CLASS II.—SALARIES AND EXPENSES OF CIVIL DEPARTMENTS.

HC Deb 31 May 1883 vol 279 cc1370-430

(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 the 31st day of March 1884, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Registry of Friendly Societies.

DR. CAMERON

said, 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 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 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;" 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 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 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 PEDDIE

said, 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- 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 LUSK

said, 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. BIGGAR

said, 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 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-PEDDIE

remarked, 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) 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. CAMERON

said, 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 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. BURT

said, 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. BIGGAR

said, 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 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. BIGGAR

said, 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. EARP

said, 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. COURTNEY

was 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 ARNOLD

moved 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 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, 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. COURTNEY

said, 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 (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. WAUGH

said, 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-IBBETSON

deprecated 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 COWEN

said, 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 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. COURTNEY

said, 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. DILLWYN

said, 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- 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. GREGORY

said, 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 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. FOWLER

said, 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 ARNOLD

said, 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. WARTON

said, 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. BARTTELOT

said, 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? 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. HIBBERT

said, 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 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. FOWLER

said, 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 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. DILKE

said, he thought that, on the whole, there had not been an increase in the expenses.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, his statement was that they stood at an extravagant figure.

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

replied 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. SMITH

said, 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, 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 part of the enormous burden under which it groaned.

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

said, 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 ROGERS

said, he should like to add his testimony with regard to the advisability of developing this system of emigration. He had been 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. HIBBERT

said, 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 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. SALT

said, 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 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 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 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 beneficial to the children and to the nation at large.

MR. HENEAGE

said, 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 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 CROSS

said, 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 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 COWEN

said, 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 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 ARNOLD

observed, 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. DILKE

said, 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 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 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. LABOUCHERE

said, 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. DILKE

said, 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. JAMES

said, he wished to ask a question with respect to pauper children and schools. Very little had 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. CROPPER

asked 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. HIBBERT

replied, 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 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. STEVENSON

quite 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. RYLANDS

said, 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 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 20s. 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- 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 HARCOURT

said, 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; 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 CROSS

said, 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. HENEAGE

said, he had not impeached the conduct of the Home Secretary; he had simply said there was 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. BALFOUR

said, 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. CAMERON

said, 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 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. DILKE

suggested that the hon. Member should raise the point on the Scotch Vote.

DR. CAMERON

said, 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. DILKE

said, 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. CAMERON

said, all he wanted was that Scotland should be treated equally with England.

MR. RAMSAY

said, 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 CHURCHILL

said, 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 COWEN

asked whether the entire Vote for the Irish Office had been passed?

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

submitted 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- 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 CHURCHILL

wished 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 CHURCHILL

said, 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 CHURCHILL

said, 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 referring in any way to Mr. Errington's Mission.

SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF

said, 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 WOLFF

said, 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 COWEN

said, 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 CHURCHILL

ventured 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'CONNOR

asked 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 WOLFF

asked 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 COLLINGS

said, 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 IBBETSON

understood 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. 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 CHURCHILL

said, 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. HENEAGE

rose 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. HENEAGE

asked 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 CHURCHILL

said, 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 WOLFF

said, 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 WOLFF

said, 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 COWEN

understood 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. ILLINGWORTH

inquired whether it was in Order to ask such a question until the Motion to report Progress had been disposed of?

MR. BIGGAR

submitted 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'CONNOR

said, 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 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'CONNOR

said, 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 CHURCHILL

said, 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, 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. GLADSTONE

declined 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 CHURCHILL

asked leave to withdraw the Motion to report Progress, in place of which he would move another Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

then 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, 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. GLADSTONE

said, he entirely recognized the wisdom of the Chairman's decision that the noble Lord (Lord Ran- 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. BALFOUR

said, 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. BALFOUR

said, that being so, it would be convenient that the matter should be taken at an early hour to- 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 WOLFF

said, 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. FOWLER

said, 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 COWEN

said, 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. BARTELOTT

said, he rose for the purpose of raising a much more serious question than that raised by his noble Friend. He asked 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'CONNOR

said, 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 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. GLADSTONE

said, 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 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 CROSS

said, 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. GLADSTONE

said, 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. RYLANDS

said, 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 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. BARTTELOT

said, 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. MOLLOY

said, 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- land when Supply should be next put down, so as to avoid it coming on in the last days of the Session?

MR. GLADSTONE

said, 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.