CLASS II.—SALARIES AND EXPENSES OF CIVIL DEPARTMENTS. (Hansard, 14 March 1881)

§ GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR
asked the noble Lord the Secretary to the Treasury for information as to the way in which the sum for preparing Bills, paid in the Office of Parliamentary Counsel was laid out, and by whom it was received? In the case of the £800 voted the year before last with respect to Scotland for drafting Acts of Parliament, hon. Members knew how the money was spent, and who it was that received this money; but they had no knowledge of who got possession of the sum now asked for. This extra grant was in addition to the liberal salaries paid for salaried officers kept up to prepare Bills, for which lump sums were now demanded. It would, he thought, be also an advantage if Parliament were informed of the cost of Bills intended to become Acts of Parliament of which no use was made.

§ MR. RYLANDS
said, he had complained, in a former year, that after cooking their Estimate for additional Counsel the late Government were rather misleading the Committee by putting down a sum which, from their experience, they must have known to be inaccurate; and he had suggested that this was done to divert the attention of Parliament from the great charges thrown upon the Treasury in consequence of the Department of Parliamentary Counsel not being sufficiently strong to do the work on Acts of Parliament. He believed his hon. Friend the late Secretary to the Treasury (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) was responsible for the sum passed in Committee of Supply last Session. The Committee were again asked to grant to the Government, as an additional charge for salaries and fees to Counsel, a sum equal to the amount of the original Estimate. It was quite true that the Vote the Committee were asked to pass was only for £260; but the actual expenditure of money placed in the pockets of additional Parliamentary Counsel amounted to £1,660, of which £1,400 was met by savings upon other items of the Vote, so that those savings had not reached the Exchequer. The hon. Baronet opposite, when he rose to reply, would, no doubt, be able to tell the 939 Committee what changes had occurred since lie left Office to account for this item of £1,660, seeing that his original Estimate amounted to £1,700. He could not understand why, after so large a sum of money had been voted for the Office of Parliamentary Counsel, the Committee were again asked for a further large sum for additional assistance, when very little legislation was shown.

§ SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON
said, this was one of those Votes which it was almost impossible for the Secretary to the Treasury to estimate with any degree of exactness. Many of the Acts prepared in the Office of Parliamentary Counsel required peculiar knowledge, and it was impossible always to ensure the work being clone in a satisfactory manner without the benefit of technical knowledge which only existed in the minds of particular lawyers. No one, therefore, could pretend to estimate in advance the exact sum required for their remuneration. These were the reasons why, very much against the wish of the Secretary to the Treasury, who, of course, desired that his original Estimate should be sufficient, Supplementary Estimates in this Department became necessary.

§ LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH
said, it was the wish of the Treasury that, as far as possible, all Public Bills should be prepared in the Office of the Parliamentary draftsman; but, however much that was desirable, it was found that additional skilled assistance was in some cases required. With regard to the point raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Kincardine (General Sir George Balfour), the information as to the names of persons, and the particular work to which the money received by them was applied, would, he believed, enormously add to the mass of the Appropriation Accounts.

§ GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR
said, the Committee had no information whatever with regard to the largo sums spent for drafting Bills. It would be very easy to state in a simple form the exact sum paid for any Bill as well as the names of the persons who received the money.

§ MR. W. FOWLER
thought the whole sum demanded was very moderate; he wished all the money estimated for was as well spent as in this case. Nevertheless, constant complaints were made of 940 the carelessness and unintelligibility with which Bills were drawn. Bills presented to the House ought, of course, to be thoroughly well drafted, and therefore he looked upon any cutting down of their necessary cost as a great mistake. The Accounts altogether only came to something over £3,000, and as he had already said, he regarded this as very moderate.

§ GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR
observed, that the salaries alone amounted to £6,000 for that Department, and there was an additional sum demanded, about the appropriation of which no information was given in the audited expenditure, so that nearly £8,000 were taken up; and if the whole of the cost was set out, it would amount to a very large sum indeed.

§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR
thought the explanation of the noble Lord the Secretary to the Treasury as to the source of the £1,400 was partly inaccurate. The question arose from the fact that the Premier had consented to accept £7,500 instead of £10,000 for his joint Office; but, after the Estimates of the previous Government were accepted by the present Administration, a revised Estimate was introduced, showing that a smaller sum would be taken by the Prime Minister, he being also Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Estimate upon which those figures were drawn was a lower Estimate; therefore, the £1,400 could not have accrued from any portion of that saving. He wished also to mention that whereas the Estimates introduced last year showed £700 as the sum voted in the year before, they were misleading, because in the year before there was a Supplementary Estimate of £900, and the total for the year 1879–80 was £1,660. This year, again, there was a Supplementary Estimate of £1,660, and they would be asked for £3,000. He could not understand the Government perpetually putting the original Estimates so evidently below the amount required. The Supplementary Estimates so complicated the Accounts that the Committee had no check upon them.

§ MR. BIGGAR
, asked the noble Lord the Secretary to the Treasury to explain this particular Estimate. The Estimate last year was £2,600 altogether, this year it would be £3,360, which was an advance of something 941 like £700. What was the reason of the difference?

§ SIR HENRY HOLLAND
wished to call attention to the enormous increase in the telegraphic expenses. The original Estimate was for £7,000, but the additional sum required nearly doubled that amount. In Class V., Diplomatic and Consular Services, he found that £7,900 were spent in telegraphing; and thus there had been £28,300 spent in telegrams for the Foreign Office alone. He should like to know whether, in the beginning of the year, no better Estimate could have been formed—looking at the then unsettled state of Europe—than £7,000? The result of the small original Estimate was that the Committee was now called upon for a supplementary £13,400. He should like to know in what months that enormous increase had been caused, because then the Committee would be able to judge whether the Foreign Office was to blame for having originally framed an insufficient Estimate?

§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKE
said, there was not the slightest mystery about the matter. The increase in the cost of telegrams had been caused by the character of the negotiations which went on in June last, and especially in August, September, and October. The character of those negotiations necessitated the repetition of almost the whole of the telegrams to five other capitals of Great Powers, besides Constantinople. Every telegram had to be repeated seven times; that accounted for the increase. There was a certain increase caused by the war between Chili and Peru, by reason of mediation, and those telegrams had been exceedingly costly, each word costing £1 6s. or £1 3s. But the main increase was caused by telegraphing to six or seven other capitals of nearly the whole of our telegrams. There was in this Estimate one item which in itself cost £700—a series of short telegrams announcing the fall of the late Government and the acceptance of Office by the present Ministry. Those telegrams were always sent, not only to every Embassy and Mission, but to every Consulate, and the result was a charge of £700. He hoped, however, that as the result of an inquiry that had been made at the 942 Foreign Office, that expenditure might be saved, because now such matters were announced in the newspapers in almost all parts of the world, and, therefore, perhaps, it was hardly necessary to send formal telegrams. With regard to telegrams generally, there had been a careful inquiry instituted; and although at the present moment, in consequence of the Greek negotiations, the Government were repeating telegrams to five other capitals, and to the Ambassador in Constantinople very freely, great care was exercised, and he hoped it might be possible to effect a decrease in telegraphic expenditure in future. The increase had been very large this year; but it was almost entirely duo to the negotiations and the repetitions of telegrams.

§ MR. RYLANDS
, admitting that there was a satisfactory side to the hon. Gentleman's explanation, thought it did not entirely meet the objections to the cost for telegraphing; and he pointed out that the newspapers of Europe and other parts of the world were now supplied with news with such rapidity that foreign Powers would have information of events before the Foreign Office telegrams could reach them, and thus the Government might forego some of this large expense for telegrams. He understood that an inquiry had been made into this matter; but he should like to know by whom it had been made—whether by a Departmental Committee or not? The hon. Gentleman knew as well as he (Mr. Rylands) did—for in former days it had been a joke in common between them—that the Foreign Office, not rarely, was without information which was known to the rest of the community; at all events, it appeared that through the newspapers a large amount of information was obtained in advance of that obtained by the Foreign Office. His impression was that if the matter was carefully looked into it would be found that a very considerable amount of expenditure on telegrams from the Foreign Office might be avoided, and that of many matters—not with reference to special negotiations, but ordinary matters which might affect negotiations—the Foreign Office knew quite as much without their own telegrams as with them. He thought some check ought to be put on the telegraphic expenditure of the Foreign Office.

§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKE
said, the inquiry was a very searching one, and one clerks had occupied some weeks in going into the matter. He did not know that a very formal inquiry was necessary, for, if made as suggested, it would fail to elicit any new facts; but he hoped a good effect would be brought about in the future. The exceptional expenditure, to which reference had been made, was due to exceptional circumstances.

§ SIR HENRY HOLLAND
suggested that the Foreign Office should issue a Circular directing that telegrams should be cut down as much as possible. He had dissected several telegrams lately, and he was sure, with a little care, telegrams might often be reduced one-half. Words were used without any regard to expense, and he thought a Circular, such as he had suggested, would tend to lessen the telegraph cost.

§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKE
I think, perhaps, something may be done in that direction.

§ SIR JOHN LUBBOCK
, while agreeing with much of what the Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Frederick Cavendish) had said as to the amount of detail it was necessary to give in regard to some of the Votes, thought the information in this case was not very explanatory.

§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR
said, he could not agree in the proposal to grant a Supplementary Estimate on account of Law Charges of £5,500. They had seen, under Vote 3, Class II., that the Government proposed to meet an extra charge by appropriated savings on that Vote; but he could not understand why the Treasury should adopt that course in regard to their own Department, and not in regard to the Board of Trade. If the officials concerned would look into it, they would find that under this Vote there would be savings more than sufficient to provide the £5,500 required. On looking at the Appropriation Account for 1879–80 he found that there were savings under no less than 26 out of 31 sub-heads, and the savings amounted to over £4,000. Under those circumstances, he did not understand 944 why the Board of Trade should not be allowed to appropriate the savings in aid of this supplementary sum on account of Law Charges. But even if there were no savings at all, he thought the Committee should hesitate, because the Board of Trade did their work so exceedingly badly. There were constant complaints with regard to almost every department of their work. The Public Accounts Committee year after year had complained of the Board of Trade authorizing the continuance of expenses which they know to be unnecessary, and year after year the Governments had taken steps in Parliament to cover the delinquencies of their officials. In the Report of that Committee last year it was stated that, as the Committee were informed, it was intended last Session to introduce a measure dealing with two or three points to which attention lied been called, and a hope was expressed that if such a measure was not passed it would be found possible to introduce it early this Session, "as the present proceedings are of doubtful legality." Nothing, however, had been heard from the Government of any intention to introduce a Bill of that kind. He believed that Committee referred to the legal acceptance of contributions front seamen, who would thereby be entitled to pensions. The Department had, in fact, been constantly getting into trouble. Under the sub-head he found £7 5s. for a seaman detained under the direction of the Board of Trade as a witness upon a prosecution under the Merchant Shipping Act of 1854. That Act prescribed that no action should be brought after the lapse of six months, and yet this man was paid 5s. a-day for nine months, or three months after the date when it was possible to take proceedings. He also found two payments of £1,600 and £1,270 for damages and plaintiffs' costs in an action against the Board of Trade officials for illegally detaining a vessel. Those costs were exclusive of the cost of maintaining the action. All those things required explanation; and it seemed to him that the Board of Trade had been playing fast-and-loose in a manner which would not be allowed in any other Department.

§ MR. LABOUCHERE
would like to have some explanation with regard to the Law Charges, especially with refer- 945 ence to the Inquiry into the accident to the Tay Bridge. He believed there were inspectors and other officials receiving permanent salaries, whose duty it was to inquire into such matters, and he did not understand on what grounds the country was charged £5,500 for Law Charges incident to that Inquiry. He presumed the Department had a Law Officer. Another point was this—the accident was entirely due to the Company; and he thought that when that was the case, there ought to be some power to charge the Railway Company with the expenses of the Inquiry. In this case, we were bound to pay an extra £5,500, because the North British Company built a bad and dangerous bridge, and precipitated a large number of persons into the river. He thought the President of the Board of Trade would do well to consider the desirability of throwing the charges on the Company.

§ GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR
regarded the Board of Trade as one of the worst Departments of the Government, and thought the sooner it was made away with the better. It was an amalgamation of every Department ender the sun, and it was impossible for one man to control it. What he complained of was the mode in which money was paid out. There might be any amount of work carried on by that Department, and the House would have no check upon it. He hoped the Secretary to the Treasury would give instructions for ascertaining what was the mode in which every fraction of money was paid away, and he thought that nothing would be more beneficial to the Board itself than having details of the money payments shown in the Appropriation Accounts. With regard to the Tay Bridge accident, he agreed with the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere)—he thought they ought to look in such cases to the Company for payment.

§ MR. CHAMBERLAIN
was sorry to find that the hon. and gallant Member (General Sir George Balfour) had such a bad opinion of the Board of Trade; and he could not help thinking that the hon. and gallant Member was a little prejudiced by the fact that he (Mr. Chamberlain) himself had recently had to decline an application from the hon. and gallant Member for Railway Returns connected with that Department. He 946 had suggested to the Secretary to the Treasury that he should require from the Auditor vouchers for all expenses incurred in the Department.

§ GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR
explained that what he wished was that the Secretary to the Treasury should require the Auditor to show how expenses were incurred in the form in which the money was shown to have been spent for the Law Departments of Scotland.

§ MR. CHAMBERLAIN
, referring to the Tay Bridge accident, said, the Inquiry was ordered by his Predecessor at the Board of Trade, and there was the greatest public interest in that lamentable accident. The cost, however, did not arise in connection with the expenses of the permanent officials of the Department, nor with the expenses of the Wreck Commissioner, Mr. Rothery, who was appointed to the Inquiry. That gentleman gave a a great deal of extra services to the State in that matter without receiving any extra pay. The charges were for counsel and other persons employed outside the Department, and also for the engineers, one of whom was an assessor. He found that the counsels' fees alone amounted to £1,554, while the engineers' expenses amounted to £2,158. Then there was £620 for shorthand notes, £615 for printing, and a number of smaller items, which made up a rather larger amount than the Government asked for. They were in hopes that some of those items might be reduced, and that it might be possible to confine the expenses to the sum set down. They did not get this sum out of savings from other deductions. He believed that there were savings amounting to something like £3,000; but against that they had set an item of account for the Wreck Commissioner's inquiries, which appeared for the first time as a charge on the Votes. Those charges had hitherto been met by the proceeds of unclaimed wreck; but it was only another way of keeping the Accounts.

§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR
There would have been a separate Vote for that?

§ MR. CHAMBERLAIN
replied, that there would have been a Vote, but for the saving of £3,000; and, but for the Tay Bridge accident, there would have 947 been no necessity for the Supplementary Vote. Then the hon. Member for Queen's County (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) also drew attention to £78 for a witness whose ease was referred to in a Report last year. He (Mr. Chamberlain) did not think that strictly arose upon the Vote before the Committee, which was only a Supplementary Vote; but the matter had been referred to, and there would, no doubt, be a Report made upon it. The hon. Member had also said that there was a slight technical irregularity last year in the mode of keeping Accounts, and asked why the Government had not brought in a Bill to regulate that. They had not done so, because they introduced a Bill last year, and it passed the House with out any opposition.

§ MR. RYLANDS
was bound to say that the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Chamberlain) upon the Estimate was entirely satisfactory; and he did not think the Committee was in a position to complain of the item with reference to the Tay Bridge accident. He quite thought that the Inquiry was necessary in the interests of the public, and that the public would not have been satisfied if the Board of Trade had not initiated it, and no one would complain of a certain amount of cost being incurred. Still, such an Inquiry was made for the benefit of the Railway Company, as well as for the benefit of the public. It appeared to him worthy of consideration whether, when expenses of that kind were incurred, some legal power should not be invested in the Board of Trade to recover from the Company concerned, under certain circumstances, expenses incurred by the Inquiry. Such an Inquiry ought to be made with great care; lawyers and engineers employed should be paid; but it was worth considering whether in sonic of these eases it might not be proper to give the Board of Trade legal power to recoup some portion of the expenditure.

§ MR. CHAMBERLAIN
admitted that that was a suggestion quite worthy of consideration, and something of the same sort already obtained in regard to inquiries into shipping disasters, the Court having certain power to award costs against the shipowner, if he had contributed by neglect to the accident. But, in this particular case, there was no doubt that the Railway Company had 948 been sufficiently mulcted, their expenses being estimated at no less than £500,000 in consequence of the accident.

§ MR. RYLANDS
thought this charge was scarcely justified, judging from the explanation which was given. It appeared that the original Estimate for assistant Military Examiners was £10,000, and that was an increase of £2,000 on the previous year; but the increase on the previous year was justified by the fact that £4,000 were required for the expenses of examination which were of a new character. In this case, the Committee were not informed what portion of the £1,800 was for the military examinations. He also thought that the Committee ought to be informed how much of the £10,000 was paid to officials already in the receipt of salaries. It was possible the amount paid was insignificant, and, if so, that would remove any criticisms he might have to make; but if it were shown in the Estimate that, of that £10,000, a large sum went to pay gentlemen in the Public Service, it would be a matter well worthy of the attention of the Committee. If they allowed gentlemen who were already in the, receipt of salaries to receive other and additional remuneration, they would be placed in this dilemma—they were either paying those gentlemen salaries which were in excess for the labour they returned, or else they were expecting them to do additional work in the time which ought to be devoted to the Public Service, and, instead of covering that additional work by their salaries, they were giving additional payment. He was not raising any complaint as a principle against the cost of the Civil Service Commission; but the Committee ought to have a distinct explanation as to why the Vote was so largely increased, and how it was that the Department could not estimate more nearly the amount which would be required. A considerable sum was received by the Civil Service Commissioners for stamps as fees. He observed that the sum received in 1880–81 was estimated at £12,500, while the actual amount received in previous years was only £7,428. He, therefore, presumed that there was an increase in the receipts.

§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR
drew attention to the fact that this Supplementary Estimate was merely following the precedent of previous years, there having been a Supplementary Estimate last year for the same purpose. A system was pursued of loosely drawing up the Estimates, which, when first presented, appeared to show that the Government was practising great economy; but, in a short time, a Supplementary Estimate was brought forward which entirely dispelled that impression.

§ LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH
said, the long and the short of this matter was that, after two or three years, the candidates for examinations had increased the Vote. With regard to the remuneration for examinations, salaried officials were not the persons employed. The Civil Service Commissioners settled, from time to time, who should be employed, and it was impossible to give the information asked for. For many years, however, the Department had been trying to keep the Estimate down.

§ MR. RAMSAY
desired to draw attention to the Supplementary Estimate for Teachers in Poor Law schools, and mentioned that on various occasions he had objected to any such amount being given to the Local Government Board. He had no objection to the education of the pauper children, for whom the schools were provided; but he deprecated the system of educating those children in schools where there were children only of their own class as being detrimental to their progress. If they were taught in ordinary public schools, it would be a very great advantage and a saving to the State. They would, he believed, display equal ability with the children in public schools, and he objected to stamping them as paupers without any effort being made to relieve them of the stigma by having them educated with other children. He trusted that those who were responsible for the grant would take the matter into consideration.

§ MR. COURTAULD
also objected to keeping up Union schools for pauper children, and mentioned that the Union with which he was connected had successfully abolished workhouse schools, and sent the children to the town schools. That experiment had answered well, both in giving the children a brighter prospect, and in regard to economical considerations.

§ MR. HIBBERT
admitted that there was a great deal to be said in favour of sending pauper children to the common schools, and that principle was being more and more adopted. Most of the small workhouses had lately made arrangements for sending children to the the National Schools, but it was not possible in many districts. Great experiments were going on with respect to pauper children, and during the last two or three years several places had adopted the home system. Instead of having the children educated in the workhouse schools, separate schools had been established on the cottage system. At Birmingham, for instance, the experiment had turned out very successful. Many other places had decided to adopt the same plan. There was no feeling at all on the part of the Local Government Board against sending workhouse children to national schools, and the system was adopted whenever there was a chance of carrying it out.

MR. DICK-PEDDIE
referred to the amount set down for Poor Law Medical Officers, and objected to that on the ground of injustice to Scotland. That question had already been brought before the House that night, and it was stated that the increase of a grant to Scotland could not be entertained until the whole question of local grants in aid could receive consideration. That was unjust to Scotland. The grant to Scotland had only been £10,000 for many years, and although they had received promises on the subject, those promises had never been fulfilled, and they had now to wait an indefinite time. He thought that a re-consideration of local grants in aid was greatly needed, and that it was hard that Scotland should have to wait until a full inquiry was made, without receiving any addition for their Poor Law expenditure. He was aware that the additional payment in England was necessary; but he thought that was further reason for 951 Scotland pressing the Government to allow more for Scotland, and to place Scotland in the same position as England. For Ireland, the sum of £75,500 was allowed; but in Scotland, only £10,000, although, in proportion to the population and taxation, Scotland ought to receive from £20,000 to £30,000.

THE CHAIRMAN
The hon. Member is talking on the General Estimates more than the Supplementary Estimate, and the proper time to discuss those will be when the General Estimates come before the House.

MR. DICK-PEDDIE
wished the noble Lord the Secretary to the Treasury to clearly understand that Scotch Members were not disposed to sit down under this injustice.

§ MR. BIGGAR
was of opinion that hon. Members for Scotland, if they were not disposed to fight the question, were not entitled to the smallest consideration with regard to this Vote or to any other Vote.

§ GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR
thought that all the grants in aid ought to be abolished, for they were injurious to the people and to the country. He found that the medical grants in aid to England and Ireland now covered half the amounts expended, and were increasing year by year; but the claims of Scotland were entirely neglected, and no increase had been made to that grant for many years, so that Scotch claims had been sacrificed.

§ MR. RAMSAY
thought it was necessary he should state, in answer to his hon. Friend the Member for Oldham (Mr. Hibbert), that the reason given for the maintenance of the rule in regard to the education of pauper children was not, in his judgment, satisfactory. He could give the grounds upon which he came to this conclusion, if it were not that it was undesirable to occupy the time of the Committee by discussing a general principle. When they came to the General Estimates, an opportunity would be afforded for discussing the subject, and then he should be able to show that whatever loss might accrue it would be of advantage to the State, and of great advantage to the children, that the system should be put an end to.

§ SIR HENRY HOLLAND
thought the noble Lord the Financial Secretary to the Treasury could hardly expect to get through this Vote without having one or two questions put to him. Those which he (Sir Henry Holland) wished to ask were only short, and he had no doubt his noble Friend would be able to answer them satisfactorily. He would not raise any question as to the first two items—for salaries, wages, and allowances, and for incidental expenses. But he wished to know whether the sum in this last item of £252 for unforeseen expenses connected with legal proceedings for breach of contract, had reference to a matter brought before the Committee on Public Accounts, in which it appeared that a contractor, instead of destroying waste paper, had shipped it off to the United States, to be converted into pulp, regardless of the fact whether it contained communications of a confidential character or not? He wished to know whether the sum of £252 was the charge to the Treasury for legal expenses in connection with that case? Passing over that matter, the item under sub-head F was the one which showed the most important increase, and in regard to it there was a note that— The necessity for the remaining £19,000 is owing to the fact that demands for almost every class of work and supply for which paper is required have increased during the year. He was quite aware that a great deal had been done in cutting down the expenses of this Office by his hon. Friend the Member for North Lincolnshire (Mr. Winn); but, looking at the still enormously increasing expense of the Department, he would ask the noble Lord if he was not of opinion that the time had arrived when a Committee might be again usefully appointed for the purpose of thoroughly overhauling the management of the Department? He did not wish to be understood as saying one word against Mr. Pigott. He believed that gentleman had done all he could to cut down the expenses; but what was required was some superior authority and discretion upon certain points—as, for instance, printing Blue Books for Members. Mr. Pigott, of course, could have no authority to deal with that question; and he, therefore, 953 asked the noble Lord if he was not of opinion that the time had arrived for appointing a Committee of the House to go into the whole question of printing, and the distribution of Blue Books?

§ GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR
joined with the hon. Member for Midhurst (Sir Henry Holland) in recommending that a Committee should be re-appointed to inquire into the results attained tince the former Inquiry. The Committee appointed a few years ago worked exceedingly well, and he believed it was only by some such means that they could bring a proper control to bear upon the public expenditure for printing and stationary. It was found that the publication of the expenses of the different Offices for printing and stationery was an excellent mode of keeping down the expenditure. There were no other means so well adapted for exercising a control over these charges as by printing the amount. Seeing that the different Offices made their own requisitions, it was very difficult indeed for the head of the Stationery Office directly to interfere with any effect. He could always show up the cost of the several supplies, such as for paper, small stores, and printing, in as full detail as might be practicable. It was only by the action of an efficient Committee of the House of Commons, and a careful examination, that any wholesome supervision could be exercised in the matter over the results of the head of the Stationery Office.

§ SIR ANDREW LUSK
said, he had no wish to find fault unnecessarily with the Vote; but he could not conceive how those who had the charge of the Estimates could make such a preposterous blunder as to give an Estimate amounting to £40,000 less than was actually required. His hon. Friend the Member for Midhurst (Sir Henry Holland) talked of the expense of Blue Books; but he would find that the expense of Members' Blue Books only amounted to £5,000 or £6,000, and really formed a very small matter in these Estimates. The heads of Departments always prided themselves on being wonderfully accurate in their calculations, and therefore he was unable to understand how it was that they could have miscalculated to the extent of £40,000. He did not intend to move any Amendment; but he would recommend the heads of Departments, in the 954 time to come, to keep the expenditure a little nearer the mark if they could. There were hon. Members who professed to understand all these matters, and to sift the Estimates when they were brought on. They were not at present in their places, and he had no desire to act for them. All he wished to point out was the desirability of entrusting the management of the spending Departments to persons of sufficient capacity to enable them to understand what they were doing.

§ MR. THOMASSON
wished to direct the attention of the Committee to an excess of £5,000 in the item for Parliamentary printing. He believed that some portion of this excess arose from the excessive number of divisions which had taken place this Session, and the necessity of printing the Lists. He would venture to suggest that when a state of "urgency" was declared in future—upon the Irish Land Bill, for instance—it would be desirable for Mr. Speaker to prohibit divisions on purely formal matters, such as the Chairman leaving the Chair, or on the Question that the Bill do pass.

§ MR. T. P. O'CONNOR
said, he was sorry that his hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Thomasson) had thought it necessary to repeat that dreadful word "urgency." The less they heard of it in future the better. He hoped, in the constitution of the suggested Committee, the Government, during the long tenure of Office they seemed to expect, would consider the desirability of inquiring into the whole question of Parliamentary reporting. He could speak feelingly of the want of anything like a trustworthy record of their Parliamentary proceedings. He had had, in the course of his professional duties, to refer to many speeches delivered in Parliament, and the great obstacle he had experienced was the uncertainty of knowing whether the speeches when discovered could be relied upon as accurate representations of what had really been said. The difficulty in regard to Parliamentary reporting of late years had rather increased than diminished. Owing to the vast increase in the number of subjects of interest which were now dealt with in the newspapers, there did not at present appear in most of the cheap journals that fullness of Parliamentary reporting which characterized the London papers some years ago. In The Morning 955 Chronicle, and other daily papers published 30 or 40 years ago, the speech of every Member, however humble, was reported almost at entire length. In these days it was only the speeches of prominent Members of the Government and of the Opposition that were reported at anything like length. The speeches of private Members were cut down to mere lines, or the names of the speakers only mentioned. He thought it was disgraceful to a wealthy country like this that the British Parliament, of all Parliaments, both in the Old World and the New, should be alone in that respect. We were even behind the Colonial Legislatures, which were the children and offspring of the Parliament of this country. It was deeply to be regretted that we were so much behind everybody else in regard to a full and faithful record of the proceedings of the House.

§ LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH
said, the short conversation which had just taken place comprised a wide range of topics. In the first place, in reply to his hon. Friend the Member for Midhurst (Sir Henry Holland), he might say that his hon. Friend would be aware, as Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, that the legal proceedings to which reference had been made, although taken by the direction of the Treasury, applied to the Stationery Department. With reference to the great increase in printing, and, the consumption of stationery, he did not think he could add anything to the explanation already given in the printed Estimate. It was extremely difficult to foresee what the expenditure would be; but he was inclined to believe, if they looked at the enormous mass of printing lately done in connection with the Election Commissions, that much of it would be accounted for. One thing which had attracted his attention, and, no doubt, that of other hon. Members, was the steady increase in the amount of correspondence connected with all the Public Departments. He could give no other reason for the incessant and steady increase than the interest which was taken in the work of every Department, owing probably to the stimulating effect of education being more generally diffused. He believed there was not a single Department in which it would not be found that there had been a large increase in its general correspondence, and it would certainly 956 be impossible to diminish the Stationery Vote by checking that correspondence. In regard to the suggestion thrown out that there should be a Committee appointed to consider this Vote, it would be remembered that a Committee sat in 1874. That Committee made a number of most important recommendations, most of which had been acted upon. The Report of the Committee, over which the hon. Member for North Lincolnshire (Mr. Winn) presided, met with full approbation, and it would be found that the suggestions made by the Committee had been adopted, and that the expenditure had been kept down as much as possible. As to the suggestion that the Government should watch more closely the expense connected with the printing and distribution of Parliamentary Papers, the Committee would be aware that all the arrangements connected with the distribution of Parliamentary Papers were under the superintendence of the Speaker, who had the assistance of a Committee when he considered it necessary. Although, on the one hand, some hon. Members received more information than they ever attempted to digest; on the other hand, some hon. Members did not receive quite as much as they desired. It was not easy to draw the line between the distribution of too much information and too little. The great expense in connection with the production of Blue Books was not the printing of an extra number of copies, but the setting up of the type was the most serious part of the cost. He could only suggest, as a possible means of effecting economy, that hon. Members should, as far as possible, avoid moving for unnecessary Returns. The various Department were disinclined to discourage the moving for a Return, for fear it might be thought that the Department itself had some object in withholding it; but very often it turned out, after Returns were obtained at considerable trouble and expense, that they had added nothing new to the information already in the possession of the House. If the House would like to have a Committee to consider the whole question, he could only say, for his own part, that he would have no sort of objection. There was one point upon which he thought that the investigation of a Committee would be of service, and that was in reference 957 to the printing of the Division Lists. Those Lists were adopted on a Resolution passed by the two houses of Parliament; and he saw no reason why there should not be a Joint Committee to consider the subject. In regard to the question of the official reporting of the debates referred to by the hon. Member opposite (Mr. T. P. O'Connor), he had only to remark that the question was fully considered a few years ago by a Committee of that House, and an arrangement had been come to which he believed to have worked satisfactorily. A grant was made to Mr. Hansard for reporting certain debates in the House of Commons—such debates, for instance, as that which was going on at that moment in Committee of Supply, the discussion in Committee of the clauses of Bills, and also the debates which occurred at a late hour of the night, when they were not ordinarily reported at length. If hon. Members would refer to the Estimates for the present year they would see that there was a considerably increased grant for that purpose. This had been rendered necessary owing to the late hours to which the House was now accustomed to sit and also to the increased length of the Session. He believed that the full reports supplied by Mr. Hansard, at times when the debates were not reported by the newspapers, had given very great satisfaction. He had only heard of one complaint in regard to them, and that was that some hon. Members were so anxious to secure that their speeches should appear in Hansard that they were inclined to delay their remarks until after 12 o'clock rather than rise to address the House at an earlier hour. By taking this course an encouragement was given to protracted Sittings and long speeches, which he could not say was altogether required at the present moment.

§ MR. BIGGAR
wished to make a remark upon the suggestion of the hon. Member for Bolton (Mr. Thomasson). The hon. Member thought that in order to reduce the printing expenses the Division Lists should not be published, and that certain divisions should be prohibited altogether. He (Mr. Biggar) entirely differed from the hon. Member, and was of opinion that it was most desirable to retain the power of dividing upon every Question that a Bill should pass a particular stage. It might have 958 a most prejudicial effect if the House were to consent to delegate its authority either to the Speaker, or to the Prime Minister, or to the Government for the time being. If they could not divide upon the vital question whether or not a Bill was to become law, he did not see what question they ought to divide upon at all.

§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR
remarked that the present Vote was an instance of the imperfect manner in which the Estimates were drafted and introduced into the House. Last year the Estimate was supplemented by Votes under sub-head A, of £600; under sub-head E, of £10,000; F, £9,700; H, £3,500; I, £750; J, £5,000; K, £6,000; and M, £400—making a total of nearly £36,000 upon an original Estimate of £453,000. With that experience before them, the Government introduced Estimates for this year amounting to £459,979. They ought to have known perfectly well that that sum would not be enough, and the only object they had in putting the Estimate at that figure was to make a show of reduction. The result was that they were compelled again to introduce a Supplementary Estimate, wasting the time of the Committee and preventing the Committee from having that check over the Estimates which it ought to have, and rendering it necessary to vote more money this year to make up the deficiency. Nor was there any assurance that there would not be an excess upon the present Vote. He wished to ask the noble Lord the Financial Secretary to the Treasury one or two questions which arose from the Report of the Controller of the Stationery Office. That officer, very much to the surprise of most people, but very much to his (Mr. O'Connor's) satisfaction, in order to show how clean a new broom could sweep had presented a Report in the first page of which appeared an extraordinary statement that the actual outlay of the Department was considerably more than the actual sum voted for the Department—that large sums which did not appear in the Estimate were spent for the India Office and for other Departments which had, in most cases, funds independent of Parliamentary Votes which they expended in stationery and printing. He (Mr. O'Connor) wished to know what the Departments, other than the India Office, which had funds independent of Par- 959 liamentary Votes were. He thought the news was news of a startling character to most hon. Members of that House. Personally, he was certainly not aware that there were Departments which had funds entirely independent of Parliament. The next point to which he wished to call the attention of the noble Lord had reference to the Foreign Office printing. The Controller said— Your Lordships may observe from the figures that the confidential printing executed for the Foreign Office is still paid for at an extratravagant rate. Messrs. Harrison, who receive the sum of £150"— the Report did not say why they should receive it— are paid for confidential work executed for the Foreign Office 27 and 28 per cent more than they receive for confidential work executed for the War Office, and about 41 per cent more than they receive for the ordinary work executed on their own premises, all of which they are expressly bound to treat as confidential work. Now, that was a point upon which he thought the Committee ought to ask for an explanation at the hands of Her Majesty's Government. Then, again, in regard to binding, the Office seemed to have made some curious arrangements in regard to that matter. The Irish binding appeared to be done at a cost of 50 per cent less than that which was done in this country. Surely if there was so important a difference in favour of Irish binding, it would be better in future to have all the work done in Ireland. Furthermore, the Controller said— The responsibility for the arrangements with regard to the distribution of Acts of Parliament is divided between your Lordships, as the Treasury, the House of Commons, the Secretary of State for the Home Department, and the Controller of the Stationery Office, the latter of whom makes a provision in his Estimates for the sale of the Bills; but he has no means of testing their accuracy. It appeared very extraordinary that the Controller of the Stationery Office was obliged to pay bills furnished for work done for every Department when he was utterly unable to tell whether the bills were accurate or not.

§ LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH
said, he was not responsible for the Estimates submitted last year, and if the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) would refer to the figures, he would see that the Estimates for this year were 960 £41,000 more than last. He did not wish to cast any blame upon his Predecessor; but he had reason to anticipate a considerable reduction. Apart from any desire there might be last Session to keep down the Estimates, it must in justice be remembered that the Estimates were framed at the commencement of what was expected to be an ordinary Session, whereas the Dissolution made two Sessions, and the second was unusually prolonged. With respect to the offices receiving stationery paid for by Government, if the hon. Member (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) would refer to Appendix D, he would there find the offices specified. As regarded confidential printing, the word "confidential" covered a wide range of documents. When it was recollected that there was a vast number of secret documents, and that it was of the first importance to the country that not the smallest part of their contents should become known, it would be seen that it was quite possible that a higher class of men must be employed in printing these documents than in printing others. For instance, the Foreign Office was obliged to conduct many confidential and secret negotiations with foreign Powers, and on this account the confidential printing connected with that Office was greater than that of any other Department of the State. He could, however, assure the hon. Member that the subject was not being lost sight of, and if they saw their way to reduce the cost they would be only too glad. The binding contracts were, he believed, put up for public tender in 1877–8. The lowest was a good tender; it was accepted, and the result had been most satisfactory.

§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR
said, the noble Lord had not dealt with the payments by the Controller of the Stationery Office which he was not able to check.

§ LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH
said, the matter should receive very careful consideration.

§ SIR ANDREW LUSK
said, the stationery in the Library was not quite as good as it ought to be. It was of an inferior quality, besides which the ink was thick, and the pens were bad. Many counting-houses in London were much better supplied in this particular, and he mentioned the matter in the hope that something respectable would be given 961 them in the Library where they wrote their letters.

§ MR. PARNELL
trusted the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland would consent to postpone the Irish Votes. There were several English Votes on the Paper to occupy the remainder of the evening. The Irish Members did not expect that the Irish Votes would be reached that evening, and few of them were present. At the present moment, he and his hon. Colleagues near him were not prepared to discuss the very important questions of principle which were involved in the Votes for the late Political Prosecutions in Dublin and the Irish Constabulary. There were several matters of importance connected with those Votes which could scarcely be taken at this Sitting, and he hoped that, under the circumstances, the right hon. Gentleman would agree to postpone the Votes until to-morrow.

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
said, he did not know whether to-morrow would be at the disposal of the Government; but that was a matter which applied more to his noble Friend (Lord Frederick Cavendish) than to himself. With respect to the Vote now before them, he was quite prepared to give any explanation.

§ MR. PARNELL
said, he had no objection to the Vote for the Chief Secretary's Office; but he presumed the right hon. Gentleman would not take the two Votes he had just mentioned. Perhaps he ought to say it was very necessary, too, to postpone the Vote for the Board of Works Department, because under this Vote would arise questions regarding the Relief of Distress in Ireland.

§ LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH
said, the Vote for the Chief Secretary's Office simply provided for extra remuneration for certain clerks.

§ MR. LEAMY
would like to have some explanation of the item of £450 for gratuities to clerks for extra work.

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
explained that the gratuities had been granted for extra labour in connection with the state of Ireland, more especially with respect to the Relief of Distress. The £450 was to be distributed amongst eight clerks, and he considered the money had been well earned by them. He had had some experience of public offices, and he had never seen an office so hard worked as this Irish Office was last year. The clerks were engaged from 10 o'clock to half-past 6 every day, and very often up to 10 o'clock. They had frequently to attend on Sunday, and frequently they had to attend on public holidays, and in many instances had to forego their usual vacation.

§ MAJOR NOLAN
trusted the right hon. Gentleman would consent to the postponement of the Vote. [Mr. W. E. FORSTER: No; not this Vote.] There were three Votes—the present one, that for the Board of Works, and that for the Local Government Board—under which the question of administration might be raised. The question of relief works in Ireland might very well be raised under any one of the three. He had some experience on the subject; not so much from his own observation, but from the reports of many people. His constituents were anxious to know what was going to be the future policy of the Government in regard to the relief works. Many of the works for relief purposes were left unfinished. The Chairman did not live in Ireland, and therefore he did not understand the Vote, which provided for the remuneration to Royal Engineers in the supervision of relief works, and for the gratuities to certain extra clerks who went into the details of the works. Unless there were these works they could not pay the Engineers or the clerks, so the question might be fairly raised on this Vote as to what would be the policy of the Government with respect to the relief works when the spring work was over. There was not the same general distress in Ireland as last year; but in certain isolated spots in the country there was even mere distress. In a town like Loughrea, for instance—

THE CHAIRMAN
did not quite understand how the general subject of 963 relief could be raised under the Vote for the Chief Secretary's Office, which merely provided for the remuneration to clerks.

§ MAJOR NOLAN
drew attention to the fact that the first Vote had no reference to clerks, but to the remuneration of Royal Engineers employed in the supervision of relief works presented for at the baronial sessions. The Chairman could not understand how his arguments applied to the Vote. No Chairman could he expected to understand it. No Scotch Member could be expected to understand it in the absence of his (Major Nolan's) explanation. They had a baronial presentment session instituted by the late Government, and followed up and amplified by the present Government, and this presentment session could present up to the 1st of January. They had ceased to be able to present, and consequently there was no power at the present moment for instituting any relief works whatsoever in Ireland. Several of the works presented were, as he had previously said, unfinished, and he desired to know whether the Chief Secretary for Ireland intended those in certain distressed districts to be re-commenced? If the Chief Secretary for Ireland could give a reason why the works should be left unfinished, or why the works were not wanted, he would raise no objection to the £300 for the remuneration of Royal Engineers. He pointed out that some relief works were commenced last year a few weeks before the harvest was gathered, and on this account the relief works and the harvest competed with one another. The right hon. Gentleman would, perhaps, say whether, after the spring work was over, he would, in certain exceptional cases, consent to the completion of the relief works. In short, he desired to know what policy the right hon. Gentleman intended to pursue between the completion of the sowing time and the harvest?

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
said, the Question of the hon. and gallant Member (Major Nolan) was perfectly proper; but it would have presented itself more conveniently when the next Vote was reached. With regard to the presentments which had been made, work had been stopped on account of the spring agricultural labour. He was anxious that it should be resumed when it was 964 most needed—that was to say, before the harvest. It became desirable last year, on the assumption that the distress in Ireland would be greatest before the harvest was gathered in, to know how far the loans made had been really used for the advantage of the people. Consequently, the Government took power to appoint four engineers to report upon the matter, and it was for that purpose that the sum of £300 in question was asked. He believed the money had been well spent. As he had already explained, the £450 was rendered necessary by the exceptionally hard work which had been done.

§ MAJOR NOLAN
had no objection to the Vote, although he had thought it necessary to take up a little time in explaining its bearing upon Irish distress. He was anxious to know whether the Chief Secretary for Ireland had really taken into consideration the necessity of executing works in certain parts of the country when the spring sowing was over, and before the harvest was got in. In other words, had the Board of Works made preparation and the Local Government Board given orders on that point? He could hardly over-state the importance of this to the poor in isolated cases in which distress was sure to be felt.

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
said, he could not do more than the Act of Parliament allowed him to do. He was aware that one or two districts would require all the aid the Government could give, and he was as anxious as the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Major Nolan) to make use of the powers they possessed to get the works into operation by the time when they would be of most use.

§ MR. T. P. O'CONNOR
said, the right hon. Gentleman having spoken of the four officers who were employed to see how the works were going on, he begged to ask whether those officers had made any Reports; whether these were of a confidential or public character; and if of the latter character, whether the right hon. Gentleman would submit them to the inspection of hon. Members?

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
We have had Reports almost from week to week.

§ MR. T. P. O'CONNOR
believed the right hon. Gentleman was aware of the anxiety which existed with regard to this question amongst hon. Members for Ireland last year as to the extent to which this relief would be carried out. 965 Several Questions were then put as to the manner in which the Act affected the relations of debtor and creditor as between the landlords and tenants. Therefore, he asked, whether the Reports received by the right hon. Gentleman did show that the persons who received the money under the Act took advantage of the loan for the payment of debts?

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
thought the Question was one to which, on account of its importance, he could hardly be expected to give an immediate answer. Looking at the Reports, however, they did not give him the impression that the money had been applied in the way suggested by the hon. Member—certainly not to any large extent?

§ MR. T. P. O'CONNOR
Then it was so applied to some extent?

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
did not admit that. The Reports related to the extent of the works, and not to the conditions on which the money was being applied. He could not, however, reply off-hand, and without looking into the matter.

§ COLONEL COLTHURST
said, he would remind the right hon. Gentleman of the great inconvenience that was felt last autumn when the works were suspended. There was at that time much misunderstanding between the Irish Government, the Board of Works, and the Standing Committees. The Committees considered they had no power to resume the works, while the authorities in Dublin were of opinion that they had such power. The result of the opinion of the Committees that they had not the power of resuming the works was that a large number of persons were left without employment. He now understood that the works had been again suspended, and, if that were so, he could not but regard it as a very deplorable error, because in many of the localities where they had been carried on the spring work was of little importance. He asked the right hon. Gentleman to say that discretion should be given to the Standing Committees for the resumption of any particular work.

§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR
wished to know why it was that these allowances were placed under this head. He thought that they would more properly come under the next Vote for the Irish Local Government Board.

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
said, the item of £450 was strictly for the purposes of 966 the Office of the Chief Secretary for Ireland. No doubt, the item of £300 might have been placed under the Vote for the Local Government Board; but he believed his noble Friend the Secretary to the Treasury thought it better to include it in the present Vote, in order to make him (Mr. Forster) almost personally responsible for the money being required. The officers were employed by the Department of the Chief Secretary in Dublin to find out how matters were proceeding. As he had already pointed out, there had been a great deal of additional work cast upon the Department on account of the relief works. Many applications came there, and a large correspondence had to be conducted in addition to the ordinary work, which caused a great deal of extra labour to be cast upon all persons connected with the Office. With regard to the suspension of works in the spring, he believed in one or two cases it might be well to continue them; but, generally speaking, when these works would interfere with other employment, he thought it wise that they should be postponed.

§ MR. PARNELL
said, the question of the administration of the Relief of Distress Act of last Session was very important; but it would, in his opinion, be much better discussed upon the next Vote. Could not the right hon. Gentleman say whether he would postpone the next Vote upon which this question might be raised, and thus avoid discussion on the present Vote? He suggested that Votes 24, 26, and 35, including the Constabulary Vote, should also be postponed. The right hon. Gentleman had not replied fully to the Question of the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Major Nolan).

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
said, the Constabulary Vote was still a long way off. With regard to the next Vote, he did not see why the Committee should not proceed to discuss it. Returning to the Reports of the Engineer officers, the impression left by them upon his mind was that generally speaking, the loans had not been used in a way to give advantage to creditors.

§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR
suggested that the right hon. Gentleman should consider the advisability of postponing the eight Irish Votes. There would then remain 47 English Votes which could be proceeded with. He 967 thought Thursday would meet the convenience of Irish Members.

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
thought it better to wait until the Votes ware reached. He did not think the next Vote should be postponed.

§ MAJOR O'BEIRNE
could not find any account of the manner in which the Inspectors were employed, and therefore asked for information upon that point?

§ MR. PARNELL
thought the right hon. Gentleman should meet Irish Members in their request for the postponement of the Votes, seeing that an Irish Member had withdrawn his Motion on the Paper in order to allow the Government to go into Committee of Supply. If that Motion had been discussed, it would probably have lasted all the evening. The right hon. Gentleman had been reminded more than once that the Estimates had come on unexpectedly, and it had been pointed out that questions were involved in them of considerable importance which ought not to be passed over without inquiry and discussion. The right hon. Gentleman said the Constabulary Vote was a long way off. If the Votes were not postponed, Irish Members would be kept while the Committee were wading through a number of English Votes in which they did not take much interest, when after all, perhaps, they might not be reached.

§ MR. RYLANDS
said, it was hardly reasonable to expect the Government to postpone Votes indefinitely which were so urgent. He differed from the hon. Member for the City of Cork when he said that the Irish Members did not take much interest in, or were not familiar with, the English Votes. On the contrary, the hon. Member for Queen's County (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) had shown considerable interest and knowledge with regard to them. It was only right that Irish Members should take an interest in the English Votes.

§ MR. LEAMY
thought it unreasonable that, as the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Rylands) wished, the Irish Members should discuss the English Votes, while the Supplementary Irish Estimates were, it would seem, to be taken without any discussion at all. He trusted the Chief Secretary would accede to the request made for the postponement of the Irish Votes, the Irish Members having shown their disposition to assist the Govern- 968 ment in passing their Business through the House.

§ MR. MACDONALD
thought that, looking at the whole matter, the Government should allow the Votes to stand over for a short time. He protested against these attempts to press forward Irish Business without giving a fair opportunity for discussion and criticism on the part of Irish Members. Was it to be coercion and rushing in the Votes as well as in everything? For one, he thought the Members for Ireland were showing a very commendable spirit. As to what had been said by the hon. Member for Burnley on the subject, he would tell that hon. Gentleman that the Government could attend to their own business nicely without his pleading or defence for their actions. He did not think the remarks of the hon. Member would do them any good. These Votes were not to be the happy hunting ground of the hon. Member for Burnley and a few others.

§ SIR HENRY HOLLAND
said, it certainly appeared to him worthy the consideration of the Government whether they would not postpone the Irish Votes and pass the remaining English Votes. Time would then be afforded to Irish Members for looking through the Estimates, and a greater number of English Votes would be got through. Irish Members had certainly shown no desire to delay the passing of the Estimates. He earnestly pressed the Government in their own interest to adopt this course.

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
said, he did not see the necessity of postponing the Votes.

§ SIR ANDREW LUSK
said, it was unkind on the part of Irish Members to say they took no interest in the English Estimates. The Government were acting very fairly in going through the Estimates in order; and he appealed to hon. Members opposite not to be so selfish as to require the English Estimates to be hastily passed for their convenience.

THE CHAIRMAN
I point out to the Committee that there is a particular Vote before them, and that it cannot be postponed. It may be withdrawn by the Mover. Any question with regard to the other Votes must come when the present Vote has been disposed of.

§ MR. FINIGAN
said, he had no particular objection to urge against the Vote. Nevertheless, if the proposal of 969 the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) were not agreed to, he should be placed under the painful necessity of moving that the Vote be reduced by the sum of £500.

§ MAJOR NOLAN
said, he could not vote for any such reduction. He did not think the hon. Baronet the Member for Finsbury (Sir Andrew Lusk) could justly accuse the Irish Members of selfishness. He thought the suggestion of his hon. Friend (Mr. Parnell) for the postponement of the Irish Votes perfectly reasonable, and that it should be accepted. As there remained very little need for further discussion upon the present Vote, for his own part he should be willing to allow it to pass if the right hon. Gentleman would postpone the remaining Irish Supplementary Estimates.

§ MR. BYRNE
joined the hon. and gallant Member opposite (Major Nolan) in asking the Government to agree to the proposal of the hon. Member for the City of Cork. He would remind the Government that confidence begot confidence, courtesy begot courtesy, and resistance begot resistance. If the proposal of the Irish Members were accepted, they would assist the Government as much as they could to facilitate the progress of Business; but, if not, very little in the way of assistance could be expected of them. He should like to see the Chief Secretary for Ireland acceding to the proposal in the spirit in which it was made.

§ MR. A. M. SULLIVAN
said, that surely one of the Irish Officers of the Crown would get up and say "Yes" or "No" to the appeal. He strongly urged that the Government might be allowed to have the Votes they were now discussing; but any information they wanted as to subsequent Votes should be now given, otherwise, when another Vote came on, Ministers would be able to say, as an excuse for not yielding to the proposal—"Oh, but the Vote has been moved, and it must be proceeded with." 970 It would be, practically, too late to ask for information after the present Vote had been disposed of, and it would be too late to ask for the delay of the Vote after it had come on, as it was too late to ask for the withdrawal or postponement of the item before the Committee now that it had been proposed. In the best possible spirit he would say that there was no need at all for any mystery in this matter. The Irish Members could not shut their eyes and go on with the Votes, and if they were told that the Government intended to force on all these serious Irish Votes to-night, the Irish Members would make the best preparation they could. The Committee knew very well that it could not get through all the Votes to-night. Some of them must be postponed, and he would be bound to say that if the Committee were polled at this moment the majority would be of opinion that the best way to facilitate the progress of Public Business would he to postpone the three Irish Votes. For himself and his Friends round about him, he could say that they had no desire except to facilitate the rapid despatch of that Business. They only asked that they might be treated with fairness and courtesy, and only wished to point out that if an intimation were not given to them now, it would be too late when the next Votes were reached. He would strongly appeal to the Members of the Treasury Bench to give some reply; if they remained silent, the Irish Members would be obliged to construe that silence into a declaration of war.

§ MR. HOPWOOD
would like to add a word in support of what had been said by hon. Members opposite. The Chief Secretary might fairly yield to the appeal made to him, because, really, the Irish Votes to follow were of a serious character from the point of view of the Irish Members.

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
said, hon. Members placed him in a difficult position when they appealed to him, because the matter of taking the best means to get through the Business of Supply was not one which merely concerned the Chief Secretary. Other Ministers—especially the Prime Minister—were concerned as well as he himself, and he did not know, therefore, that he was in a position to describe what the progress of Business should be. It seemed quite 971 clear that the Irish Members wished to have a discussion on one or two questions to be raised in the course of the Estimates. He had hoped that that discussion could be taken on the present or the next Vote—he had thought that hon. Members could have raised the points they wished to raise when they came to the items for Law Charges and Criminal Prosecutions and for Constabulary. He might be going beyond his province in making the suggestion; but he would ask them whether it would suit their views to dispose of the present Vote and the next, which was not a matter likely to lead to much debate, on the understanding that the other two Irish Votes should follow the remainder of the Supplementary Estimates?

§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR
said, that if the Irish Votes were postponed, he saw no reason why all the other Votes should not pass that evening; but if the Irish Votes were not postponed, there was no chance whatever of the English Votes passing through. The right hon. Gentleman could hardly expect Irish Members to sit there whilst English Votes were under discussion and to remain altogether idle. He, for one, should decline to vote public money without knowing why and wherefore he was voting it. On almost every English Vote he might have something to say—he should feel disposed to raise questions on every single English Vote; but if the Treasury Bench would consent to what the Irish Members asked—namely, that one or two days should be given them to enable them to thoroughly appreciate the value of the figures presented to them in the Irish Votes, he should consider that he discharged his duty in giving consideration to those Votes and allowing the English Votes to pass. Other Irish Members, he thought, would be actuated by the same feelings, and this alone ought to show the noble Lord the Financial Secretary to the Treasury that it would conduce to the economy of public time if he consented to the arrangement they proposed—namely, that the present Vote might be put from the Chair and disposed of, and the rest of the Votes postponed. They did not want to impede the progress of Business, but to elicit, whilst there was time, a clear declaration from the Treasury Bench as to whether the Government would consent to the postponement of the other 972 Irish Votes. As to the next Vote, which was in respect of the Local Government Board, he would put it to the right hon. Gentleman that the subject was one of considerable interest in Ireland. Almost every one of the Irish Members had had correspondence with the people of Ireland on the subject-matter of the Vote, and the right hon. Gentleman was labouring under a considerable misapprehension if he thought it would be possible for them to discuss it now in a few minutes. If, however, they were able to devote a day or two to the consideration of these matters, they might find that this question did not need discussion at all.

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
said, he had been looking at the way in which they could get through most work in the rather awkward circumstances in which they found themselves this week. The hon. Member who had last spoken must not suppose that he (Mr. Forster) admitted his argument, which was that as this and some of the following were Irish Votes he took great interest in English Votes, and could not think of public money being voted for English purposes unless he approved of those purposes; but that if the Irish Votes were put off, his interest in the English Votes and leis desire to form an opinion with regard to them would altogether disappear. The hon. Member had hardly advanced the argument seriously. Still, the Committee must look the thing in the face and see how they could best make progress with Business; and he should be prepared, although he was, perhaps, going beyond his powers in doing so, to say that the best practical mode of dealing with the matter would be to take the Votes he had mentioned at once, and postpone the remaining Irish items until the English and Scotch had been got rid of. There was one slight exception which he would ask the Committee to make in favour of a Vote which came in the middle of the ordinary Votes—namely, £41 for Endowed Schools Commissioners; and it was only a technical matter to which, he did not suppose, any hon. Member would object.

§ MR. BIGGAR
said, the right hon. Gentleman raised a doubt in the minds of hon. Members as to whether or not the Irish Votes would be taken to-night. The right hon. Gentleman had proposed that the Irish Votes should be postponed 973 until the other Votes had been disposed of; but that would leave it open as to whether the Irish Votes were to come on to-night or on some future day. The hon. Member for Wexford County had said that confidence begot confidence; but, for his own part, he had not the confidence of his hon. Friend in the Chief Secretary—as a matter of fact, he had not any confidence at all in him. Let the right hon. Gentleman state whether or not he intended to move any further Irish Votes that night.

§ MR. FINIGAN
said, that on the understanding just arrived at, that the Irish Votes would not be taken until some other day, he would ask leave to withdraw the Motion.