Commons Sitting of 31 May 1883

MINUTES.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—CIVIL SERVICE ESTISIATES—CLASS I.—PUBLIC WORES AND BUILDINGS, Votes 19, 20, 22, and 23; CLASS II.—SALARIES AND EXPENSES OF CIVIL DEPARTMENTS, Votes 1 to 7, 9 to 11, and 14; Further Vote on Account, CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS.
PRIVATE BILL (by Order)—Second Reading—Fish Exchange (Blackfriars) *.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Local Government Provisional Order (No. 10) (Leeds) * [206].
Select Committee—Forest of Dean (Highways) [148], nominated.
Committee——Report—Constabulary and Police (Ireland) (Pay and Pensions) [171]; Lord Alcester's Annuity [145–207]; Lord Wolseley's Annuity* [146–208].
Third Reading—Local Government (Gas) Provisional Order* [164]; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 3)* [170]; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 4) * [176]; Lands Clauses (Umpire)* [160], and passed.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  WINDSOR, ASCOT, AND ALDERSHOT RAILWAY (re-committed) BILL.

    REPORT OF SELECT COMMITTEE.
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONbrought up the Report of the Com-

    1297
    mittee upon this Bill, and moved that it do lie upon the Table.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Report do lie upon the Table."—(Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson.)
    VISCOUNT FOLKESTONEsaid, that if he was in Order he would move that the Report be read by the Clerk at the Table.
    Sir ERSKINE MAYread the Report of the Committee.
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONremarked that, perhaps, as this was a question which was rather novel, the House might wish to hear one or two words from him, as Chairman of the Committee, as to the facts which had been brought to their notice in the course of the investigation.
    Message to attend the Lords Commissioners;—
    The House went;—and being returned;—
    MR. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to several Bills.

WINDSOR, ASCOT, AND ALDERSHOT RAILWAY (re-committed) BILL.
Question again proposed.
SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, that he was remarking that the House would probably expect him, as Chairman of the Committee, to mention the reasons which had induced the Committee to make the alterations contained in the Report which he had just presented. He had considered, and the Committee thought, that the House desired to have a special Report from the Committee, not only as to the classification of particular goods for which rates were charged, but of the rates themselves, which were charged for such goods. The Committee had gone very carefully into both these questions. He was quite aware that many Members of the House seemed to be of opinion that all manures were classed in the lowest class and carried for the cheapest rates. But the House should, he thought, remember that this particular class of artificial manures required a greater amount of care in handling, and that they were, from their nature, so much more liable to have damage done to
1298
them, which might entail upon the Railway Companies considerable loss, in the event of actions being brought against them for damage than ordinary manures. He believed he was stating a known fact, when he said that within the last few days a considerable sum of money had been recovered from a Railway Company in consequence of damage done to a consignment of guano in the course of transit. That being the case, and seeing that this particular class of manures did suffer from exposure to the weather, and that it had to be carried in covered vans instead of open trucks, and, further, that it was liable to deterioration if allowed to be exposed to the outward air, he thought they were reasons sufficient to satisfy the Committee, at all events, that, as far as the question of classification was concerned, they were justified in maintaining a difference between artificial manures and common dung and other manures carried in trucks. Therefore, they had maintained that classification. What they had done was to reconsider the rates in both cases; and they had reduced, in the present Bill, the rate on common manures to the lowest possible sum that was charged. The maximum had now been placed at 1½d., instead of 2½d., as it stood in the Bill originally. They had also brought under that class a number of other articles—such as chalk, and materials for the repair of highways; and with regard to artificial manures and guanos, they had taken them from Class 9, in which they stood in the Bill, and placed them in Class 8, where the maximum charge was 2½d., instead of 3d., which was originally charged on these particular commodities, so that, practically, the Committee had made a reduction of the rates on artificial manures of ½d., and of 1d. upon common manures, leaving the distinction between the two classes now at 1d.He thanked the House for permitting him to make this short statement. He could assure the House that the Committee had gone most carefully into the whole question of the charges. It must be borne in mind that, in addition to the greater care required to be exercised in the carriage of artificial manures, the Railway Companies were required to do a certain amount of work at their termini. Upon all these points the Committee had evidence before them, notwithstanding the fact that they had gone

1299
thoroughly into the question before. They had considered it necessary to take further evidence; and, having gone very fully and carefully into the whole question, the conclusion they had arrived at was the one he had just announced.
MR. J. W. BARCLAYsaid, he thought the House ought to understand thoroughly the proposal which had just been submitted to them by the lion. Baronet opposite, because it appeared to him that it embodied an entirely new line of policy. Up to this date it had been the practice of Parliament to class all sorts of measures together, and to fix one maximum rate for the whole. That was the policy adopted in old times; and if hon. Members would compare the Returns of the Board of Trade, they would find that there were only some 12 or 15 instances in all the Railway Acts now in existence throughout the Kingdom in which artificial manures were taken out of the class of all sorts of manures and put in a higher class. The new system had crept into Railway Bills, more particularly in the last few years; and it had never been the subject of a discussion in the House as far as he was aware. He therefore thought that the House ought to understand that the proposal now submitted to it was a new departure and a new line of policy. There were several Bills now before the House containing this new principle; but the House ought to be acquainted with the fact that there had been a great many more Railway Bills before the House during the Session, some of which had already passed, which adopted the old system; and if the arguments of the hon. Baronet were sound, the House must have done great injustice to those Railways which were content to carry manures at the old rates. The difference between the value of ordinary manures and artificial manures was said to be so considerable as to justify a difference in the maximum rate of carriage the Railway Companies were allowed to charge. The hon. Baronet said that 1½d. per ton per mile was the lowest rate authorized; but if the hon. Baronet had consulted the Report of the Board of Trade, he would have found that they expressly stated that the usual rate of ordinary manures was about 1d. per ton per mile. He believed, unless he was greatly mistaken, that a declaration to that effect would be found in the Report of the
1300
Board of Trade upon this very Bill. That was the maximum rate for ordinary manures, and not 1½d. per ton per mile; and, in point of fact, the Railways never got more than 1d. per mile, because if they did not carry common manures at a low rate, they did not get any to carry. But in the case of artificial manures the Railway Companies had, practically, a monopoly; and when that was the case the Railway Companies almost invariably charged the maximum rate. They had no competition; and, therefore, they made the farmers pay the highest rate they could possibly charge them. In point of fact, in some instances, they even charged more than the maximum rate. Now, there was nothing exceptional in the case of this Railway which afforded substantial ground for the imposition of any exceptional rate. The capital of the Company was not large, the line was only a short one, and it passed through an agricultural district towards the South Coast. It was, therefore, to its interest to carry artificial manures at the lowest rate, in order to stimulate the production of the crops which would have to be carried for consumption in the towns. There was another means by which the House would be able to estimate the amount of risk which the Railway Company were put to in carrying goods. They carried goods, and insured their safe arrival at any point between two stations in the United Kingdom, at a cost of 1s. per £100. The total charge for such insurance on this line would only amount, for the whole line, to 1d. per ton. Nevertheless, in this instance, the Railway Company were seeking to charge the sum of 1d. per ton per mile extra, which was altogether out of the question. It was said that these articles carried under the name of artificial manures were of more value than common manures. That might be so; but was it fair to charge for artificial manures as high a rate as was charged for sugar—the two articles being put in the same classification? He had, so far, heard no reason which ought to induce Parliament to deviate from the policy in regard to this question which it had hitherto adopted.
SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONremarked, that in the Bill artificial manures were not included in the same class as sugar.
MR. J. W. BARCLAYsaid, that might possibly be so. They would probably be in a class by themselves; but he knew that in the other Bills objected to artificial manures had been included in the same classification as sugar. Surely it was much more absurd to place thorn in the same classification as sugar than it would be to include them in the same classification as all other manures. He hoped the House would adhere to its old policy, and not sanction the new policy now sought to be introduced.
SIR LYON PLAYFAIRsaid, he only wished to correct a mistake into which his hon. Friend the Member for Forfarshire (Mr. J. W. Barclay) had fallen. In former legislation it was not the case that the rates for artificial manures had invariably been the same as those for common manures. On the contrary, in recent years there had been numerous alterations. He held in his hand a list of cases, dating from the year 1857 down to the present time, of Bills in which differential rates had been sanctioned between artificial manures and common manures. He might add that, both in the case which his hon. Friend opposite (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) now brought before the House, and in another instance in which he (Sir Lyon Playfair) was Chairman, the Committee, after hearing the evidence, and after taking the opinion of the district which was satisfied with the differential rate, thought it desirable to sanction the difference. It must be remembered that artificial manures required care in storing and in transit; and, therefore, that the rate for carriage should be higher than that charged for common manures, in regard to which the same care was not required. In many of the cases which had occurred since 1857 the rate had been 3d., where it was previously 2d. per mile. The Committee, in this instance, had granted 2½d. per mile, which was less than the charge originally sanctioned, and a reduction of the rate which the Committee themselves had originally agreed to.
MR. J. W. BARCLAYsaid, he thought it would be of advantage to the House if the right hon. Gentleman would state how many exceptions there had been.
SIR LYON PLAYFAIRsaid, there had been about 20 Bills.
VISCOUNT FOLKESTONEasked to be permitted to point out that the list to
1302
which the right hon. Gentleman had just referred was a list of some small Railway Companies which had been allowed, by some means or other, to obtain from Parliament in certain Bills power to change the ordinary classification of artificial manures. In former years no attempt of this kind was sought to be made; but latterly, when a differential charge was proposed, and no objection was taken to it, the Committee to which the Bill was referred found themselves unable to take notice of it. The consequence had been that, of late years—and he believed the instances referred to applied to recent years only—there had been Bills passed by Parliament which sanctioned an alteration in the classification of manures, and permitted the Rail-way Companies to place manures in a higher class than that in which they stood formerly. The result was that in most of the recent Reports upon Railway Bills the Committees were induced to report that the charges for passengers, animals, and goods upon such Railways were not in excess of those passed for like undertakings in previous years. It might be that they were not in excess of some like undertakings in previous years; but he maintained that they were in excess of the average rate which had been permitted by Parliament during the whole time that Railway Bills had been brought under its consideration. He and those who wore acting with him, therefore, considered it their duty to do everything in their power to prevent the rates being raised in any inordinate manner, and to prevent the rates so raised by Railway Bills receiving the sanction of Parliament, without fair recognition being taken of the fact. Unless this course were taken, there was no knowing to what extent the Railway Companies might not endeavour to raise the charges upon these articles hereafter. He wished, by bringing the question before the House, to prevent any question being raised in the future as to the continual increase of rates, tolls, and charges.
MR. DUCKHAMsaid, he rose for the purpose of correcting an erroneous impression which had been produced by the remarks of the hon. Baronet the Member for West Essex (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson). In the speech of the hon. Baronet he alluded to porterage, storage, loading, and unloading, and other services performed by Railway

1303
Companies in connection with artificial manures. Now, the Railway Company had nothing to do with anything of the kind, either in regard to artificial manures or ordinary manures. If the carriage was charged upon a mileage rate, they never performed any duty in regard to loading or unloading. The goods were loaded by the consignor, and unloaded by the person to whom they were consigned. He thought the question ought to be thoroughly understood by the House. They had already had the matter before them within a recent period, and the Bill had been referred back to the former Committee, in consequence of differential rates being charged. He, therefore, trusted that the question would be so settled that there would be no more discussion upon this point in the future. This was certainly not the time for raising the rates and charges on such articles as the manures required for the purpose of fertilizing the land.
Question put, and agreed to.
Report to be printed.

OXFORD, AYLESBURY, AND METROPOLITAN JUNCTION RAILWAY BILL (by Order).

  NOTICE OF RESOLUTION.
  VISCOUNT FOLKESTONEwished to give Notice that, on the Order of the Day for the Consideration of this Bill on that day week, he would move—
  "That the Bill be re-committed to the former Committee; and that it be an Instruction to the Committee that guano and artificial manures be included in the same class as dung, compost, and all sorts of manures, and that the maximum rate of that class do not exceed one penny halfpenny per ton per mile."
  He thought that course would enable the House to come to a decision upon the matter.

QUESTIONS.

  EGYPT-DIPLOMATIC ARRANGEMENTS—MAJOR BARING.
  MR. BUXTONasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether any successor has been or is to be appointed in the place of Lord Dufferin, who has now left Egypt, or through whom Her Majesty's Government at present communicate with the Khedive and his Government?
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether there is any truth in the report that Major Baring has been or is about to be appointed to represent British interests in Egypt; and, whether it is intended to confer on Major Baring any powers beyond those hitherto exercised by Her Majesty's Agent and Consul General in Egypt, and to give to him any official title, and a higher salary; and, in such case, what title and what amount of salary it is proposed to give him, and what functions he is appointed to discharge?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: Sir, in reply to the Question of my hon. Friend, and to that of the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock, I have to state that Major Evelyn Baring, now Finance Minister in India, will be appointed to succeed Sir Edward Malet at Cairo. His title, rank, and functions will be the same as those of his predecessor. In consequence of the representations of Sir Edward Malet, it has already been decided to raise the salary to £4,000, the amount assigned to the Missions at Lisbon, Rio Janeiro, and Yeddo. It is under consideration to make a personal allowance to Major Baring, in order to diminish, to some extent, the great pecuniary loss which he will sustain in accepting, at the request of Her Majesty's Government and for the Public Service, the present exchange of Offices. The exact amount of this allowance has not yet been fixed; but it is hoped that, by reductions which it is proposed to effect elsewhere, no additional charge will be incurred by the public.

  INLAND REVENUE (IRELAND)—SELLING PORTER WITHOUT A LICENCE.
  MR. J. N. RICHARDSONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to the following paragraph in the "Irish Times," of Friday, May 4th:—
  "Tilly Fay, a young woman, of 9t, Mecklenburgh Street, was charged with selling porter without licence. There were two summonses in this case, one being for the 5th and the other for the 15th instant. The evidence in both cases was to the effect that both full and empty porter bottles, glasses half filled with porter, and men sitting drinking, were found on the premises. In the yard was a basketful of empty bottles. The prisoner lived with her sister;
  "Mr. Keys. I suppose these people are very poor;

  1305
  "31 C. Yes, sir, poor enough. The father is out of employment;
  "Mr. Keys. What excuse did they give;
  "31 C. No other means of livelihood, your worship;
  "Mr. Keys. I suppose these wretched people are really very poor. I shall impose a small fine, only 10s. I suppose they will make it up in a week in the old way;"
  and, whether the report is accurate; and, if so, whether the Government intend to take any notice of the conduct of Mr. Keys in admitting the pecuniary condition of the defendant as an excuse for a breach of the Law?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I am informed, Sir, that the report in question is substantially accurate, except in so far as it conveys that only one fine of 10 s. was imposed. A similar fine was imposed for each offence. The defendant was a person in extreme poverty, and the magistrate appears to have taken this into account in measuring the money penalty to be imposed. I do not think this can be fairly described as "admitting poverty as an excuse for a breach of the Law."

  ARMY (AUXILIARY FORCES)—THE ANTRIM ARTILLERY.
  MR. BIGGARasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is a fact that, since appointment of Adjutant of Antrim Artillery, the Commanding Officer has been in the habit of incorrectly certifying that the Adjutant kept a horse, thereby enabling him to draw forage allowance; and, whether it is a fact that it is only within the last few weeks that this Officer has been in temporary possession of a horse?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Sir, it has been ascertained that the Adjutant of the Antrim Artillery has been without a horse during certain periods for which he claimed forage allowance. This has been a serious breach of discipline on the part of the Adjutant, of which due notice will be taken. The commanding officer has certified incorrectly that the Adjutant kept a horse. He did so on the faith of that officer's receipt for the forage allowance, which he regarded as equivalent to a certificate that the conditions under which the allowance could be drawn had been fulfilled. When the commanding officer visited the regiment, the Adjutant's horse was paraded for his inspection; but this happened to be at a time when the Ad-
  1306
  jutant was really in possession of a horse. The commanding officer will be informed that it was his duty, before certifying for the forage allowance, to have obtained from the Adjutant a certificate that he was bonâ fide in possession of a horse; and he will be directed to comply with this rule in future.
  EARL PERCYasked if it was not the duty of the commanding officers of Militia to obtain certificates from Adjutants, showing that they were actually in possession of a horse?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, he believed the duty of a commanding officer was to satisfy himself, before signing the certificate, that the Adjutant was entitled to forage allowance for a horse.
  EARL PERCYasked whether they were to understand that the War Office considered the word of an Adjutant a sufficient guarantee in a case of this kind?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONasked that Notice of the Question should be given?

  LAW AND JUSTICE—COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL BILL—OPINIONS OF THE JUDGES.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked Mr. Attorney General, Whether, before introducing into this House the Criminal Appeal Bill, Her Majesty's Government had sought for and obtained, from the Judges of the High Court, any opinion on the principles or details of the measure, or, if not, whether they will obtain such opinion from the Judges, either corporately or individually, and lay it upon the Table, before the House proceeds with the Report stage of the Bill?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he was sorry that his hon. Friend, should have put himself to the trouble and inconvenience of asking this Question; because, on the 13th of March, the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Plunket) put identically the same Question. The Answer which he then gave his hon. Friend would find at page 366 of Hansard's Parliamentary Debates of this year.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked whether, before the Report stage, his hon. and learned Friend would obtain the opinions of the Judges and lay them on the Table?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he stated at the time that he had submitted the heads of the Bill to certain Judges, and among others he mentioned the Chief Justice of England.

  METROPOLITAN IMPROVEMENTS—HYDE PARK CORNER.
  MR. GERARD NOELasked the First Commissioner of Works, Whether he has yet arrived at any decision as to the advisability of further widening Piccadilly opposite Hamilton Place and Park Lane, with a view of easing the traffic at those points?
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: Sir, I have considered the Question referred to by the noble Lord, and have come to the conclusion that the difficulty referred to by him would not be cured by further widening Piccadilly at the bottom of Hamilton Place. The check to the traffic which occasionally takes place there is due to two streams of traffic crossing one another, and not to want of width of Piccadilly—indeed, the south side of Piccadilly is generally quite free. I am not, therefore, prepared to throw into Piccadilly any more of the Green Park. The block at Hyde Park Corner has been entirely removed. The check to traffic at the bottom of Hamilton Place is comparatively trivial, and will be best dealt with by police regulations.
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONasked whether the First Commissioner of Works had considered the proposal to widen Park Lane?
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, that was a question for the consideration of the Metropolitan Board of Works.

  NAVY—H.M.S. "CLYDE"—THE COURT MARTIAL ON CAPTAIN F. MAXWELL-HERON —THE PAPERS.
  CAPTAIN MAXWELL-HERONasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, If he will lay upon the Table of the House, Copy of Proceedings and Sentence of Court Martial on F. Maxwell-Heron, late Commander of H.M.S. "Clyde," with any Correspondence ensuing thereon?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I regret, Sir, that I am unable to comply with my hon. and gallant Friend's request, as it is not according to usual practice to lay on the Table a Copy of the proceedings of a Naval court mar-
  1308
  tial. I have made inquiry, and find that there is no record of such a publication within the last 50 years.

  CITY LIVERY COMPANIES COMMISSION.
  MR. J. R. YORKEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, When it is likely that the Report of the City Companies Commissioners will be laid upon the Table?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT, in reply, said, that the Report would be published during the course of the present Session.

  ARMY—GUARDS AND SENTRIES.
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURasked the Secretary of State for War, If, following the practice of former years, a Return can be furnished of the guards and sentries mounted daily throughout the garrisons and stations at Home, and the purposes for which supplied; also the effects on the minds of men in causing dislike for the Military Service by such guards; and, whether many of these guards could be dispensed with by employing watchmen, and by providing storehouses with good doors, secured by efficient locks, and thus doing away with the necessity of posting sentries?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Sir, it appears to be upwards of 60 years since such a Return was furnished, and then it applied only to the Metropolis. Returns are received monthly from districts and regiments showing the number of guards and sentries furnished, but not the purposes for which supplied. Sentry duty is, doubtless, irksome, and much disliked; but it is a very necessary part of a soldier's training, indispensable in war, and one for which some practice in peace is requisite. Of course, many of the sentries might be replaced by watchmen; but it would be at increased expense to the public. Attention is paid at all times to reducing, as far as consistent with public safety, the number of sentinels; and I had recently under consideration the possibility of a reduction of their number in London, where the duties are exceptionally heavy. But, for reasons stated to the House by the Home Secretary on the 19th of March last, it became necessary, as a temporary measure, to increase largely the sentry duty

  1309
  of the troops, especially of the Foot Guards in London. I cannot help taking this opportunity of expressing my sense of the alacrity with which these additional duties were undertaken by the Household Troops, and of the admirable spirit, temper, and good conduct of the men under conditions occasionally of a very trying character.

  SOUTH AFRICA—THE TRANSVAAL—AGGRESSION OF THE BOERS ON NATIVE TRIBES.
  MR. GUY DAWNAYasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether he can state what amount of land has up to the present time been taken by Transvaal subjects from the Bechuana Nation, and been incorporated in the so-called "Stellaland Territory;" whether remonstrances on this subject are still being addressed by Her Majesty's Government to the Government of the Transvaal; and, whether Her Majesty's Government have still any reason to believe that such remonstrances will produce the slightest effect; also, whether it is true, as stated in a letter written by an Englishman at Taungs, in the Batlahin Territory, on April 2nd, and published in "England" of May 12th, that, about the month of May last year, one of the Captains of the Volunteer Boer Freebooters brought from Pretoria 300 rounds of cannon ammunition for use against Manko-roane, together with a letter, signed by Mr. Joubert, to the effect that the said ammunition was to be paid for to the Transvaal Government by the Boers fighting against Mankoroane, six months after delivery, and that such payment was to bear interest at the rate of six per cent.; and, whether the Transvaal Government still pretend that they are now manifesting, or have at any time manifested, the slightest desire to put a stop to the depredations committed by Transvaal subjects in the Territory of our late Bechuana allies?
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEY: Sir, the only information we have as to the amount of land taken by the Transvaal from Bechuana Chiefs is contained in a telegram from the Cape, in which it is said that, according to newspaper reports, there have been about 1,000 farms allotted. But, as most of these are merely farms on paper, this figure gives no clue whatever to the amount of land that has
  1310
  been actually taken. There have been no recent remonstrances addressed directly by Her Majesty's Government to the Government of the Transvaal, because the whole relations between the two Governments are under the consideration of Her Majesty's Government. In answer to the second Question of the hon. Member, I have to say that statements substantially similar to those contained in the Question have been made by a person with a Dutch name, but who requests his name to be kept secret. He sent the statement through Mankoroane himself to the Civil Commissioner at Barkly, but only quite recently, although they relate to matters alleged to have occurred a year ago. As to the second part of the Question, the Transvaal Government still profess to deplore the existing state of things in Bechuanaland; but maintain that as long as they are precluded by the Convention from taking any direct action in that country, they cannot be held responsible for what is going on there. They, however, recently sent Colonel Ferreira to the Border as their Special Commissioner, with a view—to use the words of his instructions—to "extirpate the band of cattle-robbers once for all," but not to cross the Border unless he secured the co-operation of all concerned. But, beyond restoring 75 head of cattle to Mankoroane, we have not yet heard of any result from this expedition.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: Will the Papers to which the hon. Member has referred in his Answer be laid upon the Table of the House before the contemplated discussion on the affairs of the Transvaal? It will be necessary for us to have all the information possessed by the Government in connection with the last phase of that question?
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEY: I cannot say positively when the Papers will be laid before the House; but they are being prepared.

  EDUCATION (WALES)—CARNARVON TRAINING COLLEGE.
  MR. RICHARD, who complained that his Question had been altered, asked the Vice President of the Council, Whether, in view of the practical failure of the Training College at Carnarvon in accomplishing the object for which it was established, that of training teachers for schools in Wales, the largo grant of

  1311
  public money now made will be continued for its support?
  MR. MUNDELLA: Sir, we are in communication with the Governing Body of Carnarvon Training College, with the view to such changes in that institution as will render it both efficient and acceptable as a place for the training of Welsh teachers. We shall await the deliberations of the Governing Body before taking any further steps, and we trust that they will concur in our views.
  MR. H. H. FOWLERasked whether the right hon. Gentleman intended this year to propose a Vote for the College?
  MR. MUNDELLA: Yes, Sir, of course; because the Vote is for work already done.

  BURIALS ACTS—NONCONFORMIST BURIALS.
  MR. RICHARDasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he has seen a statement in the "Cornish Telegraph" of May 24th, to the effect that, on May 19th, in the churchyard of Gwinear, Cornwall, the sexton, acting, as stated by him, under the authority of the vicar, endeavoured to prevent the Rev. J. W. Harbord, Wesleyan minister, conducting a funeral service at the burial of an unbaptised child, and proceeded to lower the coffin and to fill up the grave while the service was being read; and, whether he will make inquiry into the facts of the case; and, if they are found to be as stated, will cause legal proceedings to be instituted against the sexton for obstructing a burial under the Burial Act of 1880?
  MR. M'LARENasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to the facts referred to in the following paragraph in the "Staffordshire Advertiser":—
  "On May 3rd Mr. Joseph Kinsey, of Stafford, manufacturer, applied at the Cemetery for burial space for a deceased child, and wished to have the grave made by the side of that of his brother, who died some years ago, and was buried in the consecrated portion. Mr. Kinsey is a Wesleyan, and he stated to the registrar that the service at the grave would be conducted by the Wesleyan minister. To this the registrar objected, and declined to allow a Nonconformist service to take place on consecrated ground. In consequence of the registrar's refusal to sell him the site he preferred, Mr. Kinsey proceeded to select one in another portion of the Cemetery. At this moment two gentlemen, friends of Mr. Kinsey, challenged the registrar's ruling, and
  1312
  ultimately appealed to the town clerk, who, after consideration, modified the objection to the extent of allowing the funeral, but confirmed it as to selling the grave;"
  and, whether the proceedings on the part of the burial authorities are not contrary to the provisions of the Burials Act; and, if so, whether the Home Office has any means of enforcing obedience to the law in favour of Nonconformists?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Sir, in reply to the first of these Questions, I have to state that I have received a letter from the vicar disavowing any responsibility for the sexton's action. The conduct of the sexton seems to have been very foolish and improper; but as this was the first funeral in the parish under the recent Act, I do not think we need take any further notice of the matter. To the second Question I have to reply that there seems to have been some misunderstanding between the parties referred to. I have a letter about the matter in which I find that no objection whatever was taken to the burial. A service had been conducted that very day in the cemetery by a Wesleyan minister, and there had been other services of that kind previously. The burial authorities at first doubted their power to sell the land; but that doubt was removed, and the land, instead of being refused, was actually sold, and a receipt was given.

  PAPAL SEE—DIPLOMATIC COMMUNICATIONS WITH THE VATICAN—MR. ERRINGTON.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether any correspondence has taken place on public affairs connected with the Vatican between Lord Granville and Mr. Errington; and, if so, whether such correspondence has been deposited in the official archives of the Foreign Department, or whether it is of a private character, and not in any way recorded in the Foreign Office for the information of future Secretaries of State?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: Sir, I have nothing to add to the reply which was given by the Prime Minister to a similar Question addressed to him by the hon. Member on February 14 last year. The reply then given still holds good. The Answer to which I refer is a long one; but, if the hon.

  1313
  Member prefers it, I shall be happy to read it to the House. [Cries of "Read!"]
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF: Would the noble Lord be good enough to inform the House whether any correspondence has taken place between the date mentioned in the noble Lord's Answer and the present time?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: I have already stated that the Answer given by the Prime Minister on February 14, 1882, still holds good; and I will read that Answer if the hon. Member wishes. [Cries of "Read!" and "No!"]
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF: I should be glad if the noble Lord would road the Answer.
  After a short pause,
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFsaid: The noble Lord said that if I wished it he would read the Answer of the Prime Minister last year. I should like him to read it. ["No, no!"]
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: I said I would read it if the hon. Gentleman desired it, and accordingly I will do so. The Answer of the Prime Minister is as follows:—
  "The House is aware that it is contrary to the usage of Parliament—there may he exceptions, but they are exceedingly rare—to produce or lay upon the Table Correspondence, or a single letter which are not of an official or diplomatic character. That being so, the question is open to another Parliamentary objection upon the details of such Correspondence, because it is well known that the House takes objection—it is an established rule to take objection—to accounts given by Ministers of public documents, which they were not prepared to produce. I am afraid, therefore, I have no course but to decline to go further than the statement already made by my hon. Friend near me (Sir Charles W. Dilke) on this subject; but I will endeavour to convey to the mind of the hon. Member with perfect clearness the nature and the aim of such communications as have taken place between Lord Granville and Mr. Errington. I will not enter into the subject as to whether this Question is accurate or in accurate in all its statements—because they are both. It has been said by my hon. Friend near me, as I shall state in the most distinct terms, not only that there has been no appointing of Mr. Errington, and, of course, no remuneration, but that there have been no negotiations with Mr. Errington, no proposal made to him, and no request tendered to Mr. Errington. The purport of any intercourse with Lord Granville by Mr. Errington has been exclusively with reference to his being a channel or medium of information. Mr. Errington is not exclusively the medium of information, because on any occasion of any
  1314
  other gentleman as well qualified as Mr. Errington by character and intelligence to convey just and accurate information to Rome, Lord Granville might, in the same manner, have been induced to think it well to supply him or permit him to be supplied with information of that character. The purpose has been entirely to convey information, and information upon matters interesting to the Roman Catholic subjects of Her Majesty, and naturally, as connected with them, to the public at large. That is the purpose, aim, and limit of these communications; and I may say that the journey of Lord O'Hagan to Rome, which was, like Mr. Errington's a private journey, taken entirely on his own motion, might as well have been made the subject of a Parliamentary inquiry as that of Mr. Errington. It was a journey for private objects, with which we had nothing to do; but, with respect to the journey, we did think it useful—and we do think it useful—that many matters of great interest with respect to the question of the Roman Catholic subjects of Her. Majesty should be made known at Rome in conjunction with the very best information that is to be had on the subject.—(3 Hansard, [266] 640–1.)
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF: Sir, the Answer to which we have just listened does not convey any definite meaning to my mind. It has nothing to do with my Question, which I will venture to repeat. [The hon. Member read the Question already given.]
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: Sir, I consider the Question fully answered by the Answer I have already given. I may add this much:—If my hon. Friend considers I did not answer the latter portion of it, I am of opinion that I did answer it clearly and by implication: and if he wishes for a formal Answer, I would say that the communications referred to in the commencement of the Answer which I read are clearly not communications which have been placed, or could be placed within the terms of the Answer, on what my hon. Friend calls the file of the Foreign Office.
  MR. JOSEPH COWEN: I would ask the noble Lord if no communication has taken place between the Irish Office and Mr. Errington; if the late Chief Secretary, or the present Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, have not had communication with Mr. Errington? If the noble Lord cannot answer that Question I will put it to the Prime Minister, either to-day, or on a future occasion. I wish, further, to ask if Mr. Errington was not publicly received at the Vatican, along with other diplomatists and Representatives of Foreign Powers, as the Representative of this country?
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: I would ask the Prime Minister a Question arising out of the Answer of the noble Lord. It is this:—If the Mission of Mr. Errington has had beneficial results in producing a pronouncement from His Holiness the Pope, owing to Mr. Errington having been made the channel of communication between Her Majesty's Government and the See of Rome, whether it would not be of advantage to the Public Service, and of use to a future Government, that a record of those communications should be deposited in the Foreign Office?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, that is asking for an opinion, and an opinion upon a case on which I am not prepared altogether to affirm the accuracy of the statement or implication of the noble Lord. The Answer read by my noble Friend rather tended to show that Mr. Errington had not borne any character whatever, so far as we were concerned, which was not exclusively his own. For example, Lord O'Hagan, who went to Rome at the time I think Mr. Errington first went there, was in a very similar position, and discharged very similar offices on his own account. In the matter relating to the state of Ireland, he took the opportunity, on his visit to Rome, to lay information before the Pope and the Vatican. I may add, Sir, that there are others who have done the same, one a friend of mine, well known to the House, who has been in Rome quite lately. With respect to him, it was by a note received by me from him after he left Rome that I learned of his movements. I am speaking of Lord Houghton. He wrote to me informing me that he had had an opportunity of communicating what he conceived to be information upon Irish matters to the Pope in Rome. Therefore, the noble Lord will see that there is nothing in the nature of the communications between Lord Granville and Mr. Errington which can properly be made the subject of official record. As to communications between Mr. Errington and the late Chief Secretary and the present Lord Lieutenant, I am not acquainted with the facts; but if the hon. Member likes to put down a Question I will endeavour to answer him.
  MR. JOSEPH COWEN: Will the Prime Minister state if it be true that Mr. Errington is received in an official
  1316
  character at the Vatican, and that Lord Houghton was not?
  MR. GORST: With reference to the Answer of the Prime Minister, will he object to state whether either Lord O'Hagan or Lord Houghton received from Her Majesty's Government a letter of confidence?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I just stated I was unaware, and by implication I stated that my noble Friend (Earl Granville) was not aware, of Lord Houghton having had any communication with Rome until after the fact. With regard to Lord O'Hagan, I think, considering he had just been holding the Office of Lord Chancellor of Ireland in connection with Her Majesty's Government, it would have been quite unnecessary that Lord Granville should have addressed a note to Lord O'Hagan, as he did to Mr. Errington, stating that, in the opinion of Her Majesty's Government, he was a person of character and capacity such as to entitle any statement he might make to consideration.

  EXPLOSIVE SUBSTANCES ACTS.
  MR. DONALDSON-HUDSONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether a licence which was given to Mr. L. E. Morgan, of Bland Street, Moss Side, Manchester, to keep 10 lbs. of explosives for the purpose of an exhibition with experiments showing the various properties of explosives at Victoria Gardens, Tetley, near Sheffield, was subsequently revoked; and, if so, for what reason?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Sir, these are matters entirely in the hands of the local authorities, who are responsible. I suppose that it was not convenient at the time that the exhibition should be held.

  POST OFFICE (CONTRACTS)—THE IRISH MAIL SERVICE.
  MR. FINDLATER (for Mr. MAURICE BROOKS)asked the Postmaster General, Whether, to avoid any possible misunderstanding, he will have any objection to inform intending contractors for the conveyance of the mails between Holyhead and Kingstown that the clauses in the advertisement and tender form, which provide that "it is essential that the vessels to be employed in the service shall be at least equal in respect of

  1317
  speed, stability at sea, and accommodation for mails and for passengers" to the "present mail boats," shall be understood to mean that the vessels to be employed in the service shall be not less in speed, tonnage, engine power, dimensions, draught of water, stability at sea, and accommodation for mails and passengers than the present mail boats?
  MR. FAWCETT: Sir, so far as I am able to judge, the words contained in the advertisement are sufficient to secure that boats in no respect inferior to those now employed can be accepted under the new contract. As it is stipulated that the speed shall not be less than that now maintained, I do not see any use in making any stipulation as to engine-power, as my hon. Friend suggests.

  ARMY—RIFLE RANGES AT WORMWOOD SCRUBBS.
  MR. TATTON EGERTONasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is the intention of the War Office permanently to close the rifle ranges at Wormwood Scrubbs?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Sir, the range at Wormwood Scrubbs has been re-opened; with the restriction that Range A is only to be used by experienced shots.

  MOROCCO—SLAVERY AND SLAVE-DEALING AT TANGIER.
  MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether his attention has been called to the following statements made by the Gibraltar Correspondent of the Exchange Telegram Company, and published in many of the London evening papers on Monday last:—
  "Gibraltar, Monday.—I have heard of the sale of another slave in Tangier. It was that of a woman who was sold for thirty-seven dollars. Not long since a slave (a woman) was admitted to the French hospital, who had been compelled by her owner to use her bare feet every day in slacking lime. While she was in the hospital her feet fell off, and both of her legs had to be amputated. It is possible, as stated, that thirty or forty slaves only are sold in Tangier, but that is in the capital alone, where these sales are fewer than in other parts of the country;"
  and, whether these statements, or any of them, are accurate?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: Sir, my hon. Friend will observe that the report appears to be given merely on hearsay evidence by a correspon-
  1318
  dent, not at Tangier, but at Gibraltar. If, however, my hon. Friend has any reason for believing it to be true, inquiry will be made into the facts through Her Majesty's Minister at Tangier. The matter would be one to be dealt with by the local tribunals, and would not afford a case for the interference of Her Majesty's Government; the state of slavery, as I have already informed the House, being, unfortunately, legal in Morocco. Her Majesty's Government, I have already stated, have no Treaty rights in regard to the Slave Trade with Morocco.

  EDUCATION DEPARTMENT—ASSISTANT CLERKS.
  MR. R. N. FOWLER (for Mr. GRANTHAM)asked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether his attention has been called to the position of certain junior clerks in the Education Department who entered that office at the age of fourteen, with a promise of a nomination for a permanent clerkship if they had a good character, and remained there till they were nineteen, but who were deprived of that nomination by the alterations subsequently made in the service; whether they are receiving now above £100 per annum, instead of £200 per annum, and with a rise per annum for any length of service of one-third only of what they otherwise would have received; whether the heads of the Department have recommended some compensation to be made to them; and, if the Government will now make them some compensation for the breach of the conditions on which they entered the service; and, if not, on what grounds such compensation is refused?
  MR. COURTNEY: Assuming, Sir, that the Question refers to what are called third-class assistant clerks in the Education Office, I have to say that the information furnished to the hon. and learned Gentleman is not correct; and, especially, that no promise was given to these junior clerks when their service began, and that they have, without such promise, received permanent appointments of greater value than stated. It would, however, be impossible, within the limits of an Answer to a Question, to explain the details of such a case; but I may say that it has been carefully inquired into at various dates since 1879; a substantial boon was given in 1881; and there now remains, in the

  1319
  opinion of the Treasury, no reasonable ground of complaint.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND)—IRISH CROWN SOLICITORSHIPS.
  MR. KENNYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If it is a fact, as stated in a recent issue of the "Freeman's Journal," that the county Kildare Crown Solicitorship now vacant is worth £700 per annum; if it is a fact that the sub-inspectors of police prosecute at petty sessions and the Sessional Crown Solicitors at quarter sessions; and, if so, what functions besides attending assizes for six or seven days a-year, and supplying the prosecuting barristers with copies of depositions taken at petty and quarter sessions, devolve upon the Crown Solicitor; if it is a fact that a movement is on foot amongst Irish Crown Solicitors for an increase of pay; and, if this is the only reason why a sum so disproportionate to the incomes made by country solicitors practising at their profession is paid to the Crown Prosecutor of Kildare?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, the vacant office, to which a salary of £700 a-year is attached, is for two counties—namely, Kildare and Meath. The duties of a Crown Solicitor in connection with Assizes are but imperfectly and inadequately described in the Question. They must be men of skill and experience in their Profession, and they have responsible and important public duties to perform. These were probably the circumstances which weighed with the Treasury authorities in fixing the amount of their remuneration, rather than a consideration of the average incomes of other gentlemen of their Profession engaged in private practice. I am not aware that a movement is on foot among them to obtain an increase of pay.

  COMMISSIONERS OF NATIONAL EDUCATION (IRELAND)—MR. OWEN RYAN (BELFAST).
  MR. MOOREasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, in reference to the case of Mr. Owen Ryan, at the date of his appointment in the Milford Street Male School, Belfast, which was on the 10th October 1882, there were only six assistants previously employed in the School; and, further, if it is true that the manager of the said School has, on
  1320
  several occasions, written to the Board requesting that Mr. Ryan be recognised as seventh assistant; and, if so, why do the Commissioners regard him as the eighth applicant for salary?
  MR. TREVELYAN, in reply, said, that the original application of the manager of the Milford Street Male School, Belfast, was for the recognition of Mr. Ryan and another teacher named M'Dermott as seventh and eighth teachers. The Board could not recognize both, as the school was not qualified for an eighth assistant. It was a matter of indifference to them which of the two they recognized as seventh; and in finally communicating their decision they specified Mr. M'Dermott, as his name had been placed before Ryan's in the latest communication which they had received from the manager of the school. It was the case that the manager wrote several times to the Board; but his letters were quite as much in support of his claim for an eighth assistant as in the interest of Ryan. The hon. Member is, perhaps, not aware that the manager had since dismissed Ryan altogether from his service on account of grave misconduct.

  POOR REMOVAL (IRELAND).
  MR. LEWISasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether he has been made aware of the circumstances under which a pauper of the name of William Davis, with his wife and three children, were removed from Plymouth Union to that of Londonderry, which place he left fourteen years ago; whether it is true that he had resided at Plymouth ten years continuously, and at the time of his removal was engaged in weekly service, earning 22 s. a-week, and was the holder of a tenement furnished by himself; that about the 1st of May he was ordered to proceed to Ireland; that a few days afterwards, owing to his refusal to leave Plymouth, his wife and children were forcibly seized by policemen and placed on board ship for Dublin; that the pretence or ground for such proceedings was that during two or three months absence of Davis from work, in hospital owing to ill health early in this year, the wife was allowed out-door relief of 4s. 6d. per week; that this man had a pension as a retired gunner in the Royal Artillery, in which he served fourteen and

  1321
  a-half years, and had a good character and possessed two good conduct badges; whether the Plymouth guardians could not have recouped themselves the small amount of relief expended on this family by applying for repayment out of Davis's pension; whether the conduct of the Plymouth magistrates and guardians was legal; and, whether he will take any steps open to him to prevent a renewal of such proceedings under the present Law?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Sir, if this were merely the case of an individual, I should not have thought it right to detain the House with the answer I am about to give; but it raises an important question with regard to the Irish poor removal question. The Board have caused inquiry to be made of the guardians as to the facts of the case of William Davis. The clerk to the guardians states that William Davis came to Plymouth, as he is informed, on the 28th of November, 1881, and in that case he "had not resided at Plymouth 10 years continuously." With regard to the question whether Davis, at the time of his removal, was engaged in weekly service, earning 22 s. a-week, and was the holder of a tenement furnished by himself, the Board are informed by the clerk to the guardians that Davis was in no employ at the time of his removal, and never had, as far as he can ascertain, 22 s. a-week wages. He had two or three days' work at the Tramway Company's stable during the illness of another man. He rented one room, and some of his things were taken out of pawn for him when he left. The person to whom the warrant was entrusted for execution was a policeman on leave, and he did not act in this matter as a policeman, but as the agent of the guardians. The relief of 4s. 6d. per week, the guardians state, was continued after Davis was discharged from the hospital, and he applied for a truss, which was granted to him. As regards the guardians being recouped the relief granted by applying for repayment out of his pension, the guardians state that Davis had a pension of 8d. a-day, but had received the amount to the end of March before the relief was given, and nothing could have been obtained by the guardians until July, and only then if Davis were living. They were of opinion that, considering the state of his health, the family would be per-
  1322
  manently chargeable, and in the case of the man's death would be entirely dependent on the rates for support. The material facts of the case are in dispute; and, this being the case, the Board do not consider that they can express an opinion as to the legality of the conduct of the Plymouth magistrates and guardians. If the guardians of the Londonderry Union think themselves aggrieved by the removal on the ground that the man was not, in law, liable to be removed, and proceed as provided by the 26 & 27 Vict., c. 89, the Local Government Board for Ireland may appoint a person to make a preliminary inquiry into the circumstances attending the removal, and, if they think fit, may appeal, on behalf of the guardians, against the removal. Davis was understood, when before the guardians, to express his willingness to go to Ireland; and the clerk to the guardians states that Davis told him that he did not object to go, but his wife was unwilling. Neither Davis nor his wife made any objection before the magistrates.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORinquired, whether the man was actually in receipt of relief at the time of his removal?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, that, as he understood the statement of the guardians, that was so.

  POOR LAW (METROPOLIS)—ST. PANCRAS WORKHOUSE—RE-VACCINATION OF FEMALES.
  MR. P. A. TAYLORasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether it is the fact, as stated by Mr. Dunlop, Medical Officer of Saint Pancras Workhouse, at an inquest held last week, that the practice of re-vaccinating women in the first days after their confinement (even on the day of confinement itself if that should happen on the usual weekly vaccination day) is under the sanction or by order of the Local Government Board?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE, in reply, said, he had not received the depositions taken in this case; but he had written to the Coroner to ask for them. He was not aware whether Mr. Dunlop had made the statement attributed to him; but the Local Government Board had neither suggested nor ordered that women should be re-vaccinated during the first days after their confinement,

  LANDLORD AND TENANT (IRELAND)—REDUCTIONS OF RENT.
  MR. LEAMYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If it is the fact that Mr. Croker, Local Government Board auditor, has disallowed the reduction of twenty-five per cent, granted by the Corporation of Wexford to their tenants owing to the bad seasons, and has reserved to himself the right of surcharging the land agent of the Corporation with the amount of the reduction; and, whether the Local Government Board, bearing in mind the large reductions of rent which have been made by landlords all over Ireland for a similar reason, approves of the action of Mr. Croker?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, the Local Government Board are not yet in a position to give the required information on this subject. They have called upon their Auditor for a Report, which they expect to receive to-morrow.

  MEXICO—RENEWAL OF DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS.
  MR. MONKasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he is now in a position to give the House further information respecting the renewal of diplomatic relations with Mexico?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: It has been arranged with the Mexican Government that Special Envoys shall be simultaneously accredited to London and Mexico respectively, who will be charged with the duty of conducting negotiations for the renewal of diplomatic relations between the two countries. Sir Spenser St. John, British Minister in Peru, has accordingly been appointed Special Envoy from Her Majesty to the President of the Mexican Republic.
  MR. MONKasked whether a Minister would be established with a Diplomatic Staff?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: Not at present I think.

  MERCANTILE MARINE—SIGNAL WATCH-HOUSE AT DUNGENESS.
  LORD CLAUD HAMILTONasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether permission has been given to the Committee of Lloyd's to erect a watch house for signalling purposes on Government ground at Dungeness; and, if so, why
  1324
  the contractor employed by the Committee to set up that watch house is not permitted to go upon the ground?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Sir, permission has been given, with the concurrence of the Admiralty, for the erection of the watch house by the Committee of Lloyd's. The ground, however, is in charge of the Admiralty; and it is understood that, owing to some misapprehension on the part of the Coastguard officer in local charge, the contractor was not allowed to commence the work. Steps have already been taken to remedy this, and the work can be carried out at once.

  CONTAGIOUS DISEASES (ANIMALS) (IRELAND) ACTS—INFECTED DISTRICTS IN THE COUNTIES OF LOUTH AND MEATH.
  MR. SHEILasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, How many districts have been declared infected with cattle disease in the Ardee Union, in the county of Louth, and how many in the Trim Union, in the county of Meath; and, on what grounds a licence was granted for the Dunleer Pair, on May 14th, in the former Union, and refused for the Bective Fair in the latter, which was to have been held on May 16th?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, since the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease, 14 areas have been, from time to time, declared infected in the Ardee Union, and eight in the Trim Union. In the case of Dunleer Fair, the disease did not exist within, at least, a radius of five miles from the town; and the licence was granted, as it was believed that the fair might be held with safety. The refusal of a licence in the case of Bective Fair was owing to the existence of disease in adjacent places, and the consequent fear of its spread if the fair were permitted to be held. Bective is situate in close proximity to where the Navan and Dunshaughlin Unions—in both of which the disease is prevalent—unite with Trim Union; and four parishes adjoining that in which Bective is situate were infected areas.

  INDIA—CRIMINAL PROCEDURE AMENDMENT BILL—REPORTS OF LOCAL GOVERNMENTS.
  MR. PUGHasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether the Reports of the Government of Bengal

  1325
  and the other local Governments upon the Indian Criminal Procedure Code Amendment Bill have been received; and, if not, when they are expected; and, whether lie will object to laying them upon the Table of the House?
  MR. J. K. CROSS: The Reports have not yet arrived; but there will be no objection to laying them on the Table of the House when they do.
  MR. E. STANHOPEasked when they were coming?
  MR. J. K. CROSS: I cannot say.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTasked whether almost the whole of the officials of the House had reported against the Bill?
  MR. J. K. CROSS: I cannot say, as the Reports have not arrived.

  EGYPT (MILITARY EXPEDITION)—MAJOR CARRE (PURCHASE OF SADDLERY).
  DR. CAMERONasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office, What saddlery Major Carrè shipped from Smyrna to Egypt; if he could state by whose instructions he bought it; whether he bought it from the contractor who sold him the mules; what he paid for it; whether it was found to be useless on its arrival in Egypt; and, what ultimately became of it?
  MR. BRAND: Sir, as this Question relates to the Department for which I am responsible, my hon. Friend to whom it is addressed (Sir Arthur Hayter) has requested me to answer it. I have replied to several Questions put by the hon. Member on the subject of these mules; and on one occasion I expressed regret that Major Carre should not have acted on the advice of the veterinary surgeon who was associated with him in regard to the purchases that were made. But this inquiry, taken in conjunction with a former Question on the same subject, seems to me to suggest a reflection on the integrity of Major Carrè; and I think it right, therefore, in justice to that officer, who is at present stationed at St. Helena, to state that he bears a high character in the Service, and I would suggest to the hon. Member that if he has any charge to make against him, he should state distinctly what it is, and lay it before the Secretary of State. In answer to the specific inquiries now made, I may say that Major Carrè bought 300 pack saddles, with nose-bags, curry-
  1326
  combs, halters, ropes, and small stores at Smyrna, under instructions from the War Office, and shipped them for Egypt. These articles were bought from the contractors who sold the mules, or rather from their local agent. The sum paid was £480 17 s. 3d. The saddles were used in Egypt, and were, it may be assumed, ultimately returned into store in the ordinary course.

  AFRICA (THE RIVER CONGO)—ACTION OF PORTUGAL.
  MR. SLAGGasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether it is true that France has proposed an agreement with Portugal to the effect that Portugal may take the south bank of the Congo on condition that Portugal will raise no objection to the annexation by France of the north bank; and, whether Her Majesty's Government is prepared to recognize such a transfer of the assumed rights of Portugal in that region?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: Sir, Her Majesty's Government have received no information of any such proposed agreement.

  CITY OF LONDON LIVERY COMPANIES COMMISSION.
  MR. BROADHURSTasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether the Report of the Royal Commission on the City of London Livery Companies is likely to be presented to Parliament before this Session closes, considering it was appointed nearly three years ago, and the evidence having been closed some time since?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Yes, Sir; the Report will be presented during the present Session.
  MR. BROADHURSTasked the Vice President of the Council, Whether his attention has been called to the evidence given before the Royal Commission on the City Livery Companies, by which it appears that property in the City of Westminster of the estimated value of £17,000 per annum belonging to a charity school in the control of which the Corporation of the City of London have an interest has been for the last 25 years and is lying idle and waste; and, whether he would consider if the cost of elementary education in the City of Westminster could not be wholly defrayed out of such property without

  1327
  necessitating any contribution by rate if such charitable property was utilised?
  MR. MUNDELLA: Sir, I have inquired of the Charity Commissioners as to the statement in the first paragraph of my hon. Friend's Question. They report that the Evidence given before the City Liveries Commission is not yet published, and that they have no knowledge of any School or charity in Westminster possessed of unrealized property to anything like the amount stated. The United Westminster Schools, of which some members of the Corporation are Governors, own considerable property in or near Victoria Street, which, under the sanction of the Charity Commissioners, is being gradually disposed of by sales and leases. More than £50,000 worth of land has been sold since 1876, and a portion of 19,800 square feet is about to be leased for 80 years at £600 a-year, and was advertised in The Times of the 11th instant. Whatever may be the increased income derivable from these sources, it will not be applicable to the payment of the School Board rates of Westminster, but for the development of the present schools and the higher education of children who ought to be benefited by this endowment.

  POOR LAW (IRELAND)—DUNFANAGHY UNION—IRREGULARITIES OF OFFICIALS.
  MR. O'BRIENasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he can state the decision of the Local Government Board with respect to the charges preferred against officials of the Dunfanaghy Union in connection with the seduction of an imbecile pauper inmate and the birth in the workhouse of her illegitimate child?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, the decision arrived at by the Local Government Board was that there was no evidence worthy of credence to sustain a charge of immorality against any official of the workhouse. It transpired in the course of the inquiry that the classification of the inmates had not been sufficiently strictly maintained, and steps have been taken to remedy that defect.

  EXPLOSIVE SUBSTANCES ACTS—CERTIFICATES.
  MR. JOSEPH COWENasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If positive instructions have
  1328
  been issued by the Home Office to chief constables, forbidding them to charge fees for granting certificates of fitness to persons who require to keep explosives for private use, or to make any charge nominally for the purpose of covering the alleged expense of making the necessary investigation in regard to the applicant's fitness prior to the grant of such certificates?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT, in reply, said, he had often had occasion to explain in that House that he had no power to give positive instructions to constables. The Orders in Council did not authorize him to do so. As far as was known to the Chief Inspector of Explosives, no case had arisen which would necessitate that such instructions should be given.
  MR. JOSEPH COWENsaid, that there were instances in which these charges were really made.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: All I can say is, that there is no authority for making them.

  LAW AND POLICE (IRELAND)—THE BELFAST POLICE.
  MR. BIGGARasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If it be true that in the recent promotions amongst the police in Belfast, two policemen who had acted as sub-inspector's clerks for five or six years, and who, consequently, have no practical knowledge of the duties required of detectives were selected to the exclusion of experienced officers; if it be correct that the religion of the various officers was urged as a source of fitness for the office?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I have received a telegram from the Town Inspector of Belfast, who states that it is not the case that promotions have recently taken place there, but that men have recently been examined for detective duty. He adds that it is not true that men who had acted as Sub-Inspectors' clerks were selected to the exclusion of more experienced men, or that the religion of any man was urged as a source of fitness for office.

  AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS (ENGLAND) BILL.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Whether, in view of the great advantage in making legislation on the

  1329
  subject of Agricultural Compensation clear and intelligible to the public, he will consent to commit the Agricultural Holdings (England) Bill pro forma, in order to insert in the measure all those provisions of the Act of 1875 which it is now proposed to incorporate by way of reference only, and to repeal the remainder of that Act?
  SIR ALEXANDER GORDONasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, If he has considered that, as at present arranged, there will be no possibility of amending the county court procedure sections of "The Agricultural Holdings (England) Act, 1875," about twenty-seven in number, while the new Agricultural Bill, in which they are to be incorporated, is passing through the House; and, if he will act upon the suggestion of the honourable Member for East Gloucestershire to embody in the new Bill those sections of the Act of 1875 which are to form part of the new Act?
  MR. DODSON, in reply, said, that Her Majesty's Government had purposely deferred the Bill to a day on which they hoped and intended to proceed with it; and he should be sorry to lose the time that would be involved by re-committing the Bill pro formâ, and re-printing it. All that the right hon. Baronet required could he effected when the Bill was in Committee, or at a subsequent stage; and Notice had been given by the hon. Member for East Sussex (Mr. Gregory) to insert in the Bill in Committee the provisions of the Act of 1875, instead of only referring to them. The Government were quite sensible of the advantage of embodying the law in one Act, so that they were not at all averse on principle to the suggestion of the right hon. Baronet; and he might add they were exceedingly desirous, on this as on other matters, to consult as far as possible the wishes of the House; but they must reserve their judgment as to the expediency of adopting this course, or as to the time and mode of giving effect to it, if adopted, until they had made further progress with the Bill. This would also be his Answer to the Question put by the hon. and gallant Member for East Aberdeenshire (Sir Alexander Gordon).

  LAW AND POLICE—CASE OF FRANCIS REDFERN (UTTOXETER).
  MR. H. T. DAVENPORTasked the Secretary of State for the Home Depart-
  1330
  ment, Whether he has had his attention called to the case of Francis Redfern, who was on the 16th of this month, at Uttoxeter, committed to prison for one month with hard labour for cruelty to a pony; and, whether he will take any steps in the matter?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT, in reply, said, that this case had been brought to his notice, and that he had received a Report from the magistrates. On consideration, he did not see his way to interfere in the matter.
  MR. CRAIGasked whether the prisoner's father was not an inmate of a lunatic asylum; and whether it was not feared that the sentence would be attended with serious consequences to the prisoner; and if, in view of that fact, the right hon. and learned Gentleman would not consider whether he could not remit the labour part of the sentence?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he must respectfully beg to enter a protest against being called upon in such cases to enter into details in that House. With regard to what the hon. Member had said, he might say that no application had been made to him on the ground of the prisoner's state of health. Were such an application made, he should, of course, consider it.

  ARMY AND NAVY EXPENDITURE—"EXTRA RECEIPTS."
  MR. SALTasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, If he can state what are the amounts of "Extra Receipts" absorbed in the estimated amounts of Army and Navy Expenditure respectively for the year 1883–4?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): Sir, I think that it would be better, instead of stating the aggregate amount of extra receipts which would have been estimated under the former system, to give a Return for 1883–4 under each head. I will lay this on the Table without delay.
  MR. W. H. SMITHasked whether the right hon. Gentleman would consider the desirability of showing in the Finance Accounts and the Statistical Abstract the amount of extra receipts now taken in aid of the Army and Navy Expenditures, so as to allow of a better comparison being made between those expenditures?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): The right hon. Gentleman's suggestion appears to me a very proper one. These amounts will be shown in the Return.

  EGYPT (RE-ORGANIZATION—REFORM OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSONasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether cases have been reported to Sir Benson Maxwell of prisoners having been recently condemned in Egypt without counsel or witnesses in defence being admitted?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: Sir, Her Majesty's Government have not received any information, since the appointment of Sir Benson Maxwell, which would lead them to conclude that the statement in the Question is correct. They have not received a Report of the trials.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSON: Has no Report been received at all?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: Sir Benson Maxwell does not report to Her Majesty's Government. He is not in the service of Her Majesty's Government, but of the Egyptian Government.

  GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE CHURCH OF SCOTLAND—THE LORD HIGH COMMISSIONER.
  SIR HERBERT MAXWELLasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether the Earl of Aberdeen, now discharging the office of Lord High Commissioner of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, did immediately before the opening of the Assembly cause to be circulated among the Clergy a letter, signed by himself and five others, deploring the recent decision of the House of Commons on the Affirmation Bill, and recommending a perusal of the Prime Minister's speech on the second reading thereof; and, whether he was acting under the advice or approval of Her Majesty's Government in so doing?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I confess, Sir, I have some difficulty in answering this Question, which, although quite within the Rules of the House, appears to me to be a Question of a peculiar Character. I have not thought it my duty to address any inquiry to Lord Aberdeen on the subject, because it appeared to me that,
  1332
  however wrong Lord Aberdeen might be in thinking a speech delivered by me to be worth perusing, it is not an offence of which this House could well take notice. The Question seems to me to proceed upon the supposition that, by becoming the Lord High Commissioner to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, a Peer of the Realm renounces the performance of any other duties which he may think to appertain to him in the latter capacity. Now, Sir, I could not give any countenance, so far as I am concerned, to any such supposition, because I do not understand that any such consequence is entailed by the acceptance of that high Office. Undoubtedly it is not the fact that Lord Aberdeen was acting under the advice or approval of Her Majesty's Government, who knew nothing of the fact of the signing of the Circular; and it would have been, on my part, an act of impertinence to have pronounced either approval or disapproval of it. But it may be of some comfort to the mind of the hon. Baronet, who appears to think that political disability follows the acceptance of the Office of Lord High Commissioner, if I acquaint him that Lord Aberdeen, at the time when he signed this Circular, was not Lord High Commissioner. He was made Lord High Commissioner to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland on the 10th of May, 1883, and he signed the Circular on the 8th of May, 1883.
  SIR HERBERT MAXWELL: The tenour of the right hon. Gentleman's reply is such that I regret to say that I must ask the indulgence of the House—["Oh, oh!"]—while I make a few remarks for the purpose of explaining what has been regarded as a very serious matter indeed. ["Order!"]
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Baronet is entitled to put a Question to the right hon. Gentleman, arising out of his Answer, if he thinks proper.
  SIR HERBERT MAXWELL: It is my intention to ask leave to make a few remarks. ["No, no!"]
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Baronet will not be in Order, at the present stage, in making any remarks.
  SIR HERBERT MAXWELL: I understand the proper course for me to take is to proceed by Motion for the Adjournment of the House after the Questions have been disposed of,
  Afterwards,
  SIR HERBERT MAXWELLsaid: I beg, Sir, to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, viz. the recent conduct of the Lord High Commissioner of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland in circulating a letter among the Clergy deploring the recent decision of the House of Commons on the Affirmation Bill.
  MR. SPEAKERasked whether it was the pleasure of the House that the hon. Member should be heard? [Cries of "No!" and "Aye!"] Was the hon. Baronet supported by 40 Members?
  MR. SPEAKERcalled on those hon. Members who supported the Motion to rise in their places, and less than forty Members rose in their places.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: Mr. Speaker, you did not count me.
  MR. SPEAKER: I assure the hon. Member that I counted every Member who was standing up.
  The House proceeded to the Orders of the Day.

  INLAND REVENUE—INCOME TAX ON FOREIGN INVESTMENTS.
  MR. MACFARLANEasked the First Lord of the Treasury, If it is the case that a person residing in England investing money in Indian or other securities, outside of the United Kingdom, and drawing no portion of the income arising from such investment in this Country, is free from liability to Income Tax in respect of such income, and if a person, also residing in this Country, but employing an equal amount of capital in trade or any industry in India or elsewhere, producing an equal income, no portion of which is brought into the United Kingdom, is held to be liable in respect of the whole of such income, if he can state upon what principle the distinction is made in favour of the investor and against the trader?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): Sir, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has asked me to answer this Question. If by the word "securities" the hon. Gentleman means, as I presume he does, securities falling within Schedule D, they are not, in either of the cases supposed, liable to Income Tax. But a
  1334
  trader living in the United Kingdom is liable to pay Income Tax on all profits arising from his trade wherever those profits accrued; and this principle was embodied in Mr. Pitt's Income Tax Act of 1805, Sir Robert Peel's of 1842, and in that of 1853. I cannot find any discussion on the subject in the reported debates; and I presume that the impolicy of attempting to discriminate between trade profits made in one country or another was universally admitted.

  PARLIAMENTARY REPRESENTATION—THE DISFRANCHISED IRISH BOROUGHS.
  MR. O'BRIENasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether the Government intend to fill up the vacancies in the representation of Ireland caused by the disfranchisement of the Boroughs of Sligo and Cashel?
  MR. GLADSTONE, in reply, said, that the Government had no such intention at present.

  THE SEA FISHERIES COMMISSION.
  MR. HENEAGEasked the President of the Board of Trade, When the Bill, which he promised at the commencement of the Session, to carry out the recommendations of the Sea Fisheries Committee, will be ready; and, whether he will undertake that the Government will do their utmost to pass into Law, during the present Session, a measure dealing with this urgent and important subject, which cannot be postponed without considerable loss as well as injurious effect on the fishing trade?
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN, in reply, said, that this subject had occupied the attention of the Board of Trade for some time past. He had only just obtained the draft of the Bill carrying out practically the recommendations of the Committee; but he hoped that the Bill would in a short time be introduced into the other House of Parliament.

  WESTERN ISLANDS OF THE PACIFIC —THE AUSTRALIAN COLONIES—ANNEXATION OF NEW GUINEA BY QUEENSLAND.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: I wish to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies a Question of which I have

  1335
  given him private Notice. The Papers relating to New Guinea, which have recently been distributed, do not include either the Despatch of the Governor of Queensland, which has been referred to in this House, or any decision of Her Majesty's Government on the question of the annexation of New Guinea. I wish to ask whether the Despatch of the Governor of Queensland has been received, and, if so, when it will be presented to the House; and, also, whether Her Majesty's Government have arrived at any decision on the subject?
  MR. LEWISasked whether the Government had made any communication on the subject since the 14th of April, the date of the last communication from the Colonial Office mentioned in the Papers?
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEY: The Despatch of the Governor of Queensland has not yet arrived; and, therefore, I am unable to say whether it can be laid on the Table, or to state the decision of Her Majesty's Government on the subject. I do not think there have been any communications since the date the hon. Member for Londonderry mentions.

  THE JUDICATURE ACTS—THE NEW RULES.
  MR. WHITLEYasked Mr. Attorney General, Whether the new Rules and Orders under the Judicature Acts would be laid upon the Table of the House before the Prorogation of Parliament?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES), in reply, said, that the Rules had been prepared, and he hoped they would be laid on the Table of the House during the next few weeks.

PARLIAMENTARY OATH (THE STANDING ORDERS).
  WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: Sir, taking into consideration the present condition of Public Business, it is not my intention to proceed with the Motion that stands in my name for Tuesday next with respect to the amendment of the Standing Order relating to the Parliamentary Oath; so that, so far as I am concerned, I shall be happy to place that Tuesday at the disposal of the Prime Minister.
PRIVILEGE.

  PARLIAMENT—PRIVILEGE—MR. M'COAN AND MR. O'KELLY.
  MR. M'COAN: Sir, I wish to ask the leave of the House to address it briefly on a question of Privilege. I regret, for many reasons—some of which will be obvious to the House—the necessity that has been cast upon me; but, acting upon very competent advice, I have reason to believe that I am about to pursue the proper course under the circumstances. It will be in the recollection of the House that during the debate on the Address, in reply to the Queen's Speech, on the 22nd February last, the hon. Member for Roscommon (Mr. O'Kelly) was suspended for an interruption addressed to the right hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster). On that occasion I did not vote either for the suspension or against it, but walked out- of the House. My action, however, was misrepresented in certain Irish newspapers, in which I was said to have voted against a Colleague and fellow Member of the Irish Party; and for that I was held up to the reprobation of my constituents. Recently, during the last Recess, I visited the County (Wicklow) of which I have the honour to be one of the Representatives; and in the course of an address to my constituents I was interrupted by a few persons who, I was informed, had been sent by a neighbouring branch of the National Land League to interrupt me on that occasion. One of the chief objections against me was that I had voted against the hon. Member for Roscommon (Mr. O'Kelly). Thus called upon to explain my action and defend myself, I recounted very briefly the circumstances which had taken place, and said I did not vote on the question at all; and further, to justify my action, or, rather, my inaction, I very briefly, and, as I think the House will agree with me presently in considering it, in moderate and courteous language, told them what had taken place, and what had been my conduct upon that occasion. The report of that meeting appeared, among other papers, in the Dublin Freeman's Journal, a copy of which, it seems, came under the observation of the hon. Member for Roscommon (Mr. O'Kelly) in Paris, and

  1337
  from Paris he telegraphed to his hon. Friend the Member for Mallow (Mr. O'Brien) instructing him to ask me if I accepted the responsibility of the statements in that Report, and if I did to call upon me for a very peremptory and complete apology. I probably cannot do better than read the brief correspondence, which embodies really all the facts, and to which I will add but very few personal observations. The first of the short series of letters was dated 24th May, and was from Mr. Wm. O'Brien (the hon. Member for Mallow). It was marked "private" at the top, but I failed to recognize his right or my own to take any exceptional privilege in a matter of this kind, and I did not mark my reply "private;" and, therefore, I consider myself entitled to make this use of the correspondence. It was as follows:—
  "May 24, 1883.
  "Sir,—On behalf, of Mr. O'Kelly, M.P., I have to ask whether the following extract from The Freeman's Journal of May 17 is a correct representation of your words at Tinahely:—' In reference to Mr. O'Kelly's expulsion from the House, Mr. M'Coan narrated the incident, and observed that the House of Commons, at all events, was supposed to he composed of Gentlemen. He would not have responded as Mr. O'Kelly did.' Should you have been correctly reported, I have to request, on his behalf, that you will promptly apologize for the offensive imputation on Mr. O'Kelly's honour which these words convey.
  "I am, Sir, your obedient Servant,
  "WM. O'BRIEN."
  I have not a copy of my answer to that letter with me; but it was nearly in these words—"Sir,—Without meaning to be at all discourteous, I must decline to recognize your right to question me on this subject;" and I went on to say that if Mr. O'Kelly applied to me personally for an explanation I would promptly and candidly give it. Some days passed, and I then received from the hon. Member for Roscommon (Mr. O'Kelly) himself the following communication:—
  "May 28, 1883.
  "Sir,—In a speech made by you at Tinahely, and reported in The Freeman's Journal, there is a reference to me of a grossly offensive nature.
  "Will you be good enough to inform me whether you accept the published report of this speech as substantially accurate? On seeing The Freeman's Journal in Paris in which the report appeared, I immediately telegraphed to my Friend Mr. William O'Brien, requesting him to put himself in communication with you on my behalf: but as you object to indirect communi-
  1338
  cation on this matter, I now apply to you personally, in order that I may be accurately informed as to your responsibility for the offensive references alleged to have been made by you to me at Tinahely.
  "I am, Sir, yours obediently,
  "JAMES O'KELLY.
  "J. C. M'Coan, Esq., M.P."
  To that letter I replied on the 30th of May—
  "Sir,—I do not accept the report of my 3peech at Tinahely which appeared in The Freeman's Journal as 'substantially accurate.' My recollection of that report is that it was very incomplete, and therefore (perhaps necessarily) garbled. It certainly did not convey a fair impression of much that was said and done on the occasion; but a fuller and more correct report appeared in The Wicklow News Letter, from which, for your information, I quote on the enclosed slip a sufficiently accurate version of my remarks in reply to questions as to my vote, or, rather, my abstention from voting, on the occasion of your suspension for giving the lie to Mr. Forster. This said, of course I accept whatever 'responsibility' the remarks quoted may entail."
  The extract from The Wicklow News Letter is as follows:—
  "Reference has been made by a gentleman hero to the suspension of Mr. O'Kelly, and to my conduct on that occasion. I was present in the House of Commons during the speech of Mr. Forster, which led to Mr. O'Kelly's expulsion. I heard many things fall from Mr. Forster on that occasion with which I could not agree—much that I should be sorry to believe was true. But, instead of anyone rising to answer Mr. Forster, or to refute the assertions he made by fact or argument, Mr. O'Kelly, obeying what I believe was a generous impulse, roared out in a manner I would not like to imitate—'You lie, you lie, you lie.' (A Voice, 'Like an Irishman,' and cheers for O'Kelly.) Now, the House of Commons is supposed to be an assemblage of Gentlemen, and Members of it are supposed to conduct themselves as such. Well, as I recognize' the canons of conduct which are supposed to control the House, the conduct of Mr. O'Kelly certainly did not meat my approval. If Mr. O'Kelly had risen and made a rasping speech against Mr. Forster, if he had done so in language such as gentlemen use, he would have had my sympathy and support; but he chose to act differently, and, the Speaker's attention being called to the language used by him, the inevitable result was that he was suspended. Now, though I confess my own feeling was strongly against Mr. O'Kelly's action, yet, in deference to my position as a Member of the same Party, I declined to vote against him, and took no part in the Division which followed. If the same thing were to happen again, and were Mr. O'Kelly my own brother, I would act as I acted then."
  To this I received the following reply, in which, as I am advised, the breach of Privilege is committed:—
  "May 30, 1883.
  "Sir,—" your letter of to-day aggravates the offensiveness of your Tinahely speech. You repeat, and accept full responsibility for, the reference to me of which I complain. Therefore, the matter passes out of the region of discussion. Mr. O'Brien is authorized to act for me, and I request that you will communicate with him and refer him to some gentleman authorized to act for you.
  "Yours obediently,
  "JAMES O'KELLY."
  To that letter I rejoined, still acting on very competent advice—
  "May 30.
  "Sir,—As the acceptance of the challenge conveyed in your letter of this date would be a high Parliamentary offence, and as I desire not to violate the law of Parliament, I decline to communicate with Mr. O'Brien with the view suggested by your letter."
  Probably I will not get credit from some hon. Gentlemen behind me when I say that I heartily desired to prevent magnifying so trifling a personal incident into what might bear the appearance of a scandal on the Irish Party; and I thought it my duty to make one final effort to prevent its attaining this proportion. I therefore—still on the same day, that is yesterday—late in the afternoon, addressed to the hon. Member for the City of Cork the following note:—
  "May 30.
  "Dear Mr. Parnell,—Mr. O'Kelly, as you are probably aware, has sent me a challenge—the giving or acceptance of which is, as you also know, a high Parliamentary offence. Under ordinary circumstances I should have no choice but to deal with the matter in one of the two only ways open to me; but, as it is, I am anxious to avoid anything like a scandal to the Irish Parliamentary Party; and, therefore, I address myself to you, as the Leader of the Party, to say that if Mr. O'Kelly, on reflection, desires to withdraw his letter, I will give him an opportunity of doing so up to 3 o'clock to-morrow, when I shall be in the House. If he should not so desire, the responsibility of whatever follows will rest on himself.—Faithfully yours,
  "J. C. M'COAN."
  This letter was addressed to a Gentleman who has a very legitimate influence over the hon. Member for Roscommon (Mr. O'Kelly); and I thought I was doing right in applying to him before I appealed to this House. I waited until this moment, and I have received no communication from the hon. Member for Roscommon, nor have I been favoured with any reply from the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell). That being so, I am advised, and believe, that the matter has passed out
  1340
  of the region of personal discussion, and that my duty is to submit it to the consideration of the House. The only element of personal feeling in my mind in the matter is a desire to protect myself from misrepresentation elsewhere, and the conviction that without a public statement of this kind I should not fail to be misrepresented. As the matter is one that affects the honour and dignity of this House itself, I hope I am justified in bringing it under its notice.
  MR. GLADSTONE: The hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. M'Coan) has laid before the House, with perfect clearness, a statement of facts, as to which I do not understand any exception need be taken on the part of hon. Members sitting near me; and I may therefore take that statement, for the present, as uncontroverted. I do not conceive that it is any part of my duty, or the duty of the House, to accept the correspondence which has been brought before us otherwise than as information. With that correspondence we have nothing else to do; but I have no doubt the conduct and position of the hon. Member for Wexford will be fairly and equitably appreciated by the House. I believe the hon. Member has acted in conformity with Parliamentary rule and precedent in bringing the matter before the House. I think we may understand that the fact of his having so placed it before the House amounts to a pledge given by him to the House, although I do not know that it was stated in express terms, that, so far as he is concerned, this matter will proceed no further in communication with the hon. Member for Roscommon. I apprehend that I am accurate in that interpretation. I think the usual course in cases of this kind is that the House has sought and accepted a pledge of that kind from both of the Members concerned. The hon. Member for Roscommon is not in his place; and, therefore, the regular course will be to move that the hon. Member for Roscommon do attend in his place on a future day. What day that may be would depend upon the possibility of the hon. Member appearing in connection with the distance or place in which he may now be. Probably some of the Gentlemen in the House—perhaps the hon. Member for Mallow (Mr. O'Brien)—may be able to give us that information; and, according as we are so informed, the Mo-

  1341
  tion will be made. If I understand that the hon. Member for Roscommon is within reach, then I believe the proper Motion will be that he do attend in his place to-morrow; but if he be at a distance, so as to make it inconvenient or impossible for him to attend, there would be no difficulty in varying the terms of the Motion. I beg to move—"That Mr. O'Kelly attend in his place to-morrow."
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. O'Kelly do attend in his place To-morrow."—(Mr. Gladstone.)
  MR. O'BRIEN: Sir, as the Prime Minister has mentioned my name, I may say that I am not in a position to assure the House whether the hon. Member for Roscommon will be here to-morrow or not. As far as I am concerned, I do not speak for him; but I have always tried to settle private quarrels without invoking or recognizing the interference of the British Parliament.
  MR. SHEIL: Sir, this Motion is almost unnecessary, because we have the sure pledge of the hon. Member for Wicklow that he will not appear on the field to accept the challenge of the hon. Member for Roscommon. I should have thought one assurance sufficient. The hon. Member for Wicklow has been most anxious to impress upon the House his desire to protect the dignity and interests of the House. It appears to me the hon. Member would have looked after the interests and dignity of the House much more effectually if he had taken this matter, which does not affect the House, before a Police Court, and the two parties might have been bound over to keep the peace. As the hon. Member is so anxious to keep the peace, and has always shown his anxiety so to do, the matter might have been settled in that way, without troubling the House with what does not concern it in the least. I would, however, like to know if this question can be raised as one of Privilege, seeing it has no reference to anything which has taken place within these walls or the precincts of Parliament. Most of the correspondence passed during the Recess, and. only a small portion of it since the House resumed its Sittings. At any rate, I venture to suggest that, under the circumstances, the matter should be allowed to drop, and that the hon. Member for Roscom-
  1342
  mon should not be called upon to appear in his place to-morrow.
  MR. PARNELL: Sir, I quite concur in what has just been said by the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Sheil). If the Prime Minister had received some Notice he probably would not have felt himself justified in treating this as a question of Privilege. This matter is one which seems to have arisen entirely out of a private dispute between the hon. Member for Wicklow and the hon. Member for Roscommon; and this dispute was originated in consequence of a passage in a speech of the hon. Member for Wicklow, addressed to a section of his constituents at a place called Tinahely. I would ask the Government whether, by making this matter a question of Privilege, they are prepared to create a precedent by which the House would be bound at any time hereafter to interfere in every case of personal dispute arising outside the House between hon. Members. That is what the claim of the hon. Member for Wicklow amounts to. The hon. Member for Wicklow, in the exercise of his discretion, made use, in the speech to which I have referred, of what I consider were some very offensive words regarding the hon. Member for Roscommon. The hon. Member for Roscommon appears to have addressed a series of letters to the hon. Member for Wicklow in reference to the words so used. I do not know where you are going to stop if you create a question of Privilege out of a matter of this kind. I do not see, as I have said, how you could prevent any Member of this House from dragging any personal dispute which he may have before the House, and claiming the attention of the House to such matter to the obstruction of Public Business. I shall certainly divide the House on the Motion now before it, for I consider that this matter ought to be dealt with by the ordinary law of the land. In my opinion, the hon. Member for Wicklow has not established any right, or title, or claim, to the protection of the House. The position I take on this question is fortified by the authority of Sir Erskine May, who, in his work, with reference to challenge sent by one Member to another, says—
  "The sending of a challenge by one Member to another in consequence of words spoken by him in his place in Parliament is a breach of Privilege, and will be dealt with accordingly,

  1343
  unless a full apology be offered to the House. But it does not appear that the Speaker or the House would interfere to prevent a quarrel from, being proceeded with, when it had arisen from a private misunderstanding, and not from words spoken in debate, or in any of the proceedings of the House, or in Committee. In such cases, if any interference should be deemed necessary, information would probably be given to the police."
  Therefore, I have established my contention that this matter, although a proper one for the Police Court, does not call for the interposition of the House.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 250; Noes 19: Majority 231.—(Div. List, No. 109.)

QUESTIONS.

  PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  MR. LEWISasked whether the House was to understand that the Corrupt Practices Bill would come on on Monday, though fixed for to-night?
  MR. GLADSTONEexplained that when he announced the Bill for to-night he was unaware of the fact that it had already been fixed for Monday.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEinquired whether the Bill would be taken on Monday?
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, the Corrupt Practices Bill would be taken as the first Order on Monday, and the Scotch Tenants' Compensation Bill as the next, if time permitted.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSONasked what course the Government intended to take with regard to the two Bills making grants to Lords Alcester and Wolseley; and whether they would be re-committed, or a fresh Bill would be brought in?
  MR. COURTNEYsaid, the House would remember that a Resolution had been passed authorizing the grant of a lump sum in lieu of annuities. The course which the Government proposed to adopt was to re-commit the Bill pro formâ, in order that it might be reprinted in its altered shape; and, of course, the Notice of opposition given by the hon. Baronet would apply to the Bill when so re-printed.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEasked whether it was proposed to take effective Supply to-morrow; and whether it was intended to proceed with the Irish Police Bill to-morrow?
  MR. GLADSTONE, in reply, said, that the Government would proceed regularly with the Estimates on Friday, taking effective Supply. He might now state that, in consequence of the announcement that the Motion of the noble Lord opposite would not be taken on Tuesday next, he should ask for a Morning Sitting on that day, and also on Friday next.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

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

  SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.

    CLASS I.—PUBLIC WORKS AND BUILDINGS.
    (1.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £180,546, 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 1884, for the Erection, Repairs, and Maintenance of the several Public Buildings under the Department of the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland, and for the erection of Fishery Piers, and the Maintenance of certain Parks, Harbours, and Navigations."
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORpointed out that this Vote included an item which had appeared on the Estimates for many years, and which item was distinctly against the recommendations of certain Royal Commissioners. He should, therefore, propose to move the reduction of the Vote by the sum which the Royal Commissioners declared to be improper. The item he referred to was that which was charged for the maintenance of the Ulster Canal, and which amounted to £1,289. A Royal Commission reported last year that they did not think there was any probability that the Canal would justify any immediate outlay of public money upon it to put it into repair, and they expressed a decided opinion that no more public money should be spent upon it. They recommended that the Canal, with all the property attached to it, should be offered for sale to the public. Under these circumstances, he desired to move the reduction of the Vote. Then, there was another sum of £6,000 granted in aid of works of navigation. With regard to that navigation, the same Commission

    1345
    reported that the Lough Erne Navigation Commissioners had, under their Act of 1880, certain powers in Lough Erne to improve and clear the channel, and to maintain and repair the locks in the Ulster and Ballyconnel Canal, which communicated with the Ulster Canal by the Lough Erne navigation. If this navigation were likely to be of any use, it would, perhaps, be worth the while of the Government to spend this £6,000 to complete the Lough Erne Navigation Works; but the same Royal Commission to which he had already referred stated that the Ballyconnel Canal, like the Ulster Canal, was quite unworthy of any support. The receipts in 1880 were nil, and the annual expenditure on the lock-keeper's account was about £80. Between Belfast on the one hand, and the Shannon River on the other, there were these two links of water communicating with each other—the Ulster Canal, and the Ballyconnel and Ballinmore Canal. Both wore useless; and the Royal Commission had advised that both of them should be discontinued, at any rate, so far as any expenditure of public money was concerned. The Lough Erne navigation was a link between the two Canals; and if the Canals on both sides were not worthy of support, it was useless to spend money in maintaining the intermediate link. He therefore proposed to further reduce the Vote by the sum of £6,000, making altogether a reduction of £7,289.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £173,257, "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 1884, for the Erection, Repairs, and Maintenance of the several Public Buildings under the Department of the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland, and for the erection of Fishery Piers, and the Maintenance of certain Parks, Harbours, and Navigations."—(Mr. Arthur O'Connor.)
    MR. BIGGARdesired to know whether the Government wished this to go to a division without any explanation at all? Why was all this money to be badly spent, or, worse than badly spent, when the expenditure could be done without altogether? It was of no use to the public; and instead of spending a lot of money in keeping these Canals in navigable order, when there was no profit to be derived from them, it would be very much better to drain the district. If a
    1346
    Canal required to get a subsidy from the British Parliament every year, and did not earn sufficient tolls to pay for keeping itself in order, no more conclusive evidence could be afforded, in his opinion, to show that it was not required, and, indeed, that it was in a worse position than if it were simply not required, because it was really in the way. The Ulster Canal should be exceedingly well situated. It ran into Belfast, and had a very good harbour, and it went to a number of manufacturing towns. But, in spite of that fact, the principal part of the traffic of the district was taken by the railway, and there was no use for the Canal at all. Everybody sent by railway when they could, and, except for coals and other things, which were taken at the very lowest rate of freight, there was no employment for these Canals at all. He was firmly of opinion that the most judicious thing to do would be to sell the land out of which the Canals were formed, and allow of drainage for the benefit of the district.
    MR. BLAKEsaid, he quite agreed with the two hon. Gentlemen who had spoken, that the work of these two Canals had considerably diminished, and it was not surprising, considering that they had railways in competition with them. But, at the same time, he had been officially connected with the district for 10 years, and he knew that the Canals were of enormous convenience to a large number of the people there. As the hon. Member for Cavan had said, coals and other things were taken by them. But he (Mr. Blake) could add that the people living in small towns and the peasantry in many ways were most greatly benefited by them. The expenditure of this £7,000 was of very considerable benefit in many ways; and to drain the Canals and turn them to agricultural purposes would be a most preposterous idea. One good service that the Canals performed was to check exorbitant railway rates. He had some knowledge on this point, and he believed that the railways in that part of the country would be exceedingly glad if some of these Canals were discontinued, as it would afford them the opportunity which they very much wished to obtain of raising the rates on coals and other articles that could now be carried by canal. In the interests of the people of the North of Ireland who used these

    1347
    Canals he should feel bound to vote against the Amendment.
    MR. J. N. RICHARDSONsaid, he had had no idea that the reduction of the Vote was to be moved, or, having taken the trouble to copy out the plans, he would have brought them with him and offered a few words of explanation. But he trusted the Committee would not accept the Amendment, and any information which he had it in his power to give he would defer to another time. However, he might say this much—that he believed there was a very strong feeling in favour of the maintenance and continuance of the Ulster Canal, and so strong was that feeling that a deputation waited on the Lord Lieutenant, not very long ago, in order to obtain His Excellency's consent to improvements upon the Canal. The subject of the Fisheries and of Irish Railways was continually being brought before the House; and one of the great arguments used was that there was not sufficient traffic to cause competitive lines to be made, and that, therefore, those lines which were in existence had an absolute monopoly of the traffic. That monopoly was modified to a certain extent by the old water-ways. He freely admitted that the produce taken over the Canals and Railways was largely agricultural produce; but there was an immense amount of heavy traffic taken over the Canals, and over the Ulster Canal, and he thought the Committee should pause considerably before they consented to reduce the Vote, especially in the face of the recent deputation to Earl Spencer.
    MR. COURTNEYsaid, the observations of the hon. Member who had spoken would always be listened to by the Government with very great sympathy on these points; but certainly nothing would be more unjustifiable than keeping up means of communication when they did not pay their way. He said that quite apart from the recommendations of the Royal Commission. No doubt, as a matter of principle, such things should not be maintained; but the hon. Member for King's County (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) was probably aware that the Government had not allowed the Report of the Royal Commission to lie entirely idle. They had issued advertisements, and wanted to get rid of the Canal as far as possible, if anybody would undertake to relieve
    1348
    them of it; but as yet they had received no response. They were still determined, however, to get rid of the Canal, if possible. He entirely assented to the principle laid down by the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar), that if a Canal did not pay its way it was not worth keeping up, notwithstanding what had been said by the hon. Member for Waterford (Mr. Blake) as to the action of the Canal in keeping down the power of the railways to make excessive charges. On that point they must look to the action of the Railway Commissioners for keeping the rates for goods traffic at a proper scale, and they must not trust to the uncertain and costly method suggested for keeping down outrageous charges. Under these circumstances, he thought the hon. Member for King's County would see that the Treasury were so far with him with respect to the Ulster Canal that he need not press his Amendment. As to the other matter to which the hon. Gentleman referred—the Lough Erne navigation—a considerable amount of money had already been expended, and a considerable amount of work done; and the position of affairs now was such that he would ask whether it was advisable to go on, or to leave the works half-finished? He thought it would be better to go on with thorn, if only for the purpose of improving the value of the Ulster Canal. If they sold it at all they must sell it in something like working order, and the improvement in that link in the navigation would make the property more valuable.
    MR. MITCHELL HENRYsaid, he did not know in what way hon. Members had arrived at their conclusions as to the proposed expenditure; but it might be possible to tread inadvertedly on very dangerous ground. For his part, far from encouraging the Treasury to give up unfinished works, he would urge them the other way. The fact was, that the Treasury never did complete the works they undertook in the matter of the Canal and River navigation of Ireland, and the consequence was that that navigation was a disgrace to the country. The reason for this was that at a time of enthusiasm the Treasury, through the Board of Works, undertook to make these communications; but they never finished them, and the Canals which had been referred to in this discussion

    1349
    were, without exception, the most ludicrous and discreditable pieces of work ever done by any Government or any private individual. If anybody would read the Evidence as to the Ballinmore Canal taken before a Committee some years ago he would learn the way in which the Board of Works performed its operations. He trusted that his hon. Friends would do what they could to compel the Treasury to complete the works, which had never yet been completed; but as to reducing the means of communication between one part of Ireland and another, it seemed to him perfectly amazing that any Irish Member should propose it. Ireland was unprosperous in a very considerable measure because there was no possibility of getting from one end of it to the other. Nature had endowed Ireland with the most magnificent water communication that could possibly exist; and it was only the folly of man that had not married those rivers to each other. He hoped hon. Gentleman would assist the Secretary to the Treasury in doing what was wanted, and making the system complete.
    MR. BIGGARsaid, he did not find any fault with what had been said by the hon. Member for County Galway (Mr. Mitchell Henry) or by the hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. Richardson); but one of these hon. Gentlemen lived in the immediate neighbourhood of Lough Erne, and knew a great deal about it, and, as far as he (Mr. Biggar) could gather, that hon. Gentleman was unprepared to make the smallest defence of the present arrangement. He (Mr. Biggar) knew very well that recently a deputation of busy-bodies, representing the Town Commissioners and so on, went to the Treasury with the modest proposal to ask for a loan of £10,000, on the security of property for which the Government had to pay £100 a-year at present, merely to keep it in working order. That was a sample of the deputations that went about on such matters. There was one thing that he never had done, and never would do, and that was to advocate the expenditure of public money where he thought it would be all thrown away. He did not believe in an expenditure which would be unproductive. No doubt, it was desirable to have communication; but what was communication worth when it could obtain no traffic except coals?
    1350
    Coals formed a very small item in the income of a Railway Company, and would hardly have an appreciable effect in raising or reducing the rates and fares which that Railway Company would receive. But these people were all going in for spending public money. The hon. Member for King's County had referred to the Ballinamore Canal. It had no traffic, because the Government in Ireland had made such a blunder in constructing the bridges that it was impossible for any boat to go under them. As Ballinamore was in County Leitrim, and Ballyconnel was in County Cavan, he (Mr. Biggar) might be supposed to have an interest in the expenditure of money there; but he had not the conscience to support the expenditure proposed in this case. The Canal had on its line Lisburn, Lurgan, and Portadown—three of the best towns, outside Belfast, in the North of Ireland. But, in spite of that, the Canal could not pay its expenses; and he did not see any justification which entitled hon. Members to come to that House and advocate the expenditure of public money upon Canals which did not get any traffic, and could not pay their expenses. As soon as anyone was willing to take these Canals for a nominal sum, it would be quite right to part with them. As to the Lough Erne navigation, he did not live in the neighbourhood, and did not know the details; but he had a fair idea that there was no amount of traffic to justify the expense proposed. It was a district which had no manufactures, and really he did not see what was to be done there at all. There was a little traffic in coal; but after Portadown it would be a worse job than the Ulster Canal, because if a Canal did not pay where there was a large seaport at one end and three manufacturing towns connected within 20 miles, he did not see how it could be got to pay where there were no towns at all.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he was opposed to unproductive expenditure, and he did not see any justification for a Member, of the Government, or for a private Irish Member to advocate a useless and wanton waste of public money, such as was proposed in this case. They were absolutely asked to give away £7,000 for a purpose which they knew was of no use. These Canals were part of a system running between

    1351
    Lough Neah and the River Shannon, and the object was to establish communication between Belfast at the one end and Limerick and the Shannon at the other. He went the other day to see the worth of the traffic in that direction. On Wednesday in the week before last he went from Athlone to Lough Erne, and in that 45 miles he saw one small boat going in one direction, and nothing at all in the other; and that small boat contained a number of empty beer barrels, a few sacks of bobbins going to some mills, two or three coils of iron wire, and half-a-dozen carboys of liquor. Was it not preposterous that the navigation for such traffic should be regarded as justifying such an enormous expenditure? In order to maintain the navigation on that level, 10,000 acres were flooded, and the damage done in a single week by floods would cost a great deal more than all these Canals would realize. The low-lying lands of Northern Tipperary were flooded by the Shannon, and the poor had their crops carried away. Only last winter he was afraid to say how many thousands of persons between Lough Erne and Athlone were obliged to leave their houses altogether. Much of the property was ruined, and the whole country was one vast sheet of water, because the River Shannon was not allowed to do the proper duty of a river, which consisted in carrying certain waters off to the sea, but the navigation level was kept up in the interests of these wretched Canals. Sir John MacNeil reported, in 1861, that the only plan he could suggest by which any return could be obtained at all was to take off the lock-gates and drain the Canal, converting the slopes into grass land that could be let for grazing, and the rest into tillage. On the Ballyconnel Canal there was no traffic whatsoever; it never was navigable at all—never put into working order. It was alleged that the bridges were badly designed and badly made; but nothing was done to improve them, or even to keep them in repair. When it was proposed to support such a system by public money—he did not care whether in Ireland, England, or Scotland—such an expenditure should be put a stop to. One of the strongest Commissions ever appointed—every Member a competent man—had unanimously reported against the Ulster Canal, Lieutenant General
    1352
    Dickens only dissenting from some part of the Report; and he (Mr. O'Connor) would ask the Government how long they proposed to go on with this expenditure, and what they hoped, to gain by voting this £7,000? They would certainly not add to the market value of the Canal, for every single pound they spent now could be equally well spent by private adventurers, or private persons, if they chose to buy the property. The Government could not think of establishing any internal navigation which would pay; and if the money were laid out at all, it should come out of the pockets of the private persons, whom the Government fancied were disposed to take the property off their hands.
    MR. CALLANsaid, he had some knowledge of the Ulster Canal. He was a Director of a Company which, for 10 or 12 years, was obliged to pay the Government £1,000 a-year rent, and spent close on £400 or £500 a-year in repairs; and when the lease fortunately expired—for they had desired the Treasury for half-a-dozen years to accept the surrender of their lease—they were obliged to put the Canal in proper order at an expense of £700 or £800. During the experience they had, working in connection with the Dundalk Steam Packet Company, their receipts were absolutely nil—they did not cover the expenses of the lock-keepers. He was on the Committee of Investigation, and for five days in wet weather he trudged along the Canal from one end to the other; and he must say that a more hopeless undertaking to put into proper order, or to endeavour to get money back from, he never went over. He had always had a high respect for Sir John MacNeil's capabilities as an engineer and his high acquirements, and Sir John never gave a sounder opinion than that which had just been read, that the only way to make the Canal pay would be drain it and sell it to the neighbouring proprietors; then there would be some chance of making something out of it. He (Mr. Callan) did not know the Ballyconnel and Ballinamore Canal; but he did know something of Limerick, and anyone who knew anything of the River Shannon must be aware that there was not a week in autumn in the best year that passed that more injury was not done to the crops by the sudden floodings of the Shannon than could ever be

    1353
    recovered in a century by the maintenance of the navigation of the Shannon. He therefore trusted the Committee would accept this Amendment, and thus impress on the Treasury the necessity of giving up the navigation of the Shannon, so far as it interfered with the proper drainage of the Suck and the other tributary rivers which flowed into the Shannon from King's County, County Galway, and Rosscommon.
    MR. MITCHELL HENRYsaid, he had heard many discussions in that House on these subjects; but this was the first time he had ever heard such a discussion as the present. The navigation of these Canals and Rivers in Ireland was intended to form a water-way from Belfast and the North of Ireland to Limerick. The hon. Member for King's County (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) had spoken of the navigation of the Shannon; but that had nothing whatever to do with this Canal, except in that way. The reason why this magnificent water way—as it would be if the works were properly finished—had been of no use was that the Canals had never been finished. The Ulster Canal had had much money spent on it, but it was never made navigable; and, consequently, there was a hiatus between the navigation of one district and another. The Treasury had, within the last two years, after an enormous amount of abuse had been lavished upon them, spent a large sum of money in putting sluices into the weirs which used to cause the floods, and those sluices would prevent the floods for the future; and such floods as did occur used to take place upon lands that formerly were never cultivated at all. For years endeavours had been made to get the Treasury to put sluices into the solid stone walls, so as to allow the surplus waters to run off and prevent the extensive floods; and now the works were near completion, he believed.
    MR. COURTNEYsaid, they were practically finished now.
    MR. MITCHELL HENRYsaid, it remained, then, to be seen whether the sluices would produce the good effect expected. As to the proposal to drain the Canals and let out the land for grazing, that was the most astonishing proposal he had ever heard in that House. He hoped that, far from abandoning these works, the Government
    1354
    would make up their minds to complete the navigation from one end of Ireland to the other throughout the magnificent rivers which Providence had endowed Ireland with.
    MR. MOLLOYasked upon what terms the Canal was to be offered for sale, and what inducements had been given to make an offer for it? It was connected with another sheet of water by certain works, and he should certainly like to know on what terms it had been offered, and whether it had been offered as a growing concern, or simply as property to be cultivated—that was to say, that it was not to be used as a Canal again, but converted into land for the purpose of cultivating and growing crops? In regard to what his hon. Friend the Member for Galway (Mr. Mitchell Henry) said, his hon. Friend seemed to forget that these demands he spoke of were made when there were no railways, and that as soon as railways were constructed the Canals became useless. There were no boats running upon them at all now, and the Canals themselves were of very little service to anybody. They were simply a means of providing for the swamping of the surrounding district. Whatever value there might be, according to the statement of the hon. Member for Galway, in these Canals as regarded the means of transit, it was far more than counterbalanced by the annual injury occasioned by the flooding of the Canal.
    MR. TOMLINSONsaid, he thought the time was particularly ill-chosen for proposing to sell these Canals, which might possibly be made ultimately a useful means of communication, when the House had had before it for some time the Report of the Committee on Railway Rates and Fares making special recommendations in regard to the Railways and Canals of Ireland. He understood that the Report of that Committee was to be dealt with by legislation next Session; and he was of opinion that Members representing Irish constituencies would do much better to press upon the Government the importance of carrying out the recommendations of that Committee, leaving the inland navigation of Ireland, until next Session at all events, in its present condition, than to urge the Committee to effect an apparent economy at present which might destroy the hope for ever afterwards of

    1355
    making a complete system of inland navigation. Apart from that consideration, of course hon. Members on this side of the Channel could have no interest in continuing any expenditure that was supposed to be unnecessary. In reference to what the Secretary to the Treasury said about offering these Canals for sale, he thought it was most desirable, if possible, to prevent any of the Canals from falling into the hands of the Railway Companies. Recommendations to that effect had been made by the Committee on Railway Rates and Pares, and by the Royal Commission which sat some time ago, and whose attention was specially directed to that question. He hoped, considering the nature of these recommendations, to receive some assurance from the Government that, whatever was done in regard to selling these Canals, precautions would be taken to prevent the water communications in Ireland from falling into the hands of the Railway Companies.
    SIR ANDREW LUSKsaid, he was much obliged to hon. Members for having told the Committee the truth about these matters. The Committee had been informed that there was no trade upon these Canals; and, in that case, what was the use of insisting upon the Government spending money upon them? They knew the reason why there was no trade. Railways were coming into operation, and, of course, they tended to throw Canals out, in the same manner as the introduction of steam displaced the old stage-coaches. Then, why insist upon the Government spending money upon Canals, and express astonishment because they felt it their duty to tell the truth? If the matter went to a division, he should certainly vote against the grant.
    MR. T. A. DICKSONsaid, he knew something about this Canal question in the North of Ireland. The Royal Commission which inquired into the whole subject of the Canals reported last year. Their Report was to the effect that the Ulster Canal should be offered for sale, and should be no longer a charge upon the taxes of the country. It also recommended that the navigation of the Lower Bann should be abandoned as useless in the interests of trade and commerce. The taxpayers of the Three Kingdoms were paying £1,200 a-year for keeping
    1356
    open the Ulster navigation, and the entire sum derived from the tolls amounted to some £60 or £70 a-year. In regard to the Lower Bann navigation, matters wore still worse. The maintenance of the navigation cost £1,400 a-year, and it was paid by the taxpayers of a few baronies in Counties Derry and Antrim. But the unfortunate farmers of these counties, in addition to the expenditure they were called upon to bear, had their land submerged for three or four months every year, owing to the useless navigation works that were kept up. He was very much surprised that this Vote was proposed again. It was at the instigation of the Treasury that the Royal Commission was appointed; they had presented their Report; and he could not understand the proposal to vote this sum of money in keeping open the navigation, especially as it was destroying very valuable land, and sweeping away the crops in harvest time. He hoped the Treasury would consider again the propriety of imposing this large tax upon the country; and if the matter were carried to a division, he should vote against it.
    MR. COURTNEYsaid, he was much astonished at the language used by the hon. Member for Tyrone (Mr. T. A. Dickson). The hon. Member knew perfectly well that the Government intended to carry out the Report of the Commission, of which the hon. Gentleman was a Member. They had not shown any backwardness whatever; but they had put advertisements in the papers offering the Ulster Canal for sale. They did not shrink in the slightest degree from carrying out the Report of the Commission.
    MR. BIGGARsaid, he was glad to hear the hon. Gentleman the Member for Tyrone (Mr. T. A. Dickson) manfully come forward to corroborate what he (Mr. Biggar) believed to be the real facts of the case. So far as the remarks of the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. Mitchell Henry) were concerned, he would never suspect the hon. Gentleman of stating anything but what he believed really to be correct. At the same time, he could not imagine how any man who knew anything of Ireland could say that these Canals in connection with the Shannon, even if in navigable order, would be of any value to the people of Limerick and

    1357
    the West of Ireland. At present the railroads carried all the traffic to the seaport towns in the West of Ireland. All the butter, live stock, and so on, was unsuited altogether for Canal traffic, and probably it was only such articles as coals and other heavy materials that found their way upon the Canals. Certainly the entire traffic was very small in amount altogether, So far as the Ulster Canal was concerned, it was of no service whatever, except to a few linen factories, and some flax-spinning mills. It appeared, from the Report which he held in his hand, that for five years, ending March 1880, the total amount of tolls received from the Ulster Canal only averaged £55 per annum. Well, for the purpose of keeping the Canal open, the Committee was called upon to pay a sum of £1,200 a-year. He strongly objected to the waste of public money involved in this Vote. Before the railway was constructed an old gentleman was in possession of the Canal, and managed to make a good living out of it; but he got very old and died, and railways having been established the Canal had to be supported by public money. Of course, before the railways were constructed there was some kind of traffic upon the Canal; but now the cultivation of the slopes of the Canal was of far more importance than the Canal itself, and brought in an income of about £180 a-year, while the Canal only produced £55 a-year, although for keeping it in order the Committee were asked to vote £1,200. He strongly protested against the Vote, and he thought that the Government ought to withdraw it.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 25; Noes 74: Majority 49.—(Div. List, No. 110.)
    Original Question again proposed.
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, he should like to ask for some information from his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury in relation to the expenditure upon Kingstown and other Harbours. He saw that the amount expended upon harbours was £9,361, of which £7,170 was expended on the pay of the staff. The amount of materials used by the workmen in connection with the staff was only £1,400,
    1358
    which seemed considerably out of proportion to the cost of the staff itself. He found that the staff consisted of as many as 120 permanent officials, 42 of them being permanent labourers; but, nevertheless, there was a sum charged of £1,038 for labour hired by the job as well. He should like to know if there was any means of ascertaining what the earnings of these harbours were, because the total extra receipts from all the harbours, including Donnaghadee, amounted to £2,300? The expenditure of £9,361 was the expenditure of the harbour staff of 102 persons, and in addition to the sum paid for hired labour amounted to £1,038, while the extra receipts only reached £2,300. He should be glad if the Secretary to the Treasury could give the Committee any explanation of the necessity for this large amount of expenditure in these harbours, which, so far as he was aware, was considerably out of proportion to the commercial results of maintaining other harbours. He would suggest to his hon. Friend that it might be more convenient, in future, if the extra receipts of each of these harbours was published as against the cost of the harbour, so as to show what each had really earned.
    GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURsaid, he thought that the whole of the Vote should undergo re-arrangement and careful supervision before it was again presented to the House. He strongly objected to the manner in which so many different things were lumped together in the Vote, so as to make it impossible for any Member to analyze the component parts of the Estimate. The current annual expenditure should be divided into that which provided for salaries, for repairs, and for new works. He hoped that the request which the hon. Baronet opposite had made, and which he (Sir George Balfour) repeated, would be attended to in future.
    MR. MOLLOYpointed out that the Vote of £180,546 included a variety of items, such as the Erection, Repairs, and Maintenance of Public Buildings connected with the Private Secretary's Department, the Chief Secretary's Lodge and Gardens, the Under Secretary's Lodge, and other items. By way of entering a protest against the Vote he would move that it be reduced by the sum of £16,000,
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £164,546, 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 1884, for the Erection, Repairs, and Maintenance of the several Public Buildings under the Department of the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland, and for the erection of Fishery Piers, and the Maintenance of certain Parks, Harbours, and Navigations."—(Mr. Molloy.)
    GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURasked what items the reduction represented?
    MR. MOLLOYsaid, that in order to save trouble he had moved the reduction of the Vote "try a specific sum—namely, £16,000. He had taken that course in order to save the Chairman the trouble of calculating what particular items the reduction would cover.
    MR. COURTNEYsaid, the hon. Member for King's County (Mr. Molloy) had kindly explained that in moving the reduction of the Vote he did so as a matter of principle, and not for financial grounds. He understood the hon. Gentleman to object to the expenditure proposed in the Estimate upon the repairs of certain Public Offices in Ireland. The hon. Member could not expect him to enter into that question at that moment; but his attention having been called to the financial aspect of the question, he was bound to say that the charge for maintaining Official Residences and State Departments did appear to be too excessive, and he would promise to make an inquiry into the matter, in order to see whether some more economical system might not be introduced. The amount, certainly, did appear to trench upon the excessive. The hon. Gentleman opposite the Member for West Essex (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) had called his attention to the expenditure upon certain harbours in Ireland. He thought it would be a decided improvement that the extra receipts on account of each harbour should be given. The staff at Kingstown Harbour appeared very large, and he would inquire into the matter.
    MR. BIGGARasked if the Secretary to the Treasury could give any information as to the items included in this Vote? Of course, he did not wish the hon. Gentleman to tell the Committee exactly what each item was; but could he give an estimate or guess upon the matter?
    MR. COURTNEYsaid, he was afraid that any estimate would be fallacious; and it would be only deluding the Committee and the hon. Member if he attempted to enter into details.
    MR. MOLLOYsaid, he was obliged to the hon. Gentleman for the explanation he had given in regard to the Vote. He was very anxious to reduce the expenditure, and he did not think that anything less than a total reduction would have any effect.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he was glad that the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury had now got himself well under weigh in the work of his new Office, and had found time to investigate some of the charges in the Estimates for services in Ireland. He felt persuaded that if the hon. Gentleman extended his investigations he would find a very considerable number of things connected with the Public Offices in Ireland which might be similarly reduced. He would not push the inquiry in regard to the reduction which the hon. Gentleman proposed to make in the State and Official Residences in Ireland; but he would ask him, when he supplied information in regard to Kingstown Harbour, to furnish similar information in regard to the other harbours—not only those mentioned in this Vote, but also the harbours of England mentioned in the earlier Votes, such as Holyhead and other harbours, in connection with which there were any Votes of public money.
    MR. ARCHDALEremarked, that it was an extraordinary thing that hon. Members from Ireland, who complained that their country did not get sufficient grants from Parliament, should now oppose a Vote for spending money in Ireland.
    MR. MITCHELL HENRYsaid, he happened to know, having sat on the Committee which took into consideration the expenses of the Irish Official Departments, the position in which this question stood. The Lord Lieutenant had to reside in Dublin Castle during a portion of the year, and he had also a house in the country, in which he resided for another part of the year. He knew very well what had been the practice for a long time past when the Lord Lieutenant changed his residence from one house to the other. The furniture was always removed from the one residence to the other; and what greater economy could

    1361
    there be than the removal of the furniture in carts from one place to the other when a change of residence took place? He thought that afforded good evidence that the Vote for Furniture put down in the Estimates was not an excessive one; and he felt convinced that, if the matter were looked into, it would be found that if they desired to keep up an Imperial Establishment in Dublin at all, the Vote proposed to the Committee was not by any means excessive. He understood the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for King's County (Mr. Molloy) to object to the keeping up of any Imperial Establishment in Ireland at all.
    MR. MOLLOYsaid, he objected to the retention of the Lord Lieutenant.
    MR. MITCHELL HENRYsaid, he thought the Lord Lieutenant would be kept up, and the Imperial Establishments which now existed in Ireland would be retained, in spite of the opposition of hon. Members opposite.
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, he thought that hon. Members were justified in calling attention to the expenditure incurred in the removal of the furniture. He remembered, when he was at the Treasury, that an application was made to him to sanction the expenditure of a sum of money in new furniture on the ground that the expense of removing it was a very costly operation, and justified additional expenditure in new furniture.
    SIR ANDREW LUSKsaid, he had no wish to prolong the discussion; but he objected to the lumping of sums for the Lord Lieutenant and the Secretary's Lodge, the Harbours, State Apartments, Public Buildings, and Fishery Piers in one Vote. All these sums in the present instance were put together in the most unintelligible manner.
    MR. COURTNEYremarked, that they were included in one Vote.
    SIR ANDREW LUSKsaid, no doubt, they were in one Vote; but it would be better for the public to know clearly and distinctly what they were spending; and, unless each item was given in detail, they would never be able to know where they were. He believed that formerly these items were given in separate Votes. [Mr. COURTNEY: No; never.] He thought the Committee ought not to be called upon to discuss these separate questions in the same Vote without
    1362
    having fuller information than they now possessed.
    MR. BIGGARsaid, the hon. Member for Fermanagh (Mr. Archdale) had commented upon the fact that Irish Members were opposing a Vote for spending money in Ireland. He (Mr. Biggar) strongly objected to the useless and senseless outlay of money in Ireland, and believed that such expenditure was calculated to do great mischief. He had often heard applications made for expenditure upon reproductive works, which he considered to be perfectly legitimate and desirable, and complaints were frequently made of the stinginess of the Government in not acceding to such applications. There was a great difference in being stingy in regard to things that were desirable and in incurring expenditure for things that were unreasonable and uncalled for. He thought they had had an illustration of that in the discussion which had just taken place upon the Canals. The hon. Member for Galway (Mr. Mitchell Henry) supported an unnecessary expenditure in that direction, although it was proved to demonstration that the Canals would never pay for the outlay incurred upon them. It was because money was so spent in Ireland to gratify the cormorants who wished to limit the Public Expenditure, that Irish Members were told no money was available when they asked for it for really useful and reproductive works, such as grants in aid of the Irish Fisheries. He, for one, never grudged the expenditure of money for reproductive purposes; but it was a very different thing to throw it away upon useless expenditure.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 9; Noes 59: Majority 50.—(Div. List, No. 111.)
    Original Question again proposed.
    MR. BIGGARsaid, he wished to put a question to the Postmaster General in reference to the new post office at Belfast. It was proposed to spend £3,000 next year upon the new post office. He did not wish to criticize the proposal, but he asked for information in regard to it. Some time ago the right hon. Gentleman told them that the post office which at present existed was supposed to be very insufficient. He could quite imagine that, because since the office

    1363
    was originally built the work of the post office had been very much increased. He was afraid the right hon. Gentleman was not aware that the post office and the Customs-house were in the same block of buildings, and stood in an open square, to which there was easy excess from all sides. Whether that was the best way of providing public buildings of this kind he did not know; but the present building was a long way from any other building, and there was, consequently, very little danger or risk from fire. He believed that the new post office would not, from that point of view, be as favourably situated; but it would be, he believed, bounded, at least on one side, by other buildings, or immediately adjoining other buildings, with only a very narrow street between, and if a fire took place in that street the post office would be placed in very considerable danger. In addition, the present building had a wide open space around it, which was very convenient for those who had to pass to and fro, and for the reception and delivery of the mail bags. He did not know whether the front of the new building would be in a wide street or not, or what sort of provision would be made for the mail carts and the removal of the mails? He hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General would be able to give some information to the Committee.
    MR. FAWCETTsaid, he would gladly accede to the request of the hon. Member. The subject had been carefully looked into, and he need scarcely say that neither the Post Office nor the Treasury ever showed any undue inclination to move a post office, unless such a course was shown to be absolutely necessary. It had been reported to the Government that the present post office at Belfast was insufficient for the remarkable growth of business in that, town. It had also been represented to the Government that the commercial centre of the town had shifted, and that, although the present site might have been advantageous some years ago, it was not so well suited to the commercial requirements of Belfast as the site of the new post office. It was further away from what was now regarded as the commercial centre of the town. Now the post office was to be erected in a new street which had lately been made
    1364
    in Belfast. Pains had been taken to ascertain the wishes of the commercial community in Belfast. Although it was not possible to satisfy everyone, as far as he could judge the new office would afford far greater accommodation than the old office, and to the majority of the people of Belfast it would be far more convenient.
    MR. BIGGARsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had said nothing in regard to the risk from fire. Would the new building stand in an open space, or would it adjoin other buildings?
    MR.FAWCETTreplied, that that point had also been carefully considered, and he did not think there would be any risk from fire. He could not say confidently whether the new building would be separated on all sides; but he knew that it was on some sides. That objection had been carefully considered, and what they had in view was the comparative advantages and disadvantages. After careful consideration of all the sites that were suggested, the Post Office authorities came to the conclusion that this was the most convenient situation that could be found, and, so far as they knew, there had been no complaint as to their decision.
    MR. KENNYsaid, he wished to put a question to the Postmaster General as to the post office at Ennis. He should feel glad if the right hon. Gentleman would institute an inquiry in regard to the adequacy of the accommodation afforded by the post office in that town, and either take steps to have a new post office constructed or the present one enlarged. He found in the present Vote that there were a number of post offices enlarged on account of the increase of business expected from the Parcels Post, and he was of opinion that the post office at Ennis ought to be included in the list. The present office was entirely inadequate for the amount of work required to be done there. He therefore wished to ask the Postmaster General whether any steps had been taken to enlarge the post office at Ennis; because, in the first place, there was not adequate accommodation for the work performed; and, in the second place, the increase of business, consequent upon the introduction of the Parcels Post, would render it impossible for the people of Ennis to do their work there satisfactorily?
    MR. FAWCETTsaid, the Government had had to enlarge a considerable number of post offices, in consequence of the coming introduction of the Parcels Post. He did not know whether Ennis would be enlarged or not; but he felt certain that if the post office in that town was inadequate before, improvements would now be carried out. He asked the hon. Member to put the question again, and in the meantime he would make inquiry into the matter.
    MR. KENNYsaid he would put a further question to the right hon. Gentleman upon the subject in the course of a few days.
    MR. O'BRIENasked the Secretary to the Treasury for some information in regard to an item of £690 for the Maintenance and Repairs of the Royal Hospital at Kilmainham. A sum of £245 was asked for last year for new buildings and alterations in connection with, that hospital. Could the hon. Gentleman inform the Committee whether any Report had been received on the subject, and whether such Report recommended the discontinuance or abandonment of that hospital? Would the House be afforded an opportunity of seeing the Report?
    MR. COURTNEYsaid, that was a subject which would not come before him, but before the Chief Secretary for Ireland. The only question which, would come before him would be one that involved any alterations before they were made.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked if it was intended at an early date to apply Kilmainham Hospital building to any other purpose, or whether it was intended to close Kilmainham Hospital as at present used?
    MR. COURTNEYsaid, that he was not aware.
    Original Question put, and agreed to.
    (2.) £21,000, Royal University, Ireland, Buildings.
    MR. KENNYwished to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, in regard to this Vote, whether the Report of the Inspectors of the Senate of the Royal University of Dublin had yet been printed and circulated, and whether it contained any statement as to the utter inadequacy of the present buildings? A considerable amount of interest had been excited
    1366
    upon this point among those who were connected with the University.
    MR. COURTNEYsaid, no Report had been received from the Senate of the University. Moreover, if any such Report had been made, it would be sent to the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant.
    MR. KENNYreminded the hon. Gentleman that this was a question of building.
    MR. COURTNEYsaid, if the University had made a special Report it would be given, but at present he had not seen one.
    MR. DILLWYNsaid, this was a new item of expenditure, and he should like to know if the Vote included the whole of the work?
    MR. COURTNEYsaid, the whole expenditure contemplated appeared on the Paper; but the Vote, as there shown, did not include the whole.
    Vote agreed to.
    (3.) £10,000, Science and Art Buildings, Dublin.
    (4.) £9,253, to complete the sum for Lighthouses Abroad.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, the subject of these Lighthouses abroad was one which he had brought before the House last year, and he should like to ask the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether it was proposed to allow the balance of Cape Race Light dues, &c, to accumulate at the rate at which they were now accumulating? He found that on the 1st of April, 1880, there was a balance in hand of £2,936, and at the end of the year that balance was increased to £5,415. In regard to the Little Bass Light, the balance in hand on the 1st of April, 1880, was £11,500, and it was increased by the end of the year to no less a sum than £15,266, so that there was in the hands of Her Majesty's Paymaster General, and other authorities in connection with the Customs in London and elsewhere, a sum of £20,681 in connection with these Lights, while there were loans outstanding, for which these dues were liable to be appropriated, and in regard to which certain payments were annually made. For instance, he found an item of £3,400 for the repayment of interest consequent upon a loan. He failed to see the advantage of allowing

    1367
    these balances to go on increasing year after year, at a time when a considerable sum of money was being paid away for interest. He thought it would be better to keep smaller balances, and to diminish their outstanding liabilities.
    MR. COURTNEYsaid, that his attention had not been drawn to the expenditure on Cape Race and other Lighthouses; but he apprehended the time had not yet come for paying off the debt. He would, however, make an inquiry into the matter.
    MR. WARTONwished to put a question as to another item contained in the Vote. He saw that a sum of £252 was asked for, for good conduct pay. He wanted to know whether the item was really on account of pay or not, or whether it formed part of the wages of the persons employed? It was quite evident that the sum was given in equal proportions to the whole of the Hospital assistants, because he found that the same Vote last year amounted to £276, as against £252 asked for this year for 22 assistants, which would be £ 12 each. If this good conduct pay really formed part of the pay of the assistants, it ought to be clearly stated what their wages really were, and it should not be inserted in the Vote as good conduct pay.
    MR. COURTNEYsaid, that good conduct pay was not strictly involved in the contract for wages, but was earned by those whose conduct had been good. As a matter of fact, all those men had behaved so well that last year they all of them received good conduct pay.
    MR. SALTasked why the sum voted for an Inspector with ordinary rations last year was only £450, and this year was £800?
    MR. J. HOLMSsaid, the increase in this Vote arose from a re-casting of the staff at Nassau, and which would not likely occur again in future years.
    Vote agreed to.
    (5.) £22,323, to complete the sum for Diplomatic and Consular Buildings.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, there was one item included in this Vote which he should like the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works to explain. He referred to the increase of £1,850 for the Maintenance of Consular Buildings at Bangkok. Last year the sum asked for was £400, and
    1368
    this year it had been increased to £2,250. An increase amounting to something like 500 per cent, for the mere maintenance and repairs of a building, struck him, at first sight, as rather extraordinary. In regard to the other items, there were heavy charges in connection with last year's Estimates for China and Japan, and he found them repeated this year. In regard to the first item, there appeared to be an increase of £4,600, and in the second an increase of £1,100. Then, in regard to Constantinople, the Vote was much the same as that of last year; and so also with regard to Berlin and St. Petersburgh, the sums they were called upon to pay was almost the same as last year. But would the right hon. Gentleman say what Report was to be obtained from the Travelling Inspector of whom they heard for the first time last year? He could very well imagine that an officer of that kind would have to travel long distances in order to inspect particular works; but when the subject was mentioned last year, they were told that his services would be of great value in keeping down unnecessary expenditure in connection with these buildings. In regard to the works at Constantinople, China, and Japan, there appeared to have been no perceptable diminution of charge; and he thought it was desirable to have some assurance from the right hon. Gentleman that there was a likelihood of effecting some diminution in future years.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVRE, in reply, stated that in reference to the Vote for Bangkok, the increase had been rendered necessary by the construction of new buildings. Money had been advanced to provide the Consul there with a proper building. In reference to the Travelling Inspector, he could only say it was not a new appointment. It had been in existence not for one but for several years, and the Travelling Inspector had very heavy work to do. Wherever a demand was made for expenditure, he was sent out to inspect the buildings, and ascertain what was really necessary; and, as a matter of fact, his appointment, and the services he had rendered, had led already to a great saving of expenditure. In point of fact, he believed that the country had been saved many thousands of pounds by the employment of this officer.
    SIR ANDREW LUSKsaid, he desired to call attention to one very small item included in this Vote. Of course, no Member of the Committee would care about the money actually involved; but he thought the matter required a little explanation on the part of the Government. What he referred to was a charge of £30 for the repair of the walls of cemeteries in the Crimea. He did not know how this had been brought about. They certainly had heard from the public newspapers that the graves of the men who had died in the Crimea wore in such a state of ruin that public subscriptions were asked for in order to keep them in repair. He, therefore, thought it was paltry on the part of the British Government not to give more than £30 to keep these cemeteries in order. Surely the Government could afford more than that. He believed that these graves were in a most deplorable state, and a sum had been mentioned the other day as a proper estimate of the expense of repairing them. Notwithstanding that, all the Government proposed to pay was the small amount of £30. He thought the Government ought to inquire a little more fully into the matter, and be prepared to take upon themselves a larger share of the expense.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, this matter had been under the consideration of the Government lately. No doubt, the cemeteries in the Crimea were in very bad order. There was a considerable number of them, and it was extremely difficult to guard and watch them properly. The Government, however, had offered to contribute in a larger proportion, provided that a certain sum of money should be raised by subscription in the first place.
    MR. DILLWYNsaid, he was sorry to hear his hon. Friend the Member for Finsbury (Sir Andrew Lusk) urging the Government to spend the public money. They had always been accustomed in that House to hear his hon. Friend recommend a reduction rather than an increase of Expenditure. He (Mr. Dillwyn) wished to have some explanation with regard to the discrepancies in the sum paid for different Embassy Houses. Was it a fact that one Embassy House was so much more splendid than another that it was necessary to pay much higher rent for it? He saw that the rent for
    1370
    the Embassy House at Berlin was £3,000. He presumed that the Embassy House at St. Petersburgh was not a splendid building, because he saw there was only £1,670 a-year paid for it. There seemed to be an enormous difference between the two items, and he wanted an explanation of what it was that caused the discrepancy.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREstated that the house at Berlin was held under a lease entered into some years ago; but the time had nearly arrived when the lease would come to an end. No doubt, the rent was very high; but property there was exceptionally valuable.
    Vote agreed to.

    CLASS II.—SALARIES AND EXPENSES OF CIVIL DEPARTMENTS.
    (6.) £37,485, to complete the sum for House of Lords Offices.
    (7.) £45,057, to complete the sum for House of Commons Offices.
    (8.) £49,017, to complete the sum for Treasury.
    (9.) £77,904, to complete the sum for Home Office.
    Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; Committee counted, and 40 Members being found present,
    (10.) £57,263, to complete the sum for Foreign Office.
    (11.) £34,379, to complete the sum for Colonial Office.
    (12.) £26,513, to complete the sum for Privy Council Office.
    (13.) £100,233, to complete the sum for Board of Trade.
    (14.) £30,434, to complete the sum for Charity Commission.
    (15.) £25,347, to complete the sum for Civil Service Commission.
    (16.) £48,220, to complete the sum for Exchequer and Audit Department.
    Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; Committee counted, and 40 Members being found present,
    (17.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £7,019, 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

    1371
    the 31st day of March 1884, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Registry of Friendly Societies."
    DR. CAMERONsaid, he had to move a reduction of this Vote. He desired to call the attention of the Committee, while this Vote was under consideration, to a very great scandal in connection with the Scottish Legal Friendly Society, which numbered over 400,000 members, 100,000 of whom were in his own constituency. The nature of that scandal would be best explained by quoting the answer given to a Question of his to the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate a short time ago upon the subject. The reply of that right hon. and learned Gentleman was to this effect—
    "Some time ago a criminal charge of falsehood, fraud, and wilful imposition was preferred against certain of the office-bearers of the Scottish Legal Life Assurance Society in Glasgow. I caused a very careful investigation to be made. It appears that at a general meeting held in June, 1881, the salaries of the Secretary and of the Treasurer were raised from £250 to £500 each, that of the President was raised from £100 to £250, and that of each member of Committee from £25 to £125. The charge against the accused office-bearers was that this very large and sudden augmentation of their salaries had been corruptly obtained by means of fictitious votes. Admission to the general meetings is obtained by presentation of the contribution books of the members; and it was alleged, and I believe there is ample evidence to prove, that fabricated contribution books were used for gaining admission by persons who were not members of the Society at all. Unfortunately, it is not possible to ascertain how many fictitious voters were so admitted, nor how far the resolutions to increase the salaries were carried by their votes. This circumstance, as lawyers know, raises a great difficulty in the way of preferring a relevant criminal charge. In the second place, whatever ground of suspicion there may be, it does not appear, from the evidence at our command, that the fabrication or the use of the fictitious books can be brought home to the office-bearers accused. It is only too apparent that there has been gross and culpable mismanagement in this Society, to the great injury of its members, who belong to the working classes; and I do not hesitate to say that I should be glad if I saw my way to the discovery and punishment of the guilty parties by the Criminal Law. But, after consultation with my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General for Scotland, I have come to the conclusion that there is not sufficient evidence, at least for the present, to sustain a criminal prosecution."
    He (Dr. Cameron) had only to add to that statement of the Lord Advocate, that what rendered the practices referred to worse was that, in order to obtain an increase of salaries for the office-bearers
    1372
    of the Society, the benefits to the members had been largely reduced. Now, the Lord Advocate said that it was impossible at present to bring home these charges on evidence; but an independent Investigator had been appointed, and that gentleman distinctly said that the Secretary of the Society had been concerned in the issuing of these fraudulent books. He had no doubt that in making that statement the gentleman in question went upon moral evidence; whereas the Lord Advocate founded his opinion upon a legal view of the case. A number of members of the Society presented a memorial to the Registrar asking him to hold a special meeting for the purpose of considering the advisability of getting rid of the fraudulent Board of Directors. That gentleman appointed and held a special meeting; but, instead of considering this subject, he appointed another for discussion—namely, that of the general government of the Society. The members of the Society did not understand the bearing of the latter point upon their case; and although they wore disposed to vote for the expulsion of the officers, they could not lose their day's work in coming from a distance to vote upon a matter the relation of which to the question before them they did not understand. The independent members of the Society had fought at a very great disadvantage, because it was admitted that money had been spent in treating and paying the expenses of those who voted at the meeting. It was admitted that there existed a common fund for the purpose of debauching those persons. Under the circumstances, he thought it was the duty of the Registrar to lean towards the cause of honesty, and do what he could to rescue the Society from the clutches of its officers. But he did not do so. The first resolution for raising the salaries of the Directors, in the illegal manner described by the Lord Advocate, appeared to have been informally passed. That was the allegation. There appeared to be no doubt that a strong representation was made to the Registrar as to the irregularity and illegality of the resolution. It was passed without notice; and although the Secretary had made a statutory declaration that it was passed in a regular manner, he afterwards contradicted himself. There were, at all events, grave reasons for

    1373
    doubting that the first resolution was regularly passed. Reports of its illegality and irregularity were made to the Registrar, but he paid no attention to them. Representations were made to him from the most respectable and influential quarters, asking him to take such stops as would enable the independent members of the Society to come forward and give a voice to their grievances. He was pressed to fix the hour of meeting at 4 instead of 2 o'clock; and he was also pressed to lay before the meeting as the subject of discussion the dismissal of the Board of Directors, instead of the question of the future government of the Society. Whatever difficulty there might have been with regard to obtaining a room sufficiently large in which to hold a meeting of a Society numbering 400,000 members, there was certainly nothing to prevent him laying before the meeting the question of the appointment of an independent Committee to take such steps as would enable the Society to vote upon the question of the dismissal of the managers. That would have been an easy matter, and the subject would have been sufficiently intelligible to engage the attention of all the members of the Society. But, as he had already pointed out, the Registrar brought forward another question for consideration, and the result was that all discussion on the fraudulent conduct of the Directors was prevented, and a Committee, composed of the nominees of the Directors, was appointed to carry out and elaborate the details of the scheme of administration. The effect of this was to place the whole management of the Society in the hands of the Board, who would work out the details of the plan, and give legal and formal sanction to everything that had been done. If there was any question as to the legality of the increase of the salaries of the Directors, they would legalize that increase; they would also legalize the increased duration of office which the Directors had voted themselves. The effect of the procedure of the Registrar had thus so far been to debar the members of the Society from a remedy in the Court of Session, which they might otherwise have had. In a letter which the Registrar sent to the Chairman of the special meeting in Edinburgh, he spoke about disputes between the "ins" at the "outs;"
    1374
    but he appeared to have forgotten that, as the Lord Advocate had stated the other day, these "ins" were a parcel of men against whom he would have been glad to institute criminal proceedings, if possible. The "outs," in this case, were simply those who protested against an act of the Board of Directors which had so flagrantly mismanaged the funds of the Society. He maintained that if the Registrar of Friendly Societies could afford no protection against dishonest practices in such a case as this, the Committee would do well to save the money they were asked to vote for the salary of that gentleman. He had no doubt that the Registrar had work to do in connection with other Societies; but, so far as this Society was concerned, it appeared that his interference had been hurtful rather than beneficial. On two distinct occasions, without any straining of the law, and by simply recognizing the principles of common honesty, his intervention might have been of great practical benefit to the members of the Society; but he had not even taken the trouble to look into the matter; and he (Dr. Cameron) felt it his duty to raise the question of his conduct by moving the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £300. He thought the office of Registrar would appear to the Committee to be perfectly useless, unless some good could be done in cases like this. If the powers of the Registrar were deficient, lie thought the Committee were entitled to some declaration from Her Majesty's Government on that point; and, in his opinion, the discovery that they were deficient should be speedily followed by legislation which would put an end to scandals like this, which had no equal since the passing by the late Government of the Friendly Societies Act.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £6,719, 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 1884, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Registry of Friendly Societies."—(Dr. Cameron.)
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)said, his hon. Friend had taken the best means of calling attention to a matter, which, no doubt, had been the subject of a great deal of observation in Scotland, and which affected the constitution and administration of a Society in

    1375
    which the funds of very large numbers of the working classes were invested. He could not, on that occasion, go into the merits of the question now raised. He had previously given an answer to a Question on this subject put to him by his hon. Friend, and he had nothing to add to that answer, in so far as the subject of it came under his official notice. But his hon. Friend had dwelt now with the conduct of the Registrar. He understood that with regard to this matter there were two complaints made against that gentleman, the first being that he had not taken steps to determine whether the original resolution under which the increase of the Directors' salaries took place was irregular and ought to have been set aside. He was not in a position to say what were the grounds of evidence which the Registrar had before him on that matter. His hon. Friend stated that a declaration had been placed before the Registrar, to the effect that the meeting had been duly called and that the resolutions were regular. All he could say upon that point was that he had no doubt that the Registrar proceeded upon statements which he believed to be accurate. As regarded the hour of meeting, he happened to know that this was a point very difficult to determine. The great problem was to fix an hour at which a large number of working men from different parts of the country would have been able to attend. He thought it was originally proposed for 2 o'clock, but that a representation was made that if the meeting were held at that hour, many members of the Society coming from a distance would be obliged to give up a day's pay in order to attend it. There might have been a difference of opinion on that point, and he had no doubt that the Registrar had exercised his judgment, on the information before him, in the best way he could. The last point which his hon. Friend referred to, he understood to be this. He said that the Registrar should have settled the business of the meeting which he summoned in such a way that the question of the dismissal from office of the Directors might have been discussed before the meeting proceeded to consider the scheme of future management. Now, that was certainly a matter on which a difference of opinion might have prevailed. There was no doubt that a good deal might be
    1376
    said in favour of the view that, before the changes suggested were discussed, the purity or the reverse of the action of the Board should have been considered. He did not, however, wish to put on the Committee any view of his own upon that subject which was not material. The Registrar, he had no doubt, considered all the information he had before him, and arrived at the conclusion that, on the whole, it was better to consider the scheme of delegation. He did not suppose his hon. Friend desired anything more than to call the attention of the Committee and the country to the proceedings of the Society in question, in which so many of the humbler classes were interested. With regard to the Registrar, he had no doubt that he had acted in this matter to the best of his judgment, and that no blame attached to him. For his own part, he felt quite sure that any representation laid before the Registrar would receive from him full and fair consideration, although it might be that he would take a different view of the matter from that held by those who laid such representation before him.
    MR. DICK PEDDIEsaid, that his hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow had done good service in bringing the affair of the Society before the Committee. The transactions in connection with it had excited much feeling amongst the thousands of members of the Society in Scotland, and the narrative that his hon. Friend had given of these proceedings would show the Committee what good ground there was for the indignation which had been strongly and widely expressed against the Directors. The Lord Advocate had very distinctly stated his opinion of the action of the Directors; and he had, the other day, in answering a Question put to him by his hon. Friend, expressed his regret that he was not in a position to take criminal proceedings against them. While he (Mr. Dick Peddie) felt as strongly as his hon. Friend the injury which had been done to the Society, he was not prepared to think it was necessary to adopt the cause his hon. Friend proposed, that, namely, of reducing the salary of the Registrar. The Registrar had arrived at a conclusion, on the representations put before him, which they might perhaps think was not a wise one; but still he had arrived at it after full con-

    1377
    sideration, and with an earnest desire to do what was right in the matter. He was inclined to think that as the adoption of the Motion of his hon. Friend, while it would involve condemnation of the action of the Registrar, would do no good to the persons who had been aggrieved by the conduct of the Directors, nor reach these Directors themselves; the Committee should be contented with the publicity which had been given to the whole transactions in connection with the Society by this discussion. He had no doubt that much good would result from it, not only by guarding the interest of this Society in the future, but by preventing similar scandals from arising in the case of kindred Societies.
    SIR ANDREW LUSKsaid, he regretted to hear the course that had been taken by the Registrar of Friendly Societies, because he had looked for a better result from the Act which appointed that gentleman to his office. The Lord Advocate had not felt it incumbent upon him to go into the merits of the case; but there could be no doubt that the statement of the hon. Member for Glasgow had disclosed a very gross piece of mismanagement. He thought the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate ought to have gone more fully into the question, because no good could possibly result from smothering up transactions of this kind. After the statement of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, although he did not wish to blame the Registrar legally for the course he had followed in this matter, he thought he might be permitted to say that he was open to the charge of stupidity. The only remedy that was open to hon. Members who objected to the action of the Registrar was to move the reduction of the Vote by the sum included in the Estimate for his salary, in which case it would rest with those hon. Gentlemen who took an opposite view of the matter to justify the proceeding.
    MR. BIGGARsaid, he agreed with the hon. Baronet who had just addressed the Committee. He thought gentlemen who were appointed to offices of this kind at large salaries should perform some duties for the monies which they received. Upon the statement that had been made, he considered that there was primâ facie evidence of fraud; and that, when the matter was brought before
    1378
    the Registrar, he should have taken it out of the hands of the Directors pending investigation. But what had he done? He had given every liberty to re-constitute another body who would, in point of fact, legalize the misconduct of the Directors. Now, it seemed to him that, unless the Registrar of Friendly Societies had a great deal more power than he appeared to have by what had transpired in this case, it would be much better to have no Registrar at all. The Registrar was supposed to scrutinize and detect the fraud of Directors; and the unfortunate people who put their weekly earnings into these Societies or Clubs imagined that, because his certificate was required to legalize them, everything must be carried on in a straightforward and honest manner. But, in this case, the Registrar having allowed them to double their salaries, then gave the Directors the liberty of holding a public meeting, which was conducted in an irregular manner, and which enabled them to get out of the difficulty they had placed themselves in. For his own part, he considered it a question whether the Registrar was entitled to any salary at all. The hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Dick-Peddie) said all that it was necessary to do had been done by bringing this subject before the Committee; but he ventured to take an entirely different view of that matter. The statement of the hon. Member who moved the reduction of the Vote had disclosed transactions fraudulent in the highest degree; and that, he submitted, was not a question that could be disposed of by a 10 minutes' conversation in Committee. The effect of the conduct of the Registrar was that these Directors had given themselves a fresh lease of power; and his only wish was that they might so far abuse their position as to place themselves hereafter in the hands of the Procurator Fiscal.
    MR. DICK-PEDDIEremarked, that some good might be done if it were possible to bring the Directors there, and cut down their salaries. That would be an efficacious measure; but to cut down the salary of the Registrar would have no such effect.
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)said, he did not think it necessary to go into any greater detail on this subject; but he might remark that the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar)

    1379
    appeared to have misunderstood the manner in which this increase of salaries was made. It was made at a meeting of the Society. The charge was that that meeting was substantially packed, and that the Directors had made use of persons who were not members of the Society for that purpose. But the case did not seem sufficiently clear to take criminal proceedings upon it. He should be sorry if anything he had said on this subject was supposed to reflect upon the [Registrar of Friendly Societies, who, lie was perfectly satisfied, had acted in the matter to the best of his judgment.
    DR. CAMERONsaid, that the grievance complained of amounted to a great public scandal. If he were to carry his Amendment, he did not suppose it would have all the effect he desired; but it would, at least, do this—it would elicit from the Registrar of Friendly Societies, who was thoroughly conversant with the system, some practical suggestions by which the gross frauds and malpractices which had taken place in this Society might be put an end to. There could be no doubt that bogus books had been issued; indeed, it had been stated, as proved by the independent Inspector to whom he had referred, that their issue had been clearly brought home to the Secretary. The Inspector had reported that it was admittedly the universal practice before elections for election committees to meet at public-houses, and be there treated at the expense of the candidates; and there was good reason to suspect that the expenses had been defrayed out of the funds of the Society, and that railway tickets had been paid for in the same way. He did not know what the Registrar's intention might have been in connection with these matters. Probably he had not taken the trouble to look into the merits of the case, and had treated it as a fight between the "ins" and "outs. "The Registrar had made a proposal fair enough in itself, but one he would not have made if, as he (Dr. Cameron) said, he had taken the trouble to inquire into the merits of the case. Whatever might be the opinion of the Lord Advocate on the subject, the members of the Society who were interested considered that the Registrar had acted in a manner distinctly adverse to their interests. Under the circumstances, it was his (Dr. Cameron's) duty to emphasize what he had said by
    1380
    taking a division. He did so, not because he attributed any corrupt motives or practices to the Registrar, but because he believed that had he taken the trouble to look into the matter he would have seen that it was something more than a mere fight between "ins" and "outs;" that it was a case of fraud; and that it was his duty to assist those who were struggling for reforms to put an end to the fraud.
    MR. BURTsaid, there was a very strong feeling amongst the working men of Scotland on this subject, and he had received a great many letters about it. He was glad the hon. Member for Glasgow had brought the subject before the Committee; but, at the same time, he should have preferred dealing with it in some other way than moving a reduction of the salary of the Registrar General. That gentleman was a very capable public servant, and performed the duties of his office very efficiently. However, by way of expressing his approval of the action of his hon. Friend, and of showing full confidence in his judgment, and because this was the only practical way of dealing with the question, he certainly should feel bound to vote with his hon. Friend if he went to a division.
    MR. BIGGARsaid, he had listened to the explanation of the Lord Advocate, and perfectly agreed with him in one thing—namely, that the question as to whether the meeting ought to have been held in Edinburgh was one upon which there was some difference of opinion. He did not find fault with the action of the Registrar General in this matter. It was he, however, who should have taken the trouble to see that a bonâ fide constituency was collected together at the meeting. The gentleman who investigated the case was warned that the custom had been to get at the meetings large numbers of persons who were not qualified and had no right to be there. Some trouble and expense might well have been incurred to secure a careful examination of the people who came to the meeting. He (Mr. Biggar) had seen a report of the meeting in The Scotsman, and it had seemed to him to be a regular bear-garden, undeserving the name of a deliberative assembly. If the allegation of the hon. Member for Glasgow could be proved—namely, that it was the regular custom for the Secretary to

    1381
    supply bogus books at meetings of the Association, it would only be right for the Public Prosecutor to ask the opinion of the jury on the question. If the Secretary, in a case in which his own salary was involved, had acted as he was supposed to have done a more gross case of fraud could not be well imagined.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 29; Noes 57: Majority 28.—(Div. List, No. 112.)
    Original Question again proposed.
    MR. BIGGARsaid, he saw there was a charge made for Friendly Societies in Ireland. Well, he sometimes saw in the newspapers reports of legal proceedings taken against local agents of Friendly Societies in cases where those Societies were not registered. The defendants set up, as a defence, the plea that the Societies were not registered, and that defence was found to be exceedingly good. Would the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury tell the Committee whether or not it was the case that, unless a Friendly Society was registered, no money could be recovered from the parties who received the payments from the persons who insured when application for allowance was made in the case of either death or sickness? If that was the case, it appeared to him that instead of the law being as it was it should be reversed, and more severe punishments should be inflicted on the agents of non-registered Societies for non-payment than, under similar circumstances, would be inflicted on the agents of duly registered Societies. There ought to be, at least, some supervision exercised by the Registrar to give safety to the parties insuring; for, as things stood at present, it seemed to be much safer for a Society not to register, for then it was not liable to any legal proceedings.
    MR. EARPsaid, that before the Vote was taken, he should like to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he could inform the Committee what progress had been made with the examination of the Quinquennial Returns of the Friendly Societies? Members of these Societies were anxious for information as to when the results of the examinations would be made known.
    MR. COURTNEYwas understood to say that he quite believed the last-named subject was of the greatest importance to members of these Societies; but he was, unfortunately, not at present in a position to state when the work would be completed, as it was of a most voluminous character. All the Returns of sickness and death for the past five years had to be rearranged and classified according to the occupations of the different members of the Society, and then had to be cast again as to the different forms of sickness and death, which obviously involved a great amount of work. The work was being pushed on as quickly as possible; but it would be some time before the results were ready to be made public. As to the subject raised by the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar), it was one of vital importance. Primarily, it was not necessary for the Societies to register; and the desire of the State with regard to them had been resisted not only by managers of Societies, but by others, who thought these bodies were best left alone. The protection of registration was held out as a sort of boon, in order to get Societies registered. If persons connected with an unregistered Society were proved to be banded together for the purpose of obtaining money under false pretences, they would be open to a formidable indictment under the Criminal Law.
    Vote agreed to.
    (18.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £20,509, 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 3lst day of March 1884, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Land Commissioners for England, and for defraying the repayable Expenses to be incurred in matters of Inclosure and Drainage."
    MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDmoved to reduce the Vote by £1,000, on account of the want of progress in the work of the enfranchisement of copyhold. The Committee would be aware that in 1841 an Act of Parliament was passed with the object of enfranchising the copyhold land in the country, and the hope was entertained that that desirable object would be accomplished in about 10 years. Forty years had elapsed since the passing of the Act; and, so far from there being a

    1383
    sensible decrease in the number of copyholds, they now found that since 1805 there had been a continual decline in the number of copyhold enfranchisements. In 1865 the number of copyhold enfranchisements effected was 1,039; but the number had since dwindled, until, in 1882, the number was only 279. The charge upon the people in regard to this Office was very great; indeed, amounting to a sum nearly approaching £25,000. Of course, he did not wish to mislead any Members of the Committee who were not acquainted with the business of the Office, so as to make them suppose that that large sum was wholly spent in the work of copyhold enfranchisement—probably only one-fifth of the sum might be considered as the charge on the country in respect of this work. The only possible justification for imposing such a charge upon the country was that the work should be carried out with the utmost rapidity. The positive intention of the Legislature, 40 years ago, had been disappointed. He did not wish to attach any blame to the Department itself—indeed, he desired to make known his opinion that it was an admirably managed Department, and that the gentleman in charge of it deserved every credit for the economical conduct of his Office. But the work which the Department was set to perform did not go on; and no one had expressed the opinion more decidedly than Sir James Caird himself that further and immediate legislation for the compulsory enfranchisement of copyhold was needed. It was in order to press the urgent necessity of Land Law Reform upon the Government that he (Mr. Arnold) proposed to reduce the Vote, and to take a division. The decline in the work was great, and the benefit of the people could only be advanced by the suppression—the extinction—of the system of copyhold. He was of opinion that the work could be completed in 10 years; but Sir James Caird said, in a work he had written on the subject, that in the course of 30 years the system ought to be entirely extinguished. In Ireland there were only three cases of copyhold—that injurious tenure had been practically abolished in that country. It ought to be abolished in England, because it had in ' it that which the House was very much engaged in condemning—the principle of joint ownership. It was desirable,
    1384
    in the public interest, that that tenure should be abolished; and he was confident he would have the sympathy of the Committee when he said that the work ought to be carried on without delay. Before he resumed his seat it would, perhaps, be well for him to call attention to the fact that there was a Copyhold Enfranchisement Bill at present before the House—namely, the Bill of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cockermouth (Mr. Waugh). He thought the fact of the Bill having been before Parliament during the past three Sessions had had some result in diminishing the business of the Copyhold Enfranchisement Department. If that were so, they had another and more urgent proof that immediate legislation upon the subject was needed. Personally, he felt deeply disappointed at the want of progress in Land Law Reform in this Parliament; and to press the subject more vigorously and earnestly upon the attention of the Government he now moved to reduce the Vote by £1,000.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £19,509, 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 1884, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Land Commissioners for England, and for defraying the repayable Expenses to be incurred in matters of Inclosure and Drainage."—(Mr. Arthur Arnold.)
    MR. COURTNEYsaid, that before the discussion proceeded further he should like to say a word to the Committee upon the meaning of the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Arnold). The Vote the Committee was discussing was that for the payment of the Salaries and Expenses of the Land Commission; and the hon. Gentleman began by expressing a very high opinion of the services of that Commission, only finding fault with the Legislature for not having done more in the way of making enfranchisement of copyhold compulsory. Because enfranchisement was not proceeding as quickly as he could wish, and because the Legislature had not seen its way to compel enfranchisement, the hon. Gentleman proposed to reduce the Vote in respect of the expenses of the Land Commission. His hon. Friend knew that the Government was strongly in favour of the Bill of the hon. Member for Cockermouth

    1385
    (Mr. Waugh), by which Bill it was proposed to compel the enfranchisement of copyhold in a limited period; but he must protest in advance against the irregularity of raising a discussion on it on this Vote. The next thing would be that the hon. Member for Cockermouth would rise to urge on the Committee the merits of his measure.
    MR. WAUGHsaid, it was quite clear that unless there was some further legislation the work of copyhold enfranchisement would go on interminably at a cost of £3,000 or £4,000 a-year to the country.
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONdeprecated the discussion of the principle of a measure which ultimately had to come before the House. Until the law was changed the salaries and expenses of the Office must continue. Certain conditions of law were to be administered; and all agreed that the officers entrusted with the business of the Department were admirably discharging their duty. He understood the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Arnold) proposed to reduce the Vote, not because he found fault with the officers of the Department, but because he wished to make a protest against the state of the law, which he himself admitted it was proposed to correct in the present Session. The Committee would see, and his hon. Friend (Mr. Arnold) would himself see, that a protest of this kind, if carried out to the full—that was, if the expenses of an efficient body of men conducting their business well were reduced—was hardly a proper way of meeting the object he had in view. He (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson) could quite understand the hon. Member's wish to obtain, as early as possible, a discussion of the Bill of the hon. Member for Cockermouth (Mr. Waugh); but he was persuaded the hon. Gentleman's sense of justice would dictate to him that the course he was now pursuing was hardly regular.
    MR. JOSEPH COWENsaid, the object of his hon. Friend (Mr. Arnold) was simply to direct attention to the slow progress which was being made in the enfranchisement of copyhold. The contention of his hon. Friend was that the country was not in this respect, getting value for its money. The Department cost the country £24,000. But of that sum only £4,000 or £5,000 was appropriated by
    1386
    the Copyhold Service. Be that as it may, the value of the copyhold enfranchised in 1865 was £112,000, while the value of the copyhold taken up last year was only £30,000. The expense, however, of enfranchising £30,000 worth of copyhold land was as great as that of enfranchising £112,000 worth. He thought the Secretary to the Treasury would admit that the country did not get value for its expenditure on this head. Everyone admitted the unadvisability of having dual ownership of property, and copyhold was practically dual ownership. It was impossible for the owner of copyhold property to deal with it as completely as if it was freehold; and, therefore, the necessity of the proposed change was manifest. Those persons who lived in districts where there was a good deal of copyhold property—such as his (Mr. Cowen's) district—were particularly conscious of the necessity of the change. Complaint was not made against the Commissioners; but if any complaint were made at all it was against the officers engaged in the service. Those officers did not care to complete the work of their Office; they resorted to veiled obstruction. The hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Arnold) realized the necessity for progress, and considered that if the Government could spur on operations by encouraging the enfranchisement of copyhold property in the next nine or ten years they would confer a distinct advantage on the country.
    MR. COURTNEYsaid, the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Arnold) had said the cost of the Department to the country was £25,000, one-fifth of which might be put down for copyhold work. If his hon. Friend would look carefully at the Estimates he would find that though the expenditure of the Office was set down at £25,000, £10,783 was re-paid to the Exchequer on account of business transacted in the Office during the year, and two sums of £6,165 and £1,606 were received in fees paid by stamps by the parties interested in the business transacted. There was, therefore, only a comparatively small balance to be set down as the net cost of the Office to the country.
    MR. DILLWYNsaid, that, be the sum large or small, there was a certain amount to be paid for the work. Of course, it must be borne in mind that the Copyhold Enfranchisement Commis-

    1387
    sioners had work to do in the matter of inclosure. The inclosure work was, no doubt, very important; but he could not help thinking that the staff in the Office was too large for the work to be done. There were in that Office 44 employés of one sort or another. Such a number could hardly be required; and, therefore, if his hon. Friend chose to divide he should vote with him, on the ground that the amount of work to be transacted did not justify so large a staff as that employed by the Commissioners. He did not wish to underrate the value of the work done; all he complained of was the employment of so large a staff.
    MR. GREGORYsaid, it appeared to him that the question raised by the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Arnold) was simply whether the work of the enfranchisement of copyhold would be facilitated by decreasing the salaries of the Inclosure Commissioners by £1,000; and he could not think the adoption of the Amendment would have the effect desired by the hon. Member. No blame was to be attached to the Inclosure Commissioners for the slow progress made. No doubt, in the first few years after the passing of the Act of 1841 there was a good deal of enfranchisement, because all the larger and all the more important cases were brought before the Commissioners. There was, however, an objection to bring the smaller properties before the Commissioners on the ground of expense, as it was the duty of the Commissioners to require that the title of both parties should be produced when enfranchisement was applied for. The hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn) seemed to have forgotten one very important function that the Commission exercised, and exercised with great effect, and that was the facilities which it gave for the exchange of property. The Law of Exchange was a very difficult one to work, except through this Commission. Through this Commission, however, property could be easily exchanged, and without all those liabilities which formerly attached to exchanges in respect of the title of property. Further facilities might very well be afforded and greater powers given to Commissioners in respect to exchanges, because at present their powers were limited to exchanges of properties of equal value. It was necessary that the properties should
    1388
    be exactly equal in value; and he failed to see why that limitation should be placed upon the powers of the Commissioners. If greater powers were given, he could not help thinking that a great many difficulties would be removed.
    MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Arnold) complained of the slow progress made in the work of copyhold enfranchisement; but he seemed to forget that copyhold could not be enfranchised unless one or other of the parties was prepared to put the Act into force. He (Mr. Fowler) did not see how the Copyhold Commissioners were in any way to blame. The hon. Gentleman who had just sat down (Mr. Gregory) had very properly reminded the Committee that the copyhold duties which the Commissioners had to perform were almost the least duties they had to discharge. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman had forgotten another very important duty cast upon the Commissioners by the legislation of last Session—namely, the work of the Settled Land Act. The whole of the working out of that important Act devolved upon the Department in question; and, therefore, he should be sorry to vote for any reduction. It was unwise to discuss questions of general policy under the various Votes before the Committee. He would, however, point out to the Secretary to the Treasury that, so far as the staff of the Office was concerned, there was room for some economy.
    MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDsaid, that if the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler) would inquire from the Land Commissioners he would find that the work under Lord Cairns' Settled Land Act was of the vaguest description. He was sorry his hon. Friend did not feel the great need he did for pressing forward the enfranchisement of copyhold; he was sorry the hon. Member did not feel with him that the people of the country were not getting value for their money in this respect. As the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister had done him the honour to give his attention to the discussion, he hoped the impression had been created in his mind that the amount of progress made was not what it ought to be. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would find himself in a position to give some facilities for the passing of the Bill of the hon. Member for Cockermouth (Mr. Waugh).
    MR. WARTONsaid, he must enter his protest against the farce which was now being enacted in the presence of the Committee. It seemed to him that the Amendment was merely to puff the Bill of the hon. Member for Cockermouth (Mr. Waugh), and to see what support he would get for it from the Treasury Bench. If they were to pass the Votes, it was not for them to enter into a discussion of copyholds, nor to compliment each other on Bills which had been introduced. This mutual admiration was out of place when they were discussing financial questions; and he must protest against the course taken by the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn), whom he had never known to move an Amendment from a sensible or solid reason.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 22; Noes 100: Majority 78.—(Div. List, No. 113.)
    Original Question put, and agreed to.
    (19.) £381,047, to complete the sum for the Local Government Board.
    SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, he should like again this year to call attention to the inspection of workhouse schools. He had called attention to it in Committee in several previous years; and he should really like to know whether any steps had been taken to enable the unfortunate children hitherto educated in workhouse schools to attend the local schools in their own immediate districts? If there was one thing they ought to endeavour more than another to do, it was to bring up these children, so that they would not bear the brand of pauperism on them. The question was one which deserved the attention of the Committee. He was very much afraid that no real steps had been taken in regard to these poor children. He would venture to say that the education they got in the workhouse schools was nothing to be compared with that given in the village schools; and by cooping them up in the former they were preventing them from becoming what hereafter they should become—namely, useful members of society. He desired to know from the right hon. Baronet (Sir Charles W. Dilke), who represented the Local Government Board, whether he had considered this question carefully?
    1390
    As some hon. Gentlemen sitting on the Treasury Bench were aware, this question had been considered before in the right hon. Baronet's Office, but very little had been done; and he now appealed to the right hon. Baronet to place these poor children in a better position, so that hereafter they might be able to earn their own livelihood, and become good and useful members of society.
    MR. HIBBERTsaid, his hon. and gallant Friend said little had been done in the way suggested for these unfortunate children; but he could assure him that a great deal had been done, not only during the past two or three months, but during the past two or three years. At the present time the children from more than 200 workhouses went to the parochial or board schools, and they were an increasing number. The Local Government Board had never, so far as he knew, thrown any difficulty in the way of children being allowed to go to these schools. It, of course, depended on the Guardians where the children went to school. In some instances, where the Guardians had already built schools, and had gone to great expenditure, they were, of course, not very anxious to take the children away; but, in cases where Boards of Guardians desired to make a change, the Local Government Board had made no objection to their doing so. There had never been any obstruction placed in the way of Guardians boarding out children if they wished to do so. There were 600 or 700 now boarded out in different parts of the country; and, so far, the results had been of a most satisfactory character. The Local Government Board would be glad to see the system of boarding out carried out to a greater extent than it was, as they believed that was one of the best means of meeting the difficulty pointed out by the hon. and gallant Baronet—of counteracting the demoralizing effects of pauperism in the minds of the children. Then, again, several Boards of Guardians were adopting the cottage principle. The Chelsea Guardians had made provision for a large number of children on this principle. It was an experiment so far as it went; but he believed, from what he had already seen, that the results might be of a most satisfactory kind. The Birmingham Guardians had also constructed a school on

    1391
    the cottage principle, and there were schools constructed on the same plan in other parts of the country. He might say, therefore, that, so far as the Local Government Board were concerned, they offered no difficulty in the way of the Guardians adopting either the parochial, or board school, or the boarding-out system.
    MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, the Committee was indebted to the hon. and gallant Baronet the Member for West Sussex (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) for having brought this important subject under its notice. He agreed with every word the hon. and gallant Baronet had said; and in large towns he believed it to be not only desirable, but absolutely necessary, that the workhouse schools should be discontinued. The workhouse schools stamped the children from their first days with pauperism, and pauperism in this way became hereditary. He was glad to hear from the hon. Member who had preceded him that the Board of Trade would throw no obstacle in the way of the Guardians making these changes; but he could have wished the hon. Member had gone a step further, and said that not only would they refrain from throwing obstacles in the way of the Guardians, but that they would take active measures to induce them to adopt the changes. He (Mr. Fowler) wished the right hon. Baronet the President of the Local Government Board two or three questions affecting the working of this Department. He was aware it was naturally a very expensive Department; but there were two or three items in the expenditure on it which seemed to deserve serious consideration, particularly as they showed a tendency to grow. He referred to the very large items charged for travelling expenses of Inspectors and Assistant Inspectors, District Auditors, and Alkali Inspectors. There were 23 Inspectors, and their expenses came to £4,698. Incidental expenses—such as telegrams, cab hire, parcels, newspapers, and advertisements—came to £1,100. There were only four Inspectors of Workhouse Schools, and there was an item in respect of their expenses of £375, or considerably over £1 a-day, including Sundays. For the District Auditors' expenses the sum of £11,300 was charged, and, as there were 36 of these gentlemen, that made the charge come to £300 per
    1392
    head, and would seem to show that the auditors worked every day in the year, except Sunday, and took no holiday at all; and for the engineers' department £1,900. Then there came the most extraordinary item of all, on page 123, for 12 Inspectors under the Alkali Acts. Their travelling and personal expenses, notwithstanding that most of these gentlemen resided in the neighbourhood of the works they had to inspect, amounted to the enormous sum of £2,000. He did not propose to move a reduction of the Vote, because the Committee were in the dark, to a great extent, as to whether these were or were not unnecessary and extravagant payments. They—especially the last named—appeared to him to be very extravagant; and he should be glad if the President of the Local Government Board would look into the matter, and promise to see whether some reduction could not be effected.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he thought that, on the whole, there had not been an increase in the expenses.
    MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, his statement was that they stood at an extravagant figure.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEreplied that, undoubtedly, they stood at a high figure. As to the auditors, the hon. Gentleman went so far as to say that they took no holidays and worked every day in the week. That was something very like the fact. The auditors got no holidays at all—they were perpetually at work. As to the Alkali Inspectors, a portion of their expenses was repaid in fees. Greater attention had been paid to all these expenses than formerly; and in the case of every new appointment it had been insisted on that the Inspector should reside in the district in which he acted. This was insisted upon in the most rigid manner.
    MR. S. SMITHsaid, he was glad that attention had been called to pauper children, for few subjects of more importance could engage the attention of the House. There were upwards of 300,000 pauper children in this country, and their education was a matter of the highest importance. He held that the system of bringing the children up in workhouses was just about the worst they could adopt, as it fixed pauperism on them for life. Hereditary pauperism was very much owing to this system. He was glad they were getting out of it,

    1393
    and were adopting the system of educating the children in large district schools. But even that was a very imperfect system. It provided no home, no domestic training, and did not fit the children for the ordinary duties of common life, besides which it was very expensive. The cost of bringing up each child in this way in the Metropolis was nearly £25, which showed the system to be an enormously expensive one—each child costing double or treble what an ordinary working man would spend on his child. In Scotland they had a much better system. They did not send the children to the workhouse at all, but boarded them out amongst the peasantry; and the effect of that was to depauperize them and restore them to the healthy private life of the community. He thought a better system even than that might be adopted. Some persons had been engaged for years in emigrating these poor children to Canada; and, amongst others, he himself had had considerable experience of the work. They found that they could give the children far better homes in Canada than they could give them in this country. No better career could be discovered for them. There were four systems under which the pauper children could be brought up—firstly, in the workhouse schools—which was the worst system—secondly, in large district or other schools—which was a better system, though still not a very satisfactory one—thirdly, the system of hoarding them out in this country—which was far better than either of the other two; but the best system of all was that of boarding them out in the Colonies. Canada and the other Colonies would absorb any number of children if they were properly trained before going out and properly planted. He understood that the Government had issued orders recently that the emigration of a small number of children every year should be permitted; and when they considered that they had 300,000 pauper children in the country, there was room for sending out far more. This was a subject he wished to bring under the notice of the Committee, and he hoped they might have a full discussion of it, bringing it out in all its bearings, and endeavouring to depauperize their destitute children, and so lift from the shoulders of the country some
    1394
    part of the enormous burden under which it groaned.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, that as to the point the hon. Member for Liverpool had just raised, which was one of the deepest interest, and on which the hon. Member had every right to address the Committee—namely, that of the emigration of pauper children—the hon. Member had informed them of that which those interested in the question already knew. He had said that the Government had once more taken steps to promote the emigration of pauper children under certain regulations and restrictions. The hon. Member had expressed to the Committee his wish that all checks should be removed. He (Sir Charles W. Dilke), however, thought that those who were responsible for the recommencing of this system of emigration must necessarily work rather slowly and cautiously in the matter. Some years ago the system broke down. ["No, no!"] At any rate, that was his opinion, and that of a good many others who had looked into the matter. At all events, there was a good deal of discussion as to the working of the system as it then existed—the emigration of pauper children to Canada—and the result was that emigration was superseded for reasons which the Local Government Board at that time thought amply sufficient. It had remained superseded for many years; and at the present time he was very desirous of re-commencing it, and of seeing whether the experiment would succeed once more. He wished the Committee to understand that the proposal to emigrate a number of children for the first year was entirely experimental. The Government had reason to believe that the result would be satisfactory; and if it were, the system would be very much extended. His hon. Friend had spoken of homes to be found in the country as being better for the children and the ratepayers. A certain amount of doubt had existed in the Department as to the merits of that plan; but the matter had been considered, and an inspection of the Homes had been undertaken, which it was hoped would be attended with good results in the future.
    MR. THOROLD ROGERSsaid, he should like to add his testimony with regard to the advisability of developing this system of emigration. He had been

    1395
    for many years Vice Chairman of the Oxford Union Board of Guardians. There existed in that Union a large amount of juvenile pauperism, which the Guardians tried to find out the means of diminishing. They tried a system of emigration, which they placed in the hands of a lady who had the highest possible aptitude and ability for carrying it out. They emigrated the children at comparatively small cost; they had not a single complaint with respect to any child sent out; they did the poor in the place the greatest possible service; and, moreover, they did this good to the ratepayers—that they reduced the rates from 2s. 6d. to 1s. 7d. in the pound; in short, they eradicated the hereditary pauperism that had existed in the district; the effect of which had been to increase the rates and break up many homes. But they were stopped in this work by the late Government; and he was glad of having that opportunity of stating that he had never known anything more scandalous than the plea on which the work was put an end to. It was on the ground that it was necessary to secure to the agriculturists in England a constant supply of child labour. He had no doubt that there were reports spread of the difficulty of getting a supply of cheap labour; and it was thought probable, no doubt, that the stoppage of emigration would have the effect either of reducing the charges on farming or of increasing the rent of the landlord. He was, therefore, glad the Government had made a change in this respect. He did not care what kind of guarantees they imposed on emigration, so long as it was carried on at all. With regard to one point of the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. S. Smith), he might mention that they had tried the system of boarding out. They sent the children out, and a number of persons made all sorts of promises that they would look after them; but, in the result, it was found that they were badly fed and clothed, and otherwise improperly treated. They found that people in Scotland would do in this matter what the people in England would not do; and, on the whole, he considered that the Scotch system would not do in this country.
    MR. HIBBERTsaid, he would like to say a few words with reference to this Vote; because he was afraid, if the observations of the hon. Gentleman who
    1396
    had just spoken were left unchallenged, that a false impression might be conveyed to the Committee. His hon. Friend said that the system of boarding out in his district had failed; but that was not his (Mr. Hibbert's) experience. The Local Government Board had had an inspection last year with regard to the whole of the 600 or 700 children boarded out; and, with the exception of four or five cases, the children were found to be in a most satisfactory state. He thought that no fault could be found with the way in which the boarding-out committees had discharged the duties they had undertaken, nor was any fault found except in the few cases he had mentioned. The other point of his hon. Friend had reference to the mode in which emigration was stopped, as he correctly stated, by the late Government. But he could not believe that the late Government took upon themselves to stop the emigration of pauper children owing to anything connected with the employment of children in agriculture. He was sorry to disagree with his hon. Friend; but he had read the Report on the emigration of pauper children, and he knew that Mr. Doyle had been sent out to Canada, owing to complaints that were made as to the want there of proper inspection of pauper children. From the Report of that gentleman he thought the late Government were justified in drawing the conclusion that, until the Canadian Government had laid down some regulations with regard to emigration, the system should not be continued. He said this, so that any false impression as to the reasons why the system had been stopped might be removed. He did not say there were no complaints from persons interested in agriculture; but he had never heard of any in connection with this question.
    MR. SALTsaid, he was glad to find the Committee had taken such an interest in this question. It was one of the very greatest importance, and deserved from every class of the community the greatest attention. But whatever system was adopted with regard to pauper children—whether it was the plan of boarding out, or that of emigration to Canada or some other Colony; whether it was the plan of sending the children out of the Union to the elementary schools of the towns or villages, or whether special schools were built

    1397
    for them—difficulties would have to be encountered that demanded and required the greatest and most careful consideration. His hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Thorold Rogers), who spoke just now with so much warmth about the children in agricultural districts, said that the late Government was very much to blame because they kept the children at home for the purposes of agriculture. He did not wish to resent that expression, although it was given with a great amount of unnecessary warmth, because the question was very much above all Party considerations; and he would rather hear the hon. Gentleman speak with great warmth, and even great injustice, than that a Member of the House of such great knowledge and experience should take no interest in the question at all. He (Mr. Salt) had taken great interest, during the whole of the time he occupied the Office now so well or better filled by his hon. Friend opposite, in the mode of treatment of pauper children; and he had never met with the suspicion that pauper children in the agricultural districts were kept at home for the purpose of agriculture. He had heard a suggestion at one time—when there was a question as to what extent the large pauper schools in London could be relieved of children by means of emigration to the Colonies—that there was abundant occupation for them at home, and that it was, therefore, a pity to send them away. He did not wish to complain of what was said then, or of what his hon. Friend said now; but his recollection was that the suggestion of there being abundant occupation was raised not with regard to agricultural, but with regard to town children. As a matter of fact, if inquiries were made in the best-managed pauper schools—he would not name any, but he might indicate one near London—it would be found that the children got places immediately they left school, and that many of them had done well and risen in life. But there was a grave difficulty with regard to these children. Hon. Members were, of course, governed by a feeling of philanthropy and sympathy towards the children; but he thought it desirable that they should not be too much carried away by sentiment. They had to deal with the subject as a matter of business. Those who were at the head of the management of the Local
    1398
    Government Board stood, in fact, in loco parentis to the children; and, whatever became of them, from the time of rearing till manhood, they were responsible for the children being well treated. He hoped the difficulty which had arisen would be now overcome, because he himself was a strong advocate for emigration to the Colonies. He remembered well the anxiety he felt on reading the Report of Mr. Doyle, a perfectly impartial Inspector, and a man who would examine these things entirely from the point of view of one endeavouring to ascertain the truth—he remembered the great interest he felt on reading that Report; because he knew that, although emigration was a scheme that it was desirable to carry out on a large scale on behalf of these children, one established case of maltreatment—of children got away to some distant place where they were not looked after, and where, perhaps, they were cruelly abused—would be sufficient to put an end to the system for some years. Therefore, he again expressed his hope that the difficulty that existed was overcome, and that the system would now progress. With regard to the plan of boarding out children, this had, perhaps, done exceedingly well; but there were some districts in which occasionally cases had occurred of children being placed in cottages of an unfortunate character. He had always felt that if one or two cases of improper treatment came before the public, which was extremely sensitive in matters of the kind, great risk would be run of the whole system breaking down. What was most requisite, and, at the same time, most difficult to effect, with regard to the boarding out of children was a system of careful and continuous visitation. He was told that the Whitechapel Union had applied for power to appoint a special visitor, and that the Guardians were rather disappointed that, for some good reason, no doubt, permission was refused at the Office of the Local Government Board. He had no doubt the matter had been well considered; but he would point out that it was most important that children who were boarded out should be regularly visited, in order to see that they were well cared for in the matter of clothing, schooling, and food. That was a work that must be carried on by persons not only of superior position, but of superior tact and

    1399
    qualifications; because if they sent to the cottages where the children were placed persons who were incapable of making themselves pleasant to the quasi- parents of the children, they would do the system great harm. He remembered that when he was at the Local Government Office there was a plan for building pauper schools to be attached to large Unions, not in great blocks, but in the form of cottages. The matter was carefully investigated at the time, and many inquiries were made. From the experiments they were able to make, and from information they were able to get, there was no question but that the health of the children in cottages was vastly superior to that of children collected together in great overgrown establishments. Their inquiries went so far as to make it clear that if they had 300 children placed together in a large building they would be almost certain to have amongst them a great deal of illness; whereas, if they were placed, say, 10 or 20 together in separate cottages, the sickness would be almost nil. He spoke from experience when he said there was no question as to which was the better system of the two; but the difficulty was in the cost that would be entailed by administering the cottage system, which it appeared would be much greater than in the case of the large establishments, although he was not at the Office of the Local Government Board long enough to work out clearly whether it would be so or not. He would be glad to know whether his hon. Friend (Mr. Hibbert) had had an opportunity of working out this problem to any extent; and whether he had ascertained if the expense of the cottage system could be brought down to something like the expense of the system of large establishments? He would just add, with reference to the cottage system, that there must be personal supervision over each cottage. Therefore, he said that in both systems very careful supervision by qualified persons must be carried out. It was a matter of great satisfaction to him that the Committee and the House generally took so much interest in the question; and he hoped that the various schemes which had been adopted would be carefully worked out, and especially that the difficulties in connection with the plan of emigration to Canada might be overcome, so as to render it permanently
    1400
    beneficial to the children and to the nation at large.
    MR. HENEAGEsaid, he thought the remarks made by the hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Thorold Rogers) were exceedingly unfair to the agricultural interest generally. Returning to the subject of the Vote before the Committee, the question was, whether the auditors were performing any duties of advantage to the country? With regard to the highway expenses, he believed their services were utterly futile; and he had heard one of the auditors say that, so far as he was concerned, he was entirely in the dark about them. There was no good in sending the accounts before men who knew nothing about them. Not only were they unable to prevent extravagance, but they actually increased the expense, among other things, by asking the magistrates to send to them the county surveyors of highways, who had, of course, to be paid for their trouble. He hoped, seeing that these expenses were increasing year by year, that the Local Government Board would take care that the auditors did good and not useless work in the future. There was another point he wished to advert to, and that had reference to the Secretary to the Local Government Board. He was sure his hon. Friend below him would not think he was alluding to him personally in these remarks; but there was no Department under Government which required so much the superintendence and control of the Ministers of the Department as the Local Government Board, and he was satisfied that neither the President or Parliamentary Secretary had sufficient time to devote to another Office. He thought it absurd that the Secretary to the Local Government Board should be taken away from his own proper duties to attend to the duties of the Home Office, in order that the Under Secretary to that Office should be transferred to the House of Lords. He believed that this was the first time during the last 50 years that the Office of Under Secretary to the Home Office had been held by a Peer under a Liberal Government, and only once under a Conservative Government. He strongly objected to the present arrangement, because, as it would be seen, they required all the assistance they could get from Members of the Government not only in the House, but on the Grand

    1401
    and Select Committees. He would conclude his remarks by saying that if the present arrangement continued another year, and the Under Secretaryship to the Home Department was held by a Member of the House of Lords, he should propose a reduction of the Vote for the Department.
    SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he was bound to say, with regard to the question raised by the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Heneage), that he had been very much astonished of late years that almost every question connected with the Business of the Home Office should be answered by a Representative of the Local Government Board. That seemed to him to be the beginning of the transfer of the Business from one Office to the other. He agreed with the hon. Member for Great Grimsby in saying that the hon. Gentleman who now worthily filled the Office of Secretary to the Local Government Board had important work to do in his own Department, without being called upon by the Secretary of State for the Home Department to perform duties relating to his Office. He quite agreed that the Under Secretary of State for the Home Department ought to be in that House; because he found, when he was at the Home Office, and the Scotch Business was transacted there, that there was ample work to be done both by himself and the Under Secretary. If the present system continued, and the hon. Member for Great Grimsby should move a reduction of the Vote on that ground, he should certainly be inclined to support him, because he thought the system was wrong in principle. He had to ask a question on the subject of the Alkali Acts—had any good resulted from the Act of 1881? Many persons were deeply interested in that subject. He had himself seen in one place the whole of the wheat crop destroyed in a night; he had seen one side of a hedge, which the day or night before was green and flourishing, absolutely killed by the deposit of sulphuric acid from neighbouring alkali works. The question deeply concerned agriculturists in his part of the country; and he was most anxious, for that reason alone, without any Party considerations, to receive some information as to the working of the Act. He also wished to know how many Inspectors had been appointed; what
    1402
    had been the result of the inspections; and whether the Government would state that there had been any practical application of the Act of 1881? Anyone who knew these districts knew that there might be any number of Inspectors to go about in the day time and find nothing at all; but that what did happen was that about 2 o'clock in the morning, when everyone was asleep, a thin white smoke could be seen pouring out of these chimneys. It was that sulphuric acid that did all the mischief. It fell according to the wind either in the neighbourhood or at a distance, and that was the cause of the mischief. He wished to know, also, where the Inspectors resided, and how far the local authorities had come forward to assist the Government in regard to providing for the expense of inspecting? He hoped the Government would be able to give some assurance that the Act of 1881 had done some practical good, and that the Inspectors did really reside in the districts to which they were appointed. The Inspectors were bound to present their Reports in March every year, and he presumed that their Reports had been delivered; if not, why not? If they had not done so the Local Government Board ought to stir them up; and he should certainly ask why the Reports had not been presented and laid on the Table? If the Local Government Board had not called for the Reports they had not paid proper attention to this serious matter.
    MR. JOSEPH COWENsaid, the district with which he was connected was almost equally involved in this subject with the districts to which the right hon. Gentleman had referred. There was this remarkable circumstance—that the alkali trade in this country was rapidly declining, and in Northumberland there were now no alkali works in existence, although a few years ago there were a considerable number. For some reason the trade had fallen away. He hoped it might recover; but it certainly had been receding. The Committee were now asked to increase the amount of money for alkali works' inspection, although the trade was declining. There might be some explanation; but that was a fact to which the President of the Local Government Board ought to have his attention called. The work of the Inspectors had been reduced. The damage which these works did could not be

    1403
    over-estimated, not by their smoke, but by gases, which, being condensed, fell to the ground; and anyone living in the neighbourhood had painful experiences of that. Therefore, with no desire to reduce the number of Inspectors, he wished to know how, when the alkali works were diminishing, the same amount of inspection was required?
    MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDobserved, that when this Vote was last before the House, the district in which Manchester and Salford were contained extended to the Isle of Wight, and the district contained 250 works subject to inspection. He wished to know what arrangement had been made for the division of that district, and for a better system of inspection?
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he and his hon. Friend had gone on the principle of trying to answer each section of questions by themselves, instead of taking the whole at once; and he was afraid now that he must trouble the Committee to listen to him upon the questions of the right hon. and hon. Gentlemen who had last spoken. With regard to Lancashire and the Isle of Wight, that connection had been dissolved, and the district divided. The hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. Cowen) seemed to go upon the assumption that the Alkali Inspectors only inspected what were called alkali works, but that was not the case. Alkali works was a general term; and what the Inspectors had to inspect were all works emitting noxious vapours. These works were very numerous throughout the country, and there was a considerable increase in their number, a very large number of new works having been opened last year. That fact was given as the reason for the Reports not having been all sent in at the time fixed; but he would undertake to stir up the Inspectors. The right hon. Gentleman had brought the question of Inspectors before the Committee last year; and he did not know that there was anything new in what the right hon. Gentleman had now said upon that subject, or anything new that had come to his knowledge in the last 12 months. Therefore, his remarks last year applied in the same way on this occasion. Under the Act of 1881 the number of Inspectors had been almost doubled; but in only two cases had the local Inspectors been provided under the
    1404
    provision for dividing the expense. There had, however, been a question of appointing local Inspectors in a considerable number of other cases. There had been a re-distribution of the field of labour of the Inspectors; and as he had on a previous occasion said, in answer to the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler), he considered it important that the Inspectors should reside in their districts. The other remarks of hon. Members affected the Home Secretary more than himself. He had been much alarmed by the proposal of the hon. Member that the salary of his hon. Friend should be reduced or struck out altogether, for the hon. Gentleman did a certain amount of valuable work for the Home Office. That seemed to him to be a most remarkable and cruel suggestion. The hon. Member, it appeared, intended to propose that the salary of the Under Secretary of State for the Home Department should be rejected, and the hon. Member had said that the Under Secretaryship had never before been held in the House of Lords; but, as a matter of fact, it had been so held once before. With regard to Scotch Business, he thought he should be out of Order if he followed the hon. Member on that subject; but the Committee had already been informed that special proposals with regard to Scotch Business would be submitted; and, that being so, the remarks of the hon. Member had been already answered by anticipation. With respect to the remarks of the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Heneage) upon highways, where grants were given by the State it was necessary that there should be State inspection and State audit of the accounts. It must be borne in mind that very delicate questions of law arose sometimes in connection with these accounts, and that the Auditors were not merely financial officers, but officers who had to examine questions of both finance and law. No less than £28,000 were received in fees upon these audits, which were accounted for in this Vote. [Mr. HENEAGE: They come from the rates.] The hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Salt) had asked two questions—first, with regard to the proposal to appoint a special Inspector in the case of certain Unions where children were boarded out. The objection to that was the same as the objection to allowing Guardians to charge expenses for visiting

    1405
    boarded-out children. The expenses might sometimes be small, but they might be very heavy in some cases, as in London, where some Unions sent children to the Lake district. It was difficult to draw a line upon this subject; and the Government were afraid that if they allowed Guardians to charge their expenses, and to appoint Inspectors for this purpose, a very heavy burden would be put upon the rates. That was the sole reason for the attitude which the Government had taken upon this question. As to administrative expenses, the hon. Gentleman was right when he said that when he was at the Local Government Board they were somewhat greater.
    MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, there were three items, amounting to £20,310, for vaccination. Although he was an opponent of compulsory vaccination, he would not raise that question now, or move a reduction. But he should like the right hon. Gentleman to give some information respecting the mode in which lymph was bought. Did the National Vaccine Department at present obtain lymph from calves, or from the human being? It was important to understand this, because there had lately been a considerable number of cases in which great doubt and suspicion—without going further—had been thrown on the quality of the lymph used. There was a strong suspicion among the people that this lymph was not precisely what it should be; and that was supported by the fact that, whereas people who could afford to get the lymph from private medical men never took their children to the national establishments, poor people were supplied altogether. In the interest of compulsory vaccination, and of the Department itself, it was important that the right hon. Gentleman should state whence this lymph came—whether from calves or from children.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, the lymph was obtained from both sources; and the Government lymph had been introduced in deference to the views of certain people who preferred it. The result of that preference was the establishment of a Government station in Lamb's Conduit Street, opposite the Foundling Hospital.
    MR. W. H. JAMESsaid, he wished to ask a question with respect to pauper children and schools. Very little had
    1406
    been said in reference to the point which the hon. and gallant Member for West Sussex (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) had raised; but he believed that the removal of pauper children to national schools would receive the support both of Managers and Boards of Guardians, as well as from the parents of children in the national schools. But there was a difficulty with regard to which he should like to ask whether the Government could do something, for it was the duty of the State, not merely not to create obstacles, but to remove obstacles which existed. The reason why Boards of Guardians were unwilling to carry out this system was that they received no grants for superintendents who were placed in charge of the children when not in school. He hoped the Government would be able to do something to remove this difficulty.
    MR. CROPPERasked whether there was any intention to appoint a Lady Inspector for these workhouse schools? Many hon. Members would remember the good work done by Mrs. Senior, some years ago, under a previous Government. That lady was appointed to the post, and for a short time conducted the inspection of female children in many workhouse schools, and especially pursued an investigation into the condition of girls who were boarded out. He hoped another Lady Inspector would be appointed; and would be glad to know whether the Local Government Board contemplated such an appointment? He also wished to know whether calf vaccine could be obtained in the country upon application by writing? As a Guardian he had had a great deal to do with vaccination; and he believed that if people who objected to human lymph could get calf lymph, the feeling against vaccination would be much reduced.
    MR. HIBBERTreplied, that calf lymph could be obtained by any medical vaccinator in any district by writing to the proper authorities. With respect to the appointment of a Lady Inspector, that matter had been, discussed by the Local Government Board; and, knowing the very good results of Mrs. Senior's work, he thought it very probable that the time was not far distant when another Lady Inspector might be appointed. It was at not present definitely intended to make such an appointment; but if the system of boarding out was extended, he

    1407
    thought it would be desirable to have a lady to look after that system. With respect to children sent to parochial schools, if Guardians had the children in their own schools they would, of course, have to pay part of the expense; but he thought it worthy of consideration whether, when these transfers were made, there should be some aid given to provide for persons to take charge of the children to and from school. It was undesirable to leave the children in the hands of paupers; and the Board always recommended that a proper person should be appointed to take care of them outside the schools. He quite felt that it might be desirable to adopt the suggestion.
    MR. STEVENSONquite joined with the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir R. Assheton Cross) that the Reports of the Alkali Inspector should be published as soon as possible. As a Member of the Royal Commission on Noxious Vapours, he attached great value to these Reports, as informing manufacturers of the progress of improvement, and raising the standard of efficiency in the works; but, whatever their value, they were generally delayed for a year. As the Hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. J. Cowen) had said, fully half the alkali works on the Tyne had stopped; but an enormous number of other works had been brought under inspection by the recent Act. He wished to remind the Committee that alkali works were the only works that paid for their own inspection; and, that being the case, the inspection ought to be thoroughly carried out.
    MR. RYLANDSsaid, he thought the question of the Under Secretary of State for the Home Department had not received that attention from the Government which was due to it. He was glad to see that the Home Secretary was now present. The complaint was that with regard to these Votes the Political Secretary to the Local Government Board was acting in that House as Under Secretary of State for the Home Department. It was very objectionable to have the Under Secretary for the Home Office in the House of Lords instead of in this House. He regretted to observe that there had been a disposition on the part of the present Government to throw more Offices into the House of Lords than had been customary hitherto; and
    1408
    it appeared to him that, in this case, there was not the slightest excuse for placing the Undersecretary in the House of Lords. He did not known what reply the Home Secretary might make; but it seemed to him that this arrangement was quite contrary to the traditions of the Liberal Party. The Home Office, being one of the most important Offices in the State, ought to be fully represented in the House of Commons. With regard to the War Office, there were no less than four Gentlemen representing it in this House—the Secretary of State for War, the Financial Secretary, the Surveyor General of the Ordnance, and the Judge Advocate General. He did not object to that, for he thought all the great spending Departments should be represented here; and he should like also to see the First Lord of the Admiralty in this House, rather than in the House of Lords. No doubt, something more would be heard upon this point; but before parting with this Vote he would say that he remembered very well, when the Local Government Board was substituted for the Poor Law Board, when the right hon. Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld) stated that there would be great economy in the arrangement. But anyone looking at this Vote would see how their enormous expenditure was going on increasing; and the House and the country should remember that that was in consequence of centralization. The Government Departments thought they knew better how to manage local affairs than the local authorities; officers were sent down to these localities, and Guardians could not spend 20 s. without the right hon. Gentleman's approval. The right hon. Gentleman could dismiss men or not as he pleased; and he remembered a case, before the Board of Guardians with which he was connected, in which there was a man whom they all knew to be dishonest; but they could only dismiss him, pending an inquiry by an Inspector of the Local Government Board. The Inspector overruled the Board, and kept the man in his office, until it was found that he had disposed of some £300. He should have liked to make the President of the Local Government Board pay that £300 out of his own pocket. He meant the right hon. Gentleman's Predecessor, who thought he knew so much better than the Board of Guardians. If the House would con-

    1409
    tinue this system of centralization they would have to pay these increasing charges for Inspectors, who, he believed, were often very inefficient, and very often interfered with local management. He hoped the House and the country would see that they had been going on wrong lines in increasing the power of these Departments.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he was sorry not to have been present to hear the remarks of the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Heneage). He had had several conversations with the hon. Member during the evening; and if the hon. Member had told him he was going to impeach the Home Office, he would certainly have been present. With regard to the observations of the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands), he very much agreed with him on all the points to which he had referred. No one was more sensible than he himself was that the Home Office was inadequately represented, not only in the House of Lords, but also in the House of Commons. He was aware that the Home Office had a great deal more to do than it could well do; but the greatest of all the evils in that Office was due to the system of centralization. Unfortunately, every effort was made, from day to day, to increase the duties of the Office. The work of the Office had increased in 20 years five times; and that had come about through the House of Commons insisting upon having Inspectors of Mines, Inspectors of Alkali Works, Inspectors of Factories, and of many other things; and then, as if the Home Office had not enough to do, his Predecessor (Sir R. Assheton Cross) gave into its charge all the Prisons in England, and that had caused an increase of the work by one-third. Fresh Inspectors were asked for, and not a day passed when he was not called to account for the conduct of the Police all over the country. And then people came and demanded centralization. Every day the House of Commons tried to make the Department do the whole work of the country. He entirely objected to that. Whether it was in the boroughs or in the counties, the Government were disposed to throw upon them the work which was now cast upon the Government Departments. He therefore had not a word to say against the observations of the hon. Member for Burnley;
    1410
    and he only wished that while the War Office was represented by four Gentlemen in that House, the Home Office could be represented by eight. He wished very much for more assistance to do the work of the Home Office in that House. The arrangement now existing in the House of Lords was never intended to be permanent; it was made to meet the exigencies of the Scotch Members. He should not be doing justice to his own feelings, or, he thought, to the sentiments of the House, if he did not express his great thanks to the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Hibbert), who had so much assisted him. The hon. Member had a power of passing Bills through the House which bethought was unequalled. There was not a single point on which he differed from the hon. Member for Burnley upon this matter.
    SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he was glad to hear what had fallen from the right hon. and learned Gentleman; but he hoped that the result might be that the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Hibbert) would soon not only practically, but absolutely, discharge the duties of Under Secretary to the Home Office. He was quite aware that the work of that Office had increased; but he did not think the effect of the Prisons Act was quite as the right hon. and learned Gentleman had stated. He had always been of opinion that as the work of the Home Office grew it was most important to have an Under Secretary in the House of Commons. Why the arrangement had been made in the House of Lords, he could not imagine; but the result had been to put an enormous amount of work upon the Secretary to the Local Government Board. The hon. Gentleman had done the work most efficiently, and it was a great public advantage to have his services there; but he had ample work in his own Office, and no Government ought to have placed all this extra work upon him. He hoped this matter would seriously engage the attention of the Government, and that the right hon. and learned Gentleman would have that which he needed, and which for the benefit of the country it was absolutely necessary he should have—namely, an Under Secretary in this House.
    MR. HENEAGEsaid, he had not impeached the conduct of the Home Secretary; he had simply said there was

    1411
    sufficient work for the Secretary to the Local Government Board to do, without having to undertake the work of the Homo Office. A Cabinet Minister, like the Home Secretary, could not go into details as an Under Secretary could.
    MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, he hoped the speech of the Home Secretary might be taken as a pledge that the efforts of the Government were being directed against the system of centralization, which had too long existed. But, after that speech, he did not know that he was so anxious to see an Under Secretary in this House; for if the right hon. and learned Gentleman had an Under Secretary, he would, no doubt, throw upon him a great deal of the work which he himself now performed so admirably; and after the amusing speech of the right hon. and learned Gentleman he should regret anything which would cause him to figure in the House less frequently. He wished to point out how gloomy a tone the Government now habitually adopted with regard to the action of the House of Commons. The Home Secretary said that centralization was forced upon him; and in a similar way, when the other night the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith) pointed to the growing Expenditure of the Government, the Secretary of State for War said the House of Commons was responsible for that; the House of Commons was always forcing the Government to spend more money, and forcing them to further extravagance. It seemed to him that that was an attack on the faithful majority of the Government which they hardly deserved; but he only wished now to point out the discrepancy between the tone of the Government now, and their tone two years ago.
    DR. CAMERONsaid, he wished to draw attention to a matter of some importance in point of principle. He found that there was an item of £15,800 for public vaccination; but he did not know whether that included the grant in aid of vaccination. The public vaccinators were paid salaries for doing the work; and, if they did it particularly well, they received a premium, or an extra grant. That system was exclusively applied to England; but why should it not be extended to Scotland, if money was to be spent in aid of vaccination? Did this include the grant in aid, and why
    1412
    should not a similar amount be given to Scotland? In Glasgow there were places at which the vaccination was conducted by an officer who received no salary and no grant in aid, but whose sole remuneration was what he got for what he sent up to the National Vaccination Office. He could see no reason why a similar sum should not be given to Scotland; and, unless he got a satisfactory answer, he should move the rejection of the whole amount.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsuggested that the hon. Member should raise the point on the Scotch Vote.
    DR. CAMERONsaid, there was no Scotch Vote, and he protested against this partial grant in aid. If he could not get any better answer he should oppose the Vote.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he would take upon himself to promise to reconsider the desirability of making this special grant by itself in England. It was in the nature of a second payment for a thing that was already done, and he had always had considerable doubt as to the wisdom of that system. If the hon. Member would accept that promise, he would undertake to reconsider the grant.
    DR. CAMERONsaid, all he wanted was that Scotland should be treated equally with England.
    MR. RAMSAYsaid, he wished to call attention to the grants in respect to the salaries of teachers in Poor Law schools, there being no corresponding grant for the education of the poor in Scotland. He had brought that matter frequently before the House, and several promises had been made that the subject should be considered, but nothing had been done.
    Vote agreed to.
    (20.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a further sum, not exceeding £2,804,950, be granted to Her Majesty, on account, for or towards defraying the Charge for the following Civil Services and Revenue Departments for the year ending on the 31st day of March 1884, viz;—

    CIVIL SERVICES.

    CLASS II.—SALARIES AND EXPENSES OF CIVIL DEPARTMENTS.

    England:—

    £

    Privy Seal Office

    500

    Lunacy Commission

    1,000

    Mint (including Coinage)

    5,000

    £

    National Debt Office

    1,500

    Patent Office

    3,500

    Paymaster General's Office

    2,500

    Public Works Loan Commission

    1,000

    Record Office

    2,000

    Registrar General's Office

    4,000

    Stationery Office and Printing

    45,000

    Woods, Forests, &c., Office of

    2,000

    Works and Public Buildings, Office of

    5,000

    Mercantile Marine Fund, Grant in Aid

    10,000

    Secret Service

    5,000

    Scotland:—

    Exchequer and other Offices

    1,000

    Fishery Board

    2,000

    Lunacy Commission

    500

    Registrar General's Office

    500

    Board of Supervision

    1,500

    Ireland:—

    Lord Lieutenant's Household

    1,000

    Chief Secretary's Office

    4,500

    Charitable Donations and Bequests Office

    300

    Local Government Board

    10,000

    Public Works Office

    5,000

    Record Office

    1,000

    Registrar General's Office

    2,000

    Valuation and Boundary Survey

    2,000

    £

    Court of Bankruptcy

    1,000

    Admiralty Court Registry

    150

    Registry of Deeds

    3,000

    Registry of Judgments

    200

    Land Commission

    20,000

    County Court Officers, &c.

    15,000

    Dublin Metropolitan Police (including Police Courts)

    30,000

    Constabulary

    300,000

    Prisons, Ireland

    15,000

    Reformatory and Industrial Schools

    20,000

    Dundrum Criminal Lunatic Asylum

    500

    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, he thought this was a very convenient moment for eliciting a little further discussion of a subject raised in the afternoon by Questions with respect to the Mission of Mr. Errington at Rome. He believed he was quite in Order in taking this course, because in the Vote on Account there was a distinct sum taken for the Foreign Office.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The noble Lord is not in Order, for the Vote for the Foreign Office has been taken this evening, and the Vote on Account does not include anything for the Foreign Office.
    MR. JOSEPH COWENasked whether the entire Vote for the Irish Office had been passed?
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsubmitted it did not much matter whether the Vote on Account contained anything for the Foreign Office or the Irish Office. There was the general fact that the Government asked for money on account from the House of Commons, and that afforded a Constitutional opportunity of raising any question. The Diplomatic and Consular Vote had not yet been passed. [Sir CHARLES W. DILKE: Yes, it has.] It was very well for Ministers to state that Votes had been passed when they had not been taken. On page 5, Class V., he found £40,000 asked for for Diplomatic and Consular Services. ["Oh, oh!"] The interruptions to which he was being subjected were due to the fact that the Government could not hear with composure the name of Mr. Errington. It completely threw them off their balance.
    THE CHAIRMAN: There is nothing in the Vote before the Committee that in any way touches Her Majesty's Mi-
    1416
    nisters abroad; and the Vote for the Foreign Office was taken in the Vote which has been passed. There is nothing now which has any reference to Mr. Errington, or to the Foreign Department.
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLwished to argue this out a little further. The Committee was asked to grant a Vote, and there was not a single Member who could state what questions might or might not be taken on this Vote. There was not a Minister, or anyone else, who could state what were the services for which the Vote on Account was asked. Apart from that, he submitted, as a point of Order, that when a Vote on Account was asked for, it was perfectly legitimate to raise any question connected with Supply.
    THE CHAIRMAN: If the House were going into Committee, I apprehend the noble Lord would be in Order in raising a question of that character; but the House being in Committee, his observations must have reference to the matters contained in the Vote.
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, he wished to know what were the Charges now before the Committee, and for which this Vote was asked? In order to give the Ministry an opportunity of explaining the matter, he would move that Progress be reported, as the condition of affairs was most unsatisfactory.
    THE CHAIRMAN: I have already answered the noble Lord. The Votes include that for the Lunacy Commission and the subsequent Votes.
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, that would exactly suit his purpose. He found there a Vote for the Chief Secretary's Office, Ireland, and a Vote for the Lord Lieutenant's Household, and they were sufficient for his purpose. If his information were correct, Mr. Errington had received his instructions from Her Majesty's Government; and he believed that the Lord Lieutenant and the Chief Secretary had been active agents in promoting these negotiations with Rome. He would take this opportunity of putting to the Government again the question he had asked earlier in the evening.
    THE CHAIRMAN: I have pointed out more than once to the noble Lord that the Foreign Office Vote has been passed, and that he is not in Order in

    1417
    referring in any way to Mr. Errington's Mission.
    SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFsaid, a sum of £40,000 for Diplomatic Services was asked for; but the whole Vote was £207,000. Was the £40,000 to be taken; and, if so, could not this question be raised upon that?
    THE CHAIRMAN: The Vote to which the hon. Member refers has reference only to Her Majesty's Embassies and Missions Abroad, and Mr. Errington not being a member of the Diplomatic Service, a discussion on that point would not, in my opinion, be in Order.
    SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFsaid, Her Majesty's Embassies and Missions Abroad, no doubt, included the Diplomatic Services, and the Committee had a right to discuss the question of Diplomatic Services apart from Her Majesty's Embassies and Missions Abroad. Suppose that, apart from the Embassies and Missions, they wished to diminish the Vote for Diplomatic Services, were they not to be allowed to do so if they considered that Mr. Errington had been improperly employed at Rome? They were entitled to have an answer to that question, and he would like to move to report Progress, in order that they might consult Mr. Speaker.
    MR. JOSEPH COWENsaid, the Vote for the Foreign Office had been passed by the Committee, but had not been reported to the House. Was it not right to say that the Vote was in suspense? He asked whether this point did not invalidate the Chairman's objection?
    THE CHAIRMAN: The Vote is passed so far as this Committee is concerned.
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLventured to think, with all due respect to the parties who had given the Chairman information on the matter, that they had made a slight confusion between the Vote for the Foreign Office, which had been passed, and the Vote for the Diplomatic Services under Class V., for which the Government were now asking a Vote on Account. Might he draw the Chairman's attention to page 5 of the document which was now before the Committee? The Committee of Supply had not reached Class V. In the regular course the Committee of Supply had to-night passed the Vote for the Foreign Office. But was any Vote taken for Diplomatic Services?
    THE CHAIRMAN: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord. The hon. Member for Portsmouth (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) questioned me on that point, and my ruling is that the Vote in Class V. refers solely to the expenditure for Her Majesty's Embassies and Missions Abroad; and it having been stated in this House that Mr. Errington is not a member of any of Her Majesty's Embassies or missions Abroad, reference to Mr. Errington under that Vote would not be in Order.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked if he would be in Order in moving a reduction of Vote 1, Class V., in respect of the salary of the Secretary of Legation to the King of Italy?
    THE CHAIRMAN: Such a Motion would be perfectly in Order.
    SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked if he might not move to reduce the Vote by £40,000, that sum representing the whole sum asked for in respect to the Diplomatic Services, because they had not received satisfactory information as to the employment of a gentleman at Rome? He would move to reduce the Vote by £40,000 [Interruption.] The Secretary to the Treasury might allow him to speak. There appeared to be on the Treasury Bench what might be called unveiled Obstruction. He moved to reduce the Vote by £40,000, because they were entitled to know, when voting money for the Diplomatic Services, what kind of negotiations were going on at Rome, and whether Mr. Errington was or was not engaged in conducting those negotiations.
    MR. JESSE COLLINGSsaid, that four times the Chairman had ruled the hon. Members opposite out of Order. Was, he asked, the Chair to be set at naught?
    SIR HENRY SELWIN IBBETSONunderstood the Chairman to rule that the Diplomatic Service Vote did not give the opportunity the hon. Member (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) sought to raise the question. He imagined that the hon. Member's object was to obtain information in regard to the supposed journey on the Public Service of a particular individual to Rome. Under the head of Diplomatic Services there were several items. For instance, there were charges for Special Missions and Services and for Journeys on the Public Service. On both those points a Vote.

    1419
    was now being taken on account. What he wished to ask the Chairman was, whether he had bad regard to those points in the ruling he had given?
    THE CHAIRMAN: In answer, first of all, to the hon. Member for Portsmouth (Sir H. Drummond Wolff), I must say he would be perfectly in Order in moving a reduction of the Vote in Class V. With regard to the Question asked me by the hon. Baronet (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson), I have to say that, unquestionably, I had taken the two points he referred to into consideration. The only Diplomatic Service Vote now before the Committee is the one for the expenses of Her Majesty's Embassies and Missions Abroad. My ruling, consequently, is that Mr. Errington not being a member of Her Majesty's Embassies and Missions Abroad, and no expenditure having been incurred on account of him, as has been stated in this House, it would not be in Order to enter on a discussion with regard to Mr. Errington's alleged Mission.
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, it had been stated that Mr. Errington had not as yet—[Cries of "Name, name!"]—Mr. Errington had not as yet received money out of the public funds; but the Committee of Supply had no guarantee whatever, at the present moment, that Mr. Errington would not receive money out of the sums no w being voted. Hon. Members had no idea——
    MR. HENEAGErose to Order. He wished to know, in the interest of the time of the Committee, whether the noble Lord was or was not in Order? If he was in Order, let him proceed. If he was not in Order, he (Mr. Heneago) hoped the Chairman would keep up the dignity of the Chair.
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL, on the point of Order, wished to remind the Chairman that, ten minutes ago, he moved to report Progress.
    THE CHAIRMAN: Such a Motion by the noble Lord never reached me.
    MR. HENEAGEasked for an answer to the question he had put to the Chair.
    THE CHAIRMAN: I have stated twice or three times that the noble Lord would not be in Order, in my opinion, in entering now on any discussion with regard to Mr. Errington.
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, that, under the circumstances, he would move to report Progress.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Lord Randolph Churchill.)
    SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFsaid, he was certain the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister know they were right in what they were doing. He appealed to the right hon. Gentleman to say whether he did not think so. He (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) hoped the result of the Motion to report Progress would be that the Speaker would be consulted upon the point. He intended to propose to reduce the Vote by £40,000.
    THE CHAIRMAN: I must ask the hon. Member to confine himself to the question of reporting Progress.
    SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFsaid, he would do so. He wished to submit to Mr. Speaker whether, in moving the reduction of the Vote, he might not assign his reason for so doing, his reason being Mr. Errington's Mission?
    MR. JOSEPH COWENunderstood the Chairman to rule that they could not raise the question of Mr. Errington's Mission either on the Vote for Diplomatic Services or the Foreign Office. There was a Vote for Secret Service; could they not raise the question of Mr. Errington's services on the Vote for Secret Service?
    MR. ILLINGWORTHinquired whether it was in Order to ask such a question until the Motion to report Progress had been disposed of?
    MR. BIGGARsubmitted that the point raised by the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. Cowen) had reference to the question at issue. The Government had consistently and persistently refused to give any information.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The Question before the Committee now is, "That I do report Progress." The hon. Member must confine himself to that Question.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he should either vote for the Motion to report Progress, or he should not, according to the information which he might be able to elicit. In order to know how to vote, he should like to ascertain exactly what it was the Chairman had ruled? It had been said that Mr. Errington—["Order, order!"] If hon. Members opposite would allow him to speak they would see that their interruptions were quite out of place. He

    1421
    understood the Chairman to rule that because Mr. Errington was not now employed in the Diplomatic Service——
    THE CHAIRMAN: The point of Order has been already determined. The Question now before the Committee is, "That I do report Progress," and the hon. Member must confine himself to that Question.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he wished to confine himself to that point. He understood the noble Lord (Lord Randolph Churchill) had moved to report Progress, in order that the opinion of the Speaker might be taken with regard to a certain point. ["No!"] That was how he understood it, and he conceived it might be necessary, occasionally, to submit a point such as that raised to Mr. Speaker. It might, perhaps, occur to hon. Members that it would be desirable to do so when the majority of the House were not agreed. He, however, should not be disposed to agree to the Motion to report Progress if he could get the information he now asked. If he understood the Chairman to rule that because Mr. Errington was not now employed in the Diplomatic Service they could not discuss—["Order, order!"] Then he would put his question in other words. He would ask whether it would be in Order to discuss the possible appropriation of the money now asked for in regard to the Diplomatic Service, irrespective of who had been, or who might be hereafter, employed in the Diplomatic Service?
    THE CHAIRMAN: I have already explained, in answer to the hon. Member for Portsmouth (Sir H. Drummond Wolff), that it was competent for any hon. Member to move any reduction of the Vote he thinks fit. But any proposition to reduce the Vote has been superseded by the Motion of the noble Lord that I should report Progress, and that is the Motion now before the Committee.
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, he would like to save the Committee the trouble of dividing, if possible. What he would now ask was, whether they would not be in Order if, in moving the reduction of the Vote on Account either by the sum of £5,000 for Secret Service or £40,000 for the Diplomatic Service, they were to refer to the abnormal position of Mr. Errington at Borne, und assign as the reason for the proposition that money—["Order,
    1422
    order!"] He did not know how the Business of Parliament was to be conducted if the interruptions to which he had been subjected were allowed to continue. Really, hon. Members opposite might exercise a little patience. If they moved a reduction of the Vote on the ground that certain money might be given to Mr. Errington, of which the Committee had no guarantee, would not that be in Order under the circumstances
    THE CHAIRMAN: I have said before, and I repeat, that the noble Lord is entitled to move any reduction of the Vote he likes. Until I have heard the noble Lord's arguments upon the point he has just raised, I am not prepared to express any opinion. If the noble Lord were to enter upon the discussion of a question which I have said is not in Order, I should caution him again, having expressed several times my opinion on the matter.
    MR. GLADSTONEdeclined to enter upon a discussion which was clearly not within the proper scope of the question before them. He rose simply on the Question to report Progress, for the purpose of saying that he hoped the Motion would not be persevered with. It was a matter of absolute necessity for the Public Service that they should obtain a Vote on Account.
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLasked leave to withdraw the Motion to report Progress, in place of which he would move another Motion.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLthen moved to reduce by £5,000 the Vote for Secret Service, on the ground that the Committee had no guarantee that no part of the money would go towards the payment of the expenses of Mr. Errington's Mission. They would have arrived at this point a quarter of an hour ago if it had not been for the interruptions which came from hon. Members opposite. He had not the slightest objection to Mr. Errington representing Her Majesty abroad; he had not the smallest objection to Mr. Errington making representations upon the state of Ireland at Rome, and getting from the Pope a pronouncement upon the state of Ireland; but he maintained that if Mr. Errington had done good in Rome as a recommended Agent—["Order,

    1423
    order!"] Really he did not know what had been the effect of the recent meeting of the Liberal Party on the Foreign Office; but more unruly and disorderly conduct than that of hon. Members opposite since that meeting it had not been his good fortune, or bad fortune—he knew not which—to witness. In spite of the results of that meeting, he intended, providing he was not interrupted by the Chair, to state his views on this point, even if he were to stay there until 3 o'clock in order to do so. The point he had to raise was a very simple one, and could be very shortly stated if hon. Gentlemen would only restrain their impatience. He was saying that if Mr. Errington had been a recommended Agent of the Government, and if through his recommendations, or through his information, the Pope had been induced to issue a Circular or Pastoral, or whatever it was, which had had a beneficial effect upon public affairs in Ireland, the House of Commons ought to be informed by Her Majesty's Government whether records of those negociations would be left in the Foreign Office, in order that the Successors of Lord Granville, whoever they might be, might have the advantage of knowing exactly the terms on which those negotiations had been conducted, so that, if necessary, they might be pursued. What he and his hon. Friends complained of was, that although Mr. Errington had been a recommended Agent, and had corresponded with Lord Granville, when Lord Granville left the Foreign Office, all record or trace of the Correspondence would disappear, and nothing would be left for the guidance of future Foreign Secretaries. Hon. Members would now see that the point he had all along wished to raise was a very simple and intelligible one. He could not imagine any thing more Constitutional than raising such a question on a Vote on Account. He begged to move to reduce the Vote by £5,000.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a further sum, not exceeding £2,859,950, be granted to Her Majesty, on account, for or towards defraying the Charge for the following Civil Services and Revenue Departments for the year ending on the 31st day of March 1884."—(Lord Randolph Churchill.)
    MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he entirely recognized the wisdom of the Chairman's decision that the noble Lord (Lord Ran-
    1424
    dolph Churchill) could not be judged out of Order in speaking on the position of Mr. Errington at Rome, in relation to the Secret Service money, inasmuch as he could not say, in regard to the Secret Service, what he could say in regard to the Diplomatic Service—namely, that the purposes to which the money was applied were specified and laid down. The noble Lord was quite right in saying he was justified in raising this question upon a Vote on Account. It was perfectly obvious that there was no subject of policy or legislation, and no conceivable matter within the whole circle of human action, which might not be discussed on the question of a Vote on Account. Under the circumstances, however, he did not think the course adopted was a convenient one, and he would make a simple suggestion to the noble Lord. As the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. Cowen) had pointed out, the Committee only had passed the Foreign Office Vote. The House not having passed the Vote, the Vote must be reported. When it was reported to the House—which he presumed would, in the ordinary course of Business, be to-morrow evening—the noble Lord would have an opportunity of raising the discussion with perfect regularity. He would suggest to the noble Lord that it would be well to take advantage of the opportunity which would thus be afforded, rather than to engage in a long discussion on the present occasion.
    MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, he did not rise to prolong the discussion about Mr. Errington, but to ask one question. He understood, the Chairman's ruling was that they must not discuss Mr. Errington's Mission on the Diplomatic Vote because he was not a Diplomatic Agent. It was upon that ruling that his noble Friend (Lord Randolph Churchill) was precluded from raising the question of Mr. Errington's Mission; but the Prime Minister now suggested that they should wait until to-morrow evening, and raise the question upon the Report of the Diplomatic Service Vote. ["No!"] Well, upon the Foreign Office, which was the same thing.
    MR. COURTNEY: No; the question would be raised upon Lord Granville's salary.
    MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, that being so, it would be convenient that the matter should be taken at an early hour to-

    1425
    morrow, so that it could be properly discussed.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member misapprehended my ruling. My ruling was that the opportunity had passed on which a question of that kind could be introduced by questioning the salary of one of the Ministers of State. The Question before the Committee referred to Embassies and Missions Abroad; and inasmuch as Mr. Errington is not a member of Her Majesty's Embassies and Missions Abroad, I ruled that a discussion on the supposed Mission would not be in Order.
    SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFsaid, the Diplomatic Vote related to the salaries of their Diplomatic officials. He had wished to reduce the Vote, on the ground that there was a gentleman at Rome who carried on Diplomatic service gratuitously. Was he not in Order in putting that forward as a reason why the Vote should be reduced?
    MR. R. N. FOWLERsaid, in reference to the appeal made to the noble Lord, that it was well known that Report of Supply was taken often as late as 3 o'clock in the morning. The proposal to raise a discussion of this question on Report was, in his opinion, unsatisfactory, because it would prevent the public knowing what was the opinion of Her Majesty's Government upon the subject.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    Original Question again proposed.
    MR. JOSEPH COWENsaid, there was no disposition to harass the Government on this point. If the Prime Minister would make a clear and distinct statement of what had been done, and what it was intended to do, it would be satisfactory to the Committee. There was no objection, at any rate as far as he was concerned, that Mr. Errington should have undertaken this work, and no objection had ever been made on that ground. If the Government would make a clean breast of it, and say openly that Mr. Errington had been employed for certain work, the question would be at an end; if they did not, a certain amount of suspicion rested upon them, and there would be no alternative but to prolong the discussion.
    SIR WALTER B. BARTELOTTsaid, he rose for the purpose of raising a much more serious question than that raised by his noble Friend. He asked
    1426
    the Committee if they were to vote the large sum on account now asked for, after the very considerable sum they had already voted that evening? They had passed Votes amounting to a total of £1,770,404, and he conceived that it was not right to grant the Government this further large sum. He proposed to move the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £1,377,404, which would leave quite sufficient money for the Government to carry on their business with. The Prime Minister had, on several occasions, spoken against the system of Votes on Account; and, moreover, he called the Liberal Party to witness that they, of all others, were those who said that Votes on Account ought not to be granted. The result of passing the Vote would be to throw over Supply again to the end of the Session, and to that he was strongly opposed. He therefore begged to move the reduction of the Vote by the sum specified.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a further sum, not exceeding £1,487,546, be granted to Her Majesty, on account, for or towards defraying the Charge for the following: Civil Services and Revenue Departments for the year ending on the 31st day of March 1884."—(Sir Walter B. Barttelot.)
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, if this sum were voted the Government would, practically, be in a position to dispense with Supply until the end of July—that was to say, until the very end of the Session. Now, last Session, and at the end of the Session before that, the Prime Minister had expressed his great regret at being compelled to ask the House to pass a Vote on Account. On each occasion the right hon. Gentleman used expressions condemnatory altogether of the practice; and, moreover, when he was in Opposition some years ago, he found fault with the Government of the day for bringing forward Votes on Account. He was not at the moment in a position to quote the actual words of the right hon. Gentleman; but he would endeavour to find them, and if he succeeded they should be brought before him. It was a fact that Ministers had, on many occasions, protested against this system, which made the Government practically independent of the House of Commons. But experience showed that there was really no necessity for taking Votes on Account. They had at one Sitting just

    1427
    passed 20 Votes, which included all those for the Offices of Her Majesty's Secretaries of State. The Votes which remained were scarcely likely to be of such a contentious character as those which had been passed that evening with so much ease. He did not know how far the Vote proposed to be taken by the Government was likely to extend; but, as far as he could make out, it would carry them practically to the end of July. The Committee knew well that when the Estimates were taken late in July the discussion of them was a mere formality; it was perfectly impossible at that time to get serious attention to any of the grievances pointed out, and for that reason he should support the Motion of the hon. and gallant Baronet.
    MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he thought the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken had made a mistake in his reference to criticisms made by himself on the proceedings of the late Government. With regard to the Vote now asked for, it was quite true that the Government had obtained a considerable sum of money—that was to say, they had obtained entire provision for the year for certain Services; but that did not enable them to proceed with regard to other Services not voted for. They had reached the 31st of May, and it was absolutely necessary to provide a moderate supply of money for those Services, in respect of which the Committee had not had an opportunity of considering the Votes for the year; and it was therefore a matter of necessity, with a view to the Public Service, that the Government should obtain the Vote now asked for, which was Supply equivalent to their requirements for between one month and six weeks. The hon. and gallant Baronet said he had objected to taking Votes on Account. That was quite true; he wished the system to be kept within the narrowest limits; but it amounted to this. They had always admitted that the House of Commons had a right to expect from the Government a liberal allocation of time for the discussion of Supply in the earlier part of the Session. Had that been the case this Session, or not? The House of Commons had been sitting, practically, for about 12 weeks; 12 weeks represented 24 Government nights. In consequence of the fortnight occupied by the debate on the Address
    1428
    that number was reduced to 20, and out of those 12 nights had been given to the consideration of Supply. Under the circumstances, the Committee would see that they had fully kept up to the engagement into which they entered last year. They had made as fair and liberal an appropriation of their time as they could; and, that being so, he was sure the Committee would not refuse a Vote on Account with reference to those Services which it was absolutely necessary to provide for.
    SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he entirely agreed that some Votes on Account were absolutely necessary, and that, as the Prime Minister had stated, the fact of their having voted that evening more than £1,000,000 for particular Services did not affect the other Services to which the money could not be applied. At the same time, this did not touch the point which his hon. and gallant Friend had in view. What they wanted was an assurance that, as they were asked for Supply for so long a period, Supply should be put down at a time when they could properly discuss it—that was to say, before the end of July. For his own part, he should be content to grant one month's Supply, and he hoped the Government would be satisfied with that amount; otherwise he should vote for the Motion of his hon. and gallant Friend.
    MR. GLADSTONEsaid, the Vote would be for five weeks, and would bring them up to the 3rd or 4th of July. Surely, having dealt fairly with the House in regard to Supply up to the present time, there was no reason to suppose that the Government would not continue to do so.
    MR. RYLANDSsaid, he had always joined with his hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) in objecting to Votes on Account, and while the late Government were in Office he had on two occasions divided the Committee against them. The point he had always urged was that full advantage had not been taken of the facilities afforded for taking Supply on Mondays, and that those days had been used for the purposes of legislation, the consequence of which was that Supply was driven off to an inconveniently late period of the Session. The present Government, however, had acted fairly in this matter, having used Mondays and

    1429
    Thursdays for getting on with Supply; and, but for that, he should have joined in opposition to the present Vote on Account. The Government, however, had not progressed with Supply as rapidly as they expected; and he might point out to the Prime Minister that if the right of Members to make speeches on going into Committee of Supply were taken away, they would surely find an outlay for their criticisms in Committee. There had been a large amount of time occupied in discussions upon the Civil Service Votes, and hence the reason why the Government were driven to ask for a second Vote on Account. He thought they had a right to conclude that, as the Government had pressed forward Supply hitherto, they would continue to do so, and that they would not devote Mondays and Thursdays to legislation until they had made further progress with it. He thought that every week there should be an opportunity of proceeding to a greater or less extent with Supply; and as he gathered that this was the intention of the Government, he should certainly vote for the amount now proposed.
    SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, the Estimates for the Army and Navy were voted in such away that the money first taken could be distributed over the whole of the Votes. He wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman if that was the case with the Vote before the Committee? Did the Government intend to use the money voted for the Estimates that evening for the purpose of the remaining Estimates? If not, of course, as the Government must have money, he should not press his Motion.
    MR. GLADSTONE: We have no power to do what the hon. and gallant Baronet suggests.
    MR. MOLLOYsaid, the only opportunity Irish Members had of bringing forward matters relating to Ireland was in Committee of Supply. Up to the present time they had done no more than exercise their right of asking Questions. The discussion of the Estimates which preceded the Irish Votes would occupy a fortnight or three weeks at least, with the result that the latter would be thrown into August, probably just as the House was about to rise. He asked whether the Prime Minister would make arrangements for taking the Vote for the Lord Lieutenant of Ire-
    1430
    land when Supply should be next put down, so as to avoid it coming on in the last days of the Session?
    MR. GLADSTONEsaid, without making any promise as to taking the Irish Votes out of order, he could assure the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken that the Government contemplated taking them at a convenient and not at a remote period.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    Original Question put, and agreed to.
    Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.
    Committee to sit again To-morrow.

  CONSTABULARY AND POLICE (IRELAND) (PAY AND PENSIONS) BILL.
  (Mr. Trevelyan, Mr. Courtney, Mr. Herbert Gladstone.)
  CONSTABULARY AND POLICE (IRELAND) (PAY AND PENSIONS) BILL.

    [BILL 171.] COMMITTEE.
    [Progress 28th May.]
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)

    PART II.
    Dublin Metropolitan Police.
    Clause 13 (Pay of Dublin Metropolitan Police).
    MR. BIGGARsaid, the paragraph which his Amendment referred to provided—
    "That where any member of the force is at the time of the passing of this Act in receipt of a higher rate of pay than the rate specified in the Schedule in relation to such person, nothing contained in this Act shall be taken to reduce the rate of pay which such person is entitled to receive."
    That meant that if any person was receiving a higher rate of pay than was provided in the Act he was not to have his pay cut down. He submitted that the pay was fixed for the Police at an extravagantly high rate. He begged to move the omission of lines 33 to 37 inclusive.
    Amendment proposed, in page 7, line 33, to leave out all the words from "provided" to "receive," in line 37.—(Mr. Biggar.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    MR. TREVELYANsaid, the hon. Member for Cavan had hitherto subjected the Bill to a keen and intelligent criticism from the point of view of economy, and had raised with regard to it

    1431
    some interesting questions. The first part of the Bill doubtless required to be carefully watched; with reference to the last part of it he thought the hon. Member might fairly relax his vigilance. The increase of pay to the Dublin Police amounted to something under £2,000 a-year. This Proviso was introduced for the purpose of preventing a number of persons of less than two years' service from being damnified by the passing of the Bill to the extent of 6d. a-week. He hoped, after this simple but adequate defence, the lion. Member would not press his Amendment.
    MR. BIGGARsaid, as the amount at stake appeared by the statement of the right hon. Gentleman to be small, he did not think it worth while to take a division, and with the permission of the Committee he would withdraw his Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause agreed to.
    Clause 14 (Application of provisions as to pension to the Dublin Metropolitan Police).
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, he wished to take that opportunity of laying before the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland the case of a public servant who had not been provided for by this Bill. He referred to the Surgeon of the Dublin Metropolitan Police Court, and he could see no reason why that officer should not be placed on the same footing as the Surgeon of the London Metropolitan Police. The Surgeon of the latter Force had always an enormous amount of practice, and was one of the leading men in the Profession; the Surgeon of the Dublin Metropolitan Police had no practice, because his practice was destroyed by his taking the appointment, and on that ground he had a far stronger title to a pension than the London Metropolitan Police Surgeon. Moreover, he did not know whether the Chief Secretary was aware of the fact, but he attended every day at the police-station, and saw personally those constables who required medical treatment. The case was entirely different with the Surgeon to the London Metropolitan Police, who attended but rarely; he was present when recruits were brought up for examination, but, except in serious cases, he never attended to the constables at
    1432
    all. So that, on every ground, the Dublin Surgeon had a greater right to a pension than the London Surgeon. Seeing that he could not move an Amendment to include this gentleman, if the Government did not see their way to do it, he sincerely hoped they would give an undertaking that the case would be seriously and equitably considered.
    MR. TREVELYANsaid, the case of the Doctor referred to was one which deserved a few words. The noble Lord would be perfectly in Order in moving an Amendment in the shape of a new clause to the Bill; but he (Mr. Trevelyan) should certainly deprecate such a course, as it was extremely important, in order to further the progress of the measure, that it should be confined solely to the rank and file of the Constabulary. He quite allowed that the Superintendents of the Dublin Metropolitan Police were affected; but these officers were promoted from the ranks. Therefore the whole body affected by the Bill, whether in the Royal Irish Constabulary or in the Dublin Police, might be said to be the rank and file, and those who had risen from the rank and file. If once the Government allowed the position of officers to be considered in the Bill there would be a delay; and one primary condition with regard to that measure was that there should be no unnecessary delay in passing it into law. There was only one precedent for the payment of a salary to a medical officer to the Police, and that was in the case of the Metropolis. In the case of the Liverpool Police Force, which was as large or larger than that of Dublin, the medical officers who attended on the men obtained no pensions. He could imagine, however, that a case could be made out for the Doctor to whom reference had been made from the point of view that, besides the Metropolitan Police, the only Force that was under the direct control of the Executive was the Dublin Police. It would be quite impossible for him to give a positive answer on that point. It would be necessary for him to carefully consult with his Colleagues in Ireland, and after that to make application to the Treasury. He could only tell the noble Lord that he would give every attention and consideration to the subject; and that if he found, when he had the honour to introduce his re-organization Bill at a later period of the Session—which Bill

    1433
    would deal with one or two of the officers of the Royal Irish Constabulary, although it would not make any difference in the pay and emoluments of the great body of officers—that he could carry out the noble Lord's wish, if the noble Lord then chose to raise the question, he (Mr. Trevelyan) would not only not protest but would feel that the noble Lord was courteous in postponing his action until that occasion.
    COLONEL KING-HARMANsaid, he was glad to hear what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman. He (Colonel King-Harman) had intended to say a few words on the subject; but, after what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman, he would refrain from so doing.
    Clause agreed to.
    Clause 15 (Provision as to pensions of men appointed before 12th August 1867, 10 & 11 Vict. c. 100, s. 10).
    MR. BIGGARsaid, he had put down on the Paper an Amendment to this clause, and he considered it a perfectly legitimate one in itself; but it was almost the same as the one he had moved at a former part of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman very strongly contested the principle of allowing policemen of 30 years' service to retire from the Service on this boon being granted to them. The principle that ran through the measure was that a policeman should have an opportunity of retiring after 35 years, if he desired it, no matter how good his bodily health might be. Even supposing he moved his Amendment, he did not think he would have much chance of carrying it. Looking at the empty state of the Front Opposition Bench, he should refrain from moving the Amendment of which he had given Notice.
    Clause agreed to.
    Remaining Clauses agreed to.
    COLONEL KING-HARMANsaid, he had a new clause relating to rewards for distinguished services to propose. He wished to provide that a head or other constable, who had served 15 years without an unfavourable mark having been recorded against him, should be entitled to wear a bronze badge as a token of meritorious services, that under similar conditions, a silver badge might be worn after 20 years', and a gold badge after 24 years' meritorious service. He
    1434
    was not certain whether this ought to have been brought up at all in the form of a new clause. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to consider it, and say whether he had any objection to inserting it; and, if so, whether he would not, in some form more satisfactory to himself, make provision for a careful order of merit for this most deserving body of men? The question was one to which much importance had been attached, and he certainly thought the men should have a badge to wear.
    New Clause:—
    (Rewards for distinguished services.)
    "From and after the passing of this Act every head or other constable who shall have completed fifteen years' service, without an unfavourable mark having been recorded against him, shall be entitled to wear a bronze badge as a token of meritorious services; and,
    "Every head or other constable who shall have completed twenty years' service, without an unfavourable record, shall be entitled to wear a similar badge in silver; and,
    "Every officer who shall have completed twenty-four years in like manner, without an unfavourable record, shall be entitled to the honourable distinction of a gold badge of a similar nature,"—(Colonel King-Harman,)
    —brought up, and read the first time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed' "That the Clause be read a second time."
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he hoped the Government would not accede to this clause, and that the hon. and gallant Member would not persist in it. No doubt, the hon. and gallant Member had better means of learning the views of policemen than he (Mr. O'Connor) could profess to have; but he should imagine that no proposal could be more objectionable than this to the vast majority of the Police. The clause was brought forward under the plea that it was to satisfy the wishes of the rank and file of the Constabulary and Police; but, so far as he could judge, the proposal would meet with a stronger opposition from this than from any other body of men. He would not subject the clause to anything like verbal criticism, although he thought it was open to it. It was a most objectionable proposal. Although badges, no doubt, were of service in the Army, they were altogether out of place in connection with a Force of a Civil character.
    MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYsaid, he recognized the spirit in which the hon. and gallant Member for County Dublin (Colonel King-Harman) had brought forward his proposal; but he believed that, carried out exactly as the hon. and gallant Member wished, it would not quite meet the wishes of the men. He would suggest what he thought a better way of carrying out the intention of the hon. and gallant Gentleman. Unfavourable reports had had the effect of stopping promotion, and the men had felt these reports very much. If they made the giving of these badges depend on a man's not having an unfavourable record, of course when they saw a policeman's shoulder without a badge it would bring to the mind of his superiors that he had an unfavourable record; and whether that did or did not operate in stopping his promotion it would have a bad effect on the minds of the men. Unfavourable records and punishments were things which with increasing zeal and meritorious conduct should be wiped out; and it would be well, therefore, to adopt some plan by which rewards could be given in cases where punishment had been inflicted, on the expiration of a certain period after such punishment; but to have some men stamped with a badge and others without it, showing that they had had unfavourable reports, would be very objectionable. The badges, if used as suggested—which would be amongst the sergeants and head constables, as well as the rank and file—would show that some were not such good members of the Force as others. He would recommend that badges should be given for general ability and good conduct, arid should not be made to depend on the absence of unfavourable records. There was many a man who had had an unfavourable record who, by subsequent activity, intelligence, and attention to his duty, had made a much better officer than others who had not had unfavourable records.
    COLONEL KING-HARMANsaid, he had brought forward the proposal in consequence of representations from a considerable number of constables; but probably they had not considered the matter any more closely than he had. He begged to withdraw the clause.
    Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. LEWISsaid, he had a new clause to propose, providing that all persons who, previous to the Constabulary (Ireland) Act, 1874, had retired from the Service should receive the pensions granted under the Act 10 & 11 Vict., entitled "An Act to regulate the superannuation allowances of the Constabulary Force in Ireland, and of the Dublin Metropolitan Police," calculated upon the scale or rate of pay of which they were in receipt at the date of their retirement. This new clause would deal with an old grievance which had been on two or three occasions brought before Parliament. Three Acts of Parliament had been passed—one in 1847, one in 1866, and the other in 1874—dealing with the pay and pensions of the Irish Constabulary. The Act of 1847 fixed the amounts. In 1866 the pay was increased, but not the pensions. By the Act of 1874 men who had served 25 years were entitled to retire upon their actual full pay; but after 1866 they were retired upon the old pay, or the pay they had before the Act of 1866 was passed. That was thought hard and harsh on the constables who had retired before the passing of the Act of 1874. Under the Act of 1874 all who retired after the 1st of August of that year were retired on their actual salaries; but all who retired before—it might be on the 31st of July—had their pensions paid on the salaries fixed prior to 1866. The matter had been brought before Parliament on two occasions, and in 1876 the late Government agreed to take the opinion of the English Law Officers as to whether they had power under the Act of 1874 to give pensions to old retired officers on the same footing as those who retired after the 1st of August, 1874. They did so, and were informed that they could do this if they thought proper; but, in the exercise of their discretion, they did not think proper to put in force the power they possessed under the Act of 1874 in this particular. The Act applied to a body of 250 or 300 persons, whose number were diminishing daily as the men died off, and the old grievance of the surviving men who retired before the 1st of August 1874 still existed. The reason for the Act of 1874 was that the Act of 1866 was deemed a hardship on those who retired under the terms of the Act of 1866. The Committee had now an opportunity of putting the matter

    1437
    right, at a time when it was doing justice to the Constabulary of Ireland as a body. These men were unable to protect themselves; and, though they were old servants no longer serving the Crown or their country, in this particular, at all events, he hoped there were many men in the House, including Members connected with Ireland, who would be anxious to do justice to a deserving body of men by rectifying a mistake and a striking inequality, which was pretty generally admitted. He wished to draw the attention of the Chief Secretary to the fact that the clause he was proposing was not retrospective. He did not ask the Committee or the House, by passing this clause, to pay any of the arrears which might be claimed by pensioned policemen on account of the pension they had lost between their retirement and the present time. It would be observed that he had so framed the clause that the pensioners would not be entitled to any addition to their present pensions except from the time of the passing of this Act. The clause would place the old pensioners in futuro on the same footing as those who were lucky enough to resign after the 1st of August, 1874. He desired to press on the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary—whose feelings of propriety and justice they could rely on having fair play—not to pooh-pooh this matter. It had been looked upon as a grievance, not only by the old pensioners who had suffered, but by the members of the existing Force, who were of opinion that their comrades had not been treated fairly. The Government had now an opportunity of making a graceful concession to the Constabulary of Ireland, who as a body were deserving of every praise. They had received much at the hands of these men of late, and the Committee now had an opportunity of remedying an old grievance under circumstances which bad never existed before There were not many hon. Members representing Irish constituencies present; but that fact was owing to this Bill having come on at so late an hour. If it had come on earlier, and Irish Members had been aware that this simple act of justice was about to be sought, he had no doubt it would have been possible to have obtained the attendance of very many more.
    New Clause:—
    (Calculation of pensions of persons who retired before the passing of the Act of 1874.)
    "All persons who, previous to the coming into operation of 'The Constabulary (Ireland) Act, 1874,' retired from service in the Royal Irish Constabulary, are hereby declared to be entitled, as from the date of the passing of this Act, to have the superannuations or pensions granted to them respectively under the provisions of the Act passed in the Session of Parliament held in the ninth and eleventh years of Her present Majesty, entitled 'An Act to regulate the superannuation allowances of the Constabulary Force in Ireland, and of the Dublin Metropolitan Police,' calculated upon the scale or rate of pay of which they were respectively in receipt at the respective dates of their retirement,"—(Mr. Lewis,)
    —brought up, and read the first time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    MR. T. A. DICKSONsaid, that though, as the hon. Member who had preceded him had pointed out, there were not many Irish Members present, he believed that all those who were in attendance would vote for the clause, and he did hope it would receive the favourable consideration of Her Majesty's Government. To his own knowledge, the question had been before the House for the past eight or nine years, and there could be no doubt that these old Constabulary officers had a substantial grievance, an opportunity for redressing which now presented itself. The hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Lewis) had explained the whole circumstances of the case; and, after his explanation, he (Mr. Dickson) hoped the very moderate demand which was made on behalf of the old policemen would be acceded to. He hoped the Government would yield to the representations which had been made to them, and allow the clause to be inserted in the Bill.
    COLONEL KING-HARMANsaid, he would merely add one word to the statement of the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Lewis) as to the grievances of these officers. It was charged by some of these officers—and certainly there seemed to be considerable ground for it—that many of them had been kept on previous to the passing of the Act of 1874 beyond their usual time for retiring, while the provisions of the Act were being considered, and that then they had been suddenly shelved within

    1439
    a few days of the passing of the Act. It certainly had seemed as though they were shelved in order to prevent them from obtaining the advantage of the improved scale of pensions. He himself had had two pensioners on his demesne. They had retired within six months of each other; their period of service was the same; and yet, whilst one received £72 a-year, the other, who had retired before the passing of the Act of 1874, only received £40.
    MR. BIGGARsaid, that hitherto the men had been refused any redress, and from what he could gather very justly so, seeing that they had no grievance. The alleged grievance of the ex-constables whose case the Committee were considering was that they were in a rather worse position than another class of pensioners. They did not allege that the Government had not kept faith with them, and had not fulfilled their contract so far as they themselves were concerned; but what they complained of was that another class of pensioners were in a better position than they. They had got their contract; and, that being so, he did not think they had any cause for complaint. Because some men got far more than enough, it did not follow that those men who got just enough should have an addition made to their pensions.
    MR. FINDLATERsaid, there were several pensioners in the county he represented (Monaghan) who were in a position similar to that of the men referred to by the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Lewis), and he thought they had a substantial grievance. Those constables who retired after the passing of the Act of 1847 had their pensions calculated on an increased scale, whilst those who retired before had theirs calculated on the old scale. This was scarcely fair, as the members of the Metropolitan Police, who were in a similar position, had received more favourable treatment.
    COLONEL COLTHURSTsaid, he hoped the Government would see their way to making a concession in this matter. The point to Members of the Committee was a very trifling one; but it was a very great one to those whose interests were affected.
    MR. TREVELYANsaid, he was sorry to be obliged to take an attitude which would destroy, to a certain extent, the
    1440
    harmony which had hitherto existed in regard to this Bill; but he was sorry to say that he had very seldom listened to a debate with more certainty that he was bound to take a particular course, and one adverse to the views of many hon. Members, than he felt on this occasion. It was quite true that the amount involved was not large as compared with some of the enormous sums with which they had been dealing so freely to-night; but the principle was very serious, indeed he believed it was the most serious that had ever been submitted to the House. It was, that when a man had done his service, and had retired under the conditions that were in force at the time, should his position be made a subject of revision by Parliament? The facts of the case had been put before the Committee very clearly. The Act of 1847 created a very liberal scale of pensions. Then came the Act of 1866, which added to the pay of the police; and it was enacted that the men who had been appointed in 1866 should be pensioned under the Act of 1847. That, he might roughly say, was the provision which had been introduced into the present Act with regard to pension as compared with pay. Then came another great rise of pay in 1874, and, unfortunately, as he thought, in that year Parliament was not so vigilant to observe the right principle in dealing with these matters. In a moment of weakness it was decided that all the men then in the Force should be entitled by the Act of Parliament to be pensioned on the scale of pensions according to the pay to which they had become entitled. He must say that men who were pensioned on the full pay of 1874 received a pension very much larger than should have been given in order to attract men of a certain class into the Service of the Crown. The hon. Member for Londonderry, who had advocated the claims of those men with great fidelity, told them there was a mistake in the Act of 1866. No doubt, there was a mistake; but it was one eight years later on, and in accepting the clause of the hon. Member they would be making that mistake greater still. The discontent of these men came not, as he maintained, from their having been badly used themselves, but because a certain number of men who came after them, but who came before the men the Committee were now dealing with, were well

    1441
    used in a most exceptional manner. The men who retired before 1866 did not get the 1866 scale of pay in computing pensions; whereas the men who retired after 1874 got the 1874 scale of pay in the computation. That there was an inequality no one could deny; but he did not see that it constituted an injustice, because the men were not in the Force now. The pensions awarded them were according to the law which was in force when they retired, and it could not be made inequitable; and he did not see that it could be made unjust by any subsequent transaction. If there was any inherent injustice in the Act of 1866, that ought to have been pointed out at the time; and the Act of 1874 should not have been waited for, before it was shown that injustice had been done to the men who came under the operation of the Act of 1866. He would ask hon. Members to reflect on the enormous number of public servants, civil, naval, and military, who were in receipt of pensions under a great variety of Acts, and to consider how wide and large a door they were opening when they began to consider the position of those servants who retired under Acts less favourable than Acts which had since been introduced. It was not a question of 200 or 300 men, but of hundreds of thousands of men; it was not a question of £2,000 or £3,000 a-year, but a question, if this principle was admitted, of millions. If there was any matter in which it was necessary to have a Statute of Limitations, it seemed to him to be the condition of men who left the service of the Crown. It was with great regret that he was obliged to turn a deaf ear to appeals made from both sides of the House; and he asked hon. Members to consider, if this Motion was pressed to a division, that they would be voting not only for a small concession, but for a large and a dangerous principle.
    MR. COURTNEYsaid, he thought that, upon the matter of principle, nothing could be added to the lucid argument of the Chief Secretary; but he wished to submit a point which would probably settle this question. This was a proposal to extend to certain persons, who had retired from the Police Force as far back as 1874, the benefit of certain provisions. The men in question were not in the Force, and he apprehended that an Act of Parliament involving a
    1442
    charge of money could not go beyond the provisions of the Resolution of the Committee upon which that Act was founded, and that the Resolution upon which the Act was founded was one making an increase in the pay and pensions of members of the Constabulary. That limited the scope of the Act founded upon the Resolution; and, therefore, as he took it, this clause was outside the powers of the Committee. It could not be inserted in the Bill under those circumstances.
    MR. CALLANrose to a point of Order. The point he raised was that the title of the Bill was—"A Bill to amend the Laws relating to the Pay and Pensions of the Royal Irish Constabulary and the Police Force of Dublin Metropolis; and for other purposes;" and it was upon that title that leave to bring it in was given, and, as he had more than once heard it ruled, that Order for Leave covered the object of a Bill. He, therefore, submitted that the words "and for other purposes" covered the clause proposed by the hon. Member for Londonderry, and disposed of the argument of the economical Secretary to the Treasury.
    COLONEL KING-HARMANheld that these men were practically members of the Constabulary, as they received Contabulary pensions.
    MR. WARTONsaid, he thought the objection of the Secretary to the Treasury was a most narrow one. There wore no words whatever prescribing men now existing in the Force. That might be in the mind of the Financial Secretary; but, upon that principle, the pensions of any men might be dropped at any moment, because they were no longer in the Force. The question was not whether a man was actually serving in the Force, or had retired from the Service.
    MR. PLUNKET, on the point of Order, begged to draw attention to the concluding words of the Resolution referred to—
    "And that it is expedient to amend the Act for regulating the Constabulary and Police in Ireland."
    He thought this Amendment was sustainable under those words.
    THE CHAIRMAN: I am afraid I shall not be able to answer these questions if they are raised at once.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORpointed out, in confirmation of the opinions expressed,

    1443
    that the proposal of the lion. Member did not go beyond the purposes of the Bill. This was pointed out by the Chief Secretary, a few evenings ago, in defence of Section (c) of Clause 7, which provided that persons who did anything calculated to disturb the public peace should be deprived of their pensions. These pensioners held their pensions on the condition of assisting in the detection of crime—that was, still fulfilling a portion of the duties of policemen; and their pensions could be withdrawn if they did not fulfil those duties, which wore essentially police duties. Therefore, the hon. and gallant Member for the County of Dublin (Colonel King-Harman) was right in saying that these men were still practically in the Police Force. The Chief Secretary had founded upon their having ceased to be in the Force his objection, but they still continued to be police constables; and, therefore, any proposal with regard to them came legally, equitably, and literally under the Bill.
    THE CHAIRMAN: With regard to the observation of the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Callan) as to the title of a Bill, no doubt that would be correct if it were an ordinary Bill; but in a Money Bill the circumstances are different, and do not apply. So far as I am able to form a judgment, it is this. I do not think that the men who have retired from the Police Force can be considered any longer members of the Force, and I observe that they are described in the clause. The Resolution on which the Bill is founded applies to certain members of the Royal Irish Constabulary and the Dublin Metropolitan Force; and certainly this clause relates to persons who, in my opinion, are not members of those Forces; and, therefore, I am of opinion that this is a clause which cannot properly be submitted.
    COLONEL KING-HARMANsaid, these men were called Constabulary pensioners; and he gave Notice that, on the first opportunity, he should bring the case of these men before the House.
    SIR HERVEY BRUCEgave Notice that, on Report, he should, if he had the power, move the insertion of a clause in respect to these pensioners.
    MR. CALLANrose to move a new clause, which, he said, arose in consequence of what he believed to be a Departmental Rule. If a member of the
    1444
    Police Force was so studious and intelligent as to become fitted to pass a competitive examination, no Departmental Rule which had not the sanction of the House should bar his progress or his promotion to another branch of the Service. It happened that lately, and especially in the last year, the Constabulary authorities in Dublin had absolutely prohibited some of the young and most deserving and intelligent officers from entering examinations for other Departments of the Civil Service, and that had given great offence. In Scotland some young men went to a University for half-a-year, and in the other half they laboured to earn what they could to enable them to do that. In the same way, in Ireland, where there were no Universities of a cheap character, as in Scotland, young men being obliged to enter the Police Force for maintenance, educated themselves and entered for the examinations. The Departmental Rule had, however, forbidden them to do that, and the object of his new clause was to remove that prohibition. He thought that was a clause which would commend itself to the good feeling of the Committee; and he anticipated not only acceptance, but cordial endorsement, from one who had so identified himself with competitive examinations as the Chief Secretary.
    THE CHAIRMAN: This clause is altogether beyond the title of the Bill, which relates to pay and pensions.
    MR. CALLANsaid, he had no wish to delay the Bill; but, in consequence of that ruling, he would move that Progress be reported.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Callan.)
    MR. TREVELYANsaid, he hoped the hon. Member would withdraw the Motion, after he had given him an assurance that he would look into this question with considerable interest. He understood that this Departmental Rule had been laid down to discourage members of the Constabulary and Police, who had obtained the advantages of the instruction which could be gained in the schools of the Service, from utilizing that to get into other branches of the Service. He would look into the matter,

    1445
    and he hoped that promise would satisfy the hon. Member.
    MR. CALLANsaid, he would accept the right hon. Gentleman's assurance, and withdraw the Motion.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    Schedule 1.
    MR. BIGGARsaid, the next Amendment was in his name, and it had reference to the standard of pay. He thought the rates of pay, on the whole, too high; and he would ask whether the Chief Secretary did not also think so?
    Amendment proposed, in page 11, line 5, to leave out "40 s." and insert "35 s."—(Mr. Biggar.)
    Question proposed. "That'40 s.' stand part of the Schedule."
    MR. TREVELYANsaid, he did not wish to raise the wrath of the hon. Member by questions of Order; but he must draw attention to the fact that the Resolution declared it to be expedient to authorize the payment of money to increase the pay of certain members of the Royal Irish Constabulary, and he was afraid the hon. Member's Amendment would have a very different effect, because not only did he propose to diminish considerably the amount of pay which the Government proposed, but also to largely reduce the pay which the men at present received. A head constable at present got 38 s., and the Government proposed to give him 40 s., while the hon. Member proposed to reduce the amount to 35 s. A constable at the head of his rank now got 28 s., the Government proposed to make it 31 s., but the hon. Member proposed to reduce it to 25 s.; and while the Government proposed to increase a constable's pay from 24 s. to 27 s., the hon. Member proposed to reduce it to 20 s. The hon. Member wished to raise two points; one, the amount of pay required to attract the right sort of men; and the other, the question whether, in a particular rank, the pay was in proportion to the length of service. As to the first point, the Bill was entirely founded on the theory that a distinct and solid increase of pay was requested. There was a charge brought against the Bill that the men in the lower ranks got no increase of pay; but he did not think that was a serious grievance with the men; but if it was considered a griev-
    1446
    ance, how much greater grievance would it be to the older men, when they were married and had families, and had given more of their lives to their country's service, if they did not get any substantial increase? As to the equalization of pay throughout the whole of each rank, he thought there was something to be said for it when they came to the upper ranks. He could easily imagine all constables having an average of pay, but that was not at all the case with the other large class which at present went under the name of sub-constables; and here he would call attention to the criticism of the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton) this evening. The hon. and learned Member said the old nomenclature was still retained in the Schedule, and altered it elsewhere. That alteration only took place on the 1st of October; and as this Bill, he hoped, would be passed on the 1st of June, it was proper to retain the old names. In the class of sub-constables, it was most important that the men of 20 years' service should be decidedly better off than those of 12 years' service, and the men of 12 years' service better off than those of four, three, or two years' service. The former men belonged to the older class; they were not likely to rise to the higher ranks; they were solid, respectable men, and they looked for comfort for themselves and their families. It was important that they should be kept contented by a marked increase of wages, and by pensions, which would give them a hope of increasing prosperity. Under all these circumstances he could not accept the Amendment.
    MR. BIGGARsaid, he would withdraw this Amendment, and would not move any of the other Amendments in his name.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Schedule agreed to.
    Schedule 2.
    MR. WARTONsaid, he proposed an Amendment which he hoped the Government would accept, as it came, he thought, within the scope of the Bill. He did not think the Secretary to the Treasury would object to it on the ground of technicality, with regard to the terms of the Resolution or to the terms of the Bill, which was clearly a Bill for providing pensions for the mem-

    1447
    bers of the Constabulary. The matter was partly arithmetical, and partly one of principle. If they had a scale of going up to 50 it was awkward to introduce two-thirds; and if they divided the unit into fiftieth parts, and wanted to take two-thirds of that, two-thirds would be 33 and two-thirds of 50. As to principle, in some cases there might be men who retained their physical vigour for 30 years sufficiently to act well as constables. Some men were stronger than others. Some matured more rapidly than others; but, suppose they considered 25 years as a fair term of service, still there might be men who could go on for five years longer than the average, and he held that 30 years was not a very long time for a man to retain his vigour and activity. He might go into the Force at 20 and be a good man at 50, while another might drop off at 25.
    Amendment proposed, in page 12, line 7, to leave out "two-thirds," and insert "seven-tenths."—(Mr. Warton.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule."
    MR. TREVELYANsaid, he could not assent to the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member. In a matter of this kind it was absolutely impossible for anyone, even the Member of the Government in charge of the Bill, off-hand to disregard the recommendations which had been made by a Committee which had gone into the matter at very great length, which had taken the opinion of actuaries, and likewise the opinion of the members of the Force. The hon. and learned Member had said that if they were to go up by fiftieths in the last year the men would have a broken fraction. There was, however, one strong reason for sticking to the figure which was named in the Bill; and that was that the maximum pension in all the other branches of the Civil Service was two-thirds of the salary. It was recognized by everybody as the pension which a Civil servant always looked forward to. If a pension was given of any larger amount it was only given in consequence of special services, and the grant of the pension must be specially reported to the House of Commons. He trusted the hon. and learned Member would not press the Amendment.
    MR. WARTONsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had not met his objection in any way. The right hon. Gentleman had spoken of actuaries; but they were all more or less actuaries, and they could perceive the absurdity of the fraction. It was perfectly absurd, when they went up by fiftieths, to have such a fraction as two-thirds. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would agree to insert the words "seven-tenths" as a means of meeting the difficulty.
    Amendment negatived.
    MR. BIGGARproposed to leave out lines 36 and 37 in page 12. Those lines ran as follows:—
    "(c.)If he has completed more than fifteen years' service, an annual sum not more than his annual pay."
    Those lines did not seem to him to agree with other parts of the Bill. If a man had completed nine years' service he was only entitled to 15–50ths of his annual pay; but if he had completed six years more he was entitled to full pay. If he had completed any service under 15 years he was only entitled to two-fifths. According to the sub-section, he now moved to omit, if a man had spent 16 years in the Service he was entitled to his full pay. It appeared to him that the proportion between the two sections was quite out of harmony; and he would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary that he should either substantially raise the rate of pension given under sub-sections (a) and (b), or very much lower the pension given under sub-section (c.).
    Amendment proposed, in page 12, to leave out lines 36 and 37.—(Mr. Biggar.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to; be left out stand part of the Schedule."
    MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYsaid, a line must be drawn somewhere. Fifteen years did not appear to be a very long service for a man to get a pension which might, under certain circumstances, be equal to his pay; but if a man was wholly incapacitated on account of the amount of service and hardship he had gone through lie was entitled to some substantial recognition. The hon. Gentleman's (Mr. Biggar's) attention had not, perhaps, been drawn to the words of the

    1449
    sub-section (c) of Section 4 of the Schedule—namely—
    "If he has completed more than fifteen years' service, an annual sum not more than his annual pay."
    MR. BIGGARsaid, the hon. and learned Gentleman had not made it clear that the two sections were in harmony. A man would only get, under subsection (c) of the 2nd section of the Schedule, 15–50ths of his annual pay; but if he served 15 years, or six years more, he would get full pay.
    MR. TREVELYANsaid the question of pension had many sides to it. Fifteen years' service served as a minimum, after which, in ordinary cases, a man could obtain a pension. Up to 15 years' service it might roughly be said that a man, when he retired from the Police Force, only obtained a gratuity; but after 15 years' service he became eligible for a pension. That was the reason why only 20–50ths was given up to the period of 15 years' service. It must not be imagined that after 15 years' service a man who was injured in the Service, either accidentally or in a fight, or when arresting a prisoner, would necessarily receive a sum equal to his annual pay. That was only the maximum which was named in the case of any brilliant service, accompanied by some terrible incapacity. That was proved by the words which followed the sub-section the hon. Member proposed to omit—namely—
    "Provided that if he has completed fifteen years' service the pension shall not be less than the sum to which he is entitled under article one of this Schedule."
    Those words clearly showed the intention of the Bill, which was that the pension which was given might, under certain circumstances, fall below that to which a man would be entitled under ordinary conditions, if it were not for the Schedule. Those regulations had been taken from the existing London scale. In the case of London it had been found that the power of giving a very large pension in most exceptional cases had not been abused; and, from what he had observed of the manner in which pensions were awarded in the Royal Irish Constabulary, he did not think such a power would be abused in that body. He did not think there was any serious danger to the public Exchequer in allowing the Irish Constabulary to be
    1450
    put, in regard to pension, upon what was now called the English scale.
    MR. BIGGARasked leave to withdraw his Amendment.
    MR. WARTONsaid, that, before the Amendment was withdrawn, he wished to remark that he quite agreed with the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary that a man who had done some brilliant action and sustained some terrible incapacity could be granted a pension equal to his full pay. That, however, was a breaking of the cast-iron rule of two-thirds. It was a very proper infringement of the rule, he admitted; but it showed that the rule was not so binding as the right hon. Gentleman had tried to make out.
    MR. TREVELYANsaid, the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) had studied the Bill so carefully, and had conducted his opposition to it so courteously, that he hoped he might be excused for rising to offer another argument which, when speaking a few moments ago, he forgot, and which, probably, was the most important argument which could be used on this most critical part of the Bill. The man they were now speaking of was a man about whom there were no brilliant or special circumstances which would exempt him from the rule of two-thirds. The man had very likely been a brave young officer, who had every chance of being promoted, serving his full time, and retiring on a full pension. If, by the performance of an act of gallantry, he was incapacitated, it was but right the authorities should have the power of awarding him such a pension as he would have received had he been able to complete his time.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. BIGGAR MR. BIGGAR moved to leave out lines 27 to 32, inclusive, in page 13. The paragraph he wished to omit was as follows:—
    "Where, on account of the infirmity of mind or body of a constable having been brought about or been contributed to by his own default or by his vicious habits, the pension granted to such constable is of less amount than that to which he would otherwise be entitled, the diminution of such pension shall not exceed five-fiftieths of the annual pay of such constable."
    He could not imagine any argument that the Chief Secretary could advance in favour of such a paragraph. It seemed

    1451
    to him that one-tenth of a constable's pay was so small an amount to allow for pension that he might as well have nothing at all. Personally, he did not think that a man who had misconducted himself, and therefore rendered himself unable to perform his duties, deserved any pension at all.
    Amendment proposed, in page 13, to leave out sub-section (7).—(Mr. Biggar.)
    Question put, "That the words proposed to be loft out stand part of the sub-section."
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 70; Noe 1: Majority 69.—(Div. List., No. 114.)
    COLONEL KING-HARMANsaid, he had an Amendment to propose to the Schedule, to the effect that—
    "The Lord Lieutenant may grant, out of money voted by Parliament, a sum not exceeding twenty pounds to any head or other constable who, at the time of his discharge on pension, may have completed a service of twenty-five years without an unfavourable record."
    He begged to move this Amendment. It might not be acceptable to the hon. and learned Member for Limerick (Mr. O'Shaughnessy), owing to the fact that it contained the words "unfavourable record;" but, whether or no, the object in view was a good one.
    THE CHAIRMAN: I may save the hon. and gallant Member some trouble by at once saying that I cannot put this Amendment, as it goes beyond the terms of the Resolution upon which the Bill is founded, which relates to pay and pensions, and not to gratuities.
    Amendment proposed, in page 14, line 4, to leave out from "or" to "and," in line 5, inclusive.—(Mr. Biggar.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule."
    MR. TREVELYANsaid, he could not accept this Amendment, as it would effect a serious reduction in the pensions proposed to be given to the families of these constables—a reduction of £4, £5, or £6 a-year out of the small sum the Bill proposed to grant, and which was one of the advantages in the measure looked to with satisfaction.
    MR. BIGGARsaid, his Amendment would make the Bill more consistent. If the right hon. Gentleman would un-
    1452
    dertake to strike out the earlier part of the sub-section he would withdraw the Amendment.
    MR. WARTONsaid, the Committee should consider, in the first place, whether the clause came within the terms of the Resolution, the Chairman having stated that that proposed by the hon. and gallant Member for County Dublin (Colonel King-Harman) did not. Let them consider whether widows and children were members of the Police Force.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    MR. BIGGARsaid, the next Amendment of which he had given Notice was on the same principle; and, seeing that they had not divided on the former, he did not see any use in moving the next.
    COLONEL KING-HARMANsaid, he wished to move an Amendment on the question of pensions, to the effect that the Lord Lieutenant have power to make grants for the support of the parents of constables and policemen killed whilst in the execution of their duty. A case occurred only the other day where a constable was killed by the discharge of a double-barrelled gun—a bad weapon supplied by Her Majesty's Government, and the man's parents, who had been depending on him, were left entirely without support.
    THE CHAIRMAN: This Amendment also will not come within the terms of the Resolution, and cannot, therefore, be put.
    MR. BIGGARhaving addressed a further question to the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant,
    MR. TREVELYANsaid, the object the hon. Member sought to attain was secured in the Bill as it stood. Under sub-section (a,) the pensions were calculated on the amount of the annual pay. Presumably, that annual pay had been the same for the last three years. Under sub-section (c), the constable whose annual pay had been raised during the past three years had had his pension calculated on the average of three years. Therefore, so far as he (Mr. Trevelyan) could follow the hon. Member's object, it was already secured by the Bill.
    MR. BIGGARsaid, that sub-section (c) only applied to constables who became members of the Force after the present time. What would be the effect of sub-section (d)?
    MR. TREVELYANsaid, the effect of sub-section (d) would be pretty much the same as the effect of sub-section (c).
    Schedule agreed to.
    Question put, "That this be the Preamble of the Bill."
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: I wish to ask, Mr. Chairman, where the Preamble will come in, as you have put it before the whole of the Schedules?
    THE CHAIRMAN: That was not the Question I intended to put. The Question is, "That Schedule 3 be added to the Bill."
    Schedules 3 and 4 agreed to.
    Question proposed, "That this be the Preamble of the Bill."
    MR. CALLANsaid, he wished to put a question to the Chief Secretary. This Bill was founded upon the Report of a Royal Commission or Committee of Inquiry; but, unfortunately, it did not deal with one portion of the inquiry. It did not deal with the promotion of discipline in the Force. Many complaints connected with the discipline of the men had been made of late, yet that vexed question was not touched by the Bill. The question had disturbed the Constabulary very much, and had, in no small degree, militated against its efficiency. There were one or two Amendments in connection with this subject which he had placed before the Chairman, but which the hon. Gentleman had declined to accept, although there were clauses in the Bill—notably the 12th clause—which had no more to say to pay and pensions than his Amendments. On Report he would follow the example of the hon. and gallant Member (Colonel King-Harman), who had intimated his intention of raising a question on matters he was not allowed to submit in the form of Amendments to the Committee. Would the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Trevelyan), at an early stage, bring in a Bill to deal with the discipline of the Constabulary, or give some assurance with regard to it? The question of discipline was one which affected the efficiency of the Force more than the question of pay and pensions. The sectarian character of the appointments amongst the officials in Dublin came under this head—the Sub-Inspectors, County Inspectors. The grievance was that Catholics were not promoted in due course. That was one matter to
    1454
    which he wished to call attention, and another was with reference to the Report of the Committee of Inquiry as to promotions to the office of Sub-Inspector. There was not the slightest doubt that all the efficiency of the Dublin Police, and a great portion of that of the Irish Constabulary, was dependent on the officering of the Force.
    THE CHAIRMAN: Order! The hon. Member for Louth is entitled, by the indulgence of the Committee, to ask any question of the right hon. Gentleman on this Bill; but he is not entitled to go into arguments, or develop his observations upon general questions affecting the condition of the Constabulary.
    MR. CALLANsaid, the question he wished to ask was, whether the right hon Gentleman was prepared to give an assurance to the Committee that, for the future, the promotion would not be a quarter from the ranks, but would be a half?
    MR. TREVELYANsaid, no; he was not prepared to give an assurance on that point. It would be a change of the greatest importance, and one which, he must own, from reasons he could hardly give at this moment, would be extremely dubious in its nature. Many questions arose on this matter; and he thought that, on the whole, the proportion, as it existed, was a good one.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill reported, without Amendment; to be read the third time To-morrow.

  LAND IMPROVEMENT AND ARTERIAL DRAINAGE (IRELAND) BILL.
  (Mr. Courtney, Mr. Herbert Gladstone.)
  LAND IMPROVEMENT AND ARTERIAL DRAINAGE (IRELAND) BILL.

    [BILL 189.] SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Second Reading of the Bill be deferred till Thursday next."—(Mr. Courtney.)
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he wished to ask the Financial Secretary (Mr. Courtney) if he could make any statement as to when the measure was likely to be printed? It was first to have been printed before the Whitsuntide Recess; then it was to have been printed during that Vacation; but it had not yet made its appearance. Many Members were anxious to see it in print.
    MR. COURTNEYreplied, that no Members were more anxious than he

    1455
    was to see the Bill in circulation. It had been found necessary to consult many authorities in regard to it, and that had caused considerable delay. He thought that most probably it would be in the hands of Members by Thursday.
    Motion agreed to.
    Second Reading deferred till Thursday next.

  LORD ALCESTER'S ANNUITY BILL.
  (Sir Arthur Otway, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Gladstone.)
  LORD ALCESTER'S ANNUITY BILL.

    [BILL 145.] COMMITTEE.
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    MR. BIGGARsaid the Amendments now being inserted were only formal—the whole stage appeared to be formal—therefore he did not object.
    SIR WILFRID LAWSONwished to know when the next stage of the Bill would be taken? He presumed it would not be taken on Monday.
    MR. COURTNEYreplied, that it would not be taken on Monday.
    Bill reported; to be printed, as amended [Bill 207]; re-committed for Monday next.

  MOTIONS.
    FOREST OF DEAN (HIGHWAYS) BILL.

      NOMINATION OF SELECT COMMITTEE.
      Motion made, and Question proposed,
      "To nominate the Select Committee on the Forest of Dean (Highways) Bill—Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH, Colonel KINGSCOTE, Lord MORETON, Mr. SOTHERON ESTCOURT, and Mr. COURTNEY, and Four by the Committee of Selection:—Power to send for persons, papers, and records; Three to be the quorum."
      MR. CALLAN: I object.
      MR. SPEAKER: According to the Standing Order, the hon. Member cannot object to the Motion being made. The Half-Past Twelve Rule does not apply to Motions of this kind.
      Question put, and agreed to.

      LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (NO. 10) (LEEDS) BILL.
      On Motion of Mr. HIBBERT, Bill to confirm a Provisional Order of the Local Government Board relating to the Borough of Leeds, ordered to be brought in by Mr. HIBBERT and Sir CHARLES DILKE.
      Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 206.]
      House adjourned at Three o'clock.