Minister signs, and that which I should have thought would have been a matter of the commonest knowledge in the House of Commons. The Heads of Departments are personally responsible for the appropriation of the Secret Service money. With regard to what my hon. Friend behind me (Mr. Broadhurst), who spoke in a very different tone on this matter, said, I am glad that we should have had the opportunity of revealing some popular mistakes with regard to this Secret Service money; and I can only avail myself of this opportunity of explaining to the country,

  661
  through him, that the method he has described is not exactly the way in which the Secret Service money is employed. I am not here to answer for what the late Government did; and for ourselves I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman what is done with the Secret Service money, because if I did I should destroy the goose that lays the golden egg. The very object of having Secret Service money is that it shall be spent without anybody knowing what is done with it. All Governments have a fund at their disposal for Secret Services, and they spend it, as we do, on the public good and the public safety. The House of Commons places this limited sum at the disposal of the Executive Government, on the responsibility of the Ministers who spend it. All I can say is, and it is all I ought to say under the circumstances, that I believe this is a fund which is necessary for every Government to have at its disposal, and that the public would suffer very severely, and probably very dangerously, if there were no such fund capable of being spent upon the protection of life and property in the country.
  MR. DILLWYNsaid, he regretted as much as anyone the necessity for such a fund as this. He had, it was true, always voted for it, but he had always thought that it should in some way be qualified; and he hoped that in addition to the assurance which had been given by the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary it would be stated that no part of the fund was expended in raising the salaries of officials as was formerly the case. He thought it most desirable that the Committee should have an assurance that the Secret Service money was expended for purposes altogether outside the Public Service; and if that were added to the declaration which had been made, it would be very satisfactory to himself and many hon. Members.
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHreminded the hon. Member for Swansea that the Resolution of the House upon the Motion made by the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) on a former occasion had been virtually adopted by Her Majesty's Government some years ago, when it was decided that none of the Secret Service Fund should be paid in salaries. Since that time assurances had been frequently given that no official salaries were paid out of the Vote.
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he had no particular objection to the Vote, nor did he think that the sum of £ 33,000 was too large to be intrusted to the Government in the shape of Secret Service money. But he would like the noble Lord to say, in addition to his statement that the system of raising salaries had been stopped, that the system of giving pensions from this fund had also been discontinued. He was glad to hear the noble Lord say it had, and he now asked whether the whole of this £ 33,000 was spent, or whether it did not often occur that a portion of it was returned? It was improbable that the whole of the money was spent, and if it were not so, he thought the Estimates ought to show the amount actually expended.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he believed it was necessary for the Government to have this money, because he thought that the present Government would not have been able to do what had been done in Ireland without it. Of this amount of £ 33,000, the greater portion was paid over to the Foreign Office, the Secretaries of State for the other Departments receiving portions of it, for which they gave their receipts and certificates. He believed there were instances in which the Foreign Office drew the whole of the money. The year before last there was a sum of more than £5,000 left in their hands which was returned to the Exchequer, and last year there was an amount of between £1,000 and £2,000 left undrawn. But it did not follow that because a Secretary of State drew a certain sum of money in any particular year and certified for it that he expended the whole of it in the course of that year; and certainly in the Foreign Office it was the practice, as disclosed before the Committee of Public Accounts, for the Foreign Secretary to draw what money he thought fit year by year, and to have a constantly increasing balance in his hands, so that at the time he left Office he had. invariably a considerable sum to hand back to the Treasury; and it was found useful for that Department to have this money available, because it was always liable to be drawn upon by the other Secretaries of State, as banker for the Secret Service money. He was quite at a loss to understand what was the use made of the Secret Service money abroad, unless it was applied to

  663
  the manufacture of infernal machines in America. But the Prime Minister had admitted last year that a sum of money was spent in Ireland, although he added that he did not think it was a very large one. Now, he objected entirely to the expenditure of the Secret Service money in Ireland. It was very well perhaps to spend it in America; but to spend it in Ireland was something against which Irish Members might be reasonably expected to protest, because they knew that out of this fund had come, over and over again in past years, the wages of blood, which had kept the regular Corydons and others in the pay of the Government. Of course, the Government would not be likely to allow an investigation to take place as to the amount expended in Ireland; but hon. Members might be permitted to ask them to state, in addition to what appeared on the Estimates as the amount of Secret Service money actually drawn under this Vote and from the Consolidated Fund, what was the distribution of it as between the different Departments. Surely the right hon. Gentleman would not object to tell the Committee what amount was allocated to the Foreign Office and the Colonial Office, and what was the amount which he himself drew for the purposes for which he required it. If this information were given, hon. Members could, by taking into account the money paid back into the Exchequer, ascertain the amount spent for various purposes in Ireland. He had made this appeal last year, and he now made it again, because he did not see that there was any reasonable ground for refusing the information asked for. It was also desirable to know what was the amount of the Secret Service money spent out of the Kingdom as well as within it. The Prime Minister had stated last year that £ 5,000 of the money had been left untouched, and that the expenditure under the head of Secret Service money was a constantly decreasing item, and he added that he hoped in a short time not only to reduce the amount of the Vote, but to get rid of it altogether, because there would always remain the £10,000 out of the Consolidated Fund. In consequence of that statement, he felt there would be a considerable reduction in the Vote of this year; and he must express his surprise at seeing the same amount asked for now
  664
  as was the case 12 months ago, when the Prime Minister made the declaration.
  MR. GORSTsaid, it was not an uncommon thing for the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, when he got up to lecture hon. Members, entirely to misunderstand their point. His complaint was not that Ministers did not make a declaration, but that Parliament was not asked to vote the amount required by the various Departments upon the statement of the Minister of each Department that so much was required for the service of the country. The Committee were asked to vote a sum of money en bloc which was not accounted for, the Treasury being in ignorance of the way the money was used by the Ministers of the various Departments.
  MR. HEALYasked whether it was out of this Vote or the Metropolitan Police Vote that the money came which the right hon. Gentleman found it necessary to expend in watching the houses of Irish Members?
  MR. BIGGARsaid, that, speaking as a Representative of the taxpayers of the Three Kingdoms, he was opposed to voting money for Secret Service purposes, because he believed the Government got no corresponding value in return. It was true there were the infernal machines; but these caused only a temporary excitement. The police in Ireland and in this country knew very well that information that was of substantial value could be obtained in the ordinary way; but if special means were taken the information was always of a thoroughly unreliable nature. Therefore, speaking from the ratepayers' point of view, he would say that no fault could be found with the expenditure of this money if true information were thereby obtained; but, unfortunately, the general experience was that the value of information was not in direct ratio to the amount paid for it—the greater the bribe, the greater the inducement to give erroneous information. On the question as to how this money was distributed amongst the various Departments, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would accede to the wish expressed by his hon. Friend the Member for Queen's County (Mr. A. O'Connor), because if the information were given Irish Members would be able to make some guess as to the man-

  665
  ner in which it was expended, and what was the value or the pretence of value received in return. On the whole, he did not think the Committee would be justified in expending the taxpayers' money upon such a fund.
  MR. O'DONNELLsaid, he thought the Government were bound to give the Committee some explanation with regard to the allocation of the Secret Service Fund. It was all very well to say that Ministers certified in a certain solemn way the amounts drawn by their respective Departments; but that hardly made the Committee wiser as to the objects on which it was expended. The hon. Member for Queen's County (Mr. A. O'Connor) had pointed out that the Foreign Office drew by far the largest amount; but he had also added that the Foreign Office in respect of the Secret Service money was a sort of bank on which the other Departments drew. He certainly thought the Government might inform the Committee what the Foreign Office really spent in obtaining information. But, looking to the notorious fact that this Department had had no information on any subject of importance for a long time back, it could not be by the Foreign Office that the Secret Service money was spent. He quite agreed that the Army and Navy were not fitting spheres for the expenditure of the fund; and, therefore, he must come down by a process of natural selection to the Home Office and the Office of the Chief Secretary for Ireland. With regard to the Home Office, did the promotion of bye-elections enter into the question of the allocation of Secret Service money? No doubt, from the point of view of the Government of the day the gaining of a bye-election was a matter of interest, and in the absence of information he certainly did not see why the Home Office should not be suspected of such an application of the fund. Then there was no doubt that a considerable portion of the fund went into the Irish Department; and when they looked on the number of arrests, and the probability that those arrests were purchased for money down, Irish Members had an additional reason for demanding additional information. It was of no use that the Secretary to the Treasury got up in a state of virtuous excitement when he heard these accusations charged against the Irish Department, because that Department had used
  666
  the money unworthily, and would continue to do so until the connection between the two countries was severed. Under Ministers quite as Constitutional and quite as virtuous as the present Administration Secret Service money had been spent in Ireland in debauching public and private opinion, in the suborning of evidence, and in the entrapping of men by false charges. It did not follow that Gentlemen sitting in that House had any direct hand in transactions of this kind; but as long as every detail was kept back from public men, and as long as every clue was refused to the Representatives of the people, the Chiefs of Departments were exposed to the misuse of this fund by subordinates to which it was now necessary to refer more particularly. They had heard in previous Sessions of Parliament of Sergeant Talbot, the informer, probably rewarded out of the Secret Service Fund, who entrapped Irishmen by scores for the purpose of denouncing them and bringing them to judgment, even adding to the glee of the Chief Secretary of the day, who was regarded as a defender of the Constitution on the strength of the arrests made by Sergeant Talbot and his allies. Again, Mr. Porter, after his 10 years' service as magistrate in Dublin, stated in his reminiscences that one of the stock institutions of the Dublin Castle Administration in Ireland was the maintenance of a mock Court House, in which, before mock juries, the Constabulary witnesses were trained in giving the evidence which they would have to repeat when the real trial came on. In the house near Ship Street Barracks, there were juries, consisting of constables, barristers, informers, and a paid cross-examiner to examine the latter, so that they might have their catechism by heart when they came forward to swear away the lives of Irishmen afterwards. Now, all that must have cost something. The house near Ship Street Barracks was not obtained for nothing. Money must have been spent on the rent of it, and something more in the maintenance of the room which was the scene of that mock tribunal, as well as upon the mock jury and all engaged in the work of priming witnesses. By whom was that money paid? It could not have come out of the pockets of private individuals, because, not-

  667
  withstanding the affectation of self-sacrifice which persons of that sort were wont to display, no one had ever suspected that class of being profuse of their money in Ireland. The money must therefore have come from another source, and it was inevitable to conclude that it was from the Secret Service Fund, at the disposal of the Castle, that the mock trial, and all those scandalous proceedings, were paid for, which Mr. Porter had described in his reminiscences. There was the notorious fact that the Secret Service money, in the management of the Castle, had been spent for the most abominable objects—the forging of testimony, the maintenance of a system of terrorism by accusations and charges of every kind, and the swearing away of the lives and liberties of Irishmen, for the general purpose of keeping up a rotten system of government in Ireland. It did not occur to any Irish Member to accuse the right hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) of any participation in such proceedings—his innocence of Irish affairs being sufficient to exculpate him from that charge. But the work had gone on generation after generation, and he was certain it was going on at that moment. The compilation of the famous Circular reminded the Committee of the sort of work that was being done in Ireland. The Chief Secretary felt bound to defend that Circular; but he knew that in his heart of hearts he disapproved it.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member cannot discuss Circulars addressed to constables in Ireland upon the Vote for the Secret Service money.
  MR. O'DONNELLsaid, he was alluding to the Circular in question as illustrative of the kind of objects on which Secret Service money in Ireland was expended; but if the Chairman thought this reference was out of Order, he would proceed no further with his observations upon that subject. He felt he had more than made out his case for an explanation on the part of the Government as to the allocation of the majority of the Secret Service money, which, he believed, was spent in Ireland. The demands made upon the Chief Secretary had been granted by him in the firm belief that they were required. Sub-inspectors, magistrates, informers, &c, had been paid; and he
  668
  should like a detailed statement of the amounts expended in maintaining the authority of the Crown in Ireland, an authority which was maintained by such detestable means as those employed.
  MR. HEALYcondemned the course adopted by the Government with respect to the Secret Service Funds, and asked, on behalf of himself and his Colleagues, not as pryers or busy bodies, but as the Representatives of a large section of the public, for some satisfactory information on the subject. He did not ask for details, but wished to know how much was spent in England and Ireland and abroad, so that they might be able to judge whether the application of the money was proportionate to the amount asked for. He did not think this was asking too much. He was glad to see the Home Secretary in his place when this important matter was before the Committee, for he felt sure the right hon. Gentleman knew a great deal about the allocation of this fund. They were accustomed to see the virtuous indignation of the Home Secretary; but that was surpassed by his placidity, when he calmly said he could give no information about this matter. He would ask the noble Lord to state whether the Foreign Office did draw upon this fund.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, that the precise object of the House in granting Secret Service money was that the manner in which it was employed should be kept secret. It was intended that there should be no clue whatever to its application; but the House intrusted the Government with this money, believing that they would not improperly employ it. To give the information asked for would be the first step towards destroying the secrecy of the fund. The Head of the Department was responsible for the proper disposal of this fund, and the Head of the Department expended the money secretly under a high sense of the responsibility vested in him by the House when it voted the money for this fund.
  MR. R. POWERregretted the absence of the support formerly accorded to the protest against this Vote by the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) and other hon. Members, who, by a curious accident, had been transferred to the other side of the House. The Home Secretary had misunderstood the

  669
  opposition on this occasion. What they wanted to know was, how much of this money was spent in England, how much in Scotland, and how much in Ireland? He admitted that it was perfectly right for the Government, by a system of spies and informers, to demoralize other countries for the purpose of obtaining information; but he strongly objected to that system being carried on in Ireland, and to the people of his country being demoralized by the amount of Secret Service money which was spent there, when it was only granted for the purpose of obtaining information about foreign countries. They had reason to know what Secret Service money had done for Ireland. They knew the number of men whom it had made dishonest. They knew how it was worked. They had only to look back on the history of agitations in that country to see the way in which every public movement had been destroyed. He need only allude to a man who was referred to by the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell)—that was Talbot. By professing his anxiety to sever the connection between England and Ireland, he had gained the confidence of the people in Ireland, and by taking the Sacrament of the Roman Catholic Church, and by tearing out of his Prayer Book the prayer for the Queen, he had convinced the people of his earnestness; and yet all the while he was receiving Secret Service money from the English Government. He (Mr. Power) challenged the Government to deny these things. He got the Secret Service money for doing these things; and, if anything were necessary to prove how badly this Secret Service system acted in Ireland, he had only to point to the speech made by the hon. Member for Carlow, who said that in 1847 his father, Sir John Gray, who was intimate with the Young Ireland Party, became acquainted with Barney Malone, who was sanguine as to a rising being effected. He sought to induce Sir John Gray and others to join him; but, on looking through some papers, Sir John Gray found that Malone had been in the receipt of a pension since 1838, and that in 1848 he was doing some work which, but for the accidental discovery of these papers, might have entangled Sir John Gray and others. That was the state of things in 1848. Talbot's evidence had proved the way in which this money was
  670
  spent in 1867; and, for his own part, he believed that it was spent very much in the same way to-day. He believed there were informers all over Ireland. The Government knew reasonably suspected persons. They thought they had reasonable suspicion, and that they knew more about the movement in Ireland than the Irish people themselves knew; but he challenged the Chief Secretary to get up and say why he had proclaimed Waterford County and Waterford City, when they were declared by the Chairman of the county to be in a quiet condition.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is going beyond the Question of the Secret Service Vote.
  MR. R. POWERsaid, he did not think he was going beyond that question, because Secret Service money had a great deal to do with the proclamation of Waterford. But his principal objection to this Vote was that it created distrust in every official of the Government. The Government seemed to have no confidence in any portion of the people of Ireland, except the miserable wretches who crept into the Castle in Dublin and whispered into the ears of the Government information and statements which they dared not make in public—information and statements which the Chief Secretary would not dare to get up and make, because he knew that abundant proof could be brought that they were false. The Committee was asked to consent to vote this money; but for what? For men who made it their business—and a very good business it was from their point of view—to undermine the nationality of Ireland, and to send up false Reports to the Chief Secretary for Ireland, and who, in many instances, sent hundreds of men to prison, and sometimes even to the gallows. If the Chief Secretary could get up that night and state that he had taken the arbitrary course he had pursued—if he could get up and say that it was not from secret information that he proclaimed certain cities, or towns, or counties in Ireland, if he could get up and say that that was not the result of the Secret Service money, he would give the right hon. Gentleman credit for more courage than he had displayed on former occasions.
  SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS: It seems to me that a great number of hon. Mem-

  671
  bers from Ireland object to Secret Service money being given at all, and on this ground—that they think part of this money is spent in Ireland, and that it is improperly spent. They have asked a great many questions of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State and of the Chief Secretary. Those are questions which it would be impossible for any Government to answer. If you object to any Secret Service money being given, vote against it; but if the money is voted as Secret Service money, it is absolutely impossible for the Government to answer any questions upon it. And it is not whether it has been spent in this way or in that; but you cannot come to a general category as to whether it is spent and in what way, and thus nibble at the questions which Parliament says cannot be answered. If you cannot trust the Government, vote against the money; but it is absolutely impossible for the Government to give the slightest clue so long as it is voted as Secret Service money.
  MR. ANDERSONobjected to the Home Secretary's statement that Members voted for this money because they trusted the Government. He took exception to that description of hon. Members' motives for voting upon the question. He had always voted against it, and a great many other Members had voted against it, simply because they considered it a discreditable item in the finances of the country, and wished to see it disappear altogether from the Estimates. He believed he could name five or six Gentlemen who were now on the Treasury Bench who used to entertain that identical opinion, and voted against the money on former occasions. He agreed entirely with the intention of the Irish Members to vote against it, although he did not agree in their reasons for doing so.
  MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYsaid, he was not surprised that no information was obtained from the Government, for, of course, the very nature of Secret Service money was that it should be expended in secret; and he should like to know how the Government could carry on their present system in Ireland if the House knew how the money was spent? He did not think there was a statesman on the Treasury Bench with sufficient courage to defend the expenditure of some of this money. Probably the Mi-
  672
  nisters themselves did not know, and did not care to know, how it was expended. It was spent by the understrappers, and only on rare occasions was the expenditure made known to the chief authorities. In 1848, it was proved in a Court of Law, on the trial of Smith O'Brien, that Secret Service money was deliberately given to men to induce them to become members of Smith O'Brien's organization, to represent themselves as ardent sympathizers, and to attend the meetings; and part of their plan was to urged the Young Ireland Confederation to change itself from an open Association to a secret Society for the promotion of revolution. One of the leading men in that shameful service had stated upon oath in Court that he rose to great favour with some of the younger men, and endeavoured to induce them to change their organization into a secret Association the better to prepare for armed rebellion, and that it was only through the advice of the leaders that his most odious purpose was not carried out. He stated that he did all he could to urge on rebellion, and mentioned the names of some young men whom he had gained over. He was paid for that out of the Secret Service money by the Government. Then there was the case in which the then Lord Lieutenant of Ireland employed one of the most infamous papers to write down the Irish patriots and to write up the cause of law and order in Ireland, and that was a paper which lived by levying black mail on private individuals, and making abominable charges against them if they did not pay. A leading Irish lawyer—afterwards, he believed, Lord Chancellor—was accused of most odious and infamous crimes because he refused to pay. When the Rebellion of 1848 came to an end, a man who professed to be a patriot went round among the young men who were known to have been sympathizers in the movement, in order to get up a sworn secret association for the purpose of rebellion. He succeeded in organizing a very considerable secret association, the members of which he swore in to join him at a given day in rebellion. He was a police spy paid from the Secret Service money; and he (Mr. M'Carthy) thought he could hardly give stronger instances than that of the odious perversion of the funds by the Government to get up a rebellion

  673
  amongst young and inexperienced men for the purpose of crushing it. No doubt, very much the same thing had been going on ever since. Many other informers were known who, on many occasions, had not only watched what was taking place, but had taken part in the movement and fomented it. Such men were paid out of the Secret Service money. If these were not reasons enough to discredit the whole system in the eyes of the world, he knew of no reasons that could be brought to bear on the minds of human beings. They could not expect the Government to say what they gave these men to get up agitations, or to teach the police how to suspect their neighbours; but if they would state generally how much of this money was appropriated for the benefit of Ireland, even that information would make it more difficult to maintain that system by a Parliament which still claimed to be free.
  MR. LEAMYsaid, this Secret Service money was the only means by which the Government could maintain its supremacy over Ireland. The present Liberal Government placed more faith in the spy than in honest men; but he could not understand what objection there was to stating how much of the money was spent in Ireland. The Home Secretary said he could not give a clue; but suppose it were stated that £ 34,000 were spent in Ireland, how would that give any clue to the people who received it, or to its purpose? They who were acquainted with the whole history of the country knew very well how the money was spent. The informers were subsidized, and were living on blood-money, as they always had been, and they were the trusted servants of the Government. Malony, to whom allusion had been made, had, in 1848, been living on blood-money for 50 years, and leading men to the gallows. He did not care to know how this money was spent abroad. The present Government probably required to spend money in foreign countries, in order to overthrow a Power they could not meet in the field. But, surely, there could not be any objection to stating what was now asked. As long as the British Government ruled over Ireland there would, he supposed, be this Secret Service money on the Estimates; but the Irish Members would oppose it, and much
  674
  more strongly than hon. Members opposite seemed to think.
  MR. CALLANsaid, it would be advisable for the Chief Secretary or the Home Secretary to make some statement as to the amount of money spent on these purposes in Ireland. He was one of those who were horrified the other day to read the statement which appeared in the London papers with regard to the bogus explosion business—he said "the bogus explosion business," in the presence of the Home Secretary, advisedly. The affair seemed to have frightened the right hon. Gentleman (Sir William Harcourt), whose courage evidently was not to be measured by his inches. No doubt, the right hon. Gentleman considered himself the most courageous person in the House of Commons; but he (Mr. Callan) did not believe he would be impenetrable if wrapped up in cotton wool, or even in cement. In Ireland they were persuaded that the outrage was altogether a manufactured affair, for the purpose of creating a prejudice against the people of that country in the minds of the English people. But a great deal of the objectionable surroundings would be removed if they had an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman that none of the Secret Service money had been spent in America for the purpose of bringing about this mysterious business. The Irish people firmly believed that these outrages were paid for. It was believed that these attempts were a safe investment, and that the money came from England, and was not subscribed by the poor labourers and dairymaids of America. The English Secret Service money was a much safer nest to get the egg from than the pocket of the poor labourer or dairymaid. It would be satisfactory to hear that nothing had been paid for purposes of this kind out of the Secret Service money; and he should think it would be to the interest of the Home Secretary himself to deny that he had ever sanctioned the expenditure of money in Ireland or America for the purpose of getting up bogus outrages. He could not forget the case of the infamous informer Talbot, who went to a Catholic church and absolutely received the Sacrament in order to spy upon the people, and who was paid for so doing by the Chief Secretary. Why should it be thought that it was the

  675
  landed proprietors who had done that? There was nothing superior, as far as he could see, in a wool-stapler over a landlord—there was no superiority in the decaying trade of a wool-stapler over the decaying trade, in Ireland, of a landed proprietor. They had the case estalbished of a constable receiving the Sacrament as a spy, and there was no reason why he should not have been employed by the Chief Secretary, and not the landed proprietors.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, this was not the first time the matter had been before the House. In 1879 there had been a Motion to reduce the Vote by £5,000, and in the division which took place there voted for the reduction—"Mr. Joseph Chamberlain, Mr. Leonard Henry Courtney, Sir Arthur Divett Hayter, Mr. John Holms, Mr. Osborne Morgan, Mr. Anthony John Mundella, Mr. George OttoTrelveyan," and the Tellers for the Ayes were "Mr. Rylands and Sir Charles W. Dilke." And in the interesting document in which he found these names so placed he failed to find amongst the Noes the name of the Home Secretary (Sir William Harcourt). [Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT: I was out of the House at the time.] One would have thought that a pillar of the Constitution like the right hon. Gentleman would have made it his duty to support the right hon. Gentleman who preceded him in Office in a matter of this kind. But he wished to know whether the President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Chamberlain), or the Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. Trevelyan), or the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Courtney), would go with some hon. Members in opposing the Vote? With regard to the last mentioned hon. Member (Mr. Courtney), he did not know whether his convictions on this matter, as in regard to the Transvaal, were of an equally mutable character; but hon. Members had a right to ask whether he and his Colleagues who had gone into the Lobby against the Vote in 1879 were ready to swallow it now. He had listened to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman (Sir William Harcourt), and it appeared to him that the right hon. Gentleman had altogether wandered away from the question at issue. What he (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) wished to ask more particularly was this—whether any of this Secret Service money was spent on
  676
  elections in England? He did not state that such was the case on his own authority; but he heard it said, on very good authority, that Secret Service money, which was voted in the interest of the State and for the protection of the State, was actually spent at elections. He did not know whether it was spent by both Parties alike. ["No, no!"] Well, if it was not, or if his information upon the subject generally was erroneous, no doubt it would be denied by the Treasury. At any rate, he wished to be satisfied on the point. The noble Lord (Lord Frederick Cavendish) said he should not be appealed to for any information on this subject, as it had nothing to do with him; but, as a matter of fact, the Treasury had to give the money to the Heads of the Departments. The Treasury knew how much money it gave to the Heads of the Departments—the noble Lord knew very well how much the Home Secretary, for instance, had asked for. The noble Lord was one of the purse-bearers of the nation, and when the Home Secretary wanted money the noble Lord did not give him a blank cheque. He would give the right hon. Gentleman a certain sum of money, for which the right hon. Gentleman would certify; therefore, the noble Lord could tell them the exact amount which each Department received, if he thought proper. He saw the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) was not in his place, and some hon. Members were inclined to regret that circumstance; but, as far as he (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) was concerned, he did not regret it, as he believed the hon. Member, if he had been present, would have opposed the Vote on grounds utterly fallacious. He (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) did not oppose it on the grounds stated by the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson); he believed that some of that Secret Service money was absolutely necessary. [An hon. MEMBER: There is none spent in America.] Well, he did not know whether or not there was any spent in America, but perhaps America might be able to do without it, as the form of government in America was infinitely better than that in this country. In England, however, they could not do altogether without Secret Service money, as it was part of the paraphernalia of Monarchal government. He (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) could not support the abolition of

  677
  the Vote, as he did not believe in the visionary schemes which had been referred to by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen. He had a right to ask whether any of that money was spent in Ireland, especially as they knew perfectly well that there was no necessity for the expenditure of a penny of it in that country. Every penny of it spent in Ireland was used dishonestly. No doubt, it was a ridiculous thing to ask the Home Secretary how the money was spent; the right hon. Gentleman was at the head of a Department that had a most serious and perilous responsibility attaching to it, and it would be preposterous for them to demand that he should open to the public eye the secrets—the necessary secrets—of his Office. But he (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) defied any Minister to get up and say that he could spend a penny of Secret Service money in Ireland for an honest and legitimate purpose. If they could not establish the fact that Secret Service money was necessary in that country, then they had a right to affirm the alternative proposition—namely, that none of the money should be spent there. Would the Chief Secretary get up and tell them that he did not spend a penny of Secret Service money in Ireland? He (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) should not go into the Lobby against the Vote for Secret Service money on general principles. Though he could not support the Vote, he, at any rate, would not go into the Lobby against it.
  MR. LEAMYsaid, that as they had not received the assurance they demanded from the right hon. Gentleman, and also considering the lateness of the hour, he should move that the Chairman report Progress.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Leamy.)
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: The hon. Member opposite (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) has put a question to me which ought to be answered—he has asked whether any of the Secret Service money is spent upon elections. I answer that query in the negative. I quite understand the objection some people may have, on general principles, to the voting of Secret Service money. The hon. Gentleman who spoke last but one said that he objected to Secret Service money being
  678
  spent in Ireland; but that matter has already been discussed in this House, and, therefore, I hope that we shall now be allowed to go to a division. The hon. Member who next spoke moved to report Progress, because no answer had been given to the question; but he must remember that, earlier in the debate, I gave my reasons why I could not answer such a question. The Secret Service money is a Vote on which, from its very nature, no explanation can be given; therefore, no amount of reporting Progress or obstructive divisions will have the effect desired by hon. Members. Either this Secret Service Vote is right or it is wrong. If it is wrong, then vote against it; but if it is right, it is impossible for the Government to give any explanation as to the amount spent by each Department, or as to the places or the. manner in which it is spent. I hope, under the circumstances, hon. Members having fully stated their grievances, we may now be allowed to go to a division.
  MR. GORSTsaid, that after what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman he had no doubt that no part of the Secret Service money which was spent in connection with his Department was spent upon elections; but did the right hon. Gentleman know how that portion of the Secret Service money which was not spent in the Department over which he presided was allocated? If the right hon. Gentleman did, then he (Mr. Gorst) was perfectly satisfied; but if he did not know how much was spent in other Departments, perhaps the Secretary to the Treasury would get up and give them an assurance, as the right hon. Gentleman had done, that no part of the Secret Service money was devoted to election expenses?
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, that the whole of the allotment was under the direction of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I am very much surprised that the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Gorst), whom I should have thought knows as much about elections as anyone, should have asked this question. I should have thought that he would have been able to speak of the practice of the late Government on this matter. For the present Government, however, I will take upon myself the responsibility of saying that in none of the Departments is any

  679
  Secret Service money spent upon elections. I will go further than that, and say that for many years in this country no Administration has ever spent a single farthing of this money on elections.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORappealed to his hon. Friend (Mr. Leamy) to withdraw his Motion for reporting Progress. They had elicited this fact from the Government, that not only was some of the Secret Service money spent abroad, but some of it was spent at home. That, in fact, appeared from the very words of the Vote itself—"foreign and other Secret Service money." On former occasions they had heard that a portion of the money was spent in Ireland. The Government was able to deny that any of it was spent on electioneering; but if that were so, they had all the more money to spend on purposes, perhaps, even worse than electioneering. The right hon. Gentleman said the Treasury knew nothing about the way in which the money was allocated; but, from the document he had in his hand, it seemed that the head under which these payments would be accounted for was the Treasury. Hon. Members had, therefore, naturally addressed queries to the Treasury; but having made the protest which they had made, he thought it was hardly necessary to delay going to the division which must be taken on the Vote. In the division they would be able to judge of the sincerity of certain Members of the Government who, while out of Office, went into the Lobby against the Vote, but who, now that their Party were in Office, would vote in favour of it. The division would be an interesting one, and he could only regret that the Chief Secretary, after sitting in his place and hearing, over and over again, as he had done, most distinct and pointed charges against the Department over which he presided, thought it consistent with his self-respect, and with a proper discharge of the duties of his Office, to sit in silence, and to admit, by his tacit and silent demeanour, that there was really no answer to be made.
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: I hope the Committee will not suppose for a moment that I admit any one of these charges.
  MR. R. POWERsaid, the hon. Member (Mr. Leamy) ought to withdraw his proposal on one condition—namely, that
  680
  the Chief Secretary for Ireland would state how much of this Secret Service money was spent in Ireland. As Irish. Representatives, they had a distinct right to know that; and unless they obtained the necessary information, they were quite justified in opposing the Vote by every means in their power.
  MR. O'CONNOR POWERsaid, that during the various discussions that had taken place on this Vote he had been glad to notice that a large number of English Members had alternated with Irish Members in protesting against it. He did not know whether the Home Secretary would appeal to them to have confidence in the Government, seeing that there were so many distinguished Members of the House who opposed the expenditure of this money by the late Government in the present Administration. He supposed it would be argued that now the Government were strengthened by having these Gentlemen in it, there was every guarantee that the Secret Service money would not be expended upon any of the odious purposes upon which it used to be spent. He had been puzzling his brains to find out on what ground right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite would defend their change of front. Although there was some ground for confidence in having these Gentlemen in the Government, those who were still independent Members of the House were not exempted from the duty of protesting against this Vote on certain grounds. It had always seemed to him that a Minister rising to address the Committee on this Vote would do some public service by giving some assurance that the money would not be applied to any of the purposes which had been named from time to time by hon. Gentlemen who had complained of the use of the Secret Service money. The hon. Member for Longford (Mr. Justin M'Carthy), he thought, was strictly accurate in every one of the statements he had made to-night in reference to the action of those charged with the government of Ireland in past times in reference to the employment of a Vote of this kind. But the question immediately before them was the question of reporting Progress. He thought if they took a division on this Motion, the strength of the opposition to this Vote would not sufficiently appear. He was not sure whether the hon. Member

  681
  for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson), and the other Scotch and English Members who agreed with the Irish Members, would be disposed to vote with them on the question of reporting Progress; and, as the issue was a very fair and straightforward one, he should be inclined to say that, as a matter of policy, it would be better to withdraw the Motion for reporting Progress, and take a division on the Main Question.
  MR. HEALYtrusted his hon. Friend would not proceed with his Motion to report Progress, as the Committee was now perfectly prepared to take a division on the Vote. He could not join with his hon. Friend the Member for the City of Galway (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) in rejoicing over the fact that none of this money, if spent at all, was spent upon elections. If it was not spent upon elections, they might rest assured that it was spent for much more discreditable purposes.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Original Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 88; Noes 17: Majority 66.—(Div. List, No. 348.)
  Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.
  Committee to sit again To-morrow.

  PETROLEUM (HAWKING) BILL— [Lords.]
  (Mr. Courtney.)
  PETROLEUM (HAWKING) BILL— [Lords.]

    [BILL 222.] COMMITTEE.
    [Progress 29th July.]
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Clause 2 (Regulations for hawking petroleum).
    Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    MR. WHITLEYsaid, that the question of allowing pedlars to carry petroleum about in carts had become a very large cry in all the large towns. They were able to carry petroleum about in carts, and to carry on their business opposite the shops of trades people dealing in the same article; and so great had the outcry against this become that he had been asked to introduce a Bill compelling those people to desist from that practice. It was very injurious to trades-
    682
    people who had to pay heavy rates and taxes; but this Bill proposed to legalize what these pedlars could not now do. These people could only be dealt with by prosecutions for obstruction in the streets; but trades people knew that that was an impracticable way of dealing with them. This Bill proposed to extend the provisions of the Hawker's Bill, and allow the hawkers to carry a dangerous commodity through the streets of towns and villages; but he should like to know in whose interest the Bill was promoted? He understood the hon. Gentleman to say that it was in the interest of the poor; but he could assure the hon. Gentleman that nothing could be more detrimental to the interests of that class who had suffered from depression of trade, and who were trades people, and he thought those were the people to whom sympathy was due. He could not conceive any class of poor people who were benefited. No one could have greater sympathy with the poor than he had, but he could not see for whose interest this Bill was promoted. He hoped some information would be given as to who the promoters were, and that hon. Members who represented large boroughs would look closely into the provisions of the Bill, which was calculated to do a great deal of harm.
    THE CHAIRMAN: I must point out that this is not the second reading of the Bill.
    MR. COURTNEYsaid, the hon. Member had strangely misconceived the purport of the Bill. He seemed to oppose it as though it were a question between hawkers and non-hawkers, and as if it would increase hawking; but it had nothing at all of that character. It did not in any way interfere with the issue of licences or the restrictions applying to hawking. It simply dealt with the hawking of petroleum and not with the licences. No one not otherwise licensed to hawk would be able to hawk under this Bill. It did no more than allow a licensed hawker, having a licence to keep petroleum, to hawk it. The hawking of petroleum went on now; and if the hon. Gentleman had any acquaintance with the rural life of England, and the convenience of hawking petroleum from door to door, he would see that the Bill dealt with the convenience of the poor in the country. By this Bill it was proposed that any person who was licenced

    683
    to deal in petroleum might, under certain prescribed conditions, hawk it.
    MR. WARTONurged that it was not safe to allow people to hawk petroleum, and he would ask hon. Members to consider what would be the result of any damage to a vessel containing 10 gallons of petroleum. He would remind the Committee of the terrible accident which had occurred in Wales some years ago, when a Peer of the Realm and other persons of less consequence were burnt to death; and if such an accident could occur on a railway with all the care taken by railway officials, how could it be said that such an accident would not occur to petroleum hawked about the streets? He begged to move that Progress be reported.
    Motion made, and Question put, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Warton.)
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 3; Noes 70: Majority 67.—(Div. List, No. 349.)
    Clause agreed to.
    Clause 3 (Modification of regulations by Secretary of State).
    MR. COURTNEYexplained that this clause proposed to empower the Secretary of State to alter, repeal, or vary regulations laid down by the Act; but he proposed to move an Amendment by which such alterations should be laid before Parliament before becoming law. The desirability must be recognized of relieving the House of the necessity for entering into matters of detail; and he thought the objections which had been raised to this clause would be removed by his Amendment.
    Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 8, at end, insert as a separate paragraph,—
    "Every such regulation shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament forthwith after it is made if Parliament be then sitting, and, if not, within seven days after the then next Session of Parliament.
    "If within forty days after any such regulation has been laid before Parliament either House of Parliament resolves that such regulation should be annulled, the same shall thenceforth become void without prejudice to anything done in the meanwhile in pursuance thereof."—[Mr. Courtney.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
    MR. HOPWOODsaid, he thought the proposed Amendment itself required amending. It proposed that the regulations should be laid before Parliament forthwith, if Parliament was sitting, and, if not, within seven days after the then next Session of Parliament. That would mean in the Recess. The words should read—"after the commencement of." He was still resolute against the clause, and exceedingly sorry that at that hour in the morning they should have to consider what he regarded as a matter of great significance with regard to legislation. He did not at all agree that the House should abdicate its functions and allow a Secretary of State to exercise them. It was a dangerous doctrine to propound; and dangerous to pass this clause suggested by the growing tendency on the part of Departments to gain extraordinary powers, and so avoid the vigilance of Parliament. This affected a large class of very useful men; they were, in fact, costermongers of petroleum, carrying the article about the country. These men carried petroleum in the country from cottage to cottage, nearly all of which were lighted by it. The hawkers carried on the business with benefit to the community, and were, he thought, in every way to be encouraged rather than suppressed. A case had been made out for supervising the hawking by these men of this rather dangerous material, and the Bill which had been prepared set forth the different regulations which were to be observed. The provisions were drawn with some care, but had been rendered wide and vague in order that there might be no case which would escape the general power of the magistrates to say whether or not a person against whom a charge might be brought was guilty of negligence in the conveyance of this material. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Courtney) advocated in Committee the retention of a clause of this sort—a clause which would enable one of Her Majesty's Secretaries of State, from time to time, to make, or, when made, to alter, repeal, or add to regulations for the purpose of rescinding, altering, or adding to regulations contained in the Bill with respect to hawking petroleum. The regulations contained in the Act would be part of the law of the land, and the penalty for

    685
    breaking them would be a maximum of £20. By this clause it was proposed to intrust the Secretary of State with authority to repeal, or abolish, or alter part of an Act of Parliament. What was the use, then, of specifying any of those things which he was to be empowered to do? Why should they not say simply—"Be it enacted that the Secretary of State shall declare what the law shall be with regard to the hawking of petroleum? "The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Courtney), who was repentant rather late, seemed to see that this was objectionable, and endeavoured to disarm criticism by saying that when the Secretary of State had passed new regulations they should be laid on the Table of the House, and not come into force until the expiration of 40 days. After they had been on the Table for 40 days, and no objection was taken to them, they would become law; be that an Act of Parliament might be by them repealed, unless there was a protest made within 40 days. The Secretary of State would be empowered to continue the Act up to, say, next February, and he might then choose to abolish or repeal the main part of it and substitute something else. It might then wait for some time until it should receive the tacit sanction of Parliament; but the moment that he made the regulations the hawker of petroleum might be prosecuted for any breach of them without knowing of the change. Of course, it would be said that, under such circumstances, magistrates would not convict; but magistrates were sometimes led away by evidence that was not quite reliable, and they sometimes were of opinion that a defendant was not telling the truth, and this especially when he said he did not know the state of the law. It would be best to have the law contained in a Statute Book, so that the hawker might have resort to it, or his legal adviser might know where to find it. He (Mr. Hopwood) objected to giving a Secretary of State, however eminent he might be, power to alter or rescind a law. These things always resolved themselves into this. Some official suggested a certain course to the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of State, who was, perhaps, overworked, would only run his eye over the proposal to see if he could agree to it. If there was nothing very objectionable to his mind in it, it received his sanction.
    686
    That was not the way in which they should proceed. If the Act, after it was passed, required amendment, an Amending Bill should be brought in and passed.
    MR. BROADHURSTsaid, he hoped the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Courtney) would see fit to withdraw this clause. The power given to the Secretary of State to make rules and regulations was a very serious matter, especially on a question of this kind. Under the powers of this clause, the hawking trade of these poor people might be absolutely ruined at the will of the Home Office. Let them, for instance, suppose that a change of Government took place, and the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Whitley) was appointed to the Office held by the hon. Member (Mr. Courtney.) He, in the interest of his friends, the aristocratic shopkeepers, would propose at once to annihilate the hawking trade. He (Mr. Broadhurst) was, therefore, considerably alarmed at the proposal of the Government, after the speech of the hon. Member for Liverpool. The fact was, that London would be absolutely starved within a single week if they put a stop to street-hawking. He had in his pocket a letter on this subject from a man at Greenwich, and he regretted very much that neither of this person's Representatives were in their place to look after his interests. The writer said that he had been in the oil trade for eight years, and mainly looked upon that for providing a living for his family, and paying the rent and rates of his shop. He declared that if these extraordinary powers were given to the Department to interfere with his trade it might ruin him. He (Mr. Broadhurst) hoped the Committee would take particular notice of the appeal that had been made on behalf of the large shopkeepers. These people were constantly harassing the costermongers in all their large towns, although the costermongers were a class who made food possible to the poor by bringing it to their doors. The costermongers were constantly being persecuted by these large and, very often, uncivil and high-priced shopkeepers. Whatever the Committee did he appealed to it to protect, as far as possible, not only the immediate but the future interests of these hard-working and deserving hawkers of food and other necessaries of life in their large towns.
    MR. DILLWYNsaid, he looked with great jealousy upon the proposal now made by the Under Secretary of State for the Home Department, who told them it was desirable to place this large power of making regulations in the hands of the Executive. No doubt, the hon. Member would say there was a precedent for giving that power to the Government. He might say that the Executive had power to regulate the sale of gunpowder; but the two cases were not parallel, inasmuch as gunpowder was in the hands of a very few persons, and was not hawked about the streets, whilst petroleum was used by very nearly everyone, and was taken from door to door for the convenience of the public. He thought the dispensing power which the hon. Member sought to obtain was objectionable, and ought not to be sanctioned by the Committee. In his Amendment the hon. Gentleman proposed that the rules should be laid on the Table of Parliament, and unless objected to within 40 days, should become law; but they all knew, in a Session such as the present, for instance, what difficulties a private Member experienced in bringing forward a Motion, and in getting a question decided. It might be impossible for any step to be taken within 40 days. As the Government would be in favour of the rules they proposed, it could not be expected, if any Member took exception to them, that they would put themselves out of the way to give him an opportunity of making his objection, so that, as he had said, a private Member would have very little chance of bringing forward his case within 40 days. There was a very strong objection to this proposal on the part of many hon. Members, and he earnestly hoped that the hon. Member (Mr. Courtney), who had already objected to certain modifications suggested in the 2nd clause, would make a concession in the present case. He (Mr. Dillwyn) had accepted the hon. Member's verdict with regard to the 2nd clause; but he trusted the hon. Member would himself give way on the point under discussion, yielding to the very strong feeling expressed on every side of the House.
    SIR HENRY HOLLANDsaid, he agreed in the hope that the hon. Member would withdraw the proposal. The result of adopting it might lead to hardships amongst a poor and useful class.
    688
    They were dealing with men of a very different class to those affected by the Explosives Act. The proposal affected poor men in a small way of business, who were very useful to a large portion of the community, especially in country districts If it were accepted, the Secretary of State might make some new regulation; a hawker, without knowing it, might infringe that regulation, and his trade might be immediately stopped. It might be stopped until Parliament met again, and probably for 40 days after Parliament had met, and possibly much longer, because, as had been pointed out, a private Member would experience considerable difficulty in bringing on the question within the specified 40 days. The poor man might, in the meantime, be absolutely ruined, because they would take away from him the power of dealing in petroleum and carrying it about from house to house. He trusted the Under Secretary of State for the Home Department would see his way to withdrawing the proposition.
    MR. COURTNEYsaid, that whilst he must confess he did not agree with many Members of the Committee upon these matters, he could not disguise from himself the fact that the clause was very powerfully opposed. The hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn) seemed to object to the Executive Government having power to administer the details of a measure, and the Committee evidently was insufficiently advanced to accept that doctrine. He would withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause negatived.
    Clauses 4 and 5 agreed to.
    Clause 6 (Definitions).
    MR. WHITLEYsaid, there was a reference made here to the Hawkers' and Pedlars' Act, and he wished to know why only persons hawking petroleum should be allowed to use carriages in their trade? He believed he was correct in saying that in the town of Brighton there were no hawkers at all. The hawking nuisance had risen to such a pitch that the Town Council took means to put a stop to all hawking in the streets. The rich shopkeepers—in spite of what an hon. Member had said—cared nothing at all about it. It was now proposed by a side-wind to give

    689
    petroleum hawkers a power which no other class of hawkers possessed. If it was desirable to let hawkers generally use carriages, well and good; but it seemed to him highly objectionable that petroleum hawkers alone should be allowed to have this power. He had occasion, very often indeed, as a magis-strate, to hear cases against hawkers, and he knew fines to have been over and over again levied upon them for carrying on their trade contrary to the Acts of Parliament. It seemed to him that it would be unwise to allow the clause to pass.
    MR. C. H. JAMESsaid, the Bill seemed to him to be a most reasonable one in every respect, except Clause 3, which they had just struck out. If Clause 6 were struck out half the utility of the measure would be done away with. He had seen petroleum hawked about the streets, and he could assure the Committee it was not carried about in great carts, but in cans fixed upon wheels, just as milk was carried from door to door. If they didsnot allow it to be taken about in that way it would be necessary for parents to send out children, perhaps 10 or 12 years of age, or even younger, with bottles or small tin cans for this dangerous material; and certainly that would be much more objectionable than the course proposed by this clause.
    Clause agreed to.
    Clause 7 agreed, to.
    Bill reported; as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

  WILD BIRDS PROTECTION ACT (1880) AMENDMENT BILL— [Lords.]
  [Mr. Courtney.]
  WILD BIRDS PROTECTION ACT (1880) AMENDMENT BILL— [Lords.]

    [BILL 226.] CONSIDERATION.
    Bill, as amended,considered.
    SIR DAVID WEDDERBURNsaid, he had a new clause to propose for the protection of bonâ fide naturalists and collectors of birds. He thought it only proper that some distinction should be drawn between these persons and the people who destroyed birds illegally out of season when they were helpless and easily destroyed. That part of the year in which birds were most worth preserving was the spring, and that was the
    690
    period of the year when they were not allowed to be taken or killed. According to the existing law, a collector of birds, private amateur, or a representative of a museum, could not take birds as specimens without incurring serious penalties. What he proposed was that the Court, before whom a person was brought up and charged with destroying birds out of season, should have a discretionary power in a matter of conviction. If it could be shown that the birds had been taken for preservation in an ornithological collection or museum, the Court should be able to excuse them. In other countries where wild birds were protected the Minister of the Interior himself had power to exempt from the operation of the law persons taking birds for scientific purposes; but after what had just taken place in regard to the Petroleum (Hawking) Bill, he would not propose that method of dealing with the subject in this country.
    New Clause to follow Clause 1—
    (Reservation in case of birds killed for scientific purposes.)
    "A person shall not be liable to be convicted under 'The Wild Birds Protection Act, 1880,' if he satisfies the Court before whom he is charged that any wild birds which he has killed and offered for sale are intended bonâ fide for preservation in an ornithological collection or museum."—(Sir David Wedderburn)
    Clause brought up, and read the first time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    MR. COURTNEYsaid, that he had had every desire to meet the hon. Member for Haddington (Sir David Wedderburn), but he found it quite impossible to do so. If the clause were accepted, the whole Bill would be shattered, because it would be impossible to prove what the intention of a person was when he took birds when brought up before the magistrates. Nor was the clause necessary. A bonâ fide ornithologist, when taken before the magistrates, would be able to say that he was in pursuit of scientific knowledge, and, under the power of the Summary Jurisdiction Act, the magistrates would be able to dismiss the case if they believed him.
    MR. THOMASSONtrusted that the Amendment would not be accepted.
    Question put, and negatived
    MR. ROUNDsaid, he rose to move the omission of Clause 2 from the Bill, and what he had to say on the matter he should say as shortly as possible. The clause proposed the insertion of the lark in the Schedule of the "Wild Birds Act, 1880," and he submitted that it was quite unnecessary to include that bird in the special protection provided by the Schedule. He was as much a friend of the lark as any Member of that House; but he thought it quite unnecessary to provide this special protection for it—a penalty of 5s. being, in his opinion, sufficient for the purpose. Everyone knew that it was difficult to find larks' nests in the spring of the year, the nature of the ground at that time providing ample cover; and if there was any diminution in the number of larks, he thought it was owing to the severe winters they had had during the last three years. They ought to endeavour to carry public opinion with them in this sort of legislation; and as it was a fact that at certain seasons of the year larks pulled up sprouting corn, if this bird were included in the Schedule, it would make the Bill more unpopular than it was now in the eyes of those people it would mostly concern. This was not the time to introduce new matter into the Schedule. As had been pointed out, the Act of last year gave protection to nearly all wild birds, including the lark, and the present was merely a Declaratory Bill, explaining the construction of a particular clause in the Act of last year which appeared to be of doubtful character; but this new matter, he submitted, ought not to be brought before the House. For those reasons he moved the omission of the clause.
    Amendment proposed, in page 2, to leave out Clause 2.—(Mr. Round.)
    Question proposed, "That Clause 2 stand part of the Bill."
    MR. DILLWYNsaid, he was as fond of larks as the hon. Member who had just spoken; but he had long felt that severe penalties were not the best way of preserving birds. He regretted that in "another place" several small birds had been added to the Schedule. Penalties should be imposed for valuable birds, and not for small birds, and he thought larks were far more likely to be protected under the Bill as it previously
    692
    stood than by severe penalties. For that reason he hoped the alterations made in "another place" would be omitted.
    MR. BROADHURSTsaid, he hoped the lark would not be omitted, for he had an affection for that bird, and he would not bow to the opinion of the hon. Member who made the Motion. With regard to larks' nests, in his opinion the lark's nest was very easy to find, and he had never failed to discover a lark's nest whenever he wanted one. It was only necessary to watch where the lark rose and to see where he settled, for the lark always settled within 20 yards of its nest. The lark was one of the most beautiful wild birds, and was becoming scarcer every year, and he hoped that the House would protect it.
    MR. COURTNEYconfessed that he had no feeling one way or the other as to the lark, and whether it was included in the Schedule or omitted appeared to him a perfectly open question. But what he had heard privately or in the other House inclined him to adhere to the Act of last Session; and, although he would wish to be respectful to the other House, on the whole he thought it would be better to keep to the original form of this clause.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 29; Noes 25: Majority 4.—(Div. List, No. 350.)
    Bill read the third time, and passed.

  SAVINGS BANKS AND POST OFFICE SAVINGS BANKS, AND SECURITIES IN CHANCERY DIVISION.—REPORT. —NATIONAL DEBT BILL.

    FIRST READING.
    Resolutions [August 1] reported.
    MR. ANDERSONobserved, that on the previous night the noble Lord C Lord Frederick Cavendish) had said that the House was not taken by surprise in regard to this matter, because the Prime Minister had announced the measure in his Budget speech. That was perfectly accurate as regarded the matter of the Prime Minister's speech, but not as regarded the spirit of that speech. The Prime Minister, no doubt, did sketch his scheme in his Budget speech; but he promised not to place it before the House for its practical judgment until after the Budget; and on the 29th of

    693
    April, in reply to the right hon. and gallant Member for Wigtown Burghs (Sir John Hay), he said he did not intend to bring this scheme in until the Budget was out of the way, and that the necessary information would be in the hands of Members before that time. The Budget Bill was out of the way by the 31st of May, and when the Prime Minister said he would not introduce this scheme until after the Budget Bill was out of the way, that was equivalent to saying that he would bring it in then, or soon after; but it never could be held that the Prime Minister meant not only that the House should wait till the Budget Bill was out of the way, but that they should also wait till the last days of the Session, when half the Members were away, before having the scheme before them. He, therefore, thought the House had been more or less taken by surprise, and the country had had no opportunity of considering the measure in any way. The Prime Minister held out the hope that it would be brought forward and the necessary information given in time for it to be considered, but it was not known that the proposal was to impose £2,000,000 of taxation on the country for 21 years. He believed the country would wish to oppose the scheme; but it was no use opposing it now; and if the Government were determined to carry it through, he could only enter his protest against it.
    Resolutions agreed to:—Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER and Lord FREDERICK CAVENDISH.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill236.]

    EAST INDIAN LOANS, ANNUITIES, &c.— INDIAN LOAN OF 1879 BILL.
    Resolutions [August 1] reported, and agreed to:—Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER and Lord FREDERICK CAVENDISH.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill237.]

    CORRUPT PRACTICES (SUSPENSION OF ELECTIONS) BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Bill to suspend for a limited period, on account of Corrupt Practices, the holding of an Election of a Member or Members to serve in Parliament for certain Cities and Boroughs, ordered to be brought in by Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Secretary Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT, and Mr. SOLICITOR GENERAL.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill1238.]
    House adjourned at a quarter after Three o'clock.