CLASS II.—SALARIES AND EXPENSES OF CIVIL DEPARTMENTS.

HC Deb 16 July 1884 vol 290 cc1255-333

(1.) £21,762, to complete the sum for the Civil Service Commission.

MR. WARTON

said, he wished to call attention to a matter which would probably be looked upon as a very small one. He noticed upon Page 119 two items in reference to the wages of charwomen, from which it appeared that one received 14s. a-week, and the others only 12s. There was also an allowance to an office-keeper for two female servants at 14s. a-week. He wished to know why it was that there was this difference in the wages of the female servants employed in the offices of the Commission?

MR. COURTNEY

said, the question was one which did not depend upon the Government. The allowance to the female servants rested with the man who was in charge of the premises, and he apprehended that the wages paid to the two charwomen were in the same position. It was an allowance made to the office-keeper for the services of the domestic servants employed by him.

MR. WARTON

said, the hon. Gentleman did not understand the point he wished to raise. He only wanted to know why there should be a distinction in regard to the remuneration given to two women employed in the small position of charwomen?

MR. THOROLD ROGERS

said, that before the Vote was passed, he should like to ask one or two questions in reference to it. In the first place, he wanted to know when Sir George Dasent's book in reference to the Civil Service Commission was likely to be published? It was understood that a considerable sum of public money had been spent; and as the book had long been looked forward to by scholars, in order that they might supply themselves with information, it was difficult to understand why it had not been published. It was said that the delay rested with Sir George Dasent himself, who required certain stipulations to be complied with before the publication of the book; but there was a question whether any public servant was justified in receiving money for his literary services in connection with a Public Office. It was a matter to be regretted that the book should not have been published, owing to the obstinacy of one of the Commissioners. There was another question he also desired to ask—namely, why the examination papers had not been published with the Report of the Civil Service Commission? The publication of those papers was the only thing which made the Report of value, and enabled a check to be exercised on the Commissioners. If they were to be told that the expense of printing the examination papers induced the Department to withhold them, all he could say was that the Report itself ought to be kept back, as it was the examination papers alone which made the Report saleable; without them the Report would be utterly unsaleable. The Civil Service Commission, in his opinion, was in a most unsatisfactory state, and he hoped the time was not far distant when the Government would acquiesce in an inquiry into the manner in which the examinations were conducted.

MR. SEXTON

said, it appeared from the Estimate that, under the regulations imposed by the Order in Council of March 22nd, 1879, fees were levied by means of stamps on the candidates who presented themselves for open competition. The item this year was put down at £12,500 on the sale of stamps, together with £50 in the shape of cash receipts. As the Note appended to the Vote said that the fees were levied on the candidates who presented themselves for examination, he wished to know whether they were exacted upon all candidates for employment in the Civil Service, and whether they were levied on any scale—for instance, whether a candidate for a well-paid office was charged a higher fee than a candidate for some lower employment? He also noticed an item of £14,000 for Assistant Examiners for London, Edinburgh, Dublin, and the Provinces. He desired to know in what proportion that sum of £14,000 was spent in the Three Kingdoms—how much in England, how much in Ireland, and how much in Scotland? He thought the exaction of fees for the lower grades of the Civil Service was a practice of very doubtful policy.

MR. COURTNEY

said, he would reply first to the questions which had been put to him by the hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Thorold Rogers). He thought the hon. Gentleman could not have heard the Question which was put to him a few days ago, on the subject of these examination papers, by the hon. Member for Berwick (Mr. Jerningham). In reply to that Question, he had explained that the examination papers were excluded from the Report, in order that they might be published at a lower rate. In respect of the book of Sir George Dasent, it was quite true that Sir George Dasent was a member of the Commission; but the question was one which would, be more properly raised upon another Vote which would come up subsequently. The hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) had asked a question as to the fees payable by candidates for competitive examinations in connection with the Civil Services. The fees exacted were not all upon the same scale, but varied according to the character of the office, and ranged from 1s. in the case of a Dockyard apprentice to £5 in the competitive examinations for Class I. The fees were framed on the principle of apportioning them with some regard to the character of the appointment, and the importance of the office for which the examination was held. The hon. Member also asked how the sum paid to the Assistant Examiners in London, Edinburgh, Dublin, and the Provinces was apportioned? He was afraid that, at present, he was unable to state, in detail, how the sum of £14,000 was distributed. Assistant Examiners were employed for the purpose of conducting the examinations; and, no doubt, the amount paid in each country would correspond in ratio with the number of candidates who presented themselves in the different centres. For instance, the sums to the Assistant Examiners in London, Dublin, and Edinburgh would have due regard to the number of examinations which took place in each place.

MR. SEXTON

said, be was obliged to the hon. Gentleman for having given all the information in his power, although he confessed that it was somewhat vague, especially in regard to the Assistant Examiners. When the Report of this Vote was brought up, he hoped the hon. Gentleman would be able to tell the House how many Assistant Examiners there were, how they were appointed, and the manner in which this sum of £14,000 was distributed between the three countries. He had already thrown out to the hon. Gentleman the suggestion that it was a matter of doubtful policy to exact fees at all from the lower grades of the Civil Service, when candidates presented themselves for employment in the lower and least-paid offices. Of course, the case was different in the higher class appointments. If a man presented himself for an appointment in India, his salary would probably commence at £500 and rise to £5,000, in which case it was no doubt proper to exact a fee; but when a youth presented himself as a candidate for employment as a Dockyard apprentice, it was certainly a matter of doubtful policy to exact a fee even of 1s. from him. He would, therefore, suggest that no monetary test should be employed as an obstacle to employment.

MR. DAWSON

said, he fully concurred with his hon. Friend the Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton), that it was desirable the hon. Gentleman should give some information as to the distribution of this £14,000, and that he should point out what examinations were held in Dublin, and what in London. He (Mr. Dawson) wanted to know whether Irish candidates for employment in the Civil Service were obliged to go to London for examination; or, whether they were examined for Irish appointments in Dublin as well as in London? It would certainly be hard upon the Irish candidates to compel them to come up to London.

MR. COURTNEY

said, that was not the case, except with regard to the higher appointments, such as clerks in the Foreign Office and the Treasury. In competitions of the highest class, the candidates were required to be examined in London; but with respect of the lower divisions, in which a great number of candidates were examined, they were examined indiscriminately in London, Dublin, Edinburgh, and some of the Provincial towns, and they were afterwards appointed to offices as they became vacant.

Vote agreed to.

(2.) £39,338, to complete the sum for the Exchequer and Audit Department.

MR. SEXTON

said, he should like to ask a question upon this Vote. He had noticed, some time ago, that a serious dispute had arisen between the Controller General and the Irish Land Commissioners. The hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Courtney) would remember that under the Arrears of Rent (Ireland) Act the Land Commission, and some other Departments in Ireland, were authorized to advance sums of money to the tenants, under certain conditions named in the Statute. The Controller and Auditor General found that the sum of about £1,000,000 had been advanced by these Departments to tenants in Ireland; and in order to test the question whether the Irish Departments were justified in advancing so much of the public money, he inquired whether the conditions of the Statute had been satisfied—that was to say, whether the tenants who received the money had satisfied the Department that the conditions of the Statute had been complied with? The Irish Department replied that it was a matter for them to consider, and not for the Controller and Auditor General, whether the conditions had been satisfied; and, up to the present moment, the Officer appointed by Parliament to investigate the accounts had not had evidence before him to show that in these cases the tenants had satisfied the conditions of the Statute. He (Mr. Sexton) wanted to know whether any conclusion had been arrived at, or whether the Irish Department still maintained its inviolability against the Controller and Auditor General, or if they had given the necessary proof that the public funds had been administered in a proper manner? He was afraid that he should have to return again and again to this matter, because he regarded it as one of the first importance; and he wished to know whether, in regard to the Land Commission, the Controller and Auditor General met with the same facilities for inquiry into the expenditure of public money as he received from the other Departments of the State?

MR. COURTNEY

said, he was unable to answer the question at that moment; but he would make inquiry as to the method employed in controlling and auditing the accounts of the Irish Departments.

Vote agreed to.

(3.) £5,592, to complete the sum for the Friendly Societies Registry.

MR. W. H. JAMES

said, he wished to call the attention of his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Courtney) to the extreme delay which regularly took place every year in the publication of the Report of the Registrar of Friendly Societies. The Report for 1882 was not received last year until the month of August or September. Now, these Reports affected the interests of a very large body of the working classes. Great importance was attached to them, and they were looked forward to every year with a considerable amount of interest. He would, therefore, be obliged if his hon. Friend would explain the great and extraordinary delay which annually took place in the publication of this Report.

MR. COURTNEY

said, he had explained, only a day or two ago, in answer to a Question put to him, that the accounts of the Friendly Societies were made up to the 31st of December in each year; but they were not returnable until the 1st of June, and many were delayed until after that date. As a matter of fact, the local Friendly Societies did not invariably fulfil their statutory obligations. When the Reports were sent in, they had to be examined by the Registrar; and his hon. Friend would see that, from the 1st of June until the 1st of August, was not a very long time for the Registrar to put the accounts in order, to arrange them properly, and to bring out his Report.

MR. WARTON

said, he believed it was the case that the Friendly Societies frequently delayed sending in the information they were bound by Act of Parliament to furnish. He was afraid that something worse than that sometimes happened, and that some of these Friendly Societies did not send in any accounts at all. He would ask the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Courtney) what steps were taken in such a case; and, whether anything could be done to compel these societies to send in their accounts? In the event of a breach of the obligations of the Statute, was there any penalty enforced? He thought that some better discipline should be maintained, and that the Friendly Societies should be compelled to send their reports by the date fixed by the Act of Parliament. There was another question, however, of even more importance. He desired to know whether the attention of the hon. Gentleman had been called to the complaints made some time ago, that some of the contributors to these societies were in the workhouse, owing to the failure of the societies with which they had been connected, and the impossibility of obtaining the grants to which they were entitled? Notwithstanding their providence in making what they imagined to be a provision for themselves, they had been reduced to poverty by the failure of some of these societies to meet the demands made upon them. He wished to know whether any steps had been taken to insure that sounder accounts should be furnished to the Registrar than had hitherto been the case? He would suggest that instructions ought to be given to the Registrar to lay down more distinct regulations as to the scale on which the payments were made. Nothing could be more distressing for a provident working man than to find, after he had been paying so much per week, or month, for the purpose of securing provision for himself in his old age, or something for the benefit of his wife and family at his death—nothing could be more distressing than to find, when the necessity arose for claiming the allowance he was entitled to, that the Friendly Society to which he had contributed had failed, and very likely had done so because the Registrar had not taken pains to insist upon rules and tables of charges founded upon adequate and secure basis. He found an item on Page 123 of the Vote which required explanation. It was a special grant of £2,000, which appeared year after year, and had apparently ceased to have any special character. It was certainly paid last year as well as this. Why, if this was a special grant, did it go on year after year? Surely, if it were paid for every year, the insertion of the word "special" was somewhat unnecessary. Was it a grant of £2,000 for every year, or how many of these special grants were they to have? As a matter of fact, was the word "special" properly applicable to the grant or not? For it was certainly curious that the same sum should have been asked for both last year and this. If it was a special sum, he should like to know what margin was now left?

MR. COURTNEY

said, the hon. and learned Member opposite (Mr. Warton) asked that the Registrar should have instructions given to him to enable to do this or that. Nobody was more conscious than himself (Mr. Courtney) of the importance of limiting legislation in cases of this kind, and most hon. Members would be acquainted with the fact that the Friendly Societies Act had been deliberately framed on the principle of purely voluntary action. There were no means of compelling Friendly Societies to register if they did not wish to do so. In the case of no report being sent in by a registered society, the only punishment that could be inflicted was to strike it off the Register, and make it an unregistered society. There were no means of compelling those things to be done which the hon. and learned Member, and many other people, would like to see done. It was part of the duty of the Registrar of Friendly Societies to inquire into the adequacy of the scale of the contributions which were exacted by different societies. The Registrar did look after that matter, and applied the test of inspection to all the societies that were registered; but he had no means of testing the rates of contribution in the case of unregistered societies. The hon. and learned Member had asked him if the special grant of £2,000, which appeared in the Votes this year, was the same item as that which appeared in the Votes last year. No doubt, the same sum was inserted last year; but only £700 of it had been expended. The item referred to special work, in regard to which an explanation had been given more than once. The Registrar of Friendly Societies had undertaken the tabulation, once in every five years, of the experience of all the registered societies in respect of sick pay and death compensation. By that means they would be able to ascertain, not merely from the societies, but from an analysis of the number of members belonging to each society, at once, whether the rates were adequate or not. This special fund would have to be continued until the work was completed, which was supposed to be 18 months from the current year. The total cost of the work was estimated at £5,000.

MR. WARTON

said, he was obliged to the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury for the clear explanation he had given; but, at the same time, he must say that although he fully perceived that some of the money was likely to be expended, and he had no objection to the work actually being done, still the registration of Friendly Societies became almost useless if the Registrar General had no power to insist upon his regulations being observed.

SIR HENRY HOLLAND

said, he felt bound to enter his protest against making registration of Friendly Societies compulsory. The whole subject was very fully discussed in 1875, when the Friendly Societies Act was under consideration, and it was decided that it was not desirable to interfere with the free action of these societies. At the same time, he was glad to find that the number of unregistered societies was greatly diminishing; and it was satisfactory to learn that a great number of these societies were enrolling themselves as branches of the great societies of the Manchester Unity of Odd Follows and Foresters, because these societies had paid the greatest attention to their valuation rates, and thereby greatly increased the security of members against loss.

MR. DAWSON

said, he did not agree with the hon. Baronet the Member for Midhurst (Sir Henry Holland). He thought the Government did not take a sufficient amount of interest in these Friendly Societies. He believed that good might be done by legislation, and by bringing friendly influence to bear upon the societies in regard to financial matters. He would ask the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Courtney) what good was derived from registration, if registration gave no guarantee whatever as to the soundness of any of these Friendly Societies, or rendered them more amenable to the law in the event of defalcation? He understood that if there was any defalcation, the fact that the society was registered involved no more severe penalty than being wiped off the roll. [Mr. COURTNEY said, that was so.] He failed, under those circumstances, to see what guarantee of soundness was afforded by registration.

MR. RYLANDS

said, this matter had been discussed on previous occasions; and, in answer to the appeals of the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton) and the hon. Member who had just sat down (Mr. Dawson), he had only to say that the proposed change of this system of registration would involve the Government in enormous responsibilities. Indeed, it was impossible to gauge the enormous responsibility that would be undertaken by the Government. If the Government were to go through the details of those very numerous and important societies, in such a manner as to throw over them a Government guarantee, he could not imagine anything more dangerous or more likely to lead to greater difficulties and responsibility, because, with the best intentions on the part of the Government, it was utterly impossible to keep such a hold over these different societies as would secure the members of them from fraud and misrepresentation. The question had already been considered, and his hon. Friend the Member for Stoke (Mr. Broadhurst) had pointed out the grave danger of leading people to imagine that, because a society was registered, and there was a certain amount of Government supervision and inspection thrown over it, that it gave a sort of guarantee. On that account, he had always been inclined to look with some doubt as to the desirableness of adopting this course of registration at all. However, he dare say that, on the whole, it was not objectionable to have a certain means of registration of this kind. He thought a discussion such as that which was now taking place, would convey to the members of these societies the fact that, while the Government had the societies under consideration, they took no responsibility with regard to their administration, and gave no guarantee to the members of the societies. What he thought they might do, and what, to a certain extent, they had done, was to furnish to the members of these societies valuable information, which would enable them to look after their own interests. That was what he presumed the Government intended to do in preparing the actuarial tables, for which they were voting £2,000 in the present year, and for which, according to the statement of his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Courtney), they would have to vote £3,000 more. He believed that the expenditure of £5,000 in the preparation of actuarial tables would be of advantage to the managers of these societies themselves, and would enable them to regulate the contributions of the members and the rates of sick and death pay. In that respect they would be of great advantage. At the same time, the country was paying from £7,000 to £8,000 a-year in salaries to the gentlemen who were employed in the Registrar's Office, which struck him to be a very large sum indeed. He certainly thought that gentlemen who received large salaries from year to year, ought to have sufficient technical knowledge to enable them to deal with these actuarial questions themselves; but it would appear that when there was some real work to be done, they had to pay somebody else to do it.

MR. COURTNEY

said, he must remind his hon. Friend that it was additional work.

MR. RYLANDS

said, he would admit that it was additional work; but it was a serious matter if that additional work was to cost £2,000 a-year.

MR. COURTNEY

said, the addition to the present Vote did not amount to £3,000 altogether.

MR. RYLANDS

said, he was, nevertheless, disposed to think that they should get these actuarial tables out of the staff, without having to pay large additional sums for them. He had no doubt that this actuarial information ought to be given; but he did not think they ought to go further than give such information to the members of Friendly Societies as would enable them in the future to look after their own affairs.

MR. MACFARLANE

asked if the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Courtney) was able to give any idea as to the number of registered and unregistered societies; and, whether any equivalent advantage was derived by the members from the mere fact of registration? It appeared to amount to no more than this — that £7,000 or £8,000 were paid by the public for the registration of these Friendly Societies, whereas the benefit derived from that registration was very problematical. Was it worth the money? His hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) said that a registered society, from the mere fact of being registered, gave a guarantee which an unregistered society did not. But that did not appear to be the case; and the hon. Gentleman was not able to say that any additional security was afforded to the subscribers or to anyone in the world. Then what was the use of paying this large sum of money annually for the work now performed? If the Government made it compulsory, and adopted means for inquiring into the soundness of these societies, he could understand the value of registration, and why the Government should consider it wise to take that course. For his own part, he did not believe that it was wise, and he certainly failed to see what advantage was derived from a system which brought in certain societies and left out others. A working man, who was not, as an ordinary rule, good at figures, was apt to suppose that a registered society, whose name appeared on the books of a Government Office, was really a sound concern; whereas it really appeared that there was no proper evidence of the soundness of the rates and charges made to show that it was any better than an unregistered society. He was afraid that the working classes were liable to be deceived by the existing system, and that, in some cases, they might find themselves seriously injured.

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

said, it was almost impossible to define the number of unregistered societies, or to obtain the information which would enable the Government to do so. There were a very large number of unregistered societies indeed. As a matter of fact, there was one held in almost every small public-house; but clubs of that character were hardly worthy of the name of societies at all.

MR. MACFARLANE

asked if the number of unregistered societies was increasing?

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

said, no doubt, they were; but it was impossible to give the number. Some hon. Gentleman had ascribed to his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Courtney) the statement that registration afforded a guarantee. What his hon. Friend had said was that registration afforded no security at all. What be said was that if a registered society did not comply with the terms of the Registration Office, it was struck off the Register, and ceased to be a registered society. With regard to the desire of the working classes to obtain registration, he believed it was a fact, among those who understood the system, and knew exactly what it was worth, that they were most anxious to extend the system of registration. Societies were constantly coming in to be registered, and a strong pressure was exercised in that direction. There was a Bill at that moment before the House, and if it were passed into law this Session, it would enable Political Societies to obtain registration. He thought that showed there was a strong feeling in favour of registration. As a matter of fact, the number of unregistered societies was gradually diminishing with the growth of the feeling among the working classes in favour of registration.

MR. DAWSON

said, he was far from asserting that there was no advantage to be derived from registration. He had asked what the advantages were; but he had never said there were none. Of course, conditions of a certain character had to be complied with by all societies that were registered; and, to that extent, there was a guarantee that a registered society had complied with such conditions. What he wished to point out was that if defalcations occurred, the societies which were in default could not have any more severe penalty inflicted upon them than expulsion from the Register, when, having passed from a registered society into an unregistered society, it would undoubtedly lose ground. He thought there ought to be something in the registration itself which should afford to the members of a Friendly Society a guarantee of soundness.

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

said, he failed to see how that could be done so long as the registration was voluntary. In regard to defalcations, they came under the ordinary provisions of the law, and if they could be brought borne the persons guilty of them were punished.

MR. DAWSON

said, he had raised no question about the judicial action of the law. He had only asked what guarantee the working classes had that any society of this kind, to which they were induced to subscribe, had really been established upon a sound basis. The impression was spreading that there were millions of money at the disposal of the working classes for the development of industrial pursuits which had been collected together under the fostering influence of societies of this kind; whereas the fact was, that the working classes of England and Ireland were without a penny. No doubt, that was not the case abroad; but the working classes in Italy, France, and Germany owned many millions sterling which they had gathered together by the exercise of frugality, and it was that kind of incentive be wished to see given to the working classes of this country.

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

said, there was nothing abroad like the organizations of the Foresters and Odd Fellows Societies in this country, who were far richer than any Continental societies.

MR. SEXTON

said, the right hon. Gentleman had referred to a Bill at present before the House for the purpose of enabling Political Societies to register themselves. He should like the right hon. Baronet to explain what he meant by "Political Friendly Societies?" There were some associations in Ireland which called themselves Political Societies, and also called themselves Friendly, and he should like to know whether the right hon. Baronet included them under the designation of "Political Friendly Societies" as being entitled to register themselves. For instance, there were the Freemasons Lodges in Ireland, and the Orange Societies. They were certainly political; and he believed the Members claimed to be friendly among each other, although they were very often unfriendly to other persons. He believed the Orange Society was endeavouring to obtain legal recognition in Canada, and that in some of the Provinces they had succeeded in doing so; while in others they had failed. He wanted to know if the Government had in their mind any intention of giving a legal recognition to such societies as the Freemasons and Orange Lodges?

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

said, he would refer the hon. Member to the Bill itself.

MR. WARTON

said, he would point out that the question they were discussing now was how far registration was a proof of the soundness of these societies, and they had nothing to be with the question whether the society ought to be registered or not. It now appeared that they were spending a considerable sum out of the public money in connection with these societies, and a further sum of £5,000 was required in order to obtain certain actuarial information. He thought the information might be exceedingly useful; but when the money was spent, and the information obtained, he was of opinion that some practical benefit should be derived from it, and that the Government should insist upon Friendly Societies having sound rates and charges. Perhaps it was too soon to carry out that idea now; but he would suggest to the Government, when they had the information, to consider whether it was not desirable to make registration compulsory. At present, there was no indication that the rules and regulations imposed by the Government were complied with, and nothing whatever to show that the rates were sound. If it could be shown that the rules were complied with in one case and not in another, it would be useful to the working classes to know under which class any society they wished to join came. At present, the great complaint was that there was no security that a registered society was constituted upon a sound basis.

SIR HENRY HOLLAND

said, that no direct answer had been given to the question, what advantages were gained by members of a registered society, as against members of an unregistered society? And he should regret if it should be thought by the public that no answer could be given upon a point which was really very clear, and beyond all doubt. In the first place, no society could be registered under the Friendly Societies Act of 1875, unless the Society, by their rules, complied with the conditions set forth in the Second Schedule to that Act, conditions which were of great importance in securing the well-working and solvency of the society. There were also provisions binding on registered societies as to the investment of funds and making returns and statements of accounts, which added to the security of members of such societies, but which were wanting in the case of unregistered societies. In truth, irregularities could be committed by unregistered societies which could not be possible in the case of registered societies.

MR. BIGGAR

said, he was disposed to agree with the hon. Baronet the Member for Midhurst (Sir Henry Holland) and the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) that the position of these societies was considerably strengthened by being registered. Unfortunately, the registration was only voluntary, where it ought to be compulsory. He thought the Government were too fond of permissive legislation, and if a Conservative Government had been in power, he thought the Act would have been of a much more stringent and beneficial character. He believed that, in many respects, it was of advantage to Friendly Societies to be registered. He believed that no considerable amount of insurance business would go to a society, unless it was registered. People would not insure in an unregistered society, and it was a great temptation to evade registration if no penalty beyond the process of the law was attached to any default. He thought the question of Friendly Societies was entitled to the consideration of the Government, with a view to the amendment of the law. He agreed with the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton), that it would not be a very easy matter to pass a law of that sort, because it must raise up a large number of difficult questions which would lead to a considerable amount of discussion. At the same time, he thought the question was one which it was very desirable to place upon a more satisfactory footing. The hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Courtney) told them that the secretaries of these Friendly Societies had something like five months allowed them in which to make up their accounts and send them to the Registrar General. That seemed to be a very long time, and yet, after all, in some cases, they were not made up in time. He thought that two months would be quite efficient, and that the Report of the Registrar General ought to be published in the newspapers before Parliament rose in each year, so that an opportunity might be given to the Members of the House of Commons to examine the question, and form an opinion upon it. He thought also that the Registrar of Friendly Societies should be called upon to give his opinion on other questions; that he should report upon the question of average expenditure, together with the charges and rates adopted, and upon the merits of different societies generally. Otherwise, there would be very little security to the public. People naturally expected, that, because a society was registered, it received the sanction of the State; whereas, in reality, the Department did not exercise any proper supervision over the affairs of Friendly Societies at all. In many cases the unfortunate insurers were in this position—they imagined they had got a certificate from the Government guaranteeing the soundness of a particular society, when, really, that was not the case at all. The truth was, that if it was not for the fact that many persons who insured ceased to continue their subscriptions up to the time they would be chargeable upon the funds of a society, the society itself would be insolvent. If all persons continued to pay until the time of their death, or until they became entitled to relief on account of sickness, the societies would be unable to discharge their liabilities, and the result would be a complete state of bankruptcy among them. He believed that, in many cases, the directors avoided calling upon subscribers for their subscriptions as soon as they imagined they were approaching such a state of health as to necessitate their being placed in a position to entitle them to an allowance from the society.

Vote agreed to.

(4.) £15,936, to complete the sum for the Land Commissioners for England.

MR. ARTHUR ARNOLD

said, he wished to call attention to the want of progress shown by the Land Commission with regard to the work they were specially appointed to perform—namely, the enfranchisement of copyholds. They had now been appointed for 43 years, and after they had been in existence for a period of five years, the Minister of the day said he entertained a hope that all copyholds throughout the country would be enfranchised at an early date. But, so far from that having been the case, the work had been allowed to fall into arrear, and instead of the enfranchisement of copyholds being carried on at the rate of 600 a-year, they had fallen to loss than 200. He did not wish to blame the Commission, because the fault rather rested with Her Majesty's Government, who had failed to encourage legislation for the enfranchisement of copyholds; and, in the absence of further legislation for the enfranchisement of copyholds, there had been a very serious diminution in the number of enfranchisements, and he was afraid the tendency in future would be to decrease rather than increase in number. He thought he was justified, under these circumstances, desiring, as he did, to see the work of the Commission expedited, in calling attention to the fact that upon the Order Book there was, at the present moment, a Bill which had been read a second time, not without some opposition, but a Bill which had a very important bearing upon the work of the Commission. That Bill had been introduced in order to prevent the continuous failure of the work of the Commission; and it had not only been read a second time, but it had passed through a large and important Select Committee of the House. He thought it would be discreditable to Her Majesty's Government to allow the measure to drop. One of the most conspicuous failures in the programme of Her Majesty's Government, so far as their promises were concerned during the period they had been in Office, had been in carrying out the work of Land Reform. He should like to see a much shorter and sharper remedy applied in reference to the enfranchisement of copyholds that would lead to their extinction altogether in 10 years. As he had said, the Bill of the hon. Member for Cockermouth (Mr. Waugh) had received a great amount of approval, and had not only been read a second time, but its provisions had been considered and passed by an important Select Committee. There was no other Bill before the House which stood in the same position. In consequence of what he might call the deplorable vote in "another place," the Government were bringing the work of the Session to a speedy close; but they were encouraging, and even promoting, the passing of Bills which had by no means the same claim to consideration as the measure to which he referred. He did hope that, having regard to arrears in the work of the Commission, and the responsibility the Government incurred in delaying the enfranchisement of copyholds, and bearing in mind that, although the Bill was not everything that could be desired, yet that still it was a step in the right direction—he did hope Her Majesty's Government would not allow the opportunity before them to be lost, but would take advantage of it for the purpose of passing the measure which had been introduced by his hon. and learned Friend. The right hon. Baronet the President of the Local Government Board (Sir Charles W. Dilke), in discussing a previous Vote, spoke of a Bill which had been dropped and could not now be proceeded with. The Bill of the hon. Member for Cockermouth was not in the same position. It had already passed through a Select Committee, and although it was blocked by one or two hon. Members, there had been no Amendment to it placed on the Paper, and Her Majesty's Government had no Amendment to suggest to it. Therefore, notwithstanding the period of the Session at which they had arrived, under the peculiar circumstances of the case, he thought they ought not to allow the Bill to disappear from the Order Book of the House of Commons. He sincerely thought an effort should be made to pass the measure into law.

MR. SEXTON

said, he noticed a very curious entry in the Vote, under Subhead B., for the legal expenses of the Solicitor to the Commission, and fees upon opinion of Law Officers—£100. The first observation he had to make was that the solicitor must give his services very cheaply; for he (Mr. Sexton) had never heard of a solicitor who gave his services to a Government Department for £100 a-year. Then, again, the item included fees upon the opinion of the Law Advisers of the Crown. He had been under the impression that the Law Officers of the Crown were among the best paid officers of the State. If the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General were appointed to the office of Lord Chief Justice, he would lose a large income by the change of position; and he (Mr. Sexton) wanted to know how it was that two Law Officers, so amply compensated for their services as the Attorney General and the Solicitor General, did not scorn to take £200 in the shape of fees, for giving an opinion upon any matter in the interests of the State? He found, from the Estimate, that the charge for the year amounted to £24,000; whereas the income last year only reached £18,000. Considering that the Department performed very valuable work for many private individuals, he should have thought that it ought to have been made self-supporting. The Commission, professedly, performed the work of valuation for private individuals, and there ought to be no loss to the State from the discharge of the functions of a Department which were principally advantageous to private persons, such Department having a large staff at its disposal. If a private individual were intrusted with the performance of similar functions in London, and had a similar staff at his disposal, in 12 months he would be able to show a profit, instead of a loss. He thought the matter was one which required explanation.

MR. WARTON

said, he desired to call attention to a small matter of detail—namely, the way in which this account was made up. It was all very well to include considerable sums in one Estimate; but he wanted to know how they were worked out in detail? He found that every item in what purported to be an explanation of this Vote contained exactly the same provision as the Vote itself; and yet he found an imaginary Estimate informing the House that the sum asked for was £780 less than it was last year. He wanted to know by what process the Government arrived at that singular conclusion?

MR. COURTNEY

said, the matter could be explained in a moment.

MR. WARTON

said, that there might be an explanation; but if the hon. Gentleman would look at Page 126, he would find that the explanation was given in a very curious way indeed. The one item of copying appeared to be given in three different entries. For instance, copying, &c., £1,500; engraving, copying, &c., £1,850; and then there was a further item for making tracings from maps, and extracts from apportionments and other documents for engrossments of rates, &c., copying, &c., in inquiry cases, engrossing and copying provisional and absolute orders in drainage cases. Were those items the same as those which were paid last year? He should certainly like to receive an explanation from the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury.

MR. COURTNEY

said, he could not withhold a tribute of admiration from the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Warton) for having detected an irregularity in reference to these accounts. The explanation, however, was a very simple one; the item said to have been incurred last year was inserted purely by mistake, and ought not to have appeared at all. With regard to the sum referred to by the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton), if the hon. Member presumed that fees to the Law Officers of the Crown were involved in that sum, he was labouring under a misconception, because the Law Officers received no fees at all; and the sum in question was paid as solicitor's expenses in respect of the delivery of cases for the opinion of the Law Officers. As to the Bill of the hon. Member for Cockermouth (Mr. Waugh), the Government had interposed no obstacle to its passing; but, on the contrary, had done everything possible to promote it, and if other Bills were going forward while this was at a standstill, it was because they were not blocked. In the case of this Bill, however, two hon. Members had blocked it, and the Government regretted as much as the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Arthur Arnold) that any obstacle to the passing of the Bill should have been interposed. There were, however, serious difficulties in the way, and the Bill was only in the same position as Bills of their own which the Government had been compelled most reluctantly to abandon. The Government, unfortunately, could not do more to forward the measure of the hon. Member than they had done.

MR. ARTHUR ARNOLD

said, that the Bills which had been abandoned were not in the same advanced position as the Bill of the hon. Member for Cockermouth (Mr. Waugh).

MR. COURTNEY

said, the hon. Member contended that the effect of the Bill would be to extend the voluntary enfranchisement of copyholds; but he was inclined to think that there would be a gradual falling off in voluntary enfranchisements.

MR. WAUGH

said, that, as he had charge of the Bill, he might, perhaps, be allowed to say that it introduced a very important reform, and he was somewhat surprised that the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) should have objected to this Commission, which cost only a small sum, whereas the Irish Land Commission cost a great deal.

MR. SEXTON

said, he did not object to the Commission. What he had said was, that where a Public Department performed services for the benefit of private persons, those private persons should pay for the performance of the duties, and prevent the charge from falling upon the public.

MR. WAUGH

said, he wished to remind the hon. Member (Mr. Sexton) that the expenses of the Land Commissioners in Ireland, who performed duties of a similar kind, were charged on the Consolidated Fund. The whole sum charged for the Copyhold Commission was about £4,000 a-year, and for that sum they performed very important public duties. He did not think that any Commission which had been established in this country had discharged its duties with more economy; the only question was whether the Commission itself was to be perpetual. In 1838, a most influential Select Committee of the House of Commons was appointed to inquire into the subject, and it had among its Members Sir Robert Peel, Sir James Graham, Sir William Follett, Sir John Campbell, and several other eminent Members, who recommended that, for two years, voluntary enfranchisement should be gone on with; but that it would be necessary to make the Act compulsory both in regard to the landlord and the tenant. That was in 1838. In 1841, the Act was passed for the voluntary enfranchisement of copyholds, and the present Commission was appointed; an expense of £4,000 or £5,000 a-year being sanctioned to that end. In 1851, another Select Committee recommended, in the strongest terms, that copyholds should be abolished in the course of three or four years. From that time, no Government had taken the matter up; but it had been neglected entirely, and the £4,000 a-year, which ought to have been done away with many years ago, had been charged upon the Consolidated Fund. He had originally brought in his Bill in 1881, for this express purpose; and he had introduced it again this year; but it had been blocked by one or two hon. Members, who were instructed by the stewards of manors. In regard to the Land Commission, he must say that it was a great misfortune to Ireland that it had not a Commission similar to the Land Commission here—composed not of lawyers, but of laymen. He was quite sure that the settlement of questions would have been arrived at much sooner, and at a much less cost.

MR. DAWSON

said, he did not think there was any analogy between the Land Commission in Ireland and the Commission now under discussion, which had no power whatever in regard to the adjustment of rents. Its duties consisted of the preparation of maps, the inspection of drainage and enclosures, and, in fact, in doing the business of private individuals; but it was not a Commission appointed to carry out a great Act of Parliament, and it had not the power of fixing rents. Therefore, there was nothing in connection with the Land Commission in Ireland which enabled them to draw any analogy between it and the Commission now under discussion.

MR. ARTHUR ARNOLD

said, it was extremely good of hon. Members from Ireland to take part in the discussion, seeing that they were in a much better condition than this country in having no copyholds at all. At that moment, the taxpayers of this country were paying a very considerable sum for every case of enfranchisement carried out by the Land Commission. That was a very serious matter, and they had a right to expect the passing of some measure which would deal with the great evils of the land system of the country.

MR. WARTON

said, he was one of those who opposed the Bill of the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Waugh); but, as far as he was concerned, he had received no instructions from the stewards of manors. He opposed the Bill because, in his opinion, the present law was quite sufficient.

MR. WAUGH

said, there was only one Petition against the Bill, and it was signed by eight stewards of manors, and had been presented by the hon. Member for Hertfordshire (Mr. Halsey).

MR. WARTON

said, he had had nothing to do with that.

MR. WAUGH

said, the duties of the Commissioners in this country were of precisely the same character as those of the Land Commissioners in Ireland. They had to settle the value of land in exactly the same way; but they did it without the assistance of lawyers, and without any legal tribunal.

MR. SEXTON

said, that if, 40 years ago, steps had been taken, under the Devon Commission, to settle the Land Question in Ireland, great advantage might have been derived; but in regard to the Land Commission they were now discussing, the work they performed had connection with the enclosure and drainage of land, and they were particular services performed for the benefit of private individuals, and services of such a character that they ought to be paid for by those who derived benefit from them. There was this difference between the Land Commissioners in England and Ireland. In England, it was a Department which transacted the business of private individuals; but, in Ireland, it was a judicial establishment in the shape of a Public Court which performed judicial functions. It was, therefore, supported by the State in the same way as all the other legal tribunals of the country.

MR. WAUGH

said, he was bound to deny that the duties of the Land Commissioners were discharged for the benefit of private individuals.

Vote agreed to.

(5.) £340,757, to complete the sum for the Local Government Board.

SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT

said, as there appeared to be no Representative of the Local Government Board present, it would, perhaps, be well to post-pone the Vote.

SIR ROBERT PEEL

I beg to move that the Vote be postponed.

GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR

said, he hoped the right hon. Baronet would not press his Motion. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Sir Charles W. Dilke) had been present since the House met, and he (Sir George Balfour) was satisfied he would be again in his place immediately.

Sir CHARLES W. DILKE

, at this moment, having resumed his seat,

SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT

said, he was glad to see the right hon. Gentleman take his place, because there was some difficult and important subjects connected with the Vote for the Local Government Board upon which he desired to have some information. The first point to which he wished to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman was the question relating to workhouse schools. Last year, when he raised that question, a statement was made by his hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Hibbert), who went very carefully into the matter, that there were upwards of 200 workhouses from which the Guardians sent children to the parochial or Board schools of the district. He should be glad if the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board would state whether the number of workhouses from which, children were sent to such schools had increased—whether, in fact, the practice, which he considered right and judicious, was extending or otherwise? He regarded it as one of the most important conditions, in these days, that the children should not be brought up with the stain of pauperism upon them; the great object being to bring them up from the commencement to earn an honest livelihood, and not, in future times, to become, as were their parents before them, dependent on the workhouse for their subsistence. That was a subject to which he invited the right hon. Gentleman's serious attention, and he trusted he would be able to inform the Committee that the system in question had been extended since last year. Then he would also ask information on another subject—namely, as to whether the boarding-out system had increased, or otherwise? They were told last year that 600 or 700 children were boarded out, a number which, having regard to the amount of pauperism in a great country like this, appeared to him a very small one indeed. He did not know what were the views which the President of the Local Government Board bold with regard to the parochial boarding-out system; but in his (Sir Walter B. Barttelot's) judgment, it was a system which, in every way, deserved to be encouraged, and he awaited with much interest the reply of the right hon. Gentleman as to whether its was being extended. Then he hoped to receive some information from the right hon. Gentleman with regard to a system which had recently been inaugurated. He believed the Guardians at Chelsea, and in another district, had successfully introduced the cottage system; and, in doing so, they had undoubtedly set a good example to the Guardians of the rest of the Kingdom. There was nothing, in his opinion, more calculated to benefit the poor children of the country than the cottage system. On the other hand, he said that nothing could be worse than that they should be brought up in workhouse schools, to be taught and believe that they were nothing but paupers, and that they were despised by their fellow-creatures. Those were the views he entertained, and he earnestly suggested that every endeavour should be made by the Local Government Board to extend the systems he advocated in all their branches, feeling sure that it would have a most beneficial effect upon the poor children of the country.

MR. CROPPER

said, before the right hon. Gentleman replied to the questions of the hon. and gallant Baronet opposite (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) with reference to the workhouse schools, and the boarding-out and cottage systems, he desired to call the attention of the President of the Local Government Board to one or two points which he considered of importance in connection with this Vote. The Committee would find, on Page 130 of the Estimates, a charge for £2,056, to which the sum of £1,500 was added for travelling expenses, for the Inspectors of workhouse schools. His own experience had been that it would be of great advantage if the inspection of workhouse schools were made to run pari passu with that of the elementary schools in the towns in which the workhouses were situated. The Committee would be aware that there was a great difference in the way in which these two classes of Inspectors discharged their duties; the man who never had anything but pauper children to deal with would differ in his practice very materially from the man who conducted the examinations of children in the other elementary schools of the country; he approached his work from a different point of view altogether, and came to it with particular views towards the class he had to deal with; and he (Mr. Cropper) believed that he would take a more arbitrary line with regard to the children in question than one who had to deal with children not of the pauper class. Those who had seen these schools within the last few years would have observed that the inspection was of a different kind from that which was performed with regard to board schools; and by the adoption of his suggestion he believed that not only would the amount of the travelling expenses of these Inspectors be saved, but that the quality of the work done would be much better. Then, with regard to the inspection itself, he asked whether the same Order lately circulated among all other Inspectors of schools had been circulated by the Department among the Inspectors of workhouse schools? The Order in question was a very good one, for it gave new rules and encouragement to the Inspectors, which he thought ought not to be confined to Inspectors of board schools. One of the most essential points, in his opinion, was that the Inspectors should not, by their work, interfere with the meal hour of the children. Everyone knew that the difficulty arose in this way—the Inspector came down, perhaps, at 10 o'clock in the morning, and his work was frequently not done when the dinner hour arrived; he had no idea of waiting until after the dinner hour to finish his work, and so he carried it on while the children were fasting. He (Mr. Cropper) knew a case in which the boys were kept from 7 o'clock in the morning, the hour at which they breakfasted, until 2 o'clock in the afternoon, when the inspection was finished. He contended that it was a very unfair thing to the scholars that the inspection should go on at a time when they ought to be refreshing themselves. He should like, in all cases, that the work of the Inspectors should cease while the meal hours were going on. For these reasons, he asked the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board whether he would be inclined to join the inspection of workhouse schools with the inspection of the other schools in the towns in which the workhouses were situated; and, if the right hon. Gentleman could not see his way to do that, whether he would not give the Inspectors of workhouse schools that Order lately issued to the Inspectors of National and other schools with reference to inspection?

MR. SEXTON

said, he trusted that the excellent remarks made by the hon. and gallant Baronet the Member for West Sussex (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) would receive the attention they deserved. There was one class of children in the workhouses—namely, those of the Roman Catholic faith—in which he felt a strong interest, and in whose behalf something more required to be done as a means of furnishing them with a sufficient amount of religious instruction. He believed that the regulations with regard to the religious instruction of children of that faith was pernicious and unjust, as well as unworthy of England. In the first place, the Roman Catholic chaplains in England had to discharge their duties without pay; and he thought it would be an improvement in the policy and the functions of the Local Government Board if the Board took to itself the power of allocating a reasonable salary to Roman Catholic chaplains in workhouses, because he found, in many cases, in England and Scotland, that the Boards of Guardians, although they could not deny the value of the services of the chaplains, had refused to allocate a single penny for their remuneration. Further, he had to say that Roman Catholic chaplains were frequently embarrassed in their communications with the children by the insolence of the officials and the bigotry of the Guardians. He would draw the attention of the Committee to a case at Bath, in which a Protestant clergyman sitting at the Board of Guardians had not felt himself ashamed openly to deride the Catholic faith. He (Mr. Sexton) thought he had a right to ask, when a Guardian of the Poor so misconducted himself, that the Local Government Board would do more than give a curt reply to a Question on the subject put in that House—that they would gravely censure any gentleman who misconducted himself in the manner he had described. Then there was another point to which he desired to refer—namely, the custom pursued in Great Britain of putting out Catholic children as servants to persons of a different faith. Now, he was perfectly well aware that the employers of the children were, in the majority of cases, Protestants; but he thought some endeavours might be made to procure for the child employers of the same religious faith. At Sheffield, a Catholic mother, although in a very delicate state of health, on hearing that her child had been placed with a Protestant employer, left the workhouse to remove the child from a house in which she considered its religious faith was in danger. Surely it was not the intention of Parliament that the hard necessity of accepting relief for the means of living was to be made an engine for the purpose of changing the religious faith of children. The attention of the Local Government Board to this subject was, in his opinion, very necessary; because the representations of parents, in these cases, had failed to produce any adequate alteration in the practice. When cases of this kind occurred, he maintained that the chaplain ought first to be communicated with, and that the child should not be put out to service with persons of a different creed until the chaplain had been consulted, and had endeavoured to procure for the child an employer of the same faith. Until that request was complied with, he felt that the Department would lie under the imputation of using the law for the purpose of changing the religious faith of pauper children. Then he had to ask for some accurate information on two points with reference to the administration of the Department. In the first place, he desired to know what was the proportion of ex officio to elected Guardians throughout the country? At one time, as the right hon. Baronet would be aware, ex officio Guardians constituted the whole Board; but, subsequently, an Act was passed, which reduced the number to half of the entire Board, after which another Act was passed, providing that they should not exceed one-third of the entire number of Guardians. He asked whether that Act had operated efficiently and satisfactorily? Again, he had to ask whether any obstacles were thrown in the way of medical officers receiving the Commission of the Peace in England, as was the case in Ireland; whether any such obstacles existed at all in England; and whether medical men were appointed to the Commission of the Peace? Further, he desired to know what course was pursued with regard to officials in the service of the Department, who, in another employment, had been guilty of dishonest and fraudulent conduct? What course would the Department pursue towards a rate collector, for instance, who, being in the employment of the Department, was found to have acted dishonestly in another capacity, as was the case with a rate collector of the Black-rock township, who hold also the position of clerk in the Local Government Board, and who, it was discovered, had been for years carrying on a system of malversation, which resulted in the appropriation of £2,600? He asked whether, in England, that man would have been allowed for a single day to continue in the service of the Local Government Board after the circumstances he had described had been known to the head of the Department?

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

said, with regard to the last point raised by the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton), as to whether a person in the employ of the Local Government Board, who had been guilty of dishonest conduct in another employment, would be retained in the service of the Department, that the Department under such circumstances would direct a local inquiry into the circumstances of the case, and act according to the result. Of course, if a man was proved to have been dishonest in one capacity, he would be presumably so in another. With regard to the question of the hon. and gallant Baronet the Member for West Sussex (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) on the subject of pauper children being sent to the parochial or board schools, he was able to inform the hon. and gallant Member that there had been an increase in the number of workhouses from which children were sent to school. The number of workhouses from which children were so sent, and which was 200 last year, had increased to 235, and there were, besides, 10 cases under consideration at the present time. That result, he hoped, would be satisfactory to the hon. and gallant Member, as showing that the subject was not being lost sight of. The hon. and gallant Member inquired also as to whether there had been any increase in the number of children boarded out. In this case, also, he was able to inform the hon. and gallant Member that an increase, although a small one, had taken place. The number of children boarding outside the Unions, however, was steadily increasing, and there had been an increase of 186 during the last year, which made the total number boarded out 835. The hon. and gallant Baronet had further asked his opinion with regard to the system of boarding out. Having had an opportunity, outside the House, of expressing his views upon the subject at length, he did not think it necessary to go, except very briefly, into the matter on that occasion. He would simply observe that his views on the subject of boarding out were somewhat similar to those of his Predecessor (Mr. Dodson); his opinion, generally speaking, was that it would be undesirable to adopt any one system, to the absolute exclusion of another. He was one of those who would not push the principle of boarding out to the fullest extent; because, if that were done, he feared there might be a certain amount of laxity in its administration; on the other hand, he might say that he was so far in favour of the application of the principle as to desire to see it moderately extended. The hon. and gallant Baronet had also asked him with regard to the cottage system, which he said very truly had been found to work well in Kensington and Chelsea district, and in Birmingham. The same system was in operation in one of the Unions of South Wales; and he believed, also, that three Boards of Guardians were at the present time contemplating applications for public loans in connection with it. In answer to his hon. Friend the Member for Kendal (Mr. Cropper), who suggested that the inspection of workhouse schools and elementary schools should be conducted by the same class of Inspectors—that was to say, by gentlemen appointed to inspect board schools, he was of opinion that, whatever might be the view of the Guardians on that point, the Education Department would object to the proposed change being made, and he thought there was a good deal to be said in favour of separate systems of inspection. Those who had the care of pauper children must be responsible to an authority different from that to which those who had the charge of children in general were responsible; the children being upon an entirely different footing, and the arrangements for their care being a portion of the Poor Law system of the country, it would be most difficult for the Education Department to exercise control over the Boards of Guardians. Further, he was not at all certain that the one system of inspection advocated by the hon. Member for Kendal would not lead to the work of the Guardians being done twice over. On the whole, therefore, he was inclined to think that, as pauper children were under the Boards of Guardians, it might be well to allow them to remain so, although he must not be understood to express a strong opinion upon that subject. With regard to the last point of his hon. Friend, he was bound to say that, subject to the foregoing reservations, he was very much with him as to the desirability of bringing into as close proximity as possible the rules which governed the inspection of the schools under the two systems. The hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) had asked him a question with regard to Catholic children in the workhouse schools, as to which he would refer him to his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Local Government Board (Mr. G. Russell), who attended to the subject. The hon. Member also asked him a question as to ex officio Guardians in England. The system was that all the magistrates of the district acted as ex officio Guardians, without reference to number, of which there was no limitation. But when the number of magistrates did not come up to one-third of the elected Guardians, the Local Government Board had power to appoint ex officio Guardians, and that power had sometimes been exercised. The Department could not appoint more ex officio Guardians than was sufficient to bring up their number to the proportion of one-third of the whole number of Guardians. The hon. Member had also asked as to whether any obstacle was placed in the way of any particular class of medical officers being made magistrates—dispensary officers for example. He was not aware that any rule of the kind had been made.

MR. SEXTON

asked whether, in the case of the Boards of Guardians outside London, where the magistrates exceeded the elected Guardians in number, the Local Government Board had power to increase the number of elected Guardians?

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

said, that was not done. He believed that the number of elected Guardians in the country districts always exceeded the number of ex officio Guardians.

MR. SEXTON

said, he understood from the right hon. Baronet that, as a general rule in England, the elected Guardians exceeded the ex officio Guardians.

MR. HARRINGTON

asked, whether the ex officio Guardians were restricted to residence in the parishes, or whether the holders only of property in the district might be elected?

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

Yes. Residence.

MR. DAWSON

asked, whether he was right in supposing that the duties of the auditors of the Local Government Board in England, whose expenses were included in the Vote before the Committee, were of this character—that if, in the course of the audit of the accounts of a public body, they found a payment made which was not strictly legal, but in connection with which there was no imputation of fraud, they should not surcharge such payment personally—Whether there was in the officers in question any discretion not to surcharge under the circumstances? Take the case of the Corporation of Dublin, for instance, the members of which acted gratuitously—without remuneration; suppose an expense was incurred after consultation with their law agent, and that, in the end, some legal point were discovered against them—under such circumstances they were personally surcharged. But he understood that in England the auditor would not surcharge, unless fraud was imputed.

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

said, under the circumstances described by the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Dawson) the auditor would surcharge; but the Local Government Board had power, on appeal, to remit the surcharge.

MR. CROPPER

said, he should like to know whether the Local Government Board contemplated the renewal of the appointments of Lady Inspectors, from which it was well known that excellent results had followed?

MR. NEWDEGATE

asked, whether there was any practice or rule by which chaplains of any other denomination than that of the Church of England were paid by fees or salary; and, if there was any such rule or practice, whether the right hon. Gentleman would be kind enough to refer him thereto?

MR. GEORGE RUSSELL

said, he had been recently in correspondence with some hon. Members on the question introduced by the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton), with regard to the religious instruction of Roman Catholic children in workhouse schools; and he would confidently appeal to those Gentlemen to bear him out in saying that there had been the greatest possible readiness on his part, and on that of the Department, to meet every representation made to them on behalf of the children. It was only very recently that the hon. Member for Queen's County (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) and himself had been engaged upon a case which had arisen in Sheffield, and in which he believed he had succeeded in producing a result agreeable to the hon. Member. With regard to impropriety of language on the part of any member of the Board of Guardians in connection with the religious faith of children in workhouses, alluded to by the hon. Member for Sligo, he had to say that the power of the Local Government Board did not run further than to express the strong disapproval of the Board of such conduct. They had power to convey their opinion to a member of a Board of Guardians; but they had not power to call such individual to account. With regard to the payment of a chaplain in workhouse schools, he could not agree with the hon. Member for Sligo in his remark that the action of the Board of Guardians in this respect was parsimonious. The Committee would be aware that an hon. Member had prepared a Bill to authorize Boards of Guardians to make payment to religious instructors of all creeds; but that, in consequence of a decision recently given in the Supreme Court, the hon. Member had not persevered with it. It appeared that there was power already vested in the Guardians to make such payment, if they were disposed to do so. With regard to the point as to placing Roman Catholic children in service with persons of the same faith, the hon. Member had very properly indicated the fact that there was an enormous preponderance of Protestant employers over employers of other denominations; but he had the statement of gentlemen of much greater experience than his own in these matters, who assured him that it was the practice of the Guardians throughout the country to seek employment for Roman Catholic children amongst persons of their own creed, and it was only the smallness of the number of such employers which prevented their endeavours in that respect being always successful. Having, as he believed, replied on all the points raised by the hon. Member for Sligo on the religious question, he would say in conclusion to his hon. Friend the Member for Kendal (Mr. Cropper) that his right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board would be disposed, if the number of children boarded out continued to increase, to consider the desirability of making another appointment of a Lady Inspector.

GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR

said, he would wish to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board to the fact that the expenses of the Department were largely increasing; the expenditure for the year 1884–5 being £440,757, as against £431,047 in the previous financial year. No doubt the business of the country had generally increased within the last few years, and he was aware that there was a corresponding increase in the work of the Department; still, making every allowance for that, he thought the Committee were justified in expecting that some explanation should be afforded of the large increase which had taken place in the expenditure of the Department. Then he observed that the sum of £8,000 was charged to other Votes on account of the Department. He disliked very much, as he had over and over again stated, the practice of dealing in this way with the Votes; and he said there ought to be a distinct Memorandum, showing what other Votes in the Estimates were charged with money on account of the Local Government Board. He trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would make some statement with regard to the increased expenditure.

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

said, he regretted that he was unable to hold out any hope that the expenditure of the Local Government Board would decrease; on the contrary, he thought that during the next few years it would be an increasing expenditure; because, as a matter of fact, the work of the Department was increasing at a great rate. He had gone into the subject with his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the hon. Gentleman at his side (Mr. George Russell); and, after the most careful examination, they found there was only one item in which there was any chance of making a reduction, and that was in the charge for advertising the audits, and other matters coming within the duties of the auditors of the Board. In that item he had succeeded in making a considerable saving; but, as he had already pointed out, it was the only one in which a reduction could possibly be effected.

MR. HARRINGTON

said, he thought the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Local Government Board (Mr. George Russell) had not given a satisfactory answer to his hon. Friend the Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton), with regard to the position of the Roman Catholic children in workhouses. He (Mr. Harrington) acknowledged, however, the desire on the part of the hon. Gentleman that the subjects referred to by his hon. Friend should be dealt with by the Boards of Guardians in a liberal and impartial spirit; still, he thought hon. Gentlemen on those Benches were entitled to something more than that. They were, in his opinion, entitled to claim that the Local Government Board should take upon itself to compel the Boards of Guardians to give effect to the wishes of the Department. If it were true that the Boards of Guardians had power, as the hon. Gentleman had stated, to remunerate religious instructors in the workhouses, it was, nevertheless, equally evident that they had only exercised that power to a very small extent, except in the case of the ministers of the Established Church. He believed that all hon. Members would agree with him, when he said it was most desirable that all young children in the workhouses in England should have some form of religious instruction; indeed, he did not see how it could be expected that those children could grow up and become useful members of society, if, after they were thrust into the workhouses, their religious education was left altogether out of the question. Therefore he said they were entitled to receive an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board that some steps would be taken by him, either by the passing of an Act through Parliament or by an Order of the Department, to compel Boards of Guardians to adopt some fair scale of remuneration to religious instructors. The demand was not confined to Roman Catholics—it was that a becoming provision should be made for religious instructors of any denomination whatever; and he was quite sure that, if the Local Government Board took upon themselves to order that a scale of remuneration should be struck, the Boards of Guardians throughout the country would acquiesce therein. They, in Ireland, were often accused of intolerance in religious matters; but he was certain that if there were no more than three children in an Irish workhouse who differed in religious faith from the rest, their religious instruction would be attended to, and he could state, further, that he had never heard of the least difficulty being raised by any Board of Guardians with regard to the remuneration of religious instructors in the case of Protestant children. His hon. Friend the Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) asked that when it was found necessary to send Catholic children out to service, notification should be given to the Catholic chaplain in charge of the children at the workhouse. Officially, perhaps there might be some difficulty in getting at the chaplain; but, at all events, the Guardians would know who was in charge of the religious instruction of the children; and he contended that before the children were placed out he should be communicated with, and failing his efforts to get them employers of the same religious faith, he should be informed of the place to which the children were sent, so as insure that proper attention was paid to their religious education. On these two points the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Local Government Board (Mr. George Russell) had given the Committee no assurance whatever; and, therefore, he appealed to the right hon. Baronet to make a strong representation to the Boards of Guardians throughout the country on these two points, so that children in the workhouses, who did not belong to the Church of England, might have security that they should be visited by and receive instruction from ministers of their religion.

COLONEL COLTHURST

said, he was afraid the suggestion of the hon. Member (Mr. Harrington) would not meet the case. What was required was, that the Local Government Board should have power to require Boards of Guardians to send Roman Catholic children to Catholic schools. What had happened in London? Parliament had taken a great deal of trouble for many years in regard to this matter; and for many years chaplains had had full access—though they were not paid—to workhouses; but this had proved to be utterly insufficient, and, thanks to the persistent action of Cardinal Manning, and of the Local Government Board, this had been remedied, and no ecclesiastical authority in England had expressed any but one opinion as to the fairness and kindness of the Local Government Board. That Board ought to have more power than they had; but they had always exercised the power intrusted to them well. They ought to have the power of compelling Boards of Guardians to send Catholic children to Catholic schools, and also power to award payment for the instruction given to those children when that was done.

MR. WARTON

said, he would point out that a very small increased sum was allowed for the National Vaccine Establishment, and it seemed to him little short of disgraceful that so small an amount was allowed for that establishment. He knew there was a prejudice among some people against vaccine being taken from animals, and the almost infinitesimal amount of disease transmitted from one human being, which also formed a powerful instrument of superstition among the lower, and also some other, classes. If there was that prejudice, it was better that it should be met, as far as possible, by an increased supply of lymph; and it was disgraceful that the £1,402 granted last year for this purpose was now only increased by the trivial sum of £35 a-year. The Government did not appear to be alive to this matter. Even if there were no epidemic of small-pox, it was the duty of the Government to spend a far larger sum in meeting, as far as possible, the prejudice of people by supplying them with calf lymph.

DR. FARQUHARSON

said, he thought the complaint of the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton) deserved the attention of the Government; for it seemed to him (Dr. Farquharson) that the money granted for the maintenance of this establishment was very far short of what the necessities of the country demanded. But he should like to ask his right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board a question as to the working of this vaccine establishment, with regard to the particular branch of calf lymph. No doubt all the information was contained in the Blue Books; but Blue Books were not generally read by the public, and he thought a little information from the right hon. Gentleman in the House would be very valuable at that particular crisis. Was this establishment as well known to the general public as it should be? Was it appreciated by the poorer classes, and was there an ample supply of calf lymph? Everyone must admit the great advantage and the importance of having, as an alternative, a free supply of this lymph direct from the animal, as that obviated the only two objections that could be raised against the lymph of human beings being transmitted to others—namely, the possible deterioration, in which he himself did not believe, and the possible, but very rare, introduction of diseases into the system. The adoption of calf lymph had been the heaviest blow the agitators against vaccination had received; and they had made frantic efforts to discredit it—trying to make out that the supply of calf lymph was kept up from the cow. It was not the case that the supply was kept up by vaccinating the calf from the vesicles of human beings. It was said that if a calf was vaccinated from a child with a syphilitic taint, the disease would be taken back to the human being; but it was well known that it was impossible to give an animal syphilis. They were simply vaccinated one from the other, and there was no possibility of spreading disease in that way. Considering the advantages to the general public from this vaccine establishment, he hoped the supply of lymph would not be hampered by the want of funds.

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

said, that the vaccine establishment was largely increasing its operations, and was becoming much more resorted to; and it would be necessary this year to propose a Supplementary Vote for it. A short time ago the Board had had to apply to the Treasury to take other premises to carry on its operations.

MR. DAWSON

said, that in reference to the answer of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board as to the procedure of the Board, he should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman how he would act in such a case as this—Suppose an officer had been guilty of fraud in a Municipality, acting for the Local Government Board as well as for the Municipality, how could the Local Government Board institute an inquiry into his dealings with the Municipality?

MR. COURTNEY

replied, that in such a case the Local Government Board would move the Home Office to institute an inquiry.

MR. GEORGE RUSSELL

, referring to the appeal of the hon. Member for Westmeath (Mr. Harrington) to himself, said, he could not help thinking the hon. Member had underrated the powers of resistance of Boards of Guardians and over-estimated the power of the Local Government Board. He was very much disposed to agree with the hon. Member that the object he sought, to promote was very desirable; but unless further powers were given to the Board all they could do was to urge and recommend, and that they strongly did. The hon. Member for Queen's County (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) would bear him out that it required considerable power to secure the enforcement of the law as it stood. A great deal of pressure was required to bring Boards of Guardians to do that which it was their duty to do with regard to Roman Catholic children in workhouses, as was seen in the Sheffield case. This was a question which had recently engaged the attention of the Board, and it had been found very difficult to compel Boards of Guardians to do what they were legally bound to do. With regard to the appointment of religious teachers of other denominations than the Church of England, although the Boards of Guardians might remunerate them if they pleased, a difficulty arose in this way—it was not only that objection might be taken by the Guardians themselves, but the religious sects were very numerous; and, so far as his little experience went, there was a considerable feeling against the appointment of religious teachers on the part of Guardians. He very much agreed with the hon. and gallant Member for Cork County (Colonel Colthurst), and the Local Government Board were in favour of sending children to schools outside the workhouses. As to keeping a continuous record of the addresses of children, he thought that would be a very difficult thing to require the Guardians to do after the children had left their first situations. He agreed, however, in thinking that some more permanent knowledge of the future of the children should be obtainable by their religious instructors, and thought such information might be obtained through the good sense and goodwill of Boards of Guardians.

MR. DAWSON

said, the mental improvement of these children was carried out in a very cursory way, and he wished to know whether there was any improvement in the technical teaching of children in workhouses, for that was a matter of great importance to them.

MR. GEORGE RUSSELL

said, the great anxiety of the Board was to insure that the teachers appointed should be persons capable of giving practical and useful instruction. There was sometimes a tendency on the part of Guardians to appoint persons merely for the sake of giving them comfortable berths; but the Board had viewed that with great disapproval, and had endeavoured to appoint persons who could impart useful instruction.

MR. MOORE

said, that, in his opinion, the hon. Gentleman (Mr. George Russell) had managed to elude the whole point. The Local Government Board were not doing their duty; but were distinctly abandoning the position taken up by the late President of the Board. There was the Sheffield case; and was it not the fact that in London children were being proselytized? The Guardians would not give up the children, although the Roman Catholics had ample certificated schools for their reception. They refused to give them up at the request of the children's friends. That was one of the causes of this hotly-contested question, and there was no doubt that there had been a distinct retrogression upon this question by the Local Government Board. [An hon. MEMBER: Nonsense!] He did not know why the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury should say he (Mr. Moore) was talking nonsense.

MR. COURTNEY

said, he had made no such remark.

MR. MOORE

said, some hon. or right hon. Gentleman on the Treasury Bench had said he was talking nonsense; but he thought it was considerable sense, seeing how the Roman Catholic people were being treated. They were having their religion violated, and although the Board had the power of preventing that they did not do so, but were departing from the position taken up by the late Tory President of the Board. Another matter was the remuneration given to the chaplains. There were four very large institutions at Hampstead, in which there were people suffering from the most contagious and painful diseases—the Fever Hospital, the Small Pox Hospital, and two large Workhouse Hospitals—and the whole of the religious work was being performed by Roman Catholic chaplains gratuitously. That cast an undue burden on the Roman Catholic population. It was very well for the hon. and gallant Member for Cork County (Colonel Colthurst) to flatter the Board; but he maintained that the Local Government Board were not doing their duty.

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

replied that the Fever and Small Pox Hospitals at Hampstead were under the Metropolitan Asylums Board, and not the Local Government Board. This matter had come before the Local Government Board last week; they at once communicated with the Asylums Board, and in the course of the day steps were taken to remedy the case. With regard to the general charge of the hon. Member that there had been a change in the policy of the Board since the present Government had been in Office, as to the removal of Catholic children, there was not a shadow of foundation for the charge. He would undertake to say that those who were mainly responsible for the education of Catholic children in England would not endorse the statements of the hon. Member. If there was any fault it was in the law, and not in the Local Government Board.

COLONEL COLTHURST

said, the hon. Member for Clonmel (Mr. Moore) had accused him of flattering the Local Government Board; but what he said was that the Board ought to have the power of removing Catholic children from workhouses, and to give adequate remuneration, and he held that the Board had earned credit by what they had done as the law stood.

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

said, no doubt, there was a grievance, and the Bill which had been introduced by the hon. Member for Berwick (Mr. Jerningham) was one which he should have supported, if it had gone on.

MR. MOORE

said, he was glad that the right hon. Gentleman admitted that the Roman Catholics had a grievance, and that there was a Bill which he would have supported; but why did he not bring in a Bill himself, and not throw the responsibility on the hon. Member for Berwick?

MR. HARRINGTON

said, he understood that the Bill alluded to by the right hon. Gentleman was a Bill to compel Boards of Guardians to act in the manner that had been urged. If the Bill was merely to give discretionary power to Guardians, he did not see why it had been introduced, because everyone knew that Guardians had now discretionary power; but if it was intended to give the Local Government Board power to act over Guardians, surely the decision of the Queen's Bench was no reason for abandoning the Bill. That decision was merely that the Guardians already had discretionary power. Was the Local Government Board to have discretionary power, and yet, when the Guardians refused to act, there was no power to compel them? In Ireland the Local Government Board issued sealed Orders, and those Orders had all the authority of Acts of Parliament. The abandonment of this Bill was no justification for the action of the Local Government Board in England; on the contrary, it made their action all the worse, because if a Bill was introduced to give the Board new powers, the decision of the Queen's Bench was no justification for its abandonment. Was the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that the law should remain as it was? If not, would he introduce a Bill giving the Board some further powers?

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

said, there was a strong case in the neglect of some Boards of Guardians in regard to this and other matters; but so there was in the case of other Local Authorities; and he did not think the House of Commons would give to any Government such large powers as were now urged.

MR. RYLANDS

said, the increase in the Vote during the last 12 months was very easily explained; but his right hon. Friend (Sir Charles W. Dilke) wished the Committee to realize the fact that for a number of years past this Vote had increased to a very considerable amount. How was it that they were now asked to vote nearly £500,000 for a centralized system of government? Simply because the House of Commons had been willing to barter away the legal rights of Local Boards for the money they got from the Government through the Local Government Board. His right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board spoke of the statutory powers of the Board; and that was what hon. Gentlemen opposite wished to increase. What did that mean? That a Central Department should control the action of the Local Boards; and the Local Boards would say they would not administer under the control of a Central Department unless they were bribed from the public purse. Nothing did more to eat away the local patriotism of this country than the way in which affairs were administered by the Central Department. His right hon. Friend sympathized very much with that view; and he (Mr. Rylands) would like to see centralization not increased, but diminished. One of the penalties this country had to pay in consequence of what had taken place in "another place" was, that there was no chance of Parliament dealing with this question of local government this year. He hoped that, in a subsequent Session, his right hon. Friend would be able to bring forward such a measure with regard to local government as would materially diminish the action of the Central Authority over the Local Representative Boards. A question had been asked about ex officio magistrates and Guardians. He, himself, was an ex officio Guardian; but did hon. Gentlemen think he would attend when, if he wanted to spend 20s., that must be settled in Whitehall? He declined to submit to a Central Authority with regard to matters which, he maintained, ought to be settled by Local Authorities. He knew of cases in which very small items of expenditure had been desired by Boards of Guardians; but they could not do that without the sanction of the Local Government Board. A large amount of correspondence and red tapeism ensued; and, after two or three weeks' delay, permission had been granted, but not till the opportunity for spending the small amount of money had passed. He did not know exactly what hon. Gentlemen from Ireland wanted—whether a Central Authority, or real Boards of Guardians, or a grant from the public purse. Whatever was right in the administration of local affairs might be obtained by the proper use of the electoral powers that individuals had in the election of the Boards; and he declined to support hon. Gentlemen in asking the Local Government Board to apply to Parliament for increased powers of centralization. But what he wished to do was to impress as strongly as he could upon the Committee that every year this increasing expenditure was going on, and must go on, unless the House of Commons was determined to decentralize, and give Local Bodies a greater amount of authority. Supposing a Local Board did spend a few pounds in improvements; suppose they came to some resolution which was not wise. They were responsible to those who elected them; and if it was found that they had taken an unwise course, the very experience thus obtained would prevent a repetition of the mistake. The Public Departments proceeded on the principle that they were omniscient, or very nearly so; and very often they controlled Local Bodies in a manner which people not belonging to that Olympian region believed to be unreasonable. How should it not be so? How could the right hon. Gentleman administer all the affairs of the country in all the different localities as well as the people who were on the spot, and who knew what the local requirements were, and who had to provide the funds for the purpose? He had strong reason to believe that the fact of this action on the part of the Central Authority—the fact that these Local Bodies had no authority and responsibility, such as he thought they ought to have—tended to prevent men of character and independence taking part in local affairs, and to go on to Local Boards. He knew that that was so; and he thought it was a most unfortunate thing. No one could express too strongly his sense of the misfortune to this country of a system of centralization, the effect of which was to prevent the best men from taking part and interest in the management of local affairs, and to give to a Central Authority a control which it was impossible for them to properly exercise.

MR. DEASY

said, he quite agreed with the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) in the sentiments he had just expressed; but the hon. Member was in the habit of putting forward Radical proposals, and then swallowing his own words. The hon. Gentleman had made more Radical speeches than any hon. Gentleman on that side of the House; but he never gave a Radical vote. Although the hon. Member supported decentralization, no doubt, if the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Government Board brought forward a Centralization Bill, the hon. Member would support him; but he (Mr. Deasy) wished the hon. Member would support Irish Members in endeavouring to decentralize the system of Government in Ireland. He had no doubt, however, that neither the hon. Member, nor those who sat beside him, would do anything of the kind. It was complained that the Local Government Board in England did not carry out the law in a proper manner; but Irish Members complained that the Board had not sufficient powers. It was not that the House would not trust them with greater powers. In some cases, when Local Boards refused to grant the rights of Catholics, and members of other religious denominations, it was desirable that some Central Authority should have the power to compel them to do so. Those were the principles enunciated from the Irish Benches. With regard to the charge of flattering the Local Government Board, the Irish Members had not done so, nor had they accused the Local Government Board of not doing their duty. No such charge had been made by them. The hon. and gallant Member for Cork County (Colonel Colthurst) had pointed out that the Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster was satisfied with the administration of the Local Government Board; but Cardinal Manning had been one of the strongest advocates of the principles to which Irish Members were endeavouring to give expression in this House. He would support the hon. Member for Clonmel (Mr. Moore) in the view that the Local Government Board should have further powers for the protection of Catholic children. With regard to the system in Ireland, he would point out that in the Cork workhouse, of which he was a Guardian for many years, the Protestant chaplain received £60 a-year, and there were also male and female Protestant teachers, though the number of Protestant children did not often exceed three or four daily. The same thing might be said of several other Unions, He did not think there was any case where the power of the Catholic Guardians had preponderated that Protestant instruction had not been provided even for only one Protestant child. With regard to keeping a record of the addresses of the children boarded out, or sent into service, he understood the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. George Russell) to say that it would be impossible to compel the Guardians to do that, or that, at all events, it would be very difficult. But in Ireland it was the invariable rule that the addresses of children were kept, so that 10 or 20 years afterwards it could be ascertained in whose service they were first employed. There would not be the least difficulty in keeping such a record. The statement made by the hon. Member for Clonmel only emphasized what had been stated from these Benches; and he hoped the Local Government Board would endeavour to have such a system as would render these outrages on the religion of Catholics impossible. He trusted this debate would not conclude with empty promises by the Treasury Bench; but he could not rely on the expressions of any Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench. They had carefully avoided the main question that had been raised, and there was no guarantee that they would bring in a Bill to render it impossible for Boards of Guardians to act as they had been acting. They had simply said they would endeavour to have the law as it stood enforced; but the complaint was that the law at present was not sufficient to meet the case, and what was asked was that the President of the Local Government Board should introduce a Bill which would give that Board power to compel Guardians to do their duty.

MR. HARRINGTON

said, the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) was a severe advocate against centralization, so far as his speeches went; but, in his votes, he was as meek a follower of the Government as any Member of that House. Irish Members had not advocated anything like a system of centralization today, except upon a question which they maintained it was wise and judicious that there should be, if necessary, a supervising authority vested in the Local Government Board, and that was as to the religious training and practices of those who were in the workhouses. The hon. Member opposite (Mr. George Russell) had said he wanted the Local Boards to have full power in matters of this kind. They would be glad to extend the powers of Local Authorities, provided that those who sat with the hon. Member on the Board of which he was a Member, and those who sat on similar Boards in England, were sufficiently broad-minded and tolerant, and had sufficient regard for the religious views of those who differed from them, to properly and fairly administer the laws they had. No doubt in matters of religion, as in other matters of administration, the hon. Member for Burnley was in favour of an extension of local authority; but they knew what were the opinions of several who sat with the hon. Member upon religious questions, and they knew that the aim and effort of those hon. Gentlemen was to set aside, as much as possible, the religious aspect of the education of the children, and to eliminate religious training and institutions. However much the hon. Member for Burnley might inveigh against centralization, they were not likely to agree with him, so long as the object he and his hon. Friends had in view was to set aside every effort at religious training for the children who had been driven into the workhouses, and who, if allowed to grow up with no religious training, were likely to become the wreck and ruin of society. If they were as intolerant as the hon. Member, and those who sat with him, and if they took the same view as that taken by Local Boards in England, who deliberately refused to give effect to the principles put forward to-day, they would have the remedy very easily in their own hands. They would advise the people to vote only salaries of Roman Catholic chaplains—the chaplains of the majority of the children—and leave to voluntary effort those of other religious persuasions; but they did not wish to approach the subject in any such narrow spirit. They wished to approach it in the broadest spirit, and to see ample power given to the different Local Boards in the exercise and control of the funds they administered. But surely it was not too much, and it was not imposing any system of centralization, to ask that the Local Government Board should have some authority to step in where the religious training of children in workhouses had been neglected. There was already provision with regard to the secular training of children; and in that respect the hon. Member for Burnley, no doubt, would advocate an extension of the powers of Local Boards to any extent; but when they raised this religious question the cry of centralization was immediately raised. He did not think there was anything in this like unreasonable interference with Boards of Guardians; and it was a scandal and a shame to the civilization of England that while salaries were paid to the teachers of the majority of the children in the workhoupses, those who instructed the minority were left unremunerated. Let it be one thing or the other. Let it be a voluntary matter, and let those who were already paid salaries give their services to the poor in these workhouses without any reward; and he would undertake to say that the Roman Catholic chaplains would do their duty, even though the duty was greater than that of the Protestant chaplains. But while salaries were given to Protestant chaplains, and Catholic children were allowed to grow up in Protestant workhouses without any regard to their religious training, he should maintain that such a system could not confer any credit on English administration.

MR. WARTON

said, the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) had made one statement which could not be allowed to pass. He had made it, no doubt, hastily; but he had said that, owing to certain conduct in "another place," the Local Government Bill could not pass. Such a Bill was mentioned in the Queen's Speech; but the Government took good care that it was not mentioned in the Address to the Throne from this House. They had not produced the Bill, and therefore it was untrue that any action in "another place" had prevented the Bill being passed. That statement was a specimen of the sort of misrepresentation that was likely to be made in the coming agitation against the House of Lords.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

said, he should be perfectly satisfied with the existing law, if only it was fairly administered; but what he complained of in respect to Catholic children in workhouses was, that the law was not fairly administered, but openly and flagrantly violated. The Secretary to the Local Government Board (Mr. George Russell) seemed to think that because Cardinal Manning, who happened to be the Bishop of one diocese in this country, had from time to time expressed his satisfaction more or less with the action of the Board, there could not be any room for dissatisfaction with that Department. He (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) doubted very much whether Cardinal Manning was so very well satisfied in all respects with the conduct of that Department; but, even if he were satisfied with respect to his own diocese, that was nothing to say as to the rest of the country. He (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) admitted that there was a bettor state of things in London than in the Provinces. In a large capital like London bigotry and prejudice might be expected to be less rampant than in smaller places; but in the North and South, the East and the West, throughout the country, Catholics in workhouses suffered from a large number of grievances, and from a great deal of petty persecution. This House had recognized this state of things, and had made provision for dealing with it. With regard to children in workhouses, power was given by the existing law to the parent of a child not belonging to the Established Church in a workhouse to make application that such a child might, if they thought fit to order it, be sent to a school established and maintained for the education of children in the religion of the parents. There were very large numbers of Catholic children in the workhouses throughout the country for whom such claim had been made, and for whose accommodation there were existing schools within a reasonable distance, but with regard to whom the Guardians had repeatedly, and sometimes insolently, refused to comply with the provisions of the law. What was now complained of was that, for some reason or other, the Local Government Board scarcely ever would think fit to order that that should be done. They refused to use the powers which Parliament had placed in their hands to meet these grievances. The hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Local Government Board (Mr. George Russell) had referred to him (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) in respect to the treatment he had received from him as regarded one particular case. He was prepared to admit the personal courtesy he had received from the hon. Gentleman; but the facts of that case might be summarized in this way—he had in his hands a copy of the Correspondence relating to the Catholic children in the Sheffield Workhouse, and they were the only inmates. That Correspondence extended over four years, and it sot forth in the clearest light the multiplied grievances under which those inmates suffered. In the year 1881, the Local Government Board, moved thereto by the demands pressed upon them, caused an inquiry to be made of the Board of Guardians as to the number of Roman Catholic children in their workhouse, and the amount of convenience afforded them for instruction in their religious duties, and for attending their church; and other things. In reply, the Board sent them a Minute of their proceedings at which this matter had been discussed. That was the sort of treatment the Local Government Board received and put up with at the hands of these Guardians, who were improperly detaining 88 children, many of whom were orphans, and some of whom had been deserted by their parents. The correspondence had gone on for a very long time, the parish priest constantly making complaints, and protesting against the treatment the inmates were receiving. This state of things went on up to the 31st of March, 1884, on which date the Assistant Secretary to the Local Government Board wrote to the parish priest a letter, from which no satisfaction could be derived. What on earth was the use of the Legislature passing the Act he had quoted, giving the Local Government Board power, if they thought fit, to remove a child in a case of this kind, if, when the occasion arose, the Local Government Board would not remove such child? This was a solitary case; but there were hundreds of such cases all over the country, and the priests and Catholics generally throughout England had become sick and tired of making applications to the Local Government Board on the subject. The Sheffield case was one of special hardship, because the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Dodson), who, some time ago, was in the position of President of the Local Government Board, led the Catholic authorities of Sheffield to understand that their grievances in this matter would be removed. He begged, with all respect to the present President of the Local Government Board, to say that, if the late President had remained in Office, he believed these grievances would have been removed. As to other matters, such as compelling the Catholic children in the Sheffield Workhouse to attend Protestant prayers, and the refusal of the Guardians to allow adult inmates to go to Mass, except on every alternate Sunday, the present President of the Local Government Board had done as much as he could do. He had caused inquiries to be made the moment the matter was brought under his notice, and had evinced every disposition to protect the religious interests of the paupers. But it had taken four years to bring this matter into the position in which it now was; and unless an individual Member of the House of Commons had taken it up, and urged it on the Local Government Board, there had been nothing to insure its being taken up and justice being done. There was nothing to insure that cases of this kind would be taken up by individual Members. The Local Government Board had power to deal with these cases, and it should make use of it when it felt that a proper representation was made. He would not go into the question of the payment of chaplains, because, after all, that was a matter which did not press so very hard on the Catholic body; but this question of giving up the children who were being proselytized by hundreds in every part of the country except London was certainly one that the Catholic Members could not allow to lapse without bringing it to the notice of the House.

Vote agreed to.

(6.) £10,052, to complete the sum for Lunacy Commission, England.

MR. W. J. CORBET

said, he wished to ask a question or two with respect to this Vote of the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Hibbert). He wished to know what were the exact duties of the Commissioners in Lunacy? He thought it was desirable, in the present unsatisfactory state of the laws relating to lunacy, that the country should know exactly what their duties were. In the first place, in regard to private lunatic asylums, he wanted to know how it was that sane persons, on whose liberty attempts had been made, could be shut up without the intervention of the Lunacy Commissioners; how it was that persons who kept private madhouses for profit could make attempts on the liberty of sane people, those people being left to fight their own battle with the private madhouse keepers, the Lunacy Commissioners looking calmly on? He wished further to ask, was it no part of the duty of the Lunacy Commissioners to interfere in such cases? In regard to private lunatic asylums, he had been informed by the hon. Member (Mr. Hibbert), he thought in August last, in reply to a question in reference to the expense of maintaining pauper lunatics in asylums, that the Commissioners were unable to give the actual cost of maintaining pauper lunatics. That seemed to him a very extraordinary state of things. It did not prevail in Ireland; because, in the Reports of the Inspectors of Lunatic Asylums, the cost of the maintenance of lunatics was given. Another thing with regard to the extraordinary increase of insanity in this country — an increase which was described by a peculiar phrase—that was to say, as an "apparent increase," all through the Reports of the Commissioners. He should like to know whether there was any prospect of that increase being, in any degree, reduced, or put a stop to, by the action of the Commissioners? He should just like to draw attention to the figures for a moment or two. In 1862, the number of insane persons in England was 41,129, an increase on what it was 10 years before of 17,511. In 1872, it stood at 58,640, and in the next 10 years it had increased by 16,432, standing in 1882 at 75,072, the total increase in 20 years being 30,943. According to the last Report of the Commissioners in 1883, there had been a still further increase of nearly 2,000—namely, 1,923. The Commissioners described this as only an "apparent increase." It appeared to him that the increase was very substantial indeed; and he desired to know what explanation the hon. Gentleman could give of these matters.

MR. HIBBERT

said, that in reply to the hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. J. Corbet), whom he knew had given great consideration to this subject, he was very glad to say what he knew of this matter. Respecting the duties of the Commissioners of Lunacy, he must say, for his own part, that though the Lunacy Commissioners had, for a considerable number of years, very ably conducted the business of the Commission, yet their position was not at all a satisfactory one. They were a quasi-independent body, not, properly speaking, under the control of any Public Department. It would be a distinct advantage if, instead of being partly independent, and partly dealing with matters under the control of the Home Office, and with matters under the control of the Local Government Board, they were placed directly under one of those Departments. So far, he thought, a change would be a distinct advantage. As to whether the Commissioners performed their duties, all he knew was that whenever any complaint was made, either to the Home Office or to the Local Government Board, in respect of any case in which there appeared to be an abuse, the Department at once drew the attention of the Commissioners to it, and did their best to get it inquired into. As to the increase of lunacy which the hon. Member had referred to, he was afraid that, to a great extent, it was real. He could, however, understand what the word "apparent" meant in the Report. It referred to this—the increase owing to the great pressure which had been brought to bear of late years on the Guardians, and the grant of 4s. a-head for the lunatics removed from their homes and the workhouses to the asylums. He knew that that 4s. grant had been very largely availed of all over the country. In Lancashire, it had been found necessary to enlarge many of the asylums. It was thought that the increase was largely caused by the premium placed on removing lunatics from their homes to the asylums. At the same time, there was this advantage in having these lunatics taken to the asylums—that they were better treated than they would have been if left in workhouses, or in their own homes. One great drawback which had arisen from the system was that the asylums were now crowded with a number of cases which it was quite impossible to cure, or even to treat. There were hundreds—he might almost say thousands—of cases which it was quite impossible to deal with satisfactorily; and, so far, this was a great drawback. The asylums were quite crowded with these cases. They prevented the incoming of cases which might be cured, and in that manner, indirectly, the system did harm. With regard to the Return giving statistics with reference to pauper lunatics, as he had said last year, he was afraid there was no special Return kept in the different workhouses, or in the different Unions, as to the cost of the lunatics. They were treated merely as paupers, and, therefore, the cost was included in the maintenance of common paupers. That was where the difficulty had arisen. He should think it would be possible to obtain a Return which would state exactly the cost of all pauper lunatics. It would be very desirable to have it prepared if it were possible. They should have a true and reliable Return, and he could only say that the preparation of such a Return he would do his best to facilitate.

SIR HENRY HOLLAND

said, he thought the hon. Member for Wicklow (Mr. W. J. Corbet) had done good service in bringing this question before the Committee, as it had drawn from the hon. Member the Under Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Hibbert) a promise that the subject would receive the careful consideration of the Government. That hon. Gentleman had indicated his opinion that the Lunacy Commissioners should cease to be an independent body, and that they should be put under some Government Department. In that opinion he (Sir Henry Holland) entirely concurred; and he considered the change would be of great importance, as, if such a change were effected, the powers of the Commissioners might with safety be increased. Very few persons could have read the evidence just given by Lord Shaftesbury in Mrs. Weldon's case, which was now proceeding, without seeing that grave defects existed in the present system, in respect of supervision, and especially in respect of the manner in which persons were admitted into private asylums, and of the way in which medical certificates were obtained. He hoped that the Government would, as soon as possible, consider whether they could not give effect to several of the valuable suggestions made by a Select Committee of this House which sat a few years ago. It would be a great misfortune if the labours of that Committee should be wasted.

MR. HIBBERT

The Lord Chancellor has now got the matter under his consideration, and will, I believe, prepare a Bill on the subject.

GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR

said, he must congratulate the hon. Member for Wicklow (Mr. W. J. Corbet) on having elicited from the Under Secretary of State for the Home Department the most satisfactory speech he had just delivered. He (Sir George Balfour) should not have taken part in the discussion, but for the fact that his name was attached to a Bill on the subject of lunatic asylums—the Bill brought forward by the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn). In spite of the strenuous efforts which had been made to get the Bill considered it had not been attended to. At the time it was brought forward the hon. Member (Mr. Hibbert) was not in the position of Under Secretary to the Home Office. If he had been, no doubt the measure would have been considered. There were serious evils to be remedied in the private asylums; and he hoped the Government would not turn a deaf ear to the appeals made to them, and that another Session would not be allowed to pass without a Bill on the subject.

MR. DAWSON

said, he wished to know whether the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Hibbert) could supply any statistics bearing on the question of the number of inmates of lunatic asylums who had been sent there, not from the ordinary ranks of life, but from prisons which they had entered perfectly sane, but in which the régime of penal servitude had deprived them of their reason? In Dublin it was his (Mr. Dawson's) duty, ex officio, during his tenure of the Lord Mayoralty, to visit a number of criminal lunatic asylums; and he had seen in them many persons who, having been convicted of criminal offences, had been sent to gaol, and there, losing their reason, had been afterwards removed to the asylums. He did not think it should be the object, or even a part of the result, of prison treatment that human beings should so constantly go out of their minds. He made this remark because of the leniency and mercy displayed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department in his treatment of prisoners. He did not know whether he was correct; but he, certainly, had the impression that a great number of people had been driven mad by the penal servitude system. He should like to know from the Under Secretary of State whether there were any statistics bearing on the point?

MR. RAMSAY

said, he considered it very satisfactory to hear from the speech of the hon. Member (Mr. Hibbert) that the Government had in view some modification of the law relating to lunacy in England. He would take leave to suggest to the hon. Member that the Government, if they took this subject up, should consider the desirability of securing a Return of the number of lunatics in England which the hon. Member for Wicklow was so anxious to have—the desirability of having an account of all classes of lunatics in the several districts. At present there were a large number of lunatics under the care, or under a sort of control, of the Lord Chancellor; and the Lord Chancellor probably assumed that the system under which they were managed at present was better than placing them under the Board of Lunacy, as it might be reconstituted under his own Bill. For his (Mr. Ramsay's) own part, he did not see why the Lord Chancellor should continue to have control over lunatics, if that control could be transferred to the Board of Lunacy. One of the defects of the present law, and one of the grounds on which he thought the words of the Commissioners "apparent increase" were justifiable, was to be found in the fact not that an increase had taken place in the number of insane persons in the country, but that a greater number of imbeciles and lunatics had been brought under the cognizance of the authorities, owing to the payment made by the State in aid of the maintenance of lunatics. The practice of availing oneself of a proffered grant was contagious; and it made all kinds of persons apply for assistance, which they would shrink from applying for if the bribe were not held out. In the case of lunatics, the bribe was held out to the Boards of Guardians to place poor persons who were incurable in the asylums, but had been previously maintained at their own homes or in the workhouses. The Guardians sent these people to the asylums because of the economy secured thereby, and because they were relieved from the care and responsibility attached to the keeping of the people in the workhouses. The Guardians were not put to increased expense, but rather, as he said, economized; therefore, he thought that the system was a dangerous one. In the case of lunatics who were harmless and inoffensive, he believed they were always better whilst they enjoyed their freedom than they were in asylums. In the latter places they did not enjoy that measure of freedom which they might enjoy in workhouses, or any other establishments which might be provided for them.

MR. SEXTON

said, he had lately had the advantage of conferring with a gentleman who, both officially and by his studies, was an expert in matters relating to criminal lunacy, and he had informed him that there were two classes of persons in the asylums between whom there was a radical difference of classification; the first being those indicted for crime and acquitted on the ground of lunacy, and then ordered to be detained in an asylum; and the second, those who had been convicted of crime in a sane condition and had lost their reason in prison. "Would the Under Secretary of State for the Home Department consent to the preparation of a Return giving the number of persons confined in criminal lunatic asylums, distinguishing between those who became insane after their conviction, and those who were acquitted on the ground of insanity?

MR. BLAKE

said, he wished to make a few observations on this particular part of the subject. He believed it often happened that persons were sent off to lunatic asylums, and transformed into lunatics, without sufficient care being taken to ascertain whether they were actually lunatics or not. He would give an illustration of this which had come within his own knowledge during the past few weeks. He would suppress the name of the individual, and the name of the institution, and the workhouse concerned, as it might give pain if they appeared in the Press; but he would have no objection to giving the names to the Under Secretary of State for the Home Department privately, if he desired them. About three months ago a man came over from Ireland—a man who was known to some of the Irish Members. He tried, but without success, to get a situation in London. It was to be feared he fell into dissipated habits; for he ultimately got into a workhouse infirmary, and a friend had sent him (Mr. Blake) a note stating that the man was there, and would not be let out unless some one went there for the purpose of taking him away. He (Mr. Blake) had gone to the infirmary to see the man. The attendant who took him round the place, and who, by the way, was a very civil man, on being asked, where this person was, replied—"Oh, we sent him off into the country to an asylum." From inquiries then made, it appeared that the workhouse infirmary was rather overcrowded, and the authorities, wishing to make more room, had sent the man off to a lunatic asylum—a man who was about as much a lunatic as he (Mr. Blake) was himself. He might be under a wrong impression as to the view of the authorities concerning the necessity for sending the man to an asylum; but his own strong opinion certainly was that the patient had been sent away from the workhouse infirmary to a lunatic asylum for the sole purpose of securing a bed in the infirmary, which was rather overcrowded. The authorities said very kindly—"You can have him if you like to take him away;" but although he (Mr. Blake) was of a rather inquisitive disposition, and although he was anxious to know the condition of the man and the precise circumstances of the case, he had thought this was hardly the kind of subject it would be desirable to exercise his inquisitiveness upon. He should very much like—and he was sure the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for the Home Department would take the necessary steps—to have the case inquired into, and to find out whether this man was a fit subject for an infirmary; and, if so, whether it was right to have him detained as an idiot?

MR. HIBBERT

said, he should be very glad to have the case inquired into. He was not at all sure that it was not another instance of the readiness of the Guardians to avail themselves of the 4s. Government grant. However, if the man had shown any signs of loss of reason, probably it was the wisest course to send him away from the workhouse. The case would be investigated. With regard to lunatics who lost their reason in gaol, he had no such statistics as hon. Members seemed to desire. Of course, there would be a record of the number of persons sent from their convict and other prisons to the lunatic asylums; but he did not think it would safely show the number who might have lost their reason in consequence of imprisonment. He believed that, at the present time, there were from 180 to 200 criminal lunatics in detention in their asylums, sent from the prisons and convict establishments. As to the other classes of criminal lunatics, a Return was given two or three years ago, on the Report of the Sub-Commission of the Home Office, which had sat on this subject of criminal lunatics, and hon. Members could get all necessary information in regard to these other classes from that Return. Information which hon. Gentlemen required, which was not in that Return, no doubt could be furnished. There was a Bill now before the House, and under the consideration of the Grand Committee on Law, relating to criminal lunatics, the object of which was to carry out the recommendations of the Commission. That Bill would be found to ameliorate the condition of criminal lunatics.

MR. DAWSON

said, that his object in raising the question of lunacy in prisons was to find out whether the system of imprisonment in their gaols was such as to produce lunacy. He should like to know how many harmless lunatics had been sent out of their prisons, as well as how many criminal lunatics?

MR. SEXTON

said, he would examine the Return referred to by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hibbert), and if he failed to find in it the particulars he required, he would ask for them.

MR. W. J. CORBET

said, that as to the increase of insanity in the country, the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hibbert) had mentioned the weekly grant of 4s. per head by the State as being to his mind the cause, to a great extent, of the development of the number of insane, and as causing this "apparent increase." He (Mr. Corbet) just wished to point out that the 4s. contribution had existed for the last 10 years at least; and that while the average increase for nine years past had been about 1,600 per annum, the increase during last year—when the development theory might fairly be said to have been worked out — had been nearly 2,000. He only wished to make that explanation.

MR. HIBBERT

said, he had admitted there had been an increase of lunacy over and above that which might be attributed to the 4s. grant.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

said, he wished to know whether, during the past 12 months, Her Majesty's Government, in accordance with the half promise they had given last year, had considered the possibility of devising some better system of classification of people of weak intellect, as between workhouses and lunatic asylums, than at present existed? There could be no doubt that a great many persons were sent from workhouses to lunatic asylums who ought not to be sent there—who were really not lunatics in the proper sense of the word—and that a great many persons were detained in asylums who were not fit subjects for lunatic asylums, and who were subjected to petty persecutions, and suffered an almost incredible amount of distress and misery. It ought not to be a very difficult matter to contrive a classification; but, however difficult, it ought to be done, seeing that its effect would be to save a great many persons from being sent to lunatic asylums, and subjected to a life of misery, and to cause others to be sent from the workhouses to the asylums, where they would got the treatment suited to their state of mind. Persons of simply weak intellect were not fit subjects for either workhouses or lunatic asylums, and it would be an advantage to ascertain their number, and to have them sent to intermediate establishments. The difficulty the Government made to the carrying out of the suggestion was that it would involve the expense of a separate staff; but that expense would be covered by the diminished expenditure on the workhouses. Two out of every five workhouses in Ireland could be easily done away with; and he was disposed to think that many workhouses in this country could also be dispensed with. By a proper classification of the inmates of workhouses and lunatic asylums not only might considerable economy be effected, but also a great deal of human misery might be avoided.

MR. HIBBERT

said, that last year he had stated in the House his entire sympathy with the views of the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) on this question; and it was to be hoped that whenever a comprehensive measure was introduced dealing with the Lunacy Laws—and a Bill was to be brought forward by the Lord Chancellor—the plan the hon. Gentleman suggested would be carried into effect. If all their idiots could be removed from the asylums and workhouses to special establishments, where they would receive fitting treatment, the system would be a much superior one to that at present adopted. He might say that, in the Criminal Lunatics Bill, to which he had just referred, they had carried out this plan, so far as criminal imbeciles and idiots were concerned. It was proposed that instead of treating them as criminal lunatics, and subjecting them to severe discipline, there should be a special dispensation given to the Secretary of State to ameliorate their condition.

Vote agreed to.

(7.) £44,307, to complete the sum for the Mint, including Coinage.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

said, he wished to know whether the abandonment by the Government of the Coinage Bill would affect in any way the estimated extra receipts under this Vote? According to the Estimates, whereas the figure last year was £75,000, this year it was put down at £120,000. Was that, or was it not, in contemplation of the receipts this year being increased in consequence of the arrangement which it had been proposed to carry out under the Coinage Bill? If it was, the abandonment of the Bill would affect the estimated receipts.

MR. COURTNEY

No, Sir. This Estimate was made before the scheme of the Coinage Bill was framed. These extra receipts are not to come from the gold coinage.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

Where will they come from?

MR. COURTNEY

was understood to reply that they would come from the silver coinage.

SIR JOSEPH M'KENNA

said, that in 1883–4 the cost of "Incidental Coinage Expenses" was £4,000. All the items, whatever they amounted to in that year, were grouped into one round sum of £4,000. He was always doubtful of the accuracy of round sums; and he should like to know how it was that this figure of £4,000, without any fraction, was arrived at? He was still more surprised to find that this was precisely the sum in the Estimate for last year—"Water Supply; Bags and Boxes for Coin; Melting Pots; Expenses in connection with Supply of Coin to Ireland and Scotland; Steal for Dies; Tools; Loam; and other Expenses, incidental to Coinage and the Manufacture of Medals, £4,000." He quite agreed that there should be a sufficient sum provided to meet these incidental expenses; but he should like to know whether the Estimate was prepared with certain data to guide those who made it, or was the sum simply taken in a rough-and-ready style?

MR. COURTNEY

It is taken on the experience of the expenditure of former years. The sum we have paid in previous years, under these heads, warrants this amount being put down.

SIR JOSEPH M'KENNA

said, that, no doubt, the hon. Member would be able to give a satisfactory explanation of the expenditure; but, still, it was worthy of remark, in that House, that previous Estimates of a certain class of expenditure, before being accepted as a guide for another year's expenditure, should be fortified by some explanatory return of the actual expenditure. He had no faith in round sums—at any rate, if they were used, the Committee should have some return, showing how they were arrived at.

MR. P. H. MUNTZ

said, that he did not know whether the hon. Member (Sir Joseph M'Kenna) was aware of it; but, as a matter of fact, it was impossible to anticipate what the cost of manufacturing would be until it had taken place. The cost might vary £200 or so every year; therefore, it was necessary to put down an approximate sum in the Estimate.

SIR JOSEPH M'KENNA

thanked the hon. Member (Mr. Muntz) for his statement. No doubt it was necessary that the Treasury should estimate from something—that they should have something to guide them; but why did they not estimate from the past expenditure, and not from former Estimates?

GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR

thought that in these minute matters of manufacturing coins they should have a table showing exactly the profit and loss on the separate coins turned out at the Mint.

MR. RYLANDS

pointed out that if hon. Members would refer to the Report of the Deputy Master of the Mint they would find all the balances given. For years past he (Mr. Rylands) had been in the habit of examining the accounts of the Mint; and he could, therefore, inform hon. Members that they would find the balances carefully drawn up if they would look for them. In the Report hon. Members would find the cost of manufacture set forth, and the profit derived from the work. If the hon. Member (Sir Joseph M'Kenna) had looked into the Report to which he (Mr. Rylands) referred, he had nothing more to say; but if he had not, it would be most profitable for him to examine it. He (Mr. Rylands) must express satisfaction at the fact that, owing to the action taken by himself and other hon. Members in that House, a large amount of expenditure in connection with the Mint was saved to the country—probably £250,000. They had the evidence of a very able Master of the Mint, to the effect that the Mint was now in a position to manufacture as much coin as was required at a much less cost than formerly. The action of the hon. Members to whom he referred had resulted in a saving of public money, and had, at the same time, secured the efficiency of the Department.

MR. WARTON

said, he was unable to understand the enormous discrepancy between the cost of manufacturing gold and the cost of manufacturing silver coin. The item for silver coin was much the larger of the two; and that seemed to him most extraordinary, seeing that there was a large profit on the manufacture of silver coin. He quite understood what had fallen from the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. P. H. Muntz)—namely, that it was not possible to anticipate the exact amount of this expenditure; but what he (Mr. Warton) complained of was that these items, which were all lumped together, were not even, explained as to the past. There was no reason why they should not say what the items were last year. Though some of them were trifling, there was, mixed up with such things as "water supply," "bags and boxes for coin," "melting pots," "steel for dies," "tools," "loam," &c., an item, "expenses in connection with supply of coin to Ireland and Scotland." They could not see from the Estimate what that item meant, and what it amounted to. That should be shown, particularly as lower down they saw an item for the supply of silver and bronze coin to the Colonies. He should have thought £1,500 would have been enough to pay for the freight and package of a considerable bulk of coin, and that some account should be given of the profit; because he believed there was a great deal made out of the manufacture of silver coin, and an enormous amount made out of the manufacture of bronze coin.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

said, that when the Coinage Bill was before the House, he had addressed one or two Questions to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to the number of half-sovereigns lying in the Australian banks; and the right hon. Gentleman had stated, in reply, that he was not at that time in possession of full information upon the point. He (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) happened to have obtained from gentlemen well acquainted with coinage matters in Australia certain very interesting facts as to the number of half-sovereigns lying in the banks of that country. If the Coinage Bill had passed, the half-sovereigns, no doubt, would have come back in large quantities. He did not know whether the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Courtney) had any information to give on that point, particularly as to who bore the cost of the freight in regard to coin returned to this country from the Colonies.

MR. ALDERMAN W. LAWRENCE

said, that he saw from the Estimate that there was a loss on silver coinage of £250; but, farther on, he noticed— LOSS ON WORN SILVER COIN WITHDRAWN FROM CIRCULATION: Amount required to cover Deficiency in Weight by Wear in Circulation, the Coin being received at its Nominal Value, £35,000. It was understood that in these transactions there was a profit on the coinage of silver; but it did not appear in this account. According to the Report of the Deputy Master of the Mint for the year ending 31st December, 1883, the profit on silver coinage was £224,162, and the profit on copper coinage, £68,291. Here he should like to remark that he thought that, in addition to the Estimate, they should also have the Report of the Deputy Master of the Mint printed and circulated among them. It was a most important Report; but it was not circulated, although any hon. Member could obtain a copy by applying for it. It was not, perhaps, generally known that it could be obtained in that way; and, no doubt, many hon. Members had no idea they could get it, for the reason that all important Parliamentary Papers were printed and circulated without it being necessary for Members to apply for them. Members rarely thought of asking for any Reports which was not sent to them in the ordinary course. According to the Estimate, the loss on gold coinage was very small compared with the enormous loss on silver coinage. He could account for that discrepancy; but it would be well if the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury would explain the matter for the information of the public. The Coinage Bill had been withdrawn. If it had not been, the Report to which he had alluded would have been of great importance. Now, however, it was not necessary for them to discuss the question of a light gold coinage. To his mind, the scheme was one fraught with great danger to the whole coinage and circulation of this country, and one which would have set a bad example to all other countries, there being no other country, at the present time, in which a gold token coinage was issued.

THE CHAIRMAN

I must point out to the hon. Member (Mr. Alderman Lawrence) that his observations are hardly in order on the Vote before the Committee. He seems to be discussing the principle of the Bill, which has been withdrawn.

SIR JOSEPH M'KENNA

said, the argument of the hon. Member (Mr. Alderman Lawrence) evidently satisfied his own ingenious mind; but he (Sir Joseph M'Kenna) was far from satisfied as to the manner in which the accounts were furnished. The amount for 1884–5 was only an Estimate, he knew; but what hon. Members wanted to know was whether it was for a proper amount? They wanted to know how the Estimate of 1883–4 had turned out in point of practice? His observation went no further than that. He contended that the details which should appear before them were not only what was estimated to be spent in 1884–5 and for the previous year, but also as to the exact expenditure of 1883–4.

MR. COURTNEY

said, the hon. Gentleman had been a Member of the House for a very long period, and it was very remarkable that he should now get up to make a complaint of a system of which he must have been cognizant for many years. The hon. Gentleman must be aware that the comparison he asked was to be found in the Appropriation Accounts. In those Accounts the hon. Gentleman would get all the information he asked for. As to the question raised by the hon. Member for Queen's County (Mr. Arthur O'Connor), he would repeat what he had said before—namely, that it was not in the power of the Government to prepare a Return of the number of half-sovereigns in the Colonial banks. The Government knew how many had been issued; but they did not know how many were in circulation.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

They do not circulate.

MR. COURTNEY

said, that the Government could not say how many there were in the Colonial banks. As to the question raised by the hon. Member behind him (Mr. Alderman Lawrence), with regard to the loss on coinage of gold and silver, and the discrepancy between the two items, the explanation was, that whilst there was no loss in melting gold, there was a considerable loss experienced in melting silver. A great deal was lost in the way of dross in silver — a deal of silver was lost in the process of coining. The loss on worn silver coin was owing to the fact that the Government took back silver coin at its nominal value. The item in regard to silver and copper coin sent to the Colonies was to cover the cost of packing and carriage. The Government had undertaken to defray these expenses in consequence of the profit they made on the manufacture. As to the details in regard to incidental coinage expenses, he had not got them at hand just now.

Vote agreed to.

(8.) £10,557, to complete the sum for the National Debt Office.

(9.) £23,178, to complete the sum for the Patent Office, &c.

(10.) £18,003, to complete the sum for the Paymaster General's Office.

(11.) £6,578, to complete the sum for the Public Works Loan Commission.

(12.) £14,378, to complete the sum for the Record Office.

MR. THOROLD ROGERS

said, that perhaps his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Courtney) would explain how it was there was so much, delay experienced by anyone who wished to see anything in the Record Office? He used the Office very extensively, and he was sure that anyone else who did so would agree with him that an extraordinary length of time was occupied in getting any document down from the shelves of the Office. Now, at the British Museum, where he should imagine there was considerably more work, a very different state of things prevailed. There they were required to wait but a few minutes for any book or paper they desired to see; but, at the Record Office, it was a very common thing to have to wait half-an-hour before they could get their wants supplied. He was afraid this state of affairs arose in consequence of the Office being undermanned, or else in consequence of the fact that a great deal of the attention of the clerks was devoted to the side of the Office at which fees were derived, and in consequence, also, of the fact that a large number of the persons engaged in the Office were employed in literary work. He knew of no occasion on which this question could be raised, unless it was that on which the Vote for the Record Office was taken; and he thought it was of the utmost importance to the literary public that some question should be asked, if it was only with the view of calling the attention of the officials to the extraordinary delay and sluggishness in carrying out the ordinary work of the Office. He was still more interested in knowing why it was that The Orkney Sagas had not been published, although it was paid for eight years ago? Two persons were employed on the work; one of whom was Dr. Vigfusson, of the University of Oxford, who went to Vienna for the purpose of procuring transcripts. He got them; and a translation was made by Sir George Dasent. For some reason or other there had been a delay in the publication of the book. Sir George Dasent demanded an apparatus criticus; but Dr. Vigfusson declined to furnish it—he declined, to use a common phrase, to have his brain sucked by Sir George Dasent, and to have the result of his own labour put into a preface of which, he was not the author. He (Mr. Rogers) believed that this dispute was the reason of the delay; but, perhaps, the Secretary to the Treasury was able to give an explanation. The book was awaited with the greatest interest, and the delay in the publication of it was certainly unprecedented.

MR. SEXTON

said, this Vote included the item of £3,630 for "calendars and historical documents." This money was devoted to the very useful public work of investigating public documents, both at home and in foreign countries. He noticed that in the Vote for Ireland there was nothing of the kind, although there were many manuscripts which, if attention were only given to them, would be found to be very valuable. In the English Vote there was a charge last year of £400 for Calendar of Instruments and Entries in the Public Record Office, relating to Ireland, from the earliest period, to the end of the Reign of Henry VII. There was no charge for the Calendar this year; and, therefore, he would like to know whether the work had been completed? If it had been, why was it not published? Had the work of the Irish Calendar been abandoned? There was a very extraordinary proceeding detailed on Page 146, sub-head 5—namely, "Publication of Documents connected with History of England, prior to the Reign of Henry VIII." The charge for this year was £2,000. The work began in 1857–28 years ago—and the calculation then made was that the work would be completed in 30 years; up to now, £58,710 had been spent on the work. Did the Committee realize that £58,710 had been spent during the last 28 years on the publication of documents connected with English history prior to the reign of Henry VIII? Were the Committee aware that a battalion of 23 editors were employed on the work? At the commencement of the work 55 editors were employed; but for some years only 23 editors had been actually employed, and it appeared they had not yet exhausted the documents—177 volumes had been published. He did not doubt they were very interesting; but he feared there were more documents than anyone were likely to read. It appeared to him that this battalion of editors would go rooting about, and finding documents, until the Day of Judgment, if only the Government paid them £2,000 a-year, and allowed them to use their discretion as to what kind of manuscripts they found and published. In respect of all other work, there was an Estimate given of the total cost; but, in this case, although £58,710 had been actually spent, there was no Estimate of the cost shown. He would like to know what the cost would be, and when the 23 gentlemen would be discharged from the public employment?

MR. THOROLD ROGERS

said, he was unwilling to detain the Committee; but after what the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) had said, he felt bound to say that, of the volumes published, a great number referred to Irish history. Of the gentlemen employed in the work, two were Irish gentlemen, who, he was proud to say, were valued friends of his. Those gentlemen had given great attention and time to the work of the Record Office. Of course, the volumes published consisted of extremely valuable papers—in short, they were essential to the proper study of history. He only mentioned this fact, because it was just possible his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Courtney) did not know the books as well as he (Mr. Rogers) did.

MR. W. H. JAMES

said, there was one matter to which he wished very briefly to call the attention of the Committee. He was glad to sea the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Whitehaven (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) in his place, because the matter was one in which the right hon. and learned Gentleman was personally concerned. It was the appointment of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, in succession to the late Mr. Rawdon Browne, at Venice. The editing of the State Papers in the different capitals of Europe was a useful and an advantageous work; but, from a popular point of view, it was a work which it was somewhat difficult to defend. He was bound to say that, in some quarters, the appointment of the right hon. and learned Gentleman to succeed Mr. Rawdon Brown gave not a little surprise. It would be satisfactory to hear from the right hon. and learned Gentleman when the work he was now carrying on would be completed? Although he was quite aware that the right hon. and learned Gentleman would not draw any payment for carrying on the work, the Committee should bear in mind that there were other persons besides the right hon. and learned Gentleman who were prepared to discharge the duty without remuneration. He was not aware that the right hon. and learned Gentleman laid claim to any particular powers of great literary research; but he held this position to the prejudice of other persons who had spent the whole of their lives in this sort of work.

MR. COURTNEY

said, the complaint that had been made by the hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Rogers), with respect to the want of attention at the Record Office, was quite new to him. He had not much experience of the Office; but he would look into the matter. There was no item in the present Vote in regard to the publication referred to by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Southwark, and consequently he (Mr. Courtney) had not been able to obtain any information about it. He presumed the money for the work had been advanced; it was therefore necessary some inquiry should be made as to the reasons why the work had not been carried out. With reference to the point raised by the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton), he had to point out that no less than 40,662 volumes of documents connected with the history of England prior to the reign of Henry VIII. had been sold, so that the money spent on the publication of the volumes had not been by any means thrown away.

MR. SEXTON

What did the volumes sold bring in?

MR. COURTNEY

The charge was considerable; I suppose each volume would be sold at about 10s.

MR. SEXTON

10s. a volume would bring in £20,000.

MR. COURTNEY

presumed that was about the amount realized. The concluding observations of his hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead (Mr. W. H. James) struck him with surprise. The hon. Member indicated that there were many persons desirous of taking up and completing the work of the late Mr. Rawdon Browne, although they would receive no pay. He (Mr. Courtney) had not, in his experience, found many persons who were willing to perform the laborious task of revising manuscripts without remuneration. That, however, was what the right and learned Gentleman the Member for Whitehaven (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) had undertaken to do. The late Mr. Rawdon Browne's manuscripts were ready for the Press, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman, who was Mr. Rawdon Browne's executor; had volunteered to see them through the Press. He (Mr. Courtney) thought the Committee owed a debt of gratitude to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for so generously taking the work in hand.

MR. HARRINGTON

said, the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Courtney) had not referred to the point raised by the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton), as to the Calendar of Instruments and Entries in the Public Record Office, relating to Ireland, from the earliest period to the end of the Reign of Henry VII. The hon. Gentleman had not explained why there was no provision made for that Calendar, for which £400 was taken last year.

MR. COURTNEY

said, he would make inquiry into the matter.

Vote agreed to.

(13.) £35,012, to complete the sum for the Registrar General's Office, England.

(14.) £361,200, to complete the sum for Stationery and Printing.

MR. TOMLINSON

asked how it was that, though several Bills had been passed that Session, hon. Members had not received copies of any of them? It was of the utmost importance that Bills should be in the hands of the public as soon as possible after they were passed. There was a distinct grievance in this matter.

MR. COURTNEY

thought the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Tomlinson) was labouring under a misapprehension. The Statutes had been issued as far as possible.

MR. TOMLINSON

I have not received them.

SIR HENRY HOLLAND

They have not been delivered.

MR. COURTNEY

That may be the fault of the Queen's Printer. The Stationery Office had certainly promulgated the Statutes as early as possible.

SIR ALEXANDER GORDON

said, he wished to draw the attention of the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Courtney) to the state of the Stationery Account, which was presented on pages 153 and 154. He found that in England the total increase in the expenses of the stationery was £5,525, and that in one Department alone the increase during that period had been £12,907; while every other great Department of the State—the Foreign Office, the Revenue Department, the Post Office—had reduced their expenditure for stationery, the War Department in two years had increased theirs by £12,907. He should like to know whether the Treasury supervised or controlled the expenditure of the War Department? The expenses of the country were increasing steadily at the rate of £1,000,000 sterling a-year. Such was the increase which the House of Commons was permitting in passing these Estimates. They ought to take every opportunity of knowing whether the increased expenditure was really necessary for the efficiency of the service of the public. A short time ago an alteration was made, by which an annual allowance was changed into a supply in kind, and he was very much afraid, that the change had resulted in very great and unnecessary expenditure. He knew, from experience, that great waste occurred when stationery was issued in kind. If an allowance were made, the authorities took good care there was no waste. When stationery was issued in kind, waste was sure to occur; for there was not one superior officer in 50 who would take the trouble to take stock at the end of each year. He (Sir Alexander Gordon) trusted the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Courtney) would explain how it happened that while there had been a reduced expenditure in respect of stationery in every other Department, there had been an increase in the War Department.

MR. WARTON

said, he thought the Committee were indebted to the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Tomlinson) for calling attention to the delay in publishing Bills which had been passed into law. The delay was inconvenient to hon. Members; but it was a greater inconvenience to people outside. It was a principle of their law that the Judges should know all the laws passed; but, owing to the strange delay which took place at the end of every Session of Parliament in the publication of Acts passed during the year, their Judges were left for months in utter ignorance of the law on many points. At the end of every Session, Bills were passed with reckless haste; some of them without even a word of explanation. Last year there was a ludicrous result of this curious mode of legislation. There was a trial of prisoners who turned out to be lunatics—

THE CHAIRMAN

(interposing): I must point out to the hon. and learned Gentleman that this has nothing to do with the Stationery Vote.

MR. WARTON

said, he begged the Chairman's pardon. He understood they were now on the Stationery Vote, and that that included the printing of Acts of Parliament.

THE CHAIRMAN

No doubt the Vote includes the printing of Acts of Parliament; but the hon. and learned Gentleman is going into matters much beyond that question. The hon. and learned Gentleman was about to describe the nature of certain Acts of Parliament.

MR. WARTON

said, he would refrain from giving the illustration he intended to give of the absurd mode of legislation which was adopted by the present Government. As a dry matter of fact, however, he might say that at the end of a Session trials had taken place and Judges had had no means of ascertaining what changes had been made in the law. He maintained it was essential that laws should be printed and published directly they were passed.

MR. RYLANDS

said, he thought the statement of his hon. and gallant Friend (Sir Alexander Gordon), that the system of supplying stationery to military officers, instead of making them an allowance, had led to a much larger expenditure, was one which would not be found by the Departmental Committee, which was now sitting to investigate the expenditure of the Stationery Office, to be strictly accurate. Perhaps his hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler) would be able to tell the Committee whether there had not been an economy effected in substituting a supply of stationery in kind in lieu of an allowance for stationery? In the Navy allowances for stationery were still made to superintendents of Dockyards, naval officers in charge of the different Departments, and others; but he thought the Committee would hear that the system was open to considerable abuse. Of course, the Committee had a right to expect that public officials, supplied with stores at the public expense, would be disposed to protect the public from any wasteful disposal of the stores. However, he did not intend to go into the Vote in any detail. His hon. Friend (Mr. H. H. Fowler), and two or three other hon. Gentlemen, had, for some time past, been sitting as a Departmental Committee upon the subject of Stationery; and from what he knew of the Members of the Committee, he had every confidence that their recommendations would be in the interest of public economy. Probably, the inquiries they were making would be more efficient than any ordinary inquiries that could be made in Committee of the Whole House. He was glad the Treasury had appointed a Departmental Committee on this large Vote, and he hoped the result of the inquiries would be satisfactory.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, the Stationery Vote was excessive, and, if possible, ought to be reduced. An inquiry, in which he was taking part, was now being held with the view of making recommendations to the Treasury, which it was hoped would result in a great reduction of the Vote. It must be borne in mind that the Vote was one which must increase every year. The inquiry was a heavy one, and would occupy considerable time. He had contemplated, if an unforeseen catastrophe had not happened, to have had an Autumn Session of his own to continue the inquiry. He trusted, however, that he would now be able to present his Report to the Lords of the Treasury before the regular Session of Parliament of 1885. There had been a considerable economy effected with reference to the stationery supplied to the Army, although there had been an increase in the nominal amount of the Stationery Vote. Up to within a year or two, it was the custom to make allowances to the Army for stationery. Those allowances, which amounted to something like £12,000, were very wisely discontinued, and stationery was supplied to the Army under the Stationery Vote. The change involved an increase of £8,000 to the Stationery Vote; but the Committee would see there was a saving to the country of £4,000 a-year. He intended to raise the question with regard to the Navy or the Admiralty Vote; because he thought it was necessary the Navy should follow the good example the Army had set. At the present time allowances amounting to £6,000 were allowed to the officers of the Navy for stationery; and, of course, they bought at retail prices. If the stationery were supplied by the Stationery Office, he did not hesitate to say that there would be a saving of at least 25 per cent. That was a matter, however, which would come up for consideration shortly. In the meantime, he could assure the Committee that the Departmental Committee would go fully into the question, and would endeavour to show how the money was expended, under what control it was placed, and what checks there were against waste. His impression was that there was room for great reform, and that the investigations of the Departmental Committee would result in considerable economy.

MR. HARRINGTON

said, there was a small matter to which he wished to draw attention. Small and trivial though it was, very many Members of the House were interested in it. Now that the Parcel Post afforded a very cheap means of sending Parliamentary Papers outside the boundary to which their distribution was now confined, he would suggest to the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Courtney) that he should, for the convenience of hon. Members, make arrangements by which Parliamentary Papers could be sent to any address in the United Kingdom. At present, the issue of Parliamentary Papers was confined to a very small area, or to those hon. Members who lived within a stone's throw of the House. Of course, there were many Papers which hon. Members did not desire to have; but he thought the more important ones ought to be sent to any address hon. Gentlemen might give. What he suggested would entail but a very small additional expense.

MR. BIGGAR

said, that before the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Courtney) replied, he should like to say one word with reference to the point raised by the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Tomlinson). The publication of Acts of Parliament immediately they were passed was of the utmost importance, and it was not sufficient to say that the Queen's Printer was at fault. An instance of the inconvenience occasioned by the delay in question occurred this week. On Monday last a Bill came into operation, under which the Grand Juries in two counties in Ireland could correct an error which was made last year under the Tramways Act. The Assizes in one of the counties took place this week; but the Grand Jury postponed the consideration of the subject; while in the case of the other county the Assizes were to take place yesterday, or to-day. As a matter of fact, these Grand Juries were asked to decide a question in accordance with the law as laid down in an Act of Parliament which was passed last Monday, but a copy of which probably would not be issued for many weeks to come. The probable result was that some fresh blunder would be made, and that the Privy Council in Dublin would upset the whole proceedings, as they had done previously; and that the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the County of Cork (Colonel Colthurst) would have the trouble of coming up in the next Session of Parliament to get another Act of Parliament passed to remedy a state of things which would not have arisen if the Act passed this Session had been printed, and there had been an opportunity of seeing what the provisions of it were. His hon. Friend the Member for Westmeath (Mr. Harrington) had made what seemed to him (Mr. Biggar) a very reasonable proposition. He (Mr. Biggar) would not have been disposed to raise the point, because usually he lived in London during the Parliamentary Session; and it would be no advantage to him to have his Papers sent to Ireland. But the case was different with a large proportion of the Members of the House. Many hon. Members only lived in London during a certain portion of the time; and it was desirable that they should have an opportunity of seeing what was going on in Parliament, and should have official intimation of what was likely to take place, so that they might come up to town on a particular day, if it was necessary they should do so. Especially now that the Parcel Post was in operation, it was not an unreasonable proposition that hon. Members who did not live in London should have their Papers sent to their residences in the country. According to the Parcel Post system, distance did not affect the expense of carriage; and, seeing that that was so, it was not unreasonable to suggest that if, for instance, the hon. Member for Westmeath (Mr. Harrington) happened to be in Dublin, his Papers should be sent over to him there, so that he might have an opportunity of consulting them.

MR. COURTNEY

said, he assented entirely to the statement as to the great importance of having Acts of Parliament printed as soon as possible, and representations should be made with that view. He was informed that all the Statutes up to Chapter 25 of this Session were on sale; and, therefore, he thought there must be some misapprehension as to the rapidity with which the Acts of Parliament had been issued. It certainly very seldom happened that an Act was passed on the very day that a Grand Jury or anybody else were required to administer it. Such a case would always be very difficult to meet. The question of the distribution of Parliamentary Papers was raised some time ago by the hon. Colleague (Mr. T. D. Sullivan) of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Westmeath (Mr. Harrington); and he (Mr. Courtney) put himself in communication with the Stationery Office and with the Post Office on the matter. He learned that during the Session the delivery of Parliamentary Papers by messengers was much more rapid and certain than delivery by post; so that he thought it would not be wise to make any alteration as to the mode of delivering Papers during the Session. As to the delivery of Papers out of Session, he thought some might be sent through the post to any address hon. Members left at the Vote Office. He would suggest, however, that only the most important Papers, or those which it might be supposed would be urgently required by hon. Members, should be sent in this way. A list of the less important Papers might be issued to Members, say, once a-week, with an intimation that if they wanted any in particular, and they applied for them, they would be forwarded. He thought such an arrangement would meet the convenience of hon. Members. He could not sit down without making one remark, and that was, that his hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler) had undertaken a most arduous and laborious task. The inquiry the hon. Gentleman was making would prove of the highest benefit to the country, and he (Mr. Courtney) had no doubt that the result would be most satisfactory. The House was considerably indebted to the hon. Member for the interest he was taking in the subject.

SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT

said, he was persuaded most Members heard with satisfaction the explanation of the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Courtney) with regard to the Papers which might be sent hereafter from the Vote Office. There was one point, however, he did not quite understand. He made an inquiry at the Vote Office that day, and he was told that all the Acts of Parliament, bound in some way or other, would be delivered to Members at the end of the Session. He thought it would be very convenient to most Members to have the Acts delivered in that way. They would then have the Acts altogether, instead of having them delivered amongst their Papers, and very likely not be able to find them all at the end of the Session.

MR. TOMLINSON

said, he hoped it would not be supposed that what would suit some hon. Members would suit all hon. Members. Personally, he should be exceedingly sorry not to receive Acts of Parliament as they came out. He remembered that last Session some one spoke to him about an Act which had been recently passed. He (Mr. Tomlinson) said it had not been printed; but his friend said—"I am sure it has, because I have seen it in a law stationer's window." It would be a great inconvenience not to receive Acts of Parliament as they came out; and, therefore, he hoped the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Courtney) would give the necessary directions in the proper quarter.

MR. COURTNEY

said, the Acts should be issued according to the wishes of hon. Members. If hon. Gentlemen wished to receive them at the end of the Session bound together they would be supplied in that form.

Vote agreed to.

House returned.

Resolutions to be reported To-morrow;

Committee to sit again To-morrow