§ (1.)£63,113, to complete the sum for Home Office.
§ MR. HEALYsaid, he was glad to see the Home Secretary present. He wanted to know whether the attention of the right hon. and learned Gentleman had been called to certain articles which had appeared in The Freeman's Journal and other Irish newspapers concerning a lady who was said to be a female emissary sent over by the Home Office to that country? He wished to know if that lady was still in the service of the Home Department?
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTwas sorry to say that he was not as conversant with the Irish papers as, perhaps, he ought to be. He had read a good many of them, and he had seen in them a number of extraordinary statements, most of which he found to be inaccurate, 945 He had not, however, seen the statement to which the hon. Member referred. He could, however, assure the hon. Member that he had no emissary whatever, and, above all, no female emissary. That was the only answer he could give to the hon. Member.
§ MR. HEALYremarked, that a telegram to this person from the Home Office was in the possession of a friend of his.
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTAll that I can say is that I know nothing about it.
§ Vote agreed to.
§
(2.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £46,474, 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 1885, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of Her Majesty's Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.
§ MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTbelieved it was within his right to call the attention of the Committee, in some detail, upon this Vote, to Her Majesty's foreign policy. He did not, however, propose to go into full details at that moment, as he had no desire to occupy the time of the Committee unnecessarily. He wished, however, to draw the attention of the Committee to the want of information which had been displayed in both Houses, but especially in that House, on the part of Her Majesty's Foreign Office; and he should be obliged to refer to various matters with which the Foreign Office had recently had to deal. He did not wish to be understood to blame the noble Lord the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs for the course he had pursued in that House. He believed the noble Lord was suffering from the company into which he had been thrown. He was satisfied the noble Lord would be disposed to give more accurate information if he were in a position to do so; but, of course, the noble Lord, in these matters, acted under the direction of the Cabinet, and especially of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, who was not a Member of that House. Therefore, any remarks he had to make in reference to want of information would apply more particularly to the Cabinet and to the Secretary of State, than to the noble Lord. The first point to which 946 he would refer was the extraordinary want of information possessed by the Government with regard to the critical position of affairs in Egypt. He had endeavoured, over and over again, to obtain some information as to the progress and the movements of the Mahdi. It was quite clear, from all the independent testimony that came to this country, that the position of Egypt was extremely critical, and that at the close of the Ramadan, which he believed would last about a fortnight longer, everybody in that country expected a serious disturbance.
§ MR. RYLANDSrose to Order. The Vote related to the salaries of the officials in the Foreign. Office; and he submitted that the hon. Member was out of Order in raising upon that Vote a general question as to the foreign policy of Her Majesty's Government.
§ MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTsaid, that before the Chairman gave a ruling upon that point, he wished to call attention to the statement he had made—that he was not going to enter into details, although it was entirely within his right to do so; but he was endeavouring to point out the special cases in which the Foreign Office had failed to afford information. He proposed to conclude by moving the reduction of the Vote.
THE CHAIRMANIt is very difficult to say where a limit should be put to a discussion upon a Vote which involves the salary of the Secretary of State; but I may point out to the hon. Member that, by the long practice of the House, the convenience of the House would be best consulted by not importing into the consideration of the Foreign Office Vote questions which involve the foreign policy of the Government.
§ MR. HEALYwished to point out, on the point of Order, that on the Vote for the salary of the Chief Secretary for Ireland it was the custom to raise the whole question of the policy of the Irish Government. He wished to know if the Irish Members were to be stopped and prevented from entering into that discussion when the Vote for the Chief Secretary was reached?
THE CHAIRMANThe hon. Member for Eye (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett) is in possession of the Committee, and may continue his remarks. When I think the hon. Member is out of Order, I will stop him.
MR. ASHMEAD-BARLETTsaid, he was surprised at the interruption of the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands), who had himself been distinguished by raising discursive discussions upon almost every question for many years. He believed he was entirely within his right in entering upon a discussion of the Egyptian Question upon this Vote. But, without entering into details, he merely desired to point out, in general terms, the critical condition of Egypt, and to show how little information they were able to get from the Government. Before he was interrupted by the hon. Member, he was proceeding to point out how the movements of the Mahdi had extended, and how an invasion of Lower Egypt was expected by persons of the very highest authority on the spot, both English and Egyptian. The Government had been asked for information over and over again in reference to Berber, Dongola, and Assouan; but the House could obtain no reliable information whatever. It was said that if Dongola fell, there must be an invasion of Egypt; and yet the Government were unable to state what the position of affairs was. Although they had agents only 200 miles away, at Wady-Halfa, and although this uncertainty had been going on for two months, Ministers had been unable to obtain any information as to the position of Dongola—whether the Mudir was faithful or not, or whether the Mahdi had obtained possession of the place or not—notwithstanding the fact that very valuable British lives were at stake. There were a dozen British officers scattered over the deserts, and there were no reliable troops until Assouan was reached. At that place, he believed, there was an entire battalion; but it might find itself suddenly surrounded and overwhelmed. So imperfect was the information of the Foreign Office with regard to Egypt that they did not know what was taking place at Dongola. He would have thought that they could have sent spies in order to find out the position of affairs there. [Laughter.] Hon. Members did not understand the importance of this, and he did not very much care for the ridicule they attempted to cast upon him, because the time would undoubtedly come when the importance of these places would be fully demonstrated—the importance of other places had been 948 demonstrated in the past. He only raised the question now to urge on the Foreign Office the importance of obtaining reliable information in regard to this dangerous fanatical movement, which was now spreading onwards towards Egypt, and which, in the opinion of many, if not of all, well-informed persons in that country, might cause our small garrisons there, before very many weeks elapsed, to be fighting for their lives. There was another point from which he thought the House suffered owing to the want of information—a question which had been raised by the late Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Bourke), who was not, however, at that moment, in his place to deal with it—namely, what was going to happen with regard to the police arrangements in Egypt, and how far the old system was to be resorted to? He would now go to another part of the world, in which the interests of this country, although not so great as those in Egypt, were really very considerable. He had asked the noble Lord the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to give the House some reliable information in regard to what was going on in Madagascar; but he found it impossible to obtain accurate intelligence as to what was going on in that remote Island, although it was well known that there were large British interests at stake. Their trade, which had been destroyed by the French operations, amounted to nearly £1,000,000 a-year, and many of Her Majesty's subjects had suffered grievous injury. A considerable sum of money had been voted by the French Assembly for the conquest of the Island. He had received many complaints from private individuals and others, showing how their interests had been neglected. They were told that a Consul General had been sent out to Madagascar last February or March. The noble Lord said he had no information, and yet the newspapers that morning informed the public that large reinforcements had been sent to the Island, which were about to march on different points. They knew what would happen when that took place. The French hold, once gained, would never be relaxed. It must be remembered that the people of Madagascar were our friends; that they had been largely Christianized; and that we 949 carried on a considerable trade with them which amounted to atleast £150,000 per annum, but which would be permanently destroyed. Under these circumstances, it was lamentable that they were unable to obtain any information from the Foreign Office with reference to Madagascar. If he went to another part of the world—namely, China, he was equally unable to obtain information. He found, from the statements in the public newspapers, that war between China and France was imminent, and if war did break out it must necessarily cause great injury to British commerce and British trade. When they asked if any mediation was being undertaken, they were told that Her Majesty's Government had made no attempt at mediation, and that they did not believe they would succeed if they did. No one would deny that the interests of this country were largely concerned in China. He believed there was no barbarous or semi-barbarous country in which their interests were greater than in China; and yet, in the face of so injurious a prospect as that of war between France and China, the Foreign Office was unable to give the House any information. They heard, on good authority, that the unfortunate encounter between the Chinese and the French troops arose out of a misunderstanding occasioned by want of notice on the part of the French General to the Chinese Commander at Lang-son; but surely that afforded a ground for the Representatives of the Foreign Office to offer mediation. Yet, because Her Majesty's Ministers were embarrassed by these unfortunate diplomatic failures elsewhere, they dared not stand up against French aggression upon China. That was the third allegation he made against the Foreign Office. The last point he would mention had reference to the financial proposals which had been laid before the Powers of Europe who were taking part in the Conference. He was sorry the Prime Minister was not in his place, because the noble Lord the Under Secretary of State might not feel himself entitled to give information without the authority of the right hon. Gentleman. It was, however, a point on which Parliament ought no longer to be kept in the dark. On the 28th of June, proposals, in reference to Egypt, were made on the part of Her Majesty's 950 Government by the Foreign Secretary of a grave financial character to the European Powers. It was understood that the House would be put in the possession of the whole case in regard to the proposals before they were submitted to the Conference, and yet the very point on which the House had a right to have the fullest, the earliest, and the most ample information was the only point now withheld from them. The proposals had been communicated to the Powers of Europe 16 days ago, and yet no information in regard to them had been conveyed either to this or the other House of Parliament. He held that that was a remarkable dereliction of duty on the part of the Ministers of the Crown. He submitted that the House of Commons had an absolute right to know the financial proposals submitted by the Foreign Office to the European Powers as soon as the European Powers received them, if not sooner. Certainly, they ought to have them submitted to the consideration of the House, and to the consideration of public opinion, some time before the debate upon those proposals, which was expected, took place. They were told that it was disrespectful to the Powers to reveal those proposals to the House before they had been considered in the Conference, yet it was not thought disrespectful to submit the proposals for the neutralization of Egypt, for the withdrawal of their troops, and in favour of a Multiple Control. At the time of the bombardment of Alexandria, they were told that it would be disrespectful to the Powers to land 1,500 men to catch Arabi Pasha; but it was not considered disrespectful to cause the destruction of Alexandria, and to fight the battle of Tel-el-Kebir. Although it was held to be disrespectful to the European Powers to submit the financial proposals to the House of Commons before they were considered by the Conference, it was not held to be disrespectful to submit all the other proposals before they had been adopted by the Powers. He hoped that hon. Members would admit that he had kept within the four corners of his promise, and that he had only briefly discussed matters of grave importance, in respect of which information had been withheld from the House. In order to mark his sense of the unjustifiable secrecy pursued by Her 951 Majesty's Government, and the want of information and general knowledge of which he complained in the Foreign Office, together with the neglect of the interests of the country by Her Majesty's Government, largely due to their astonishing ignorance of what was taking place abroad, he moved that the Vote be reduced by the sum of £1,000.
§
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £45,474, 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 1885, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of Her Majesty's Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs."—(Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett.)
§ MR. RYLANDSsaid, that, of course, he did not wish to dispute the right of the hon. Member to raise a general discussion of this kind. It might show to the country that hon. Members were doing their duty in criticizing the efficiency of the Foreign Office. It was the right of any Member, before voting money, to ask questions, or to raise objections, on the ground of the alleged inefficiency of any particular Department. But, at the same time, on a Vote of this kind it was not desirable to enter into general questions of foreign policy simply because the salary of the Foreign Secretary was included in the Vote, because he ventured to say that it was utterly impossible for any Minister to make a reply. If the hon. Gentleman was proposing to reduce the Vote because he disapproved of the foreign policy of the Government, it was hardly a sufficient ground; but he understood the hon. Member to say that he objected to the Vote because the Government were inefficient apart from their general administration of foreign affairs. It appeared to him that the hon. Gentleman was dissatisfied because the Government seemed always to be behindhand in obtaining information. Now, that had been the case during the whole of his (Mr. Rylands's) experience of Parliament. He had invariably found that the Foreign Office was always the last to know anything about foreign matters, although they were communicated to other nations, notwithstanding that they had a most lavishly expensive system for putting themselves in communication with foreign countries, with a view of obtaining information. He had always 952 contended, and he contended now, that the amount of money this country spent on the Foreign Department was altogether in excess of any advantage they derived from that Department. The whole of the expenditure of the Foreign Office was conducted on the most lavish scale. The officials were all very highly paid; and not only so, but he thought it would be found on inquiry that the total number of them might be permanently reduced. There were two or three items in the Vote which had always been objected to. He saw an hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. W. Lowther) look at him, probably because the hon. Member remembered the old controversy in regard to the charge for Foreign Office messengers. He found in the present Vote an item of £6,780 for Foreign Office messengers, in addition to which the country was called upon to pay £10,000 or £11,000 annually for travelling expenses. He did not hesitate to say that this country paid three times as much for Foreign Office messengers, or messengers connected with the Foreign Department, as any other first-class Power in the world. There could be no doubt about it. The Foreign Office messengers of the other Great Powers had nothing like the salaries which were paid to those of this country, nor were there as many of them as we employed for the purposes of the Foreign Office. He believed a large amount of the expenditure would be saved, if, under the great advantages they now possessed in the Postal and Telegraph system, they reduced, not only the number of Foreign Office messengers, but the salaries and expenditure charged in this account. The appointment of Foreign Office messengers had always stood upon an objectionable footing. Gentlemen were appointed who had some claim upon the official persons connected with the country, or with the Foreign Office—perhaps half-pay officers, or other gentlemen—the object being to place them in a comfortable position. They travelled through Europe under the most luxurious circumstances, from which they derived a handsome income in addition to their pay, and they had provision made for their travelling expenses on a very liberal scale, far different from what was done in other countries. He ventured further to say that the necessity for the employment of these gentlemen was much less 953 now than it was a few years ago. Before the telegraphic system came into operation there was a greater necessity for communicating by direct means between the Foreign Office or Downing Street and their Embassies abroad; but under the new state of circumstances the services of some of these gentlemen might be advantageously dispensed with. He sincerely hoped that the old traditions and the antiquated forms of the Foreign Office would be to some extent done away with. He did not believe there was any Department of the State which was so antiquated in its ideas as the Foreign Office. He believed that telegrams would do the work much better than these Foreign Office messengers. At present, the latter occupied themselves in conveying despatches, which anybody who read the Blue Books would see took up a considerable amount of the attention of the Government officials, and led to a considerable amount of expenditure. What he wanted to see was that the Foreign Office should get rid of these old forms, which only tended to increase expenditure and occupy time, and that they should devote themselves to the acquisition of a more businesslike style, which would place them in a position to obtain better information abroad. He could not support the proposal of the hon. Member for Eye (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett) to reduce the Vote by the sum of £10,000.
§ MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTsaid, the hon. Member was mistaken; he only proposed to reduce it by £1,000.
§ MR. RYLANDSsaid, he would vote a reduction of £1,000 as a protest. He had no objection to that at all, because he considered that the Vote was altogether excessive, and beyond what was necessary for the purposes of the Foreign Office. There was another point he desired to mention—namely, the continued charge of £300 a-year paid to the Secretary of State for the management of the Secret Service Fund of the Foreign Department. He had been in hopes, when the late change took place in the Permanent Secretaryship, that this item would have been got rid of. The sum formerly paid to Lord Hammond was £500, and it was paid, without the knowledge of Parliament, out of the Secret Service money. The fact, however, was ascertained from a former Under Secretary of State for Foreign 954 Affairs that the sum of £500 was paid to Lord Hammond, and that it came out of the Secret Service Fund itself. It was then arranged, as he understood, that, while it would be continued to the then holder of the Office, there would be a reduction when Lord Hammond's successor was appointed, with a view to the ultimate removal of the charge. When Lord Hammond ceased to be Permanent Under Secretary, the amount that was paid to his successor was reduced to £300 a-year; but he felt that to be an excessive amount, considering the duties the Permanent Under Secretary had to perform in connection with this service. He thought the Committee was entitled to have some information upon the subject; and he regretted to see that, although there had been another change in the office of Permanent Secretary, Her Majesty's Government had not got rid of the charge altogether.
§ SIR HENRY HOLLANDsaid, he would not follow the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) in his attack upon the salaries of the officials connected with the Foreign Office, because he considered it useless and a waste of time. The hon. Member, as well as other hon. Members, every year, attacked the salaries of the Foreign Office officials; but, as far as he could make out, they never took any steps to inquire into the working of the Office, or even to ask for a Committee of Inquiry into it. He (Sir Henry Holland), as an old official, protested against these general attacks on the salaries of the gentlemen who performed these duties, unless they were followed up by a distinct proceeding—such as asking for a Committee of Inquiry into the working of the system. He agreed, however, in the views of the hon. Member as to the last item to which he had referred; and he had intended to put a question to the noble Lord the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs as to the payment of this sum of £300 for the management of the Secret Service Fund of the Foreign Department. He had understood that Lord Hammond, who was Permanent Under Secretary before Lord Tenterden, had received this sum out of the Secret Service Fund, partly in consideration of his long and able services, but that the payment was to be discontinued on the retirement of Lord Hammond. He could not understand why there 955 should be a claim of this kind put forward by the Foreign Office, and why, if any duties were to be performed in connection with the Secret Service Fund, they were not discharged without any special payment, as they were at the Home and Colonial Offices. The Assistant Secretary of the Colonial Office received no additional pay because he had to manage this fund; and he (Sir Henry Holland) could not for the life of him see why the Foreign Office Secretary should get this sum when it was not paid in connection with any other Department.
§ LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEsaid, there was one observation which had fallen from the hon. Member for Eye (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett) which he confessed he had listened to with very great interest. The hon. Member said that the unfortunate difficulty between France and China had arisen from want of Notice. He (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice) had often expressed an opinion that a great number of unfortunate encounters which took place between the hon. Member and himself arose from want of notice. In this particular case he was inclined to think the Committee would not be willing to enter into all the topics which the hon. Member had raised. It would only lead the Committee into a prolonged discussion which it would not be convenient to enter into. He would remind the hon. Member, in regard to his complaint of want of information, that he would find on inquiry that there had been very few Sessions of Parliament in which such an amount of information had been given to the House by the Foreign Office in the shape of Blue Books. He would also remind the hon. Member that he had undertaken to lay on the Table, next week, Papers on one of the subjects to which the hon. Member had alluded—namely, Egypt. In regard to the Conference, the hon. Member himself had pointed out that it would be almost impossible to expect from him (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice), or his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, any statement while the Conference was still sitting.
§ MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTsaid, he only wished to know what the financial proposals were.
§ LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEsaid, the financial proposals were part of the matters now before the Confer- 956 ence. The hon. Member complained of want of information in regard to Madagascar. He (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice) had over and over again stated to the House that the Foreign Office, since last year, had taken special means to obtain full and accurate information in respect of that Island by sending out a gentleman of great ability as Consul, and by appointing Vice Consuls in different parts of the Island; and, although he did not give any pledge, he thought it would be possible at an early date to lay Reports on the Table which would give the House further information. The hon. Member also complained of the want of information in regard to China. He had already alluded to what was happening between the French and the Chinese, and he confessed that in his view—and he had always understood that that view was generally held in the Housa—the information laid before Parliament by the Foreign Office in regard to the transactions between this country and Foreign Powers ought to be such as directly affected this country. The Foreign Office was not a Department for what might be called the mere collection of news. Information was placed by the Foreign Office before Parliament when it became evident that it was necessary to inform Parliament as to what was going on. It was also necessary that the information should be of an authentic character, and not made in a haphazard fashion from day to day—simply containing the news with which the public was at present admirably supplied by the newspapers. He thought that if the Foreign Office were to take up any new attitude in the relations between France and China, they would be justly incurring blame, and, to use the expression of his hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands), would be guilty of "a fussy intermeddling with other people's affairs when there was no necessity for it." Certain events had arisen between the French and the Chinese—whether they had arisen from want of notice or not he did not know—and if the time came when the relation between those Powers assumed such proportions as to render it necessary that information should be laid before Parliament, such information would be produced; but that moment had not yet arrived, and it was the hope of Her Majesty's Government that arrange- 957 ments would be made between France and China which might prevent the breaking out of further hostilities, or any necessity for the intervention of this country. He would remind the hon. Member that it was only on Friday last that he had said that an arrangement was made last year by the Powers, under which neutrals were to be protected.
§ MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTasked if the arrangement included France?
§ LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEwas understood to reply in the negative. The arrangement was for the protection of neutrals, and was actually in force. He wished to say before he sat down a few words in answer to the remarks of his hon. Friend the Member for Midhurst (Sir Henry Holland). He thought his hon. Friend had forgotten that the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) had, on a former occasion, taken an active part in securing the appointment of a Committee for inquiring into the condition of the Diplomatic Service. Although those who occupied the Office he now held were sometimes adverse to such inquiries, as taking up a good deal of time, he was glad to acknowledge, nevertheless, that this inquiry had been of great use. He believed his hon. Friend had succeeded in bringing out a considerable amount of useful information; and if it had enabled the Foreign Office from time to time to touch various matters which they had previously found it difficult to deal with, it was because they had the advantage of public opinion in support of the changes they had introduced. He could not agree with his hon. Friend in saying that no changes had been made as the result of that inquiry. In consequence of the inquiry, various changes had been made from time to time, and last year he had been subjected to complaints for some of the reductions which had been made. When the Diplomatic Vote came on, hon. Members would see for themselves that the Estimates this year had been reduced, and he was making careful inquiry with a view to further reductions in the same direction. He would remind his hon. Friend that the very point he had touched upon—namely, the Foreign Office messengers—had been considered, and that a reduction was going on at that moment. No further appointments would be made until the number of messengers receiving the 958 higher salaries had been reduced to four. That was an arrangement decided upon three or four years ago, and was gradually being brought into operation; but it could only be carried out as vacancies occurred. In regard to the question of Secret Service money, the Committee would be aware that in the past there had been a great deal of discussion upon the salary paid to the Permanent Under Secretary in respect of this fund. He was inclined to think the arrangement was that the existing state of things was to terminate on the retirement of Lord Hammond, when there was to be a reduction; and, as a matter of fact, upon the retirement of Lord Hammond the payment was reduced from £500 to £300 a-year. The reasons for retaining the salary were explained on the 24th of July, 1871, by the present Prime Minister, who said—
Secret Service money constitutes a completely distinct and special fund, and the administration of it is necessarily a duty, not only of very high responsibility, but also of considerable labour, because it is necessarily kept in the hands of a very high and confidential person, who cannot receive in the administration of it the kind and degree of assistance which he receives in the discharge of the ordinary duties of his Office. For these reasons, it has been for a long time held in the Foreign Office that a special allowance ought to be made to the Permanent Under Secretary for this difficult, responsible, and laborious duty."—(3 Hansard, [208] 161–2.)
§ SIR HENRY HOLLANDasked if the same conditions prevailed now?
§ LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEsaid, he thought they did to the same extent; the duties of the Foreign Office were very often of a grave and difficult character, and this had been the position of things. At the same time, he was inclined to think that the change, brought about, to a great extent, by the action of his hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands), was a very wise change, and the public were under a great obligation to his hon. Friend for having called attention to the question. The hon. Member was really the father of the arrangement which had since been carried out.
§ MR. RYLANDSwished to say a word by way of personal explanation. He did not entertain the opinion that no change had been made, and he did not intend to use language which might convey that impression. He was quite aware 959 that changes had been made within the last few years which were all in the right direction; but he should like to see more of them carried out.
§ MR. MACIVERremarked, that if the hon. Member for Eye (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett) went to a Division, he (Mr. MacIver) would vote for the reduction the hon. Member suggested, but not upon any of the grounds which had been put forward by the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands). He thought the public servants of the Foreign Office, like other permanent officials, were seldom over-paid for the important duties they had to perform. His complaint against the Foreign Office was rather of a different kind. He found that, under the guidance of the present Administration, it had been a most unsuccessful Foreign Office. He did not blame the noble Lord who represented the Office in that House. He was sure the noble Lord did his best, and, perhaps, he had rather a rough time of it; but he did blame the Foreign Office for their inaction in regard to such matters as the crew of the Nisero. He blamed them for not having obtained the release of these men at a time when they might have done so much more easily than now. He blamed them for not having been able to fulfil their promises in regard to the commercial arrangements with Spain. His real complaint, however, had reference to the policy of the Foreign Office as administered by Her Majesty's present Advisers, and he thought their policy would completely justify the Committee in supporting the proposition of the hon. Member for Eye (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett) for the reduction of the Vote. He did not blame the noble Lord or the Government for any deficiency—so far as quantity was concerned—of information, because, as regards Blue Books, there were plenty of them, and there was an abundant supply of printed matter. But what he did complain of was that most of the so-called Foreign Office information, as given in the Blue Books, was of a misleading and confusing character. He had himself been referred to Blue Books in regard to statements said to be contained in them, which, as a matter of fact, were not contained in them. There were plenty of Blue Books of one kind and another, but it was quite a mistake to suppose that they necessarily contained 960 the information which the Foreign Office ought to give. He contended that hon. Members representing important constituencies, when they put reasonable questions to the Government, ought to be able to obtain the information they wanted. For these reasons he should support the Motion which had been made for the reduction of the Vote.
§ MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he had no doubt that, if the Conservatives had been in power, all the terrible things of which hon. Gentlemen opposite complained of would not have happened; but he thought that a great deal more money would have been spent upon the Foreign Office than the Committee were now called upon to vote. He had risen, however, to call the attention of the noble Lord to a statement which had fallen from him with respect to Foreign Office messengers. His hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) complained that too much money was spent upon those Foreign Office messengers. The noble Lord replied that the salaries of some of the Queen's Home Service messengers were about to be reduced; but he had always observed, no matter whether a Liberal or Conservative Ministry was in power, that if anybody's salary was to be reduced, it was not the men who had large salaries, but those who had small ones. If hon. Members would look into the Estimates, they would find that Her Majesty's Foreign Office messengers—namely, those who were required to go abroad—received £400 a-year, whereas the Home messengers received only from £200 to £250. The House complained that too much money was spent upon these messengers; whereupon the Government said—"Let us reduce the salaries of some of them; but we will reduce the salaries of those who receive £200 and £250 a-year, and leave the men with £400 alone." Very often these gentlemen were sent abroad—at a very large cost to the country, for no practical object whatever. They went on a certain route, and the business was made up for them as they went. He had had the honour to serve at one time under Sir Henry Bulwer at Constantinople. Now, Sir Henry Bulwer was always ill; and on one occasion he remembered making a calculation that a box of pills, Sir Henry was anxious to obtain, and which was sent 961 out by a Foreign Office messenger, cost the country from £200 to £300. Probably the pills did Sir Henry good, and pills were much more useful than a good deal of the stuff sent out by the Foreign Office. Perhaps the noble Lord would not condescend to answer that point; but he would get up and tell them that telegrams cost so much, and that unless they employed these Foreign Office messengers they would have otherwise to send cipher telegrams on a very large amount of their business. Now, he (Mr. Labouchere) was in the Diplomatic Service for 10 years, and he had spent a good deal of his time in ciphering and deciphering telegrams; and he did not remember half-a-dozen of them that any man, woman, or child in the whole world would have taken the trouble to decipher for any information they could have derived from them. The cost of telegrams, therefore, was no excuse. These messengers were sent out by particular routes, and at particular times. He had known them sometimes arrive with nothing more than a letter from Her Majesty to her relatives in Germany. Of course, Her Majesty's relatives received the letters that were sent out in that way; but surely it was absurd to send a man from this country to Germany for the simple purpose of carrying some formal letter. He hoped the noble Lord would look into the matter. He quite admitted that the Foreign Office was at present acting economically in regard to the Diplomatic Service; but he thought there was a good opportunity for reducing the number of Foreign Office messengers, and the number of their journeys. £10,000 spent on journeys was really too large a sum.
§ MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTsaid, he could not agree with the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) in his statement that if the Conservative Party had been in power more money would have been spent upon the Foreign Office. That was directly contrary to all the facts of the case. It was well known that within the last few years the Liberal Government had expended £5,000,000 more than the late Conservative Government, not upon the Foreign Office, but altogether. The noble Lord excused the want of information supplied to the country by the Foreign Office by an appeal to the large 962 quantity of Blue Books which were furnished. But no one who had examined the Blue Books issued by the Foreign Office this year and last year would find in them any excuse for a want of general information, for a more extraordinarily confused and misleading collection of miscellaneous information, for the most part wholly beside any point upon which they might have been useful, he had never seen issued by any Department, public or otherwise. An immense quantity of Correspondence had been published; but it contained very little information of value. Nevertheless, in spite of the suppression of an immense amount of information which ought to have appeared in the Blue Books, it had been possible to establish a strong case against the Government out of their own Blue Books. The noble Lord told them he had given them the best information he could in regard to the affairs of Madagascar. He would remind the noble Lord that he had somewhat jeered hon. Members for calling attention to statements which had appeared in the newspapers. It was not a habit of his (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett's) to do so; but he must say that the information which had appeared in the newspapers during the last four years had, when carefully sorted, been very accurate. Very often it had been made use of for the purpose of obtaining information from Ministers; and, although Ministers had ridiculed the information, and denied its accuracy, they had generally admitted it to be correct in the end, the denial of the Foreign Office being the only thing that was inaccurate. That had been established in a dozen cases. He was not satisfied with the reasons the noble Lord had given for the absence of information in regard to the financial proposals now before the European Powers. The noble Lord said it was not possible to do so in the absence of the Prime Minister.
§ LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEI said that it was undesirable to give it while the Conference was sitting.
§ MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTsaid, it was to the latter reason that he took exception. If the noble Lord would recall to mind what had recently happened with regard to the Conference, he would remember that information had been given to the House upon three out of the four great matters submitted 963 to it—namely, the withdrawal of the troops from Egypt, the neutralization of Egypt, and information in regard to the Debt Commission. The noble Lord, nevertheless, considered it unreasonable to expect the Government to give the House information as to the financial proposals, which were the very essence of the deliberations of the Conference. He proposed to ask a question of the Government shortly, in order to obtain more information. Before he sat down he would venture to express a hope that the Foreign Office would endeavour to obtain accurate information with regard to the state of affairs at Dongola. That was a point to which the noble Lord had not referred in his answer at all. It was a point which ought to be pressed upon the Government; and before Vote 5 came on for discussion, full and accurate information ought to be placed before the House.
§ MR. MOOREsaid, he thought the Committee had a right to expect full information from the noble Lord with regard to the Foreign Office messengers. Nobody would object to their employment, or to incur any expense for the objects of diplomacy in averting a great war, or on any occasion of that sort; but the impression currently entertained was, that these messengers were despatched at fixed intervals to different European capitals whether they had anything to say or not, and whether they had any despatch of importance to carry out or not. The question was not whether important despatches were sent out as occasion required, but whether those Foreign Office messengers made their journeys at fixed intervals—once a fortnight or once a month. That was a point upon which the noble Lord might give the Committee some information. The impression was that on the recurrence of particular periods each messenger departed on his round. It was supposed that by the time he went he had a bag-full of despatches on the different questions which were always arising between the various European Governments. If there were any occasion of importance there could be no objection to these messengers being despatched so as to make it perfectly sure that the despatches would reach their destination; but what was complained of was that an old-fashioned and antiquated system was kept up which was 964 of no practical use in the present day, when they had the telegraph and the postal arrangements and many other facilities for sending news. The question was, did they really require these messengers to be sent off at periodical intervals; and he would ask the noble Lord whether or not it was the fact that Foreign Office messengers were despatched at regular fixed intervals to the principal European capitals?
§ LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEsaid, it was not necessary to answer in detail the remarks of his hon. Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere). The fact in regard to these Foreign Office messengers was this—there were certain circuits to the principal capitals of Europe—namely, Paris, Constantinople, Berlin, and St. Petersburg, and the messengers were sent at fixed intervals according to a rota. It had been stated that these messengers were sent when there was no occasion for employing them; but he was bound to say that during the last two years he did not think there had been any period when it had not been necessary to employ the services of these messengers. After the discussion which had taken place he would promise that the matter should be carefully inquired into, and if it was found that any reduction could be made an attempt would be made to effect it. He wished now to correct the misapprehension under which the hon. Member for Eye (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett) appeared to labour in regard to the information contained in the newspapers of this country. Everyone at the Foreign Office was under great obligation to the newspapers for the information they supplied; but it was one thing to read the information which appeared in the newspapers and to attach credence and value to it, and quite another thing for the Secretary of State to come down to the House and give that information to hon. Members. The Government were obliged to be exceedingly careful, and they could not, the moment they saw a report, or a rumour, which it might be perfectly right to insert in a newspaper in the largest type, come down to the House of Commons and repeat that information until they became certain of its accuracy.
§ MR. MOOREsaid, he thought the Committee would like to have a little 965 fuller information as to the messenger question before proceeding to a vote. Was the messenger sent every fortnight to St. Petersburg, or was he the same person as the messenger who went to Berlin, or were there two separate messengers sent once a fortnight—one to Berlin and one to St. Petersburgh, passing over much of the same ground?
§ LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEsaid, there was one messenger stationed between Paris and Calais who kept up a constant communication with the Embassies mentioned. One messenger was despatched once a fortnight to Berlin, and another once a fortnight to St. Petersburg.
§ MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTYes; by the sum of £1,000.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 19; Noes 109: Majority 90.—(Div. List., No. 158.)
§ Original Question put, and agreed to.
§ (3.) £27,411, to complete the sum for Colonial Office.
§ (4.) £33,309, to complete the sum for the Privy Council Office.
§ SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, that having seen the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Dodson) in the Lobby, he trusted he would be in his place on the Treasury Bench to reply to one or two questions which he should have to address to him on the subject of this Vote. With regard to the new Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act, he should like the right hon. Gentleman to state the action, if any, which had been taken under it by the Privy Council; whether any additional foreign countries had been scheduled in accordance with the powers given by Parliament to the Privy Council, or whether there had been no necessity since the passing of the Act to put those powers into force? Then there was an inquiry which he would address to his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury with regard to the Vote, in which he observed a considerable increase as compared with the amount of the Estimate of last year. He did not know whether his hon. Friend was 966 aware of the items which made up the increase; but, amongst others, he would point out that there was a large advance beyond the amount charged last year for copyists. The pay of these persons was at the rate of 10d. per hour, and the charge for the work this year was £1,250, as against £750 for last year. No doubt there had been some considerable increase in the number of Returns, yet he did not know that that ought to account for so much of the increase in this particular Vote. Then he would ask his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether the Irish boats had been properly dealt with in respect of disinfection? It was promised that that question should be very carefully considered, and he was satisfied that it would be a great satisfaction to the Committee to know whether the Irish cattle would now be imported into this country without let or hindrance, and that there was no cattle disease in Ireland. There was also the subject of agricultural statistics on which he would be glad to receive some information. He was rather surprised that the right hon. Gentleman was not in his place, because he must have been quite certain that when the Vote for the Privy Council came forward these questions would be entered upon. Perhaps, under the circumstances, it might be possible to postpone the Vote until the Chancellor of the Duchy came in to reply to the inquiries he had made.
§ MR. COURTNEYsaid, he was willing, if necessary, to postpone the Vote until the arrival of the right hon. Gentleman.
§ SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT, on the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster taking his place, said, he was glad that his right hon. Friend was now present, because the present was in all probability the last opportunity they would have of obtaining an explanation on agricultural matters. He asked the right hon. Gentleman to state whether anything had been done with regard to the Act passed this year; whether any fresh foreign countries had been scheduled, and whether he had found it necessary to put the Act into force? He would also ask particularly what was the present condition of the foot-and-mouth disease in the country; and whether there was any ground for hoping that it was at that moment nearly, if not quite, extinguished? He would like to 967 hear whether the outbreaks mentioned the other day by the right hon. Gentleman had undergone any alteration; whether the number of cattle infected had or had not decreased? Then, with regard to the Irish boats, he asked if the arrangements for having them properly cleansed had been carried out; whether cattle might now be shipped in them without fear of their becoming diseased; whether in Bristol the cattle were detained after landing, or whether that portion of the country was now free from disease? Finally, he wished to know whether the Agricultural Statistical Returns were sent in as effectively, efficiently, and regularly as the right hon. Gentleman could desire, or whether it was not the case, as he (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) was led to believe, that a certain number of those Returns had not been sent in?
§ MR. DODSONsaid, he felt flattered by the hon. and gallant Baronet opposite giving him credit for the possession of so excellent a memory as would enable him to reply at once to all the statistical questions he had just put to him. However, he would do his best to satisfy the hon. and gallant Gentleman. He was happy to say that they had not had to schedule any fresh countries. It was now more than 12 months ago—14 or 15 he believed—since, excepting in one special case of the Ontario, a head of cattle affected with foot-and-mouth disease had been landed for slaughter on these shores, and eight months since any sheep or swine so affected had been landed for slaughter. Under those circumstances, they had not thought it necessary to prohibit importation from any country under the new Act. There had, therefore, been no action under that Act. He was sorry to say, with reference to foot-and-mouth disease in the country, that it had recently increased. There were at that moment five herds diseased in different parts of the country, one of them being in Yorkshire, and three others in the counties of Norfolk, Cheshire, and Surrey, while the name of the county in which the remaining case had occurred had escaped him. An hon. Member suggested Kent; but that county was now free. The fact, however, was as he had stated—there were five counties in which there were at the moment infected places, and he was sorry to add that in each case there were a con- 968 siderable number of animals on the farm which it was to be feared had come in contact with the animals diseased. In each case precautions had been taken to insure isolation, which he hoped would be strictly enforced, and the Privy Council recommended the Local Authorities to have the places watched by the police, which, so far as he was aware, had been done. The Privy Council also advised that provision should be made for the disinfection of persons in attendance upon diseased animals and moving in and out of infected places. With regard to Ireland, he was glad to say that there had been no disease since April last, so far as was known to the Privy Council; and, therefore, no detentions had taken place either at Bristol or elsewhere. With regard to the Irish boats, they were subject to the legal precautions. But the Irish Privy Council, further, had requested the proprietors of the vessels trading between the two countries to take extraordinary measures to insure disinfection; and that request, he believed, had been willingly complied with, with the result, which he had stated, of there having been no disease brought from Ireland since April last.
MR. A. F. EGERTONasked if the right hon. Gentleman had any information as to the existence of pleuro-pneumonia in Lancashire?
§ MR. DODSONsaid, he was glad to state that there was no reason to believe that pleuro-pneumonia was increasing in the country. There were, however, a few cases.
§ MR. WARTONsaid, he wished to call attention to the sale of poisons in connection with the Pharmacy Act. Believing the public health to be of some concern even to a Liberal Government, he had urged this question upon them year after year. Two years ago an official who, as he believed, was a subordinate in the Home Office, stated, in reply to a Question on his part, that the subject had then reached maturity for legislation; and, believing that to be the case, he (Mr. Warton) ventured to bring in a Bill on the subject of the Pharmacy Act, for which a good place on the Paper was obtained, the Bill being set down for early in March. It was simply a Bill for the purpose of trying to remedy some of the evils arising out of the sale of poisons as medicine, and in support of it he quoted numerous authorities to 969 show the extensive sale, as patent medicines, of drugs that were highly poisonous; he showed that although a person could not, as was supposed, buy poisons without going through a certain form, yet that any quantity of poison could be bought in the form of patent medicine; he proved from medical evidence that there were many poisons contained in these patent medicines; and, finally, that a number of deaths had resulted from that cause; and upon that occasion the Government promised that if his Bill were rejected in the House of Commons another Bill should be brought forward in "another place." Now, until four months ago, he believed that the Government were to be trusted in this matter; and, therefore, he put two Questions on the subject, and the answer was that there was a doubt as to whether Ireland should be included in the measure or not, and, after a fortnight had elapsed, he was told by the Vice President of the Council for Education that they had not yet communicated with the Irish authorities on the subject. Looking at the fact that a number of deaths had occurred through the sale of these medicines, and that he had brought in a Bill to deal with the matter, and having regard to the time which had elapsed and the promise given that a Bill should be introduced in "another place," it seemed to him that there was really serious ground for complaint against the Government. He could not move the reduction of the Vote, because he wished to see it increased; but, looking at the matter from the Government's own point of view, he said that they had been guilty of scandalous neglect. With their increased knowledge on this subject, they had only put down the paltry sum of £120 for the purpose of carrying out the object in view. The Lancet, a perfectly impartial and respectable paper, contained an article which had been sent to him by the editor, strongly urging legislation in this direction, in which it was complained that the Government stamp was put upon these medicines, which led the public almost always to imagine that there was some guarantee for the goodness of the medicines themselves. There were numbers of poor and uneducated people who, when they saw a packet with the Government stamp upon it, were always ready to believe that the 970 contents were good. He wished that stamp to be made a reality, to show whether the medicine was good or bad, and not to remain, as it was at present, something delusive. While the revenue from that source amounted to £140,000, £120 was all that the Government gave for the purpose of carrying out an important part of the Pharmacy Act. Let the Committee contrast the large amount derived from this dishonest, this dirty source, if he might say so, with the small item of £120, and let them bear in mind the promises made in judging the conduct of the Government in this matter. He had no doubt that the excuse that it was too late would be made now as it had been made before; but he said it was not too late, even at that period of the Session, to endeavour to save the lives of Her Majesty's subjects. He saw on the opposite side of the House hon. Gentlemen who always stood up on questions of this kind, amongst them the hon. Member for Dublin (Dr. Lyons); and he appealed to him as to whether it was not the case that these patent medicines did a great deal of harm, and that the stamps were the cause of a great deal of the mischief? The vendors of the medicines traded on the Government stamp; it was the means of increasing their sales; the words "with the Government stamp," were made a prominent part of their advertisements, and were by poor and ignorant people looked upon as an official guarantee for the goodness of the medicines they were invited to purchase. Seeing that 100 ridiculous Bills were brought in annually, many of which destroyed the rights and crippled the privileges of the people, it was a hard thing that when a private Member endeavoured to do his duty to the country by bringing in one reasonable and wholesome measure he should receive no support. He said it was really too bad on the part of Her Majesty's Government to promise to introduce a Bill in the House of Lords and then not bring it in. There had been plenty of time to settle the question as to whether the measure should be applied to Ireland; and in view of what had occurred he humbly begged leave to doubt that the Government ever had the smallest intention of bringing in any Bill at all. He would like to hear from the right hon. Gentleman opposite whether 971 it was the intention of the Government to bring in the Bill; and whether the obstacle with regard to Ireland still existed, or had been overcome?
§ MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he hoped the Committee would not give the hon. and learned Member who had just spoken any assistance in this matter; and he thought that if Her Majesty's Government had fulfilled their promise of giving him facilities for legislation, they would have called forth a strong protest on the part of a large number of Members. After the course followed by the hon. and learned Member for a number of years, it was impossible that they should ever permit him to legislate in that House. The whole proceeding of the hon. and learned Member in that House had been to prevent any private Member carrying forward any measure good, bad, or indifferent; and if ever he (Mr. Labouchere) were to see on the Paper a Bill of the hon. and learned Member, no matter how good that Bill might be, he would never lose the opportunity of blocking it. That sort of revenge was a virtue in the House of Commons. There was a very general feeling amongst hon. Members on the subject; and he could assure the hon. and learned Member for Bridport that he might give up all hope of ever having an opportunity of getting the second reading of any Bill introduced by him.
§ MR. MACIVERsaid, after the speech of the hon. Member for Northampton, it was perhaps desirable that hon. Members should recall their minds to a more serious view of the matter. He was not aware that the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton) had been in the habit of blocking any other than those mischievous measures which were from time to time put upon the Order Book of the House by private Members, and much more frequently by Her Majesty's Government. But in the Bill to which the hon. Member referred they had a measure of universal acceptance. They had had many promises from Her Majesty's Government which for various reasons had not been fulfilled. But the promise made to the hon. and learned Member for Bridport would have been easy of fulfilment; and there was no reason whatever, as far as he could see, why the excellent Bill proposed by the hon. and learned Member for the more effectual prevention of the sale of poisons 972 should not have been passed that Session. He had no scruple in expressing a doubt that it was ever the intention of Her Majesty's Government to introduce the Bill in "another place," because he felt that the House was no longer the same House of Commons as that which in old times deserved and secured the respect of the country. He could not help expressing a hope that it would not be long before they had another House of Commons, which would forward legislation such as that proposed by the hon. and learned Member for Bridport, and one which would be less disposed to listen to the mischievous proposals which were put forward by hon. Gentlemen opposite.
§ MR. MUNDELLAsaid, he had never promised to bring in any measure dealing with the stamp on patent medicines. That was a question beyond the powers of the Privy Council. The only question which the Privy Council had to deal with was that relating to the sale of poisons; and it was not a very easy thing to discriminate as to whether the Government should interdict the sale altogether, or to what extent they should allow these medicines to be sold. All he could say was that the Lord President of the Council had undertaken to deal with the question at the earliest opportunity. The matter had been under consideration by the Pharmaceutical Society, and had been referred to Ireland, and the answer would in all probability would have reached the House before, but for the circumstances of which the hon. and learned Member was very well aware. The hon. and learned Member might think the question was a very easy one; but if so he could assure him that he was entirely mistaken. He would merely add that Her Majesty's Government were very anxious to deal with the subject, and that they would do so at the earliest opportunity.
§ MR. WARTONsaid, if there were no common design against the Bill on the part of the Members of the Government then the statement of the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down did not at all agree with the promise made by the hon. and learned Attorney General. The distinct promise made was that the Bill should be introduced in the House of Lords, and it was curious that the right hon. Gentleman should now be speaking on an entirely different point, seeing 973 that three weeks ago he had said that the real difficulty in the matter was with respect to Ireland. There was a distinct difference between the statement of the right hon. Gentleman and that of the hon. and learned Attorney General; and nothing had been said by way of explanation of the wilful neglect, as he must call it, of Her Majesty's Government. The promise made was that the Bill should be introduced in the House of Lords; but the right hon. Gentleman said or appeared to know nothing about that, and he had simply spoken of its being put into the hands of the Pharmaceutical Society of the United Kingdom. If the information of the right hon. Gentleman was so misty and shaky, then the probability was that in the next Parliament, if they were in Office, it would be found that the Government had forgotten all about the matter.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ (5.) £555, to complete the sum for the Privy Seal Office.
§ MR. LABOUCHEREasked who was the holder of the Office of Lord Privy Seal?
§ MR. COURTNEYLord Carlingford.
§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsuggested the advisability of removing the item of £2,200 for the salary of the Lord Privy Seal from the Vote. He understood that a Bill which had made some progress either in that or the other House proposed to take away a number of those nominal functions which were at present discharged by the Privy Seal Office; and if that proposal were carried out there would be less reason than before for this salary of £2,200 being charged for a sinecure.
§ Vote agreed to.
§ (6.) £79,033, to complete the sum for the Board of Trade.
§ MR. MACIVERsaid, he thought there was no institution in the country which stood more urgently in need of reform than that which was called the Board of Trade. He proposed to ask the Committee to reduce the Vote asked for, by omitting the item for the salary of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade. The Committee, he thought, would readily believe that in making that proposal he was not proceeding on any personal 974 grounds whatever so far as the President of the Board of Trade was concerned, because it was not alone to the salary of the right hon. Gentleman that he asked the attention of the Committee. His intention was to propose that the salary of the Permanent Secretary to the Department should be also omitted, as well as the salary of the Wreck Commissioner, Mr. Rothery, and that of Mr. Giffen, the head of the Statistical Department, although he had not put down a specific Motion to that effect. He did not wish to be understood as at all opposed to the other officers of the Board of Trade. He admitted the usefulness of much of the work done by the Department. But with regard to the item particularly referred to, he should, in opposing the Vote, raise the question whether or not in point of law the President of the Board of Trade was entitled to the salary which he received. Looking back to the Statutes on which the constitution of the Board of Trade was supposed to rest, it seemed to him that there was nothing in the Statute passed in the Reign of George III. to warrant the existence of such an establishment as that over which the right hon. Gentleman presided. It was perfectly true that an Act was passed in the Reign of George IV. which enabled a salary to be paid to the President of the Committee of Privy Councillors who might be appointed in relation to matters of commerce and trade; but there was no legal warrant or justification for making any payment whatever to a Gentleman dubbed President of the Board of Trade, who, as a matter of fact, presided over no such Committee. This Office of President of the Board of Trade was not in itself created by Statute, but by Order in Council. His contention was that the Statute of George III. had not been complied with at all in this century, and that the sort of Department over which the right hon. Gentleman presided had no justification for its existence. This Department of, as he thought, more than doubtful legality as regards its own position, was, nevertheless, so arbitrary in its dealings with the various interests which came in contact with it, that he thought it only right to consider what the Board of Trade really was. He would, with the permission of the Committee, 975 refer to the words of the Statute upon which he understood the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Chamberlain) based his claim to the salary which it was now proposed to omit. The words of the Statute of 22 Geo. III. c. 8 were to the effect that—
Whereas His Majesty, for the better security of the liberty and independence of Parliament, has been pleased to order that the Office commonly known by the name and description of the Board of Commissioners of Trade and Foreign Plantations shall be utterly abolished and suppressed; wherefore be it enacted from and after the passing of this Act.…He would quote from the Act the general meaning, only omitting certain words which did not affect the sense. In Section 15 he found that the duties formerly carried on by this Board were thenceforward to be conducted—By any Committee or Committees of His Majesty's Privy Council which His Majesty shall be pleased to direct and appoint by Order in Council during His Royal pleasure without any salary, fee, or pension to the Members thereof for holding and exercising the same.Further on there was an ample and full description of what this Board was to be. The names of the Members of the Board of Trade were stated, as well as the Offices which they held; and there was a special reference to Ireland and special mention in the Statute of certain Offices held by Members from Ireland. No one could refer to the Statute of Geo. III. without seeing that the intention was that there should be an actual representative Board for the consideration of all matters relating to trade and foreign plantations. Every interest that had then to do with commerce of any kind was especially provided for by this Statute. What had occurred since then? The very last Order in Council by which any persons were appointed to form this Committee was dated September 16, 1786. There were sub-sections in the Statute which enabled this House, if it pleased, to vote a salary not exceeding £2,000 to the President of this Committee; but, as a matter of fact, there was no such Committee of Privy Councillors appointed for the consideration of matters relating to foreign trade and foreign plantations as the Act of Geo. III. provided for; the President of the Board of Trade did not preside over any Committee of Privy Councillors; such a Committee had never met in recent years; and, in point of fact, there had been no pro- 976 perly constituted Board of Trade at all during this century. If there was no Board of Trade in point of law, how could there be a President of that which did not exist? It seemed to him that although there was no doubt about the actual physical existence of the right hon. Gentleman, yet as there was no Board of Privy Councillors over which he presided the right hon. Gentleman had really no right to existence in his official capacity as President of this nominal Board. There was this old Statute which evidently contemplated the continued existence of a representative Board; but no such Board was in existence. Its Members were to be Privy Councillors. That Statute was the law of the land; but there had been no compliance with it in the present century. The duties of the Department, nevertheless, had been greatly increased, and the right hon. Gentleman was himself alone the Board of Trade. There were those who thought he was at the head of the administration of a good deal of political patronage. That might or might not be; but at this moment there was no Board of Trade such as the Statute required, and under those circumstances Parliament would be perfectly justified in refusing to pass the salary asked for for the President of the Board of Trade. He wished it to be clearly understood that not only was there no personal motive actuating him in this matter, but there was no political reason. Those who were in the last Parliament would remember that when Sir Charles Adderley was President of the Board of Trade that Gentleman hardly regarded him (Mr. MacIver) as a supporter of his policy. Then, as now, he complained that the Board of Trade had conspicuously failed. He need not go further than this Session to remind the House how the Board of Trade had failed in its legislation with regard to shipping—not obtaining the support even of any section of the seafaring or of the shipping community, or, indeed, of any persons liable to be affected by its proposals; or how it had failed in its legislation with regard to railways. There were those who thought the Board had not been so successful in its bankruptcy legislation as the right hon. Gentleman had anticipated. Then he (Mr. MacIver) thought there were duties which the country reasonably expected from the 977 Board of Trade, and which the country would receive from the Board of Trade if that Board were to-day what the Statute of Geo. III. said it should be. If it were what the old Statute contemplated he did not think the House of Commons would have to complain of the way in which their Commercial Treaty negotiations with foreign countries had been mismanaged. The country expected, and reasonably, that the Board of Trade should be able to give information to the Foreign Office; able to take part in negotiations, such as would procure markets for those who produced the manufactures of this country. The country had a right to expect that the Board of Trade should be a Department which would really do something for the good of the trade of the country; but he did not think that was likely to be the case under the administration of gentlemen such as those whose names he had mentioned to the House. The individual views of the President of the Board of Trade; Sir Thomas Farrer, the Permanent Secretary; Mr. Rothery, the Wreck Commissioner; and Mr. Giffen, were of a character such as those who had real interests at stake in regard to trade and commerce would hardly consider to be for their interest. The right hon. Gentleman, as well as the Department over which he presided, had been and was in a position of illegality; and he hoped this Royal Commission would have the scope of its inquiry extended, and that before the House broke up they would know who were to be upon it. They should have referred to them not only narrow questions, but the whole question of the constitution and functions of the Board of Trade itself. He thought he had established a case against the supposed legality of that which at present passed by the name of the Board of Trade, but for whose continuance in its present form there was no warrant either by Statute or by Order in Council.
§ MR. MOOREsaid, he wished to call attention to a matter of somewhat less magnitude than the legal question as to the Department, but yet a matter of pressing importance. On previous occasions he had repeatedly asked the right hon. Gentleman to obtain more information as to the imports of oleomargerine and butterine than was at present possessed. He did not wish to enlarge on 978 the mere question of the importance of the matter to Ireland, for it was of great importance to every county in this country. What was complained of was that the Board of Trade had not sufficient jurisdiction, and no adequate information could be obtained, no matter how much the country was being flooded with those spurious commodities. He did not wish to exclude butterine, if it was sold upon its merits and so valued. That was perfectly just, and the first step towards the attainment of that was to have the exports carefully examined, so as to know what was to be dealt with. The Custom House officers collected the information; but they said they could not distinguish between oleomargerine and butter. It was probably only the retail dealer who sold it without committing himself to the proposition that this was butter. It was, perhaps, one-fourth butter, and was ordinarily sold at 1s. per pound. The frauds took place with the wholesale dealer, and the Custom House officers did not choose to give the slightest information as to these large imports. There were several classes of oil—mineral oil, fish oil, and so on; but they would not take the least trouble to give information which had been asked for year after year. It required a very strong Minister to control this matter. Permanent officials were against reforms; but there was a strong President of the Board of Trade—and a very able administrator—who could certainly obtain this reform. Everyone had heard of the interest he took in agricultural matters. The imports to Hull were 3,000,000 lbs. a-week, and every effort was made to force this spurious butter upon us in a fraudulent manner. No ingenuity was wanting to make the deception complete, and this practically meant ruin to farmers, because it tended to deprive them of their chief means of existence. This was a very serious grievance, and the Board of Trade were not merely a party to fraud by allowing these commodities to be disposed of; but there was no check on the consumption of those most obnoxious and deleterious ingredients. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would give the Committee some information, and that these Custom House officers would be brought to their bearings and made to do their duty. The right hon. Member for Edinburgh and 979 St. Andrew's Universities (Sir Lyon Playfair) said it was almost impossible to distinguish between these things and butter; but, if that was so, that was no reason why the Custom House officers should allow these cans of oil to come into this country from Holland as they did.
§ MR. WARTONsaid, he was very glad to find the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. MacIver) raising this important Constitutional question as to the Board of Trade, and he thought the time had almost come when the subject should be thoroughly investigated. He did not think there was any adequate authority for calling this Body the Board of Trade at all, because the real Body was a Committee of the Privy Council upon matters of trade. He wished to know whether the right hon. Gentleman was assisted in his deliberations by any other Member of the Privy Council? He was disposed to think there was no other Privy Councillor on the Board but himself. There was no Committee of the Privy Council with him, and the Board was a more farce, for the right hon. Gentleman had, with charming frankness, admitted, in reply to a Question, that he was the Board of Trade. He was, in fact, the Chief Director of this Body; but he was not saying this in hostility to the right hon. Gentleman himself. Some of his actions might or might not be approved of, but that was not the point; the real question was, whether it was desirable that one right hon. Gentleman should monopolize all the functions of a number of Gentlemen, who ought to be looking after a variety of interests all over the country? The President of the Board of Trade was necessarily a despot. He had to take upon himself a great responsibility, and he often performed his duty very well; but it was not in human nature to understand all the different departments of trade. No doubt, the right hon. Gentleman had very great ability; but he held that there ought to be a real, and not a sham Committee of the Privy Council. With regard to what the right hon. Member opposite (Sir Lyon Playfair) had stated some time ago, he did not think that what the right hon. Gentleman said was that it was difficult to distinguish between butterine and butter, but between the chemical ingredients. They might be the same, but they were differently made up.
§ MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, he agreed in the main with the remarks of his hon. Friend (Mr. Moore). He did not concur in the denunciation of this product, which was, to a large extent, very useful; but he thought his hon. Friend was entitled to have the fullest information in regard to it. Nobody could be injured by that. He was most anxious that all the information required by his hon. Friend should be given. He quite understood that there was an indisposition to give some of the details by which the difference between butter and butterine might be distinguished in every case; but he thought the person who most largely prepared this butterine would have no objection to describe it truthfully. It was a recognized article of sale, and, not being hurtful to health, he did not believe that in the large majority of cases there would be any refusal to describe the article by its proper name. He must, however, point out that he had no authority in the matter. The control of the matter was vested in the Customs Department, which was under the Treasury; and it was to the Treasury, and not to the Board of Trade, that his hon. Friend must look. Of course, it was the duty of the Board of Trade, when matters of this kind were brought before them, to make representations to the proper Departments, and he had made strong representations to the Treasury to induce them to bring their authority to bear upon the Custom House in obtaining statistics. His hon. Friend had not told him that he was going to raise the question, and therefore there had been no recent communications on the subject; but he was under the impression that the demand which his hon. Friend had made upon the Board of Trade had already been submitted to the Treasury, and had been acceded to. There was, he believed, a distinction made between these products and butter. He had not, however, had much time to investigate the matter; and if he were assured that that was not the case he would be happy to look into it again, and make a further application to the Treasury, if he found that the previous application had not been attended to.
§ MR. E. STANHOPEsaid, he would not go over the ground which had been occupied by his hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. MacIver). His hon. 981 Friend had called attention to the nominal constitution of the Board of Trade, and had pointed out that it consisted of the old Privy Council Committee, which was not responsible for the work the Board of Trade did. He would put it to the Government whether it was not worth while to consider the possibility of altering the constitution of the Board of Trade, as the matter was so constantly brought before the House? He was quite sure that it did not lead to any great inconvenience in the work of the Department; but there were many reasons to justify, and, indeed, to demand, that there should be some alteration in the constitution of the Committee of Privy Council on Trade, even to the extent of abolishing that Committee, so that the responsibility might be brought home to the real parties, and people might know that it was the President of the Board of Trade who was called to account, and not any Member of that curious Committee known as the Committee of Council on Trade. He fully recognized the difficulties the Board of Trade had to deal with, especially in connection with merchant shipping. Those difficulties were, no doubt, enormous, notwithstanding the best intentions and the hard work which he knew had been done by Members of the Department connected with merchant shipping. Nevertheless, somehow or other, under whatever administration it might be, the Marine Department of the Board of Trade had not managed to gain the confidence of the shipowners. It was undoubtedly the fact that the shipowners were constantly complaining of the administration of the Board of Trade; and he was glad the right hon. Gentleman had consented to the appointment of a Royal Commission to inquire into the constitution of the Marine Department of the Board of Trade, as it was impossible for anything but good to result from such an inquiry. There was another point upon which he desired to ask a question of the right hon. Gentleman, and it had reference to a matter which was felt very strongly last year. He desired to protest against the novel feature which had been recently introduced by the constant distribution by the Department of arguments of a polemic character in the Papers issued by them. He had always understood that all the Government Departments 982 were totally outside mere political life, and that the statistics were fairly and impartially drawn up for the purpose of giving every side of a public question, and not for the purpose of aiding any particular Government in an attack upon their adversaries. He now found, for the first time, that there was a totally new departure in this respect in the mode of conducting the business of the Board of Trade. He did not say that the permanent officials of the Board of Trade did not entertain the views contained in these Memoranda, nor did he say that the objectionable passages had been put in by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board.
§ MR. NORWOODasked what Memoranda the hon. Member referred to?
§ MR. E. STANHOPEsaid, he was referring to the Memoranda issued as statistical Papers by the Board; and he contended that there were passages in those Memoranda which were intended to reflect upon the political opponents of the Government. Hon. Members would, no doubt, have read the Memoranda; and he would ask them whether they were not perfectly satisfied that they constituted a departure from the ordinary method of conducting the business of a public Department? He could point to passages which could have no other object than to tell the public that another Government had not conducted the Business of the country as it ought to have been conducted; but that now there was a model Department in existence, headed by a model official, who was going to put all things right. Certainly, that was not the way in which a business Department of the State ought to be conducted. He had the highest respect for Mr. Giffen, whom he esteemed as being an important head of the Statistical Department of the Board of Trade; but he also protested against Mr. Giffen writing letters of a polemical character to the newspapers. It appeared that Mr. Giffen had been attacked by certain persons out-of-doors, and charged with stating things which he said he had not stated. He would not enter into the merits of the complaint, because he knew nothing about it; but what he would say was this—that the ordinary custom, when a permanent public officer was attacked, was for the Head of the Department to take up his defence, if he found he could properly justify the course 983 which had been pursued. The Parliamentary Chief was the person to whom the House looked for the justification and defence of the action of the public officials of his Department; and it was very unwise and altogether a new departure to find a permanent official of a public Department writing letters of a controversial character to the newspapers, in which he attacked particular individuals in the strongest terms. If such attacks were to be made at all, they ought to be made by the Head of the Board of Trade on his own responsibility. The permanent official should entrust his defence to his proper Parliamentary Representative; and they should not have a permanent official in any Department writing letters to the newspapers of a political character, which could only have the effect of bringing an attack upon such permanent official in a manner that must tend to diminish instead of advance the efficiency of a Department.
§ MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, the speech of the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down must be regarded very much in the same light as an attack upon himself as it was upon a permanent official connected with his Department; and, under the circumstances, he held it to be his duty, accepting, as he did, full responsibility for all that was done, at once to answer the statement of the hon. Gentleman. But, before doing so, he wished to take note, in passing, of the suggestion of the hon. Member that the constitution of the Board of Trade should be altered in order that the President of the Board of Trade should be solely entrusted with the administration of the Department, the same as a Secretary of State. He would, however, point out to the hon. Gentleman that the Board of Trade was not alone in its present position. The Local Government Board was in precisely the same position, and the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. MacIver) was not strictly correct in saying that the Committee of Council on Trade had ceased to exist. It had ceased to exist just as the Local Government Board had ceased to exist; it actually existed, but it never met; and the management of the Department, therefore, rested with the individual who happened to be its President. The hon. Gentleman expressed an opinion that under the circumstances of the case the 984 position of the President was of doubtful legality, and he had suggested that he ought not properly to draw his salary. Now, at all events, in its present form, the institution was respectable from its antiquity, inasmuch as the President of the Board of Trade had drawn his salary for 60 years, and nobody had discovered the illegality of the process until the hon. Member for Birkenhead suggested it. If, however, there was anything illegal in the constitution of the Department, it was a question to be determined by a Court of Law rather than by a discussion in that House. He agreed with the hon. Gentleman opposite that it would be better if all the anomalies connected with the Department were to be abolished, and the Department itself plainly and distinctly established on what was really a permanent and definite footing. But if they were to have recourse to legislation it was out of the question that the Government would undertake such legislation unless there was some real and practical object to be gained by it; and, as the hon. Gentleman himself said, no practical inconvenience had hitherto resulted. He now came to the Memoranda and Correspondence to which the hon. Gentleman took exception. The hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Stanhope) said that when a controversy arose it was the practice of the Board of Trade to publish Memoranda in defence of the person holding the Office of President. He denied that absolutely. He assured the hon. Gentleman that, to the best of his knowledge and belief, there was not one word in the Memoranda to which the hon. Member referred which reflected either directly or indirectly upon the political opponents of the Government. The Memoranda was intended to be an exhaustive examination into the practice of the Marine Department of the Board of Trade, the state of the law, and the remedies which had been from time to time suggested. Having read the whole of that document, and he had read it very carefully, he was ready to declare most positively that throughout the whole of it there was not a single word which was intended by any possibility to be converted into an imputation upon any political opponent. It could not be said that it was an unusual thing for a permanent official of a Department, with 985 the consent of the Chief, to publish Memoranda which gave important information. That was done under the late Government, and it was done by other Departments; and, indeed, he believed it was a common practice in almost every branch of the Public Service. It was a practice that had great advantages, and it could only be objected to if, as the hon. Gentleman appeared to assume, it was done for political purposes. Then the hon. Gentleman had referred to a different point—namely, a letter which appeared in The Times, written by Mr. Giffen, the Assistant Secretary of the Commercial Department, complaining bitterly of the attacks to which he had been subjected. He was sorry that the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ritchie) was not present. He had been told that the hon. Gentleman desired to call attention to the matter, and in the absence of the hon. Member he would merely state to the House what the circumstances of the case were of which Mr. Giffen complained. Mr. Giffen was summoned by the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets, who was Chairman of a Select Committee, to give evidence with a view of informing the Committee, in his capacity of a public official, on certain matters connected with the sugar question. Mr. Giffen went to perform a public duty as an official of the Board of Trade, and did not appear before the Committee as a volunteer. Certain questions were addressed to him with reference to certain remedies for the bounty system. He was asked whether, as a matter of fact, if the bounty were continued, it was not certain that the trade would be destroyed, and whether the effect of the bounty could be countervailed in any way except by a duty. Mr. Giffen said—
Yes, it could in various ways, such as cheapening the manufacture or by the reduction of wages.Thereupon he was asked a further question, and he gave an answer which was understood by certain people outside to mean that he himself thought the reduction of wages was a feasible way by which these bounties might be met. The moment, however, that that was publicly stated, and within a few days after the evidence was given, Mr. Giffen wrote a letter to The Times repudiating in the strongest manner any intention of 986 making, or having made, such a recommendation. He thought every hon. Member would feel that a public servant was justified in explaining what his suggestions were, and that his statement on such a point ought at once to be accepted. It had ceased to be an object of importance what Mr. Giffen said in Committee, and what was of real importance was what he meant. Mr. Giffen's letter was written three or four days after the evidence which had been misinterpreted was given. In spite of that contradiction on the part of Mr. Giffen, charges had again and again been made that he had recommended the reduction of wages in order to meet the bounties. Only the other day a public meeting was held in the Tower Hamlets, and presided over by the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ritchie), at which a resolution was passed denouncing Mr. Giffen for his alleged recommendation, and going on to say that Mr. Giffen had made repeated and deliberate recommendations to the Board of Trade of this extraordinary character. He could not conceive a more unfair mode of warfare than that. No attention was paid to Mr. Giffen's repudiation of the charges, and to his emphatic denial; but a new charge was made against him as far as "repeated and deliberate recommendations" were concerned. That resolution was forwarded to Mr. Giffen by the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets; and thereupon the Board of Trade wrote to the hon. Member asking how it was that, being the Chairman of the meeting at which these resolutions were passed, he had not explained the matter, and expressing regret and astonishment that he should have allowed the resolution to be passed without explaining to the meeting what was within his own knowledge, that Mr. Giffen, at all events, had denied the construction which had been put upon his evidence. Regret was also expressed that the hon. Member should have forwarded the resolution to the Board of Trade without any further observations. He would make no further comment upon the matter. He had stated, as fairly and clearly as he could, the circumstances of the case. The public servants of this country were always in a delicate and difficult position. It was true, as the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. E. Stanhope) 987 said, that the Heads of Departments would, in all cases, endeavour to defend them against anything like an unfair attack. Not merely should the Heads of Departments do that, not merely those who now occupied such positions, or those who had occupied them in past years, but everybody who held any responsible position in the country was bound to show some regard to those public servants, who were the honour and glory of the Civil Service, and should be ready to defend them when their acts were misrepresented. He hoped, in the absence of the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ritchie), he had not carried his remarks further than would be considered necessary.
§ MR. NORWOODsaid, he shared, to a considerable extent, the views expressed by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. E. Stanhope), in regard to the sensational manner in which the Board of Trade had made public their views upon the subject of the Merchant Shipping Bill. He thought there had been some departure from the old official rule which had prevailed as long as he had had the honour of a seat in the House; and he did not find that the Board of Trade, on this occasion, in connection with the Merchant Shipping Bill, had approached that great public question with the disposition and in a spirit which had usually characterized the proceedings of Government Departments. There had been, from time to time, a succession of pamphlets and other literary communications, which were certainly of a novel and sensational character. In November last, when he read the Memorandum in The Times, communicated by the Permanent Secretary of the Board of Trade, to which reference had been made, he had felt so strongly on the matter that he had not hesitated to express his opinion, both in writing to the papers and in public speeches. He thought the tone of the Memorandum was exceedingly objectionable, and it, undoubtedly, contained insinuations, and even a direct attack, not only upon shipowners generally, but even upon the ability and integrity of Judges of the Supreme Court, and of the juries who had refused to convict on the prosecutions instituted by the Board of Trade. He had never before read a State Paper of that kind emanating from a public 988 official connected with any Department whatever. He had not got the document before him at that moment; but he recollected that, towards the close of the second part of the communication which appeared in The Times, there was a direct sneer at the Conservative Party for the manner in which they had wasted the time of Parliament by pushing forward the Imperial Titles Bill. That, however, was a question he did not care to go into. He did not think it right that an attempt should be made to introduce irritating and sensational incidents into a question of grave national importance, such as the position of their Mercantile Marine in reference to the loss of life. He repeated that the manner in which the Merchant Shipping Bill of this Session had been treated was much to be deprecated. He was unable to understand how any Minister of the Crown could think it right to call together an unauthorized body of gentlemen at his private office to discuss and amend the details of a Bill introduced in that House which ought to be discussed in that House and before the country. If a different course had been pursued from the first he was quite confident that a Select Committee might have gone fully and completely into every disputed point of the measure, and they might have had a Bill passed, which, to a certain extent, would have been satisfactory to all parties concerned. He now wished to call the attention of the Committee to the understanding which he understood had been given that a Royal Commission should be appointed to take evidence both as to the constitution of the Board of Trade and also upon the position of the Mercantile Marine; and he wished to press upon the attention of the Board of Trade that it was most important, before the House rose, that they should have laid before them not only the names of the Gentlemen who were to compose the Royal Commission, but also the actual terms of Reference to the Committee. The way in which the Merchant Shipping Bill had been handled had been most unsatisfactory to those connected with the Mercantile Marine of the country, and to hon. Members who represented that interest in that House. The Bill had been mentioned in the Queen's Speech; the Bill itself was introduced very early in the Session, and the second 989 reading was proposed a few weeks ago by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade in a speech of nearly four hours' duration, but a speech of such a character that it was utterly impossible it could be answered at the moment. What had happened since? No attempt had been made, on the part of the Government, to give hon. Members who were interested in the question a chance of continuing the debate on the second reading, and now the Bill had been withdrawn, so that the only possible opportunity that existed for those persons who had been attacked to defend themselves was now gone. The country had a right to know the whole truth of the matter, and it was only an act of justice to the many individuals whose character and reputation the right hon. Gentleman had more or less directly attacked that they should have an opportunity afforded for replying to the attack. The only way in which justice could be done now to those individuals and to the country was that there should be a complete inquiry before a Royal Commission. He, for one, would not be satisfied until the whole matter had been fully gone into. It would be most unjust for the Board of Trade to make an insufficient Reference to a Royal Commission in the course of a few weeks hence, or to appoint Gentlemen upon it in whom the shipowners could have no confidence. They were entitled as a right, having been placed under a certain amount of disadvantage from the course pursued by the right hon. Gentleman himself, to have this information before a Commission was actually appointed. The Royal Commission ought to be empowered to investigate the present constitution and functions of the Board of Trade, instead of having its inquiry limited to the practice of the Marine Department. They did not care about an inquiry into the Marine Department of the Board of Trade only. The Marine Department of the Board of Trade was a Department specially presided over by the Assistant Secretary of the Board of Trade; but what they wanted was a full and satisfactory inquiry into the constitution of the Board of Trade itself. He wished the House for a moment to listen to a very incomplete list of the important functions committed to the Board of Trade which he had pencilled down. The point to be determined was, whether the Board of Trade was com- 990 petent to manage the vast amount of business which was now brought before it? Whenever new functions were to be discharged, and the question arose as to what Department they ought to be given, it was invariably the custom to throw the business upon the Board of Trade. In addition to questions affecting the great Mercantile Marine, the Board of Trade had the regulation of all the railways of the country, with their immense mileage, enormous capital, and vast interests. The regulation and control of the tramways, harbours, lights, foreshores, trade marks, patents, the electric light, and recently the enormous subject of bankruptcy, together with several other important questions, all came within the Department of the Board of Trade. What, he ventured to say, the Royal Commission ought to inquire into was this—whether it was possible for the President of the Board of Trade—and he believed the present President was as able and acute a man as they could expect to obtain—within the short period during which a political officer held power in a Government in this country, to make himself acquainted with all these complicated details and important functions. It was not to be expected that the President of the Board should be able to make himself conversant with one tithe of the intricate technical details of a complicated subject such as their Mercantile Marine. One-half of the difficulties and friction which existed between the Board of Trade and the Merchant Shipping interest arose not from any desire on the part of the Board of Trade to act unfairly; but from the ignorance which prevailed, and which, to some extent, must necessarily exist in that Department in regard to the Merchant Shipping interest. If there was to be an inquiry by a Royal Commission, it must enter into all the questions which were at present relegated to the Board of Trade. Above all, the Royal Commission must consider whether the constitution of that Board was sufficient to enable them to grapple with all these subjects; and they ought to consider whether or not this large question of Merchant Shipping should not be consigned to some special Minister who should have personal knowledge and a direct personal responsibility in regard to it. He had never been what was called an uncompromising opponent of the Bill 991 of the right hon. Gentleman. He confessed that he did not like the Bill; he saw that ignorance on the subject was revealed in almost every line of it, and would make it unworkable; but he was one of those Members who had not been content to criticize, but who had endeavoured to construct; and he himself had laid upon the Table a Bill for the reform of Marine Insurance, which the right hon. Gentleman himself had admitted went a great way in the direction he desired. The next point was, who were to be the Members of the Commission, and what were to be their functions? He contended that the Members of the Royal Commission should be selected with great care, and that it should be a Commission in which everyone should have confidence. The public were entitled to know the true facts of the case, and whether they were really as bad as the President of the Board of Trade had stated. At any rate, the Mercantile Marine of this country were not to be condemned on insufficient evidence. He had no wish to see the Commission crowded with shipowners; certainly not; but he appealed to the President of the Board of Trade to select men of wide experience and practical knowledge, who would take a broad view of the questions submitted to them, untainted by personal considerations and interests. When that was done the inquiry must be as wide as the circumstances of the case demanded. The Commission must enter into questions of Marine Insurance, wreck inquiries, and the Commissioners' Court, the loading of ships, the management of the lights, the constitution of the Trinity House, the Commissioners of the Northern Lights, and the Irish Lights, and, above all, into the position and condition of their seamen. That, he believed, was really a point which demanded more careful attention than any other part of this great subject. Let them be willing to do their seamen all possible justice; let them protect them to the best of their ability; but they had a right to know, when a demand was made upon the shipowners for seaworthy ships, that they could get seaworthy men to look after them. The shipowners were anxious that the whole question should be thoroughly examined into, and if it were found necessary to introduce sweeping legislation they would raise no objection. He would not trouble the Committee with further remarks upon those points. What he 992 would add was, that, unfortunately, much friction existed now between the Department presided over by the right hon. Gentleman and the Mercantile Marine—more friction than ever existed before during his time. It existed throughout the length and breadth of the country. No confidence was felt in the Board of Trade, and there was a universal demand for careful and exhaustive inquiry. Great disgust was felt at the proceedings of the Board during the present Session, as respects the hostile attitude assumed by the Board of Trade in reference to great trading interests, and this feeling was experienced throughout the entire railway world as well as in the Mercantile Marine. They had this extraordinary position of things—that the proposed legislation and administration of the Board of Trade was as much objected to by the Railway Companies as by parties whose interests were generally antagonistic to those of the Railway Companies. The fact was that the Board of Trade, as at present constituted, was too doctrinaire by far. There were too many preconceived and antiquated ideas prevalent among the officials, for whom, personally, he had the highest respect. The time had now arrived when a greater sense of responsibility and a greater accord between the vast mercantile communities of the country and the gentlemen who presided over their destinies must be created. He trusted he had said nothing which reflected upon the private character of a single individual connected with the Board of Trade, for all of whom he had personal regard; but he had felt that he could not do otherwise than express his opinion that the position of that Department was not satisfactory, and that it was impossible for the country any longer to continue under the control of a number of doctrinaire and practically irresponsible officials. There must be an inquiry. That inquiry must be thorough and complete, and the confidence which the country would have in it must depend upon the Members who were to constitute the Commissioners and upon the scope of the inquiry itself. He, therefore, trusted that the Government would, at a very early date, give the names of the Gentlemen they proposed to appoint upon this Royal Commission and the extent of the questions that were to be submitted to them.
§ MR. E. STANHOPEsaid, he rose immediately after the right hon. Genman the President of the Board of Trade, because he thought it desirable that the discussion should be concluded. He wanted to say a word or two with regard to the correspondence referred to; and, in the first place, he was bound to say that he had not complained of the conduct of Mr. Giffen from the point of view that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade had put before them that night. He had no doubt that Mr. Giffen had a good defence to make. He might have been charged with having made accusations which he did not intend to make; but the objection he (Mr. Stanhope) had raised was that permanent officials who were receiving money from the public purse placed themselves in an anomalous position when they made attacks upon Members of that House. No member of the Civil Service had a right to put himself in the position of Mr. Giffen in these controversies. He would pass to another point—and he very much regretted the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade was not present—he thought the discussion which had taken place on the other subjects he had mentioned would be of some service, for the reason that he had made no attack upon the permanent officials of the Board of Trade. What he had said was, that he held the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade himself personally responsible for these memoranda. If there had been polemical literature, the right hon. Gentleman was personally responsible. The right hon. Gentleman told them that no literature of a polemical character was produced, and that he did not mean to make an attack on his political opponents. He (Mr. Stanhope) quite accepted that assurance, though the complaints were not limited to the personal letters which had been referred to that night, but extended to matters relating to Free Trade and the memoranda which had emanated from the Board of Trade. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman to take care that, for the future, the affairs of the Board of Trade should be conducted in the spirit of the assurance the right hon. Gentleman had given that night. He (Mr. Stanhope) confessed, for his own part, that the connection of the perma- 994 nent Civil Service servants of this country with the public Press was a thing to be most carefully watched. He had a very strong opinion against Civil servants of this kind writing in the public Press on subjects connected with their Departments. All he could say was, if one man was allowed to write on subjects connected with his Department, there was no reason why all the remaining permanent servants of the Crown should not be allowed to write, possibly in a contrary spirit to that which had been exhibited in the present instance. He thought that no Head of a Department, if he had the interest of the country at heart, could encourage this practice of writing for the Press, which at times appeared to be growing. It required very careful restriction and watching.
§ MR. DIXON-HARTLANDsaid, that with regard to the complaint against the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ritchie) that he had put the resolution which had been referred to to the meeting over which he presided, it must be remembered that, as the chairman, he could not help putting any question or resolution formally submitted to him. It was most unfair that, both in the Press and elsewhere, he should be taken to task by the Permanent Under Secretary to the Board of Trade for putting a resolution to the meeting which the hon. Member had no power to refuse. There was nothing in the letter from Sir Thomas Farrer to explain why he should not have put it to the meeting; but the complaint was simply that he had put it, and that in addition to the complaint a demand was made for the names of the persons who were held responsible. It was due to the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets to say this much.
§ MR. SAMUEL SMITHwas of opinion that after the amendments which the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade had made in the Merchant Shipping Bill, in deference to the opinion of shipowners, the measure would, have served as a good basis for legislation. The right hon. Gentleman was, he thought, to be strongly commended for taking the trouble to obtain the opinion of the leading shipowners in the United Kingdom, and he did not agree with previous speakers in condemning the action of the right hon. Gentleman on that ground. He com- 995 mended the right hon. Gentleman, and it was to be hoped that every hon. and right hon. Gentleman presiding over Public Departments would imitate this valuable example. [An hon. MEMBER: What example?] Why, of consulting with the private members of the trade throughout the country which was to be affected by legislation, so as to ascertain the opinions entertained by the most enlightened traders. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade had taken a great deal of pains in connection with this merchant Shipping Bill, and he deserved the greatest commendations from members of the commercial community. He was extremely sorry that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade was not in his place, as he wished to make some inquiries in connection with the appointment of the Royal Commission. [Mr. CHAMBERLAIN here entered the House and took his seat on the Treasury Bench.] He was very glad to see the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade now in his place. He wished to impress upon him the desirability of including amongst the subjects to be dealt with by the Royal Commission an inquiry into the condition of the merchant seamen. There could be little doubt that the loss of life at sea, which they all deplored, was owing very largely to unseaworthy sailors, and not in all cases to unseaworthy ships. He (Mr. Smith) spoke as one thoroughly impartial on this matter, because he had no personal interest whatever in shipping. He, however, had conferred with large numbers of shipowners on the subject, and was bound to say that the opinion of the majority was that the condition of their merchant seamen was quite as worthy of inquiry by a Royal Commission as was the condition of their merchant ships. It was to be hoped, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman would include that subject in the inquiry. He only wished to repeat his regret that the vast amount of labour which had been bestowed on the Merchant Shipping Bill had been thrown away, and to state that if the amendments to be made in it had been carried, and the Bill had passed, it would have served as a very acceptable basis for legislation.
§ MR. WHITLEYsaid, he could not agree with the statement of his hon. 996 Colleague (Mr. S. Smith) that the Amendments would have rendered the Merchant Shipping Bill satisfactory. No doubt, in the opinion of the shipowners of the country, some of them would have made the Bill better, but others would have failed. With regard to the question as to what was to be done for the future, no doubt, as the hon. Member for Hull (Mr. Norwood) observed, a great deal of friction had arisen, and a great difference of opinion, to say the least of it, between the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade and the shipowners generally; and it was quite in the interest of the Chamber of Commerce and the shipowners, as well as of the public, that a Royal Commission should be appointed to consider it. He (Mr. Whitley), for his own part, felt very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade for suggesting this Royal Commission. He believed, if it was rightly constituted, and embraced the whole of the subject, it would meet the case. He regretted the failure of the Merchant Shipping Bill if it could have been made acceptable to the shipowners, and very much regretted that the right hon. Gentleman had not seen his way at the commencement of the Session to refer the measure to a Select Committee. Unfortunately, the whole thing had collapsed through that; but now he did think that, as there was a solution of the difficulty presented, if the Commission was constituted fairly, as he believed the right hon. Gentleman was willing to constitute it, and if it went into the question of the constitution of the Board of Trade, as affecting shipping and the whole subject of the work and science of shipping, and of ships' crews—if all these subjects were investigated by the Commission, he believed they would soon see a satisfactory settlement of this very difficult problem. He hoped and trusted that they would soon see the names of the Commissioners announced. If they could have them before the Prorogation, the mercantile community would be satisfied. He would strongly press upon the right hon. Gentleman to give them the names of the Commissioners as soon as possible, and also the scope of the inquiry. Let him give this to them before the Prorogation, in order that they might see that none of the matters which 997 should be included were left out from the scope of the investigation, and also that the mercantile community might see that the Commissioners to be appointed were competent to investigate these matters. It was to be hoped that the country would soon see this very much-vexed question disposed of.
§ MR. D. JENKINSdesired to say one or two words on this question of the Merchant Shipping Bill referred to on the other side of the House. One would suppose, from the debates of the last few months, that the Act of 1875–6 had entirely failed. He (Mr. Jenkins) denied that. He believed the Act had done, and was still doing, good work, and that if it was a failure it was a Departmental more than a Legislative failure. He was almost afraid that they had expected too much from the Board of Trade. His own impression was, that if they left the merchant shipping alone altogether for the present, and left the Board of Trade to deal with cases of unseaworthiness, they would do well. For his own part, he regretted that the Bill of the present Session had fallen through, as it would have done away with over-insurance and over-loading, which were great evils. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade proposed to deal with these questions, and his amended Bill had met the case very fairly. He had appointed a Departmental Committee, and that Committee, no doubt, performed very satisfactory service; but he did not see what the Royal Commission was to inquire into. He maintained that the merchant shipping of the country was never in a better condition than it was to-day. There was never less preventible unseaworthiness than there was at the present time; and if the Board of Trade would simply carry out the powers given to them by the Act of 1875–6, he believed it would still do more good, and realize that which they were all desirous of realizing—namely, the prevention of loss of life, and the safety of property at sea. The risks of navigation of late years had greatly decreased. In spite of all the statistics put before the House and the country by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, he believed that loss of life was decreasing in the Mercantile Marine. The hon. Member for Hull (Mr. Norwood) had referred to the seamen. 998 Well, they knew that the character of merchant shipping in this country had changed very much within the last 10 years. They had advanced from sailing ships to steamers, and it was not to be expected that they would get the same class of men to man their steamers as they used to get to man their sailing ships 20 years ago. With regard to the Royal Commission which had been referred to, in his judgment there was no necessity for it; and he believed that if the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade would content himself with dealing with the questions of over-insurance and over-loading, he would meet the abuse which existed at the present time. As to procedure, he thought the present mode of inquiring into casualties at sea might be improved; and he did not think that where they could prove against a captain or other officer of a ship charges of drunkenness during the navigation of that ship, that two or three months' suspension of certificate was sufficient to meet the gravity of the case. He trusted the President of the Board of Trade would early next Session introduce a Bill dealing with these two or three abuses. By so doing—by introducing only a short Bill—he would cover the whole question and satisfy the whole country.
§ MR. TOMLINSONsaid, that seeing the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ritchie) had come in, it was perhaps hardly necessary for him to make more than one or two remarks on the question referred to a short time ago, as the hon. Member would be able to put forward with much greater knowledge and ability arguments against the position taken up by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade in reference to this matter. It appeared to him that the mistake the permanent officials of the Board of Trade were now making was in not confining themselves to, the duties of their Department, The right hon. Gentleman said they ought to be careful how they spoke of permanent officials, because those gentleman ought to be kept in the back ground. That was, in general, a sound principle; but when these gentlemen forced themselves forward and made themselves political partizans, it was inevitable that their action should be inquired into. In the present instance, the permanent officials of the Board of Trade had departed to a 999 great extent from the proper position of permanent officials. They had made themselves partizans, and had come forward in the public Press and otherwise as the supporters of the policy of the political Head of the Department. Mr. Giffen himself was in a peculiar position, because he did not pretend to be a mere official of the Board of Trade. He occupied some position in connection with The Times newspaper. [Mr. COURTNEY: Nothing of the kind.] At any rate, Mr. Giffen was allowed to write long letters in The Times, and put forward his views in a manner in which the permanent officials of no other Department were able to do. As to the sugar bounty question, Mr. Giffen, when driven into a corner, declared that the only mode other than by countervailing duties of dealing with the system of bounties would be to effect a reduction of wages and to make smaller profits. He had been made to admit that, and his admission had been quoted against him, and of that he now complained. This was not a case of quoting any supposed inference from his words; his actual words were literally quoted. Mr. Giffen, however, said—
You are garbling my evidence, because you do not bring forward the whole of what I said—you only take a part of my cross-examination.Surely, a Court of Justice would not consider a quotation from cross-examination a garbling of evidence. If a man came forward to give evidence, and was cross-examined on it, and was brought to make an admission in that cross-examination, such admission they were entitled to quote against him. That was the case of Mr. Giffen. On the question of foreign bounties, it certainly appeared to him that those who supported the principle of countervailing duties had a right to quote an admission they had extorted from a Government official in cross-examination, and which they believed to be of great importance.
§ MR. GOURLEYsaid, there was, to his mind, no Department of the Government Service which required more overhauling than the Board of Trade. When the late Government were in Office he had moved for a Return, which had been promised by Viscount Sandon, to inform the House as to the names of the Board of Trade, and the constitution and duties of the various officials of the Depart- 1000 ment. Well, owing to the Dissolution in 1880, the order that was given for the preparation of the Return naturally lapsed. He had again to move for the Return—he had asked his right hon. Friend (Mr. Chamberlain) to grant it, and the reply he had got was that he would find all the information he wanted in the Library. He (Mr. Gourley) had said that he would move for the Return, and had given Notice of Motion; but to his astonishment the right hon. Gentleman had asked a friend of his to block the Notice. This hon. Member, a friend of the right hon. Gentleman, had himself informed him (Mr. Gourley) of the request which had been made to him to block the Notice. From that day to this there had not been an opportunity of bringing the Notice on. He was glad the attention of the Committee had been called to this question that evening. With regard to the members of the Board of Trade, oddly enough, one of them was the Bishop of London. He should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, what duties were performed in connection with the Board of Trade by that right rev. Prelate? He (Mr. Gourley) had not heard all the speech of his right hon. Friend, and therefore he did not know whether he had gone into the matter; but, so far as his (Mr. Gourley's) knowledge went, he did not know of any Bishop of London who had over taken any interest in the work of the Board of Trade. The duties of the Department were of a very important character, and could not be dealt with in an off-hand manner. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade declared that since he had held his present position, he had endeavoured to discharge his duties fairly to all classes with whom he came into contact. Well, that was what all gentleman in official positions who were recognized as possessing a certain amount of ability invariably did; but some gentleman did not possess the technical knowledge required in regard to the various duties they had to perform. The gentlemen under the President of the Board of Trade, no doubt, endeavoured to discharge their duty fairly; but had they all the technical knowledge necessary? The Committee would perhaps pardon him if he gave it an illustration of what he meant—an illustration as to 1001 the manner in which the marine duties were performed by the Board of Trade. Very recently they had seen a type of vessel called the "well-decked." Well, the Board of Trade had the power to fix the load-line of all ships. In the case of the "well-decked" ships the Marine Department, in some of the vessels, had fixed the line—which was the depth at which vessels should be loaded—without taking into consideration what was known as wood sheathing for the decks. The load-line was much higher than that which was allowed in the case of a ship with an additional weight placed on the iron decks. What he meant was that vessels of the type he was describing were built with bare iron decks and wooden sheathing over it. It so happened that the Marine Surveyor of the Board of Trade, in fixing the load-line, gave a larger freeboard to the bare iron deck than he gave to the vessel that had an addition of wooden sheathing over the deck, whereas he ought to have given a smaller freeboard to the former. Again, he would call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade to the fact that there was no regular system as to the lighting of lighthouses. Some of them were lit with the electric light, others were lit with oil, and others with the lime light. [Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Hear, hear!] The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade said "Hear, hears!" but it seemed to him (Mr. Gourley) that the right policy would dictate the adoption of one universal system—either the electric light, the lime light, or the oil light. His own opinion was in favour of the electric light. It was much more powerful than any other, and to his mind all lighthouses should be lit with it. Then, again, the Board of Trade had no system as to buoyage. There was one system appertaining to England, another to Scotland, and another to Ireland. He thought the Board of Trade would do well if they would carry out the recommendations of the Departmental Committee in this matter.
§ MR. CHAMBERLAINThey are being carried out.
§ MR. GOURLEYsaid, if that were so, the right hon. Gentleman should inform the Committee as to what was being done. Certain it was that at the present time there was no uniform system of buoyage in the United Kingdom, though 1002 an uniform system existed in France and also in Germany. It might be true that the Board of Trade were introducing a reform; but he wished to impress upon the Department the desirability of adopting an uniform plan as soon as possible, and of not proceeding in such a matter in a piecemeal style. The reforms should be carried out with despatch and rapidity. As to the Royal Commission which was proposed in regard to the constitution of the Marine Department of the Board of Trade, he trusted that there would be nominated upon it not shipowners only, but men who technically understood the various questions with which the Commission would have to deal. A class of men very largely interested were their sailors; and he would press on the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade the desirability of having on the Commission seafaring men who had been at sea all their lives—such a man as the hon. Member for Penryn (Mr. D. Jenkins), who was a practical sailor. At any rate, they ought to have the advantage of the views and opinions of seafaring men on the Commission. For his own part, he did not believe their sailors were deteriorating; but, on the contrary, that they were as good as ever they were. To his mind, with their present system of education, their seamen as a rule were more superior, more attentive to their work, and more ready to embark on board ship than they were at any former period. He did not believe that so much of the deplorable loss of life which had been referred to, and which all, he was sure, lamented, was to to be laid at the door of their seamen, as some hon. Members supposed. He did not agree with the views of the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. S. Smith). Their seamen were just as good now as they were 50 years ago, and he, therefore, hoped their interests would not be neglected.
§ MR. RITCHIEsaid, he must apologize for not being present when the discussion arose with regard to the answers given by Mr. Giffen before the Sugar Bounties Committee. He (Mr. Ritchie) had not expected the question to come on so soon, or he should have made a point of being earlier in his place. He was at a disadvantage through not having heard the preliminary discussion which he understood 1003 had taken place, and, therefore, if he said anything which had already been explained to the Committee, no doubt, under the circumstances, they would excuse him. This was a matter with regard to which he had intimated, he was afraid with very short notice to the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, that he should say a few words when the Vote came on, if he happened to be in the House at the time. He had been out of town, and had only come back to London just before the House met, and did not think the subject was coming on so soon; and that must be his apology for not giving a longer notice on the subject. The matter was one somewhat personal to himself; therefore, he felt some difficulty in adverting to it before the Committee. If it were merely a personal question, however, he should venture to put up with what he considered the insolence of the officials of the Board of Trade to himself personally without troubling the Committee with it; but it was not altogether a personal matter—it was much more. Therefore, he thought he was fully warranted in mentioning it to the Committee. The question arose out of some evidence given by Mr. Giffen before the Select Committee on the Sugar Bounties, over which he (Mr. Ritchie) presided. It had been stated, though he did not think it had much to do with the case, that Mr. Giffen was a witness who had attended before the Committee at his (Mr. Ritchie's) personal request. This was quite a mistake. The Committee were very glad to have that gentleman's evidence; but, so far as his recollection went, he believed Mr. Giffen was a witness tendered by the late Lord Frederick Cavendish, and that he appeared essentially as an official of the Board of Trade, to give certain statistics and other information which was only in the possession of that Department. Mr. Giffen was a gentleman for whom he had always had the very greatest respect, so far as his abilities and personal character were concerned. He was quite sure the public had no more valuable servant in their employ than Mr. Giffen. Mr. Giffen had given some exceedingly valuable information to the Committee, and in the course of his examination he had given the following answers to three questions put to him. One question put by himself (Mr. Ritchie) was— 1004
Q.—Supposing pretty equal conditions, one man gets £2 a-ton and the other gets nothing, the man who gets nothing would hardly he able to compete with the man who gets £2 a-ton on an article of £22, would he?A.—I do not know but that he might be able to do so if he lowered the profits and wages in his trade. There are many conditions under which a great many people could compete. You might reduce the rent of a great deal of property which was growing cane sugar, so that you might have a large amount of competition still.Then the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Thornhill), in cross-examining Mr. Giffen, put the following question:—It is your opinion, in answer to Question 283, that export bounties must be met by a reduction of wages?And the answer was—Yes; that was suggested in reply to a question which was put to me, and I said that when two men were competing, if one of them got a special advantage of that kind it did not necessarily follow that the other man was put out of the trade, but that he might meet it by reducing his wages or profits.The next question put was—You think reducing the wages of the working men and keeping on the bounty is better than taking off the bounty and keeping the wages as they are?and Mr. Giffen's reply was "Yes." Now, those were the three questions and answers upon which the whole point rested. He wished to be perfectly candid with the Committee upon this subject, and he was bound to say he felt that Mr. Giffen, in making the answers he did, committed a great indiscretion. He did not believe that Mr. Giffen, as the witness of the Board of Trade, could seriously put it forward that this bounty should be met by a reduction of wages, and therefore he made no allusion whatever in the Report he laid before the Committee to this suggestion as being one means of meeting the bounty. More than that, he had studiously avoided in anything he had over written or said on the subject of the sugar bounties making any allusion to those answers of Mr. Giffen, simply because, as he had already said, he did not believe that Mr. Giffen, on consideration, could seriously put forward such a proposal as that as a reasonable means of meeting export bounties. But, while that was his (Mr. Ritchie's) own feeling, it was impossible for him to regulate the feelings or to alter the opinions of other people who had formed a different view to his of the answers 1005 Mr. Giffen made. He was perfectly well aware that it had more than once been put forward by the working men who were mainly interested, that Mr. Giffen, in making those answers, had laid down a means by which, in his opinion, those bounties might be met. Well, that being so, Mr. Giffen had met the contention by more than one contribution to the Press, and, of course, he (Mr. Ritchie) could not for one moment blame him. He had a perfect right to put what interpretation he thought proper upon the answers he gave. He had more than once made out that he did not intend to put this forward as a means by which the bounties should be met, but he did not attempt to deny that he actually used the words which had been more than once quoted in circulars and in pamphlets which had put forward the views of the working men upon the question. Now, the question of the sugar bounties was one, as the Committee might be aware, in which he (Mr. Ritchie) for many years had taken a very considerable interest, because it affected very materially a large number of his constituents. He was asked a short time since to preside at a meeting to be held at the East End of London upon the subject of sugar bounties, and he consented to do so. In his opening remarks, which indeed were the only remarks he made at the meeting, he spoke upon the sugar bounties and upon bounties in general; but not one word fell from his lips in reference to Mr. Giffen, or in reference to the resolutions which were put into his hand, and which he was told were to be moved. Hon. Gentlemen were well aware, from their personal experience, that Members of Parliament were called upon to preside at meetings of different kinds, and that it would be giving a new turn to affairs if chairmen of public meetings were to be held responsible for every word of every resolution which was put before the meetings over which they presided. Well, one of the resolutions adopted by the meeting over which he presided—he had not got a copy of it with him, but he thought he could describe it pretty accurately—was a resolution which deprecated the proposal made more than once by an official of the Board of Trade that bounties should be met by a reduction of wages. That was, practically, what the resolution 1006 amounted to. Well, that resolution, along with other resolutions, was put to the meeting by him and carried, and two or three days afterwards the resolutions were sent to him to sign as having been carried. He signed the resolutions, and made a note at the foot to the effect that they were carried unanimously at the meeting over which he presided. Now, that was the beginning and end of his connection with the meeting or with the resolutions. Judge of his astonishment when he saw, in a recent number of The Times, a letter, a column and a-half in length, signed by Mr. Giffen, and much of which consisted of personal abuse of himself (Mr. Ritchie) and his hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Thornhill). The charge against himself was that he had presided at the meeting at which the resolution in question was carried, and he had been guilty of misconduct. He was bound to say that it was, at least, inconvenient when an official of the Board of Trade, who was well known to be in such, intimate relation with the Press as Mr. Giffen was, took advantage of that connection to get inserted in the leading journal a long letter, in which he made a personal attack upon a Member of Parliament who performed a duty which he considered it was incumbent upon him to perform in the middle of his constituency. Even if there had been any ground whatever for that personal attack upon himself by Mr. Giffen, he was a Mcmber of that House, and Mr. Giffen and the Department was very adequately represented by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Chamberlain), and it was in that House he ought to have been called to account, if he had said or done anything which he was not justified in saying or doing.
§ MR. COURTNEYIt was done in the Tower Hamlets.
§ MR. RITCHIEmaintained that made no difference whatever. There were scores of instances in which statements had been made in one part of the country or the other by hon. Gentlemen affecting some individual Members of the House, or some Department of the State, and it had been thought necessary to bring the matter before the notice of the House of Commons. And they were not statements merely confined to the House which were brought to the Bar of the House. Over and 1007 over again, statements made outside the House were brought to the Bar of the House for examination and discussion; and therefore he said distinctly that the proper mode of proceeding, if any fault had to be found with him, was to charge him with it in the proper place—namely, in the House of Commons. But to show the further inconvenience and the disadvantage which one was placed at by an attack of this kind, made by a gentleman who had such relations with the Press as Mr. Giffen had—["What relations?"] Well, it was notorious. He did not know that Mr. Giffen had any absolute connection with the Press at that moment; but it was perfectly well known that Mr. Giffen had for years had a very honourable connection with the leading journal, and with other journals in the country. But he was not going to make any attack upon Mr. Giffen on that account; he was merely pointing out the inconvenience and injustice which hon. Gentlemen suffered in consequence of the advantage sometimes taken of connections with the Press, and he would show what that inconvenience and injustice was. The Times inserted an article, nearly two columns in length, composed very largely of an attack upon himself and another Member of the House; but when he wrote to The Times a very modest letter, containing an answer to the charge made against him, it did not gain admission to the colums of the paper. He waited anxiously from day to day, and his letter did not get admission to The Times until a letter appeared in another London journal from his hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Thornhill) containing a copy of a letter which he also had written to The Times in answer to Mr. Giffen, but which was not published there, and which he asked another London journal to print for him. The day after his hon. Friend's letter appeared in The Morning Post, his (Mr. Ritchie's) answer appeared in The Times; but it was a week after it ought to have appeared, and no date was affixed to it. Well, the matter did not end there. Shortly after that he received a letter from the Board of Trade, making a most innocent inquiry of him as to whether he knew to whom the resolution passed at the meeting over which he presided referred. Well, now, looking to the fact that the Board of Trade were in 1008 possession of all the information which, they asked of him, he thought it was somewhat disingenuous and misleading of them to ask him for the information. Why did he (Mr. Ritchie) know the information was in their possession? He knew it because he had seen it in the paper, because Mr. Giffen himself had referred to it in his long letter to The Times, and because the Board of Trade were at that moment in correspondence with the Workmen's Committee, in reference to the very subject about which they asked for information from him. In his reply he expressed surprise that they should ask information from him, and not from the gentleman who sent them the resolution, because the Committee would bear in mind that his connection with the matter terminated with the end of the meeting. The meeting was held under the auspices of the Workmen's Committee for the Abolition of the Sugar Bounties, and he supposed the resolutions adopted were forwarded by the secretary or some other official of the Organization to the Board of Trade. He very naturally said that in his opinion the Board of Trade should apply to the gentleman with whom they were in communication for any information on the subject; but he did not wish to be disingenuous himself, and therefore he said he understood the resolution referred to Mr. Giffen, and to the answers which he gave before the Select Committee on the Sugar Industries. And then, in a few days, he got another violent letter from the Board of Trade, and that letter, in order to give impressiveness and increased dignity to the communication, was signed, not by the Assistant Secretary, but by Sir Thomas H. Farrer himself. That letter informed him (Mr. Ritchie) that the reason why the Board of Trade applied to him for the information in question was that he was chairman of the meeting at which the resolution was passed, and that the copy of the resolutions forwarded to the Board of Trade was signed by him. That would seem to imply that it was the opinion of the Board of Trade that the chairman of a meeting was personally responsible for all the resolutions which it was his duty to put to the meeting. That he absolutely denied. But he would have the Committee bear in mind that there were two points in that question—firstly, whether the words which 1009 were used in the resolution misrepresented what Mr. Giffen said; and, secondly, whether he (Mr. Ritchie) was responsible for them if they did? He fully granted that if a resolution had been put before the meeting containing words which purported to be a quotation from any evidence given before him, but which he knew to be false, it would have been his duty to point out to the meeting that the words were false, and not to put them. But that was not the question. The question was not whether Mr. Giffen made these replies, but what interpretation was to be placed upon them, and he (Mr. Ritchie) maintained that that was an altogether different point. Mr. Giffen did not deny that he used those words; but he said—"Oh, they could not mean what the workmen say they understood they did mean, because my object was to defend against a most insidious attack that Free Trade system by which the condition of the working men of this country has been so much advanced during the last 30 years." That was the explanation which, he presumed, Mr. Giffen was angry with him for not having given to the meeting; but it was no portion of his duty to give to the meeting Mr. Giffen's explanation of his own words. Mr. Giffen's words spoke for themselves, and he (Mr. Ritchie) ventured to say that quite as large a number of people thought that the only interpretation to be put upon them was the interpretation put upon them by the Workmen's Committee as there were who thought the opposite. And then, forsooth, because he did not take up the cudgels for Mr. Giffen, and explain to the meeting over which he presided what Mr. Giffen meant, he had been insolent enough to charge him (Mr. Ritchie) with misconduct. Although they had been informed by him (Mr. Ritchie) that he took no part in the denunciation of Mr. Giffen, and although they knew perfectly well he never had said one word against Mr. Giffen, the Board of Trade, in their second communication, endeavoured to fasten upon him the responsibility of the interpretation which was put on Mr. Giffen's words by a public meeting over which he (Mr. Ritchie) presided. They said—
Mr. Giffen has always warmly repudiated the construction you place on the answers he gave," &c.1010 He (Mr. Ritchie) had informed them that he had placed no interpretation on the words in question; that he had never referred to them in any shape or form in anything he had ever said or done concerning the Sugar Bounties; and yet they presumed to attack him again, and to talk about the interpretation he had placed upon them. And then the Board of Trade wound up their letter by saying—They cannot understand"—they read him (Mr. Ritchie) a lecture—"you joining in a resolution which imputes to a witness who gave evidence before you in the course of his official business," &c.His joining! He appealed to every Member of that House whether it could be said fairly and honestly that the president of a meeting joined in everything that was said and done at the meeting? He would like to ask the President of the Board of Trade, or any other Member of the Government, whether, in any speeches which they considered it their duty to make, they were careful to explain, not only their own interpretation of what had been said by their political opponents, but the interpretation which their political opponents attached to them themselves? He ventured to say that if some of the Ministers were to look through the files of newspapers even of recent times, and examined the interpretation which they had put on the words of their political opponents, they would very plainly see that the interpretation was not such as those who spoke the words would desire to put upon them. He maintained that his position did not require to be defended from attack. He had never said one single word which he desired to retract, either about Mr. Giffen or any other official of the Board of Trade. He denied, in the first place, that it was any portion whatever of his duty to give Mr. Giffen's explanation to the meeting; and he denied, in the second place, that he was to be held responsible for any resolution passed at the meeting. He could not help saying he considered that a gross and unwarrantable interference by the officials of the Board of Trade between a Member of that House and his constituents, between a Member of the House of Commons and the discharge of what he considered his duty to his constituents. He felt he owed an apology to the Com- 1011 mittee for detaining them so long upon a matter which was very much of a personal character. He trusted, however, that the Committee would consider that the personal attack upon himself, and the public importance of the question whether it was right and proper that officials of the Board of Trade should interfere between Members and their constituents, was sufficient to warrant his bringing the matter under their notice?
§ MR. CHAMBERLAINThe hon. Gentleman (Mr. Ritchie) has spoken of the public importance of the question he has thought it necessary to raise at considerable length; but I confess I have heard very little in the arguments he has addressed to the Committee which has dealt with the public importance of the question. It appears to have reduced itself, so far as I have been able to observe, to a personal difference between the hon. Member himself and an official of a Public Department, with whom he is very indignant for having, as he says, attacked him in an unwarrantable manner. I think it is very much to be regretted that the hon. Member was not in his place when the matter was first raised in the early part of the evening, because, if he had been, he might have, to some extent, spared me the necessity of repeating what I have previously said. I do not contest the general accuracy of the greater part of the statement made by the hon. Member. There are only two subjects of controversy, as it appears to me, between us in this matter, because I will not admit for a moment that the hon. Gentleman is entitled to raise as a matter of controversy between the two sides of the House that the administration of The Times newspaper had not thought fit to insert his communication until a week after it was written. At all events, the Board of Trade is not responsible for the administration of The Times newspaper. The two points which I say are the only points of controversy between us, are these. In the first place, here is the acknowledged fact that a witness, who was himself a public servant, giving evidence before the Committee of which the hon. Member (Mr. Ritchie) was Chairman, was misunderstood. I will grant, if you like, that his answers were not sufficiently clear and that the misunderstanding was natural, but that does 1012 not in the least affect the argument. It is a fact that he was misunderstood, and that within two or three days of the publication of the evidence and the comments upon it, he repudiated in the strongest possible terms the interpretation that was sought to be affixed to his words. My first point is this. Under these circumstances, is it honourable or fair controversy, is it creditable, that any party or person should, time after time, attribute to a witness opinions which he has deliberately repudiated? I say it is not. I say it is dishonourable and discreditable to any party or person to do anything of the kind. Well, now, the second point of the controversy is this—and this is the only point which touches the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Ritchie)—that the hon. Gentleman, having occupied the position of the Chairman of the Committee on Sugar Industries, having heard the evidence of the witness, being perfectly conversant with the fact that Mr. Giffen had repudiated the erroneous interpretation which had been put upon his evidence, was now acting as chairman of a public meeting, and in his presence men got up and denounced Mr. Giffen on the ground of his having given this evidence, and they moved and seconded a resolution which accused him—the hon. Member said he was not in a position to state the exact words of the resolution—of having made to the Board of Trade deliberate and repeated recommendations that workmen's wages should be reduced in order that the bounty on sugar might be taken off—["Read!"] I am speaking from memory; but I pledge myself that the words of the resolution were "that he made deliberate and repeated recommendations."
§ MR. RITCHIEI do not remember that the words were "deliberate and repeated recommendations to the Board of Trade."
§ MR. CHAMBERLAINI really do not see any importance in that.
§ MR. RITCHIEMr. Giffen made three distinct and separate answers before the Committee all in the same sense. He had an opportunity of correcting his evidence, or explaining when he came before the Committee subsequently, but he did not avail himself of it. The deliberate and repeated recommendations were not, as I understand, made to the Board of Trade, but to the 1013 Select Committee in three separate answers. That is what I understand.
§ MR. CHAMBERLAINIt is necessary the matter should be clearly understood. The hon. Member called upon me to read; but how is it possible for me to read the resolution? The hon. Member has already said he only gave me Notice a short time ago of his intention to bring the question forward, and accordingly I have not the papers with me.
§ MR. RITCHIEI did not call upon him to read. The only words I object to in what he has said is that the resolution stated that deliberate and repeated recommendations had been made to the "Board of Trade."
§ MR. CHAMBERLAINI am speaking from memory, but, at the same time, I am prepared to pledge myself to certain words—they are the words of which Mr. Giffen complains. He complains that this resolution denounced him, or denounced an official of the Board of Trade, because he had made deliberate and repeated recommendations. The hon. Member lays stress on the other words — namely, "to the Board of Trade." To those words I should not like to pledge my memory, but I believe they appeared in the resolution. I, however, attach no importance to them at all. I put it to the hon. Member, whether he can possibly sustain the position that it was a fair representation of the evidence of a witness given in answer to three successive questions, to describe them as repeated and deliberate recommendations to reduce wages, in face of the fact that within two or three days the witness repudiated the construction placed upon his words?
§ MR. RITCHIEOne answer was given on the 14th of June, and the other two answers on the 18th of June.
§ MR. CHAMBERLAINI accept the hon. Member's statement as to the dates on which the answers were given. I was not a Member of the Committee. But the statement of the hon. Member does not touch the question at issue. The answers of importance were the second and third. I will grant, for the sake of argument, that the words used by Mr. Giffen are consistent with the interpretation placed upon them by the Workmen's Committee; but I ask, seeing that within two or three days of that interpretation having come to Mr. 1014 Giffen's knowledge, he said, after full deliberation, "I do not mean that," and that he explained what he did mean, whether it is fair and honourable again and again to tax Mr. Giffen with having meant that which he repudiated? The hon. Member was well aware that Mr. Giffen repudiated the interpretation placed upon his words; nevertheless, he allowed a resolution which embodied that interpretation to be passed in his presence—he allowed it to be put from the chair. I do not think the hon. Member meant to do Mr. Giffen the great injustice of attributing to him that which he had distinctly repudiated. The hon. Member, however, never explained to the meeting that they were misrepresenting a public servant. If he had said—"You are aware that Mr. Giffen denies the interpretation which is placed upon his words," there would not have been any blame attaching to him in the matter. If, however, under the circumstances, the hon. Member felt he was not bound to protect a public servant who was not present, and who could not defend himself, then I can only say that I differ altogether from him in regard to what is the duty of a chairman of a public meeting. Then the hon. Member complained that Mr. Giffen wrote to The Times, and thought that the matter should have been dealt with by the House. The offence, if it were an offence, was not committed in that House, but outside of it; and, as far as I can see, there was nothing unjustifiable or improper in Mr. Giffen making a reply to the attack made upon him. Does the hon. Member contend that I should get up in my place and use the public time in making a statement or in moving a Resolution in reference to this matter? I think such a proposal would be really too absurd. I began by saying that I have always found the hon. Member fair towards his political opponents. I think he would especially desire to be fair to an opponent who hardly met him on equal terms. The position of a Member of this House is one of great responsibility, and such as imposes upon him the duty of not attacking a public servant except under grave necessity. The hon. Member, therefore, ought not to be a party to an attack upon a public servant without grave necessity; and I hope the hon. Member, on reflection, will consider that his conduct justified the 1015 serious complaint of Mr. Giffen, and that he will not consider there was any insolence in the language which Mr. Giffen employed. I would point out that when the question of the sugar bounties comes before the House, there will be an opportunity of considering the circumstances of the case; and until that time I venture to deprecate any further discussion of the matter. I now wish to say a few words with reference to the Marine Department of the Board of Trade and the proposed Royal Commission in relation to commercial and other similar matters. With regard to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Hull (Mr. Norwood), I can say that there is no one in this House who regrets more sincerely than I the fact that the discussion on the second reading of the Merchant Shipping Bill was not continued. I desired that discussion to be continued, above all things, in order that what the shipowners wished to say on the question should have been heard in this House as elsewhere; and, in the second place, I was anxious that the question should be sifted, not only by a discussion, but also by a Division, in order that it might have been seen who were opposed to and who were in favour of the measure. I considered myself most unfortunate in the circumstance that the Government could not afford the time necessary for the completion of the discussion, and that the Bill had to be withdrawn without any decision of the House being obtained upon it. As regards the Royal Commission, and as regards some of the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, I may tell my hon. Friend that, while I hear with regret that the Board of Trade has not altogether secured the confidence, as he calls it, of, or popularity with, the whole of the shipowning interest, that is not the business of the Board of Trade. We were not established simply as representatives of shipowners; we were established to hold the balance between the shipowners, sailors, merchants, and others—in short, between the different interests concerned in this business. I do not think it would be a defence of the Board of Trade to say that we never got into any differences of opinion with the shipowners; we are bound to supervise them, and, to certain extent, to interfere in their operations; and although that, of course, must involve a certain degree of friction, 1016 I trust that mutual respect between the Board of Trade and the shipowning interest will remain unimpaired. It is, however, no accusation against the Department that there should at times be some amount of friction of the kind I have indicated. Then my hon. Friend said that the shipowners were entitled to demand that such and such things should be referred to a Royal Commission, and that the Commission should be of such and such a character; and, further, my hon. Friend asks me for a pledge with respect to the Commission that the persons composing it should be stated to the House. As to the last point, I may say that I should be very glad if it were in my power to make such a statement; but negotiations are going on, and my hon. Friend knows how very difficult and delicate a matter it is to create a Commission of this kind which will command general respect, and he must not be surprised if the process of constructing it takes a considerable amount of time. My object will be to have, what will be recognized by everybody whose opinion is worth anything on this question, a strong and impartial Commission. It is not to a Committee of shipowners that these questions should be referred. If I were, however, to comply with the demands made in letters addressed to me from the various ports, there would be 24 shipowners upon a Commission which should not exceed 12 members. The Commission should be, of course, constituted in such a manner that the shipowners have fair play. At the same time, it is necessary that the interests of underwriters, merchants, officers of the Mercantile Marine should be represented, as also the mechanical and engineering interests concerned. There are, besides, legal points involved; and there must, therefore, be members whose position and character will secure a belief in the general impartiality of this Body. All these are matters which will be carefully weighed; and I can promise my hon. Friend that it will be my anxiety to recommend for appointment on such a Commission men who will command the assent of all impartial and reasonable persons. Finally, I may say that I shall be glad, as soon as it is possible to do so, to state to the House the names of the Commissioners, as well as the terms of the Reference.
§ MR. NORWOODsaid, with reference to the constitution of the Commission, he thought that hon. Members who acted with him would recollect that he had himself protested against the Commission being composed entirely of shipowners, and that he had said that the Commission should include men of high character and position, who were entirely unconnected with the Mercantile Marine, in order to prevent anything like dissatisfaction. His right hon. Friend, therefore, made a great mistake in supposing that it was desired that the Commission should be composed entirely of shipowners. On his own behalf, he might observe that he had assumed no dictatorial tone in speaking on this subject; he had simply said that, as the shipowners had had no opportunity of answering in that House the long and able speech of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, it was absolutely necessary that the investigation, which alone would be satisfactory to those interested in the Mercantile Marine, must be thorough and complete.
§ MR. COLERIDGE KENNARDsaid, he had to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade on having grappled, perhaps too thoroughly, with this important question in the interests of human life. Last Session, when he ventured to introduce into the House a short Bill to deal with a portion of the question, he had been treated with remarkable courtesy by the right hon. Gentleman, who said he would take care that the subject should be considered. He was quite sure that the right hon. Gentleman had not lost sight of his proposal, which referred more particularly to the loss of life resulting from collisions due to rock-less conduct at sea. He believed it had been ascertained that off their coasts there occurred, on the average, throughout the year, one collision per diem; and for his own part, he was convinced that if shipowners gave more stringent directions to their captains not to race home, nor make the passing of other vessels the subject of wagers decided, so to speak, on the Books in Lloyd's Rooms—if those directions were enforced by a penalty, he believed that much loss of life would be prevented. He, for one, was very grateful for the thorough manner in which the right hon. Gentleman 1018 had grappled with this most important subject; and he hoped, that if a Royal Commission were appointed, the scope of the inquiry would include collisions at sea.
§ MR. MACIVERsaid, he thought the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had paid the President of the Board of Trade a compliment wholly undeserved. He said this for the reason that there was not a single word about collisions at sea in the defunct Shipping Bill. Upon his own individual knowledge, not as a matter of opinion, but upon proofs which he should be ready at any time to submit to the House, he said most emphatically that the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman, and the position of the Board of Trade generally as regarded the seafaring and shipowning community had not the approval of any single class in the Kingdom. On the contrary, he said that seamen, officers, and shipmasters mistrusted the Board of Trade quite as much as shipowners and others. He had been invited to attend a meeting of seamen within the last two days at Shields. The complaint of the seamen was that they were unfairly competed with in their calling by foreigners and other persons who were not sailors. That was one of the questions which the seamen wished to be inquired into, and on which they did not trust the Department. Even officers and shipmasters had written to him from Liverpool and from other ports in such terms as made it clear that it was not the shipowners alone who mistrusted the Board of Trade. The right hon. Gentleman had spoken on one occasion of having received some support from Liverpool, and the junior Member for Liverpool (Mr. S. Smith) was referred to as representing the opinion of that great constituency; but he omitted to say what particular section of opinion he represented there. As far as he (Mr. MacIver) was aware, there were three persons who approved the proceedings of the Board of Trade in this matter. One was a Greek gentleman—Mr. Basilio Papayanni—whose opinion could not be said to be identified with English interests; another was a gentleman—the present Chairman of their local Steamship Owners' Association—of whom he might also say that his views and interests were not those either of English shipowners or English sailors, as most of 1019 the ships that he had to do with sailed under the Spanish flag, and were manned with Spanish crews. There remained only the name of one gentleman who had any kind of prominent position, and he was the brother of the hon. Member for Carnarvonshire (Mr. Rathbone), who sat on the opposite side of the House, and was one of the supporters of the right hon. Gentleman's legislation. That gentleman never had anything to do with the practical management of ships, and it was only because, as he had said, his brother was a prominent Member of the Liberal or Radical Party that the right hon. Gentleman was able to obtain from him any kind of support. With regard to other gentlemen in Liverpool with whom the right hon. Gentleman had been in communication, they were not persons who had any special connection with the particular class of vessels likely to be affected by the proposals of the right hon. Gentleman. He had to say, however, that there was a universal complaint coming from all the seaports of the Kingdom of the hole-and-corner negotiations which had gone on respecting this proposed legislation. The reason why the right hon. Gentleman obtained the support of any shipowners at all was because those who gave him such support, and met him in consultation in London, were persons connected with those Companies whose fleets, and whose methods of doing business, were such as he would describe as being a little out of date—persons whose business was being competed with on more modern principles, who feared competition, and who hoped to see the law put in such a form as would discourage shipbuilding. Such was the only support which the measure of the right hon. Gentleman had received from the shipowning community. As a matter of fact, the right hon. Gentleman had had the opposition of the whole of the shipowning interest, and of the sailors themselves. He begged to assure the Committee that sailors had a very real grievance which they wanted to be redressed—that was to say, they wanted an end to be put to the way in which their honourable profession was disgraced by the competition of persons, not sailors at all, who brought that profession into disrepute. With regard to Mr. Giffen, then, he (Mr. MacIver) was certainly one of those persons who believed, in common with most people, that he had 1020 at that moment a very close connection indeed with The Times. He believed that to be the case, and he had reason to believe that the Board of Trade knew perfectly well that it was so. It was, moreover, the general impression. ["No, no!"] If that could be contradicted, he should like to hear a more specific contradiction than a word from the President of the Board of Trade across the Table. Could the right hon. Gentleman tell the Committee that Mr. Giffen had not at that moment any close relation with The Times? [Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes; I can.] Could the right hon. Gentleman say that within the last few months or years Mr. Giffen had not enjoyed a dual position with regard both to the Board of Trade and The Times?
§ MR. CHAMBERLAINThe hon. Member asks me a question with reference to a contradiction which I gave across the Table. Allow me, Mr. Chairman, to say that Mr. Giffen's connection with the Press terminated when he accepted a permanent office in the Board of Trade.
§ MR. MACIVERsaid, it would have been more satisfactory, and certainly clearer, if the President of the Board of Trade had put that contradiction forward at an earlier period of the debate. He accepted the right hon. Gentleman's explanation, as he was bound to do; but, at the same time, he wished to point out that his statement did not contradict the fact that there was, at all events, a close indirect connection between Mr. Giffen and The Times. Indeed, in one of the Board of Trade proposals, published last summer, officially, by the Board of Trade in The Times, there appeared the words—"In our columns there appeared…" which, he ventured to think, would only have been used by a person accustomed to contribute to The Times. At all events, it was very obvious that there was a close connection between the Board of Trade and The Times, which gave the Department an opportunity of putting forward their own views, held, no doubt, with perfect sincerity, and at the same time prevented replies.
§ MR. WARTONsaid, he was glad that this question as to the connection of a public official with the Press had been brought forward by the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. MacIver). It had led to an interesting discussion between 1021 the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ritchie) and the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade. Having listened to that discussion carefully, he was quite sure that anyone who did the same must have felt that the right hon. Gentleman had been obliged to labour immensely to make out his case. He thought it was perfectly clear that in the evidence given by Mr. Giffen before the Committee he repeatedly and distinctly referred to the lowering of wages as being the best way of meeting the sugar bounties, and that he had done so in the interests of so-called Free Trade, notwithstanding that one of their most important industries was being ruined by the action of Foreign Governments. The Board of Trade, however, had such Free Trade tendencies that they refused to propose countervailing duties, for fear of the cry of "Protection" being raised against the Government. Mr. Giffen gave it, as his reason for that policy, that he wished men to understand Free Trade. That was his object; and he availed himself of the Committee for the purpose of saving interests which he knew were perishing; and he repeated what he knew to be false, and bowed down before the idol of Free Trade as understood by the Board of Trade. There was no excuse for Sir Thomas Farrer, in his position as an official of the Board of Trade, sending his pamphlets on Free Trade all through the land. He had published an important pamphlet on Free Trade; and he maintained that it was most indecent for an official of the Government to do that. He ought to hold himself free from all economical theories; and it was not his duty to disseminate his views on political economy throughout the land. There was no justification for Mr. Giffen running away; and there was none for Sir Thomas Farrer publishing pamphlets as an official of the Board of Trade.
§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORwished to say a few words on the observations of the hon. Member for Hull (Mr. Norwood). The hon. Member had remarked that the multiplicity of the functions of the Board of Trade interfered with the efficient discharge of the duties of that Department. In connection with one of the branches of business—the Board of Trade Mercantile Marine Fund—a very interesting Parliamentary Paper 1022 was furnished in August last year. In that Paper he found that in connection with this Fund there were certain Commissioners of Northern Lights, and, among others in the 25 named, the Lord Advocate, the Solicitor General for Scotland, the Provosts of Edinburgh, Glasgow, Aberdeen, and other towns, as well as the Sheriffs of a number of Scotch counties. But they no longer did the work they used to have in hand. The change was introduced from the 1st of April last year; and by this Paper it was stated that their total income was only £130 a-year. But it appeared that they had an annual dinner, which for the 25 gentlemen, including the Lord Advocate, cost £150, or £6 a-head. That was, apparently, defrayed out of an income which fell short of the expenditure by £20. A great deal had been heard about the dinners of London Vestries and Local Boards; but he was certain that nothing of this kind was ever exposed in connection with Boards of Guardians or Vestries in any part of England; and he regretted that the President of the Board of Trade was not present at that moment to explain how it was that when such reports as this appeared in the Papers issued by his Department nothing whatever was done to remove so gross a scandal.
§ MR. DIXON-HARTLANDsaid, he wished to move the reduction of the Vote by £1,820, and that for two reasons. In the first place, there were five Assistant Secretaries, each of whom had a maximum salary of £1,200 a-year—or £6,000 in all. He saw by the Note that one of these Secretaries received a salary of £300 for acting in another position; and another of them received nearly as much again. He would like to know how much of the Government time was given up to their other offices, because, if that time was occupied in these other offices, if it was given up to enable these gentlemen to fulfil their other duties, it was unfair that the nation should have to pay £1,200, just as if the whole of their time was given up to the work of the Government. He should like to have an explanation of this matter, because it was scarcely proper that they should be paid the same salaries as those gentlemen who gave up the whole of their time to the Government. Then he wished to call attention to an item of £520, consisting of 1023 14s. a-week for a charwoman; that was £38 8s. a-year; and, besides that, there was a sum of £483 12s. a-year allowed for an office-keeper and servant. That was too much for an office-keeper and servant. Next, he wanted to know why the salary of the solicitor in the Legal Branch had been increased from £1,500 a-year to £1,800? The solicitor was also allowed to have a clerk, with a salary ranging from £485 to £505, and three clerks and copyists, for whom he was allowed £1,700 a-year—that was £450 a-year each, not including the copyists. Some explanation of both these matters ought to be given; and, unless some satisfactory answer was given, he should move the reduction of the Vote by the sum he had mentioned.
§ MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, the hon. Member had given Notice of a Motion to reduce the Vote by £1,850; but he did not find any sum of £1,850 in these Estimates, and he was quite unprepared for the particular questions to which the hon. Member had called attention. With all respect for the hon. Member, he had found two mare's nests. One of his complaints was as to an item of 14s. a-week for a charwoman; but that depended on the assumption that there was only one charwoman, whereas, if the hon. Member would read the Estimates, he would see that the item was for "charwomen."
§ MR. DIXON-HARTLANDsaid, he could not be responsible for the misprints in the Estimates. He could only take the words as he found them.
§ MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, that the hon. Member had no right to assume that "charwomen" was "charwoman;" and he hoped the hon. Member did not wish that the President of the Board of Trade and all the servants should be kept in dirt rather than pay for charwomen to brush the carpets. That was the first complaint of the hon. Member. His second complaint was of a similar kind, and it was also a mare's nest. He said the Legal Branch had an allowance for the solicitor's three clerks and copyists. The hon. Member there assumed that this was for three clerks and three copyists; but it was for three clerks who were permanently on the Civil Service as clerks to the solicitor, and for an indefinite number of copyists who were employed from time to time owing to 1024 the nature of the work—at one time there might be 100 copyists, and at another one. At all events, this was the estimate of what, according to past experience, was necessary for copying clerks who were put on from time to time owing to the pressure of work. Then, with regard to the item as to clerks who received additional sums for other work, that was inserted in accordance with a pledge the Government gave years ago that any extra receipts by public servants should be stated. It was not a new thing, and he believed that, as a matter of fact, the Assistant Secretary to the Finance Department of the Board of Trade was Auditor to the Water Works Companies; and he understood that the whole of that work was performed ont of office hours. It was well known that the demand on public servants was not a demand which would preclude them from devoting some extra time to other work. Then he understood the hon. Member for Queen's County (Mr. A. O'Connor) to call attention to the Commissioners of Northern Lights; but that was outside the Board of Trade. He had nothing to do with them; but, as he understood the matter, there was no longer any public money received from any public source for these Commissioners. There seemed to be some private income, amounting to £130, which was spent upon the Commissioners' dinner; but that was not a public matter.
§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, this was reported to the House in an official communication, signed by a Board of Trade official, whose name he believed was Mr. Evelyn Stone.
§ MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, that was not so. The Report he supplied was ordered by the House, and it was signed by the Commissioners of Northern Lights, or, rather, by their Secretary. This was a private matter over which the Board of Trade certainly had no control.
§ MR. HARRISsaid, the President of the Board of Trade had stated that the complaint of the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ritchie) was of no public importance; but he thought it was a matter of the greatest public importance when a Member of that House was attacked by a public servant. It was eminently a matter which required some attention. The right hon. Gentleman said Mr. Giffen repudiated the evidence; but if that repudiation was a 1025 substantial repudiation it ought to have been made to the Committee, and not written to a newspaper; and his hon. Friend (Mr. Ritchie) would not necessarily be conversant with that repudiation, unless it had been personally sent to him. Then the President of the Board of Trade said he objected to the words "deliberate and repeated" in the resolution which was passed by the workmen. In the first place, he maintained that a gentleman of Mr. Giffen's standing, when he took the oath and gave evidence before a Committee, did so in a deliberate manner. Secondly, there was no doubt that the evidence was repeated, because it was given four times afterwards; and he therefore re-asserted that the Working Men's Committee were perfectly justified in using the words to which the President of the Board of Trade made so much objection—namely, "deliberate and repeated." During the cross-examination of Mr. Giffen Mr. Courtney asked the following question:—
If we suppose what we may call a normal condition, of things, and that trade is going on without any disturbance from bounties, and that from some cause or another the commodity which we consume is supplied on cheaper conditions than we can supply them, does that involve a disturbance of the industry at home?Mr. Giffen replied as follows:—It seems to me that it does not involve a complete disturbance of the industry at home. The industry may go on with less profits and with less wages to the people concerned, but the industry itself is not destroyed; and in any case, if that particular industry was weakened and diminished, the people engaged in it might go into some other industry, and the loss to the country would be the difference between the profit and the loss to the industry.He did not wish to speak longer on the reply of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade; but it meant this—that if one after another of our industries were injured for the sake of our import trade there would soon be very few of them for the displaced workmen to find employment in. The right hon. Gentleman had stated that Mr. Giffen's repudiation was made within two or three days. He had his doubts whether that was so; he believed it was not made for a considerably longer period; but, at all events, the evidence was so distinct that he thought nine out of ten people would admit that the construction put upon it by the Working Men's Committee was the proper construction, and he wished to end his re- 1026 marks by saying that it was extremely inconvenient for any servant of the Crown to get into the habit of writing to newspapers instead of writing directly to the persons concerned, and more especially so if they were hon. Members of that House.
§ MR. WARTONpointed out that there was an increase of £300 in the expenses of the Legal Branch; and he asked why the salaries of the three clerks were not stated so that the cost of the copyists might be seen?
§ MR. GREGORYsaid, he thought there was something in the question raised as to the Legal Branch. It was not for him to cut down appointments in the Legal Profession; but the Committee must remember that some years ago the question was considered whether the Legal Branches of the different Departments should not be consolidated and the different Departments refer their legal business to one common centre—namely, to the Solicitor to the Treasury. It was proposed to give the Solicitor to the Treasury a sufficient staff, so that the other branches of the Government might refer their legal business to that Office. He saw there was a separate Legal Branch for the Board of Trade; but what its objects or its duties were he did not know. It might be that there was sufficient legal business to occupy that branch; but he could not help thinking that this was one of those instances in which Offices might be consolidated, and the legal business proper be referred to the Solicitor to the Treasury.
§ MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, the Board of Trade had an enormous amount of legal work even before the passing of the recent Acts, and it would be impossible to refer that to another Department. It would have been impossible for the Board of Trade to refer the legal matter arising out of the administration of the Merchant Shipping Act and the Railway Act, and the Board had had to consider whether they should appoint a separate solicitor for each branch of the administration of those Acts; but he quite agreed with his hon. Friend (Mr. Gregory) that it was desirable to consolidate, as far as possible, and put all the Legal Branches under one principal solicitor. They had asked the Treasury for a moderate increase of £300 a-year—which had been readily 1027 granted—for the extra work had been very large. A great number of difficult and complicated cases had arisen under the Bankruptcy Act, and it was important to have a solicitor on the spot to act at once.
§ MR. TOMLINSONasked whether the Committee were to understand that the bankruptcy clerks included in the Vote had still bankruptcy work to do?
§ MR. CHAMBERLAINreplied that those clerks had been connected with the London Bankruptcy Court; and the duty had been imposed on the Board of Trade of finding employment, as far as possible, for clerks who had been in that Court. The two gentlemen separately mentioned were employed in connection with bankruptcy work, and they were mentioned separately because they were not new appointments, but were appointments transferred.
§ Vote agreed to.
§
(7.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £1,677, 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 1885, for meeting the Deficiency of Income from Fees, &c. for the requirements of the Board of Trade, under 'The Bankruptcy Act, 1883.'
§ MR. W. FOWLERsaid, he proposed to reduce this Vote by £500, his object being to call attention to a charge which he considered hardly right under the circumstances. When the Bankruptcy Bill came before the Grand Committee, a clause with reference to the banking department was so worded as to provide that all the accounts should be sent to the Bank of England, unless the Board of Trade should order otherwise. That was objected to by a majority of the Members, and after considerable discussion the clause was so worded as to provide that the permission of the Board of Trade must be obtained to sending the accounts to a local bank. It was purely a formal application. The scale of fees had been framed by the Lord Chancellor under the Act, and had received the sanction of the Treasury; and as regarded all the former applications specified in this scale of fees they were—namely, 2s. 6d. 5s. or 1s., or something of that kind. When they came to a formal application on the part of the Committee of Inspection to the 1028 Board of Trade to open an account at a local bank £1 was charged for the Order to the Board of Trade, and then a general charge of £2 was made when the arrangement was carried out, making a total of £3 for the application. Judging from his recollection of what happened before the Grand Committee—and he had taken a very prominent part in the discussion—he might describe this arrangement as practically a breach of faith with the Committee, because these fees were in reality intended to discourage the opening of these local banking accounts, and to draw as much business as possible to London to the Bank of England. He was not a member of a banking firm, and therefore he had no personal concern in the matter; but he was connected with the monetary world and took great interest in the question, as he looked upon himself as having been a party to the arrangement made in the Committee. Certainly, if they had any idea in the Committee that these fees were to be charged objection would have been raised to it at the time, and they unquestionably would have carried the Committee with them, because it was clear that as a whole the Committee strongly agreed with him in the matter. So strongly, in fact, did the Committee agree with him that the proposal he made was agreed to without a division. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade had conducted the work of the Committee in a very courteous and conciliatory manner. When he saw the Committee was against him he invariably gave way at once. In this matter he had given way immediately, and the whole thing was arranged on the footing he (Mr. Fowler) had mentioned. He strongly objected to the imposition of these charges, although it was only in keeping with the practice which was very common at the present time—namely, a practice of endeavouring to get as much business as possible up to London. Each Department desired to have as much business as possible put into its hands. In opposition to that principle hon. Members in the Grand Committee had objected to the clause as originally drawn. They had mentioned that the business of winding up a bankrupt's estate should be conducted as much as possible in the locality, and that as a matter of course, where practicable, the banking arrangements should be 1029 conducted in the locality, if it could be done without injury to the estate. After much care and consideration, and with the assistance of the Solicitor General (Sir Farrer Herschell), the clause was drafted as he had indicated; and he maintained that the spirit of that clause had not been carried out in the fees which had been imposed. The spirit of the clause had been entirely broken by imposing what was practically a very large charge in cases where resort was had to country banks, while in other similar cases, when the business was done through the Bank of England, no such charge was made. After the discursive debate they had had, he desired to confine his remarks within the shortest possible compass, and not to waste a moment of the time of the Committee. He thought he had made his meaning clear. His object was not in any way to embarrass the proceedings of the Bankruptcy Department of the Board of Trade. They had settled by law that the Board of Trade was to arrange the bankruptcy business—they had settled it so—rightly or wrongly. He did not wish to disturb that settlement; but he did object to anything which seemed like a breach of faith on the part of the officers of the Board of Trade in imposing these fees. He therefore, in order to raise this question, moved to reduce the Vote by the sum of £500.
§
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £1,177, 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 1885, for meeting the Deficiency of Income from Fees, &c. for the requirements of the Board of Trade, under The Bankruptcy Act 1883.'"—(Mr. William Fowler.)
§ MR. CHAMBERLAINI do not complain at all of the way my hon. Friend has introduced this matter, and I should be very glad to have the decision of the Committee upon it. Generally I agree with the accuracy of the statement he has made; but I think he has a little forgotten the circumstances when he says a final settlement was arrived at by general agreement, because I think he will bear me out when I say that, as a matter of fact, the discussion occupied the time of the Committee during two days of its sitting; and, on the second occasion, there was a Division 1030 taken, the form of the clause as it now stands in the Bill being then decided by a considerable majority. I believe in that majority the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge (Mr. W. Fowler) voted; and that, no doubt, gives him a right to express his opinion of the intention with which the arrangement was supported. The majority of those interested in the banking business, however, voted against the arrangement; at least, the hon. Baronet the Member for the University of London (Sir John Lubbock) did. So also did the hon. Member for Evesham (Mr. Dixon-Hartland), the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands), and other hon. Members representing the banking interest. They voted against the arrangement finally come to, as they had voted against the original proposal. Let me point out to the Committee what this proposal was, and why it was this difference of opinion arose. The original proposal of the Bill was that the banking accounts of bankrupt estates should be carried on at the Bank of England. To that the objection on the part of the bankers was raised that it was centralization of the worst kind, and that it was desirable, on the contrary, that in every case where a Committee of Inspection desired it, a local banking account should be opened. We objected to that on behalf of the Board of Trade—in the first place, that under such circumstances many of the creditors would run a certain amount of risk, the Returns of the past showing that there had been heavy losses in connection with balances left at private bankers, and that it was very desirable that these estates, which are in the nature of trust funds, should be placed in the Bank of England, where they would be absolutely safe; and, in the second place—and we attach greater importance to this—we said it was impossible for the Board of Trade to exercise that sort of control and supervision which it was intended that they should exercise over these estates unless they had the management of them. The feeling of the Committee was very strong in favour of the opening of accounts in private banks; and, finally, the proposal was made on behalf of the Government that the Committee of Inspection should be allowed to open a local account in certain well-defined cases. That was put to the vote, and carried by a con- 1031 siderable majority. Now, my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mr. W. Fowler) says that, that having been decided, the Department is wrong in now demanding a fee for the opening of these accounts. He goes so far as to say that that appears to him to be a breach of faith. Let me say at the outset of this discussion that I protest against the expression "breach of faith." Those words mean something dishonourable. I am sure the hon. Member does not mean anything offensive; but, as a matter of fact, the words in their general sense signify something dishonourable. There may have been a mistake, and that is for the Committee to decide; but, at all events, there has been no intention of a dishonourable proceeding on the part of the Board of Trade or its President. Suppose my hon. Friend had carried his original Resolution, and it had been left open to every Committee of Inspection to open a private account if they wished, would that have prevented the Board of Trade from charging a fee on the opening of the account? Certainly not. It would have been possible for the Board of Trade to charge it, and it is most certain that it would have been charged in every case. That being so, how can it be said to be a breach of faith because we charge the fee in the limited number of cases to which the operation of the rule was ultimately confined? I am now dealing with the argument that owing to what is sometimes called a compromise—owing to the final decision of the Grand Committee, we are precluded from charging this fee. I say we are not precluded from charging it, because we should not have been precluded even if the original Motion had been carried. Now, why do we charge the fee? That is a very simple matter, and I ask the attention of the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) particularly to this, because the whole importance of the matter depends upon it. The expenses of the administration in bankruptcy are provided in two ways—first, by the interest on balances of estates in the Bank of England; and, secondly, by fees. Now, if an estate has a balance at a private or Joint Stock Bank it gets an advantage in the shape of interest, and it does not contribute in that way to the expense of a bankruptcy administration, and consequently the administration of these 1032 estates will have to be conducted by increasing the charges on other estates unless you provide for it in some way, and that is why we charge a fee. We have to compensate for the loss of interest that would be otherwise derived to the advantage of the bankruptcy administration in the country. I am prepared to accept any decision the Committee may think it right to come to; but I wish to point out that if the Committee accept this suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mr. W. Fowler) it will be increasing the charges upon small estates which do not keep a separate banking account, in order that these other insolvent estates may be wound up at their expense. It is a question of justice and fairness as between the different classes of accounts with which we have to deal. It is not a question of general policy, but, as I say, of justice and fairness between the different classes of accounts. When the matter was first explained to the Lord Chancellor, a strong representation was made to him that the charge should be in the nature of an ad valorem fee, and that £3 was too little. Well, I am bound to say that, for my own part, I do not think it is sufficient to cover the expense or loss of interest. It was felt, with regard to the proposal for an ad valorem fee, that it would cause too great a complication, that we, therefore, fixed the general fee of £3; and the result is, wherever there is an account with any considerable balance, a considerable profit is made out of the transaction by the particular estate—that is to say, if the banker pays interest on the balance. If there is any balance, it is much more likely to be worth more in the shape of interest than the £3 charged as fee. As regards the matter of principle, the only thing to consider is whether the Committee thinks it fair that these accounts at local bankers should be especially favoured at the expense of other accounts—that smaller accounts should pay not only the expenses of their own administration, but that of these favoured accounts.
§ MR. R. BIDDULPH MARTINwas of opinion that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade had made out a very weak case in this matter; so much so that he thought that the weight of his argument cut at the very root of his own Act. The object of 1033 the Act was to do away with the accumulation of balances, and yet the right hon. Gentleman hoped to make a considerable income out of such accumulations. The right hon. Gentleman was far too shrewd a man to do this knowingly or willingly, though he could not help admitting that there would be a tendency on the part of the Department to pay its own expenses and make a surplus revenue, just as the Post Office did. For that reason it was that he (Mr. Martin) so strongly objected to anything like an accumulation of balances by the Government. The Government might answer—"Possibly there might be an accumulation of balances, and possibly there might not," and those who were likely to be able to form an accurate opinion upon the question, whom he had consulted, held divers opinions. They had not had long enough experience of the Act to be able to tell what the result would be. Therefore, he did not wish to make any comments upon the Act itself; but he certainly did think that if they were to pay the expenses of the Act out of the fees and accumulated balances there would be a tendency on the part of the Board of Trade to accumulate them and to prevent the distribution of estates. In one or two small bankruptcies, in which he had been personally interested, he had not found that the division of the estates had been in the slightest degree expedited by their being in the hands of the Official Receivers of the Board of Trade. If the Committee remembered the circumstances as they transpired before the Grand Committee—he had not himself the honour of being a Member of it—they would recollect that on the day when this discussion was first brought before them, it was deliberately talked out by the hon. Member for Leeds (Mr. Barran), avowedly for the reason that it would be better to postpone a judgment upon it. Well, he (Mr. Martin) believed that when it was brought forward at the next Sitting a compromise was effected that accounts should be opened at the Bank of England, unless there was reason to the contrary. That was an admission that if the Government were not to have these balances they were not to make a profit out of them that they would otherwise make. He, therefore, thought it was not fair to the Committee, or to the House, that the right 1034 hon. Gentleman should get over that advantage given to estates dealt with in the country by a side wind. It was not his duty to say how the Government were to find funds to enable them to manage estates, whether by an ad valorem charge or by any other means. The right hon. Gentleman knew perfectly well that the Act must break down if the charges were too heavy. There was no fear of the charges being made too heavy. He could only say that, so far as private bankers were concerned, it was much more to their interest to get estates wound up quickly than to have them delayed for any benefit they might derive from having the balance in their own hands. He did not, therefore, think the pocket interest could be much considered on the one side or the other. The total amount expected to be held by the Bank of England was about £1,000,000 sterling, and the total deposits held in the Joint Stock Banks, exclusive of the Bank of England and of private banks, was something like £670,000,000. However, he did not think it should be made a banking question. This charge was made under a misapprehension—he had not the slightest wish to say that it was a deliberate arrangement. He, however, had no doubt that it would cause a large amount of unnecessary ill-feeling, and make the country bankers believe that the Board of Trade was working against them. Whatever money the Board of Trade might require to enable them to defray the cost of working the Act should be provided from other sources. He believed the Board of Trade had considerably over-estimated the cost of working the Act. As to the books required for this bankruptcy business, so far as he had ascertained, the total would amount to something enormous; and as they would have to be kept for five years at least he calculated that 142 miles of book shelf space would be required—that was, 100 times more than they had in the Library of the House of Commons. He did not suppose the books would be placed in book shelves; but they must be kept at the Board of Trade for the purpose of winding up the estates. He trusted the Board of Trade would find some more expeditious method of winding up estates than that at present adopted in the interest of those concerned.
§ MR. DIXON-HARTLANDsaid, that as it was through his action that a Division was taken in the Grand Committee on the clause as it originally stood in the Bill, he might be allowed to say a word or two on the question. He wished to protest against the idea stated by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade that this was a question of the interest of the bankers. The question raised before the Grand Committee was whether the State had a right to the interest accruing from the funds of bankrupt estates, and the Committee had come to the conclusion that each estate had the right to the interest on its funds, and that they ought not to go to swell the sum in the hands of the Board of Trade in order to disguise the cost of the working of the Act. When the matter was first brought before the Grand Committee the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade opposed his (Mr. Dixon-Hartland's) Amendment in the strongest way; and on the first occasion, as the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. R. Biddulph Martin) had hinted, the feeling of the Committee was so strong in favour of the Amendment that it would have been carried if it had not been talked out by the hon. Member for Leeds (Mr. Barran). During the time that elapsed between the Thursday afternoon when the subject was first discussed, and the Monday morning when it came up again for consideration, negotiations took place between the Gentlemen interested in the matter and the President of the Board of Trade, the result being that a distinct compromise was arrived at. If it had not been for that compromise his Amendment would certainly have been carried instead of being defeated by the majority the right hon. Gentleman had mentioned. The result of that compromise was the arrangement which had been referred to. He could not agree with what the right hon. Gentleman had said that the first three items required the consent of the Board of Trade. He (Mr. Dixon-Hartland) maintained that they required none. It was certainly a breach of the Act of Parliament to impose any fee at all for carrying out a part of its provisions. It was only under the 4th section that the consent of the Board of Trade was required. There it stated that if from any other cause the Com- 1036 mittee of Inspection could show the Board of Trade that it was desirable that an account should be opened at the local bank in that case they had to get the consent of the Board of Trade, and in that case alone the Board of Trade would have power to charge a fee. Surely, there could be no power to fine for doing that which an Act of Parliament stating what was the right thing to do. As to cases having been brought before the Committee where losses had occurred through funds being in the hands of private bankers, he entirely denied that such was the case. The oases brought before the Committee were as to losses which had occurred through money being left in the hands of Trustees. At the beginning of the Session he had asked the right hon. Gentleman as to these fees, and the right hon. Gentleman had denied that any compromise had been arrived at. He (Mr. Dixon-Hartland) quite admitted that he had declined to accept any compromise, because he did not believe that any compromise which was arrived at would be carried out, and what had happened clearly showed that he was justified in his belief. He was too much accustomed to Liberal compromises which were never carried out to accept any suggestion of the kind. If those who complained of the conduct of the Board of Trade had simply stuck to him (Mr. Dixon-Hartland) on the second day of the discussion they would not now have had to raise this question. He distinctly stated that he considered the action of the Board of Trade a breach of faith with the Grand Committee. It was understood that the whole of the balances in the three first items should be given up, and that the Government should in return have all the small accounts under £300. That was the compromise which he considered had been arrived at, and he distinctly maintained that unless it was carried out a breach of faith had been committed.
§ SIR JOHN LUBBOCKsaid, one reason why they should support the Amendment was, because it was undesirable to incur a large expense under the Act until they were quite sure that it would work well. The hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. R. Biddulph Martin) had said it was, perhaps, too early to judge whether the Act would work well or not. The part of the Bill which dealt with the debtor was, indeed, he 1037 thought, very valuable; but as regarded the realization of the assets, he (Sir John Lubbock) had grave doubts with regard to it, as he had always held that the proper way of dealing with the estate of a bankrupt was to allow it to be managed by the creditors. He could not think that any Act was a good one which took the management of such property out of the hands of those to whom it really belonged. It was said that the Act of 1869 had given power to the creditors, and that that measure had not worked well; but, for his part, he denied that it had ever given powers to the creditors. Under that Act, creditors could not call meetings, insist on having accounts, or change Trustees. Many systems had been tried in the country; but the simple plan of allowing the creditors to look after their own affairs, which to his mind was the right one, had never yet been adopted. Under the present Bill, however, they had still less power. It was practically vested in Mr. John Smith, who was called the Board of Trade. He had a great respect for Mr. Smith, and he was not quarrelling with him or with the appointment. He believed Mr. Smith to be able, conscientious, and efficient. It was the system which he distrusted. Mr. Smith told them in his Report that there were symptoms that creditors now insisted on compositions in preference to insisting on bankruptcy. Symptoms, indeed! Why, the number of bankruptcies used to be 10,000 a-year; it had suddenly fallen to 3,000; and his own impression of that remarkable change was, that creditors were unwilling to allow estates to go into bankruptcy, because when once an estate got in bankruptcy they lost all control of the property. Under such circumstances, the Committee would do well to hesitate before incurring a great expenditure in creating a large staff which they might hereafter find was not required. No doubt, however, the main reason for the Amendment which had been moved by his hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mr. W. Fowler) was, as stated, that it was thought that the Resolution adopted by the Grand Committee, and confirmed by the House, was not being carried out. It might be said that £3 was not a large fee; but they must remember that the great bulk of the accounts were small ones, and in their very nature 1038 only temporary; and, once the principle was admitted that the Board of Trade could charge £3, why should they not be able to charge a larger sum? It appeared to him that the Board of Trade were really attempting, by charging these fees, to override the Act. That Act said—
If it appears to the Committee of Inspection that, for the purpose of carrying on the debtor's business, or of obtaining advances, or because of the probable amount of the cash balance,.… it is for the advantage of the creditors that the Trustee should have an account with a local bank, the Board of Trade shall authorize the Trustee to make his payments into and out of such local bank as the Committee may select.The Act really said they might have these accounts; but if they availed themselves of the power the Board of Trade fined them £3. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Chamberlain) came down and said—"Oh, they may do it; but if they do I shall charge them £3." Let them suppose that the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. W. Fowler) carried his Resolution, and that everybody was allowed to have local accounts under any circumstances whatever, the right hon. Gentleman argued that he could still charge the fees. What they complained of was, that the right hon. Gentleman charged fees in some cases, and did not charge them in others. Then the right hon. Gentleman said—"Oh, but the hon. Baronet the Member for the University of London did not accept the compromise, but voted against it." It was true he (Sir John Lubbock) did not, in the first place, accept the compromise. He did not think it was a satisfactory one, because he thought people ought to do what they liked with their own funds; and, therefore, in Committee he did not vote for it. But when the Committee had arrived at it he accepted it, and did his best to carry it out. Certainly, if there had been any idea that the right hon. Gentleman would charge these fees, the compromise would not have been so easily come to. He did not wish to occupy time by dwelling further upon the question. He disavowed making any charge against the right hon. Gentleman. He was persuaded the President of the Board of Trade had acted with every desire to carry out the Act in a proper manner; but, still, there was no doubt a general feeling amongst bankers that the Board 1039 of Trade had not kept faith with them, or with the Grand Committee in this matter. He earnestly hoped that, on further considering the question, the right hon. Gentleman would see his way to remove these fees, of which there was great reason to complain.
§ MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, he had no desire to follow the hon. Baronet (Sir John Lubbock) as to the merits of the Bankruptcy Act. He ventured to think that every indication up to the present showed that the hon. Baronet's prophecies would not be fulfilled. The Act was working well, and it was giving the greatest satisfaction to every branch of the community interested in it. He should like to say a word or two upon the actual position of the question. His recollection of what transpired in the Grand Committee did not bear out the statement of the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. W. Fowler), and the hon. Member for Evesham (Mr. Dixon-Hartland). He certainly did not remember that any compromise of the nature they indicated was entered into. There was no doubt that the banking interest was exceedingly strong in the Grand Committee; and he was rather amused that night to hear hon. Members stating that they were exceedingly anxious that creditors should have the advantage of their own funds, particularly when the arguments by which they supported that proposition were entirely banker's arguments. As to the allegation that faith had not been kept with the bankers, he might be permitted to state the position of the question. When the Motion of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Evesham was proposed notice was given to him that the subject would be re-opened in the House, and an hon. Member who was not now present put the case very strongly. The hon. Gentleman said—"You have in this Bill dealt with other interests—local accountants and solicitors — why is the banking interest to be held sacred; why are we to specially legislate in the interest of bankers?" The President of the Board of Trade proposed, in the first instance, that the whole of these funds should be paid into the Bank of England; and he gave a very substantial reason for it—namely, that the Bank of England would allow such sum in the shape of interest as would materially reduce the cost of working the 1040 Bankruptcy Act. It was true the President of the Board of Trade accepted the clause as it now stood; but it came to this—that, having given the creditors the option of opening private banking accounts, the creditors should derive the advantage of the interest paid. Why should those estates not pay their contribution to the Consolidated Fund, out of which the expenses of the working of the Act were paid? Though the estates which banked in the Bank of England got no advantage in the shape of interest, the Consolidated Fund was benefited, inasmuch as it received a contribution towards the expenses of carrying out the Act. Let them suppose two estates of £1,000. The one had a private banking account for 12 months, and received interest at the rate of 2½ per cent. The other estate paid its money into the Bank of England, who allowed interest at 3 per cent, by which the Consolidated Fund got £30. The President of the Board of Trade was certainly acting in the interest of the public; and therefore he (Mr. H. H. Fowler) was surprised the right hon. Gentleman had not the sympathy of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands). The President of the Board of Trade argued that they could not recognize private bankers in this transaction, because it was a question between the creditors and the public; and he very reasonably stipulated that estates which received the interest on the money banked privately should pay a fee of £3 to the Consolidated Fund towards the expenses of the Act. He (Mr. H. H. Fowler) hoped that all Gentlemen interested in economy would endeavour to cut down the cost of working the Bankruptcy Act as much as possible; and he knew of no more fair or legitimate requirement than that those estates, which took to themselves whatever interest was obtainable, should pay some contribution to the Consolidated Fund.
§ MR. RYLANDSsaid, he was surprised that a Gentleman of the position of his hon. Friend (Mr. H. H. Fowler) should advance such arguments as the Committee had just listened to. Surely if there was any money in an estate the creditors were entitled to the full advantage of it. His hon. Friend (Mr. H. H. Fowler) quoted two estates, one of which paid £1,000 into a local bank, and the other paid a similar sum into the Bank 1041 of England. Because the one sent its money to the Board of Trade, and did not get any interest, the estate which had the good sense to send its money where it could get interest must be made to pay a fee of £3. Such an argument was altogether untenable. It was argued that estates with a private banking account ought to pay a fee, in order to relieve those estates which were not similarly situated; but he altogether disputed the soundness of such a doctrine. It appeared to him that creditors ought to have the full advantage of any interest which accrued to the estate. It had been said that the President of the Board of Trade had been guilty of a breach of faith; and the right hon. Gentleman very naturally resented that expression of opinion. He (Mr. Rylands) did not wish to indorse that opinion; he did not believe the President of the Board of Trade would willingly be guilty of any breach of faith. But while he did not consider there had been any breach of faith, he was of opinion that the right hon. Gentleman had taken the Members of the Grand Committee by surprise. It did seem that to charge persons who desired to open private bank accounts a fee had the effect of preventing them from opening such accounts. At any rate, he trusted that the fees already imposed would be sufficient to meet the expenses of the Bankruptcy Act. Like the hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler), he was by no means disposed to take an unfavourable view of the working of the Act. He was very reluctant to believe that the Act would not be a success; at all events, they had not had sufficient experience to force them to the conclusion that it would not succeed.
§ MR. W. FOWLERsaid, it was evident that the estates with a local bank account were in a more fortunate position than those estates which had no such, account; and what his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade contended was that the estates which were in the fortunate position in question should pay this additional fee. If they did not pay this fee, the right hon. Gentleman must charge money in other directions. He (Mr. W. Fowler) did not see why that should be. He appealed to the hon. Member for Evesham (Mr. Dixon-Hartland) whe- 1042 ther, when the compromise was accepted by the Committee, and the hon. Gentleman wished to raise the question in the House when the Report was brought on, he (Mr. W. Fowler) did not come to him and beg him not to disturb the arrangement made by the Committee, because he considered the President of the Board of Trade was anxious to meet the matter fairly, and that he (Mr. W. Fowler), for one, was prepared to accept the compromise as an arrangement which he thought, on the whole, fair. He certainly did not consider it was open to any considerable objection.
§ MR. BARRANsaid, certain hon. Gentlemen had somewhat reflected upon him for having on the first day of the debate in the Grand Committee talked out this question; but he felt rather proud of the position he then took up, because he afforded a fair opportunity to the Committee to consider the question, and he gave the President of the Board of Trade an opportunity of considering how he might best meet the wishes of the Committee as far as they had been expressed. He took it that the discussion that night had proved, if proof were at all needed, that this was a bankers' question; it had been a bankers' question from the very first. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade framed the Bankruptcy Act with the view of the whole of the bankrupt estates passing through the hands of the Board of Trade and being deposited in the Bank of England. The right hon. Gentleman made his calculation as to the income which would be derived from the capital invested with the Bank of England in relation to the probable cost of the working of the Bankruptcy Act; and he (Mr. Barran) believed, and other Members of the Grand Committee believed, that if the whole of the funds of bankrupt estates passed through the Bank of England, in all probability the trading community generally would benefit thereby. But there was a very strong feeling in the Committee in favour of creditors being allowed to use private banks for the purpose of working bankrupt estates. The President of the Board of Trade considered he might meet the demand that was made upon him by a compromise. That compromise was accepted, and it had been kept up to the present time. Objection was now raised by bankers to the charge of a fee of £3, 1043 which was made for permission to work the estates of bankrupts by means of provincial bankers. The President of the Board of Trade had clearly proved that if bankrupt estates were to be worked through private banks, either the private banks or the estates would get the benefit of the interest accruing from the sums of money lying in the bank; and that being so, unless the estates paid something for the advantage they got, the other estates not similarly situated would have to pay considerably towards the working of the Act. In the interest of the trading community, he thought the Board of Trade were bound to make some charge from private banks for the advantage they got in working bankrupt estates. If the private banks paid £3 in fees, the amount would be repaid to them, because the expense of working the estates must fall on the creditors and not on the banks. But while the expenses of working the estates would fall on the creditors, he believed that the estates which were worked through private banks would benefit considerably by the advantage they got. He quite agreed with the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade that the amount of money accruing from these fees might not be large, but a principle was involved.
§ MR. ECROYDsaid, that, having been a Member of the Grand Committee which had this matter under consideration, he desired to say a few words upon the question at issue. It so happened that he was one of the minority on this question, who had no interest, direct or indirect, in any bank, private or joint stock. The objection which many Members of the Committee felt to this arrangement for impounding the funds of bankrupt estates, and making the interest accruing the chief means of providing the expense of working the Bankruptcy Act, was that it was utterly unsound in principle, and contrary to the interests of the estates. It was felt that in many cases it would be necessary to work bankrupt estates in the localities in which they were situated, and most convenient, indeed requisite, to obtain temporary advances from private banks, and that great advantage would accrue to the working of such undertakings, if every facility were afforded to open accounts with private banks. In the next place, he and others objected, because they saw 1044 that to adopt the principle proposed by the right hon. Gentleman was actually to give a premium to the Board of Trade to prolong the working of the accounts in order that as much interest as possible might accrue. Besides that, many Members of the Committee knew from experience that a larger amount of interest could often be legitimately obtained from local banks than from the Bank of England. He did not wish to restate all the arguments which were used in the Grand Committee; but, without making any accusation of bad faith, a term which, perhaps, ought not to be used in the House in this connection, he would make bold to say that if the right hon. Gentleman had frankly stated that it was his intention in framing the Rules to attach such penalties as these to the privilege of opening accounts with private bankers, the compromise would never have been passed by the Committee. He was perfectly certain that had a Division been taken on the evening of the first discussion, the Act would never have been passed in its present form. The hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. W. Fowler) must now feel that it would have been better to have stuck to his guns and supported those who, though totally disconnected with the banking interest, were prepared, on public grounds, to stand firm in the position they had assumed. He (Mr. Ecroyd) would certainly support the hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. Fowler), if he went to a Division.
§ MR. ILLINGWORTHsaid, he thought the action of the Board of Trade was perfectly just in reference to the case now before the Committee. It also seemed to him that it was not only too soon to consider the operation of the Act, but that it was not the occasion on which to consider its general policy. The question at that moment before the Committee was a very narrow one. The fees complained of did not constitute a charge made by the Board of Trade upon bankers; it was a charge made upon each bankrupt's estate; and it must be borne in mind that there was no ad valorem fee, and that the highest tax put on a bankrupt estate was £3. All he could say was, that if the interest on the estate was not worth more than that, he was sure that no banker would want to keep open an account of such a character. The Department said, and 1045 said rightly, and the provisions of the Act declared, that, as far as possible, bankrupts' estates should bear the whole expense of the administration of the Act; and it was not fair that the Consolidated Fund should be called upon to bear the charge or any considerable portion of it. It was but a small question as to whether the charge should be made on the estates. One part of the charge was in the form of fees, and the other part was in the form of interest on money in the Bank of England belonging to the bankrupt estates. Well, his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade said that some estates would contribute specially to the expenses under the Bankruptcy Act—namely, those which had deposits in the Bank of England; and he (Mr. Illingworth) was obliged to admit that it was only right that those estates which had not should, in some form or other, pay a fair equivalent. The charge was one from which local bankers did not suffer in the slightest degree; and he undertook to say that if this £3 was the whole tax for a local banking account—for keeping open the local banking account—it was not too much. There was no injustice on the part of the Board of Trade in saying to the creditors—"If you do not contribute to the expenses in the shape of interest, you must do so in another form." He was surprised that it was not proposed there should be an ad valorem charge in proportion to the amount of money turned over in the administration of the estate. That he certainly thought would be a fair thing, because it would be an equivalent to the amount received in the shape of interest. He denied that there was any favour shown to the Bank of England or any tax upon local banks; the fee was put on the bankrupt estates in order that the Board of Trade might not suffer pecuniary loss. For these reasons he was bound to admit that justice in this matter lay with the Department.
§ MR. BULWERsaid, he should be glad, if possible, to receive from the right hon. Gentleman a satisfactory answer to the question put by the hon. Baronet the Member for the University of London (Sir John Lubbock), as to what power the Lord Chancellor had to impose the fee in question under the 1046 Act of Parliament? The words of the Act were to the effect that if it appeared to the Committee of Inspection that for the purpose of carrying on the debtor's business, or of obtaining advances, or because of the probable amount of the cash balance, or if it were for the advantage of the creditors that a Trustee should have an account with a local bank, the Board of Trade should authorize the Trustee to make his payment into or out of such local bank as the Committee of Inspection might select. That did not give any power for the Committee to make any charge. A charge, under some circumstances, might be reasonable enough; if it were a matter of merely making an entry in a book kept by a clerk, the small sum, say 5s., as had been suggested by his hon. Friend, might be made to cover the whole charge. With reference to the merits of the Bankruptcy Act, he was sorry to hear that there was no difference of opinion as to that. His own opinion was that the Act was likely to turn out an absolute failure. He agreed with all that had been said by the hon. Baronet the Member for the University of London (Sir John Lubbock), that the Bankruptcy Actinterfered too much with the management of the bankrupt's affairs by his creditors; and that, he thought, was the very worst form that an Act could take. He would go further, and ask what was the use of a Bankruptcy Act at all? He thought there would be less fraud and much more honest dealing in the commercial world if persons were left to trust to the honesty of those with whom they dealt. However that might be, he saw no reason why the creditors of an estate should be mulcted for carrying on their business in the way most convenient to themselves—namely, by having a banking account in the immediate neighbourhood in which the business was to be transacted. The only reason attempted to be set up in favour of the charge in question was that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade wanted money. It was for that reason the right hon. Gentleman said that the creditors were to pay this fee. But that did not get rid of his objection to the charge. The matter having been fully discussed, he would not occupy the attention of the Committee further than to say that he should be glad to hear from the right hon. Gen- 1047 tleman an answer to the question put by the hon. Baronet the Member for the University of London.
§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)said, with reference to the point raised by his hon. and learned Friend, it was clear that the Lord Chancellor had power to establish a scale of fees with regard to any proceedings under the Act. Anyone might present a Petition under the Act, and the Lord Chancellor had power to order a fee to be paid. With regard to the policy or propriety of the payment in question, he would like to recall to the recollection of the Committee the position taken up in relation to this matter by the Government when the Bill was introduced, and throughout its whole progress in that House. Hon. Members would know very well that there was a great deal of work to be done under the Act on behalf of the creditors by the Board of Trade; that the Department had to see that the conduct of the debtor had not been improper; that there was a thorough investigation of the estates in order that a proper amount should be secured to the creditor; and he would point out that no secret was made that the foes for that work were to be provided by the estates of the bankrupts. That was the position taken up and maintained throughout the whole of the discussions which took place upon the Bill during its passage through Parliament. He had had much experience of the working of the Act, and from what he had heard and seen he was bound to say that his own view of it did not accord with that of the hon. and learned Member opposite. Thus he was in a position to say of his own knowledge that the Act was beneficial, because he knew of more than one case in which, the creditors having agreed to a composition of a small amount, the officials of the Board of Trade discovered that there was a great deal more money for them; in one ease, instead of receiving 7s. in the £, they received 17s. in the £. There were many cases of that sort, and, apart from other considerations, they constituted a perfect justification of the Act as well as a strong confirmation of its value. From the beginning to the end of the discussions on the Bill, it was clearly stated that the bankrupt estates should be paid into the Bank of England, and, that 1048 being paid into the Bank of England, they would yield in that way some 3 per cent on the general ordinary amount of the balance, and that that would provide a very considerable fund towards the meeting of the expenses under the Act. That was part of the scheme. Objection was made because it was said that it would not be permitted to open a local banking account for the purpose of winding up an estate; it was said that there was an advantage in having a private banking account, and that that advantage might be needed for the benefit of the creditors. That was the position taken up by those who objected to every account being sent to the Bank of England. Well, that was met by a provision that, in such cases, there should be a local banking account. But when it was said that the creditors would be deprived of a great deal which came to them under the old Act, when they kept their own banking accounts, he would refer the Committee to the Returns, which showed what was the total amount realized under the old Act. The total amount of the estates recovered under the old Act was about £4,220,000, and what did the Committee think was the total amount of the interest received upon that enormous sums of money? £31,000. That was the amount of interest for the whole time during which those estates were in the hands of the bankers. Some accounts, of course, extended over a longer and some over a shorter period; but £31,000 was the whole amount received, and did not represent more than ¾ per cent upon the capital. [An hon. MEMBER: Over what period?] He had stated the interest upon the whole amount; he cared not whether it was for a day or for a month, or six months. He had taken the total sum received, and the amount he had stated was all the interest paid upon the capital sum of £4,220,000. From that it would appear that the arrangement under the old Act was not a very valuable one for the creditors; but under the new Act the proposal was that the money should all be paid into the Bank of England. Of course, it was said that that would realize a considerable amount of money for the purpose of working the Act, and that the balance of cost could be made up by fees upon smaller matters. The expenses of the Bankruptcy Act would, of course, have to be met in 1049 some way or other. When the hon. Baronet the Member for the University of London (Sir John Lubbock) said that the Board of Trade did nothing with regard to local banking accounts, he quite agreed with him; the fees were not wanted for working the banking accounts. But the Board of Trade did as much, or more, for the estates which had a local banking account than they did for those who paid their accounts into the Bank of England, and they did this without making any charge. [Sir JOHN LUBBOCK: I beg pardon, there is a charge.] The Board of Trade did not charge for the work he had referred to. Did not his hon. Friend see that if they had to supply by fees the amount now received from the Bank of England they would have to increase the fees? The work must be paid for in some way or other; and if it was not paid for by the interest from the Bank of England the fees must be increased. The expenses were met by the fees, plus the interest, if the money in the Bank of England and the fees were so much less than they would otherwise be because of the money which was in the Bank of England. And if no charge at all was made by way of fees on accounts which were with local bankers, the result would be that those estates which paid money into the Bank of England would be bearing the expense of those estates which paid the money into local banks. The matter was as plain as could be. The money came from various sources; but if the £30,000 a-year was not realized from the accounts in the Bank of England the fees must necessarily be increased. On the other hand, the receipt of that sum would allow the fees to remain as they were at present. The money which came from the Bank of England only diminished the fees every estate had to bear. Was it so unreasonable a thing that the creditors, who received the benefit of the work done by the Department, should be asked to make some contribution to the cost? He thought not. Well, let it be what it was, a reasonable contribution. It was not a question of banking at all, although it seemed to be made a banking question by hon. Members who had spoken on the Vote. He had seen the Manifesto from the banking interest on the subject; but he contended that it was not a banking question, and that 1050 the Board of Trade had not treated it as a banking question. The Department had to consider whether they were dealing fairly as between different classes of creditors. He could see nothing unfair in there being an uniform scale of fees. There was a fee paid by the creditors whose money went into the Bank of England, plus which he had to contribute the interest on the money paid in; whereas the creditors, who had a local banking account, paid the same fees, but had nothing more to pay. That seemed to him the most fair way of dealing with the matter; and it appeared to him that if the arrangement were open to criticism on any ground, it was that the local banks were dealt with too favourably. Could it be seriously contended that any body of creditors, or a committee, to whom it would be worth while to have a private local banking account, would abstain from having it because this fee had to be paid? The question the creditor had to consider was this, whether he should pay his money into the Bank of England or into a local bank? He would say to himself—"If I put the money into the Bank of England the Board of Trade would get the interest; but if I put it into a local bank, although I get the interest I shall have to pay the fee of £3." That seemed to him to be a very small matter, and one which it was difficult to conceive as interfering with any estate. The arrangement was not framed in any spirit of hostility to bankers; it was simply a question of dealing fairly with this class and with that. It was a question of seeing that the one did not contribute more than its proportion to the common expenditure which had to be incurred in the case of all classes of estates.
§ SIR JOHN LUBBOCKpointed out that the meaning of the Solicitor General was that the expenses of working the existing Bankruptcy Act was to be obtained by keeping a large balance at the Bank of England.
§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)I did not say that. I said it was the opinion that there would be always a certain balance at the Bank of England.
§ SIR JOHN LUBBOCKsaid, it was clear to some hon. Members, when the Bill was before the Committee, that there would be a temptation to the Board of Trade to keep the money in 1051 the Bank of England, and upon that ground a compromise was arrived at. The words of the Act were as follows:—
If it appears to the Committee of Inspection that for the purpose of carrying on the debtor's business or of obtaining advances, or because of the probable amount of the cash balances, it is for the advantage of the creditors that a Trustee should have an account with a local bank, the Board of Trade shall authorize the Trustee to make his payments into and out of such local bank as the Committee may select.If the right hon. Gentleman placed a fee upon the creditors who made use of a local bank, it was not really carrying out the compromise arrived at in the Committee.
§ MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, his hon. Friend spoke for the Committee; but it was hardly fair that he should do that. He was, of course, entitled to speak for himself; but there were certain matters upon which the Committee differed. His hon. Friend was wrong in supposing that it was to the interest of the Board of Trade to keep the proceeds of estates in hand; and it must be borne in mind that the Department was bound to declare a first dividend within four months, and a second dividend within six months, a period much earlier than had been known under previous Acts. The conclusion was that the small floating balances which must necessarily remain in hand would provide for about half the expense of administration. In the Estimate before the Committee they had assumed that they would get £15,000 in the shape of interest from the floating balances, and £20,000 from the fees; but if they were not to receive that amount of interest they must make an additional charge to cover the £15,000 in the shape of fees. In the majority of cases the balances were so small that no interest was paid by private banks, and the question was whether the estates would benefit by the change proposed.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 58; Noes 80: Majority 22. — (Div. List, No. 159.)
§ Original Question again proposed.
§ MR. E. STANHOPEasked whether it was to be understood that there would always be a Vote in the Estimates in respect to Bankruptcy; and said it would be possible for the Department to get 1052 rid altogether of Parliamentary control. It was difficult to find out from the Estimates what the real cost was; but he hoped that Parliamentary control would be preserved, and that there would always be a Vote for Bankruptcy.
§ MR. CHAMBERLAINreplied that it was intended always to put some Vote in the Estimates in order that the administration of the Department might come under the notice of Parliament.
§ MR. WARTONwished to know whether it was possible to change the language of the Vote, which he thought was not so good as it might be? It was quite clear from what had just passed that the legal description of what was called the Board of Trade was Committee of the Privy Council; but they had got into the habit of speaking of the Board of Trade just as they spoke of a Cabinet Council, which was unknown to the Constitution. Would it be possible to alter the terms of the Vote, and, instead of saying Board of Trade, say Committee of the Privy Council, so as to keep the Constitutional description and make the two Votes agree?
THE CHAIRMANNo doubt it is not impossible to change the language of the Vote; but that is an unusual thing to do. "The Board of Trade" is a term which is generally accepted, and it does not seem to me to be a matter of importance.
§ MR. DIXON-HARTLANDsaid, he had the next Amendment, and in proposing to reduce the Vote he wished to bring forward the whole question of the success of the Bankruptcy Act. A great many Members seemed to think the time had perhaps hardly come for discussing that question—
§ MR. DIXON-HARTLANDsaid, he would make the amount £100 to put himself in Order. It was his intention to bring forward the question of the working of the Bankruptcy Act; but several Members seemed to think it was too soon to discuss the whole question, and therefore he proposed to postpone the matter for another year. He had no doubt in his own mind that whatever the right hon. Gentleman might say the Act had been a failure. It was all very well for the right hon. Gentleman to come there with a quantity of figures 1053 as to the reduction of the number of the Bankruptcy cases; but he thought the argument turned greatly against the right hon. Gentleman. These cases had fallen from 10,000 a-year to about 3,000, and he had no hesitation, having a practical knowledge of the subject, in saying that there were more cases of private arrangement than there had ever been before, and he was afraid that the feeling as to the expense was so strong in the country, that unless the scale of fees was altered the Act would not be a success. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would consider the question before the end of the year came; and he believed that if the scale of fees was regulated there would be more chance for the Act than there was at the present time.
§ MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, he was glad the hon. Member had postponed the general discussion of the Bankruptcy Act until there had been some real experience of its working. Up to the present time they had only the Report of the Inspector General for thee months; but he had not the slightest doubt that the Act would be a striking success. In the first place, a very important element was the fact that the number of Bankruptcy cases had been so greatly reduced, and anybody who would read the elaborate, and careful, and able Report of the Inspector General would see that there was no reason to believe that as the hon. Member had said, there had been an increase in the private compositions. He had taken great pains to obtain information on the subject, and all the resources of his Department had been directed in the same direction; and, so far as he could judge from the accounts of private Credit Societies and County Court Judges and Bankers, there was probably no increase at all in the number of private compositions. He believed that a very short further experience of the Act would confirm this opinion, and that the number of private compositions would tend to decrease rather than increase, as creditors began to find that under the new Act they were sure to have the most advantageous distribution of an estate. Never since the passing of the Act of 1867 had the distributions been so prompt and the costs so small.
§ MR. WARTONsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had stated that there had 1054 been an increase of £300 a-year for the Solicitor to the Department; and what he wished to know was, how much of that increase was in respect of bankruptcy business? He would suggest that that part of the £300, whatever it might be, should be put under this Vote—the Bankruptcy Department of the Board of Trade.
§ MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, it was impossible, in dealing with different Departments under one Vote, to allocate with absolute accuracy the cost of particular cases. In the present instance the salary of the Solicitor to the Board of Trade was charged to the proper Vote. He received £1,500 a-year until last year, and then that amount was increased by £300, partly because his duties in connection with the Board of Trade had been greatly increased, and partly because, in consequence of the supervision of Bankruptcy and Patents, he had other duties thrown upon him in connection with the two Departments. Now, the hon. and learned Member asked him to say how much of this increase was due to increased duties in the Board of Trade, how much to Patents, and how much to Bankruptcy. He must express his entire inability to make a division of that kind; and as the whole sum was only £300, he hoped the hon. and learned Member would not press any objection to it.
§ Original Question put, and agreed to.
§ Resolutions to be reported.
§
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £22,811, 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 1885, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Charity Commission for England and Wales.
§ Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.
§ Committee also report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.