CLASS II.—SALARIES AND EXPENSES OF CIVIL DEPARTMENTS.

HC Deb 28 July 1882 vol 273 cc97-146

(1.) £29,105, to complete the sum for the House of Lords Offices.

(2.) £36,461, to complete the sum for the House of Commons Offices.

(3.) £35,653, to complete the sum for the Treasury.

(4.) £62,234, to complete the sum for the Home Office.

(5.) £46,847, to complete the sum for the Foreign Office.

SIR HENEY HOLLAND

said, that the original Estimate for Telegrams in the Estimates of last year was £7,000. He observed that the same sum was put down for 1882–3; but he reminded the Committee that the amount was nearly doubled for last year in the Supplementary Estimates, where it was set down at £13,400. Now, he thought the Committee would agree that it was not desirable when the Estimate had been very largely exceeded in one year to put down the same amount for the year following, unless the circumstances of the case had very materially changed. The large increase last year was accounted for by the fact that, at that time, Europe was in a disturbed state, and this country had in consequence to communicate constantly with five foreign capitals. But it seemed to him that this year Europe could hardly be said to be in a very quiet state, and certainly within the last few weeks communications had had to be carried on with at least five capitals, if not more. He should, therefore, be glad to know why the sum of £7,000 had been put down in this Estimate, seeing that the same troubled state of things existed in Europe now as existed last year? Then there was a point also raised last year with regard to the custom of sending formal telegrams on any change of Government to all the officials connected with the Foreign Office. He again called attention to this subject, because the Under Secretary of State had undertaken that this custom should cease, and his object was to ascertain whether any steps had been taken to put an end to these useless telegrams which caused great expense? Finally, he asked whether any advance had been made in the direction of shortening the telegraphic messages?—a subject which it was also promised last year should receive the attention of the Under Secretary.

SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF

asked whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer had taken into consideration the expediency of paying the attaches in the Diplomatic Service from the time of their appointments? These gentleman had to go through a competitive examination, and then continue for two years without any salary at all. He was aware that it was a very hard matter to get anything out of the right hon. Gentleman; but the case of the diplomatic attachés was one that he thought deserved to be taken into favourable consideration for the reasons stated.

MR. COURTNEY

said, it was impossible to forecast with accuracy the amount that would have to be paid for telegraphic messages in the course of the year. He agreed that this form of expenditure ought to be very closely watched, and that it should be kept down by the Departments to as low an amount as possible. But it was an item of extreme variability, as would be seen from the following figures which related to several years' expenditure under this head. In the year 1874–5 the total amount spent on telegrams was £2,200; in 1876–7 the amount was £11,700; in 1877–8 it was £5,800; and in 1880–1 the total charge amounted to £20,000; and, as his hon. Friend opposite had pointed out, it amounted to £14,000 for last year. The sum of £7,000 represented the average charge for a certain number of preceding years, and that was why this amount appeared in the Estimates for 1882–3. But it was impossible to anticipate the course of events in the Mediterranean, and he was afraid that the Estimate of the current year would have to be exceeded. He repeated, that pressure was being put upon the Departments to keep the expenditure within the lowest possible limits.

SIR HENRY HOLLAND

reminded the Secretary to the Treasury that he had not replied to the question as to the shortening of the telegrams.

MR. GLADSTONE

said, he could assure the hon. Baronet that he felt very much indebted to him for having drawn attention to the expenditure under this head. It was scarcely necessary to add that he fully concurred in the desirability of reducing the charge by shortening the telegrams. The Foreign Office bad adopted certain measures with the object of bringing about that result; but, although some of the messages were undoubtedly of unnecessary length, the hon. Gentleman must say that there were many cases in which it was almost impossible to abridge them. The question raised by the hon. Gentleman should certainly be kept in view; and he trusted that the steps already taken by the Foreign Office would be satisfactory in their result.

Vote agreed to.

(6.) £25,220, to complete the sum for the Colonial Office.

(7.) £20,438, to complete the sum for the Privy Council Office.

(8.) £1,855, to complete the sum for the Privy Seal Office.

(9.) £116,270, to complete the sum for the Board of Trade.

SIR HENRY HOLLAND

said, the Public Accounts Committee had, last year, to deal with a considerable deficit in connection with this Department, arising out of the law charges. It was suggested that this might be avoided by putting pressure on some of the accountants to make earlier returns of the actual law costs incurred, and also earlier returns of the estimated law costs. He trusted the Financial Secretary would turn his attention to this subject, and put pressure on the Board of Trade Department, in order that the suggestion of the Public Accounts Committee to the above effect might be carried out.

MR. MOORE

said, he wished to draw attention to the large and increasing importation into the country of spurious butter, which was now, and had been for some time, seriously prejudicing the agricultural interest. He had brought this subject already under the notice of the House, and had urged upon the President of the Board of Trade the desirability of his gaining some control over the Board of Customs, which would result in the Customs Returns giving further particulars in regard to the large importation of oil and lard, under which designations this spurious butter was introduced. These articles, which were made up into spurious butter in the United States and in Holland, were exported to this country in very large quantities, where they were entered under the designations he had referred to. It was not his purpose at that moment to go into the question as to whether or not they were fit for human food. He believed, however, they were, in the condition in which they arrived here, for the most part unwholesome, although they were not in all cases to be objected to. But his contention was, that the agriculturist—the butter producer in this country—and the public had a right to the fullest possible information on this subject. The Customs Returns did not give any indication of the enormous importation of spurious butter that was taking place, and he repeated that the public was entitled to know exactly what it was that came in under these designations of oil and lard. Millions of pounds of spurious butter arrived here in the course of the year, and all trace of it was lost by the Customs Returns being made up in the manner he had described—that was to say, by manufactured butter being entered as oil and lard. It was known that steamer after steamer from Holland brought the substance in question to this country packed in oil-casks, in order to facilitate its passing the Customs. Again, the difficulty of getting at the actual facts with regard to spurious butter was increased by the absence from the Customs Returns of the names of the ports of shipment. The result of all this was that deleterious substances found their way into the English markets, and were there sold in a way that constituted a gross fraud on the consumer as butter. When he brought this question forward last year, the President of the Board of Trade was good enough to say that he fully appreciated the force of the arguments put forward, and that, although the Board of Customs were a body very difficult to move, he would endeavour to have the Returns made up so as to show distinctly the quantity of so-called butter imported, and where it came from. Now, he would like to know whether the Board of Customs had refused to do this; if so, whether the Board of Trade had any authority to require the Returns to be furnished in a form that would supply the desired information; and whether any further steps would be taken by the Board of Trade to obtain it?

MR. COURTNEY

said, he regretted that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade was not in his place to answer the questions of the hon. Member who had just addressed the Committee. He would, however, take note of the point of the hon. Member's remarks, which he understood to be simply that he desired to have it stated in the Returns what was the exact nature of the substances imported into the country under the heads of "Oil" and "Lard."

MR. MOORE

said, he would repeat his questions on Report. The right hon. Gentleman had said very truly that there was no desire to stop the importation of the articles in question, which, as he (Mr. Moore) believed, largely consisted of wholesome fat. The object he had in view was to ascertain exactly what it was and where it came from, so that some check might be placed on the sale of it as butter.

GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR

said, it was noticeable that the law charges in this Department showed a considerable increase in amount over the Estimates of former years. He had on previous occasions drawn attention to the form in which this and other charges were presented in the Estimates, as affording no materials for criticism or means of exercising proper control over the various branches of Public Expenditure. The item of £18,300 under the head of Law Charges in the Legal Branch of the Department was an instance of this. To criticize that item as it stood on the Paper could have no practical or useful result whatever. There were no details, and, consequently, no opportunity of examination or comparison; in short, the information conveyed by the Estimate was nothing more than that a certain amount of money had been spent in law charges. With such a system of accounting it was difficult to see what control the Departments could have over their own expenditure; while, as he had shown, any useful criticism of the charges when the Estimates came forward, was rendered impossible. He had succeeded in getting some improvements introduced into the Scotch Estimates, and one was now able to obtain something like a clear idea of the expenditure that was going on; but, with regard to the English Estimates, the matter remained as before—in a state of obscurity. Under the circumstances, he ventured again to submit to the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Estimates that which he had urged year after year on the attention of the Government—namely, that the whole of the expenditure now dispersed over the Estimates should be brought together with full details, and under different heads, in one general statement—the only form of accounts that afforded the means of examining, comparing, and controlling expenditure.

SIR HENRY HOLLAND

regretted that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade was not present to give the Committee some assurance that a better supervision would be exercised over the law charges incurred by the Department. There had been an increase of expenditure under this head in almost every case. This pointed to the necessity of exercising great care and attention at the time the law charges were being incurred, because, after that, there was no option but to pay the bills. The amount incurred by the Board of Trade for law expenses, which were, to a considerable extent, the result of carelessness on the part of officials, was very large; and, therefore, he would impress upon the Financial Secretary that the strictest supervision should be exercised over the expenses in connection with public inquiries at the time when that supervision could be of any use.

MR. COURTNEY

said, he failed to see that the form of accounts advocated by the hon. and gallant Gentleman (General Sir George Balfour) would lead to the reduction of expenditure. As far as he was able to understand the proposal, it was that the charges for all the Departments should be collected under one head.

GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR

said, that was not his point. He desired to see in one statement, but placed under separate headings, the whole of the sums now dispersed over the Estimates.

MR. COURTNEY

said, he understood his hon. and gallant Friend to mean by that the collection together of all the Estimates for Law Charges. But he again pointed out that this would afford no means of controlling the amount of expenditure under that head. It seemed to him that greater pressure would be exercised over the Department by making the Board of Trade responsible for so much money under the head of Law Charges, than by merely collecting together in one item the expenses of the year. The Estimate, in its present form, seemed to bring home to the Department their responsibility for the expenditure incurred in the most direct manner. With regard to the increase in the Charge for law expenses, he would mention that a considerable proportion of this was the result of an action for damages in consequence of the Department having arrested a vessel as un-seaworthy which was held not to have been in that condition. The owners of the ship having brought their action for the wrongful arrest of the vessel, obtained a verdict against Mr. Farrar. But this was a matter over which the Board of Trade had no control whatever, because if a person were wronged by the action of the Department, he had a right to have that wrong rectified, if necessary, in a Court of Law. On the other hand, he quite admitted the desirability of such supervision being exercised over the action of the officers of the Department as would prevent, as far as possible, the recurrence of mistakes of the kind mentioned.

GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR

said, the hon. Gentleman still appeared to misapprehend his point. He was not disputing the charge for law expenses. As he had already shown, the Estimate, in its present form, gave no information upon which any useful criticism of the item could be founded. His contention was, that if the House of Commons wished to get control over the financial Estimates, and to exercise it with advantage, they must have before them at one view—in one general statement—the detailed expenditure of all the law charges for the whole Kingdom, classified under several heads, and divided between the respective Departments, all items being fully stated, so that the mode of expending, and to whom paid, should be clearly set forth, so that any abuse might be seen at a glance, and thus practically exercise a powerful preventive check over improper outlay.

MR. MOORE

said, he was glad to see that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade had taken his place on the Treasury Bench; and he would now venture to ask him whether any steps had been taken by the Board of Trade with reference to the importation of certain substances, to which the right hon. Gentleman's attention had been called when the present Vote was before the Committee last year? The right hon. Gentleman would probably recollect that upon the occasion referred to he led the Committee to understand that he would endeavour to move the Board of Customs to furnish Returns of the substitutes for butter which were imported into the country under the designations of oil, lard, and so forth. He would like to know how far the negotiations with the Board of Trade had proceeded in the direction indicated?

MR. CHAMBERLAIN

said, he had, in accordance with the promise made last year to the hon. Member for Clonmel, referred the question of the improved classification of imports to a Departmental Committee, which was still sitting for the purpose of considering that and other subjects. The Report of that Committee had not been finally decided upon; but he believed it would be found practicable to make the distinction in the Returns which his hon. Friend wished for—that was to say, that all the imports of butter-substitutes should be distinguished from the imports of butter proper. He hoped, also, that the same result might be obtained with regard to cheese. Of course, he did not wish to be understood to pledge himself positively; but, as far as he could see, it would be possible to obtain the classification which his hon. Friend desired.

MR. BUXTON

said, he observed, under the head of Law Charges, an item of £500 for expenses under the Crown Lands Act, 1866 (29 & 80 Vict. c. 62) (Foreshores), and he wished to know whether the right hon. Gentleman could state, for the information of the Committee, if any extra expense would be incurred this year in connection with the Channel Tunnel? He was not certain that the expense with regard to the Channel Tunnel came under this particular Vote; but seeing the item of charge he had alluded to, he thought the question might with propriety be raised upon this branch of the Estimates.

MR. CHAMBERLAIN

said, at the commencement of the year it was not contemplated that there would be any expenditure in connection with the Channel Tunnel; but circumstances had since arisen that rendered it necessary for the Department to apply to a Court of Justice. Some expense might, in consequence of this, fall upon the Department; but he had no reason for assuming that the present Estimate would be exceeded.

MR. BIGGAR

said, he desired to call attention very strongly to the growing evil of adulteration in the articles of butter and cheese. Although the question was one of extreme importance to the great bulk of the people of the country, yet the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade appeared to think it a very small matter whether or not the unfortunate inhabitants of large towns and cities who bought in the shops should pay the price of butter and get in return an article that was not butter and not worth more than two-thirds of the money they paid. He had listened with interest to the remarks of the hon. Member for Clonmel (Mr. Moore) with reference to the manner in which the spurious butter imported into the couutry was dealt with in the Returns of the Board of Customs, and he was bound to say that he believed the hon. Member's intentions would not be fulfilled by the mere classification of the substances in the manner indicated. The impossibility of distinguishing the deleterious from the genuine article would remain even if the suggestion of the hon. Member were fully carried out. His own opinion was that the Government ought to insist that where pure butter was imported, it should bear some distinguishing mark to show that it was genuine; and, on the other hand, that where a substance purporting to be butter, but which was not butter at all, was imported, this also should bear a mark to show what it really was. These adulterated articles, it was well known, were sold to people over the counter by shopkeepers, who, as a rule, did not commit themselves to any statement that they were selling genuine butter. Nevertheless, the consumer, as the right hon. Gentleman would be aware, was grossly imposed upon. They knew that when the retailer was detected in selling a purchaser an adulterated article as pure butter, he could, by the existing law, be taken before a magistrate and fined for the offence; but he pointed out that the wholesale manufacturer, who sold the adulterated article in large quantities, did not suffer the slightest inconvenience in consequence. Now, as butter was one of the most important articles of trade in the country, one would have thought the Government, and particularly the Department presided over by the right hon. Gentleman, would have given great attention to this question of adulterated and spurious imports; but it seemed to him, from the manner the subject had been dealt with, that the Government had really become the patrons of adulteration. They appeared to think it a good joke to foist upon the public, as butter, lard valued at, say, 63s. a cwt., or about two-thirds the value of butter. But the result of this was, besides the imposition put upon the consumer, that the sale of the genuine butters produced by English and Irish farmers was prejudiced in the market; they were exposed to unfair competition, and it became increasingly difficult for the manufacturers to keep up the quality of their goods. He could assure the Committee that not one-tenth of the substances sold as butter was butter at all. Moreover, a large number of persons who were able to judge for themselves had ceased altogether to buy the articles offered to them, and in this way again the action of persons who simply wanted a genuine article for their money depreciated the value of English and Irish butter. For these reasons he contended that some check ought to be placed on the importation of deleterious articles manufactured in other countries to the prejudice of English and Irish farmers; and he trusted that the whole subject would receive the serious consideration of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade.

LORD ELCHO

said, he wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade whether he considered it possible to draw a distinction between imports that were genuine and those that were spurious? Would the Adulteration Acts cover the selling as pure butter of any of the articles referred to by the hon. Member for Clonmel? Supposing they did not, would the right hon. Gentleman go a step further and take in the case of butter the same measures as had been adopted with reference to coffee—that was to say, that some penalty should attach to the sale of oleomargarine as butter? It seemed to him that the law now applied to the sale of articles pretending to be coffee should apply also to articles pretending to be butter.

MR. CHAMBERLAIN

said, the noble Lord appeared to confuse the duties of two separate Departments. It was his (Mr. Chamberlain's) duty to answer for the import and export statistics, and, in connection with those, he had replied to the inquiry made by the hon. Member for Clonmel (Mr. Moore). He had promised last year that he would endeavour to cause a distinction to be made in the Returns between what was called pure butter and those mixtures which were sold as substitutes for butter. The remark applied to cheese, or any other articles of great interest to the consumer. But he had no authority in the matter of adulteration of those substances when once imported into the country. In his opinion, the Adulteration Acts afforded a sufficient protection to the consumer against the sale of adulterated articles. Under the 8th section of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act any person selling oleomargarine as butter, without telling the person who bought it the nature of the article sold, rendered himself liable to a penalty of £20, which penalty might be enforced on prosecution by a private individual, or by the local authorities.

LORD ELCHO

said, he ventured to think the answer of the right hon. Gentleman would afford little comfort to the farmers. He supposed, however, that if no satisfaction was to be obtained from the Board of Trade, they would have to look to the Department presided over by the "farmers' friend," the Home Secretary.

SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS

wished to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade to the fact that the Secretary to the Home Department, in answer to a question put by him (Sir R. Assheton Cross) a few days ago, had stated that some alteration would be made in the system of appointing Sanitary Inspectors, and that he did not propose to fill up the next vacancy. This was a matter closely connected with the Office of the Board of Trade, and he would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in view of the alteration which the Secretary to the Home Department had said it was his intention to make, he proposed that there should be an Inspector connected with the Board of Trade to carry out those duties which were originally performed by the Sanitary Inspectors in respect of Sea Fisheries?

MR. CHAMBERLAIN

said, he would communicate with his right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary to the Home Department, and ask to be allowed to have some voice in the settlement of this question. As the two subjects referred to by the right hon. Gentleman opposite were closely connected, it seemed to him that it would be advantageous to the public interest if they were dealt with by one Department.

SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS

said, his only object was to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade to the answer given by the Secretary for the Home Department. He had no doubt that the communication with the Home Secretary, referred to by the right hon. Gentleman, would effect the desired result.

GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR

said, he would appeal to the Secretary to the Treasury to use the power and influence of the Treasury to induce the Board of Customs to expedite the presentation to Parliament of the annual Trade Report. He (General Sir George Balfour) had for many years been trying to have this thin volume more speedily rendered; but his application to the Board of Customs, and his many requests to the Board of Trade, had hitherto proved useless from the fact that the Customs Department, although performing duties connected with trade, did not consider that the Board of Trade had any right to interfere with the internal office duties of the Customs—the Treasury alone having the right. The delay in presenting this Trade Report might be judged of by the fact that, although the Navigation Tables of Shipping were as voluminous as the Trade Reports, yet they were presented to Parliament within two months after the close of the calendar year, a result due to the activity of the office of the Board of Trade in which these tables were compiled. In contrast with this, the Trade Report was never made available by the Customs till towards the end of August, when, as a rule, Parliament was not sitting. In addition to this delay, there was a defect in the Returns of the Board of Customs to which he would again refer—namely, the enormous amount of unenumerated articles entered in the Trade Tables. In the Report for the year 1881 the value of the unenumerated articles imported amounted to £14,597,090, and that of the exports of goods, the produce of the United Kingdom, also unenumerated, amounted to £12,102,101; and, moreover, the figures under these heads were increasing year by year. He contended that this defect should be removed; and although it was, no doubt, unavoidable that the tables for comparison should be kept uniform in regard to entries, it would have been an easy task to have furnished a Supplemental Table of the new imports and exports that had taken place since the present set of tables was commenced. He trusted that these subjects which, from their importance, were of great interest to many Members of that House, would receive the early attention of the Secretary to the Treasury.

MR. CHAMBERLAIN

was understood to say that, although he was responsible in that House for the Trade Returns, his hon. and gallant Friend was aware that these were compiled partly by the Board of Trade, and partly by the Board of Customs. He could assure his hon. and gallant Friend that he was deeply impressed with the importance of publishing these statistics as soon as possible in the financial year, and he believed that arrangements had been made which would materially hasten their publication in future. As regarded the question of classification of imports and exports, he was glad to inform his hon. and gallant Friend that the whole subject was under consideration, and he hoped it would be found practicable to reduce the amount under the head of Unenumerated Articles.

GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR

asked whether the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade had made any arrangements for the presentation to Parliament of a Statement of the value of crops produced in the United Kingdom? The subject was, no doubt, a large one, yet he believed it was not beyond the power of the Department to produce a Return of the value of our agricultural produce. It had already been done, with more or less approximation to accuracy, by scientific persons, and he sincerely hoped that, having regard to its great importance, the right hon. Gentleman would be able to give some assurance that steps would be taken by the Department to furnish the Return in question.

MR. CHAMBERLAIN

said, he could not add anything to what he had said on a former occasion, when, in answer to an inquiry on this subject, he acknowledged the importance of having in the Agricultural Statistics some estimate of the value of the crops, but, at the same time, pointed out that there were some considerable difficulties in the way of obtaining it. It would be a most interesting estimate, if it could be arrived at; but it must, under any circumstances, be too late for the Returns of the present year.

GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR

said, if the estimate could be made by private individuals, it was not unreasonable to expect that it could be also arrived at by a Public Department. The estimate was to be found in M' Culloch's Dictionary; and he ventured to think that if the right hon. Gentleman meant to have it done at all, it was not beyond the resources of his Department to get it included in the Returns of the present year.

Vote agreed to.

(10.) £19,496, to complete the sum for the Charity Commission.

MR. HINDE PALMER

asked whether it was the intention of the Government to fill up the vacancy caused by the death of Canon Robinson? He desired to call attention to the desirability of consolidating the many Acts of Parliament which related to Endowed Schools. He had seldom seen such a list of Statutes relating to one particular Department. There were enumerated on the Estimate seven or eight at least, and he appealed to the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council on Education to consider whether the Acts on the subjects of Endowed Schools and the Charity Commission ought not to be consolidated. He trusted that some steps would be taken in this direction.

MR. GREGORY

said, he thought the time had arrived for considering whether the Charity Commission ought to be self-supporting, or whether it ought to constitute any longer a charge upon the country. The Charity Commissioners took charge of a very large amount of property; they administered it, and they exercised a control over it for the benefit of the parties interested in it, and he thought it was only right that the cost of this supervision and administration should be borne by the parties who were benefited. He could not help thinking that this matter was well worthy the attention of the Government. There would be no difficulty in the matter, and it would not be unfair to make the beneficiaries contribute to the expenses of managing the funds or property placed under the control of those Commissioners. It would relieve the country to a considerable extent of the expenses of the Commission, and he thought it would only be right to impose a burden upon those for whom the Commission was intended, and so to relieve the general taxpayers of the country.

An hon. MEMBER

asked whether it was intended to renew the powers under the Endowed Schools Act which would expire on the 31st September next?

MR. MUNDELLA

said, that it had been the intention of the Government to re-organize the Endowed Schools Commission, and, if possible, to accelerate their procedure. It was, no doubt, in the highest degree desirable that much more progress should be made; but the pressure of Business this Session would not allow of that being done, and the Government would propose either a Continuance Bill, or a short Bill similar to the one brought in by the late Government, to continue the present powers for one or two years longer. It was the intention of the Government to fill up the vacancy caused by the death of Canon Robinson, for at present there was only one Endowed Schools Commissioner. The work of the Charity Commission was largely increasing, and something would be done to strengthen that Commission. He hoped before the end of the Session to be able to appoint a successor to Canon Robinson, and to do something to accelerate the work of the Commission. The Vote had diminished to the extent of about three-fourths of a year's salary for one Commissioner and one Assistant Commissioner. With respect to the charges made by the hon. Member for East Sussex (Mr. Gregory), they were matters which it appeared difficult for any Government to touch, especially when there was not much time, because whenever the question had been raised it had given rise to a great deal of opposition, especially from the other side of the House; and the history of the question had been unfortunate for every Minister or Member of the House who had started it. He was afraid any Government who attempted to deal with the matter would find their task a very difficult one.

SIR R: ASSHETON CROSS

said, the decrease in the Vote seemed to be caused by a decrease in the staff. It was important to get on with the work as fast as possible, and he did not think it right to reduce the staff or the salaries of the Commissioners.

Vote agreed to.

(11.) £18,738, to complete the sum for the Civil Service Commission.

(12.) £10,416, to complete the sum for the Copyhold, Inclosure, and Tithe Commission.

MR. ARTHUR ARNOLD

said, he was anxious the public should know, as far as information could be conveyed in a few words, what a bad bargain this Office was. There was probably no Public Department in the whole of the United Kingdom which returned to the public so little value for the large amount it cost. The Vote was now£16,900. The theory of the Office was that copyholds should be enfranchised compulsorily, either on the demand of the lord or the tenant. It would be well in connection with another matter that people should remember this. Either the landlord or the tenant might compel the enfranchisement of a copyhold, and the State made a contribution, because the operation of the Act was compulsory. Parliament granted this money to carry on this Office, which was practically a subsidy to the lords and tenants of manors to the extent of £16,000 or £17,000 a-year. He should not object if enfranchisement were proceeding at such a rate as to promise, within a measurable distance, the extinction of copyhold and customary tenures. For the last year the business of the Office in the enfranchisement of copyholds had only amounted to 300 transactions. He did not intend to represent that as the normal work of the Office, because, practically, the average was about 600 transactions a-year. No man had a more settled conviction of that unsatisfactory rate of progress than the distinguished gentleman who presided over the Office—namely, Sir James Caird. He had expressed himself strongly as to the unsatisfactory progress made by the Department, and Sir James Caird urged such a reform of the law as would bring about the extinction of copyhold tenure in 30 years, which was too long by at least 20 years. He only wished on this occasion to call attention to the great waste of public money in this Department, which, cost over £16,000 a-year, and was not worth £1,000 to the country.

Vote agreed to.

(13.) £4,350, to complete the sum for the Inclosure and Drainage Acts, Imprest Expenses.

(14.) £38,974, to complete the sum for the Exchequer and Audit Department.

(15.) £3,972, to complete the sum for the Friendly Societies Registry.

(16.) Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £358,145, 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 1883, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Local Government Board, including various Grants in Aid of Local Taxation.

SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS

wished to ask the Secretary to the Local Government Board a Question that he had asked earlier in the Session, as to the Alkali Acts, which materially affected that part of the country which he represented. An Act was passed last year to enable the Local Government Board to appoint additional Inspectors; and he wished to know what had been the result of those appointments, and whether those Inspectors were appointed to reside in the districts where the works were carried on, for he had found that in some cases the Inspectors resided in a different place from the works they had to inspect, and there was no practical result from their inspecting, for it was known that the alkali works bottled up all their noxious vapours until everybody was asleep, and then let them out in a thin white stream which was poisonous? If the Inspectors were to be of the smallest use they must be on the spot where they could see for themselves, and be up and doing. With regard to the alkali manufacturers, he believed all the best of them were agreed that the letting out of these noxious vapours was not in the least necessary, and it had been proved before the Commission that all the mischief had been done by those persons who, when the trade was profitable, rushed into it without having the proper appliances for the consumption of the vapours, and let out the vapours to the great injury of the country, and to their co-traders who had done all that could be done. It was essential, not only for the best manufacturers, but also for the agricultural interest in the districts, which was being destroyed, that these Inspectors should be more active and efficient. He had himself seen a field of wheat blackened and destroyed in one night. It was no use appointing Inspectors unless they did their work; and he wanted to know whether more Inspectors had been appointed; whether they had done their work; whether they resided in the districts under them; whether they could be up at night to see where the mischief came from; and what had been the practical result of the Act?

MR. ARTHUR ARNOLD

said, the Act of last year was not only applied to alkali works, but to other manufactures, and in the Estimate before the Committee there was £5,000 for salaries. He was informed that there were 250 of these works in the Manchester district, which came under the operation of the Act; that there had been no adequate inspection, and he had actually seen a report that that district included the Isle of Wight as well as Manchester. The districts were so ill-arranged that, as he was told on authority which could not be impugned, the efficient inspection of these 250 works was, in the present state of things, impracticable. In the opinion of a philanthropic person, who had interested himself in this matter, the injury to public health arose mainly from such works, and not from the smoke of the factories. This was a matter of great importance to the public health, and he hoped the Government would give attention to it.

MR. J. G. TALBOT

said, he wished to call attention to the inspection of Metropolitan vagrant wards, and to ask whether the notice of the President of the Local Government Board had been drawn to a matter in connection with the Act just passed relating to vagrancy throughout the country? By a provision of the Bill there was now a larger power of detention in casual wards than there had hitherto been. The object of that was that persons should not only be detained longer, and in that way possibly a check be given to vagrancy, but that when they were detained they should be properly treated. He thought a great deal of success in these matters depended on the way in which the vagrant wards in the country were organized, and on the way in which the Boards of Guardians paid attention to the treatment of this class of paupers. He did not suppose it would be possible to have so elaborate an inspection of the whole of the vagrant wards in the country as was done in London; but he wished to know whether it would be possible for the Local Government Board to draw the attention of the Inspectors to this matter, so that there might not be anything in the future which would cast a slur on legislation of this Session? Then, with regard to the medical question, there were a number of persons who went about preaching an Anti-Vaccination Crusade. He was not sure that the crowding-out of the Bill of the hon. Member for Leicester was an altogether unmixed good, for he was afraid the consequence of that was that the mischievous agitation would be kept simmering in the public mind without its being brought to the test of figures which would show that the apprehensions of the agitators were unfounded. It seemed to him that the only foundation for any clamour against vaccination, which had done so much for the public health of this country, lay in the fact that vaccination was not always done in a proper manner. No doubt, there were exceptional cases in which vaccination produced evils which would not have ensued if the operation had been carried out under proper conditions. If the hon. Gentleman could give some assurance that the Department would direct its attention to this particular subject, and would take care that the vaccinators supplied pure lymph, a great deal of practical good would be done, although it might not stop the agitation altogether.

MR. RAMSAY

said, he thought a great deal of misapprehension in the minds of people had been produced by the fact that vaccine matter of a deleterious character was frequently supplied, and produced disease. The attention of the Department ought to be directed not only to having a supply of pure vaccine matter, but to having an adequate quantity. If the Department did that, one of the chief causes of complaint would disappear.

MR. HIBBERT

said, with regard to the Alkali Inspectors, four additional Inspectors had been appointed, and particular care had been taken to inquire which were the districts in which there was the greatest number of alkali works. It was impossible to appoint a number of Inspectors in each district; but it was the intention of the Government to have the Inspectors living in the districts where the alkali works were the greatest in number. Information was given to the Government that there were a great number of works in the St. Helen's district, and it was suggested that the Department should appoint an Inspector for that one place, and that had been done. He was quite sure the Department had the question of damage by alkali works under their consideration, and would, as far as possible, make arrangements to prevent it. With respect to casual wards, the Metropolis was made into one Union; and, under the existing Act, any person who visited any vagrant ward more than twice within a certain period could be detained for a certain number of hours, and that system had produced the best results. He had no doubt, when the new Bill came into operation, that it would be possible to adopt the same system throughout the country. With regard to vaccination, he could not be expected now to go into the merits of vaccination, or of the objections raised to vaccination by some people. But the Local Government Board had, through their Inspectors, got this system entirely under control, and a great deal of trouble was taken with regard to inspection. The Inspectors went over the country and inspected vaccination in different districts. They could not, of course, inspect all vaccination; but they took a certain number in each vaccination district, and a system of payment by results was established, so that the Inspectors obtained an additional sum over and above their salaries for each inspection. Some of the Inspectors had received as much as £40 and £50 additional for successful vaccinations; and, so far, the system had worked well. This year a system of animal vaccine had been adopted, and was now in operation, and there was no difficulty in obtaining lymph from animals. He quite agreed that, to a great extent, the agitation against vaccination arose from careless vaccinations. The Local Government Board were always prepared to have an inquiry made into such cases, and, as far as possible, to secure proper treatment.

MR. CROPPER

said, he wished to draw attention to the inspection of workhouse schools under the Vote. He had seen a great deal of the inspection of workhouse and other schools, and there was an immense difference between the two methods. The inspection of workhouse schools was conducted by Inspectors who confined themselves to this sole class of schools, without experience of other children; it was, therefore, of a cramped nature, and there was, of course, only a small scope for suggestion and classification. If the workhouse schools inspection were absorbed in the inspection of schools generally, then workhouse children would be examined side by side with other children to their great advantage. There was a great waste of money under the present system. If the workhouse school was inspected along with other schools in the same town, that would only involve a half-day's work; whereas now an Inspector inspected a workhouse school in one part of the country in one day, and then rushed away to another part of the country to another workhouse.

MR. SCLATER-BOOTH

said, he did not know to what extent the hon. Gentleman's experience had gone; but pro- bably he was not aware that a very large number of these children were not in schools which would be inspected only in respect of their educational advancement. They were in separate establishments, which required inspection as such. There might be difficulties in the way of placing workhouse children under the general inspection, although in small country districts that might, perhaps, be of advantage, yet in the neighbourhood of London there were, most important and elaborate establishments which could not be dealt with in that way.

MR. CROPPER

said, his remarks applied to smaller schools throughout the country workhouses. He referred rather to the workhouse schools than to the large district schools.

MR. MOORE

said, he wished for some information as to the Roman Catholic children in these schools. Last year he had brought forward many cases of bigotry on the part of local authorities. There was in a Lancashire Union a Roman Catholic church within 15 minutes' walk of the workhouse, and the paupers were not allowed to go to it; and in many institutions in Lancashire the boys had been flogged into conforming to the Protestant services. Children were sent to various employers, and in some cases their relatives could not ascertain were the boys were. Roman Catholics in England were in a minority, and they could not expect to have all the officials in the parish chosen from their body; still he maintained that they had a right to have their interests fairly looked after. The question was not one of money, although whatever Boards of Guardians might be disposed to give would be acceptable; but there were four Unions which would not in the slightest degree yield to the reasonable demands of the Roman Catholics. This was a miserable religious persecution, and, naturally, Roman Catholics felt it very deeply. At present the parents and guardians of children could be, if the Guardians thought fit, deprived of all access to the register. There was no law to compel the Guardians to grant that access, and that measure of security could only be obtained by a roundabout process. What he maintained was, that Roman Catholics ought to have perfect religious freedom, and in the case of those who were paupers the fact of their being paupers ought not to be a reason for forcing on them religious opinions that they did not entertain. Roman Catholics said their Church ought to be absolutely free of access to them—the Roman Catholics should have perfect freedom of access to their Church within reasonable limits, so as not to disturb the necessary rules and order of the house—that was to say, when time and season permitted. They should be allowed to attend the services of their own Church when there was no epidemic disease in the house, and when the Roman Catholic place of worship was not too far distant. In addition to the right of visiting their churches, they ought to have the right of being visited by their clergy. Then, when there were so many Catholic children in the workhouses, having due regard to proportion, Roman Catholics had a right to some kind of representation on the official staff of the houses. They did not expect to have the whole staff of a workhouse Catholic, but they did insist upon having at least somebody on it who understood them and sympathized with them. Where it was certified that the children were Roman Catholics, and their parents were anxious that they should be under the care of persons of their own religion, it was clearly wrong to prevent the transfer of those children to institutions under the Catholic religion.

MR. RAMSAY

said, he was aware that on various occasions attention had been directed to the question of the education of pauper children; but he thought they should go somewhat further than had been suggested by hon. Members who on previous occasions had spoken on this question. The fact was that no attempt had been made to absorb the pauper children for the purpose of education in the common schools established throughout the Kingdom. It was a great blunder to mass children in workhouse schools—that was to say, a great blunder so far as the interests of the children themselves were concerned. Let these children be so placed that they could be educated in the common schools of the country, and many of the evils the hon. Member for Clonmel (Mr. Moore) complained of would not be heard of. The parents would be able to select the schools; and the Roman Catholic children would be sent to Roman Catholic schools, and the children of other re- ligious denominations to the schools of those denominations. As it was, the children were being brought up as paupers, and they naturally imbibed the idea that they should never look to any other source than the rates for their subsistence. So long as such a system as this existed it was a great evil. The country was spending on this pauper education an enormous sum of money that would be much better expended in providing education for these children in the common schools of the country. The Government had expressed, in the earlier part of the Session, some sympathy with this view; and he would, therefore, like to know whether any progress had been made in detaching children from the workhouses and having them maintained in families throughout the country and educated at the common schools? Bringing them up altogether in workhouses imbued them with the idea that they were paupers, and never could be anything else. Such an idea had a great effect on the character of the children; and he hoped it would soon be put a stop to. He would not move the reduction of the Vote on the present occasion; but another year he should be inclined to do so, unless there were some change effected. If there were such a mass of pauper children in the country that they could not be accommodated in the public schools, schools should be established for them; but, under any circumstances, they should be removed from the workhouses.

MR. WARTON

begged to draw attention to the large sum put down for "incidental expenses" in regard to the inspection of workhouse schools.

MR. O'SHEA

said, he need not say that he was in full sympathy with almost everything that had been said by the hon. Member for Clonmel (Mr. Moore). The hon. Member, however, had made a statement with regard to a gross piece of tyranny which had taken place, without mentioning the name of the place or the names of the guilty persons. This was most unfortunate. The statement was one of the most important which had ever been made in the House of Commons during the time he (Mr. O'Shea) had had the honour of a seat in it. It was that a Roman Catholic child or children had been flogged in some school in Lancashire to make them conform to some other religion. The hon. Member, he thought, ought to state the Union or school in which such a frightful atrocity occurred, in order that the authorities of the Local Government Board might inquire into the matter at once, and bring the guilty parties to justice.

MR. ARTHUR ARNOLD

said, he felt great sympathy with the hon. Member for Clonmel as to the condition of the Roman Catholic paupers in the schools and workhouses. The statement of the hon. Member to which reference had just been made by another hon. Member (Mr. O'Shea) was a most important one. He (Mr. Arthur Arnold) would not ask the hon. Member to mention publicly the Union in Lancashire to which he had referred; but, after the statement he had made, he was surely bound to mention the name of the Union to the Secretary of the Local Government Board. He (Mr. Arthur Arnold) was sure he need not ask his hon. Friend (Mr. Hibbert), when the information had been given to him, to lose no time in communicating with the Inspector of the district, in order that he might inquire into the charge which reflected such grave discredit on the administration of the Union.

MR. ROUND

said, he wished to draw the attention of the Secretary to the Local Government Board to the subject of the salaries of the medical officers under them. Was it not the fact that those salaries were now paid out of the Imperial funds? Superannuation allowances were granted, and those, he believed, were charged on the local ratepayers. He thought it only just that the whole community should bear the burden of the charge for medical relief to the poor; and it was equally proper that the whole community should pay the whole superannuation allowances of these officers. He (Mr. Hound) would ask the hon. Gentleman whether he had ever considered the subject from this point of view?

MR. HIBBERT

said, the law allowed the superanuation allowances, and those only, to be charged on the rates. He did not know whether the Committee would be prepared to adopt the change suggested. With regard to children who at present attended the workhouse schools being placed under the Education Department, he must say he was favourably impressed with the plan, and he had gone so far as to suggest it to the Education Department; but there were so many difficulties raised that it was almost impossible to hope that the change would be effected. It would not save expense—the salaries would not be appreciably lessened. It might save the salary of one Inspector—that was the conclusion which had been come to—but it must be borne in mind that the question of health and many other matters had to be gone into as well as education. Some years ago, the inspection of workhouse schools was under the Education Department; but the system had been changed. He could not hold out very much hope that the views of hon. Members who had spoken on this subject would be carried out; but the matter was still under consideration. As to the condition of the pauper children generally, a great improvement had been made in it, particularly as regarded those children who were sent to the National schools. Many more were sent to those schools now than last year, and, so far as the Local Government Board was concerned, they offered no difficulties in the way of the extension of this change in London. Where, however, Guardians had already established schools for pauper children, it was not likely that they would put them aside at once, and send the children to the common schools of the country. Then they had to take into consideration the objection of managers of schools to workhouse children being sent to them. All these points had to be considered; still it was a fact that the system of sending workhouse children to public schools was growing in the country. The practice of boarding out children was now beginning to be largely adopted. Last year between 7,000 and 8,000 children were boarded out by the Unions in different parts of the country. Also, during the past two or three years schools had been built on a new principle—on the cottage instead of the block system—and the result was likely to be very beneficial. The buildings were laid out in separate blocks, each having a "mother" to attend to it, and in this way the mechanical system was avoided, a greater home feeling was introduced, a better knowledge of the children was obtained, and also a better chance of teaching them—especially a better chance of teaching the girls do- mestic work. This system had been adopted in Chelsea, also in Birmingham and several other places. With regard to the matter raised by the hon. Member for Clonmel (Mr. Moore), he could assure the hon. Member that if he would furnish the Local Government Board privately with the names of the Unions where the occurrences to which reference had been made had taken place, he (Mr. Hibbert) would see that they were inquired into at once. Whenever anything of this kind occurred, if it was only mentioned in the newspapers, the Local Government Board immediately sent instructions to its Inspectors, requiring them, without delay, to ascertain the truth or otherwise of the allegation. In regard to the question of the treatment of Roman Catholic children, he (Mr. Hibbert) quite agreed with the hon. Member that there had been and still was a great amount of intolerance in the country; but it was satisfactory to know that it was lessening year by year. He was informed on very high authority that there were only three or four Unions in the country where any complaint was made in respect of the treatment of Roman Catholic children, and he trusted that before long, even in those places, the grievance would be removed. In Sheffield the Guardians had not done what could be considered quite fair to the Roman Catholics in that Union; but he hoped that, in the future, those Guardians would treat the Roman Catholic children in a manner more satisfactory to the Roman Catholic ratepayers of the district. He (Mr. Hibbert) had not quite made out what had fallen from the hon. and learned Member for Bridport with regard to "incidental expenses." He could not gather the hon. and learned Member's point, and was, therefore, sorry he could not offer a reply.

MR. WARTON

said, he was sorry he had failed to make his meaning clear. With regard to the workhouse schools, his points were two. He could not make out how salaries rising to£400 and £600 by increments of£25 could at any time amount to £156, which was an item in the Vote. He was at a loss to discover where the £6 came from. Then, under the head of "Incidental Expenses," there was an item of £35 given without explanation.

MR. HIBBERT

said, he was afraid he could not give the hon. and learned Member satisfaction on any point he (Mr. Warton) had raised; but he would undertake to see that these matters were carefully inquired into.

MR. MOORE

said, that as to the names of the workhouses to which he had alluded, he was not in the habit of making statements in the House which he was incapable of supporting. The statements he had made to the Committee he had made on the best information. One of the workhouses of which he had spoken was the Sheffield Workhouse; but that case did not include the more serious charge of flogging the boys because they would not obey certain religious observances. The Rochdale Workhouse was amongst those which he had referred to as being situated so near the Catholic church that the Catholic paupers might be allowed to attend its services. He should not care to mention publicly where the flogging took place. [Mr. HIBBERT: Tell me privately.] He would do so. The officer who was guilty of the harsh conduct to which he referred had been promoted directly after he (Mr. Moore) had heard of the occurrence. The Committee must not think he was taking any advantage of them, or misleading them in any way. He was prepared to give the name of the Union; but, considering that the officer who had been guilty of the objectionable conduct had been promoted, it would be as well not to mention the name publicly.

MR. O'SHEA

I beg to give Notice that I will, this day week, ask a Question on this subject.

MR. CALLAN

said, the reason his hon. Friend (Mr. Moore) gave why these facts should be kept private was just the reason why they should be made public. If this officer had been promoted, why should not his conduct be made public—why should not he be shamed before the world? [An hon. MEMBER: It may not be true.] That would be so much the better. Let the man stand the test. He objected to this privacy just as he objected to the hearing of cases in camera in the Divorce Court. Cases were heard in private because they were scandalous—the very reason why they should be made public and the guilty parties should be held up to public shame. Where was the silent Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands)? He was sorry the hon. Member was not in his place, because in the borough the hon. Member represented a majority of 18 out of 28 Guardians had refused to allow the Roman Catholic children to go to the Roman Catholic church. The attention of the Government had been drawn to the matter, and an Inspector had been sent down. He (Mr. Callan) had moved for a Return in regard to these matters some time ago, and last year he had altered the form of it so as to facilitate its preparation. He had desired to have the Return printed so as to be placed in the hands of Members when this Vote came on; but for some inscrutable reason the document had not yet been printed. It had been laid on the Table of the House within the past 10 days, but it had not been printed, therefore it was not available to show how deficient were the regulations and how illiberal was the course of conduct pursued by the Dissenters. He wished to make a distinction in this matter between the people of the Church of England and the Dissenters. The former, as a rule, were fair to Roman Catholics and mindful of their feelings, but the Dissenters were as cruel and persecuting to them as in the days of Oliver Cromwell. The prisons, he was glad to say, were under Government; but the workhouses were not, and in these wherever there was bigotry to be found at work—he thanked God such places were now few in number—it was always in cases where a majority of the Guardians were Dissenters—Independents, Congregationalists, Baptists. The chaplains in workhouses in Ireland were not paid according to the number of people to whom they had to minister. Take the Dundalk Workhouse, for instance. There the Roman Catholic chaplain was paid at the rate of 1s. a-head, the Protestant at the rate of £4, and the Presbyterian at the rate of £30; but, notwithstanding that in Ireland the Protestant and Presbyterian chaplains were paid so handsomely, in London and Birmingham they did not pay one penny to the Roman Catholic chaplain, and there was no legal provision for such payment. This Liberal Government, that was so fond of removing grievances, would they be so good as to give the Local Government Board in England the same control and power in this matter as that possessed by the Local Government Board of Ireland? The Guardians in Ireland were compelled to pay the chaplains, but in England such payments would be illegal. Under a sealed order the Guardians in Ireland had to pay any salary that was fixed by the Local Government Board. If that was fair in Ireland, why did they not extend the same principle to England? If it was fair to pay Presbyterian ministers in Ireland, why should not Roman Catholic priests be paid? Could any Dissenter in the House—any Member of that most bigoted lot in Parliament—get up in his place and say why this should not be done? He would challenge any Dissenting member of those Boards of Guardians, famous in this country for their luncheon-eating and beer-swilling, to get up and answer him. He appealed to the common sense and honesty and sense of fair play of the Committee. If it was right to pay Protestant and Presbyterian clergymen in the Irish workhouses, was it not equally right to pay Roman Catholic clergymen in English workhouses—to compel the Guardians to pay them?

SIR HENRY FLETCHER

said, he agreed with what had been said as to the desirability of sending workhouse children to the National schools. He had been for many years Chairman of a Board of Guardians in his own county, and during that time he had used his best endeavours to further the system in question. He should like to ask the Secretary to the Local Government Board a question on this subject. In his county amongst the different Boards of Guardians the main difficulty experienced was in respect of sending workhouse children to the National schools in workhouse clothing. This had been the great difficulty he had always experienced, and perhaps the hon. Member (Mr. Hibbert) would be able to tell him whether the children must retain the workhouse clothing, or whether they could discard it? He (Sir Henry Fletcher) agreed that workhouse schools proper should be done away with, and that hon. Members should use their best endeavours to send the children to the National schools; but he had found, after some years of experience, that if the children went to those schools in workhouse clothing they were subject to derision and laughter, and that was why, in his own Union, he had not, to the extent he might have done, take upon himself the responsibility of sending workhouse children to the village schools. If this difficultly were got rid of, many Boards of Guardians would use their best endeavours to do away with the workhouse schools, and to get the children attending the village schools to associate with the pauper children in those establishments. Whenever he had had a village feast at home he had always made a point of inviting the workhouse children, and of insisting upon good fellowship between the village children and them. Still, there was this vexed question of the pauper children wearing the workhouse clothes, and not being fit to associate with the others.

MR. PUGH

said, that, some years ago, he presided over a Board of Guardians in Wales. At the time he became connected with it the pauper children were all wearing the workhouse clothes; but he gave them decent clothes, and made them very like other children, and ever since then they had gone to the Board school, with great advantage to themselves and to the school.

COLONEL ALEXANDER

said, he begged leave to move the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £20,000, on account of the grant in aid of Poor Law medical relief. He was sorry to be obliged to do this, as he did not wish to deprive England of the full amount she was entitled to receive; but, as the Committee were aware, it was impossible for him to move the increase of the Scotch Vote. He simply moved the reduction of the English Vote as a protest against the stationary character of the Scotch Vote. The English Vote was constantly increasing, and there had been additions to the Irish Vote; but the Scotch Vote always remained where it was. Last year the hon. Member for North Ayrshire (Mr. Cochran-Patrick) brought forward the matter in a very able speech. It had been introduced several times, and on one occasion—last Session, he thought—the Prime Minister happened to be present, and made an important declaration on the subject. The right hon. Gentleman had said that, although he could not do anything at that time, he would undertake to look into the whole question. He had said, further, that if, after carefully considering the matter, they found themselves unable to approach it with more comprehensive views, they would examine the Votes to see whether they could not establish real equality in the treatment of the countries North and South of the Border. The hon. Member for North Ayrshire had expected this would be done, and, with his Colleagues, had looked with satisfaction upon the fact that the right hon. Gentleman represented an important Scotch constituency, regarding it as an additional assurance that the right hon. Gentleman was in earnest, and would see that something was done. He (Colonel Alexander) supposed the right hon. Gentleman was in earnest, and that the excuse would be that there had been no time to go into the question. It would be said the House had been too busily engaged with Land Acts, and the payment of arrears of rent; and next year, no doubt, there would be some other plausible excuse for inaction. He (Colonel Alexander), therefore, had no alternative but to make a stand this year, and insist upon some definite promise from the Government.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £338,145, 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 1883, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Local Government Board, including various Grants in Aid of Local Taxation."—(Colonel Alexander.)

MR. HIBBERT

said, he was sorry he was not in a position to answer the hon. and gallant Member opposite upon the point he had raised. He (Mr. Hibbert), of course, was aware that the Motion was not aimed at the Vote for the Local Government Board in England, but was intended to call attention to the want of a proper Vote for these purposes in Scotland. The Prime Minister had been present during the discussion which took place on the subject last year, and it was a regrettable circumstance that what had been promised at that time had not been carried out. A Select Committee had sat to consider the matter, and, if the subject of local taxation had been dealt with, as had been anticipated, no doubt this question of the Scotch Local Government Vote would have been settled. This was the only reason he could give why the matter had not been dealt with since the Prime Minister gave his promise last year—because the question of local taxation had not been dealt with. He (Mr. Hibbert) hoped the hon. and gallant Member would not insist upon dividing the Committee on the Vote, but would raise the question later on, when someone better able to give an answer was in the House. The hon. and gallant Member could bring it on on Report. As to the clothing of workhouse children, that matter was entirely in the hands of the Guardians, and they were at liberty to make some modification in the dress, so as not to offend the managers of the public schools, or the parents of other children who were sent to those establishments. Of course, due regard must always be had to economy.

SIR JOHN HAY

said, he hoped the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for South Ayrshire (Colonel Alexander) would take a division on this question. The hon. Member (Mr. Hibbert) had told them that the subject could be mooted with greater advantage on some other occasion; but he (Sir John Hay) was not aware that a more favourable occasion could arise. This was the only point in the whole of the Estimates on which a protest could be made by Scotch Members at the neglect of the Government to fulfil the promise made last year. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, who had made the promise, was Member for a Scotch Metropolitan county; and hon. Members might, naturally, have expected that he would have taken some interest in a question of such importance to the Scotch people. At any rate, he (Sir John Hay) trusted that the other Scotch Members would, by their votes, enter a protest against the growing neglect of Scotland by the Government. He trusted they would be allowed to see how many Scotch Members would support the hon. and gallant Member in the action he was now taking.

MR. BUCHANAN

said, that on the 25th April of the present year, either the hon. Member for North Ayrshire or the Falkirk Burghs asked a Question of the Secretary to the Treasury with regard to this subject; and the answer received was that the Government intended to double the amount in the Estimates—that was to say, to raise it from £10,000 to £20,000.

MR. DICK-PEDDIE

said, he had paid great attention to this subject, and it was, in his opinion, high time that the Scotch Members showed the Government that they did not intend any longer to submit to such treatment as this. If only £60,000 instead of £143,000 was voted for England every year they would hear a great deal about it. He had heard the Financial Secretary give the answer referred to, and he was much surprised to find that in spite of that the Vote for Scotland stood exactly as it was last year. In order to impress the matter fully on the attention of Her Majesty's Government, he hoped the hon. and gallant Member opposite would press the matter to a division.

MR. RAMSAY

said, he had often taken part in divisions on this subject, and he should not mind going into the Lobby with the hon. and gallant Member on this occasion; but he would remind the Committee that they had received a distinct assurance from the Government that the grant for Scotland would be doubled, and that a Supplementary Vote would be brought in for that purpose. If his memory did not deceive him, it was the Prime Minister himself who made the statement that the Vote should, in the future, be £20,000 instead of £10,000. An hon. Member near him observed the fact that the amount on the Estimate stood as it did last year; but that arose from the fact that the Estimates were prepared before they had the assurance of increase from the Prime Minister. If, however, there was any doubt about it, he (Mr. Ramsay), as he had said, should be very glad to vote with the hon. and gallant Member opposite by way of protest against delay.

SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS

said, that what had fallen from the hon. Member who had just spoken placed the Committee in a difficulty; but, at the same time, he could not help remarking upon the fact that there was no Member of the Cabinet on the Front Bench opposite. He would propose that the Vote should be postponed in order to enable a Member of the Cabinet to be present.

MR. HIBBERT

This is not the Scotch Vote—it is the Vote for England.

SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS

The Scotch Members are in this difficulty—they cannot move to increase the Scotch Vote. The question comes to this—whether a pledge has been given by the Prime Minister, and, if so, whether or not it is to be carried out?

MR. RAMSAY

said, the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Buchanan) had handed him the note he took down at the time the matter was last under discussion, when Lord Frederick Cavendish—whose loss they all so deeply regretted—stated that the grant would be increased from£10,000 to £20,000. That promise was made, and subsequently repeated by the Prime Minister in answer to some remark from the hon. Member for North Ayrshire (Mr. Cochran-Patrick). Under these circumstances, he could not doubt that the Government intended to fulfil the promise made by the Predecessor of the hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary to the Treasury and the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister.

MR. COURTNEY

said, he did not think it was a very business-like way of proceeding to oppose the English Vote in order to obtain an increase in the Scotch Vote. No doubt the pledge referred to had been given, and that being so, no doubt, also, it must be fulfilled by a Supplementary Estimate. An attempt had more than once been made to deal with the subject by legislation; but, up to the present, owing to the impotency of the House to transact its Business, without success. He trusted the Motion would be withdrawn.

MR. SCLATER-BOOTH

said, he agreed with the hon. Member that it was not business-like to oppose an English Vote for the purpose of drawing attention to a Scotch one; still, it was customary for this wrangle to arise whenever the English Vote was proposed. It did not seem to him that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury was very clear what the Government were going to do. If he had a Supplementary Estimate in his pocket, why did he not say so, and bring it forward on the earliest opportunity?

MR. COURTNEY

said, he simply heard it stated that the pledge had been given—personally, he knew nothing about it. He had the fact on the authority of the hon. Members for Falkirk and Kilmarnock Burghs. These hon. Members assured him that his noble Predecessor had made the promise that the estimate should be doubled; and unquestionably, if that promise was made, it would have to be fulfilled. He would ask the hon. and gallant Member for South Ayrshire to accept this statement, and, in a business-like way, withdraw his Motion.

MR. SCLATER-BOOTH

said, he could not say that he was satisfied with what had fallen from the Secretary to the Treasury. The hon. Member had said that an attempt had been made to deal with the subject by legislation, but that, owing to the impotency of the House, the attempt had failed. The hon. Member, he thonght, would find, if he inquired, that the Scotch Members did not agree with this proposed legislation. Whatever arrangement was to be made in order to fulfil the pledge which had been given, no doubt the hon. Member (Mr. Courtney) was justified in what he had said. In the course of a few days there ought to be a Supplementary Estimate placed on the Table in the redemption of the pledge given to the Scotch Members. It was singular to him how the Secretary to the Treasury could have overlooked such an item as this for so long—he ought to have seen the items that were to be asked for despite the short time he had held his Office. He (Mr. Sclater-Booth) had intended to ask about the Supplementary Vote in connection with prisons, and the funds that were to be distributed in aid of highway rates; and for the Secretary to the Treasury to say that these matters, or a similar matter, were still in abeyance on which he had no knowledge seemed to be most extraordinary.

MR. HINDE PALMER

said, that, looking at the hour of the night (12.35), and the progress they had made, the proper thing to do now would be to move to report Progress.

COLONEL ALEXANDER

said, the Secretary to the Treasury had described the course he had taken as an unbusiness-like way of pressing a Scotch Vote on the attention of the Committee. He (Colonel Alexander) should be very glad if the hon. Member would inform him in what other way he could now bring the Scotch Vote under the notice of the Committee. The hon. Member knew very well that it was not competent for him (Colonel Alexander) to move the increase of the Scotch Vote. He moved the reduction of the present Vote in order to call attention to the mean sum that was given to Scotland. The hon. Member for Falkirk (Mr. Ramsay) seemed to have some vague recollection of some promise having been made by Lord Frederick Cavendish; but beyond that they had no assurance that this Vote was to be increased by£10,000; and, seeing that it was certain this subject would be discussed to-night, he thought there ought to have been someone in the House to tell them what was to be done in the matter. He must insist on taking a division. They had been told every year that the wishes of the Scotch Members were to be met; but the promise had never been fulfilled—and in this he was not blaming Her Majesty's present Government any more than the late Government, for the latter, in this respect, had been quite as bad as the former. On this matter there was an old standing feud between Scotland and England; and he would be no party to the making up of that feud until Scotland had obtained justice, and substantial justice.

MR. RAMSAY

said, he should not complain if the hon. and gallant Member carried his just claim to a division; but, seeing that the Secretary to the Treasury was in his place and had promised to make an inquiry into what he (Mr. Ramsay) believed was an honest pledge on the part of Lord Frederick Cavendish to the Scotch Members, that the Vote should be £20,000 in future, it would, perhaps, be as well to postpone the division until the stage of Report. It would be desirable to withdraw the Amendment if the hon. Member (Mr. Courtney) gave them a definite promise that he would look into the matter, and subsequently make a statement in the House as to the manner in which the Vote would be augmented.

SIR JOHN LUBBOCK

said, he protested against the principle upon which this claim for an increased Vote to Scotland was demanded. He did not believe in asking for an increase in a certain Scotch Vote because a certain English Vote and a certain Irish Vote had been increased.

COLONEL ALEXANDER

There never has been an increase in the Scotch Vote.

SIR JOHN LUBBOCK

said, the hon. and gallant Member had the right to make an explanation afterwards if he desired to do so. As he (Sir John Lubbock) understood the matter, the Government had given a distinct promise to consider the question. Surely, having got that, the hon. Member would do well to be satisfied.

MR. BUCHANAN

said, that the Scotch Members had from the Government something more than a promise to consider the matter. They had the distinct assurance that the£10,000 would be increased to £20,000.

SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS

The Secretary to the Treasury has made a distinct promise, and of course it will be fulfilled; therefore, it seems to me it would be wise not to insist upon a division.

COLONEL ALEXANDER

said, that in view of the statement of the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Buchanan) he would not press his Motion. The hon. Baronet the Member for the University of London (Sir John Lubbock) said the fact that the English and Irish Votes had been increased was no reason why the Scotch Vote should be increased also. But he (Colonel Alexander) would point out to the hon. Member that there had never been an increase in the Scotch Vote since it had been established, whereas the English and Irish Votes had gone on constantly increasing.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Original Question again proposed.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

said, he wished to ask a question with regard to expenses in connection with Provisional Orders. Last year a most extraordinary transaction took place in regard to one of these Orders. The Lower Thames Valley Main Sewerage Board wished to obtain some land compulsorily, and there was a considerable amount of opposition to the scheme. The Local Government Board appointed an Inspector to conduct an inquiry into the matter; and the shorthand-writer's notes during the inquiry were, he believed, paid for by the Local Government Board. It was mentioned at the outset that the inquiry would be a very short affair, perhaps not extending beyond a week; but in the end it turned out that a great many weeks were consumed by the inquiry, and Gurney and Company, who furnished the shorthand notes, sent in a bill for no less a sum than £698. After the inquiry had proceeded two or three weeks it was discovered that the parties on both sides had agreed to defray the expenses of the notes between them. The Inspector declined to accept the shorthand-writer's notes paid for by the parties, for the reason, as he stated, that he was not authorized to receive them, and there was a shorthand-writer appointed by the Local Government Board. The end of it was that the parties refused to recognize their liability to pay the double charge for the same service; and the Local Government Board had to pay this monstrous charge of £700 for the shorthand-writer's notes of this single inquiry in reference to a Provisional Order. In the item out of which it was found that this charge should be defrayed, there was not sufficient money, consequently the required sum had to be taken from the fund for "travelling expenses." It seemed to him that the arrangements connected with Provisional Orders required overhauling. The accounts must be kept in a very loose way, and there must be something very loose about the Estimates to admit of such a thing as "shorthand-writer's notes" being charged to "travelling expenses." He should like to ask the Secretary to the Local Government Board whether he thought that all the items under this Vote had been pared down to a reasonable closeness, or whether it would still be possible to take off £700 from one item to put it on another? He should like, further, to know whether there had been any revision of the rules in connection with Provisional Orders?

MR. HIBBERT

said, he could not give the hon. Member any information as to this particular item of £700. The ordinary expenses of Inspectors were paid by the Local Government Board; but any additional expenses were paid by the local authorities. As he had said, however, he could not give a precise answer as to the matter in question. He had no doubt there was a satisfactory answer to be given; but he was not able at the moment to say what it was. It was impossible that such an amount as £700 could be paid without its being known and being capable of some explanation.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

Is it not the fact that this particular amount for shorthand-writer's notes was paid out of the item for travelling expenses?

MR. HIBBERT

I cannot say.

Question put, and agreed to.

(17.) £10,571, to complete the sum for the Lunacy Commission, England.

SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS

said, he wanted to ask a question about this sum. He wished to know whether the Government could not give them some little information as to the duties of the Commissioners, and the number of visits they paid? If hon. Members would look at the Act of Parliament, they would see words to the effect that ordinary lunatics should be visited and seen by one of the Inspectors four times, at least, in every year; and that such visits should be so regulated that no interval between two visits should exceed four months. Of that he approved; but then there was another class of lunatics—namely, Chancery lunatics, which were only to be visited once a-year. One visit, however, had been found to be insufficient; therefore it had been found advisable to allow them two visits a-year. There was at this moment on the Paper—indeed, down for discussion to-night—a Bill dealing with this question. The Government said it was true the Chancery lunatics ought to be visited twice a-year; but it would not be possible so to visit them, as the Commissioners were too full of work; at any rate, they could not be visited twice a-year unless the number of visits paid to the other lunatics was reduced to two a-year. This was a singular mode of reasoning. If their Commissioners were not sufficient in number, there ought to be another appointed, or some arrangement should be made whereby not only the ordinary lunatics, but the Chancery lunatics as well, could be visited four times a-year. When the Bill came on for discussion, he should have to oppose the clause affecting the number of visits—in fact, he should oppose anything like petty dealing with this important subject. The matter had been referred to frequently of late. The hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn) and the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Whitley) had made inquiries concerning it, and there could be no doubt that no exertion should be spared to safeguard people from being put into lunatic asylums when their condition was not such as to warrant it, and to prevent them from being detained in those institutions when they ought to be sent out as cured. He did not think, however, that the petty way of dealing with it which was proposed by the Government, was worthy of the House; therefore, he should most violently oppose it. Was it true that the Commissioners had not time to carry out the work of inspecting efficiently, and ought there to be another Commissioner? If they had not sufficient time, unquestionably there ought to be another Commissioner; but, simply because another one of lunatics required to be visited more frequently, do not let them reduce the number of visits at present paid to another class.

MR. HIBBERT

said, the Chancery lunatics in private asylums were required to be visited four times a-year; but those in public asylums were only required to be visited once a-year. The Bill before the House sought to alter that system; but he should not be in Order in discussing the measure on this Vote.

THE CHAIRMAN

Hon. Members may not enter into a discussion of the principles of a Bill which has been introduced, but which is not yet before them.

MR. HIBBERT

said, the right hon. Gentleman (Sir R. Assheton Cross) would have a full explanation of the subject when the Bill came on. He (Mr. Hibbert) was not aware that the Commissioners were unable to perform the work they had to do. At present they made all the visits which by law were required to be made.

MR. DILLWYN

said, he rose to express great satisfaction at the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir R. Assheton Cross). He objected most strongly to this petty method of dealing with the Lunacy Commissioners proposed by Her Majesty's Government. He (Mr. Dillwyn) had, over and over again, urged the Government to deal with the subject in a bold manner, and he still hoped they would do so. He would not discuss the Bill before the House, which, he supposed, would have to be withdrawn. It was evident it could not be discussed, and that full consideration could not be given to it at this time of the Session. He rose to second the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman (Sir R. Assheton Cross), and to urge on the Government the absolute necessity of dealing with this question in a large—in a wholesale manner. In this evening's newspapers there was a letter complaining of gross breach of duty on the part of the Lunacy Commissioners. Well, there were a great many cases of this kind constantly arising, and, no doubt, a great deal could be said in support of the allegations made. This he mentioned only to show how necessary it was that the Lunacy Laws should be carefully considered and amended by the Government. The measure Her Majesty's Government brought forward was very small, and would only have the effect of putting off a larger one. He was glad to see small reforms carried out except when they put off larger measures which were imperatively demanded at the hands of the Government. He earnestly urged the Government to take this question of the Lunacy Laws in hand with determination, and carry out the required reform without loss of time. He had been nibbling at the matter for a good many years, and had amply shown, he thought, that something was required to be done. He had satisfied himself that the Government must move in the matter before he could rest content.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

said, there was one point in connection with this subject on which he trusted the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hibbert) would be able to give the Committee some information—he referred to the enormous number of poor men and women who were placed or detained in lunatic asylums improperly, who were sent from the workhouses to the asylums, because they gave trouble and bother to the master and matron. These people were little more than harmless imbeciles; but, because, for some reason, someone could certify that they were mentally afflicted, they were drafted off to the lunatic asylums in spite of the protests of the medical officers of the districts. These persons could be numbered by hundreds and thousands. He had himself seen many cases of hardship of this kind in Middlesex—cases in which poor, weak-witted persons were sent by the Guardians to the lunatic asylum, which was admirably suited and conducted for many of its patients, but was a singularly unfit receptacle for the people he was alluding to. He wished to know whether the Local Government Board had now in hand any scheme for the treatment of these people? The point had been raised year after year, and they had always received the same information from the Government—namely, that the matter was under consideration. However that was, nothing ever seemed to come of this consideration.

MR. WHITLEY

said, he should like to ask a question with regard to this subject. As he understood it, there were nine Commissioners altogether—six who appeared on this Vote, and three who did not. He agreed that in whatever arrangement was made it would be a serious mistake to reduce the number of visits which were made by the Inspectors. At present, there were something like 12,000 Chancery lunatics, and for visiting them there were three Commissioners. There were 60,000 other lunatics, however, and only six Commissioners for them. If three Commissioners could not visit 12,000, how could six visit 60,000? Surely, if there was anything the country ought to be willing to properly pay for, it was the proper inspection of these unfortunate people. There was no class of the community who had a stronger claim upon our sympathy than this; and he hoped and trusted that arrangements would be made for an increase of the Commissioners, because it was only by the aid of these officers that the lunatics could be properly looked after.

MR. ACLAND

said, he did not wish to detain the Committee more than a minute or two; but there was one point as to this Poor Law and lunacy which deserved attention. It had been frequently pointed out that the Guardians were induced to send the pauper imbeciles to the lunatic asylums by the subvention given to the rates in this matter. He had intended, but had postponed it, to-day to move for a Return which would show what the effect of this subvention had been. But it was another point to which he now wished to draw attention. As he understood the law, and as he found it acted on, in the county in which he resided, the magistrates, when certified lunatics were taken before them, had no option but to send them to pauper lunatic asylums. He knew of his own knowledge that cases constantly occurred where there were committed to the pauper lunatic asylums persons who ought never to have been sent there—who were able to maintain themselves, or whose friends were able to maintain them. So far as he knew, it was impossible for a magistrate to send persons brought before him as lunatics to other than pauper lunatic asylums. This was a matter which should be considered and attended to by the Government.

MR. HIBBERT

said, he should be very glad if the subvention could be altered in some way, so as to do away with the pressure on the Guardians and give relief to that class of lunatic referred to by the hon. Member who had just sat down. The Local Government Board used their influence with the Guardians to induce them to avoid, as much as possible, sending this class to the public lunatic asylums. There had only recently been a case in Yorkshire where 30 or 40 persons had been sent from a workhouse to a lunatic asylum when they really ought to have been retained in the workhouse. The Local Government Board had used all their influence to induce the Guardians to take the poor people back again, but to no avail. As to the point put by the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Whitley)—namely, that an additional Commissioner should be appointed instead of altering the law as to inspection—he (Mr. Hibbert) must point out that the inspection of Chancery lunatics was a matter really in the hands of the Lord Chancellor. The Chancery lunatics were entirely visited by his visitors; and this proposal to increase the number of visits had been proposed, he (Mr. Hibbert) believed, by the visitors themselves. If an additional visitor could be appointed, however, he should be glad to see it.

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

MR. COURTNEY

said, he hoped the hon. Member for Cavan would not press this Motion to a division, inasmuch as there were several Votes next following that it would be for the public advantage to pass, and which related to matters of a non-contentious character. As Supply would not be taken to-morrow, he hoped to be able to finish the English Votes of Class II. before Progress was reported, and, if possible, to get through some of the Scotch Votes of the same class, which he believed would also give rise to no discussion.

MR. R. N. FOWLER

said, that, although the hour was late, he had no wish to delay the Votes referred to by the Financial Secretary. He should, however, he glad to know whether it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government to take the Customs and Inland Revenue Bill when Progress was reported?

MR. COURTNEY

said, it was not intended to proceed with the Bill on that occasion.

MR. BIGGAR

protested against the argument used by the Secretary to the Treasury against the Motion to report Progress—namely, that the remaining Votes of this class were not likely to give rise to much discussion. In the first place, he did not see why the hon. Gentleman should assume that there would be no criticism of the Votes in question; and, in the second place, he thought that some limit should be placed to the growing custom of voting enormous sums of money without any discussion whatever. Until a few Sessions ago it was always the rule to report Progress in Supply at half-past 12 o'clock. Since when, on the constant representations of Her Majesty's Government as to the pressure of Public Business, they had got into the habit of bringing forward Supply towards the end of the evening, and continuing in Committee until hours when no efficient examination or discussion of the Estimates could take place. He had protested against this mode of procedure so often that, notwithstanding the argument of the Financial Secretary, he felt it his duty to take the sense of the Committee on his Motion.

Question put, and negatived.

Vote agreed to.

(18.) Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £42,357, 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 31at day of March 1883, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Mint, including the Expenses of the Coinage.

MR. ARTHUR ARNOLD

said, perhaps the Financial Secretary to the Treasury would be able to give some explanation of the last item under this Vote for the supply of silver and bronze coin to Colonies. He would like to know to what class of Colonies the coin was supplied for which this charge of £1,500 appeared in the Estimate?

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

said, before the Financial Secretary replied to the question of the hon. Member for Salford, he wished to draw attention to the fact that included in the charge for supply of silver and bronze coin to the Colonies was the cost of packing, freight, &c. This, in his opinion, rendered the charge all the more extraordinary; and, therefore, he proposed to move the reduction of the Vote by the amount of the item in question. In doing this he should be following the excellent example of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, who, when he was in Opposition, made a similar Motion, and very nearly succeeded in carrying it—at least, he obtained for it such an amount of support as made him (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) feel confident that he should be able to reduce the Vote that evening, because on the occasion referred to there went into the Division Lobby, in support of the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman, no less than 65 Members of the Party now in Office, while there were not at present 65 Members of the Opposition in the House. Under the circumstances, he thought there was a very good chance of carrying the proposed reduction of the Vote. The Conservative Party, as he had pointed out, resisted the former Motion; but the Liberals were now in power, and had an excellent opportunity of giving effect to the wishes they expressed when in Opposition. As he believed half of the charge had already been taken by a Vote on Account, he begged to move that the Vote be reduced by the sum of £750.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £41,607, 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 1883, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Mint, including the Expenses of the Coinage."—(Mr. Arthur O'Connor.)

MR. COURTNEY

said, there was no loss to the country upon the items of freight and packing, because, while they charged the Colony with the nominal value of the coinage, the real value was much less—that was to say, if £10,000 was wanted in silver coin they supplied the nominal value only, and the difference between that and the actual value just balanced the cost of freight and packing.

SIR JOHN LUBBOCK

said, that if the difference between the nominal and actual value of the coin did no more than balance the cost of freight and packing, and they had to pay for the coinage of the silver which the Colonies used, to that extent the country must suffer loss.

Question put, and negatived.

Original Question again proposed.

MR. T. C. BARING

said, he thought it desirable that in the Estimates of next year the cost of freight and package should be separated from the cost of the coinage. As the account was made up, there was no means of knowing what these several items amounted to. Further, he thought the amount of profit, if any, on the transaction should be shown, so that the Committee might next year know exactly what was being done in the matter of supplying the Colonies with coin. The hon. Member was perfectly right in his description of what occurred in the House when this Vote was resisted by the Party now in Office. It was then purely a question of Birmingham versus the Government.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

said, he hoped, after this Vote was taken, they would agree to report Progress.

Question put, and agreed to.

(19.) £9,121, to complete the sum for the National Debt Office.

MR. BIGGAR

said, the next Vote was one on which a good deal of discussion was likely to arise. He knew that one hon. Member, who was absent at the moment, desired to move the reduction of this Vote; and as it involved questions of considerable importance he thought it desirable that Progress should be reported.

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

MR. COURTNEY

said, he must appeal to the Committee to make some further progress with the Votes. The hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) had said the next Vote would lead to some discussion, and that an hon. Member had given Notice of an Amendment with respect to it. It was quite true that Notice of Amendment had been placed on the Paper; but the hon. Member who gave the Notice had gone away. He could not agree that the fact of the Notice being on the Paper was a sufficient reason for reporting Progress, because if the hon. Member still wished to proceed with his Amendment he retained the power of doing so at another stage.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 7; Noes 58: Majority 51.—(Div. List, No. 301.)

(20.) £20,849, to complete the sum for the Patent Office, &c.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

said, he very much regretted that the Vote should be proceeded with on that occasion. It was a Vote as to which he thought there were good grounds, as well as ample material, for useful and interesting discussion. It largely concerned the commercial community throughout the country; and the questions relating to Provincial Museums, of Patents, and Technical Schools, might very properly be raised in connection with it. But at 25 minutes to 2 in the morning it was a perfectly hopeless task to enter upon a discussion which, however interesting and important it might be, could not reach the public.

Vote agreed to.

(21.) £17,626, to complete the sum for the Paymaster General's Office.

(22.) £5,768, to complete the sum for the Public Works Loan Commission.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

said, he would like to be informed by the Member of the Government in charge of this Vote, what was the present position of the Public Works Loan Commissioners towards the harbour authorities at St. Ives? A great many years ago a loan was made to the harbour authorities for the construction of harbour works; but, as a matter of fact, these works were never completed. On the contrary, they were at that moment a wreck, and were doing a great deal of harm to the harbour itself. A very large sum of money had been, as he was informed, levied on account of the loan, illegally and improperly, from the ratepayers of the town, who had just cause of complaint; and he believed a great amount of litigation was about to arise between the Local Board and the collector, the latter having even gone the length of urging the ratepayers not to pay any more money, on the ground that the levy was illegal. He asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he could give the Committee any information as to the present position of this business; whether the Public Works Loan Commissioners were determined to levy from the people of St. Ives this very considerable sum of £12,000 or £14,000 for works which were not complete, but which, on the contrary, as he had already pointed out, were in a state of wreck?

MR. COURTNEY

said, he was not sufficiently informed in the matter of the harbour works at St. Ives to reply fully to the question of the hon. Member for Queen's County. He knew that a dispute existed, and that earlier in the present year an application had been made for a Provisional Order; but he was not able to inform the hon. Member how the matter had been settled, although he had heard, a few weeks ago, that it would be adjusted in a manner that was likely to be satisfactory to all parties concerned.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

Do the Commissioners intend to wipe off the debt?

MR. COURTNEY

I cannot at present say.

Vote agreed to.

(23.) £14,466, to complete the sum for the Record Office.

SIR JOHN LUBBOCK

asked for information as to the publication of the Sagas.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

said, he would like to know who it was that conducted the examination of documents in the archives of Venice? These papers were of great interest to Irish scholars; and perhaps the Financial Secretary, in addition to the other information asked for, would be able to state whether any results of the investigation had been published.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

said, that, notwithstanding the great expenditure of time and money on the examination of documents in the Venetian archives, it was still unfinished, and there seemed to be no prospect of its coming to an end. He was not aware that any report had been made which compensated for the expenditure incurred; and, therefore, he thought it would be satisfactory if the Secretary to the Treasury would state what had been the fruit of the expenditure of recent years.

MR. T. C. BARING

said, that anyone who in the last few years had paid attention to the interesting work of Mr. Gardiner on the Reign of Charles I., would understand how useful these documents were for a thorough knowledge of English history.

MR. COURTNEY

said, he would make inquiry with reference to the publication of the Sagas. With regard to the documents in the archives of Venice, he could inform the hon. Member opposite that four or five volumes had already been published. The work was proceeding, and he could assure the Committee that the publication of the documents was recognized as of the greatest possible historical value. The copies of the documents were deposited in the Record Office.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

said, he thought they would be more accessible to the public if they were deposited in the British Museum.

MR. COURTNEY

said, the class of persons was a limited one to which the documents were of interest; and he believed the documents would be more conveniently accessible to that class at the Record Office than at the British Museum.

Vote agreed to.

(24.) £43,426, to complete the sum for the Registrar General's Office, England.

MR. W. H. JAMES

said, he had received a large number of papers lately relating to the Census in Ireland. He hoped the results of the Census with regard to England and Scotland would be published without delay.

Vote agreed to.

Resolutions to be reported upon Monday next.

Committee to sit again upon Monday next.