HC Deb 31 July 1882 vol 273 cc311-27

(1.)£353,450, to complete the sum for Stationery and Printing.

SIR HENRY HOLLAND

said, there had been some Resolutions passed by the Public Accounts Committee this Session, at the instigation of the head of the Stationery Department, which he hoped would be productive of a very beneficial effect. There were also points on which Resolutions had been proposed; but it had been considered advisable to leave the Department to further consider these matters. The main question had been whether it would not be possible very largely to lessen the supply of Blue Books and other Papers.

MR. COURTNEY

was understood to say that the matter was under the consideration of the Government.

MR. R. N. FOWLER

said, he thought it might be inconvenient to lessen the supply of Blue Books and Papers to hon. Members. Some hon. Members took an interest in one subject and not in another, and probably all the Blue Books were interesting to one section or another of Members of the House, and he should be sorry to hear that their circulation was to be stopped.

SIR HENRY HOLLAND

said, he thought great expense would be saved if the Blue Books in print were named in a schedule, so that hon. Members could ask for those they wanted.

Vote agreed to.

(2.)£15,187, to complete the sum for the Woods, Forests, &c. Office.

(3.)£30,480, to complete the sum for the Works and Public Buildings Office.

(4.)Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding£13,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1883, for Her Majesty's Foreign and other Secret Services.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

said, it was a time-honoured custom for Irish Mem- bers to oppose this Vote, and he did not think they should depart from the custom on the present occasion. He was afraid a good deal of Secret Service money had found its way to Ireland during the past six or 12 months. He did not suppose the Secretary to the Treasury—the only Representative of the Government on the Front Ministerial Bench—was responsible for the manner in which this money was employed, or was aware that the Government were, at the present moment, employing a man who was known to be an assassin for the purpose of prosecuting men and getting them sent to penal servitude, for if the hon. Member was acquainted with this circumstance he (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) thought that even he would hesitate to countenance the voting of this money. He (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) knew perfectly well, from what had happened on other occasions, that no information would be vouchsafed the Committee as to the precise manner in which this Secret Service money was expended; but he thought the Irish Members had a right to know how much was spent in Ireland, and whether any of it was used for the purpose of suborning perjury. How, he should like to know, could the Secretary to the Treasury or any honourable man take part in voting this money when the questionable purposes to which it was put were so well known? He (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) did not say that Secret Service money was not a necessary adjunct to Government. Some of it, he supposed, was required in Egypt to produce evidence to enable the Government to make out that a foreign invader like England was more pleasing to the Egyptian people than a chief of their own country; but what he and his Friends did object to was that part of this money should be spent in Ireland for the demoralization of the people. If the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury could assure him that none of the Secret Service money was spent in Ireland, his opposition would cease. He invited the hon. Member to make some declaration on that point—to say whether or not, since he had been in Office, large sums of this Secret Service money had been spent in Ireland, as it had been in the time of his (Mr. Courtney's) Predecessors. He (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) begged to move the reduction of the Vote by£5,000, which, to hazard a conjecture, he should say was about the sum which had been spent within the past year in Secret Service money in Ireland.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding£8,000,be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1883, for Her Majesty's Foreign and other Secret Services.—(Mr T. P. O'Connor.)

MR. SEXTON

said, he wished, in a few words, to support the Motion made by the hon. Member for the City of Galway. The hon. Member had necessarily been under a difficulty in moving the reduction of this Vote, for the reason that no such information was afforded the Committee as would enable the hon. Member to gauge the amount by an accurate knowledge of the facts. If the Committee had been placed in a position to know for what purpose the money had been spent in Ireland, they would have been able to form some idea as to how much of the amount of the Vote had been spent legitimately, and how much had been spent for purposes of demoralization; and they would have been able to say with greater certainty by how much the Vote should be reduced. There was no Vote ever presented in such a vague, shadowy, and unsatisfactory form as this. They were told it was for Secret Service, and though they were informed that it was required for "Her Majesty's Foreign and other Secret Services," the Government did not give them, such information as enabled them to see how much was given for Foreign Secret Service, and how much was given for Secret Service at home. There were circumstances connected with politics in Ireland which rendered it desirable that they should understand this Vote a little, and which increased the obligation on the part of the Irish Members to make inquiries into the subject, with a view of ascertaining, as far as possible, how the money was spent. When the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) was Chief Secretary for Ireland a Circular was sent round to the Constabulary, offering money rewards for information of sums ranging from£10to£100.It had been said that this had led to a system of spying, and to taking people into public-houses and making them drunk for the sake of getting information from them. He was not aware of any valuable results to the Public Service which had sprung from these vile and discreditable practices; but he knew that, in two instances at least, shameful perjury had been caused. He should like to know how the Government defended this system, and he should like the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury to tell them whether or not, in his opinion, such expenditure of public money had been attended with useful or beneficial results? He (Mr. Sexton) was inclined to think that such had not been the case—that it had resulted in demoralization of the individual character, but not in any useful consequences to the Public Service. It was a serious thing for the Government of a country like England to embark in an expenditure of public money which induced the baser characters in a political conflict to depart from the ordinary sources and fields of information, and to debauch people and make them drunk in order to obtain information. Such expenditure, even if it did nothing more than demoralize individuals, must be put a stop to. He (Mr. Sexton) would ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether any of this money now to be voted was used for shameful purposes of that kind? They had heard of the departure of Colonel Brackenbury from Dublin, and had heard that it was because, when he had been appointed to his office, he had used the public money for purposes of which the Lord Lieutenant did not approve—in the employment of Belgian and French detectives, for instance, in the use of lady spies, and in the adoption of all the features of the Continental police system. It was a source of gratification to him (Mr. Sexton) to see that Lord Spencer had declined to agree to such a scheme, and that Colonel Bracken-bury had found himself under the necessity of precipitately abandoning his post. It would be useful if the Secretary to the Treasury would inform them what were the arrangements Colonel Brackenbury proposed, and whether, under the present system of Secret Service in Ireland, any such arrangements were adopted? Such things had been held to be abhorrent to British opinion and sentiment. The question at the present moment was one of special and significant importance in face of the rumours they had heard of late; therefore, he thought the hon. Member for Galway had raised a timely opposition to the Vote.

MR. ANDERSON

said, he had always been opposed to this Secret Service Vote, holding that it was one with which no Liberal Government should have anything to do; but here they were asked to vote for an arbitrary reduction of the Vote by£5,000,which sum hon. Members thought might probably be spent in Ireland. Hon. Members, without attacking the principle of Secret Service, simply wished to offer opposition to that which they considered about the amount expended on Secret Service in Ireland. It did not appear to him (Mr. Anderson) that that was at all the proper thing to do; therefore, he was obliged to decline to follow those hon. Members in their opposition. If they had adopted the other course, and had gone against Secret Service altogether, he should have supported them.

MR. COURTNEY

said, he was sorry to say he was not in a position to give any very satisfactory answer to hon. Members on the subject of this Vote. As had been before stated, when questions of this kind had arisen, this sum for Secret Service was distributed amongst the heads of Departments, who gave no vouchers for the amounts they received, the money being left to be spent at their discretion. It was perfectly impossible for him to say how any amount given to the head of a Department had been expended by that Gentleman; and as to what had been said about Earl Spencer and Colonel Brackenbury, the fact was, as had been stated by the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, Colonel Brackenbury had left his post for a personal reason having no connection whatever with the Public Service. That, he (Mr. Courtney) thought, was a sufficient answer to the scandal the hon. Member had referred to.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

said, he hardly thought the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Courtney) could be right when he said that no vouchers were rendered by the Secretary of State as to the manner in which they expended the moneys received under this Vote. As a matter of fact, last year there was an item of£110first of all granted under this head, and then returned to the Exchequer. This sum came before the notice of the Controller and Auditor General, and was certified by him as having been refunded; therefore, there must have been a voucher as to the expenditure of the money. He agreed with the course taken by his hon. Friend (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) in moving the reduction of the Vote by£5,000.The adoption of this Motion would not prevent the Government from making use of this iniquitous fund in Ireland, because it was well known that the sum voted was more than was needed, and was not always expended. Besides the£23,000voted in the Estimates, there was a fixed sum of£10,000,which the Government obtained for Secret Service from the Consolidated Fund. That sum they always used; but the amount claimed from the Estimates was not always expended, and in the year 1881 there was a balance of between£7,000and£8,000 left, which was returned to the Exchequer. Unless the plan of proceeding of the Government was getting worse from year to year, it was reasonable to suppose that there was a sum of at least£7,000by which this Vote might be reduced, without in the least curtailing the power of the Government to manufacture witnesses, or do anything else they wished to turn their resources to. There was one point connected with the fund upon which he would ask the Secretary to the Treasury to give him some information; and he was sorry the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld) was not in his place to put the question instead of him. The right hon. Member concerned himself with the question of public morality in a very remarkable manner, and that not only in regard to the people of this country, but in regard to people living in such a place as Hong Kong. A charge had been made—supported, he (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) believed, by official Correspondence which no one seemed to be entitled to make public—that some of this Secret Service money was used for most infamous purposes in Hong Kong—for purposes that had seriously to do with the question of morality. He would like to ask the Secretary to the Treasury to give the Committee an assurance that no money from this fund was being employed in the dissemination of immorality in Hong Kong, and also whether he could give an official disclaimer that the Secret Service money was then being employed in Ireland by the police for the manufacture of evidence. At a trial which had taken place recently in Ireland, a person, whose evidence was not shaken in cross-examination, testified that a constable named Dalton told him that a constable was authorized to offer£1,000for evi- dence to convict persons falsely accused. He hoped the hon. Gentleman would give a denial to the statement that the police were authorized to offer Secret Service money to Crown witnesses in Ireland.

MR. COURTNEY

said, although he rose to reply, as far as he could, to the questions of the hon. Member who had just sat down, he was really in a position to add little, or nothing, to the answer he had given to the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton). He had already explained that he had no control over, or any knowledge of, the way in which the Secret Service money was disbursed by the heads of the various Departments of State. From his knowledge, however, of the Departmental accounts, he was perfectly confident that no such sum as that of£1,000 had been paid by any Department for the purpose indicated by the hon. Member. The manner in which the Secret Service money was disbursed was known to the responsible officer at the head of each Department alone, and at the end of the year that officer made a declaration, which was sent to the Office of the Controller and Auditor General, in this form— I hereby certify that the actual amount expended by myself or under my direction in the year ending on the 31st day of March,—was£—. The hon. Member for Queen's County (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) had also referred, to supposed transactions with the Secret Service money in Hong Kong. With regard to that, he believed the hon. Member was under a misapprehension, because it had been proved that the money spent in Hong Kong had reference to the Revenue only, and could not have been applied to purposes which he need not further particularize.

MR. SEXTON

wished to draw attention to the case of the two brothers Flanagan, tried for firing into a dwelling-house. The chief witness against them was a young farm servant named Malony, 17 years of age, who swore that he saw them firing into the house. The Judge who presided at the trial told the jury that the case rested on the evidence of Malony alone; but the jury found the prisoners guilty. One of them was released; but, upon the evidence of this wretch Malony, the other was still suffering penal servitude. He asked whether it was by the use of the Secret Service money that the Government had been able to get the evidence of this man, and whether it was also out of that fund that he had been maintained in England, and finally sent to America?

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

said, as he had always a desire to meet the wishes of hon. Members, he would, after having I brought the objectionable nature of the Vote before the Committee, ask permission to withdraw his Motion.

Motion, by eave, withdrawn.

Original Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes; 77; Noes 12: Majority 65. — (Div. List, No. 304.)

(5.)Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding£4,171,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 Department of the Queen's and Lord Treasurer's Remembrancer in Exchequer, Scotland, of certain Officers in Scotland, and other Charges formerly on the Hereditary Revenue.

MR. BIGGAR

said, that this Vote had been the subject of much discussion in former years, on account of the objectionable character of some of the items included in it. In the first place, it was most objectionable that the large sum of£500a-year should be paid as salary; to the Lyon King-of-Arms. This money was really thrown away, for it was perfectly well known that the office was a sinecure, and that whatever was done in connection with it was of no public utility. He hoped, therefore, the Government would give an assurance that when the present occupant of the office I died, they would not fill up the vacancy. Then there was the items of Queen's Plates, which included the plate to be run for at Edinburgh, the plate for the Caledonian Hunt, and the plate for the Royal Company of Archers as the Queen's Body Guard. Now, the money asked for under this head was practically for no other purpose than the encouragement of gambling, and he had always objected to this portion of the Vote, because he entertained the belief that the encouragement of gambling by any Government was in itself thoroughly immoral. They were quite aware of the general argument put forward in support of this practice of offering plates to be run for in different parts of the country— namely, that it tended to improve the breed of horses; but it was notorious that its tendency was rather in the direction of injuring the breed of horses than improving it. He was so satisfied in his own mind that the practice of horse-racing ought not to receive encouragement from the Legislature, for the reasons he had given, that if no Member of the Committee moved the reduction of the Vote by the amount of the item in question, he should do so himself, and should, in that case, certainly divide the Committee unless some satisfactory statement were made by the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Estimates.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

said, that an assurance was given in Committee on the Estimates last year, by the noble Lord the then Financial Secretary to the Treasury, that the office of Historiographer to Her Majesty in Scotland, which was charged for in this Vote, should not be filled up after the next vacancy occurred. The gentleman who held the post having since died, according to the engagement he had referred to, the charge of£184 ought not again to have made its appearance in the Estimates; and he therefore begged to move the reduction of the Vote by that amount.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding£3,987,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 Department of the Queen's and Lord Treasurer's Remembrancer in Exchequer, Scotland, of certain Officers in Scotland, and other Charges formerly on the Hereditary Revenue."—(Mr. Arthur O'Connor.)

MR. COURTNRY

said, he had personally no knowledge of any statement made by the late Financial Secretary to the Treasury with regard to the office of Historiographer of the kind referred to by the hon. Member for Queen's County. He was bound to say that the office had not been abolished; on the contrary, the vacancy caused by the death of the late Historiographer had been filled up, and hence the charge for the salary in the Estimate.

MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHY

said, the promise was certainly made last year that when the office of Historiographer became vacant it should not be again filled up. It was not to the amount of salary, but to the absurdity of the office that he objected. It really ought not to continue in existence. It was upon these grounds that he opposed the Vote last year, and opposed it now.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

said, he did not, as a rule, take any part in the discussion upon Scotch Business. He thought that those who claimed Home Rule for Ireland might very well concede the principle to Scotland of managing their own affairs. However, the application of public money under this Vote called for some remarks on the part of his hon. Friends and himself. He regarded it as a disgraceful thing that such an office as that of Secretary to the Bible Board should be allowed to exist any longer. The Lord Advocate, he remembered, had last year given the Committee to understand that the office would, after this year, be abolished. Notwithstanding that, the charge appeared in the Estimates.

Question put, and negatived,.

Original Question again proposed.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

said, he rose again with reference to the question of the Secretary to the Bible Board. He had no wish whatever to misrepresent the statement made last year in Committee by the Lord Advocate; but after paying close attention to the discussion which then took place, the impression left upon his mind was that this was to be the last year the office would be held. He was, therefore, somewhat surprised to find that it was not intended to abolish the office, but simply, as was expressed in the Estimate, to revise the salary on the next vacancy. He was at a loss to understand why the Government did not commute the salary, and, by the payment of a certain sum, get rid of the Secretary and the office altogether. As he understood the statement made last year, the duties of the Secretary consisted in correcting proofs. It appeared that a certain number of Bibles were produced from stereotype plates, and that some slight errors were occasionally met with—a circumstance that raised some serious reflections with regard to Scotch Orthodoxy. However, he now asked whether it was right that the office, with the large salary attaching to it, ought to be continued, seeing that the holder of it could probably be got rid of by the payment of five or six years' salary?

MR. COURTNEY

said, that since the Estimate was presented to which the hon. Member for Galway had just called attention, inquiries had been made as to whether the office of Secretary to the Bible Board could be abolished. The result of those inquiries was that the office would be abolished.

MR. DILLWYN

said, he was glad to hear that Her Majesty's Government were going to do something in the direction of economy. He trusted they would carry their intention a little further, and abolish also the office of Lyon King-at-Arms.

MR. BIGGAR

said, he should not trouble the Committee by repeating the arguments against the Vote for Queen's Plates; but he felt it his duty to discourage the system of subsidizing gambling, and should, therefore, move that the Vote be reduced by the sum of£218for Queen's Plates. In making this motion, he trusted he should receive the support of some of his Scotch Friends, even if his Colleagues were not disposed to vote with him.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding£3,953,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 Department of the Queen's and Lord Treasurer's Remembrancer in Exchequer, Scotland, of certain Officers in Scotland, and other Charges formerly on the Hereditary Revenue."—(Mr. Biggar.)

MR. SEXTON

said, that the amount given for Queen's Plates was really very small. There were a number of Scotch Members present, and if they saw no objection to the Vote he should not feel justified, even from the point of view of the severe moralist, in supporting the Motion of his hon. Friend.

MR. ANDERSON

said, it had been acknowledged that this mode of spending money was not a good one, and that so far from improving the breed of horses, it had a contrary effect. The late Government had, moreover, said that they would endeavour to find out some other way of spending the money which would really tend to improve the breed of horses. But nothing had been done up to the present time, and the objectionable system which encouraged a low class of country platers was allowed to continue. He hoped the present Government would change this iniquitous system, and get rid of the Queen's Plates.

MR. R. N. FOWLER

said, it was not often that he found himself in accord with the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar); but if he went to a division he should vote with him on the present question.

MR. DICK-PEDDIE

said, that the first speech he had had the honour of making in that House was in defence of the Vote for the Queen's Plate for the Archers of the Queen's Body Guard. He explained on that occasion that this money was for a prize given to the Royal Body Guard, which had existed in Scotland for four centuries; that the Guard in question turned out on all State occasions, and that they did, in fact, good service to the country under circumstances sometimes of considerable hardship. He thought it would be a great mistake to take away the only token given by the country to this old historical association; and, therefore, he trusted the hon. Member for Cavan would withdraw his opposition to this portion of the Vote, which he begged to assure him had not the slightest connection with gambling.

Mr. NEWDEGATE

said, he had been for many years Chairman of the Royal Veterinary College—an institution which had never cost the Exchequer sixpence—and he was unacquainted with any better means in England of encouraging the breed of horses of power and endurance than that of offering Queen's Plates. He should, therefore, continue to vote for them until some better means of promoting the breed of horses could he found.

MR. COURTNEY

said, that in 1870 the majority of Scotch Members induced the Government to strike out the portion of the Vote which related to the Queen's Plates, and accordingly in the Estimates of 1871–2 the charge was not included. But in the next year, 1871, the Government were asked by the Scotch Members to continue the Vote, which since 1871–12 had been included in the Estimates as before.

MR. BIGGAR

said, in view of the fact that the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Dick-Peddie) was strongly in favour of retaining the Queen's Plate as a national token to the ancient Company of Archers of the Queen's Body Guard, he was willing to withdraw the present Motion with the intention of moving the reduction of the Vote by the sum of£198,which represented the charge for Queen's Plates at Edinburgh, and for the Caledonian Hunt. This proposal would not interfere with the item of£20for a Queen's Plate for the Royal Company of Archers.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Original Question again proposed.

Motion made, and Question put, That a sum, not exceeding£3,973,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 Department of the Queen's and Lord Treasurer's Remembrancer in Exchequer, Scotland, of certain Officers in Sootland, and other Charges formerly on the Hereditary Revenue."—(Mr. Biggar.)

The Committee divided:—Ayes 25; Noes 54: Majority 29. —(Div. List, No. 305.)

Original Question put, and agreed to.

(6.) Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding£9,807,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 Fishery Board in Scotland and for Grants in Aid of Piers and Quays.

COLONEL ALEXANDER

said, he wished to draw attention to the subject of beam-trawling. He did not believe in that mode of fishing; many other people were very much opposed to it, and even the President of the Board of Trade had expressed a strong opinion against it. There had been extensive cod fishery within three miles of the Scotch shores, but that had been destroyed by this beam-trawling. A few years ago a Commission, consisting of Mr. Walpole and Mr. Buckland, was appointed to consider this matter, and they reported that a strong case had been made out against beam-trawling, and that they thought the Legislature should give power to the Board of Trade to offer protection against it. He brought this question before the Committee last year, when the late Lord Frederick Cavendish expressed his regret that there was no Scotch Member present; and what he would now ask was, whether the hon. and learned Gentleman (the Lord Advocate) had been able to con- sider this question, and whether the fishermen might expect any relief? His constituents felt very strongly upon this point, as they saw their fishing utterly destroyed.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

said, he wished to follow the example of his hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Alexander), who, a few days ago, on an English Vote, procured an advance for Scotch interests of£10,000.This present Vote related to Scotland; but he wished to secure for Ireland what had been half promised—namely, cutter and boat services for Ireland similar to that provided for Scotland. Year after year the Inspectors of Irish Fisheries had reported that the fisheries suffered very much from the want of guard which cutters would afford; and the late Financial Secretary promised last year that if, on inquiry, he found their representations were well-founded, he would endeavour to obtain from the Admiralty the same cutter services for Ireland as were already provided for Scotland. Since that time the Inspectors had repeated their representations that there was a necessity for this service.

MR. ANDERSON

said, he should support the views of his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ayrshire (Colonel Alexander). There was no doubt that a great amount of injury was done by beam-trawling, and there ought to be some protection given to Scotch fishermen.

THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)

said, it was known that trawling was an evil, and in 1878 there were representations to that effect, giving the different opinions expressed by persons of technical skill and knowledge; but at present no final determination had been arrived at. He did not remember the discussion of last year.

MR. WARTON

said, he hoped that attention would be given in respect to the request for protection to the Irish Fisheries. If it was useful to Scotland to have cutters, it was the duty of the Government to yield to the request for cutters for Ireland. A pledge was given last year by the late Financial Secretary; but it sometimes happened that Members of the Government were succeeded by Gentlemen who did not enter so liberally into their views, and he did not think the present Financial Secretary was as generous as his Predecessor, who, he believed, would to-night have supported the pledge he gave last year.

COLONEL ALEXANDER

said, with reference to the observations of the Lord Advocate, that he did not remember what took place last year, he found by Hansard that Lord Frederick Cavendish said it was unfortunate that the Lord Advocate was not present, and he could only say that the facts would be brought before the Lord Advocate. Therefore, he (Colonel Alexander) hoped the Lord Advocate would make some inquiry into this matter and see whether the Report of the Commissioners did not make out a strong primâ facie case against beam-trawling.

MR. RAMSAY

said, several Commissions had reported that beam-trawling was the proper method to be adopted. There were certain districts—Ballantrae, for instance—in which strong complaints had been made of the adoption of beam-trawling as injurious to fishing; but what he wished to say at this time was that the vessels now referred to were employed chiefly as the police of the sea.

COLONEL ALEXANDER

said, that as the hon. and learned Gentleman declined to give him any satisfaction, he must propose to reduce the Vote by£5,000.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding£4,807,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 Fishery Board in Scotland and for Grants in Aid of Piers and Quays."— (Colonel Alexander.)

MR. CHAMBERLAIN

said, this subject had been under the consideration of the Board of Trade at various times. The matter was one of great interest and importance, and he confessed that there was some inconvenience in raising it upon a Vote of this kind. It would have been better raised by a separate Motion upon which the whole matter might be examined by the House. Although Ballantrae was specially dealt with by the Commission, yet the facts which were brought out in regard to Ballantrae were alleged in regard to a great number of other fishery grounds, and it would be a mistake to come to the conclusion that Ballantrae only was affected. The question was, whether the House should interfere with a great fishing which affected the food of the people in favour of another method of fishing which was also legitimate, but not so successful as the beam-trawling? He thought the House could only do so if it was of opinion that the beam-trawling unnecessarily interfered with other methods. Whether that was the case or not was the matter in dispute; and although the Commission reported that a case for further consideration had been made out, yet a very exhaustive inquiry was held some years previously by a Committee, of which Professor Huxley and the present Chairman of Committees were Members, and that Committee decided that it was not proved that beam-trawling was the cause of the failure of fishing in Ballantrae or anywhere else, but that failure was due to other causes. There the difficulty lay; and, however much might be said on either side, he hoped the hon. Member would be satisfied that the matter should have the careful consideration of the Government.

COLONEL ALEXANDER

said, after the assurance of the right hon. Gentleman he would withdraw his Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Original Question again proposed.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

desired to enforce what had been said by the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton). The question he referred to was raised last year, and Lord Frederick Cavendish stated that if, on examination, it appeared that the representations were well-founded, he should be glad to do everything in his power to promote legislation on the subject. That promise was made in August last year; but nothing had been done, and it was not apparent that the matter had been brought under the attention of the Secretary to the Treasury.

Question put, and agreed to.

(7.)£3,994,to complete the sum for the Lunacy Commission, Scotland.

(8.)£4,737,to complete the sum for the Registrar General's Office, Scotland.

MR. BUCHANAN

asked the Secretary to the Treasury for an explanation as to the delay in issuing the Census of Scotland?

MR. COURTNEY

was unable to explain the delay.

MR. RAMSAY

said, he thought it very unsatisfactory that no information could be obtained with regard to the Census of Scotland. He thought the hon. Gentleman ought to have made inquiry long ago, and that some Member of the Government should have been able to say when the information might reasonably be looked for.

Vote agreed to.

(9.)£23,621, to complete the sum for the Board of Supervision for Relief of the Poor, and for Public Health, Scotland.

COLONEL ALEXANDER

wished to know whether it was to be understood that a Supplementary Vote of£10,000 for medical relief in Scotland would be proposed?

MR. COURTNEY

said, this Vote included that amount.

MR. T. C. BARING

said, they were told the other evening that this amount was promised, and that the English Vote had gradually increased, whilst the Scotch Vote had not. It seemed to him that 100 per cent was a large amount to put on the English and Irish taxpayers without more full reasons. If the increase had only been£1,000 or £2,000 he should not have minded so much; but the sum had absolutely jumped from £10,000 to £28,000, and was, consequently, a most serious matter. He had heard the matter discussed before in this House, but had never dreamed that the Scotch Members expected to get 100 per cent addition.

MR. RAMSAY

said, the hon. Member evidently had not attended to what had been said in the course of the discussion, or he would have heard a full explanation. Scotland had for a long time been very much aggravated at not receiving a larger proportion of the total amount granted for medical relief. Whilst Scotland had only had the small sum stated, England had received£200,000.

COLONEL ALEXANDER

said, he would supplement what had fallen from the hon. Member by saying that the amount voted to Scotland was fixed 40 years ago; and whilst no addition had ever been made, the amount voted in the case of England had been from time to time increased until it reached the present enormous sum.

Vote agreed to.

Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.

Committee to sit again To-morrow.