CLASS II.—SALARIES AND EXPENSES OF CIVIL DEPARTMENTS.

HC Deb 04 June 1885 vol 298 cc1193-317

(1.) Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £71,323, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1886, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of Her Majesty's Secretary of State for the Home Department and Subordinate Offices.

MR. ONSLOW

said, he was sorry that the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir William Harcourt) was not in his place, because there was one item in the present Vote to which he (Mr. Onslow) wished to direct the attention of the right hon. Gentleman. However, as the right hon. Gentleman was not present, he would put the question to the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary. If that hon. Gentleman would look at page 92 of the Estimates he would see that the Private Secretary to the Secretary of State, and formerly Assistant Private Secretary, was a Junior Clerk on the Establishment of the India Office, and as such was receiving a salary of £350 per annum and upwards in addition to £250 which he received as Private Secretary. He (Mr. Onslow) wished to point out to the Under Secretary of State for the Home Department the principle which was involved in this item. It appeared that the Government of India, out of the Revenues of India, were paying £350 a-year towards the salary of a Private Secretary for the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department. He thought that was a very wrong principle indeed. Of course, there could be no doubt that a gentleman filling the position of Private Secretary to the Secretary of State ought to be very well paid, and he would not grudge the expenditure that was necessary for that purpose; but what he did object to was that a clerk should be taken away from the India Office and appointed Private Secretary in another Department without his salary being paid out of the Consolidated Fund. It must be borne in mind that not only was this clerk paid by the India Office, but that it would also be necessary to pay another gentleman for acting in his place in the India Office. Therefore, it appeared to him that out of the Revenues of India a considerable sum of money was being paid unnecessarily and improperly, in consequence of this gentleman having been taken out of the India Office. It was most unfair that India should be called upon to pay any part of the expenses of the Home Office, and in order to afford an opportunity for discussing the question, he would move formally that the Vote be reduced by the sum of £350.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £70,973, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1886, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of Her Majesty's Secretary of State for the Home Department and Subordinate Offices."—(Mr. Onslow.)

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, he thought that any question connected with the charges upon India would come up more fairly for discussion upon the Indian Budget. He was informed that it was the practice in the Government Offices to transfer a clerk from one Department to another, in order that he might act as Private Secretary to a Minister. When such a transfer was made, the clerk did not lose his former post, and when his duties as Private Secretary ceased, he would go back to the position he had formally occupied in the India Office, and be continued there. There was nothing unusual in the course which had been taken in the present instance.

MR. GORST

said, he thought the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. H. H. Fowler) must be joking when he requested his hon. Friend the Member for Guilford (Mr. Onslow) to wait until he had an opportunity of raising the question upon the Indian Budget. The hon. Gentleman must be well aware that, if his hon. Friend waited until the Indian Budget, the matter would never be brought under the consideration of the House at all. It would be perfectly fair to pay this charge out of the Consolidated Fund. When a temporary clerk was lent to the Secretary of State for War from the Colonial Office, it was, of course, fair enough for the payment of the salary of such clerk to come out of the Consolidated Fund; but what his hon. Friend complained of, in the present case, was that a clerk whoso salary was paid out of the Revenues of India should be employed in doing the work of the Imperial Government. No doubt, the matter was a very small one; but, in dealing with India, it was most desirable that their policy should be perfectly just and regular, even in the smallest particulars. It was quite clear that this gentleman was paid out of the Revenues of India, under the impression that his services were rendered to India; and if he were required to render services to the Imperial Government, in the capacity of Private Secretary to the Secretary of State, he ought to be paid out of the Consolidated Fund, and not out of the Revenues of India.

GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR

said, that he did not attach much importance to the question which had been raised by the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Onslow), and he hoped the hon. Gentleman would not press the Motion. At the same time, he would admit that it was an objectionable principle to pay a clerk out of the Revenues of India for services rendered exclusively to the Imperial Government. There were instances of gentlemen being employed for Indian duties. The present able Private Secretary to the Prime Minister—[Mr. GLADSTONE: Hear, hear!]—had been till lately in India as Secretary to the Marquess of Ripon, and in former years Sir Bruce Seton, of the War Office, was also employed at the India Office as Secretary to the noble Marquess. At all events, the mode of payment should be uniform, and his hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury could easily draw up a rule for guidance.

SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF

said, he wished to say a word upon the matter, because it was one with regard to which he had had some slight experience. It would be very hard upon the clerk himself that he should be visited with a diminuition of salary on account of the anomaly which had taken place. No doubt a custom had sprung up of changing clerks, and allowing a clerk in one Department of the State to become the Private Secretary to the Head of another Department. The only question in this case was whether the gentleman whose services had been transferred should be paid by the India Office at all, seeing that the India Office had nothing whatever to do with the Home Department, but that it had separate and distinct interests which were confined to India. By the same process of reasoning, which would justify the payment of this salary out of the Revenues of India, the expenses of the Home Office might be charged upon the Colonies. He trusted that some steps would be taken to prevent a similar occurrence in the future; but it would be unjust to deprive the officer, in this particular instance, of the salary to which he was fairly entitled.

MR. HIBBERT

said, he agreed with the hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) that it would be unjust to the Private Secretary to reduce the Vote by the amount of his salary. At the same time, he thought that the suggestions which had been thrown out deserved consideration, and if the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Onslow) would withdraw the Motion, he would promise that an inquiry should be made into the matter.

MR. ONSLOW

said, he was perfectly satisfied with the promise which had; been made by the hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Hibbert). He certainly thought that the Under Secretary of State (Mr. H. H. Fowler) had not understood the point he had raised. The charges for the India Office were not paid out of the Consolidated Fund at all, but out of the taxation of India, and, therefore, the position of a clerk who was taken from the India Office, and whose salary was still continued to be paid by India, was different from that of a clerk who was taken from some other Department to act as Private Secretary. He was satisfied, however, with the explanation which had been given, and he would put a Question upon the matter in the course of a fortnight. As a matter of principle, he thought it was only reasonable that this charge should be paid out of the Consolidated Fund. He strongly objected to the practice of taking a clerk from the India Office to do work for the Imperial Government, while a locum tenens was put in his place, and consequently a double expenditure thrown upon the Revenues of India. He begged to withdraw the Amendment.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Original Question again proposed.

MR. BROADHURST

said, that it was not his intention to move any reduction in the Vote, but rather to point out that the Government had not attended to the request which had been made to them, year after year, to adopt a policy that would lead to an increase, rather than a reduction, of the Vote. He maintained that there was an actual necessity for a considerable increase in the number of Factory and Workshops Inspectors. He had no complaint to make with regard to the existing Staff. At the present moment, the Staff were doing their work thoroughly well and to the very best of their ability, and no one who know the amount of labour they performed could have any ground of complaint against them for the neglect of any part of their duties. The ground of his complaint was this—that if the existing Staff were to work for the 24 hours round, it would be absolutely impossible for them to keep under inspection the large number of factories and workshops which they were supposed to visit. In a Return which was made to the House in 1882, it was shown that there were then under inspection in the United Kingdom, 51,194 factories and 60,155 workshops. The factories were generally pretty well known to most people; their whereabouts was easily ascertained, and the Inspectors had very little difficulty in finding them and knowing all about them; but in the case of workshops the matter was very different indeed. There was no indication of noise or otherwise to point out the existence of a workshop, and the Inspector could only discover it by personal visits to the neighbourhood whore he suspected that workshops were situated. If 60,000 workshops were all that the Home Department could give any account of, he thought any hon. Member of the House who had any knowledge whatever of the subject, and who was acquainted with the industries of London, must be aware that the 60,000 workshops which came under the provisions of the Act could easily be found in the Metropolitan district alone, without going through the whole of the United Kingdom to tabulate the number. Out of the 60,000 reported in 1882, there were only about 30,000 inspected in the year 1881. That arose, as he had already stated, from no indisposition on the part of the Inspectors to discharge their duties, but from the physical impossibility of being in 20 places at one and the same time. To show still further how absolutely inaccurate that Return must be as to the real number of the workshops of the country, there were 16, if he remembered rightly, out of the 39 districts into which England was divided which made no return whatever of the existence of any workshop. Immediately after the publication of that Return, the Trades Union Congress again drew the attention of the Government to the subject, and urged very strongly that, upon the face of that Return alone, it was certain that the great and philanthropical work of inspection in connection with factories and workshops was sadly neglected on account of the want of means for employing a larger number of Inspectors. A deputation from the Trades Union Parliamentary Committee waited upon the Secretary of State for the Home Department upon the subject. They urged upon him the great national good that had been effected by the existing laws, and the still further good that would be effected in a national point of view, as well as in the advantages which would be conferred upon the working classes, if the number of Inspectors were almost doubled. As the right hon. Gentleman was not now in his place, and as it was possible that the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State would undertake to reply to him (Mr. Broadhurst), he wished, to place the hon. Gentleman in possession of the opinion expressed by his Chief at that time. In reply to the Memorial which was presented to the right hon. Gentleman, and in reply, also, to the speeches which were made in support of the Memorial, the Secretary of State for the Home Department said— I do not at all want to be convinced of the importance of these Acts, or of the utility of carrying them out thoroughly. I am also quite satisfied that, with considerable advantage, the Staff of Inspectors might be increased. Everybody must know that, energetic and active as the Inspectors are, the work has increased altogether beyond their powers. In those remarks lie (Mr. Broadhurst) entirely agreed, and he had read this part of the right hon. Gentleman's speech, because he thought it was necessary that the Government should remember that night what was said on the same question a year or two back. The question of the increase in the number of Inspectors was a question which should have been dealt with by the late Government when they passed the Factories and Workshops Consolidated Act in 1878. By that Consolidated Act there was a large inclusion of workshops in the present law that did nut come under the law up to that time, and if the House of Commons of that day had done its duty, and the Government which directed it had done their duty, there would have been a very considerable increase of Inspectors on that occasion. The number of workshops had largely increased since that time. It was daily increasing, and with that daily increase grew the difficulties of the Inspectors in dealing with them. The importance to this great industrial nation of a complete system of inspection was also growing. They went on, year after year, in increased competition with the industrial enter-prizes of other nations. He did not know whether hon. Members had looked through the very valuable Report that was made each year to Parliament by the Chief Inspector of Factories, Mr. Redgrave. It was a book full of information, of the very highest possible value, and if hon. Members had looked through it, they would probably have noticed the extraordinary tabular statement at the end of the Report as to the war that was being waged each year by the skilled artizans and skilled workwomen and girls of the country, against the rapidity of machinery, in order to prevent accidents that involved mutilation and the loss of life and limb. Notwithstanding the amount of fencing that had been carried out, much more remained to be done. Many regulations which should be enforced were not enforced in the factories, because there were not a sufficient number of Inspectors to see to their enforcement, and to suggest other regulations. In the year ended with October, 1884, there was a total of 8,904 serious accidents in the factories and workshops of Great Britain, with a total loss of life on the spot by coming in contact with machinery and from other accidents, of 403 persons; 61 had their right hand or arm amputated; 50 persons lost their left hand or arm; 617 persons lost part of their right hand; 568 persons had part of their left hand amputated; and 44 persons lost part of their leg or foot. It was almost like the language of a butcher's shop, so horrible was the description it gave. He had merely read the extract to impress upon the Committee the enormous sacrifice of life and limb which was annually made in this country through preventible causes, and through the want of more inspection, which want might be supplied by a very small annual Out lay. There was, in the same Report, a very extraordinary statement by an Inspector who was second to none in the thoroughness and heartiness with which he discharged the difficult duties of his office. He referred to the Report of Mr. Lakeman, and of his colleague, Mr. Snape, in reference to the East End of London—a neighbourhood where a good deal of home industries were carried on by the people. Mr. Lakeman stated that he had visited something like 1,478 houses in which these industries were carried on; but, technically, a great number of them did not come under the Workshops Act, although it was perfectly plain that they ought to come under that Act. A considerable number of them'—be thought about 3G7—came under the Act. Mr. Lakeman described the sanitary condition of many of these houses, in which, no doubt, the garments of many hon. Members of that House were made, and he (Mr. Broadhurst) very much doubted whether, if hon. Members were to visit the places in which their apparel was manipulated into the shape and form necessary for wear, they would consent to put them on their backs at all. The wretched condition in which these places were to be found was described in the book to which he referred in barely one page, and it would be found that no inspection whatever had hitherto been applied to them. Mr. Inspector Lakeman spoke of houses which did not come under the Workshops Act having been referred to the Local Authorities for inspection by local officers. The gentlemen who discharged the duty of examining witnesses in connection with the Royal Commission on the Housing of the Poor heard a great deal, during their investigation, as to the manner in which the Local Authorities of the Metropolis managed the inspection. This was the statement of the Sanitary Inspector—

MR. WARTON

rose to Order. He wished to know if it was competent for an hon. Member to refer to evidence given before a Royal Commission before that Commission had presented its Report?

MR. BROADHURST

said, that perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Warton) would allow him to say that the Report to which he was referring had been presented nearly a month ago. If that" had not been the case, he should not have ventured to refer to it.

MR. WARTON

begged the hon. Gentleman's pardon. He had not been aware of the fact.

MR. BROADHURST

said, it was given evidence that the local arrangements for sanitary inspection broke down, because those who should enforce the sanitary laws were too often under the control of persons who owned this detestable class of property; and for an Inspector to make a Report as to the bad condition of property belonging to persons who held in their hands the power of discharging him, was a thing that was not very likely to happen. No adverse Reports under such a condition of things were likely to be made by the Sanitary Inspectors to the Local Authorities, and this was one of the reasons which induced him to make an appeal to Her Majesty's Government to take these matters seriously under their own consideration. He understood that hitherto there had been considerable difficulty in preparing a scheme of factory and workshop inspection whereby an increase would take place in the Staff at a reasonable cost, which, at the same time, would be an increase of strength that would prove efficient in future. He was given to understand that successive Governments had found considerable difficulty in preparing a scheme of that sort, and the Parliamentary Committee of the Trades Union Congress had attempted to frame a scheme themselves. The scheme prepared by the Parliamentary Committee was submitted to the Government by the deputation which waited upon the Secretary of State for the Home Department in 1882, and the basis of the scheme was that the Government should appoint 50 additional Sub-Inspectors, with salaries commencing at £100 a-year, and going on increasing by gradations up to £150 and upwards. They showed, in the details of the scheme, that these 50 additional Inspectors could be appointed at an annual cost of £0,000 to the country, and at an ultimate cost, as promotion went on, that would not exceed £10,000 per annum. He thought that an increase of expenditure of £10,000 a-year for the protection of the lives and limbs of nearly 10,000 persons, besides increasing the health of the labouring classes to a large extent and thereby preserving the nation's greatest wealth—namely, its labour power, would be an investment which he thought the House of Commons would be very willing to make if it were proposed on the authority of the Government. He did not know whether hon. Members had an opportunity last week of reading an excellent article which appeared in a London newspaper criticizing this Report. That newspaper—The Times—had, on many occasions, opposed the proposals of the Trades Unionists in regard to legislation; but in this case the writer thoroughly approved of the inspection which was at present carried on, and spoke favourably of the advantages which would be derived by the nation from giving still greater control over our industrial operations in this respect. He knew there had been the fear, on the part of some hon. Gentlemen who were well-inclined towards the working classes, of too much Government interference with them. [Mr. HOPWOOD: Hear, hear!] He heard the cheer of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood). His hon. and learned Friend had not always entertained his present peculiar views as to Government control, and he (Mr. Broad-hurst) entertained hopes that his hon. and learned Friend would not long remain of his present opinion. Notwithstanding the opposition of the hon. and learned Member and his Friends, the fact remained that these laws had been carried out under the skilful management of the Chief Inspector and of the special staff at his disposal without the least friction to the industry of the country; and there were very few of the respectable employers of the country who objected to the Act. On the contrary, many of them thoroughly approved of it, and would no doubt heartily support increased inspection. He regretted that it was not competent for him to move that the Vote should be referred back to the Treasury in order that they might reconsider it by adding an additional sum to the Vote that would be sufficient to meet the requirements of an increase in the Staff of Factory and Workshop Inspectors. Ho apologized to the Committee for having troubled them at such great length with these remarks in Committee of Supply; but he had found himself compelled to do so, as this was the only opportunity he had for calling attention to the question.

MR. HOPWOOD

said, he did not know why his hon. Friend (Mr. Broad-hurst) should have made the remark that he (Mr. Hopwood) differed from any former opinion upon this subject that he had entertained. His opinion had been always the same as he now wished to express. That, however, was a very small matter, and not one for the consideration of the Committee. He would only say a word or two upon the general question which had been raised by his hon. Friend. He (Mr. Hopwood) was not at all desirous that there should be an increase of Inspectors; and he protested against the idea that the Staff should be enlarged for the simple purpose, according to the hon. Member's own showing, in the details he had placed before the Committee of the accidents which occurred, of protecting these unhappy persons against the results of their own carelessness. Besides the cases referred to by his hon. Friend, there was an enormous number of people who were daily and hourly engaged in dangerous pursuits, whom it was impossible to place in a position of perfect safety by Inspectors. He believed there had been instances in which the adoption of the suggestions of the Inspectors in reference to fencing and guarding dangerous machinery had produced more mischief than it had prevented. He had only risen, however, for the purpose of saying that, as regarded the further extension of the Factory and Workshops Act, it seemed to him that his hon. Friend desired to put every dwelling in the country under inspection, and to get rid of everything like personal liberty in these matters. He would subject the inhabitants of every dwelling to inspection and inquiry. He (Mr. Hopwood) was not disposed to follow his hon. Friend further in his general remarks, than to say that he strongly objected to a multiplication of Inspectors. From all sides there was the same cry. Whenever they once got State inspection, there was a cry for more. They had now launched upon a policy of inspection, and he was quite persuaded that it would be the early duty of Parliament to reconsider the matter. He knew that, in regard to coal mines, it was constantly said that inspection produced very little benefit to the mining population, because there was too little of it. The same thing occurred in regard to education, and in reference to the various other items enumerated in the page of the Estimate now under consideration. Wherever inspection had been conceded, there was the same outcry for more. There was one question upon which ho should like to have information from the Government—namely, the inspection of fisheries. Originally, when the law was altered, there were two Inspectors appointed; but the present Government had sot a good example by abolishing one of them, or rather of not filling up the appointment when a vacancy occurred. There was now a rumour abroad that the distinguished gentleman who held the remaining appointment was about to retire from it. He did not know whether that was so or not; but he would ask if there were really any duties to perform which would justify the continuance of the office? His own impression was that, as a matter of fact, there was nothing to do in regard to the salmon fisheries; and, in order to give the gentleman who now filled the office of Fishery Inspector something to do, he had been obliged to forsake the inland fisheries and to make a Report upon the state of the deep sea fisheries, with which his appointment had nothing to do. Indeed, it would seem that the distinguished gentleman to whom he had referred had undertaken special duties in order that he might not receive his salary for doing nothing, and that he had therefore made a valuable and able Report upon fisheries of an entirely different nature. Personally, he had nothing to say against the continuance of the existing appointment; but he wished to know whether it was intended to make the office of Inspector of Fisheries permanent, or to allow the appointment to lapse whenever another vacancy occurred?

MR. MORGAN LLOYD

said, that notwithstanding the remarks which had just been made by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood), he felt it his duty to call the attention of the Government to the necessity of instituting some inspection of the slate quarries in North Wales. No doubt, there already existed a Mining Inspector who had a general jurisdiction over the whole of North Wales, and he had no wish to say a word against the manner in which that gentleman discharged the duties of his office. Indeed, he believed the Inspector to be a very able man; but, undoubtedly, he did not possess the qualifications necessary to enable him to perform a satisfactory inspection of the slate quarries. Some quarries were worked as mines, and were subject to the Mining Inspector; but most of them were worked as open quarries, over which the Inspector had no authority; but, nevertheless, many very serious accidents were constantly taking place in them. Only very recently there was an appalling accident in one of the slate quarries of Carnarvonshire, about eight or nine miles from Carnarvon, in which 10 or 12 persons were buried under a fall of rock, and a large number of women and children were rendered desolate in consequence. Now, an ordinary mining engineer knew nothing about the open works of a slate quarry, and was consequently altogether un fitted for conducting the inspection of slate quarries. As a matter of fact, in order to understand the danger or other wise of the workings, it was necessary to have a full geological knowledge of the stratification of the rock, and to know something of the principle upon which the slate quarries were worked. The slate rocks were very peculiar, being subjected to flaws which an ordinary mining engineer, accustomed to deal with coal or metalliferous mines, would know nothing about, although they were perfectly well known to those who had to deal with the quarrying of slate. Some of the slate quarries were mined underground; but even then they were worked upon a different principle from coal mines or: metalliferous mines. The majority of I them, however, were open quarries,: worked in the valleys, or from the sides of the mountains; and unless an Inspector possessed a practical experience of the stratification and the working of: slate under such circumstances, his opinion was worth nothing whatever. I Therefore, in order to protect the quarry men against danger, it was necessary that there should be some independent inspection by some person who possessed a full knowledge of the strati- fication of the rocks in the locality, and who had also a practical experience of the working of slate quarries. A man who enjoyed that knowledge would be able to go from one slate quarry to another and point out to the proprietor or manager the necessity of making alterations in the mode of working1, in order to guard against accident. At present, a fall of 20, 30, or 100 tons of rock was not uncommon; and as it came frequently without warning, the most serious accidents occurred in consequence. He trusted that the Government would take the matter into consideration, and that, if possible, they would appoint qualified Inspectors to visit the slate quarries of North Wales, and to confine their operations to the regulations required for their safe working.

SIR HENRY HOLLAND

said, he agreed with a great deal that had been urged by the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. Broadhurst), and he hoped that the Government would give the question of the increase of Inspectors for factories and workshops their careful consideration. He had read the Report to which the hon. Member had referred, and the only qualification he would make to the remarks of the lion. Member had reference to that part of them which related to the great number of accidents which arose from the use of machinery. There could be no question, however sufficiently or well-guarded the machinery was, that a good many of the accidents arose from the rashness and carelessness of the workpeople. The very Return quoted by the hon. Member, showing the largo number of hands and fingers amputated by machinery, showed that that was really the case—that it was the careless action of the workman, who placed his hand in too close contact with the machinery, that brought it about the injury. Still, he thought it proved that the body of Inspectors was not sufficiently large to enable them to inspect properly and fully the workshops of the country. With regard to the number, the hon. Member for Stoke spoke of an increase of 50, and stated that that was the additional number recommended by the Trades Unions. Personally, he (Sir Henry Holland) would have suggested a much smaller number to begin with, and for this reason, that they ought to consider the ox- pense which would be thrown upon the country. The hon. Member spoke of a salary of £100 a-year, to rise to £200. He (Sir Henry Holland) thought that would be hardly sufficient to secure the services of a really sound and practical man; and although the hon. Member raised the estimate to £150 or £200 a-year, by promotion, he (Sir Henry Holland) did not understand the hon. Member to include travelling expenses in his calculation of £10,000. It would be impossible for a man with only £150 a-year to travel for that sum, even in the immediate district in which ho lived, and therefore it was necessary to add to the salary a proper and adequate sum for travelling expenses. He would suggest that a smaller number of Inspectors should be appointed, say, from 15 to 20. Ho had not had the honour of serving upon the Royal Commission of which the hon. Gentleman had been a Member; but he had served upon a Committee which had inquired into the question of the housing of the working classes in London. In the course of their investigation, the Committee felt it their duty to inspect a large number of the dwellings of the poor, and the evidence brought before them, together with the result of their personal inspection, was entirely on all fours with those of the Royal Commission. The bakeries of London and many establishments of that kind strongly showed the necessity for increased inspection. Ho would therefore suggest that the proposal of the hon. Member for Stoke, provided there was a limitation of the number of Inspectors, was well deserving of the consideration of Her Majesty's Government.

MR. A. R. D. ELLIOT

said, there was: an item in the Vote for the salary of an Inspector under the Rivers Pollution Prevention Act (Scotland). The Committee had heard a good deal, on the one side of the importance, and, on the other, of the uselessness—according to the degree in which the different speakers believed in inspection—of the appointment of Inspectors. He wished, however, to point out to his hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State (Mr. II. H. Fowler), that in the case of the Inspector under the Rivers Pollution Prevention (Scotland) Act, it was part of his duty to give a certificate to manufacturers, to the effect that the best pos- sible means had been taken to purify the rivers with which their factories were connected. The Act was passed seven years ago, and although it had been in operation ever since, he believed he was correct in saying that in no single instance had a certificate ever been granted by the Inspector under the Act; therefore, if he was correctly informed, there had been an Inspector appointed under the Act, with an annual salary, although a very small one, seeing that it was only £50 a-year; but no certificate whatever had as yet been given. This appeared to him to be a most extraordinary state of things. The Act was called the Fivers Pollution Prevention Act; but he certainly did not know why it should be so called, and he would like to ask the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State, whether it was proposed to continue a system under which an Inspector was appointed to give certificates, but by whom no certificate was ever given? He had once or twice before brought the subject under the notice of his hon. Friend; but nothing had been done to give more effective operation to the Act. The fact was, that the Inspector originally appointed under the Act seven years ago, found the words of the Act too absolute to enable him to grant a certificate in the terms required, and therefore he had abstained from giving certificates. The words of the Act were that he was to certify "that the best practical means had been used which could possibly be employed for the purpose." The Inspector found it impossible to grant a certificate in those strict terms; and, therefore, in no case had a certificate been given. He (Mr. A. R. D. Elliot) was of opinion that the Act ought to be amended, and it was quite time that steps were taken, either to render the provisions of the Act operative, or to abolish the Inspector altogether. He might further point out that if, hereafter, a certificate were given, it should be of such a nature as to be of practical usefulness. At present, a good deal of dissatisfaction was felt in certain parts of Scotland, because a subsequent section of the Act kept alive the Common Law rights of the riparian proprietors lower down the river. Therefore, even on the assumption that a certificate had been given, as the Act required, a manufacturer who had taken the best possible measures to carry out the Act, and to keep the river clear, would not be secured against riparian proprietors further down the stream, whose rights were protected. He hoped his hon. Friend would be able to give the Committee some information as to what was intended to be done in the matter. Was it intended to keep up a useless Inspector ship; and, if not, was it intended to make some change in the existing law?

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

said, the subject which had been mentioned by his hon. Friend the Member for Rox-burghshire (Mr. A. R. D. Elliot) was one upon which he (Sir George Campbell) felt particularly sore. He used to live on the banks of a river in Scotland, in which good fishing was to be found; but it was more and more frequently polluted, and it was impossible to find any public authority to whom an application for interference could be made. He believed, with his hon. Friend, that although there was an Inspector appointed under the Fivers Pollution Prevention Act, that that officer did not do anything. He thought the Act ought to be made effective, and that the Inspector should be in a position to put it in force. It certainly appeared to be a farce, to maintain an Inspector, even at the small salary of £50 a-year, to do nothing at all. He did not agree with the hon. and learned Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood) in objecting altogether to inspection. On the contrary, he was of opinion that, although there might have been abuses, there was a good deal of good in inspection. For his own part, he thought that no part of the Empire was so much neglected as the sea, and he should like to see a good deal more inspection in matters of this kind than now existed. In England there was an Inspector of Fisheries, at £700 a-year, who was also a Professor of Biology in the Normal School of Science, with a separate salary of £850 a-year. The same gentleman also received extra fees when occasionally employed in special fishery inquiries. It certainly seemed to him (Sir George Campbell), that when the next appointment took place, it would be more conducive to economy to pay £700 a-year for a good Inspector of Fisheries, to give £850 a-year for a good Professor of Biology, and to employ other people, as required, to make special fishery inquiries, rather than to vest all these appointments in the same individual, and constitute him a pluralist. It was quite clear that one man could not discharge the whole of the duties satisfactorily.

MR. BURT

said, he had no intention to prolong the debate upon this question; but he wished to say that he thought his hon. Friend the Member for Stoke (Mr. Broad hurst) had made out a strong case in favour of the appointment of additional Inspectors under the Factories and Workshops Act. He did not agree with the remarks of the hon. and learned Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood) in his opposition to an extension of the system of inspection. The hon. and learned Member maintained that in some cases accidents happened in consequence of the advice and suggestions of the Inspectors being taken; but the hon. and learned Member did not specify any cases of the kind. No doubt, it was quite possible that an incompetent man might occasionally be appointed as Inspector, and it was also possible that even a competent man might sometimes err in judgment. It was, however, a very sweeping conclusion to infer from that fact that the whole system of inspection was faulty. The hon. and learned Member had referred to the inspection of coal mines, and had expressed an opinion that it was useless. Now, that was not the opinion of any man who possessed practical know-lodge of the subject. If there was one fact connected with the working of coal mines which was more conclusive than another, it was the immense and the incalculable benefits which had been derived from the inspection of mines. He wished fully to endorse the remarks which had been made by the hon. and learned Member for Beaumaris (Mr. Morgan Lloyd) with regard to the desirability of extending the system, of inspection to the slate quarries of North Wales. A few days ago he (Mr. Burt) had taken the opportunity of visiting North Wales, and he had visited some of the principal quarries and conversed with the quarrymen. He found that they were very anxious indeed to have inspection. There had been several very serious accidents; and at present it was only the subterranean quarries, so to speak—the underground quarries—that were inspected. There were, however, quite as many accidents—indeed, he believed the statistics would show that there wore more—in the open quarries than in those in which the workings were carried on underground. He entirely endorsed the remarks of the hon. and learned Gentleman in favour of an extension to the slate quarries of the system of inspection which had conferred such great benefits upon coal and other mines.

MR. BROADHURST

said, he hoped that, for the sake of the convenience of the Committee, he might be allowed to make an explanation in reply to the remarks of the hon. Baronet the Member for Midhurst (Sir Henry Holland) before the Under Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. H. H. Fowler) rose to reply. The figures which he (Mr. Broadhurst) had given were for the appointment of 50 additional Inspectors or Sub-Inspectors, and he estimated the cost for the present at £6,000 a-year, with an ultimate increase to £10,000. Those sums included travelling expenses, extra clerks, stationery, and everything the Parliamentary Committee of the Trades Unions were able to ascertain. He also wished to say a word in reply to another statement of the hon. Baronet, and he did so in the hope that he might lessen any objection which might be entertained by the Under Secretary of State. The hon. Baronet said that no amount of guarding or fencing machinery would entirely prevent accidents. That was quite true; but it would prevent an enormous number of those which were now constantly occurring. As to the workpeople putting their hands on the machinery against the regulations, if the hon. Baronet had worked in a factory he would very soon have discovered that the workman who constantly wanted the machinery thrown out of gear, in order that he might work safely, soon found that his services were not required. He would not be discharged simply because he wanted to have the machinery stopped too frequently, but some other pretext would be found for sending him about his business. For this reason, the workpeople themselves attempted to remedy-any defects in the machinery, and serious accidents occurred in consequence.

MR. PULESTON

said, he hoped that his hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State (Mr. H. H. Fowler) would be able to say something encouraging to the Committee in regard to the inspection of slate quarries. It was a very important question He happened to represent a Devon shire constituency, and it was especially important for one who, like himself, happened to be a Welshman, and was well acquainted with the districts in which the slate quarries abounded. He had often been appealed to on the subject, and he believed he might safely say that it was the general wish of everybody concerned in the quarries that the system of inspectorship now applied to mines should be applied to open quarries as well, especially in view of some recent catastrophes which had occurred. All the arguments in favour of inspection in the case of mines were equally applicable in the case of quarries, and perhaps more so, because the work of inspection could be more easily carried out. He, therefore, trusted that his hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State would be able to hold out some hope that the Government would take the matter into their careful consideration with a view of extending the principle of inspection to the case of slate quarries. It was not altogether a new question, but had once or twice before been mentioned in the House. Personally, he felt very strongly on the point; and he felt that in making this demand upon the Government he was not representing the feelings of a section of the people alone, but of all who had paid the slightest attention to the subject. An assurance that something would be done would be received with great satisfaction.

SIR ANDREW LUSK

said, ho hoped that the Government would not listen to the suggestion which had been made for doing away with the office of Inspector of Fisheries. The poor fishermen would have very little chance if there were no one to look after and protect their interests. The office of Inspector of Fisheries was a most important one, and it was of the utmost importance that it should be preserved. Any hon. Member who would consider for one moment the vast importance of keeping up the supply of fish to the markets of the country would see the absolute necessity for retaining the Inspector of Fisheries. His own opinion was that more attention should be paid to that field of industry than was at present paid to it. The sea was "no man's land;" nobody knew anything about the habits of the fish which swam in it; and seeing the importance of fish as an article of food to a great mass of the community—and of good, wholesome food, also—he thought the Government ought to give a great deal more attention to the fisheries than they had hitherto done. Instead of doing away with the present and sole remaining Inspector of Fisheries, he thought the existing vacancy ought to be filled up, so that there should be no want of protection for the fishermen, and no moans lost of keeping up an abundant supply of fish for the community at large.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, the duty of enforcing the Rivers Pollution Prevention Act in Scotland was placed upon the Secretary of State for the Home Department, and the Home Office must have some officer to enable it to discharge its duties. The present arrangement was to pay an Inspector £50 a-year; nor was he prepared to say the office was wholly inoperative, because since he had the honour of holding his present position he had had to deal with questions affecting the rivers of Scotland, and he knew that it was absolutely necessary to have some officer of this character. At the present time, as long as the Secretary of State for the Home Department had any duties to discharge in reference to the rivers of Scotland, he did not think the work could be done more efficiently or economically than it was done at present. There might, however, be a question whether it would not be better done under the auspices of a Secretary for Scotland. So far as the Scotch fisheries were concerned, this Vote in no way touched the question. In reference to the Main Question, to which his hon. Friend the Member for Stoke (Mr. Broadhurst) had referred in his very able and interesting speech, the Committee must be much indebted to him for the prominent way in which he had laid the facts before them; and the best answer he (Mr. H. H. Fowler) could give was to assure his hon. Friend that, in the opinion of his right hon. Friend at the head of the Home Department, it was purely a question of degree. They were all united upon the question of principle. Although his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood) seemed to hold a different view, the overwhelming opinion was that these Factory Acts ought to be made effective; and, if they were to be made effective, it was by a sufficient Staff of competent Inspectors being appointed. It was purely a question of administrative discretion in carrying out the Acts. The Secretary of State was desirous of increasing the number of Inspectors as far as he could, and it might be fairly claimed that considerable progress had been made in that direction. In 1868 the number of Inspectors was only 38; in 1872 it was 49; and in 1885 the number of Inspectors had risen to 56. They were, therefore, steadily raising the number of Inspectors, and were endeavouring, as far as possible, to make these appointments complete. The question would arise for the consideration of the Secretary of State, whether some increase could not be made in the Staff, not by appointing a large number of additional Inspectors—for the appointment of 40 or 50 additional Inspectors would entail a heavy expenditure—but by appointing a number of Sub or Assistant Inspectors, at lower salaries, with a prospect of rising to the salaries now paid to the Inspectors. He might say that the matter was being carefully considered by his right hon. Friend (Sir William Harcourt), whose sympathies were very much with the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. Broad-hurst) and the hon. Member for Morpeth (Mr. Burt). With regard to the question of inspection generally, both in mines and workshops, the hon. Member for Morpeth was aware that within the last six months his right hon. Friend had been engaged, not only in employing additional Mining Inspectors, but in employing as Inspectors men who had worked in the mines themselves. His right hon. Friend had given the most careful consideration to discovering competent men who had passed their lives as working miners for the position of Inspectors. Five had already been appointed, and two more would shortly be appointed, making altogether seven additional Mine Inspectors appointed from the ranks of the working miners. He quite agreed with the hon. Member for Morpeth—and he would express the same opinion—that it would be criminal negligence on the part of the Government to show any laxity in the inspection of mines; and he was quite sure that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department would not sanction the slightest diminution of the vigilance now employed. With reference to the inspection of slate quarries in North Wales, his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaumaris (Mr. Morgan Lloyd) knew perfectly well that there was a legal difficulty in the case. The difficulty was that, as quarries were frequently worked above ground, they were not technically and legally mines, and there might be a difficulty as to the power of appointing Mine Inspectors for what were not legally and technically mines. Some slate quarries were driven underground, and in that case the question might not arise; but, as the work of a quarry was attended with great danger, whether above or underground, the quarry-men ought not to be deprived of protection. If the Government saw their way to making appointments of Inspectors for the Welsh quarries without legislation they would do so; and, if not, legislation must be sought for for that purpose. With regard to the Fishery Inspectors, he thought that all must agree with the hon. Baronet the Member for Finshury (Sir Andrew Lusk) that very great advantage had arisen from the legislation under which fishery inspection was begun. Hon. Members would be aware what the inspection of the fisheries had accomplished in reference to the price of salmon. In fact, the reason why salmon had not become an almost extinct article of food in this country was the legislation which had been applied to it. He would desire not to decrease, but to increase, that branch of the Public Service; and he might say that the Secretary of State had under consideration a plan, submitted in the Report of the Trawling Commission, for extending to England —and, he presumed, to Ireland—the great benefits that had resulted to Scotland from the institution of the Fishery Board—not by establishing additional Boards, but by extending the powers of the existing Board. The Fishery Board, so far as England was concerned, would have increased powers, so as largely to increase the efficiency of their public work. With respect to the Sanitary Inspectors in the Metropolis, to which reference had been made by his hon. Friend the Member for Stoke (Mr, Broad hurst), he might say that they were not under the control of the Home Office, hut were appointed by the Local Authorities.

MR. SCLATER-BOOTH

said, that the Committee, no doubt, would be very well satisfied with the statement of the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for the Home Department; but he thought it would have been better if the Secretary of State himself had been present on that occasion. Many hon. Members recollected the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department at Oxford, some years ago, in which he ridiculed altogether the system of inspection, and, coining a new phrase, spoke of the Inspector vastator. He (Mr. Sclater-Booth) was very glad to hear that the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State did not endorse those opinions of his Chief, though ho wished that the right hon. Gentleman had himself been in his place.

MR. GLADSTONE

He has a very important engagement.

MR. SCLATER-BOOTH

said, he had not intended to imply that the right hon. Gentleman was not otherwise profitably engaged. He had simply expressed his regret that the right hon. Gentleman was absent at that particular moment. Hon. Members must have in their minds the very strong language used by the right hon. Gentleman against the system of inspection; and he (Mr. Sclater-Booth), therefore, was very glad to know that the Under Secretary of State now represented the views of the Homo Department. While not desirous of at all diminishing the importance of the inspection of workshops, he thought there was a marked distinction between the inspection of mines, where human life was concerned, and that of workshops, and he thought that the increase of mine inspection was of primary necessity. He quite agreed with the observations of the under Secretary of State in reference to the inspection of fisheries; but he did not think it was a question which it was necessary to enlarge upon. The legislation which took place some 20 or 25 years ago had undoubtedly had the most beneficial effect, and he thought the country generally was much indebted to the Fishery Inspectors for the industry and ability with which they had discharged their duties, and for the valuable information which they had brought under the notice of Parliament. He trusted that their work would be carried still further, and supplemented by the establishment of a fish market, and that a more easy mode of distributing the riches of the sea might, before long, be made available for the community at large.

MR. WARTON

said, that it would have been more convenient if the Committee could have discussed this Vote at a time when the Secretary of State for the Home Department could have been in his place. He accepted, without qualification, the interjection of the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury that the right hon. Gentleman was otherwise engaged upon important business; but he thought that the first duty of a Minister of State was to the House, and especially when the Estimates had been so arranged that the right hon. Gentleman must have known that the Home Office Vote would come on the moment the Questions were over. In fact, the absence of the right hon. Gentleman was noticed by the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. Broadhurst) at the time he rose to address the Committee. The right hon. Gentleman was not, at the moment, in his usual seat, but was engaged in an animated conversation with the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill). The Under Secretary of State (Mr. H. H. Fowler), able as he was—and he would say before his face what he had said behind his back—that he was the best Under Secretary the country had possessed for a long time—was, nevertheless, scarcely able to give as authoritative a reply to the various questions which had been raised as the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State, if he had been present. He (Mr. Warton) wished to draw attention to an item in this Vote of £9,000, which appeared to be a sort of fixed annual amount for special inquiries, with reference to the power of the Home Secretary, under a recent Statute, to send criminal lunatics to an asylum. He was disposed to imagine that this item included such fees as were payable at the discretion of the Secretary of State to surgeons who might, from time to time, be sent by him to make inquiry into the question of the sanity of an individual against whom a criminal charge was preferred. He was quite sure the Committee would recollect that, some time ago, a case occurred which somewhat startled the country. It was the case of a young man—a sailor—who went to a house in the East End of London in the night time, and murdered his sweetheart. It was perfectly clear that all through the protracted preliminary inquiry before the magistrates, there was no hint given as to any question being likely to be raised hereafter as to the sanity of the accused person. He was duly committed for trial, and at that moment, in the eye of the law, he was presumptuously an innocent man until found guilty by a jury. Just before the trial came on, when the learned Judge—Baron Hud-dleston—was expecting to try him, the young man was removed, by order of the Secretary of State, to the Criminal Lunatic Asylum at Broad moor. This was done under the provisions of the Act of Parliament. He (Mr. Warton) did not pretend to say that anything was done in contravention of the Act, nor did he dispute that the Secretary of State exercised his discretional power in a perfectly proper and legal manner. His (Mr. Warton's) object in raising the question was to set the public mind at rest as to this peculiar and exceptional jurisdiction, because its exercise was likely to arouse public, suspicion that, in particular cases, a criminal might be spirited away and prevented from undergoing a trial, by asserting that he was insane. He did not know whether any suspicion would arise in this country; but there had been cases in another country, where suspicions had been aroused in the public mind as to the fairness with which the law was administered, and where every proceeding in connection with the administration of justice was regarded with a critical eye. It was alleged that Dublin Castle was a sink of iniquity; and there might be a suspicion aroused, that officials connected with the Executive Government might avail themselves of the powers conferred by this Statute, in order to remove a person charged with a criminal offence, whose trial might be inconvenient to them. There was another point. Apart altogether from any public suspicion of something unfair having taken place, or from any idea of an injustice being committed by means of this power granted to the Secretary of State, and assuming the perfect impartiality of the official, there was still another point to which the Government might direct their attention—namely, that the state of the law was, nevertheless, still unsatisfactory in another respect. The old mode of procedure, in the case of a man who was believed to be insane, was to try the question of sanity first, and ascertain whether the man was sane enough to be allowed to plead. That was the old Constitutional method. If it was alleged that a man was not sane enough to plead upon his trial, that question was first tried by the jury, apart altogether from the question whether he had committed the crime of which he was charged. This, however, was the case of a man who, in the eye of the law, was innocent, because he had not been tried and found guilty'. This peculiar Statute Law, although, no doubt, perfectly legal, was highly objectionable, and seemed to him to conflict with the whole principle of the general law. He should, therefore, have liked to hear from the Secretary of State himself that it was the intention of the Government to remedy the anomaly which now existed, and to return to the old Constitutional mode of trying by a jury the question of a man's sanity. Such a course would effectively get rid of any suspicion of unfairness in the public mind. He was, therefore, sorry that the right lion. Gentleman was not in his place. In spite of the explanation given in Court by the hon. and learned Attorney General, in answer to the questions of the Judge, the recent case had left a very uneasy impression upon the public mind.

MR. RYLANDS

said, he was anxious to say a few words upon the question which had been raised by the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. Broadhurst) before the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton) interposed with another subject which had not previously been before the Committee. He would, therefore, return again to the subject of the inspection of factories and workshops. He entirely agreed with the policy of the Homo Office, that the Inspectors appointed should be men who were acquainted with the work they were called on to inspect, and who, either as working men, or in any other capacity, had acquired practical know- ledge, and were properly fitted to carry out the intentions of the Act of Parliament. He was rather afraid that in former days these matters were not very much taken into consideration. There had been a disposition to appoint highly-paid officers, very respectable men in their way, but who had had no previous training to qualify them for the inspection of mines. He noticed that in the Vote upon which the Committee were now engaged, there were among these highly-paid Inspectors no less than three gentlemen who were receiving pensions from Army and Navy funds. One Inspector of Factories and Workshops received a pension of £184 10s. as a retired Commander in the Royal Navy; another received a pension of £155 2s. 6d. as a retired Commander in the Royal Navy; and a third received a pension of £200 from Army funds. It appeared to him that if they were obliged to go to retired Army and Navy officers in order to fill up appointments of this kind, the only justification would be that the rule which existed in many Departments should be mad" to apply here, and that while an officer was receiving full pay in connection with one office, the pension he had been receiving should be absorbed for the time being. He did not find, from the present Vote, that there was any such arrangement in regard to the Inspectors of Mines or Factories; but as regarded the Inspector of Explosives, he found that that gentleman was entitled to a pension of £300 a-year, but he did not draw it while holding his present employment. It struck him that that was altogether a proper arrangement; and he thought it should be laid down, as a fixed rule, that while an officer was enjoying full pay in connection with one Department, he should not receive any pension he was entitled to from another, but that while in active employment and full pay, the pension should be absorbed. In this particular case, these highly-paid Inspectors were now receiving salaries varying from £300 to £700 a-year, and were at the same time receiving pensions from Army and Navy funds. What would be the consequence? These gentlemen must have been men of middle age before they received Army and Navy pensions. In the course of a few years they would, therefore, be superannuated, and then they would not only receive their Army and Navy pensions, but a further pension fixed according to the salary paid to them under this Vote. His hon. Friend the Member for Stoke (Mr. Broadhurst) had strongly urged the appointment of a considerable number of additional Inspectors. He (Mr. Rylands) was not going to express any opinion upon that point. The Home Office would have to consider the question carefully; and if there were to be any additional Inspectors, there ought to be a re-arrangement of the office, in order to prevent the necessity of having a number of highly-paid officials, and of having instead a larger number of suitable men with personal training and technical knowledge, at a moderate rate of pay. Ho ventured to throw out these suggestions, in the hope that they might be of some service in keeping down the expenses of the Department.

DR. CAMERON

asked whether the inspection of burial grounds had anything to do with Scotland? He put the question on account of some recent cases which, had occurred in which the rules of decency appeared to have been violated. He wished to know whether the Inspectors of Burial Grounds had anything to do with Scotland, in seeing that the rules were observed which were laid down in order to insure decency and to prevent overcrowding in burial grounds?

MR. H. H. FOWLER

said, he believed that Inspectors of Burial Grounds were not appointed for Scotland. The matter was in the bands of the Board of Supervision, who appointed their own officials. In a recent case in which complaint had been made, the matter was considered by the Board, and not by the Home Office.

MR. SEXTON

said, the Prime Minister had informed the Committee that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department was absent during the discussion of the Vote for the expenses of his own Office, on account of an important engagement elsewhere. He (Mr. Sexton) trusted it would not be considered that he was exceeding his province if he expressed a hope that the important engagement might soon terminate, because he entertained the opinion that the Vote was not likely to be passed until the right hon. Gentleman was present. Although he fully admitted the ability and good intentions of the right hon. Gentleman's subordinates, there were certain questions which could not be satisfactorily answered in the right hon. Gentleman's absence. Certainly, no lack of energy had been displayed by the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State (Mr. H. H. Fowler), who had, according to his custom, replied to the observations which had been made in a very sympathetic manner, but, if the hon. Gentleman would pardon the liberty he (Mr. Sexton) took in making the remark, in a manner that was very little to the point. The intelligent working man, when he read the debate to-morrow, would be puzzled to find any ground for the opinion that his position would be practically improved by anything which had taken place that evening. They had heard a good deal about the inspection of factories and workshops and mines; but he had not gathered from the reply of the hon. Gentleman that he had promised any improvement on any of the points which had been raised. He had noticed lately a report that there was an intention in England of appointing a certain number of working men to act as Justices of the Peace. His own opinion was that it would be a more practical step towards improving the relations between the working men and the law than any addition to the number of Inspectors of Mines. He should like to know from the Under Secretary of State if the Home Department had used any influence in that direction? He believed the Secretary of State for the Home Department was in a position to bring considerable influence to bear upon the Lords Lieutenant of counties, and upon the Lord Chancellor, and it was most desirable that the working classes should be represented on the Bench. The working man was really quite as intelligent as those who administered the law at present, and in many instances their education was in no respect inferior. He should like to know from the right hon. Gentleman if he was willing to lend the weight of his influence to the bringing about of such an improvement of the relations between the working men and the laws of the country, as would result from the appointment of a sufficient number of intelligent and educated working men to co-operate with the Justices on the Bench in Petty Sessions? Some reference had been made to the question of fisheries. He did not yield to anyone in his admiration of the respectable and distinguished gentleman who held the office of Inspector of Fisheries; but he thought it would have been well if the Under Secretary of State, instead of a grave statement as to the reduction in the price of salmon, had given the Committee some information as to the functions of the Inspectors of Fisheries. He was of opinion that if the hon. Gentleman would look more closely than he appeared to have done into that matter, he would not be so confident as to the degree in which the public had ground for congratulating themselves as to the present condition of the salmon fisheries and the favourable result of recent legislation. Those were matters for argument, but he did not propose to argue them now. What he really wished to ascertain Was how much power the Inspectors of Fisheries could exercise over Boards of Conservancy. He would be glad if the hon. Gentleman representing the Home Office would inform him what had been done in that regard. And he also wished to learn whether the Department in England was in a similar position to that of the Department in Ireland— whether the Inspectors had the right to give a sort of motherly advice, without pressing it or being able to enforce it? The condition of the Statute in operation in Ireland was such that it would seem that anyone could break or keep it at pleasure. He had already expressed his regret that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department was not in his place when this Vote, which related to the Department over which he presided, was put from the Chair, and he must do so again, because his hon. Friend near him had drawn attention to a subject which had not been replied upon, and he (Mr. Sexton) himself had several questions to put to the right hon. Gentleman which could not be answered in the absence of the responsible Minister. The first question he had to ask was—what had been the result of the official inquiry made in reference to the late explosion in one of the rooms at the Admiralty Office? It had been noticed by hon. Gentlemen on those Benches and others, for some years, that, whenever an explosion oc- curred under some circumstances in England, the English Press at once flow to the conclusion—first, that the explosion had been caused by a wilful act; secondly, that an Irishman was responsible for it; and, thirdly, that it proceeded from political motives. Now, immediately the fact became known that there had been the explosion at the Admiralty to which he was referring, the London Press concluded that it was the work of an Irishman. However, not many days elapsed before the theory with regard to it was, so far as the London Press was concerned, altogether abandoned, and no more was heard either about politics or Ireland in connection with it. Again, it turned out that a fragment of clockwork had been found in the office where the explosion had occurred, and the fact was at once taken as a positive proof that the act was a wilful one; but it having been ascertained that the fragment of machinery in question formed part of an American clock which formerly stood on the mantelpiece in the room, and, further, it having been shown that there had recently been a number of experiments with explosives, and that some of the instruments had been in the room, that theory was also abandoned. Now, what he and his hon. Friends complained of was that Colonel Majendie, the Government Inspector of Explosives, having been sent down to the Admiralty Office to make an examination, the official Report of that gentleman had been smothered and never communicated to the public. In former cases, they had had the advantage of knowing what was the view of the circumstances taken by the authorities; whatever might have been the conclusion formed by Colonel Majendie, the public were allowed to know it. But, in this case, they had not been allowed to hear the conclusion arrived at; and he said it was essential that it should be made known, because it was reported that the official in whose room the explosion occurred was extremely unpopular with his subordinates, and that the explosion might be traced to that fact. It was most desirable that these statements should be dealt with in one way or another, and that the House of Commons should be allowed to know what, in the opinion of the authorities, was the real cause of the explosion at the Admiralty, and that hon. Members should he able to decide upon the facts. Before this discussion terminated, he and his hon. Friends would certainly require from the Secretary of State for the Homo Department, or from some other person qualified to reply, a full explanation of the circumstances of the case; because it was impossible that Irish Members could remain in their places silent while imputations were made broadcast against their countrymen, and while, at the same time, the official conclusions were cloaked and withheld from the House and the public. He would again say that he was informed that the absence of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department from his place on that occasion was due to the fact that he was under an important engagement elsewhere; but he would venture to express a hope that that engagement would terminate as speedily as possible, because he held the opinion that the attendance of the right hon. Gentleman in the House of Commons on the present occasion did not yield in importance to any other appointment. The second question he had to ask was—what was the position taken up by the right hon. Gentleman in reference to the case of Mr. Boyle O'Reilly, of Boston, U.S. He (Mr. Sexton) had raised this question in the House some time ago, on an occasion when the facilities for discussion were restricted from the Chair; but he had not been able to gather, either from the right hon. Gentleman himself, or from the report which appeared in the public Press of the right hon. Gentleman's reply to his statement, what was the precise position taken up by the British Government on the question of the right of ingress of persons into Canada. He was not willing to assent to the view which had been set forth. Mr. Boyle O'Reilly had been convicted many years ago of a political offence in Ireland; he was at the time a member of a political organization; he was convicted and sentenced to penal servitude; he made his escape from penal servitude in a conspicuously daring manner, and went to America, where, not very long afterwards, he reached a high and respected position as a literary man. It appeared that, at the request of his countrymen in Canada, he desired to attend a meeting in Montreal on St. Patrick's Day, and that he was unable to do so, because the Government of Canada—the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice—could not guarantee that he would be able to visit Canada unmolested. He (Mr. Sexton) reminded the Committee that all the other persons, civilians and soldiers, who were convicted together with Mr. Boyle O'Reilly, had long ago been set at liberty. A period of amnesty came, and wise men were willing to forget what had taken place. But Mr. Boyle O'Reilly before that time had effected his escape from penal servitude, and that, it would seem, in the opinion of the Secretary of State for the Home Department, was fatal to him; the right hon. Gentleman no doubt thought Mr. Boyle O'Reilly ought to be shut up for a very long period. At any rate, the Government objected to his proceeding to Montreal. Now, he wished to know whether the Home Office, or the right hon. Gentleman, as one would be disposed to infer from a letter written in his name by Mr. Godfrey Lushington, at the beginning of the year, took upon himself to interfere with the Canadian Government in the exercise of its discretion in matters of this kind? Sir John Macdonald, the Prime Minister of Canada, and the Minister of Justice, had applied to the English Government to know whether Mr. O'Reilly's ingress into Canada should be forbidden; and it was understood that the persons who waited on the Canadian Prime Minister were informed that he had no objection to Mr. O'Reilly's visiting Canada. That being so, he wanted to ascertain whether the right hon. Gentleman would stand up in his place and tell the Committee frankly that the Department over which he presided at home would not interfere with the free exercise of discretion on the part of the Government of Canada with regard to the ingress into Canada and free passage there of so eminent a citizen of the United States of America as Mr. Boyle O'Reilly? He was not aware that there existed, either in common sense or in public policy, any shadow of a reason for the Government pursuing towards this gentleman a course evidently vindictive, but weak and purposeless in the last degree, and therefore he awaited with considerable interest the reply of the responsible Minister of the Crown upon this subject. Passing from that, he came to his third question, which related to the case of John Ryan, of Bradford, an Irishman. In that case the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department had taken a course which, he (Mr. Sexton) was able to say, had his entire approval. The individual in question was tried last March on a charge of assaulting the police; three constables, including, no doubt, the constable upon whom the assault was committed, were examined at the trial; these swore that Ryan had committed the assault; but the man, on the contrary, protested his innocence, and, moreover, declared to the Bench that he was in Ireland at the time of the assault. The man, however, was sentenced to 16 months' imprisonment with hard labour. Now, he had been curious to ascertain in what way the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department had been induced to move in this case; but all that he had been able to learn was, as appeared in a paragraph in the public Press, that, fortunately for John Ryan, he had friends in Ireland who had obtained his release. But there were other men than John Ryan who had friends in Ireland and in the House of Commons, although neither the one nor the other had been able to obtain an inquiry in their behalf. He was disposed to think, from what had been done in the case of John Ryan, that if the same principle had been extended more widely to Ireland, they would have seen much more satisfactory results produced than were visible there at the present time. With regard to this case he would ask, first of all, on what principle the right hon. Gentleman had proceeded? The subject had already been mentioned in that House, and it would be a guide and an instruction to himself and to his hon. Friends to learn what was the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman as to the bringing forward of similar cases in the House of Commons, and what had been the method pursued by the right hon. Gentleman in the case of John Ryan. He believed that, amongst the facts established, one was that the man who did commit the assault on the police was at the present moment in America, and another that when the assault was committed in the town of Bradford the man charged with it was in Ireland. Of course, when those things were established, the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department had no other course open to him than that of releasing Ryan. As he had said before, he was of course satisfied with what the right hon. Gentleman had done in this matter, and his only regret was that he had not acted in the same manner in respect of other cases. It was well known that there were many cases in England in which persons, especially Irishmen, were suffering for acts of which there was a strong presumption they were not guilty; and if the right hon. Gentleman would state what was the principle on which the Home Office dealt with those cases, it would be a useful guide for Irish Members in future with regard to matters of the kind. They had endeavoured in every way to re-open certain criminal cases, and to obtain a revision of sentences passed in the Criminal Courts; but the result of their endeavours had been such as to cause them to despair. His object in appealing to the right hon. Gentleman was to obtain for Irish Members a correct idea of the method on which the Home Office proceeded, because whatever had been the method pursued with regard to the case of John Evan, whatever the inducement which had led to the revision and, practically, the re-opening of the case, he could assure the right hon. Gentleman that hon. Members on those Benches had brought forward reasons as cogent in other cases, over and over again.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

said, he should have great pleasure in telling the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) what was the course which the Homo Office pursued in these cases. He regretted, however, that he had received no Notice that the case of John Ryan would be brought forward on this Vote, because he was unable to recall the particulars of it at the moment. The hon. Member seemed to think that cases of alleged improper conviction were so rare, that he would be able easily to remember the circumstances: but, on the contrary, he (Sir "William Harcourt) assured him that they occurred—he was going to say almost daily—certainly every week, and he had them almost constantly before him. He was, therefore, sorry to say that, not being able to carry every case in his memory and the particulars relating to it, he had no special recollection of the case of John Ryan. But he had not the slightest doubt that it had been brought before him in the same way that scores and hundreds of similar cases came under his notice, and he so far agreed with the hon. Member as to be able to say that very much oftener than one could wish errors did take place in convictions, not only in Ireland, but in England; and so strongly was his mind satisfied on that point, that he never allowed a case to pass by without his own personal examination of the evidence. If any case like that of John Ryan came before him, and, from internal evidence or from the allegations of persons of credit, there appeared to his mind reason to doubt the correctness of the conviction, it had, of course, his attention, and it was allowed to be proved that the charge was unfounded; but, apart from that, if it should be set forth that there were circumstances which cast doubt on the identity of the persons concerned, he gave, as far as it was possible to do so, the whole of his attention to the case. But not only that; these cases, of course, involved a good deal of conflicting testimony, and he had found it extremely useful to ask the Solicitor to the Treasury to go down to the spot and examine the surrounding circumstances of the case; and his examination often resulted in establishing the innocence of convicted persons. The case was in this way submitted to a number of different minds, and if the matter appeared to require it, the opinion was asked of legal persons on the spot. Then, he very often consulted the Law Officers of the Crown; there was a case before him now which caused him the greatest anxiety, and he had asked the opinion of his hon. and learned Colleagues with regard to it. He was always desirous of getting such opinion, not as an official opinion, but as an opinion upon a case put by him personally; and, finally, he was glad to receive assistance in matters of the kind from any other source. He had now stated the practice of the Home Office, and he could assure the hon. Member for Sligo that it was among the most responsible duties of the Department to examine into any real allegation of the miscarriage of justice in cases of this kind. He assured the hon. Member that he was quite mistaken in supposing that any question relating to alleged wrongful conviction would remain un- answered by him in that House. But, as he had already pointed out, there were scores of such cases that the hon. Member had never heard of, which never appeared in the public Press, but of which the investigation formed part of the daily business at the Home Office, and was regarded by himself as necessary to the proper administration of justice. One of the chief causes of these miscarriages of justice was that many of the persons convicted were poor and, consequently, unable to get evidence and employ professional men to place the facts before the jury in such a way as to establish their innocence. With reference to the case of Mr. Boyle O'Reilly, he was sorry that the hon. Member had not given Mm Notice of his intention to bring it forward, because he would have liked to look into the papers relating to it. He, however, felt convinced that he had never interfered in this matter with the discretion of the Canadian Government; he had no recollection whatever of doing so, and it was extremely improbable that he should have done anything of the kind. What he had been asked to do was to allow O'Reilly to come to the United Kingdom. [Mr. SEXTON: Or Canada.] He felt sure that he had never suggested to the Canadian Government that they should or should not admit him; he had no such intention, and if he had done so, he certainly now retracted it at once. A sort of semiofficial application had been made to him to say whether there was any objection to Mr. O'Reilly coming to the United Kingdom: but he was sorry to say that, owing to that invincible ignorance with which he was twitted by the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) on a former occasion, he inquired who Mr. O'Reilly was, and he was informed that he was a Fenian who had escaped from a convict prison. The hon. Member described the escape as a conspicuously daring one, and seemed to think it was, so to speak, a feather in Mr. O'Reilly's cap. He had no objection to the hon. Member holding that opinion; but it would not do for the Secretary of State for the Home Department to do so. He did not hold the opinion himself. The hon. Member had also referred to several other persons, companions of O'Reilly in prison, who had since been amnested, and argued that therefore Mr. O'Reilly ought not to remain under any disability. But he would point out that those persons who had been amnested had remained in prison for five or six years, and the Government could hardly be expected to place in the same position with them a man who had been out of prison and enjoying himself during that time. The other prisoners had undergone their punishment, and it was felt that a prisoner who escaped was not entitled to the same treatment as those who remained in prison until they were released. He believed that the hon. Member for Galway attributed his (Sir William Harcourt's) action in this matter to literary jealousy. But he entirely denied that, because Mr. O'Reilly, he understood, was a poet, and upon that walk of Art he had never entered. He begged to assure the hon. Member that he had no literary jealousy of Mr. Boyle O'Reilly, or any indirect feeling with regard to his case whatever. All he knew was that Mr. O'Reilly was a convict, and he did not at the time consider whether he was a Fenian or an Irishman. He had simply proceeded on the principle that a person who had escaped from prison ought not to be given a special licence to go to Ireland, and he should have acted with regard to anyone in a similar position in precisely the same way. That, he thought, was no more than a just and reasonable rule by which the Home Department ought to be governed. He understood that, during his absence from the House, the hon. Member had asked a question with regard to the explosion which had occurred at the Admiralty Office. Upon that subject he regretted that he could say no more than that as yet he had been unable to ascertain the origin of the explosion. The hon. Member must have observed that generally, some time after an explosion had occurred, the police were occupied in putting the clues together; and when a matter of the kind was likely to be brought before a Court of Justice, it would not be prudent for him to make any statement with regard to it. The matter in question had not been sufficiently investigated for him to form any clear, definite, or deliberate opinion on the subject at present.

MR. GORST

said, he thought the Committee must have been perfectly astounded at some of the revelations made by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department. He had been under the impression that miscarriages of justice were extremely rare; but he heard now that the right hon. Gentleman was engaged, if not daily, certainly weekly, in the investigation of such cases, not for the purpose of mitigating the force of the law, but actually in rectifying the errors of the Criminal Courts throughout the country by setting at liberty persons wrongfully convicted and sentenced to imprisonment. If that were the case, then he said, by all means, let there be established as soon as possible a Court of Criminal Appeal to put a stop to such scandals. Hon. Members were engaged in the House in quarrels about foreign affairs, in carrying Reform Bills, and in debating matters of, comparatively speaking', secondary importance, while the justice administered in the Criminal Courts of the country was a thing which, according to the right hon. Gentleman, required to be guarded by constant supervision at the Home Office to rectify the miscarriages which took place. He had great confidence in the benevolence of the right hon. Gentleman, and in the ability of his hon. and learned Friends the Attorney General and the Solicitor General and the (Solicitor to the Treasury, and in their direction of public prosecutions; but he felt, at the same time, that the liberty of the subject ought not to be dependent either upon the benevolence of the right hon. Gentleman or upon the acuteness of the Legal Advisers of the Crown. It seemed to him that there ought to be a tribunal established in this country which would make it possible to have the guilt of accused persons satisfactorily established in law. In that way, the remission of sentences would not be dependent on the benevolence of the Secretary of State, but upon the rigid impartiality of a Court of Justice. Another statement of the right hon. Gentleman, to him (Mr. Gorst) absolutely astounding, was this—that the chief reason why these miscarriages of justice took place was because poor persons, when put on their trial, were without the means of engaging professional assistance for their defence, the consequence being that the facts of the case were not brought before the Judge and jury. Well, if that were so, it seemed to him a scandalous re- proach to the administration of the law; and he believed that this was almost the only country, with the exception of Ireland, in which poor people were left without any defence at all on a criminal trial when they were without the pecuniary means necessary to engage counsel. In Scotland, the defence was conducted at the public expense, the accused had no need to defend himself; while in foreign countries it was part of the duty of those who administered the Criminal Law not only to bring home the guilt of a person if guilty, but to find out his innocence if he were innocent. The scandal that had been disclosed that evening ought no longer to exist. England and Ireland were almost the only civilized countries in the world in which it seemed as if it was the duty of the Crown to establish a man's guilt, but to take no trouble whatever about his innocence. The right hon. Gentleman, however, took comfort to himself by saying that some time after wrongful conviction these cases found their way to the Home Office, and that then justice was done. If it was true that there were numbers of persons who only owed their immunity from unjust punishment to the fact of having friends who made their way to the Home Office, how many scores of persons must there be who suffered unjustly because they had no money with which to pay for their defence, and no friends to find their way to the benevolent Home Secretary. He only regretted that so small a number of the Members of the Committee had heard the astounding statement of the right hon. Gentleman, to which it was evident, by his gestures, the right hon. Gentleman still adhered. As a person who had spent a large portion of his life in the administration of the Criminal Law of the country, he (Mr. Gorst) was amazed at the statement of the right hon. Gentleman that so many people were unjustly convicted. He could not understand how a Minister of the Crown could delay for a single moment the bringing in and the pressing upon Parliament of some measure for the amelioration of a state of things which appeared to be a disgrace to the administration of justice in the country. ME. SCLATER-BOOTH said, that he also was greatly surprised at the portion of the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir William Harcourt) to which the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) had referred. Everybody knew that, for years past, a large part of the duties of the Secretary of State for the Home Department had consisted in the examination of cases, generally capital cases, which were brought before him in various ways for the exercise of the Queen's Prerogative of mercy; but it was quite new to hon. Members to hear from the Treasury Bench that cases were constantly occurring in which the Secretary of State, by local inquiries in the localities, corrected erroneous verdicts, and established the innocence of persons who had been convicted. From his (Mr. Sclater-Booth's) experience in the conduct of criminal cases—which, however, was not very great just now—he should say that all juries and all Judges leaned towards prisoners as a general rule, and although many cases of unjust sentence might be conceived, and although there were many technical grounds on which a person might justly be relieved from punishment, he should have thought that the number of cases in which innocent persons were convicted of crime was comparatively small. He should be very glad if the Secretary of State would think fit to establish the proposition he had laid down by laying upon the Table a list of cases in which the innocence of persons convicted of crimes had been proved by local inquiries, conducted by the Legal Advisers of the Treasury, after verdicts found and sentences pronounced. As his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Gorst) had said, there would be no difficulty on the part of the House in passing a measure for the establishment of a Court of Appeal in Criminal Cases if it were supported by such a statement of facts as he suggested. One Bill in this direction had been introduced; it met with no great opposition on the part of the House, it advanced very considerable lengths, and it might have been passed into law, but for the unfortunate distinction drawn between capital and other cases, a distinction which brought about a great deal of confusion and delay. He was sorry that measure was not pressed forward. At any rate, the statements just made were quite new to him, and he should be very glad if they could be supported by some statistical information, which undoubtedly would be a great incentive to Parliament to adopt, very speedily, a measure to redress the state of things disclosed.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

said, he was very much surprised at the surprise expressed by the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Gorst) and the right hon. Member (Mr. Sclater-Booth), because what he had stated that day he stated on the proposition to establish a Court of Criminal Appeal. How, therefore, it could be supposed that his statement that night was new, he could not make out. He argued in favour of the proposal to establish a Court of Criminal Appeal, a proposal opposed, according to his recollection, by hon. Members on the Opposition side of the House. [Lord RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: Warmly supported!] The noble Lord might have supported the proposal, but those around him did not—he had no doubt it was one of the measures of which the noble Lord approved. However, he (Sir William Harcourt) made the same statement over and over again in the House, whenever the question of the establishment of a Court of Criminal Appeal had been raised. Now, he did not wish to be misunderstood. He said that investigations went on every week. He did not say that every week a case of erroneous conviction was discovered. Of course, in the great majority of cases, the allegation was unfounded. In answer to the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Sexton), who asked him what the course of the Home Office was, he stated that whenever an allegation was made as to the innocence of a convicted person, they carefully investigated the matter. He said that investigations were taking place daily and weekly; but he did not say they reversed verdicts every week, or even in a great number of cases. He would, perhaps, be allowed to state what happened within a few weeks of his coming into Office. Two men were prosecuted for burglary. They were convicted, and sentenced to 10 years' penal servitude. When these men had undergone two years' penal servitude it was alleged that they were innocent of the crime attributed to them. The matter was carefully investigated, and it was determined that it was a clear case of mistaken identity on the part of the policemen, and the men received a free pardon. Let him mention this fact, that, of those men, one had 15 years before been convicted of burglary, that he had been sentenced to 10 years' penal servitude, that he had undergone two years of that sentence, that it was then discovered he was innocent, and he received a free pardon from one of his 'Sir William Harcourt's) Predecessors in Office. Here was a man who had twice, in his lifetime, been sentenced to 10 years' penal servitude, and had twice, in his lifetime, undergone two years' imprisonment, and who, after full investigation subsequently, it was discovered was perfectly innocent, and received a free pardon. That was a lesson to him (Sir William Harcourt), coming into Office, which he had never forgotten. It was very possible that at the Quarter Sessions at which the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Sclator-Booth) presided, 99 sentences out of every 100 were just and proper; but still the right hon. Gentleman was not to believe that there were no erroneous convictions. Such convictions did take place; it was human to err, and even Quarter Sessions were human, and therefore they were not infallible. Erroneous convictions, then, must happen, and did happen, and that was all he had to say. When appealed to by the hon. Member for Sligo, he was obliged to say what was the fact. He did not say that cases of improper conviction were very frequent; but they were not unusual, and they deserved to be investigated. He agreed with the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Chatham that it was a conclusive argument in favour of the establishment of a Court of Criminal Appeal. There was no man who desired such a Court more than he (Sir William Harcourt) did, or who had spoken more strongly in favour of it than he. With regard to the other point— namely, the inability of prisoners to find defence for themselves, he might say that he had in cases—rare cases, he admitted— been able to do something in the direction of providing professional assistance; but he felt that to do it on a large and universal scale would be very difficult. The hon. and learned Gentleman would find, if he came to tackle the question, that it was not so easy of solution as it appeared to be. He, however, quite agreed with the hon. and learned Gentleman that if what he had in view could be done, it ought to be done. Of course, there were thousands of persons who were convicted not only at Assizes and Quarter Sessions, but by magistrates. Persons who were sentenced to a month's imprisonment deserved quite as much consideration as those sentenced to 10 years' imprisonment; and, therefore, he was bound to say it was not an unusual thing to find a miscarriage of justice. He had mentioned the case of a man who was twice improperly convicted of burglary; he might remind the Committee of the case of the two farmers in Staffordshire, who were sentenced to long terms of imprisonment for mutilating a man. No one could doubt the propriety of the sentence; the man swore up to the hilt against the prisoners; but when he was dying, he confessed the men convicted had nothing whatever to do with the matter, and there was no doubt he had inflicted the injuries himself. But how were a jury to resist evidence of the kind the man gave? He (Sir William Harcourt) was, therefore, surprised at the astonishment hon. Gentlemen had expressed. He had stated the facts as he knew them to be—facts which amounted to a strong argument in favour of there being some better machinery for reviewing criminal cases than the Homo Office could provide.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

said, he was glad to have the opportunity of hearing what fell from the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir William Harcourt; with regard to the position of the Government on the question of criminal appeal. To his mind, nothing could be more unsatisfactory than the right hon. Gentleman's statement, because the right hon. Gentleman's experience was that wrongful convictions were not unusual not only in th.9 graver cases, but in minor cases. The Bill which the Government introduced under the title of a Bill to Establish a Court of Criminal Appeal only referred to capital sentences, and the hon. and learned Attorney General resisted in the most strenuous manner, in the Grand Committee, a proposal supported from both sides of the Committee to extend the operation of the Bill to the very class of cases in which the Secretary of State for the Home Department now said wore cases in which miscarriages of justice occurred. After long debate, the hon. and learned Attorney General's efforts were defeated by 10 votes. What took place then? The hon. and learned Attorney General said he would loyally accept the decision of the Committee. But the hon. and learned Gentleman did nothing of the kind. The hon. and learned Gentleman took the earliest opportunity of abandoning the Bill. Although he must have known perfectly well what the experience of the Secretary of State was, he abandoned the Bill because its operation had been extended. The Bill had never passed into law. The right hon. Gentleman's experience was still going on, occurring weekly, according to his own statement; and what was the position of the right hon. Gentleman? He deliberately declared that it was not the intention of the Government to introduce a Bill on the subject. The Government allowed the Grand Committee on Law to remain perfectly idle all through the last Session of Parliament. They never called upon the Committee to consider this great subject of criminal appeal, about which the right hon. Gentleman opposite was now so anxious. He (Lord Randolph Churchill) only rose to point out that he and his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) did their very utmost to make the Bill of the hon. and learned Attorney General a really useful Bill—a Bill which would meet the cases which the Secretary of State had described. It was entirely their fault, and not the fault of the Opposition, that a state of things which amounted to a national scandal had not been dealt with.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (SIR HESRY JAMES)

said, that when the Bill to establish a Court of Criminal Appeal was introduced in 1883 it met with considerable opposition from hon. Members opposite. In the Grand Committee he soon discovered there were very vigorous opponents to the principle of any Court of Criminal Appeal, amongst others the hon. and learned Member for Launceston and the right hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin; but they were not able to defeat the Bill until they received the assistance of the noble Lord (Lord Randolph Churchill). The noble Lord now said that he desired a Bill for the establishment of a Court of Criminal Appeal to pass; but the cruel love of the noble Lord for the Bill introduced by the Government was more than his cruel hate, for, in effect, the noble Lord said—"I will not be satisfied unless there is a Court of Criminal Appeal which shall dealwith some 14,000 criminal cases"— [Lord RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: 12,000]—a Court which, in the present state of the Judicial Bench, it was impossible to obtain. He (the Attorney General) asked the noble Lord where he would get the Judges to compose such a Court? The noble Lord said he did not care about that; but very distinctly said that the Government should not have any Bill at all, unless they had what he suggested. The noble Lord now said he (the Attorney General) at once threw up the Bill. He did not throw it up until the very last moment of the Session. Hon. Members would recollect with what pertinacity he stuck to the Bill, and that it was not until he found the array of hon. Members against the Bill was too powerful to enable him to pass it that Session that he abandoned the measure. Furthermore, he found that in "another place," where there was a strong judicial element, views unfavourable to the measure wore largely entertained. Of course, it had to be considered whether it would not he injurious to the subject if the Bill were defeated, and the Government came to the conclusion that it would not be beneficial to the cause they had at heart to place such a Bill before Parliament at a time when it could not be properly discussed. Now, that was, he believed, the true history of the matter. Until that evening he did not know that the noble Lord opposite was in favour of a feasible Court of Criminal Appeal, and the discovery gave him hope that the Government would eventually be able to carry such a Bill.

MR. SCLATER-BOOTH

said, he thought the hon. And learned Gentleman the Attorney General (Sir Henry James) had very much misrepresented what occurred two years ago in regard to the proposal to establish a Court of Criminal Appeal. It was not a matter they need to discuss at great length now; but his (Air. Sclater-Booth's) conviction was that no real opposition was manifested from the Conservative side of the House to the proposal. Any opposition that did show itself was provoked by the inherent weakness of the Government case in attempting to establish a Court of Criminal Appeal only in cases where miscarriages of justice rarely occurred, and where there was always a good practical remedy in the hands of the Secretary of State for the Home Department. The Bill omitted to deal with cases of burglary, for instance, and other cases which had been mentioned. If a Court of Criminal Appeal were required, it was required much more in such cases than in capital cases. He should have thought that 12 months' consideration would have enabled the Government to break down the opposition of the Judges.

MR. GORST

said, he did not think the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General (Sir Henry James) ought to be allowed to go entirely unanswered. The hon. and learned Gentleman seemed to charge on the Opposition side of the House the wicked and malicious conspiracy to got rid by a side wind of the Bill to establish a Court of Criminal Appeal which they could not reject on its merits. He (Mr. Gorst) never heard a more erroneous and, he would say, a more unjust charge made by a partizan Minister against his political opponents. If they were to have a reform in Criminal Procedure, the subject must be treated as it used to be treated by the late Sir John Holker—namely, as a measure entirely distinct from their Party squabbles; and they, on both sides of the House, must unite, not in the temper of the hon. and learned Attorney General, but in the temper which he (Mr. Gorst) recognized in the speech of the Secretary of State for the Home Department—they must unite in the determination to do their best to remove what everyone admitted to be a scandal on the administration of justice in this country. There was another part of the hon. and learned Attorney General's* speech which ought not to go unanswered. It would be a great misfortune if either the people of this country or of other countries were to believe that in the administration of the Criminal Law we were actuated by a sordid spirit of economy, and that this country, which could afford to lavish millions of money in abortive expeditions in foreign parts, was not able to afford the few thousands of pounds which would be necessary to have the Criminal Law administered in consonance with the principles of jus- tice. If the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department was right in saying that miscarriage of justice took place in cases other than capital cases or cases of penal servitude, what a monstrous thing it was for the Government to say—"All that may be true; but we cannot remedy such a state of things, because we should have to pay more Judges, and it would cost more." He was sure that, on reconsideration, no responsible Member of the Ministry would confirm the statement of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General, that it was impossible to establish a Court of Criminal Appeal, because this great and wealthy country could not afford to support the cost of it.

MR. PARNELL

said, he could not endorse what the hon. and learned Attorney General had said with regard to what took place in the Grand Committee, to which the Bill to establish a Court of Criminal Appeal was referred for consideration; in fact, he never could make out why the Bill was not proceeded with. The statement of the hon. and learned Attorney General, however, gave him a clue. It was very evident that the policy of the Government was pretty much the same on the Court of Criminal Appeal Bill as their policy with regard to the English Registration Bill, which had recently become law. It was the policy of the Government to limit the scope of the Bill as much as they could, and when they were defeated in that intention by the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) and his Friends, the hon. and learned Attorney General seemed to be determined to reverse the decision of the Grand Committee on the Report of the Bill in the Whole House. At the time the adverse decision was arrived at in Committee, the hon. and learned Attorney General said he would loyally do his best to carry the Bill through; but he subsequently abandoned the measure. He (Mr. Parnell) certainly did not think the Bill ought to have been thrown up, because the noble Lord carried an Amendment extending the scope of the Bill, and making it, in fact, an effective and practical measure for the purpose in view—that purpose being to prevent innocent persons from suffering unjust imprisonment, no matter what the gravity of the offence might be. Just as reasonably, when the Amendment with regard to the medical relief of labourers in English counties was carried against them on the Report of the Registration Bill, the Government might have refused to have proceeded with the Bill. That was an example of the way in which the Government proceeded on all Bills; they did not appear to have the courage of their own convictions, and they attempted to force on their followers Bills which were entirely inadequate for the purpose in view, with the result that they often found they had not sufficient men behind them to get over the opposition which might arise in "another place." He did think that they might have had in this Session, at all events, some attempt on the part of the Government to deal with the important subject of criminal appeal. He could not think it was a satisfactory state of affairs to throw on the Secretary of State, no matter how admirable might be the methods adopted by the right bon. Gentleman of arriving at a proper conclusion, the great labour of investigating such cases as these—the daily and weekly labour, as the right hon. Gentleman called it. But, in view of the non-fulfilment by the Government of their pledges with regard to legislation on this matter, he wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he had not, under the Constitution legal power to undertake the investigation of similar oases in Ireland? He had heard the right hon. Gentleman say that he had, under his Office, power in Ireland—that his power in Ireland was equal to his power in England. ["No, no!"] He might be under a misapprehension as to the extent of the statement of the right hon. Gentleman; but he thought he had heard him say in the House of Commons, that the authority of his Office extended to Ireland—that it was practically not limited to England. If that were the case, it was most desirable that the right hon. Gentleman should extend to Ireland the very excellent methods he had been good enough to explain to the Committee as the methods adopted by him in the investigation of doubtful cases of criminal conviction in England. The right hon. Gentleman had described to the Committee the general methods which he adopted in arriving at the truth in these eases. He had told them that, in the first instance, he himself examined carefully the Memorial presented to him, that he went over the papers, that he consulted the Judges, that he asked the assistance of the learned Attorney General or Solicitor General, that he directed the attention of the Solicitor to the Home Office to the matter, and that then, if he considered a primâ facie case had been made out, he sent down to the spot and had a local inquiry held. In his (Mr. Parnell's) opinion, all these proceedings on the part of the right hon. Gentleman were to be commended very much, as being likely to lead to a real elucidation of the truth; and they had had that tendency, because he had been able to tell the Committee there had been several instances in which he had been able to relieve innocent persons of the terrible penalty of long sentences of penal servitude. But, for a long time, the Irish people had been looking in vain for the adoption of a similar course of procedure with regard to criminal eases in their country. It was one of the great misfortunes of the failure to pass the Court of Criminal Appeal Bill, that in Ireland the people had, under circumstances and at times when it was absolutely necessary that the judgments of the tribunals should be tempered by the reconsideration of decisions, been practically left without any Home Secretary to temper the decisions of the Courts, and without any Court to which to appeal against unjust sentences. It was absolutely true that the Lord Lieutenant did not adopt the same principles and the same methods of action in the consideration of Memorials in respect to persons convicted within his jurisdiction in Ireland, that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department did in England; and, therefore, he (Mr. Parnell) considered he was perfectly justified in asking the right hon. Gentleman whether he would not, if he could, extend the sphere of his operation as the revising authority of sentences—the only revising authority of sentences under the Crown in England—whether he would not extend to Ireland also the most excellent practice of holding local inquiries, where he deemed it desirable, into doubtful cases of criminal conviction? He believed that if this were done, small as the criminal calendar in Ireland was, it would be found that great benefit would result; it would strengthen the conviction of the people of Ireland that the law was more purely and more justly administered than it had ever been in their history. With regard to the case of Mr. Boyle O'Reilly, he would like to say a word. The right hon. Gentleman had said he had no intention of suggesting to the Government of Canada any hostile action in regard to Mr. Boyle O'Reilly, on the occasion of his visit to the Dominion. He (Mr. Parnell) regarded that statement as satisfactory, so far as the Dominion of Canada was concerned; he regarded it as indicating, so far as any action of the English Government went, that Mr. Boyle O'Reilly was perfectly safe in visiting Canada.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

said, the hon. Gentleman would permit him to say that he made the statement a good many weeks ago, when the matter was last mentioned in the House.

MR. PARNELL

said, he was not in the House when the right hon. Gentleman made his statement. His hon. Friend the Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton), who was present, and heard the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, had authorized him to announce that he (Mr. Sexton) considered the statement the right hon. Gentleman had made to-night with regard to the Dominion of Canada as more satisfactory than his previous statement, and that he (Mr. Sexton) accepted it as such. But with regard to the question of Mr. Boyle O'Reilly coming to England or Ireland. He (Mr. Parnell) could not but think that the right hon. Gentleman had done anything more than make a very cursory examination of the case of Mr. Boyle O'Reilly. He felt sure that if the right hon. Gentleman had gone into the case more fully, and had made those local inquiries with regard to Mr. Boyle O'Reilly, which he said he was in the habit of making in other cases of a different nature, he would have seen that the case of Mr. Boyle O'Reilly should not be judged from the standpoint of an ordinary convict; but that, in view of the position and character of Mr. Boyle O'Reilly, and the circumstances connected with the amnesty of the fellow-prisoners of Mr. Boyle O'Reilly, his case should be approached from a different standpoint. He might mention the fact that Mr. Boyle O'Reilly's conviction took place very nearly 20 years ago; that he was then only a mere boy of 18 or 19 years of age; that since his conviction Mr. Boyle O'Reilly had entered upon a practically new life in the United. States of America; that he had distinguished himself as a journalist, occupying a very high position in the literary circles of one of the most literary circles of the world—Boston. He might mention, as a fact, which might not be within the knowledge of the right hon. Gentleman, that Mr. Boyle O'Reilly had, as his partner in the conduct of his paper, The Boston Pilot, the Archbishop of the Roman Catholic Church in that city. It used to be considered one of the signs of respectability for a man to have a brother a Bishop; therefore, to have an Archbishop as a partner in the conduct of one's business ought also to be considered a sign of respectability. Then, again, he wished to remind the right hon. Gentleman that the late American Minister in this country (Mr. Lowell) adopted the very unusual course of going personally to Lord Granville, in order to secure for Mr. Boyle O'Reilly liberty to come to this country, free from the apprehension of arrest and the infliction of the remainder of his sentence. He (Mr. Parnell) asked the right hon. Gentleman whether he really intended the Committee to suppose, by his rather dubious statement on this matter, that his view was that the punishment for Mr. Boyle O'Reilly's offence should be continued against him for the term of his natural life? It was a very serious thing to proscribe a man from ever returning to his own country. Mr. Boyle O'Reilly was sentenced to penal servitude in Western Australia; he suffered imprisonment for several years; and one would have thought that he might now be allowed to occupy the same position as was occupied by the amnestied persons who were his fellow-prisoners. He (Mr. Parnell) could not see on what principle the right hon. Gentleman persisted in his present attitude, which must undoubtedly be considered an attitude of bitterness towards this gentleman because he escaped. He offered no opinion upon the escape; but he thought the right hon. Gentleman carried the matter to the bitterest extreme when he desired to visit against Mr. Boyle O'Reilly for ever the sentence of imprisonment passed so long ago as 20 years. He had shown that Mr. Boyle O'Reilly was in a position to give to the right hon. Gentleman the most satisfactory guarantee that no harm would result to the State, or the authority of the Queen, if he were permitted to return to Ireland or to England, in order that he might visit the place of his birth, and see his relatives once again. He could not understand the attitude of the right hon. Gentleman in the case, unless it was attributable to a want of sufficient inquiry into the matter. Of course, the right hon. Gentleman had a great many home affairs to attend to, very much more important affairs than whether Mr. Boyle O'Reilly should be allowed to return to Ireland or not; but if he went into the subject a little further, and obtained advice from Boston with regard to the position of Mr. Boyle O'Reilly, he would find he would be safe in announcing that it was not the intention of Her Majesty's Government to pursue Mr. Boyle O'Reilly in respect to his past and expired offence.

Original Question put, and agreed to.

(2.) £51,373, to complete the sum for the Foreign Office.

(3.) £27,063, to complete the sum for the Colonial Office.

MR. GORST

said, he must apologize to the Committee for calling their attention, on that occasion, to some correspondence which had lately been distributed connected with certain New Zealand Chiefs who visited this country last year. His only excuse for drawing attention to the subject now was that that was the only opportunity afforded him of doing so. The Maori Chiefs came to this country last year on a very remarkable mission. They were the principal Chiefs of the Native Races in New Zealand, and they took a voyage from their native country, entirely at their own expense, for the purpose of laying before what they believed to be the Imperial Government of the Empire a complaint as to a breach of the Treaty of Waitangi, a Treaty which, in their opinion, had been violated by the Colonial Government established in that country. The Treaty was one with which the present Prime Minister was well acquainted. It was made so long ago as 1841 between the Government of the Queen and the Sovereign Chiefs of the Island of New Zealand. That Treaty had been frequently referred to by Secretaries of State from that time to the present, and always in terms which admitted the binding obligation of the Treaty upon the Imperial Government of the Queen. He had not the reference by him, and he was very reluctant to quote anything the Prime Minister had said without having the exact words to refer to, because the Prime Minister's memory of what he had said was so much better than that of anyone else; but he thought the Prime Minister bad said that there was no Treaty obligation more binding on the British Government than the Treaty obligation entered into with the Native Chiefs of New Zealand. Of course, he (Mr. Gorst) could not ask the Committee of Supply of the House of Commons to try the intricate question between the New Zealand Chiefs and the Government as to whether the clauses of a particular Treaty had been violated or not; but all he asked the Committee to consider was whether Her Majesty's Government, in the person of the Secretary of State for the Colonies, could shuffle off the Imperial responsibility of Great Britain upon the Colonial Government established under an Act of Parliament. It was an important question of Colonial Administration that he wished to bring before the Committee of Supply; because, substantially, these people had received no answer at all from the Government. The Government had declined to give them an answer, and had practically relegated them to the Colonial Government in New Zealand, of which the Chiefs came to this country to complain. In fact, the attitude the Imperial Government had assumed was this—"It is true we made a Treaty with you; but since the time we made that Treaty it has been convenient to us to hand over the entire territory so acquired from you to the Colonial Administration. If you complain that the solemn pledges given by Great Britain have been violated, do not come to us here in London, but apply to the Colonists in New Zealand, and see if you can persuade them of the truth of your complaints." He would not, as he had already said, attempt to bring before this Committee of Supply the case which these Natives came to England to lay before the Queen; but he should like to give the Committee a specimen of the kind of allegations which were made. One of the most remarkable allegations was that made by the man who was certainly the life and mind of the deputation, Major Te Wheoro, an officer of the Militia, a man holding the Queen's Commission, a man who in the Native wars always fought on our side, and whose loyalty to the British Crown had never been doubted from the beginning of the troubles in New Zealand to the end. In the Petition laid before the Colonial Secretary, this man stated that in 1863, when the war of races broke out in New Zealand, a Proclamation was issued, announcing that all the Chiefs and tribes who remained loyal to the Government side—that was, assisted the White Paces, should have their lands guaranteed to them, and should lose nothing by confiscation. Te Wheoro said— In the year 1863 a Proclamation was issued by the Government that all the Natives adhering to the resolve not to part with their lands should retire across the boundary line at Mangatawhiri; they went, and the Government followed them across the boundary line and fought them; another Proclamation from the Government declared that the Waikato Chiefs adhering to the Queen should aid General Cameron, and that the Government would protect their persons, their lands, and their property. He (Mr. Gorst) could bear testimony to the veracity of this statement, because in his younger days, when he was in the employment of the Government of New Zealand, he was employed as the Government official to draft these very Proclamations, and therefore he had a lively recollection of their terms. Te Wheoro and his tribe aided General Cameron up to the very last; but their lands, amounting to about 200,000 acres, and property were confiscated, and a very little portion of the land was returned; the bulk was sold by the Government to the English, and up to the present day no compensation had been made, for the property destroyed, the Court ordered compensation to be made; but the Government refused to comply. The question of the lands thus seized was laid before the Committee of Maori Affairs in the House of Parliament in the year 1879, and again in the years 1880 and 1881, and the unanimous reply was made that the Government should specially appoint a Commission to investigate the seizure; but the Government refused to accede to this proposal. Now, when he (Mr. Gorst) informed the Committee that one of the chief provisions of the Treaty of Waitangi, which we entered into for the purpose of acquiring the sovereignty of New Zealand, was that no Native Chief should be deprived of the property on his land, the Committee would see that this man, Te Wheoro, and his colleagues came to this country to complain of the most distinct and substantial violation of the Treaty. The matter was brought before the House of Parliament in New Zealand in 1879, 1880, and 1881, and these Chiefs came to appeal from the Government of New Zealand, who had refused them redress, to the Government of Her Majesty the Queen in London, with whom the Treaty was made, and whom the Maori Chiefs regarded as the paramount authority in the Empire. He had the honour to wait upon Lord Derby at the Colonial Office with the deputation, and, as Lord Derby said, it was one of the most singular and most remarkable illustrations of the ramifications of British power which could possibly have been given. Here were men from the furthest extremity of the world, men of very simple habits, men entirely unacquainted with our civilization and modes of thought and modes of administration—they came crying and appealing to the justice of the Queen of England for protection in a ease in which they thought themselves wronged. He did all he could to induce Lord Derby to act not in antagonism to the Government of New Zealand, but as a mediator. He should be most unjustly misrepresenting the views and opinions prevalent amongst the Colonists of New Zealand if he were to say that they were desirous of acting unjustly to these Chiefs. The Colonists did not wish to abolish the Treaty of Waitangi; but he believed they would accept the mediation of the English Colonial Secretary as a welcome means of coming to a more distinct understanding with these people as to the relations with them in the future. Since the Chiefs had returned to their Native country, they had written letters to Lord Derby himself, and to several of their friends in England. He (Mr. Gorst) wrote a letter to Lord Derby a few weeks ago, giving him the substance of a communication he had received from one of the Chiefs who had spent his time since his return in travelling about the country among the Natives for the purpose of gathering their opinions upon the crisis which they believed to have supervened. This Chief, Hori Ropiha, represented the people as "peaceable and well disposed, awaiting anxiously the reply to the appeal which has been made to the British Government." There was, undoubtedly, at the present moment amongst the Natives of New Zealand a state of expectation and anxiety. The people were awaiting, with some degree of confidence and a great amount of anxiety, the reply which the great Imperial Government of England would make to the solemn Petition which their Chiefs had crossed the seas for the purpose of laying at the Throne of Her Majesty; and would the Committee believe him when he said that up to the present the reply of the Secretary of State for the Colonies had been practically nothing? Lord Derby sent the Memorial to the Colonial Government of New Zealand, and the Colonial Government had returned a reply which was practically a refusal to answer any of the allegations made—they said there were no allegations which they thought they were called upon to answer. They did not deny the accuracy of the statements made by the Chiefs in London; but they thought they were not obliged to answer them. He could not gather from the Papers that any reply whatever had been made, or was going to be made, to these people in answer to the Petition which they had laid before the Throne of the Queen. The Colonial Office promised, in August last, that further communications should be made by Her Majesty's Government with regard to the Memorial as soon as the statement of the New Zealand Government had been received and considered; but the Papers were now laid before Parliament. That statement of the New Zealand Government had been received and considered; and, as far as the revelations of the Papers went, no reply had been made, and, apparently, no reply was going to be made. He thought he was very fortunate in having the advantage of saying what he had to say in the hearing of the Prime Minister. There was one power still left to Members of Parliament—they were occasionally able to bring matters home to the minds and consciences of Ministers of the Crown in a way that perhaps none of Her Majesty's other subjects could; and he would take the advantage of the opportunity of making a very brief but earnest appeal to the Prime Minister himself in this matter. The right hon. Gentleman was one of the servants of the Crown shortly after the Treaty of Waitangi was made, and he was responsible for the recognition and confirmation of the Treaty after it was entered into. He would not go into the history of the relations between the Native races and the Queen. It was sufficient for the to say that these people, having always maintained a strong feeling of loyalty and attachment to the person and Crown of Her Majesty, were driven through mistakes and injustice into fighting a war of races, in which the Government of the Colony, aided and abetted, he was sorry to say, by the Secretary of State for the time being (Mr. Cardwell), confiscated enormous tracts of land. The Natives recognized the fortunes of war and the rights of conquest. That you have taken from us in war," they say, "keep in Heaven's name; but leave us the rest. We have got a much more restricted territory; but still it is a territory of our own—a territory in which colonization has made no progress—in which there are no roads, no bridges, nor any of the usual signs of civilization. We do not object to railways or roads being made in this territory; but leave the management of our own territory to ourselves." They were once lords of the whole Island, and exercised a sovereignty over it. They say—"Leave us to manage our own affairs in our own way, according to our own customs in this part of our territory, where we have previously exercised de facto sovereignty from the time when you first came to New Zealand down to the present day." That was the real state of the case. He did not ask the Government to give them what they demanded; but he did ask the Government of this country to mediate on behalf of these people with the Government of New Zealand, with a view to securing to the remnant still left of the Natives the justice and the rights to which they were entitled under the Treaty of Waitangi. If the Secretary for the Colonies was equal to a task of that kind, let them vote him his salary in Committee of Supply; but if the Secretary of State was so completely a nonentity that in a case where the honour of the Crown was involved, and where a breach of Treaty was alleged, and a primâ facie case of injustice shown, he could only sit still waiting for Papers from New Zealand and take no action in the matter, he (Mr. Gorst) did not think the country required a Secretary for the Colonies at all.

MR. EVELYN ASHLEY

said, that in reference to the statement of the hon. and learned Member opposite (Mr. Gorst) about no answer having been sent by the Colonial Office to the Memorial of the Chiefs, the reason was this. The Papers would be produced as soon as possible, and it would be seen that the very day the answer from the New Zealand Government was received it was delivered to the printers, in order that the Papers might be presented to Parliament as soon as possible. The hon. and learned Member had somewhat tried to anticipate the answer he was likely to receive, by saying that a Colonial Secretary was of no use if he could not rule New Zealand as one of the Crown Colonies. The answer he had to give to the hon. and learned Member was that when this country gave New Zealand a responsible Government, and when we invested the New Zealand Government with the task of ruling the country and the Native tribes within its borders under the Crown, we abandoned the right of any kind of interference in the internal affairs of New Zealand. The hon. and learned Member seemed to indicate that he was fully alive to the fact that the Government of New Zealand had shown itself, and would continue to show itself, anxious in every possible way to deal justly and honourably with the Natives. The hon. and learned Gentleman had expressed his belief that the New Zealand Government would like us to mediate; but there was one thing more important than the mediation of Her Majesty's Government, and that was the mediation of public opinion. He (Mr. Evelyn Ashley) believed that a strong expression of public opinion in this country, whether in Parliament or elsewhere, would have as great an effect on the Government of New Zealand as any direct action of the Imperial Government, which would, to say the least, be illogical, after we had granted New Zealand a responsible Government. But whatever the effect of public opinion might be upon the New Zealand Government, he did not allow, by any means, that there had been on their part any infraction of the Treaty of Waitangi. Within the last few months Mr. Ballance, the Assistant Secretary for Native Affairs, had paid a lengthened visit to all those parts of the Island where the memorialists came from, and had had a series of interesting interviews with them lie hoped to lay more details before the House shortly; but the hon. and learned Gentleman would learn from the Papers about to be presented that, when the complaints were investigated on the spot, the memorialists themselves were not able to substantiate the cases of alleged injustice, and Mr. Ballance was able to give satisfactory assurances as to what would be done in the future. What the memorialists were in reality asking for was that there should be an Imperium in imperio—that these people who mingled with the rest of the population should have a separate Government of their own, and that they should be able to enact laws independent of the Central Government. He had been glad to hear the hon. and learned Member say that he did not advocate that demand; but it was really the gist of the complaint. It was only right that they should be treated as members of one community, so long as their private rights were safeguarded; but it was not desirable that they should be able, so to speak, to legislate for themselves. Mr. Ballance had promised them that all land questions should be attended to by a Committee; he had further promised a large measure of local self-government; but he refused to concede the demand that the Native tribes should have power to legislate for themselves independent of the Central Parliament of New Zealand. He did not know that it was necessary he should say anything further upon the matter. He was not prepared to enter into a discussion as to whether, in the 25 or 30 years which had lapsed since it was entered into, the Treaty of Waitangi had been violated, for he had not the facts before him, as he had received no Notice of this discussion. Ever since 1865 New Zealand had had a responsible Government of its own, and from that time onwards it had been responsible for dealing with the Native races. He confessed that, looking at the matter from every standpoint, he thought the Maoris had enjoyed, and were enjoying at the present moment a very complete amount of management in connection with their own affairs as far as the maintenance of their customs and the security of the land they held were concerned. In fact, if anything, the Government of New Zealand seemed to have thrown even greater safeguards around them, and in every possible way they were duly protected from the operations of land grabbers and people who might do harm to them. The real point at issue was this—we were dealing with a Colony with responsible Government, and the Imperial Government had no right to interfere in its internal affairs.

LORD RANDOLPH CRURCHILL

said, he did not think that anything could be more unsatisfactory than the answer which the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Evelyn Ashley) had made to the remarks of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst). Of course, there were several points in the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman which the Committee were well accustomed to hear in dealing with any matter that was brought before it by the Opposition. The Government were now in the habit, whenever a controversy was raised, of laying a certain portion of official information upon the Table, and then, when a legitimate opportunity of discussing that information arose, some Member of the Ministry got up and said that the House could not discuss the question now until the further information which it was intended to produce had been presented to the House.

MR. EVELYN ASHLEY

said, the Government only received the information in this ease two days ago.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

said, he made this as a general remark—that there were always 100 official excuses, in the present day, for keeping information from the House of Commons—no matter whether the question was a Colonial or a foreign one, that habit had become most common and most deplorable. The Papers which the Government were about to lay upon the Table were to give an account of a journey undertaken by Mr. Ballance in certain parts of New Zealand, and of an interview which that gentleman had had with the Maori Natives. That, however, was not the point raised by his hon. and learned Friend. What his hon. Friend wanted to know was, why no answer had yet been given by the Colonial Office to the Memorial from the Natives, and why they had waited until they could get the opinion of the New Zealand Government upon the matter. That was the point, and was what the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State had been called on to explain—namely, why did not the Secretary of State reply to the Memorial of the Native Chiefs, particularly as it was to be inferred that the Secretary of State had given them to understand that he would give a reply to the Memorial? The hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State had now taken up what he evidently considered to be a very strong position, when he said that the Government of the Crown had no right to interfere in the internal affairs of a Colony like New Zealand, to which a responsible Government had been granted. He (Lord Randolph Churchill) took leave to traverse that position—to traverse it generally and to traverse it specially. He would like to ask what had been the action of the Imperial Government in regard to the government of the Cape Colony and the Basuto tribes? What he was anxious to know, in answer to the statement of the Under Secretary of State that the Crown had no right to interfere in the internal affairs of the Colony to which a responsible Government had been granted, was, what had been the action of the Government of the Crown in regard to the Cape Colony in the case of the Basutos? There had been a constant interference to protect the Basutos from the action of the Government of Cape Colony, and the Government had always retained an absolute right to interfere with a Colonial Government for the protection of the Native races. He did not imagine that any hon. Member would deny that assertion. Anyone who did deny it would, in other words, assert that there was a most complete and utter severance between the Colonies and the Crown. At the present moment he held, and he believed that every man in the country held, that, primarily and principally, the Government of the Crown was responsible for the humane and just treatment of the Native Races in the British Colonies; and he considered that the attempt of the Under Secretary of State to get rid of that responsibility was entirely unjustified by the terms on which the Colonies had received responsible government, and that it would be signally repudiated by the general common sense of the country. He made that as a general observation, which he believed to be perfectly sound. He wanted now to treat this ease specially. It was a case in which Treaty rights were involved. It was not a case of ordinary internal government, between the Government of New Zealand and the people who lived in that country, but it was a case in which the obligations of the Queen of England towards the Native Races were distinctly raised; and lie wanted to know what action, on the part of the Colonial Government, could relieve the Advisers of the Crown of the responsibility which they had, as Advisers of the Crown, to secure the carrying out of this most sacred of Treaty obligations? He did not imagine that the contention of the Under Secretary of State—that because the Imperial Government had handed over to the Government of New Zealand certain powers for the regulation of local areas in New Zealand, that thereby they had divested themselves of the smallest degree of their liability for the faithful observance of Treaty rights. If the Imperial Government had divested themselves of this responsibility for the faithful observance of Treaty rights such a monstrous doctrine would lead to any amount of injustice and oppression in the treatment of Native Races. Was it contended that all the Treaties the Crown from time to time had made with Native Races in various parts of the world were entirely invalidated—because that was what it came to—and worthless simply because, for the convenience of the Crown, the Imperial Government had chosen to give to the Colonies certain powers of government? He maintained that the proposition was a monstrous one. It was one which could not be maintained for a moment, and it was a proposition which Her Majesty's Government would not dare to put forward if any European Government were concerned. Could there be any doubt whatever that if a Treaty had been made with one of the European Powers in regard to certain rights which that European Power might possess in another country, as against the rights of the Crown with respect to the Colonists of this country—would it be urged that because, since such Treaty was made with an European Power, we had given the Colony responsible Government we were altogether relieved from our Treaty obligations? Would that position be taken up by any British Minister in reference to any European Power, however feeble it might be? Then, á fortiori, if that position would not be taken up in regard to an European Power, surely, as a matter of honour and dignity, it ought not to be set up in the case of unprotected, but, at the same time, noble Native Races. The contention of the Under Secretary of State was thoroughly unsound and unsatisfactory. It was the absolute duty of the responsible Advisers of the Crown to exercise the strictest control over the Colonial Government in so far as the observance of Treaties with the Native Races was concerned. The object of his hon. and learned Friend was a very good one. His hon. and learned Friend asked, whether the Secretary of State, on being appealed to by the Native Chiefs, was not competent to come forward as mediator between the Colonial Government and the Native Races? If he were not then he was a perfectly useless official; and he (Lord Randolph Churchill) thought that was the general opinion throughout the country with regard to the present Secretary of State. The Under Secretary of State stated that we had a valuable mediator in public opinion. Well, we could get that for nothing. The mediation of public opinion did not cost anything; but the Secretary of State cost £5,000 a-year, and an Under Secretary £2,000.

MR. EVELYN ASHLEY

No; only £1,500.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

Well, £1,500; but he was quite sure that the hon. Gentleman was fully entitled to £2,000. In addition, the Colonial Office cost a large sum of money. It was no answer at all to say that it was not necessary for the Secretary of State to interfere, because public opinion would do everything. It was because public opinion had not done that which was necessary, that the Chiefs had come all this way, at their own expense, to appeal to the Advisers of the Crown. He would once more deliberately insist upon the extreme importance of not weakening the control of the Crown over the Colonial Authorities in matters of this kind. Case after case had been brought before the public, showing the natural aggressive nature of the Colonies in countries occupied by Native tribes, and their insatiable appetite for confiscation and land "grabbing" in regard to territory which, was the property of Native tribes, and which ought to be protected, as such, by the British Crown. The course pursued by the Boers in the Transvaal afforded abundant proof of this. It was the commonest thing in countries occupied by Native tribes for the Colonists to confiscate arbitrarily the land of these Native tribes; and the tendency of public opinion was to encourage Colonists to act in this way towards the Native Races. It was therefore a matter for congratulation that the Aborigines Society exercised so great an influence upon public opinion. He believed that that Society had done an immense amount of valuable philanthropical work, although much of this work ought to be the work of the Colonial Office in England. The duty of the Crown towards the Native Races was quite as great as its duty towards British-born subjects. He thought the Committee would agree with him that, although it might be a difficult subject, it was one which his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chatham was fully entitled to bring forward.

MR. GLADSTONE

The subject raised by the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) has been treated in a very different manner by speakers who have addressed the Committee from the other side of the House. The hon. and learned Gentleman approached the matter in a fair and temperate spirit, and I am sorry that the noble Lord opposite (Lord Randolph Churchill) did not follow the example of the hon. and learned Gentleman. The lion, and learned Gentleman who raised the question admitted that there were important qualifications; but the noble Lord has approached the subject in a very different spirit, for the purpose of drawing the widest conclusions and of laying dowrn the most questionable principles, as to the scope of which he appears to have not the smallest idea. The noble Lord has also made general and unfair charges against the Government for not providing the House with information. I entirely dispute the general allegations I of the noble Lord. The Government have used every effort to provide the; House with information, and sometimes they have provided it earlier, perhaps, than was altogether justifiable. On this occasion the fault of the Government has been that they have given information to the House at a period when they have not yet been able to pronounce a final judgment upon it. I could have understood the objection that the Colonial Department was open to censure for having produced the information and laid it upon the Table of the House in order to evade the responsibility of a decision. But the Government are not seeking to evade their responsibility, and this fact has been recognized by the hon. and learned Gentleman himself. Indeed, the hon. and learned Member for Chatham rather apologized for bringing on the matter now, and said that he did so because he feared he should not have another opportunity. Whether the course pursued by the hon. and learned Gentleman is convenient or not, I make no complaint of the manner in which he introduced the subject; and I must say that he observed considerable caution in regard to committing himself to untenable and impossible principles of action. The hon. and learned Gentleman said that all he desired to ask of the Government was that they would endeavour to mediate between the Government of New Zealand and the Maori Chiefs. Now, I must point out to the hon. and learned Gentleman that the mere fact of being asked to mediate would not of itself justify mediation. Before it can be called mediation, it must have the approbation of the two parties concerned. I do not, however, take my stand on that. The hon. and learned Gentleman did not refer to mediation in a formal sense; but he spoke rather of friendly intervention. I can quite understand that, in certain cases, the Imperial Government might have an opportunity of suggesting mediation informally, in the absence of any direct application to act as mediators. But before anything of the kind could be done, it would be necessary to be convinced that there was a case upon which to go to the Government of New Zealand in order to represent to them what you thought of the state of affairs, and to induce them to act in conformity with existing Treaties. It is assumed that the Colonial Department is not prepared to do this at the proper time; but no- thing has been said to warrant such a conclusion. The Colonial Department have not yet made any official declaration in a manner that would enable the hon. and learned Gentleman to suggest that they are, or are not, prepared to do anything. My hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Evelyn Ashley) has given some indication of the state of facts; and, as far as I am able to gather from his statement, and from the Papers, I very much doubt? whether there is a case for mediation. The hon. and learned Gentleman referred to the Treaty of Waitangi. If I do not enter upon the subject, it is because I do not like to trust to a hazy memory. I believe in what the hon. and learned Gentleman has called the high purpose and very sacred character of that Treaty. Of that there can be no doubt whatever. But I am bound to say that I think it was the duty of the Colonial Government on this matter to do something upon receiving an appeal from the New Zealand Chiefs. They are the Representatives of a race greatly attenuated in numbers, but nevertheless a very noble race; and, moreover, there were circumstances in the earlier part of our relations with these Natives which ought to make us anxious to do everything we could for the Maoris whenever there is an appearance of wrong being done to them. But I must say, in regard to this demand for our mediation in New Zealand, that it is a matter upon which the House ought entirely to reserve its opinion until the whole of the circumstances are in the possession of the House in the information which is about to be laid upon the Table. The position taken up by the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock is entirely different from that of the hon. and learned Member for Chatham. The noble Lord says that in the case of a Colony which has received representative government we, the Parliament of this country and the Ministers of the Crown, retain in full our responsibility for all that may take place in that Colony in regard to Native Races that may be attributable to the conduct of the Colonial Legislature or the Colonial Government. That is a tremendous proposition. I do not think the noble Lord has looked at that proposition in the light of law and history. He did not quote the Act of Parliament constituting responsible Government in New Zealand. He did not show that there were reservations in it, excluding from the scope of those representative institutions the relations between the Colonial Government and the Native tribes. I think I have shown enough when I have said that. The noble Lord refers to the case of the Basutos. Yes; but why did the affairs of Basutoland become matters for our consideration? Because the Cape Government pressed us to resume responsibility.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

That was after the British Government had interfered.

MR. GLADSTONE

I am not aware that they interfered. The noble Lord has not proved his case; and my recollection of the facts is totally different to his. Probably the noble Lord is not aware that through many of my earlier years in Parliament I was considerably concerned with this very question of the relative responsibilities of the Colonial Authorities and the Home Government with respect to the relations between the Colonies and the Native Races. As much as 50 years ago—nay, more than 50 years—no, about 60 years ago, I sat upon a Committee of this House which dealt with the relations of the Capo and the Native Races; and I then found it my duty to contend strongly that, on the whole, it was best for the interests of the Native Races that we should allow the Colonists themselves to conduct those relations for themselves, and reap the consequences if they conducted them badly. I am bound to say that that had particular reference to the case of the Caffres, which was not altogether on all fours with the case of New Zealand, as the Caffres were a powerful race, while in New Zealand the Native Races are largely reduced in numbers. The question which the noble Lord has raised, however, is one of the utmost nicety, and one of the utmost difficulty, which he is not prepared to meet at all. He sweeps everything before him, and lays it down as a general rule that when a great community of British citizens is formed in some other country, somewhere beyond the sea, and receives the full privileges of a free Government, still there is a tacit reservation under which this House retains its responsibility for everything that is done with respect to the Native Races. That is the doctrine of the noble Lord, and he complains that it is not the doctrine of my hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies. For my part, however, I am bound to say that I prefer the doctrine of my hon. Friend, which is a great deal sounder and more reasonable than that of the noble Lord. I have never heard of any such reservation, except upon special grounds, in special circumstances, and for a special purpose. The noble Lord, who speaks of maintaining the union between the Colonies and this country, and sets himself up as the champion of that union, would reserve to himself the power of interfering whenever he chose with Colonies which have Representative Institutions on the subject of Native Races; but does he consider that that would be a specific for maintaining the union? I am lost in astonishment at such a doctrine. What sort of Englishmen does he think the Colonists are who would submit to such treatment? Of course, if the noble Lord would apply that doctrine to New Zealand, he would no doubt apply it elsewhere. We have recently had disturbances in the Dominion of Canada. Well, I suppose the insurgents in those disturbances think they have been badly treated, and will have something to say on the subject of violated rights. If they come to the noble Lord and say what they may have to say on such a subject, is the noble Lord prepared to come down to this House and say that we are to tell the Dominion of Canada that they are an entirely subordinate Body, and that the Home Government does not recognize their power and authority, and will themselves decide the questions which have arisen in regard to the Native Races? The fact is the noble Lord has led the House into a discussion of one of the nicest, most stormy, and most difficult legal questions it would be possible to raise between the Mother Country and the Colonies. No doubt, there are cases in which the Imperial Parliament has asserted its authority over Colonial Legislative Assemblies. In the great case of Negro emancipation, for instance, it was provided—I think it was provided in the letter of the Act—that the emancipation should take effect whether the Colonies liked it or not. When at a later period, however, in the case of Jamaica, Parliament found that the conduct of the Colonial Authorities was not; satisfactory to the Native Races, they did not adopt the doctrine of the noble Lord, but they suspended entirely the Representative Institutions of the country. What I say is, that where Representative Institutions have been granted, it has been the intention of Parliament in almost every case, and certainly as a general rule, to hand over, along with other things, all power in regard to the regulation and control of the Native Races. That has been the basis upon which our Colonial Empire has been founded; and our fellow-subjects in the Colonies would be unworthy of the name of Englishmen if they were to consent to be despoiled of their inheritance and to receive Representative Institutions on any other terms. I must say, therefore, that I believe my hon. Friend was perfectly right in what he said—that where you give Representative Institutions, you give virtually and substantially full control over the Native Races. On these grounds, I cannot agree with what fell from the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst); and I hope that if the noble Lord, who went considerably beyond the hon. and learned Gentleman, is about to speak again, he will somewhat restrict those high flights in which he has been indulging, and will be content to take up a somewhat more modest attitude.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

said, he thought the Prime Minister had allowed himself to be extremely sarcastic at his expense, and had also allowed himself to be rather unfair; and he begged to say that his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Gorst) informed him that, as far as he understood his (Lord Randolph Churchill's) proposition, he agreed with every word he had said. The case put by the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Evelyn Ashley) was entirely to divest the Crown of all responsibility. He disputed that, and protested against it upon general grounds and upon specific grounds; but he did not push his protest so far as the Prime Minister had stated. He had not contended that the Crown should be continually interfering between the Colonial Government and the Native Races, who were not adequately protected or recognized by the Colonial Government; but he had held that there were certain special and exceptional occasions when it was their duty to interfere. Look how the doctrine of the Under Secretary of State would work. Supposing the Maories were a very powerful race, and suppose through the conduct of the Colonial Government they threatened the British portion of New Zealand, what would happen? They would have to send out a British expedition to protect the Colonists, because, however much they might be in the wrong, public feeling in this country would compel the Government to protect them with its armies, if their existence was threatened. Therefore, he contended that the responsibility of the Home Government was very great, as, indeed, it must be where the British Crown was supreme.

MR. GLADSTONE

said, that nothing had been said as to the supremacy of the Crown, either by him or by his hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

said, that his contention had been that that supremacy or responsibility was as absolute as any responsibility could be. That was his contention. He contended that if they could interfere with the Local Parliament to such an extent as to veto their Acts, their responsibility was no less in cases of dispute between the Colonial Government and the Native.

MR. EVELYN ASHELY

pointed out that the Natives wore represented in the Colonial Legislature.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

said, the hon. Gentleman must know very well that the representation of the Maories in the New Zealand Parliament was nothing but a ridiculous sham. By the kindness and indulgence of the Committee, he had been allowed to put his case before them, and he maintained that it was a perfectly sound and Constitutional view; and if Her Majesty's Government repudiated it, the sooner we separated our connection with the Colonies the bettor it would be for the Colonies, and the better for the credit of the English people.

MR. WARTON

said, he wished to call the attention of the Committee to the manner in which these Estimates were got up to show a small decrease. What he said was this—that it was quite obvious, when they looked into the accounts as they were then presented to them, that there would be no real decrease at all. The most important item of all, which constituted about 90 per cent of the whole Vote, was that under the third head for salaries, wages, &c. It was perfectly clear that that item was increasing; but, in order to make a show to be able to put the word "decrease" at the bottom of the page, the absurd farce was gone through of putting down decreases under the head of the smaller items. What reason was there to believe, for instance, that there would be a decrease of £500 in the cost of telegrams for the coming year? He wanted to know whether there was any Minister present who could explain this? He saw the hon. Member the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Hibbert) coming in, and he would ask him how he could justify these estimated decreases? The Estimate for housekeeping was reduced by £50, which was still more astonishing. In order to test the Vote, he wanted to know where there was to be a saving of £50 in the housekeeping of the Colonial Office? Was the poor woman who kept the Office to have something knocked off her wages in order to show a decrease on the Estimate, or where did the difference arise? He did ask for information on this matter, if it could be given, or was the whole thing simply a matter of account keeping?

MR. HIBBERT

said, he could assure the hon. and learned Member opposite (Mr. Warton) that these items were not put down without due consideration. They were based upon the actual expenditure of the previous year, which, having been less than had been previously estimated, they had, of course, put down a less sum this year. In the case of telegrams, for instance, the cost last year had been less than was anticipated, and accordingly a less sum was asked for on the present occasion. He would have thought, however, that the hon. and learned Member would have been glad to notice any excuse for a reduction of expenditure. The Estimates had been prepared with a desire to avoid, as far as possible, the necessity of introducing Supplementary Estimates, and where decreases wore shown they had been based upon the experience of the past year.

MR. KENNY

said, he wished to ask a question with regard to the recent insurrection in Canada, and what the Government intended to do in the matter. He wanted to know if the Government had received any information from the Government of Canada as to the course they proposed to adopt with regard to the half-breed Riel, now they had captured him? He saw from the papers that they were intending to indict him for high treason. He would like to know, on the authority of the Government, if that was so, because it appeared to him that this was a case in which the rising and the course taken by Riel was provoked by the action of the Government of Canada.

THE CHAIRMAN

said, the hon. Member would be perfectly justified in putting any question to the Government as to the conduct of the Secretary of State for the Colonies; but he would not be in Order in discussing on this Vote the rights or wrongs of the conduct of the Government of Canada.

MR. KENNY

said, he had very nearly concluded his remarks when the hon. Baronet had called him to Order, and he had no intention of discussing the conduct of the Canadian Government. He was just going to say this—that in matters of this kind the Government of Canada ought to be, as far as possible, subject to the supervision of the Home Government; because in this case it was in consequence of their negligence, to a great extent, that the disturbances took place for which Riel was about to be tried. They were going to punish Riel for an occurrence for which the Canadian Government were equally responsible with him.

MR. EVELYN ASHLEY

said, he had to say, in reply to the hon. Member, that the Government had no information from the Canadian Government as to what would be the form of the prosecution or trial they proposed for Riel. They had no information, either, as to what was their opinion with regard to the causes of the outbreak. They had received no communication from the Canadian Government; but they had received a somewhat lengthy Report from the Governor General as to the alleged grievances of the half-breeds, and what was the position of the matter. He hoped before long to be able to lay that Paper upon the Table.

Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; Committee counted, and 10 Members being found present,

(4.)£35,883, to complete the sum for the Privy Council Office.

Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; Committee counted, and 40 Members being found present,

(5.)£71,178, to complete the sum for the Board of Trade.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

said, that this Vote was diminished under the first item for salaries by a very material amount—almost £10,000—and he would like to ask any Minister who could explain it, how the Board of Trade could expect to do all the work this Department with the reduced staff which this would entail? It was exceedingly difficult to understand. While he was answering that, he would like him also to explain what had been the result of the alterations which had been made in regard to the Receivers of Wrecks. Under the recent Bill a complete alteration had been made in regard to the Receivers of Wrecks; and when the Bill was passed he ventured to express an opinion that no economy would result to the Public Service. He would be glad, therefore, if the Minister who replied would explain what had been the result of the alteration.

MR. HOLMS

said, the matter was rather a complicated one; but he could say that the alteration had answered very well, and was working satisfactorily. With regard to the large decrease to which the hon. Member had referred, the plain fact of the matter was this—a Joint Committee of the Board of Trade and the Treasury had completely overhauled the Department, and it was found possible to make the reduction in the Vote which was now proposed. The alteration in regard to the Receivers of Wrecks had worked satisfactorily, so far as time had given experience.

MR. GOURLEY

said, he wished to put a question in regard to the examination of officers for the Mercantile Marine. Students who failed at their first examination and came up again were charged the full examination fee on both occasions. He believed that the number of officers who failed throughout the United Kingdom, on the first examination, wits something like 400, and this gave to the Board of Trade something like £700 a-year, at the expense of very poor men. He would ask why these second fees were taken from men who could ill afford them?

MR. HOLMS

said, he would make inquiries into the matter.

MR. SEXTON

said, he wished to ask the hon. Gentleman, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade a question relating to the Department charged with the duty of removing wrecks. He might mention that once or twice he had asked questions in the House with regard to the action of the Department, and he was obliged to say that the replies he had received were not at all of a satisfactory character. One of the wrecks he had referred to had been lying for months in the fairway to Ballyshannon, off the coast of Donegal, such was the extraordinary negligence of the Department. Owing to these wrecks not being removed, poor men were constantly placed in imminent risk of losing their lives; and yet, so careless was the Department, that the great danger in which seamen and others were placed was not sufficient to induce them to act. One reply given to him was to the effect that the Board had not received "any notice" on the subject, although he (Mr. Sexton) should imagine that there could be no more proper form of notice than a question put by an hon. Member in the House of Commons. With regard to the case he was particularly referring to, he had no reason to believe, however, that any effect had been produced upon the Department, because the wreck was still lying where it had been for a long time past. The Board of Irish Lights appeared to be an irresponsible body. It was not, at any rate, responsible to Irish opinion; it held no meetings in public; he believed that its members were nominated by the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, but that they were accountable for their action to the Board of Trade. However, the serious question to which ho desired to call the attention of the hon. Gentleman and the Committee was that of the wreck in Donegal Bay, in the fairway to Ballyshannon. That wreck had been lying there since last July, and he need hardly say that it had worked a very prejudicial effect upon the trade and commerce of that port. The Board of Irish Lights had endeavoured to justify their inaction in this matter by saying that they could not obtain possession of the wreck. No doubt, the owners had attempted to take out whatever valuables the ship contained—

THE CHAIRMAN

I cannot find anything in the Vote which relates to wrecks. Does the hon. Member refer to anything in the Irish Votes?

MR. SEXTON

No, Sir. The matter to which I am calling attention has direct relation to the Board of Irish Lights, who are under the supervision of the Board of Trade. I am pointing out that they have been guilty of neglect in the matter of this wreck. It is the duty of the Board of Trade to call them to account, and I am endeavouring to obtain from the Representative of that Department an assurance that they will give instructions in the matter. I presume that I am in Order in so doing.

THE CHAIRMAN

If the Board of Irish Lights is answerable to the Board of Trade, then I consider that the observations of the hon. Member are appropriate to this Vote, although, as I have said, there is nothing in the Vote relating to wrecks.

MR. SEXTON

I wish to point cut that the Vote includes the salary of the President of the Board, who has control in this matter. Is it not competent for me to call attention to the Board of Irish lights under the circumstances?

THE CHAIRMAN

I have pointed out that if the Board of Irish Lights is accountable to the Board of Trade the hon. Member is in Order.

MR. SEXTON

said, that was the case, and he wished to call attention to the subject now because this was the only Vote on which he would have the opportunity of doing so. He thought the hon. Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade would admit that he was correct in this. His object was to ascertain what would induce the Board of Trade to take action in this matter. He said it was a scandalous thing that a wreck should be allowed to he for an indefinite period of time in the fairway at Ballyshannon. As he had said, the owners of the vessel kept possession until they had recovered the valuables on board; but when they abandoned the wreck the Irish Board of Lights were applied to for the purpose of having it removed. Now, in the first instance, the Board assumed an imperious tone, and ordered the owners to give up the wreck. When, however, they obtained possession of it, they made no use of their powers, and allowed it to remain where it was. It was said at one time that there was some hope of an arrangement being arrived at between the Local Authorities and the Board; but nothing had resulted from that. At all events, a considerable portion of time had passed away since the Ballyshannon authorities informed the Board of Trade that there was no prospect whatever of an arrangement being come to on the subject. One of the wrecks had already caused loss of life, and the other remained a constant impediment to the trade and commerce of that part of the country. Of course, owing to the curious mixture of powers between the Irish Board of Lights in Ireland and the Board of Trade in England, they had been unable to get any redress hitherto, or even an admission that the wreck was in the fairway at Ballyshannon.

MR. HOLMS

said, it was quite true that the Irish Board of Lights did not admit that the wreck was in the fairway of navigation; on the contrary, they said that the wreck off the coast of Donegal did not stand in the fairway at all. If, however, it was made clear that it did stand in the fairway, then he thought there would be no objection on the part of the Board of Trade to exercise the power which they possessed. But up to the present moment he believed that the point had not been clearly established one way or the other.

MR. SEXTON

said, this surely argued not only that the Irish Board of Lights neglected its duties, but that the Board of Trade also, who were represented in that House, neglected to inform itself of matters of fact. He was instructed to say that the wreck in question was lying in the fairway at Ballyshannon. Every proper step had been taken to bring about the removal of this dangerous impediment, but without result. So long ago as the month of October last, the Town Commissioners of Ballyshannon made representations to the Irish Board of Lights and to the Board of Trade, and many weeks had elapsed since he (Mr. Sexton) had embodied in a very full and elaborate Question the details and facts of this case. It was said at the time in reply to that Question that steps would be taken to get rid of the impediment; but now the hon. Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade said that he did not know whether the wreck lay in the fairway of navigation or not, although he added that if it were so some steps would be taken in the matter by the exercise of the powers vested in the Board of Trade. He was unable to see what more could be done in this matter than had been done to bring about the removal of the wreck. He put a fair question to the hon. Gentleman; he had shown that, according to the Town Commissioners of Ballyshannon, who ought to know, the wreck did lay in the fairway of navigation; and all he could do now was to ask the hon. Gentleman what still remained to be done before the Board of Trade took action in the matter?

MR. HOLMS

said, he thought the case a fair one for further inquiry; and if the hon. Member would leave it to him further inquiry should be made, and action taken if the Board of Trade found that there was any stoppage of the navigation.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

said, it was a matter of notoriety that there was a proposal which would have the effect of considerably increasing the authority and jurisdiction of the Board of Trade in matters relating to the registration of shipping; and it was clear that by the transfer of that business to the Department a very much larger staff would be required.

THE CHAIRMAN

said, the hon. Member was referring to one of the provisions of a Bill which was on the Orders of the Day. The Bill must not be discussed until it came forward.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

said, he had no wish to discuss the Bill or any of its provisions. He remarked that it was a matter of notoriety that it was proposed to throw upon the Board of Trade a very much greater amount of work than it had now to perform, by extending its authority and jurisdiction in regard to the registration of shipping. That was one of the matters which he had brought before the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Board of Trade, and it was said that an inquiry would be instituted into the work of the Department and the position of the offi- cials. The increased amount of work referred to was to be undertaken while the Department was undergoing reorganization, and at a time when there had been a large diminution of the staff. For instance, the Estimate showed that there were nine clerks of the first class with minimum salaries of £625, rising annually by £25 to the maximum of £800 a-year; and that class of clerks had been entirely got rid of. Then there were 10 clerks of the second class, with minimum salaries of £420, rising by an annual increment of £20 to the maximum of £600. They also had been entirely removed. There were likewise 11 clerks of the third class, with minimum salaries of £200, rising by an annual increase of £15 to the maximum of £400 a-year, all of whom had apparently left the service. Further down the page he found that the nine clerks of the first class had been replaced by six principals, with salaries almost identical with those of the men who had been got rid of—that was to say, they had each a minimum salary of £650, rising by an annual increment of £25 to £800 a-year; and instead of the second class clerks who had been removed, there were 17 upper division clerks, with salaries of £200, rising annually by £15 to the maximum of £400 a-year. It would, therefore, be seen that the work done by the clerks who had left the service was fully provided for. But when they came to the Registry Branch of the Department they found a different state of things. The principal assistant clerk had been got rid of; the 9 assistant clerks of the first class had been reduced to 6; the 22 assistant clerks of the second class had been reduced to 21, and the 10 assistant clerks of the third class had entirely disappeared. So that the whole staff of the Board of Trade Department had been completely reorganized, with a reduction of expenditure for the staff of clerks of about £10,000, the total amount of salaries for the present year being £48,822, as against £58,274 for the year 1884–5. Looking at these figures then, it occurred to him that, if such a re-organization with a reduction of 20 per cent in the amount of salaries could "be made in a single year, the administration of the Department of the Board of Trade up to the present time must have been singularly lax, inefficient, and costly. Now, the lines on which this re-organization of the Department of the Board of Trade had been carried out were of very material consequence not only to the officials of the Board of Trade, but to the whole of the Civil Service. If they indicated the lines on which the Treasury proposed to proceed in the re-organization of other Departments in future, then it would undoubtedly be a matter of very great consequence and importance to a very largo number of persons employed in the various Departments of the Public Service. In the present instance, the whole of the first and second class clerks appeared to have been got rid of; and, at the same time, there was a considerable increase in the number of upper division clerks. Now, the Secretary to the Treasury must be aware, if the Secretary to the Board of Trade had not had occasion to know it as well, that the upper division clerks of the Civil Service were at the present time engaged in an agitation which had for its object the removal of their grievances; as a matter of fact, that class was still in a state of great dissatisfaction with their position. Hundreds of men were engaged in the agitation, and while this was going on the Treasury were proceeding on the line of increasing the number of clerks without making any alteration in the state or in the prospects of the class. Now, if the hon. Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade was not in a position to reply to the question as to what had induced the Department to make so very large an alteration in this particular direction, he would invite the hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to state why it was that he had been induced to make it? [Mr. HIBBERT: It was done before my time. Well, the hon. Gentleman said it was done before his time. But he (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) must press for a reply to this question—Was it intended to do this throughout the Civil Service; was this sort of thing to be done with regard to the Customs, Inland Revenue, and other Departments, which might, no doubt, with great advantage to the Public Service, be re-cast; and were they to have largely-increased pensions and superannuation lists, and also a considerable addition to the number of upper class clerks, who were, at the present moment, agitating for a removal of their grievances?

MR. HOLMS

said, the hon. Member would see that the Bill that would be brought forward that evening was one which would not have the effect of increasing the expenditure of the Department of the Board of Trade.

THE CHAIRMAN

said, the hon. Gentleman would not be in Order in discussing the Bill at that time.

MR. HOLMS

said, he had no intention of discussing the Bill. He had merely alluded to a circumstance which connected it with the discussion of the Vote for the Salaries and Expenses of the Board of Trade Department. It had been decided to reconsider the whole Department, and to re-organize it in conjunction with the Treasury. For his own part, he considered that the readjustment had been conducted on a sound basis. It might not, on the whole, be satisfactory to the hon. Member for Queen's County (Mr. Arthur O'Connor); but he thought he would admit it to be generally a good scheme.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

said, he was in the hands of the Committee, and he would ask whether the hon. Gentleman had answered one single question that he had put to him on the subject of this re-organization? The Board of Trade had been spending, for a certain number of years, £58,000, or thereabouts, and suddenly they found it necessary to re-organize the Department. When they came to re-organize it, they were compelled to admit to the House that instead of requiring £58,000 a-year for salaries in the Department, they could do all the work for £48,000 a-year. Well, the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Board of Trade had offered no justification of the expenditure in the past, nor had he offered any explanation as to how the work of the Department could be done for the smaller sum now asked for. But his (Mr. Arthur O'Connor's) point was this. The staff had been reduced in number from 147 to 129, and a large reduction had been made in the expenditure; but although the Treasury had got rid of the men they could not get rid of their claims. Would those men, who were in the prime of life, come upon the pension list, and on the superannuation list? Was it not a fact that the arrangement now made would, in a few years, bring up the expenditure of the Department to an amount as large as it was before the change took place, with the disadvantage that a large number of efficient and experienced public servants had been got rid of? It was true that the large number of men who were taken on were at first to receive comparatively low salaries; but the Department were going to add to the class of clerks who were now agitating on account of grievances alleged to be suffered, who were demanding better pay, and to whom before long they would have to give way. He had his own experience in the matter of re-organizing one of the Public Offices; he had witnessed the whole process of re-organization in one case, and was himself concerned in it; and he said that one of the greatest jobs ever perpetrated occurred when the War Office was reorganized; for, although the public expected that a saving would be effected, nothing was saved, because allowances, superannuation, and other matters, rendered the re-organization useless in that respect, and he did not think there was any reason to suppose that the reorganization of the Office of the Board of Trade would prove more successful. He wished to know what was the amount of pension to be given to the men who were superannuated?

MR. HOLMS

said, the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) was, no doubt, correct in thinking that some addition would be made to the pension list. He did not think, however, that the additional expense would be anything like the amount which the hon. Member supposed. With regard to the hon. Member's inquiry as to whether or not any sum would be given as compensation to the men who retired, he believed that the amount that would be paid would be about £5,200 in all. The hon. Member would be aware that when changes of this kind were made, the Government were bound to deal fairly with the servants of the Crown; but against the sum he had mentioned there was to be placed a reduction of salaries amounting to over £9,000.

MR. RYLANDS

said, he had been an advocate for economy during a great number of years, and had taken part in many discussions, the object of which had been to impress upon the Government of the day the necessity of reducing the expenditure in connection with the staffs of Public Departments; he had argued from time to time that the staff's of Public Departments were excessive, and that the charge upon the public in consequence was altogether unjustifiable. He and his hon. Friends had constantly blamed successive Governments because they had kept up in the various Departments of the State staffs consisting of so many clerks of every grade, a state of things which led to an excessive and yet constantly-increasing expenditure for salaries; but with all his experience in Committee of Supply he had never known a Member of that House, professing economical opinions, get up and complain of the Government having reorganized an office in the way in which the Department of the Board of Trade had been dealt with—a re-organization which had considerably reduced the number of employés, which had been already the means of effecting a considerable saving to the Public Exchequer, and which did not create a burden for the future, in any respect commensurate, with the burden got rid of. His hon. Friend (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) was occupying a new position in blaming the Government for attempting economy; and he (Mr. Eylands) thought that, in the present state of the finances of the country, with the present over-grown public establishments, with the fact that the servants of the Crown were far too numerous, and in many cases too well paid, and with the knowledge that their salaries came out of the pockets of the taxpayers of the country, he thought that this was an occasion, of all others, when they should not complain of the Government making an honest endeavour to reduce the burden which pressed so heavily on the people. He agreed with his hon. Friend that the Committee ought to look with great jealousy on these re-organizations of Public Departments. When it was proposed to effect the re-organization of the Admiralty and War Offices, he ventured to oppose the scheme of re-organization in that House, on the ground that it was going to be carried out in a manner which would entail a considerable burden on the public; and he had also expressed the opinion that it would not prove to be satisfactory, on the ground either of economy or efficiency. He had no doubt that that re-organization had proved to be unsatisfactory. Re-organization sof offices very often turned out to be delusive. They had in the Public Service a number of highly-paid officials—gentlemen who enjoyed good salaries, and were not over-worked; they had a certain number of these belonging to the higher class, and likewise a number of officials who, no doubt, did a larger amount of work, and received less pay, and among them all there was a constant endeavour to get promotion. These gentlemen had two fixed ideas on which they were agreed—one was that they believed in their own infallibility, and the other was that they were always anxious for a flow of promotion. They were very often able to get that promotion; and when re-organization under those conditions took place, the result was the burden on the country was increased by additional pensions, and the staffs of employés, instead of being diminished, were gradually increased up to their original numbers. But, so far as the Board of Trade was concerned, the reorganization which the Government had succeeded in accomplishing appeared to him to be entirely satisfactory; and he could not say that, on the face of the Estimate, the re-organization was one which ought not to commend itself to the Committee. He understood his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Holms) to say that the charge on account of superannuation would amount to rather more than £5,000. He did not understand, with regard to the Vote before the Committee, how it was that while the net decrease was stated to be £7,265, almost the whole of which resulted from the reduction of salaries, there was, lower down on the page, a non-effective charge of £16,422 for this year, as against £14,178 for the year 1884–5, the difference between the two sums being £2,244. However, taking the difference between the amount of superannuation stated by his hon. Friend at"£5,000, and the saving of £9,000 due to the reduction of salaries, that, he said, was a very considerable decrease; but he wished to point out to his hon. Friend that after re-organization had taken place, it very frequently occurred that a large number of clerks were added, which brought up the expenditure and the number of employés to the original figures. He wished to warn his hon. Friend against that evil. He knew how difficult it was for the political officials of the Crown to resist the constant pressure I which was put on them by the permanent officials to increase salaries; but he warned the Government that if the increase of the expenditure of the country was to continue long at the present rate there would be some very serious expression of public opinion that might possibly interfere with the comforts of some of the permanent Civil servants of the Crown in a manner which would not be very agreeable. He hoped that the Committee, instead of being led away by the arguments of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Queen's County, would strengthen the hands of Her Majesty's Government whenever they made an effort to reduce the expenditure which had already become a very serious burden on the country.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

said, the hon. Gentleman the Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) had not appreciated the point of his observations. He (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) had merely set forth the character of the alterations in the staff of the Department. There were 9 clerks of the 1st Class, 10 clerks of the 2nd Class, and 11 clerks of the 3rd Class, and nearly all of these men were at the maximum of their class; the 9 men of the 1st Class, at £800, drew £7,171; the 10 men of the 2nd Class, at £600, drew £6,000; the 11 men of the 3rd Class, at £400, drew £4,498—every one of the 30 men was at the maximum of his class. The Department got rid of all these experienced men, except 6, and those 6 were turned into principals at £800 a-year; and 17 perfectly new men—men who did not appear on last year's list—had been brought in. Having got rid of 30 experienced men, the Department brought in 17 men who had not been at the work before, who were quite new to the Office. He asked any reasonable man, however extravagant his notions might be of the comparative efficiency of the Civil Service, whether 17 men introduced into the Office within 12 months were competent to do the work of 30 old and efficient men who had been engaged on the work for a great many years? They had been told that the superannuation would amount to £5,350. He would not trouble the Committee with figures; but how these 24 men, all at their maximum, could be pensioned at such a sum, he could not understand. That was only one part of the case. In the Registry alone, they got rid of 10 1st Class clerks, and they did not replace them at all. Either there was work to be done, or there was not. The Board of Trade had been employing dozens of men with the mere pretence of work, or they had, somehow or other, managed to get rid of an important section of Departmental work. If that was not so, how on earth did the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Holms) mean to defend such a re-casting of the Department as was now proposed? He (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) asserted, of his own knowledge of these Estimates which was not altogether elementary—he had watched the Estimates for a great number of years—that no man, having the responsibility cast upon him of drafting an Estimate for the House of Commons, could have drawn up such a set of figures as this, unless he had in the background something altogether exceptional by which to explain it.

MR. HOLMS

said, he thought it was clear that when any Department of the Government was re-organized it must be re-organized to the best of the ability of those who composed it. It was felt that some re-organization was requisite, and the Department endeavoured to do the best under the circumstances. It was believed that considerable saving would accrue to the country. The expenditure of the country was large enough at the present time; and, therefore, he hoped no serious opposition would be raised to what had been done. The hon. Member for Queen's County (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) had said that the 17 clerks were all new men. On examination it would be found they were not all new men. Upon the whole, the result of the re-casting of the Office would be of advantage to the country. There was no reason to believe that under the new arrangements the Office would be worked in anything but an efficient manner.

MR. WARTON

said, they had been told that by the re-organization there would be a saving of about £4,000 a-year. But they had two statements, one by a Minister of the Crown, and another in the Estimate. He could not reconcile the statement they had received by word of mouth, and the statement with regard to the non-effective charge on page 106. Was the whole expenditure of pensioning off or making allow- ances to clerks indicated by the difference of the non-effective charge; because if there was some other item, where was it to be found? He did not criticize the conduct of the Government in making this change. He was not sufficiently well acquainted with the matter to do so; his only point was that the facts should be stated accurately on the Paper, so that they could be understood. The change might be a very good one, and it might be an economical one. He had nothing to say on that point; all he wished to suggest was the propriety of putting an intelligible explanation on the Paper itself, so that when people came to read the Paper they could see at a glance what had been done. Why could there not be a note to the Estimate such as this?—"Owing to a reorganization of the Office the following savings have been effected.… These must be reduced by certain pensions which will hare to be granted to certain men."

MR. HIBBERT

said, he was almost sorry the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton) was not in the position which he (Mr. Hibbert) occupied at the present time. Apart from that observation, however, he quite agreed with the hon. and learned Gentleman that it was always desirable, when any re-organization took place, that the whole facts should be stated. He also agreed with the hon. and learned Gentleman that the full amount of charge was not shown. This Estimate only showed what amount was brought into charge at the present time; the remainder would appear in next year's Estimate. If he had any power over the Estimates of another year, he would consider whether such information as was desired could not be given. He would like to say, in reply to what the hon. Gentleman the Member for Queen's County (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) had said upon the question of the 17 clerks, that he was informed on good authority that of the 17 clerks, 11 were persons who were in the Office before, and were taken from some of the other clerks who had disappeared from the present list. Only six would be men brought into the Office for the first time.

MR. GORST

said, he wished to ask a question with reference to the legal branch of the Board of Trade Establishment. The legal branch of the Board of Trade was, he believed, of comparatively modern origin. It originated not very much more than 10 years ago; but it had led to an enormous amount of expenditure. The salaries amounted to about £5.000, and the law charges to about £18,000, making a total legal charge upon the Consolidated Fund of about £23,000, as compared with £52,000 for the whole of the other expenditure of the Board of Trade. No doubt, it was a very convenient luxury for the Board of Trade to have its own legal branch—he believed it was found extremely convenient. Instead of employing the Treasury Solicitor to conduct their legal business, the Board of Trade liked to have a solicitor of their own, as everybody did; but the question was whether the luxury of the Board of Trade indulging in a separate solicitor was not a great tax and charge upon the Public Revenue. He believed there was no branch of the Service in which saving could be more easily effected than in the conduct of the legal business of the Government; and the way to effect this would be to consolidate the whole of the legal business in one Department, over which there could not only be the supervision of the Treasury, but also the supervision of the Law Officers of the Crown. The Law Officers of the Crown were Members of the House, and they were liable to be attacked in the House for excessive legal expenditure. If the Committee were now discussing a general legal charge, instead of the legal branch of the Board of Trade, they would have the advantage of the presence of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General, or the Solicitor General, or of both. Under the present circumstances, they had to discuss the matter without the presence of the Law Officers. Now, he would suggest to the Members of the Government who were present, and who were understood to be desirous of distinguishing themselves in effecting economy in the Public Service, that they should consider the advisability of handing over all legal business to the person who was the Solicitor to the Executive Government—the Solicitor to the Treasury. He understood that formerly a great part of the legal business of the Board of Trade was done by the Solicitor to the Treasury, and what was not done by that gentleman was done by the Solicitor to the Customs. He was certain that if this branch of the Board of Trade were allowed to continue, the expenditure would become more and more excessive year by year. The legal work was not as efficiently done as it would be if there was one consolidated Legal Department.

MR. HIBBERT

said, he thought the suggestion of the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Gorst) was one well worthy of consideration. He agreed that there was plenty of room for saving in the legal expenses of every Department of the State. "Whether some better system could be adopted, so as to save expense as well as to secure better administration, was a matter worthy of inquiry by a Departmental or some other Committee.

Vote agreed to.

(6.)£664, to complete the sum for the Bankruptcy Department of the Board of Trade.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

said, he was utterly unable to reconcile the figures of the Estimate with the figures issued to the House in Paper 307, 1884. According to that Paper, the remuneration of County Court Registrars in respect of Bankruptcy business was on the increase—in 1883 it amounted to £86,000; but in 1884 it had risen to £89,000. From item D, it was seen that only £33,000 was taken last year, and that £33,000 only was required in the year under estimate. The Paper he quoted from showed that the pensions and compensations amounted to the sum of £24,000 a-year, and that the expenses of the prosecutions for offences under the Bankruptcy Act came to a total of £115,000. Now, those figures were so very much at variance with the figures in the Estimate that some explanation was required. If the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Holms) could not afford any explanation with regard to the two items he (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) had just mentioned, perhaps he could give the Committee some definite information respecting the salaries of Receivers?

MR. HOLMS

said, that the salaries of Receivers would be larger this year than last. With regard to the expenses generally, the sum given appeared to be a little more than the sum put down before. They were able this year to estimate very clearly.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

said, they all understood that this Vote should be presented in such a form that the state of the Bankruptcy Department of the Board of Trade might come before the House of Commons. But the figures of the Estimate were strangely at variance with the figures given in the Departmental Report. That Report showed that the amounts paid under the different headings were very much higher than those shown in the Estimate; they were higher in the year before last, and they were higher a train last year; and while he should like the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Holms) to give, if he could, some explanation of the difference between the two sets of figures, he should also like him to tell the Committee what was the condition of the Bankruptcy Fund. The hon. Member was aware that, under the Bankruptcy Act of 1883, all the assets of bankrupt estates were to be placed in the hands of the Board of Trade, and that the Board of Trade were allowed to bank the money and make, no doubt, a very considerable sum per annum in the way of interest. The question was debated, with a certain amount of animation two years ago, what would be the amount which the money entrusted to the Board of Trade would produce. They were told by the Board of Trade officials that there was no reason to suppose it would ever reach an)r very large sum; but they had never had a definite statement from that day to this as to the amount of money the Board of Trade had received annually from that source. He should like to know what that sum was, and what the Board of Trade had done with it?

MR. HOLMS

said, it would be difficult to give any idea of the amount, because the money was divided into two parts. He did not think that up to the present time they had had any clear or definite Return of the amount of money paid to the Board of Trade in the form asked for.

MR. WARTON

said, he must certainly ask why they could not have this very important item of revenue clearly set forth? There was now a new sys-tern, of Bankruptcy. The Bankruptcy Act was the one performance of the Session of 1883; it was a pet scheme of the Government. There was a sum of £76,000 given here, and yet the Go- vernment did not condescend to show how it was given up. When such trumpery charges as those for housekeepers and charwomen were clearly defined, it seemed the height of financial hypocrisy not to give the particulars of items amounting to tons of thousands of pounds. If the Government would condescend to state the items, hon. Members would be able to draw a comparison between the sanguine estimate now and the real amount for next year. He would undertake to say that if the Government allowed hon. Members the materials for drawing this comparison, it would be found that the difference in the items was not a few pounds, or a few hundreds or thousands, but many thousands. Could the Government tell the Committee what the progress was last year, and could they say, to a few hundred thousand pounds, what was the amount in the possession of the Bankruptcy Court? This was not the way in which these matters should be dealt with. The hon. Gentleman in charge of the Vote (Mr. Holms) should be in a position to give the required information; but, as a matter of fact, he did not seem to know whether the amount in the possession of the Court was thousands or millions. He (Mr. Warton) did not wish to be suspicious; but it looked very much as though the Government, first of all, indulged their rage for officialism by appointing a great many new officials in the Re-coiver's Department, putting the country to a great deal more expense than was necessary, and then, in order to cloak the proceeding, made a sanguine estimate of what the receipts would be next year. "Certain increased expenditure on salaries and possible increased receipts in the form of fees." That was the way it was put down. The Bankruptcy Act was only passed in 1883, and the country had had little experience of it as yet, and it was, therefore, rather cool to be adding, to the extent of £5,000, to the Chief Receiver's Department, and still cooler to assume a large increase in revenue without submitting the figures upon which such an assumption was based and which were to repay this additional expenditure.

MR. ARTHUR ARNOLD

asked, how it was that the non-effective charge was £1,087; whereas the non-effective charge of the Bankruptcy Department of the Board of Trade was £2,300 a-year? Would the hon. Member (Mr. Holms) explain that difference of over £1,000?

MR. HOLMS

was understood, in reply to the hon. and learned Member for Brid port (Mr. Warton), to say that the Estimates wore larger this year, for the reason that it was now possible to judge of them more clearly. He could not reply to the question put by the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Arthur Arnold), because he did not possess information requisite to enable him to do so. He would inquire into the matter.

MR. ARTHUR ARNOLD

said, that what he complained of was the increase in the charge for the current year. How had it been that, in the same Department, in one place the total non-effective charge was given and in another a comparatively trifling sum was put down?

MR. WARTON

said, he recognized the generous feeling of the Minister in charge of the Tote, and his wish to make everything as clear as possible; but instead of general statements, he (Mr. Warton) wanted three figures—namely, the items making up the £76,000—the items "stamps," "fees," and "interest of money last year."

MR. HOLMS

I can easily give that information.

MR. WARTON

said, he wanted it now. He did not wish to appear discourteous; but it was all very well to say—"We will give you the figures," or "We must give you the figures." His contention was that they ought to be there now. The hon. Member (Mr. Holms) must have some means of knowing how the £70,000 was arrived at, and yet he would make it appear to the Committee that he knew nothing at all about the matter. Could the hon. Member say to a few thousands what the amount of stamps was, or to a few thousands what the fees were, and what was the interest on money last year?

MR. HOLMS,

who was almost inaudible, was understood to reply that there could not be any harm in stating clearly that the Estimate of Revenue was £42,000, as against £41,000 last year. They received £41,000 from stamps last year. As regarded the sub-heads, the Estimate last year was a mere guess, which was not the case this year, as they now had the experience of last year to guide them.

(7.)£26,007, to complete the sum for the Charity Commission.

MR. W. H. SMITH

I wish to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, whether the difficulties that have occurred in making provision for the business of the Charity Commission have been got rid of, and whether the works for which the Vote was taken have been fully carried out?

MR. HIBBERT

The works for which provision was made are going on—namely, the works for completing the arrangements of Gwydyr House for the convenience of the Commission. I have no knowledge of any altered circumstances since the Vote on Account was taken for the Charity Commission. Of course, in anything I say I cannot pledge any future Administration as to the use the House will be put to when completed; but, so far as the present Administration is concerned, I do not know that it is intended to make any change in the use of the House. The works that were in progress are still going on, and, I trust, will soon be brought to a termination.

MR. W. H. SMITH

The Government asked for and took a Vote for furniture and certain fittings, and the objects for which, the money was obtained were carried out. In the absence of the necessary fittings, it was not possible to bring into the building the City Charities Commission, and the consequence was that there was great inconvenience experienced in the carrying on of the functions of the City Charities Commission, as well as the work of the Charity Commission itself. Is the hon. Member able to say that the money which has been taken has been properly applied? [Mr. HIBBERT: Is being.] Well, is being. Is the work which is necessary for the operations of these two important Commissions being carried out? If so, I have nothing further to say; but the hon. Gentleman is well aware that, for some cause or other, there has been great delay, and that it should not be allowed to continue longer. I think the funds that have been provided for the improvements at Gwydyr House have been provided under an arrangement by which the City Charities Commission contribute nearly the whole sum, so that they are prevented from entering into the occupation of that which they have themselves pur- chased. It certainly seems extraordinary that there should be any difficulty about a matter that seems so necessary for the proper administration of the work of this important Department.

MR. MOLLOY

said, he should like to hear some explanation of the large increase which had taken place in salaries in this Department during the year. The increase was £4,696, and, as the Committee well knew, this was already one of the most overpaid Departments which ever came under the observation of Committee of Supply. The increase to which he drew attention was entirely for salaries. In the first line of the Estimate there was an increase of £1,698 in respect of salaries, and the next increase was £525, also in respect of salaries. Then there was a small increase of £15 for travelling expenses, which could, of course, be easily accounted for. Again, in the City of London Parochial Charities Department, they had an increase of £2.058 on the salaries of last year, and there was no explanation whatever given of it. This, as he had said, was one of the most overpaid Departments of the State, and he should very much like to know what was to be said for the additions to which he drew attention?

MR. HIBBERT

said, he could not agree that this was one of the most overpaid Departments of the State, because he considered that the work done by the Charity Commission was of the highest importance, and had been carried out in a most satisfactory manner. It had been an increasing work—in fact, the work of the Department had increased so much that it had necessitated the increase in the Vote in respect of salaries of which the hon. Member complained. In the first place, it had been found necessary to appoint an Assistant Commissioner during the present year. That had become requisite owing to the great delay which had taken place in the consideration of very important schemes which were waiting decision. There were schemes awaiting consideration from Beverley, Chichester, Hull, and Wakefield, in addition to other very important schemes. It had been found impossible, with the present staff, to keep up with the increasing work and carry it out in a satisfactory manner; and, therefore, the Treasury had agreed to the appointment of an Assistant Commissioner, on the understanding that the Vote for the Educational Assistant Commissioner should be omitted from the present Vote. There had been a sum granted previously in this way, and that was now omitted from the Vote, the amount so saved being paid to an Assistant Commissioner.

MR. MOLLOY

One extra Assistant Commissioner?

MR. HIBBERT

Yes. Then it had been found necessary to appoint two Commissioners in connection with the City of London Charities, in addition to those who had been previously in office; but those new appointments were only to be for 12 months, and were only made in order to overtake the pressing work of preliminary inquiry into individual schemes. The whole matter had been very closely considered by the Treasury, and he did not think a single halfpenny was being spent on those increases which was not necessary for the efficient working of the Department.

MR. MOLLOY

said, he did not know what the extra work the hon. Member alluded to was; but taking it for granted that there had been an extra amount of work, and that an extra Assistant Commissioner was appointed for general work, and two Commissioners were appointed for London, he presumed that altogether they would not receive an amount equal to the salary of a regular Commissioner. The increase in the Vote was considerably larger than the salaries of those three new officials added together.

MR. HIBBERT

They will receive £750 a-year each.

MR. MOLLOY

Yes, £2,250 between them; but, as he had pointed out, the total increase was £4,600 odd.

MR. HIBBERT

said, that the remainder of the increase was owing to the appointment of an increased number of clerks. The number of Commissioners having been added to, it had, of course, become necessary to re-arrange the whole Department.

MR. MOLLOY

said, he trusted that next year the Government would be able to show that there was no necessity for an increase of that kind. He wished to know whether the appointment of an Assistant Commissioner was to be permanent or only temporary?

MR. HIBBERT

said, the Commissioners appointed in connection with the City of London Charities would be only appointed for 12 months; but the Assistant Commissioner he had referred to would be a permanent official.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

said, he did not regret the appointment of the Assistant Commissioner, as it did away with the duties of the Secretary. He did not believe there was much room to complain of the money spent in this Department, having regard to the amount of work to be done. The Commission had a large number of schemes to deal with, the amount of money involved being somewhere about £11,000,000. But, unfortunately, the Commission did not do the work it was supposed to do the Commissioners themselves, in their Eeport, said that they had not been able to comply with all the requirements of the law, for even when they got in the accounts of the Charities they were not able to examine and audit them. So far as that was concerned—as they did not do the work for which they were appointed—they might as well not exist at all. It was time the Treasury made some careful investigation into the amount of work slurred over in the Office. On consideration of the facts brought before them the Government had consented to an increase in the staff. Now, unfortunately, the Commissioners insisted on their clerical staff consisting of barristers and solicitors, their contention being that it was convenient in the transaction of such business as came before them to have clerks conversant with legal phraseology and conversant with legal instruments relating to property. It seemed to him, however, that if they had in connection with the Charity Commission a strong staff of barristers and solicitors, there would be great danger that such uninteresting, though highly important, work as the examination of accounts would be performed in a very perfunctory fashion. Could the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury tell him the number of their staff belonging to one or other branch of the Legal Profession, and the strength of the clerical staff, properly so called, which could be trusted to overtake the work of the Commissioners?

MR. HIBBERT

said, there could be no doubt that some appointments had been made amongst gentleman possessing legal knowledge; but he did not think the large majority were barristers and solicitors.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

referred the hon. Gentleman to the Report of the Charity Commissioners themselves on this matter. They said it was now their practice on the occurrence of vacancies to bring into force the new scheme by which it was provided that, gentlemen from one branch or other of the Legal Profession should be appointed as clerks.

MR. HIBBERT

said, the hon. Gentleman pointed to a certain class of clerks. If gentlemen of this class could be engaged at salaries which were appropriate to the work done, surely it must be economical to engage them. They must be singularly fitted for the class of work to be done. With regard to the accounts, directly they were received they were examined by the Commissioners.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

The Auditors say they cannot examine them.

MR. HIBBERT

But they do. It is not their duty to audit the accounts—they have not the power to do so under the Act of Parliament; but they examine them. I do not think that the Commissioners deserve the blame the hon. Gentleman seems inclined to attach to them. It is quite impossible in some districts to examine the accounts as carefully as could be wished, or as carefully as it is possible to examine them in other districts.

Vote agreed to.

(8.) £21,739, to complete the sum for the Civil Service Commission.

MR. THOROLD ROGERS

said, he had for several years past—certainly for the past four years—in connection with this Vote for the Civil Service Commission, asked for an explanation from the Secretary to the Treasury as to why a certain book prepared by Sir George Dasent, one of the Commissioners, had not yet been published. Why had the public money been spent on it if it was not to be put in circulation?

SIR HENRY HOLLAND

said, he wished to call attention to the inconvenience of the rooms provided for the examinations for the Army and Sandhurst, an inconvenience which he had heard complained of in hundreds of cases. Some days it was so cold that the men could hardly write, and the rooms were not provided with sufficient fireplaces; sometimes they were very close and too crowded. Another matter to which he desired to call special attention was this. During the examinations a person had to read out in dictation a certain passage from a book, and the young men undergoing examination had to write it down. Well, in many cases it was simply impossible, owing to the arrangement of the rooms, for the young men who had, in this way, to write down what was read out to them to hear what was read. He knew that this was the case. On one occasion he was informed that a large number of the candidates failed to hear what was read out to them. He wished to ask the Government whether they would take steps to provide proper rooms for those examinations in the future? At present, the inconvenience to which many of the candidates were put was most unfair, and numerous complaints were made on the subject.

DR. CAMERON

said, he had received a letter complaining that the Scotch candidates in certain examinations were not fairly treated. He did not know whether the allegation was general, or whether it was limited to the instance he was about to refer to, but, according to that instance, it was clear that there existed what appeared to be a very unfair system in connection with the so-called "open" competitive examination for the post of assistant surveyor in the Royal Engineers' Department of the War Office. It had been advertized that there were eight such situations vacant, and competitors were invited to apply. On applying, the applicants received a Circular which stated that it was a necessary condition to competition that the applicant must have spent three years in acquiring knowledge under an architect, civil engineer, or surveyor, and that he should be able to show that he was fit for the post for which he was competing, and be prepared to send proof of it to the examining authorities. Well, recently, one candidate, a young Scotchman, complying with the conditions, sent in his papers showing that he had been five years in a surveyor's office. He went through two examinations, which occupied eight days, and came out third on the list. As there were only eight places, and as he had come out third, he naturally expected t;> be appointed; but, greatly to his surprise, he found out that the examining authorities, on making further inquiries about him, did not think that his preliminary training fitted him for the post. That was a case of very great hardship. The young man had spent £30 on his examination, and had passed very creditably, only to learn subsequently that all his expenditure had been thrown away, and that he had had all his trouble for nothing. He (Dr. Cameron) did not think that a business-like way of doing things. If they wanted to find out whether or not a man had had sufficient preparation, surely eight day's examination should give the examiners opportunity enough of judging. Whatever inquiries it might be necessary to mike should be made beforehand, and the examiners should judge of the knowledge and ability of the applicant on his merits.

MR. HIBBERT

said, he was aware that representations had been made to the Treasury with respect to the want of proper accommodation for holding the examinations of the Civil Service Commissioners. A proposal had been made by the Science and Art Department to give up a private room at South Kensington for the purpose, and that would be fully considered. There could be no doubt that some better provision ought to be made for these examinations, and there was every willingness on the part of the Treasury to make a liberal allowance for the use of proper rooms. There were very excellent rooms engaged in different parts of the Metropolis for these examinations, and he would see whether any better arrangements could be made. With reference to the case which had been mentioned by the hon. Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron), there certainly did seem to be some cause for dissatisfaction. It was unfortunate that the fitness of a candidate by his previous training was not ascertained before he was examined. Those matters were, however, very much of a technical character, and he did not know that the Commissioners had been to blame in what had occurred. At the same time, he thought it would be better in future to lay down a rule by which the fitness of a candidate for the position he was seeking, as evidenced by his previous training, should be ascertained before he was admitted to the examination. He would be very glad to cull the attention of the Civil Service Commissioners to the subject.

DR. CAMERON

said, his correspondent had assured him that inquiries were addressed to the candidate's former employers, who, in reply, spoke in the highest terms of him. That made it all the worse, and showed more convincingly the unfairness and want of reality of those open competitions. If necessary, he (Dr. Cameron) would move for a Return on the subject.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

trusted they would not have to wait a twelvemonth before an examination was made into this case the Secretary to the Treasury had made one singular observation. The hon. Gentleman had said that he did not know that the Civil Service Commissioners were to blame. It was very likely the War Office Authorities and the Engineers' Department who were concerned. Very probably this particular gentleman, who was well qualified for the open competition, and who came out third after submitting to all the tests, was not acquainted with the Engineer officers at head-quarters. If he had only made their acquaintance before, he would have had a much better chance of being accepted. He (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) was certain that the Civil Service Commissioners had never shown any partiality in any of their dealings that he had ever heard of, and that they were not fairly open to blame; but he believed that the Military Authorities did interfere in these matters, and they did so because it did not suit them to accept a particular individual, however well qualified. He was glad to sea the Surveyor General of Ordnance in his place to hear the opinion expressed that the Military Authorities were perfectly capable of rejecting a good man and choosing instead another person who was proved to be inferior by any test to which he could be subjected. In justice to the man who had been rejected in the present case, he thought the Government ought to provide him with such a post as that for which he, taking them at their word, first presented himself. The man had submitted himself to all the tests they required in an examination of a very prolonged and searching character. He had come out well from that examination, and then, without any blame which could be specified attaching to him, he was told that he should not have the post, and was thrown back into civil life with this against him—that having gone up and been found acceptable, he had for some unexplained cause been rejected. That was very likely to do the man a great deal of harm.

MR. BRAND

said, he did not know the facts of the case that had been referred to, and, therefore, he could only assume that they were really as stated; but he was sure there could be no ground for charging the officers of the Engineers' Department with partiality and undue influence. So far as he understood the case, a certain number of gentlemen offered themselves for a certain number of posts, and the Engineers inquired into their technical knowledge, and, having ascertained that it was sufficient, they allowed these gentlemen to go up for examination. In the case of one man they found afterwards that he had not sufficient technical knowledge. If the facts were as stated, that discovery ought, no doubt, to have been made by the Engineers in the first instance, and they should not have allowed the man to go up. But he (Mr. Brand) would make an inquiry into the circumstances.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

wished to ask two questions. He wanted to know how many of the Civil Service appointments were competed for, not in London, but at local examinations in Dublin, Edinburgh, Birmingham, and elsewhere? And he would also like to know something about the fees paid by the candidates who went up for examination. These were apparently very small points, but they were points of very great importance in Ireland. It was, unhappily, the case—though he hoped it would not always be so—that a large number of the educated youth of Ireland looked to the Civil Service as frequently the only outlet for their ability and exertions; and, in proportion to nationality, Ireland contributed a far larger number of Civil servants than any of the other nationalities. That was not entirely due to the fact that Irish students were particularly apt and quick and well suited for examinations; but it was, unfortunately, the case that Ireland did not present to the young men of the country any proper sphere of work. He could speak with assurance on the subject, for he was himself brought up in a certain Irish country town which possessed a College, and he was sure that even a small fee of £2 or £3—not so much, he hoped, in some cases, but he would like to know precisely what it was—even a small fee of £1 would add very considerably indeed to the heaviness of the burden borne by those youths, who had in this direction the only means of carving fortune for themselves. He would also like to know whether the system of local examinations at Dublin and elsewhere could not be extended? He did not know how many Departments did hold these competitive examinations in Dublin; but it would only be fair to the Irish students, so many of whom went into the Civil Service, that the system of local examination should be spread as far as possible. He had heard that the fees for the Indian Civil Service examinations were as high as £5. If that was so, he thought it highly objectionable, as placing an insurmountable obstacle in the path of poor but able young men.

MR. HIBBERT

said, he was unable to give the number of the local examinations; but as to the question of fees, he might say that the fees for the smaller Offices were exceedingly moderate. "Where the initial salary did not exceed £50, the fee was 1s.; where the salary did not exceed £75, the fee was 2s. 6d.; where the salary was £100, the fee was 5s.; and from thence up to £300 of salary, the fee was £1. The hon. Member for Galway (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) was quite right in saying that the fee for the Indian Civil Service was £5. He (Mr. Hibbert) had not been aware before that it was so heavy; and its amount would, no doubt, be a great impediment to a great number of the poorer classes who would wish to enter into competition. It seemed to have been fixed in 1870. He did not know whether there was any probability of the amount being reduced; but he would draw the attention of the India Office to the fact that the question had been raised, and that some alteration had been asked for.

MR. THOROLD ROGERS

said, the fee of £5 for the Indian Civil Service was fixed some years ago, and the rea- son was this—that 400 or 500 candidates went up for examination, and of those quite 200 were absolutely worthless. It was, therefore, thought expedient—he believed it was done by Mr. Lowe—to put on a tolerably heavy fee, in order to choke off from the examinations those candidates who had not the smallest prospect of success.

MR. SEXTON

said, he thought the explanation given by the hon. Member for Southward (Mr. Thorold Rogers) was very much the reverse of clear. The hon. Gentleman declared that the reason why the fee was made heavy was that some of the people who came forward had no merit. Did the hon. Gentleman mean to say that to impose a heavy fee was sufficient to stop a stupid man from going in for the examination? He might just as well say that he could convince a man of his own stupidity by subjecting him to taxation. The provision was very much more like to stop the clever men than the stupid ones. A stupid man often had a great deal of money, while a clever man was very often very poor. By putting an impost of £5 on the admission of every candidate, they would not keep out the stupid men, whose papers shocked the eye of the hon. Professor (Mr. Thorold Rogers), but only the clever ones. A heavy admission fee in the old days of nomination and corruption was reaosnable enough, for when a man had a good place given to him simply because he was somebody's son or nephew, it was only reasonable that he should pay something for it; but the whole system of competition rested on the assumption that the best men that could be got should be provided for the Public Service. Private interest and corruption had now been given up. The examinations were intended to prove that the men who passed were the best that could be got. But what was the use of the examination if a turnpike was set up with it, and the poor man, who had ability and every conceivable qualification except money, was told—"No; you shall not come in here. We will not permit you to satisfy us that you have the requisite qualifications unless you pay us ls., or 2s. 6d., or 5s., or £5?" There was no reason for setting up this financial bar, the only result of which would be that the rich man without brains would be al- lowed to pass, while the poor man, who had brains and no money, was stopped the moment he presented himself.

MR. THOROLD ROGERS

said, there was no body of examiners who did not charge a fee, and he did not know why they should not, seeing that examinations cost a great deal of money—considerably in excess of the receipts. He did not see why anybody should have the opportunity of going in for a good office for life, and pay nothing for it. But he could assure the hon. Members for Galway (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) and Sligo (Mr. Sexton) that that did not prevent poor men from competing, for people of very humble birth and very mean fortune, but of good character and very considerable capacity, were continually passing into the Indian Civil Service, notwithstanding the fees.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

asked the old question, Who was to examine the examiners?—because most of the papers set were remarkable for their extreme stupidity; and Mr. George Henry Lewes, one of the most highly-educated men of this or any other age, confessed that he himself could not have answered the questions that were put to his son, who was a candidate on one occasion for the Civil Service. In fact, the examination papers were, next to the answers of the Babooss of India, the most extraordinary monuments of pretentious ignorance that the present age had afforded. He felt sure that the Secretary to the Treasury would not accept the plea put forward by the hon. Member for South-wark (Mr. Thorold Rogers). A fee of £5 might well keep out the clever poor man, and admit the stupid rich one. There was no virtue in £5 to insure competence. In Ireland there was a system of education which brought University training home to the doors of the people, and he had known eases where a man in training to be a doctor of medicine had found the railway fare which he had to pay between Galway and Dublin a very serious consideration indeed. Was it not monstrous that a poor young man, who was obliged to borrow £1 10s. or £2 to pay his railway fare, should have to pay £5 when he got to Dublin as a fee for his examination? There ought to be no fee whatever.

MR. HIBBERT

sympathized with the views just expressed by the hon. Gentleman, but did not quite agree with the proposition that there ought to be no fee at all. Still, £5 was a very large sum to pay as a fee; but the Treasury had no direct power in the matter—it was in the hands of the India Office.

MR. SEXTON

retained the opinion that there was no sufficient reason for maintaining the fee.

MR. GORST

asked whether the Government would consider the question of the fees paid by artizans and labouring men in Her Majesty's Dockyards on promotion? That point was one entirely within the powers of the Secretary to the Treasury. He had had several complaints in cases where men were not going up for a first time, but where they had a natural right to expect promotion and advancement, and they had to pay a tax on each successful step they made.

MR. HIBBERT

Are they examined by the Civil Service Commissioners?

MR. GORST

Yes.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

repeated his question as to how many Departments held local examinations in Dublin?

MR. HIBBERT

said, he did not know, but he would try to obtain the information for the hon. Gentleman.

MR. MOLLOY

asked, whether a man who passed first, second, or third in an examination for eight appointments was not entitled to one of them under the Act as a matter of absolute right? Was it in the power of the Military Authorities, after the Civil Service Examiners had passed the man, to say he should not receive the appointment?

MR. BRAND

said, he did not know the facts of the case, but he would make inquiries.

MR. MOLLOY

said, he would repeat the question on another occasion, because if the Military Authorities had that power the whole intention of Civil Service Examination was set at naught.

MR. HIBBERT

said, he did not know-how far the hon. Gentleman was right in his assumption; but for his own part he (Mr. Hibbert) should have thought that the Military Authorities would not have had the power of refusal. He could, at any rate, assure the hon. Gentleman that his hon. Friend the Surveyor General proposed to make an inquiry into the subject. He would then fully ascertain what the powers of the Military Authorities really were.

DR. CAMERON

said, at present there was no evidence that the Military Authorities had refused to make appointments in the way stated.

MR. MOLLOY

said, after the answer he had just received from the Treasury Bench, he would not go further into the question at present. The Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Hibbert) had said he was not prepared to answer the question put to him at the present moment, and had proposed that inquiries should be made. That being so, he (Mr. Molloy) would raise the question on the Report, because he regarded the point as one of considerable importance, inasmuch as if the Military Authorities had the power of refusal, their action might prejudicially affect the whole system under which candidates were now appointed.

MR. WARTON

wished to put a question with regard to the £5 fee that was charged for entrance to the competitive examinations for India. It had been stated that fees in respect of the open competition for the Indian Active Service would be appropriated to the Imperial Exchequer, and he desired to know whether that was the practice at the present moment.

MR. HIBBERT

It is the custom now.

MR. WARTON

Why not say half?

Vote agreed to.

(9.) Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £40,189, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 18S6, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of the Comptroller and Auditor General of the Exchequer, including the Chancery Audit Branch.

DR. CAMERON

rose to move a reduction of the Vote by the sum of £1,000, and in doing so said, he desired to call attention to the fact that the Audit Department was one of the most important spending Departments of the country, and that as it was at present conducted it was a simple sham. The Appropriation Accounts for the Navy contained a note to which, it might be in the recollection of the Committee, he had already directed attention. It appeared that during the time of the second Russian War scare a large quantity of hay had been purchased by the Admiralty Department in Rotterdam— a quantity amounting to something like 1.200 tons. When the war scare was over the Admiralty proposed to hand over the hay to the War Office; but the War Office would not take it, and it was ultimately sold to a Glasgow Tramway Company for a sum that was less even than the cost of its storage at the Millwall Docks. Similarly unprofitable transactions had occurred in the purchase of porter and beer, which had been ordered for the consumption of the troops who might have been sent out. In connection with those transactions, the Accountant General had inserted in the Naval Appropriation Accounts a note to which he (Dr. Cameron) had referred on an occasion when he had taken the opportunity of commenting upon those matters at some length. The Accountant General said had either the porter or the hay, or the other stores, been taken in charge at any of the Naval Stations, or sold by auction in the ordinary way, in the absence of any audit, or other accounts by the Department, those transactions would have passed unnoticed unless the Admiralty themselves had called attention to them. He (Dr. Cameron) had thought the matter of sufficient importance to bring it under the attention of the House; and he believed he was right in saying that the right hon. Gentleman, a former Lord of the Admiralty, joined with the Representative of the Admiralty in the present Government in the endeavour to whitewash what had been done, and in assuring the Committee that he (Dr. Cameron) was very wrong in having called public attention to what had appeared to him to be something worse than a scandal. Nevertheless, after having defended the system of which he had complained, the first thing Her Majesty's Government did was to change it altogether, and to take the right to purchase out of the hands of the Admiralty and place it in the hands of the War Office. The result had been to do away altogether with all control over the stores on the part of the Audit Department. Last year a Select Committee sat to investigate matters that had occurred in the Commissariat and Transport Service during the Egyptian War in 1882. He (Dr. Cameron) was a Member of that Committee, and he was able to say that they took a great deal of evidence regarding the manner in which the supplies were obtained. Among other things they found that the accounts had come under the cognizance of that Department, and that the Department had actually written a letter to the Department of Supply and Transport, demanding an explanation regarding an item of hay, which had been objected to, to the value of some hundreds of pounds. The result was that it obtained an explanation of the item; but that explanation was not considered satisfactory because, although the net loss on the hay was stated, nothing was said about the heavier loss in the matter of freight. Now, he would put it to the Committee, was it to be imagined that that was the only item that should have come under the notice of the Department? They found in the matter of hay alone that about £20,000 worth had been purchased by a contractor in Liverpool for the use of the Force in Egypt; and with regard to the quality of that hay he thought he could best describe the nature of the transaction by relating an incident that was brought under the attention of the Select Committee. In doing that he desired to put before the Committee of the House evidence with regard to that hay which could not be considered as being based on ex post facto considerations. The chief veterinary officer of the Egyptian Army was examined, and he (Dr. Cameron) asked him to read a letter that had passed regarding the subject. The first paragraph read was to this effect— There is a contractor in Liverpool of the name of Cozens, I believe, who, if he had his deserts, would be hanged to the nearest tree. That did not appear in the Report of the proceedings of the Select Committee, because the Chairman of the Committee considered it to be a very strong statement, and ordered the reporter to score it out; but other portions of the evidence given before the Select Committee was equally strong. It appeared that £20,000 worth of hay had been purchased at the rate of £9 per ton. It had been bought of a number of persons, and in only one case was it reported to be merely good; in every other case it was described as "excellent." That was the hay of which one officer told the Committee that he had seen in it pieces of brickbats, old hay rope, and all sorts of rubbish. Another officer informed the Committee that some Cavalry officers, to whose regiment the hay had been served for fodder, refused to allow their horses to be bedded on it, lest they should eat it, and sicken themselves; and they were also told that some of the hay that had been served out for bedding was so abominably offensive that the men refused to lie upon it. A lot of that hay was sent out to the Indian Contingent, and the officers refused to take it because it was so bad. The result was that it was sold in Liverpool at £2 0s. 9d. per ton, at a money loss to the country of something like £3,058. What notice, it might be asked, did the Exchequer and Audit Department take of that? The answer was, none at all, the fact being that the Director of Contracts knew so little about the matter that he actually complimented the gentleman who had effected the purchase arrangement on the manner in which the contract was carried out, and that gentleman was paid a handsome sum by way of compensation before the termination of his contract. Why, he asked, were none of those losses taken into account by that Department? The reason was that, technically speaking, the hay had been taken into charge. It had been taken by an officer, who had received direct communications and orders from the Civil Department of the Supply and Transport Authorities. Another case of a similar character, which he might mention, had reference to the purchase of flour. The Supply and Transport Department employed a broker to purchase flour for the Egyptian Expedition. The flour was purchased on the advice of the broker, but against that of the Commissary General. The amount of the purchase was 70 days' supply for the entire Expeditionary Army; and when it was sent out to Egypt it was found that the first two shiploads were in such an execreable condition, that the Chief of the Staff telegraphed back that it could not be used; and it was said that it was in such a state that the bags stood up like pillars of plaster of paris. The whole of that 70 days' supply of flour was utterly useless, and had to be sold as starch. Why was it that nothing had come before the Audit Department with reference to that transaction? It had been bought through a broker, and there was nothing whatever to have prevented that broker buying his own flour at a com- mission. He did not say that that was the case, but still there was nothing to have prevented it. It came out that no sufficient sample had been kept, and that for the five cargoes of flour that were sent out to Egypt there was only a sample of four ounces which could be produced. It was said that originally there were bulk samples, but those were not producible. Why did the loss of that flour not come under the cognizance of the Exchequer and Audit Department? It would again be said because the flour had been technically taken in charge; but he asked in what way? The fact was that it had been bought by a broker, and was never submitted to the Commissary. It had been sent out to Egypt, where it was the duty of the Commissary to clear the vessels in which it was sent, and when the vessels were cleared of that rubbishing article, it was technically taken in charge, the result being that any bungling or mismanagement, or anything even worse, could not come under the cognizance of the Audit Department. The same thing might be said with regard to a quantity of oats that had been sent out. Complaints had been made respecting the quality of those oats, and there was a dispute about them. It turned out that they had been purchased by a man who was a dealer in oats, and who bought for the Government at a commission. He (Dr. Cameron) did not know how the oats were taken into charge; but if anything had gone wrong with them, he presumed that the Auditor would, as in the other cases, have known nothing about it. Then there was the case of the mules, in which a similar result had occurred. The Director of Supply and Transport, who bought the mules as well as the forage, wrote to the Governor at Cyprus, asking him to get some mules. That gentleman entered into a contract with a Mr. Christian, a banker out there, and, knowing nothing about mules himself, employed another person to make the purchase. He (Dr. Cameron) believed it was necessary that someone representing the Military Authorities should go and take the animals into charge, and a captain from the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders, who was in the Civil employment in Cyprus at the time, was sent out for the purpose of taking the mules into charge. The result was that there was a very considerable loss in that transaction. Another purchase of a similar kind was made by Major Currie at Smyrna. He was sent out at the recommendation of the Surveyor General of Ordnance, and the result was that out of 661 mules, which were sent to Ismailia from Smyrna, 414 proved to be good for nothing, and were rejected as being absolutely useless for any work during the Campaign. The Commandant bad made a note in reference to those mule purchases, and had said that it was a very serious matter that out of 1,100 mules, 758 were found to be unfit for work when landed. He added that they could not be sold, and, in fact, were not worth the expense of sending to market; but meanwhile they were a source of great expense and trouble to the Government. That piece of mismanagement must have cost the Government a very large sum; and it appeared to him to be exactly one of those cases that ought to have come under the cognizance of the Exchequer and Audit Department. It did not, however, come under notice because, as he understood, the mules were taken into charge, in one case by the captain of the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders, and in the other case by Major Currie. Then, again, there was the case of saddles. Major Carrie should have taken in charge the saddles bought by the contractor for the mules; but the contractor did not buy the saddles with the mules. Major Currie, consequently, gave an order for a lot of Turkish saddles, and when those saddles got to Ismailia they were found to be useless. A lot of them were brought to the Commissariat depot, and pitched on the ground, and a lot of them were never taken out of the ship. By whom, he asked, were those saddles taken in charge? The loss upon them was £700. To sum up briefly, he might say that in this one single Department of the Director of Supply and Transport, £130,000 was spent upon mules, excluding those purchased for the Reserve; and on that sum there was, as nearly as he could make out, a direct loss of no less than £75,000, or over 50 per cent. The loss upon the hay purchased in the case of Mr. Cozens alone was £20,000, and there was a loss in the purchase of the flour, to which he bad referred, of between £9,000 and £10,000. That was the direct loss in money out of pocket at this end. When they came to consider what was the loss in Egypt, through the waste that bad been sustained in things that would have been almost invaluable out there, it might be put at something between £100,000 and £150,000. It was said, and it was constantly urged upon the Committee, that the Department had to purchase something like 50 different articles, out of which only four went wrong—those articles being flour, oats, cheese, and potatoes. Of the sum of | £59,000 spent in those articles, £29,638 was absolutely wasted; and yet the Exchequer and Audit Department took no notice of that loss. The only case to which the attention of the Comptoller and Director General was called was the case of the West of England hay, which was objected to by the Commissary General, and was never technically taken in charge. He considered that that was a very important matter, and well deserving of the attention of the Committee, because his complaint applied not only to a single instance, but to every Campaign that had been undertaken of late years. The recent Campaign in the Soudan had been full of similar incidents. A lot of biscuits that had been sent out had not been properly packed, and the Committee had been told that tons of those articles of food had been put aside as totally unfit for use. In his opinion, the Auditor General ought to make a note of those things, as he had done of the Naval—he would not say misappropriations—but absurdities, in 1878–9. If the Auditor General were to take that course, the House would have the means of knowing what was going on; while the officials in the different Departments, knowing that all those shortcomings would be exposed, would be induced to exercise a greater amount of vigilance and care. As it was, they would never hear anything more about the biscuits he had spoken of, and they would never be able to learn with whom the blame rested with regard to this particular transaction. If the facts in all those cases were fully known, a remedy might be applied; but, as it was, they would have nothing but compliments all round. The House would be told that the Director of Supply and Transport had worked marvels, and he would be probably recommended for promotion and made a K.C.B. Those who did not know the real history of the Campaign of 1882 might consider that it was desirable to confer some such reward upon him; but he (Dr. Cameron) wished to impress upon the Committee that unless the Director General took cognizance of the things he had been pointing out, they would continue to have an enormous amount of waste, and not only would the loss be felt in a monetary point of view, but the result might be to endanger the safety of any Expedition they might be called upon to send out in the future. As the hour was so late, he did not wish to detain the Committee at any farther length, or he might have gone much more fully into those matters; as it was, he would content himself by moving the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £1,000.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £39,189, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1886, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of the Comptroller and Auditor General of the Exchequer, including the Chancery Audit Branch."—(Dr. Cameron.)

THE CHAIRMAN

I wish to point out to the Committee that I have allowed the hon. Gentleman the Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron) to proceed with the arguments he has used, because I thought that, as he intended to move a reduction of the Vote, he would in some way connect his observations with that proposal; but it seems to me that he has made many observations with regard to the purchase of stores which are altogether unconnected with the subject of the Vote, and I cannot, therefore, allow the discussion to continue upon those lines. In my opinion, he has not brought matters to which he has referred into their necessary connection with the Vote before the Committee, and I should have stopped him some time ago if I had not been under the impression that he was about to establish a connection between his remarks and the proposal he was about to make.

DR. CAMERON

said, he was sorry if he had transgressed the Rules of the House; but he had been desirous of pointing out that there was absolutely no audit in connection with one of the most important spending Departments of the State.

SIR HENRY HOLLAND

said, he had risen for the purpose of pointing out to the Committee the very objection to the speech of the hon. Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron) which had just been ruled by the Chairman. It was clear that the hon. Member had travelled far beyond the mark in his attacks upon the administration of the War Office and Admiralty, with whose Executive action in such matters the Comptroller and Auditor General had nothing to do. The hon. Member had said that the control of the Exchequer and Audit Department was a perfect sham." Now, as one who had had considerable experience in the working of that Department, from having served on the Committees of Public Accounts, he (Sir Henry Holland) strongly protested against such a charge. The Comptroller and Auditor General and the officers under him did all the work that was intrusted to them by Parliament in the most admirable manner; but, of course, they had no right to travel beyond the powers so vested in them. The charge made against the Comptroller and Auditor General amounted to this—that he had not reported upon certain ill-advised contracts and action of the War Office and Admiralty. But he had no means of doing that, as he had no power to audit the stores and manufacturing branches of those Departments. Whether he should have such power vested in him was a question of great difficulty, which had been discussed over and over again. It had been several times brought before Public Accounts Committees, and he would venture to read to the House one paragraph from the Report of the Committee of 1880. That Committee reported as follows:— The Comptroller and Auditor General points out that, as Parliament is well aware, his Department exercises no supervision over the Manufacturing and Stores Department of the Army, and that he is unable to give an opinion whether such accounts should supply means of ascertaining the total value of the stores actually issued to the Navy in a given year. Whether any independent criticism of Store accounts should he established, and, if so, how far and with what limitations it should be exercised, are questions of old standing and of great difficulty. The Committee of Public Accounts, in their Report of last year, considered that it would be unadvisable to enter into the question of the extension of the duties of the Exchequer and Audit Department, until the Test Audit of the Appropriation Accounts has been made more complete, and in this opinion your Committee concur. They trust, however, that the question will not be lost sight of, and they are disposed to think that the appointment of a Committee, formed of gentlemen from the different Departments interested, to examine into the subject might elicit useful information. He was afraid that no attention had been paid to the suggestion made in the concluding part of that paragraph; at least, he had never heard of the appointment of any such Committee; but he hoped that this discussion might lead to that step being taken, and that the suggestion would be reconsidered. Until, however, such an audit of stores had been intrusted to the Comptroller and Auditor General, he could only report upon cases which might accidentally come under his notice while auditing the War Office or Admiralty Accounts; and that he did in the hay and porter cases referred to by the hon. Member for Glasgow, and that he had done in some other cases of a like kind. Till his power of audit were enlarged, such cases must be dealt with by a Committee of the House, or in debate by attacks on the action of the Department, but not by attacks on the Exchequer and Audit Department. He did not desire to prolong the discussion; but he thought it his duty to rise in his place and testify to the careful and excellent work of the Exchequer and Audit Department, which the hon. Member for Glasgow seemed to impugn.

MR. RYLANDS

said, he entirely agreed with what had fallen from the hon. Baronet the Member for Midhurst (Sir Henry Holland); and, as a Member of the Public Accounts Committee, he could bear testimony to the admirable manner in which the Department of the Comptroller and Auditor General performed its duties. Although he agreed as to the importance of the points raised by his hon. Friend, he was not quite sure that he would not have been more in Order in bringing them before the House in a different way. But what they wanted—and what he believed they must get if they were to have reform in respect of the extravagant use and purchase of stores— was this; there must be in the Department itself a strong determination to make the men who committed or permitted faults of the kind to which his hon. Friend had drawn attention, seriously responsible; and he believed that until that was done in the case of those gentlemen in the Public Service who fulfilled their duties in a most outrageous manner, the public would not be satisfied. He did not think the Comptroller and Auditor General would be able to protect the public from the abuses to which the hon. Member for Glasgow had drawn the attention of the Committee; but he did think that they had a right to expect from the political Representatives in that House of the great spending Departments, when such matters came before them, as great mistakes, and probably worse than mistakes, in the purchase of stores for the Public Services, that they would see that the officials responsible were punished. MR. BRAND said, that the hon. Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron) laboured under the same error as when this question was discussed in the Committee upstairs. He instanced three or four purchases—namely, purchases by the Admiralty in 1879; a purchase by the War Office of hay in the West of England; and another purchase of hay at Liverpool by the same Department; and he complained that the practice was not uniform in those cases, the Auditor General reporting upon the loss in some and not in others. The explanation was perfectly simple. If, in the course of his examination of accounts, the Auditor General were to find a sum for purchase of hay, and against that purchase the voucher of an Accountant for its receipt on charge, he would naturally accept that voucher as conclusive. But when, as in the case of the West of England hay, he found that there was no receipt voucher, he followed the purchase, reporting that the hay, not having been received on charge, was sold at a loss. What the hon. Member wanted was to make the Auditor General undertake an audit of stores, and to shift on the Auditor General the responsibility for issues which now attached to the Secretary of State. The contention of the hon. Member divided itself into two heads—first, that there was no independent audit of the cash accounts of the Supply and Store Department, as the heads of those Departments audited their own accounts; secondly, that stores could be struck off charge by the Secretary of State without independent control. As to the first point of contention, it was not accurate to say that there was no independent audit of those cash accounts. Any payments made by the War Department directly were audited weekly by the Auditor General. But the Heads of those Departments audited the accounts of the out-station officers, and their examination was subject to the test audit of the Exchequer and Audit Department. That system was established upon a recommendation of a Committee upon the conduct of business in the Army Departments, composed of the Earl of Northbrook, Mr. Stansfeld, Sir Edward Lingard, and Mr. Anderson. The Report said— Store accounts would be kept in the Department which is responsible for the preparation of estimates for stores, which must have the best means of determining questions which arise relating to the consumption of stores, and which cannot effectually fulfil its own administrative duties without itself dealing with those accounts; for the information required for the purpose of insuring economy in the consumption of stores can only be derived from a thorough acquaintance with the accounts, and constant reference to store ledgers is necessary on the part of those who have to maintain supplies of stores. It was obvious that officials having daily experience of the numerous and yet minute details of Army administration, and having an intimate knowledge of the regulations governing all issues, were better able to check and examine the accounts, keeping a watchful supervision over the performance of their duties by the issuing officers, than an independent authority, who could not possibly hope to acquire the same grasp of the intricate details of Army administration. In proof of the statement that the cash accounts were carefully examined and checked by the Departments concerned, he might point to the Report of the Auditor General recently laid before Parliament of a test audit which he had lately applied to Vote 10—the Supply Vote—which was of a satisfactory nature, and showed that both the regulations were clearly framed and the examination properly carried out. Upon an expenditure of over £3,000,000, the total errors discovered, arising from all causes, did not exceed £90. The second question raised by the hon. Member—that was, the independent audit of stores—was a very important, difficult, and complicated one. It had been frequently discussed, and was now under the consideration of the Public Accounts Committee. He believed that the organization of an efficient independent audit of stores was quite impracticable, and that, even if it could be organized, the cost would be out of all proportion to the results obtained. The hon. Member in his argument lost sight of the fact that the Heads of those Departments were not the spenders of stores—the troops were the spenders of stores and supplies—the Heads of Departments being interested in seeing that the stores and supplies were issued in proper quantity, of the right quality, and that they were economically used. He did not believe that it was desirable to relieve the Secretary of State of his responsibility. He thought that the Auditor General ought not to be in a position to question the issue of stores or supplies by the Secretary of State, and that, properly speaking, an auditor could not go behind the voucher of the accountant who had received the stores on charge. The stores had then passed into the Service, and the Secretary of State became responsible for them. The statement that stores could be written off without special authority must have been made under a misapprehension of the system of account. Stores when purchased were, as a rule, taken on the books of some public accountant of stores; when so taken on charge the accountant could only be relieved of the charge, first, by producing a voucher showing that the stores had been issued according to regulation; secondly, by the proceedings of a board of officers explaining any loss or deterioration of stores—the decision of which Board, after approval by the General Commanding, was reported to the Secretary of State for final sanction. When, under exceptional circumstances, stores were not taken on charge by an accountant, and the payment for them was, therefore, not supported by the receipt of an accountant, the matter came under the notice of the Exchequer and Audit Department, and required the special sanction of the Treasury. The question of whether the Secretary of State should have the power of approving the proceedings of boards in losses of stores, or whether another Department, such as the Exchequer and Audit, should decide the matter, was one which had been much considered. The Report already quoted said— It may be argued that the acts of the Chief of the Department himself should be chocked by an independent Department. But to provide such a check is not the object or function of the detailed examination of store accounts of which we are now speaking. No system of mere audit, independent or not, could expose abuses on the part of the Chief of a Department. The auditor must take for granted that an order issued by a competent authority was necessary for the Public Service. He has neither the authority nor the requisite knowledge to enable him to question its necessity, and his function ceases when he has satisfied himself that the store accountant who makes an issue has obtained a sufficient vouchor to free his charge. He is, in fact, a check upon the accountant; but he is not, and cannot be, a check upon the Chief of his Department.

MR. W. H. SMITH

said, he had listened with great interest to the observations and suggestions of the hon. Member for Glasgow [Dr. Cameron), and had come to the conclusion that if the proposal of the hon. Member were adopted it would be the means of inflicting more injury than it could possibly do good to the Public Service. He thought it most important that the functions of the Comptroller and Auditor General should be perfectly distinct from administrative functions, although the hon. Member appeared not to wish them to be so. It was not desirable to cast the responsibility in those matters upon persons who might be only imperfectly acquainted with the duties to be discharged, and, therefore, not able to follow the disbursement of public moneys so well as those officers who were accustomed to the duty, who ought to be held responsible, and whose mistakes ought to be severely and impartially punished. The hon. Gentleman had complained that mistakes had been made. He (Mr. W. H. Smith) had no doubt whatever that serious mistakes had at times been made with regard both to the administration of the Navy and of the Army; but he was satisfied that mistakes of the kind could not be made less frequent by any further interference with the Audit Department. With regard to the stoves consumed, it was absolutely impossible, under any system that might be established for auditing the accounts of the Department, to follow the consumption of stores when once taken into charge. That could only be done by the officers of the Department; and upon the De- partment the responsibility ought to La fixed, keeping, at the same time, the Exchequer and Audit Department to their duties. They had always been, most anxious to secure the most perfect audit of the accounts of the spending Departments, which experience showed to be practicable. The test audit with regard to those Departments was, in his opinion, much more advantageous than an audit extending over every single item, which would necessitate the expenditure of more labour and money than the result would justify. It was, he said, necessary, in the interest of the Public Service, to insist on the responsibility of the administrators of the various Departments, and to visit them most severely for any errors they might commit; but, at the same time, to extend to them that confidence which public servants, on the whole, required to possess in order to discharge their duties effectually.

DR. CAMERON

said, that the doctrine preached from the two Front Benches of "Every man his own auditor" was, no doubt, very pleasant, but eminently unsatisfactory. He wished to state that he had made no imputation whatever on the way in which the Comptroller and Auditor General did his work. He had said that the audit in these great spending Departments was a perfect sham; but he did not say that it was so because the Comptroller and Auditor General did not properly discharge his duty; he said it was a perfect sham, because, under the present system, the things he had brought before the Committee did not come under the notice of the Comptroller and Auditor General. The hon. Gentleman the Surveyor General of Ordnance had evaded that point altogether; he never explained how a number of things came into charge at all. He (Dr. Cameron) had no wish whatever to interfere with the responsibility of the administrative Departments. He proposed to bring responsibility home to them as the Accountant General in the Appropriation Account had brought home to the late First Lord of the Admiralty his responsibility for those absurd purchases of beer and other things for the Navy—he let him buy his stores where he chose; but he came down upon him, so to speak, in the Appropriation Account.

THE CHAIRMAN

said, the Vote before the Committee related only to the Exchequer and Audit Department; it had no reference to any of the Departments to which the hon. Member was referring.

DR. CAMERON

said, he was referring to the Navy Appropriation Accounts of 1878, and he contended that the system which then came into effect should come into effect all round. He was told that it would interfere with the administrative Departments.

THE CHAIRMAN

said, he must point out that the hon. Member was travelling beyond the Vote before the Committee in commenting on the proceedings of the First Lord of the Admiralty under a former Administration. The hon. Member had given such a development to his allusion that he should not have allowed him to proceed had he not thought he was about to connect it with the Vote for the Exchequer and Audit Department. His opinion was that the question now raised by the hon. Member was not within the Vote.

DR. CAMERON

said, he had merely wished to show what appeared to have been misrepresented in the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for "Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith) and others. However, as the explanation of the Surveyor General of Ordnance appeared to him entirely unsatisfactory, he should not pursue the subject further, but should proceed to a division on his Amendment.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 15; Noes 41: Majority 26.—(Div. List, No. 200.)

Original Question again proposed.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

said, he should like to ask the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether the Comptroller and Auditor General would have an opportunity of investigating the remain of stores which had been taken at Woolwich during the last few months. Already, in the Report of the Public Accounts Committee laid before Parliament, it had been shown that the Comptroller and Auditor General had no means of ascertaining the value of the stores deteriorated at Woolwich. The Accountant General of the Army also had shown in his Report that he was not able to form an Estimate within £2,000,000 or £3,000,000 of the value of the stores lying at Woolwich. There was no Report showing the result of the investigation which had taken place at Woolwich; but he wished to ascertain whether the Comptroller and Auditor General would, in his turn, have an opportunity of reporting on the matter?

MR. BRAND

said, he had no doubt that there would be an efficient investigation in this case.

Original Question put, and agreed to.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

I beg to move that 3'ou, Sir, do now report Progress, and ask leave to sit again. I do not think the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Hibbert) will make any objection to that course. It is usual to do it at this hour—12.30 P.M.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. T. P. O'Connor.)

MR. HIBBERT

The next two Votes are not of importance.

SIR HENRY HOLLAND

The next Vote, at all events, that for the Friendly Societies Registry, is not a very important one, and might be taken now.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

That is certainly not very important, and in order that it may be taken I will withdraw my Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn. (10.) £5,622, to complete the sum for Friendly Societies Registry.

MR. SEXTON

said, that cases had been brought under his notice where Friendly Societies had been wound up in Ireland—notably in the case of the Society which had existed amongst the workmen of the Great Southern Railway—and where the money in hand, instead of being divided amongst the members, had been kept in the pockets of certain individuals whose title and position in the matter was not well defined. He wished to know what was the law on the subject? What period should elapse after the winding up of a Society before the money the members had subscribed was handed back to them? Another case which had been brought under his notice was that of the Crown Building Society of Dublin. That Society was started by State officials. An order was made—by what authority he had not ascertained—for liquidation. That order was in the hands of a professional man, and in all reason it should have been executed long ago, and the money handed back to those entitled to it. He was not, however, aware that that had been done, and he desired to ascertain as much as he could on the matter. If he did not get a satisfactory answer he should raise the question again, and should expect either that the money had been paid back, or that there would be no further delay in paying it back.

MR. HIBBERT

said, that with regard to the Society which had existed in connection with the workmen of the Great Southern Railway, he could not give the facts, but would endeavour to ascertain them. He had no information whatever about the Crown Building Society; but he believed that inquiries were being made into the matter. He would endeavour to give the hon. Member the information he sought on Report of the present Vote.

MR. SEXTON

said, he was obliged to the hon. Member for his promise. He desired that official statements in regard to these Societies should be made as public in Ireland as they were in England.

Vote agreed to.

Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.

Committee to sit again To-morrow.

Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present,