Commons Sitting of 9 September 1886

MINUTES.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES; CLASS I.—PUBLIC WORKS AND BUILDINGS, Votes 21, 22; CLASS II.—SALARIES AND EXPENSES OF CIVIL DEPARTMENTS, Votes 1 to 12; NAVY ESTIMATES, Votes 12, 13, 14
Postponed Resolution [September 7] considered and agreed to.
Resolutions [September 8] reported.
PRIVATE BILL (by Order)—Second Reading—Kingstown and Kingsbridge Junction Railway.*
PUBLIC BILL—Ordered—First Reading—Submarine Telegraph Act (1885) Amendment* [45].

QUESTIONS.

  POST OFFICE—RATES FOR TELEGRAMS TO THE CONTINENT.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLasked the Postmaster General, If he can explain why telegrams to the Continent of Europe cost so much more than the total of telegraph charges in the Countries through which they pass, e.g., why it is that while in the British Islands, Prance, and Switzerland, telegrams cost about one halfpenny per per word in each Country, a telegram from England to Switzerland is charged 3½d. per word; whether private Companies are paid for cabling messages across the Channel, and at what rates, or whether the Government possesses any cable across the Channel to Europe; if not, whether, considering the short distance and small cost of such cables, he will establish one so that (as in the case of Ireland) the public may not pay an exorbitant toll to Cable Companies; and, whether he will try to arrange to put International telegrams on a footing more nearly in proportion to International letters, or at least on a scale not higher than the aggregate domestic charge of the Countries through which they pass?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (MR. RAIKES): In reply to the hon. Member, I have to state that the charges for foreign telegrams are settled at the International Conferences which take place every five years; and some countries are not will-

  1721
  ing to transmit such telegrams at rates so low as those which they charge for inland telegrams. The charges for inland telegrams in different countries vary in principle as well as in amount; but, to meet the convenience of the public, the charges for foreign telegrams are everywhere based on the same principle, which is that of a word-rate pure and simple. The Post Office has not lost any opportunity of endeavouring to bring about reductions in the charges; and, both at the Conference in Berlin last year and at the previous Conference in London, considerable reductions were made. The charge to Switzerland, I ought to say, is 3½d., not 4d. The Government possesses three cables to the Continent—two to Holland and one to Germany. The cables to France and Belgium are the property of the Submarine Telegraph Company, who possess exclusive rights as regards those countries until the end of the year 1888. The cables of the Government are worked by the Submarine Company under an agreement sanctioned by Parliament which has not yet expired.

  CANADA AND THE UNITED STATES— THE FISHERIES DISPUTE—THE TREATY OF 1871.
  MR. GOURLEYasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If he can state in what particular points the Articles of the Fishery Treaty (1871) are alleged to have been infringed by American and Canadian fishermen; how far the commercial privileges embodied in Articles 30 and 31 have been carried out; and, whether any money award was made to this Country under Article 22 of the Treaty?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON): The Treaty of 1871 is not in question. The Fishery Articles of that Treaty expired in 1885 (see Parliamentary Paper, United States, No. 3, 1884). Article 30, concerning the Coasting Trade and Transit Duties, has also expired. Arrangements were made in 1873 to carry it out, and, consequentially, Article 31 (see Parliamentary Paper, North America, No. 12, 1873). A sum of $5,500,000 was paid to Her Majesty's Governmeat pursuant to Article 22 of the Treaty of 1871 (see Parliamentary Paper, North America, No. 4, 1878). The present difficulties with the
  1722
  United States turn on the construction of the Convention of 1818, which has been revived by the expiry of the Articles above mentioned of the (Washington) Treaty of 1871.

  THE WEST INDIAN COLONIES AND THE UNITED STATES—A COM- MERCIAL TREATY.
  MR. GOURLEYasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, What measures he intends adopting for the purpose of bringing about a Commercial Treaty between this Country, the West Indian Colonies, and the United States?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (MR. E. STANHOPE): The Papers presented to Parliament last year show the circumstances in which it was then not found practicable to come to any arrangement, and up to this time there has been no change in the conditions of the question.

  MECHANICS' INSTITUTES—SUPPLY OF PARLIAMENTARY REPORTS.
  MR. WEIGHTasked MR. Chancellor of the Exchequer, If the Government will sanction the expense of supplying Parliamentary Reports of Education, Crime, Pauperism, County Expenditure, and other Returns connected with County Government, also Returns of Army and Navy Estimates, to free libraries and mechanics' institutions?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Lord RANDOLPH CHURCHILL): I have examined carefully into this matter, and, to a considerable extent, I am in sympathy with the object of the hon. Gentleman. I think it must be admitted that it would be to the advantage of the Government establishments that free libraries should be encouraged by a quasi- State recognition, and it is also obvious that it is to the advantage of the State that people should have ready access to official information as supplied by State and Parliamentary literature. The hon. Member will perceive that the Government must draw a broad distinction between free libraries and mechanics' institutions, free libraries being establishments moderate in number and well defined, and mechanics' institutions being of many sorts and also very numerous. As far

  1723
  as free libraries are concerned, what I propose is this—that they should apply to the Treasury for such Parliamentary documents as they may be of opinion will be of advantage to the persons who frequent them; and I will engage next year to bring before the House an Estimate to defray the charge of supplying those documents gratis, and then leave it to the House to decide whether they think the expenditure ought to be incurred or not. The total charge for all Parliamentary Papers incurred by any individual or association who wishes to possess them would be £20 a-year under the present arrangement. The First Lord of the Treasury in the late Conservative Government made an arrangement by which free libraries could be supplied with these Papers at a discount of 25 per cent, which would bring the charge down to £15 a-year for free libraries. If, therefore, the Government were to supply every free library with all Parliamentary literature, the cost would be somewhere about £2,000 a-year. But I imagine that there is a large portion of Parliamentary literature which free libraries would not care to possess, and, therefore, I think it will be right to let them apply to the Treasury for such literature as they may require, and then let the House decide whether the cost should be incurred or not.

  BRITISH NORTH AMERICAN PROVINCES—THE CONFEDERATION —NOVA SCOTIA.
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDEasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether information has reached showing that the people of Nova Scotia are opposed to the confederate form of Government under which they live; whether they have made several attempts to secure more favourable terms from the Home Government; whether their prayers for reform have been refused; whether in consequence they have expressed their desire for Legislative independence; and, whether Her Majesty's Government will grant this request?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (MR. E. STANHOPE): Her Majesty's Government received, in June last, a despatch from Lord Lansdowne, enclosing a Resolution which had been recently carried by a majority in the House of Assembly of
  1724
  Nova Scotia, advocating withdrawal from the Dominion of Canada, but no subsequent communication on the subject has been received. Some Correspondence also took place on the subject in 1868, which will be found in a Parliamentary Paper dated June 10, 1868. Her Majesty's Government have no power to alter the terms of the British North America Act, 1867, which was settled with the assistance of delegates from Nova Scotia, and was subsequently approved by the Legislature of that Province. I may add that we have every confidence that the Dominion Parliament will desire to redress, as far as possible, any reasonable grievances of which a Province may complain.

  IRELAND—THE KINGSTOWN "BIRD'S NEST "—DETENTION OF CHILDREN.
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDEasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If his attention has been called to the occurrence last week at the Kingstown "Bird's Nest," in connection with the four children of the Army pensioner M'Greil; and, if the Government will take steps to have the child who is still detained restored to his mother?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IEELAND (MR. HOLMES) () (who replied) said: I have read an account of the occurrence last week at the institution called the Kingstown "Bird's Nest" referred to in the Question of the hon. Baronet. I am informed that the child mentioned, with the other children, was placed in the institution by his father in June last; and, under such circumstances, the Government have no power to interfere as to his custody.

  THE CURRENCY, &c.—THE GOLD COINAGE.
  SIR JOHN LUBBOCKasked MR. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether, having reference to the present unsatisfactory condition of the gold currency, Her Majesty's Government propose to take any steps in the matter?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Lord RANDOLPH CHURCHILL): Of course the matter has been under my consideration, but it is a very large and very difficult subject. I have not been long enough at the Exche-

  1725
  quer as yet to be able to give the hon. Baronet a definite answer. I may, however, allow myself to say this much, that if anything is to be done to rehabilitate the gold coinage of the country it must be done at the cost of the State. If that be so, the sums required, although spread over a series of years, will be considerable, and it will be impossible for me finally to decide whether I shall submit a proposal to the House of Commons until I am more fully in possession of what the balance of Revenue and Expenditure for next year is likely to be.

  CIVIL SERVICE CLERKS AND WRITERS—REPORT OF THE DEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEE.
  MR. KIMBERasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether the alterations, as to Civil Service Clerks, in the Playfair Scheme, stated by the Secretary to the Treasury in the late Government, on the 21st June last, to have been, after long consideration, suggested by the Treasury, were proceeded with, and any Treasury Minute made thereon, as promised by him; and, if not, whether the present Government has been able yet to take up the matter; whether he is able now to state when the Report of the Departmental Committee, as to the Civil Service Writers, may be expected; and, whether the Government propose to make or recommend any inquiry into the Civil Service generally?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON): In answer to the first part of this Question, I have to say that no such Treasury Minute has yet been made; but the matter is at present under consideration. With regard to the second part, I have previously answered that I hope to have a Report from the Committee in a short time. As to the third point, I stated, in answer to the hon. Member for Otley (Mr. Barran), that I could safely promise that a statement would be made upon this matter before the close of the present Session.

  CRIME AND OUTRAGE (IRELAND)— THE RIOTS AT BELFAST—LOSS OF EMPLOYMENT BY CATHOLIC WORKPEOPLE.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the
  1726
  Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, What report is made by the Constabulary authorities in Belfast as to the extent to which Catholic workpeople in that town, who lost their employment during the recent riots, have now been restored to it; and, what measures have been adopted by the employers to keep order in their establishments?
  MR. T. W. RUSSELLasked whether the Constabulary Report referred to the number of Protestants who also had to leave their employment during the periods covered by the late riots in Belfast?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH): I have no information on the subject of the Protestant workmen, and generally speaking it is impossible for me to give the hon. Gentleman any definite reply upon a matter which is really not under the power of the authorities at all. So far as we are aware—for the matter is not within the official knowledge of the police—in most instances where Catholic workers left their employment during the recent disturbances they have now returned, and things are going on as before the riots. It there are any exceptions to this rule it may confidently be hoped that they will not continue long. I understand that the employers in most of the establishments discharge or threaten with dismissal any persons in their employment who interfere with their fellow-workers.
  MR. SEXTONasked if that applied to the case of the Mayor of Belfast?
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: I cannot answer that.

  ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY—THE FORCE IN BELFAST.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, What measures have been resolved upon for the increase and redistribution of the Constabulary force in Belfast; and, who is to command the force?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH): An extra Constabulary force of 400 men remains for the present at Belfast in aid of the local force. A portion will be concentrated as a reserve in a central part of the town. The remainder will be allocated to the several Constabulary barracks. Six houses have been taken

  1727
  by the Government for additional barracks in different localities. The force is under the command of MR. Cullen, Assistant Inspector General, and D.M.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked if it was intended to submit a Supplementary Estimate for the six houses?
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: No; the houses are taken at a rent as additional barracks.
  MR. SEXTONasked whether, in view of the fact that during the riots attacks had been made on the navvies returning from we at the Alexandra Dock by the Island men, the right hon. Gentleman would consider the suggestion he (MR. Sexton) made some time ago to the effect that a permanent police station should be placed in that quarter of the town?
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: That will have to be considered in connection with the permanent arrangements that will have to be made. The arrangements I have mentioned are, of course, only temporary.

  CRIME AND OUTRAGE (IRELAND)— THE RIOTS AT BELFAST—EXPENSES OF THE ROYAL HOSPITAL.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the Lord Lieutenant has considered a Memorial addressed to His Excellency on the 24th ult. by the Governing Body of the Belfast Royal Hospital, representing that the hospital is entirely supported by voluntary contributions; that no Government grant has ever been made to it; that it relieves the suffering without regard to religion or party; that during the recent riots 369 patients, suffering from gunshot and other wounds and injuries, were received and carefully attended to at a cost to the hospital of £800; that the deficit upon the present year amounts to £1,100; and that the straitened condition of trade allows of no hope that the extra expenditure can be met by additional voluntary contributions; and, whether, as prayed in the Memorial, a Supplementary Estimate will be submitted to the House for a Grant in aid of the Belfast Royal Hospital?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH), in reply, said, the Government received
  1728
  and carefully considered the Memorial mentioned by the hon. Member. While, however, they gladly recognized the benefit and assistance derived from the Belfast Royal Hospital, they did not feel themselves in a position to give a favourable reply to the appeal for aid. To do so would not be in accordance with the precedents relating to hospitals generally in the United Kingdom. The only place in which grants of this kind had been made to hospitals was Dublin, and it did not seem at all desirable to extend that principle.
  MR. SEXTONgave Notice that on the Motion for going into Committee of Supply on the Civil Service Estimates he would move that a Supplementary Estimate should be presented as a Vote in aid of the Belfast Royal Hospital.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORasked if the right hon. Gentleman was not aware that four or five years ago £1,500 was granted for the purpose of paying the expenses of a doctor who attended a landlord who had been severely injured, and whether the persons that were injured in Belfast were not just as much victims as the landlords were?
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: Payments to hospitals and payments to doctors are not the same thing.

  ARMY QUARTERMASTERS.
  COLONEL FRANCIS DUNCANasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether any improvement is contemplated in the position of Army Quartermasters?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (MR. W. H. Smith): The Report of the Committee appointed by my Predecessor to consider this question has been received, and I hope to communicate a decision on an early date.

  EVICTIONS (IRELAND)—KILDYSART GUARDIANS, CO. CLARE.
  MR. JORDANasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If, at the meeting of the Board of Guardians at Kildysart, county Clare, last week, six eviction notices were read at the suit of Captain Hector Vandeleur, Colonel White, and MR. O'Dea; and, if, after lengthened discussion, a resolution was unanimously

  1729
  adopted, condemnatory of evictions as inimical to the interests of the landlords as well as of the tenants?
  MR. M. J. KENNYasked, if the right hon. Gentleman was aware that the appointment of General Buller had the effect of stimulating eviction proceedings in the county Clare?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH), in reply, said, that was not at all within his knowledge. The facts were as stated in the Question of the hon. Member for West Clare.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND)—CONVICTION AT MILLSTREET PETTY SESSIONS.
  DR. TANNER, who had the following Question on the Paper:—To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If it is true that, at the Millstreet Petty Sessions, held on Monday, the 23rd of August, two boys named John Kiely and Cornelius Coweniham, were charged and convicted with having wilfully and maliciously broken the windows of the Protestant Church at Liscahane, near Millstreet; at what o'clock was the outrage said to have been committed; whether the fathers of the above-mentioned youths are labourers in the employment of Jeremiah Hegarty; whether Jeremiah Hegarty is the local agent and factotum of the Landlord Defence Association and the Irish Loyal Protestant Union; and, whether Her Majesty's Government purpose making any further investigations into the causation of the outrage, whether committed by the boys out of pure wantonness, or whether promoted by other parties? said, he wished to correct the last part of the Question by substituting for "other parties" the "Irish Loyal Defence Union."
  THE ATTORNEY GENEEAL FOR IRELAND (MR. HOLMES), in reply, said, the two boys referred to were charged and convicted in the manner stated in the Question of the hon. Member. The offence was committed at half-past 2 o'clock in the afternoon of the 15th of August. There was, as far as he could learn, no association in Ireland bearing the name
  1730
  mentioned in the Question. There was nothing that he knew of in the case to call for further investigation.

  ORDNANCE DEPARTMENT—ARMY AND NAVY GUNS.
  MR. SHIRLEYasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether his attention has been called to an article in The Weekly Dispatch of Sept. 5th, in which it is stated that:—
  "As a matter of fact, while the money disappears year after year with the utmost regularity, our Army and Navy remain to this day without a single efficient and serviceable gun between them;"
  and, whether, so far as regards the Army, this statement is true, or approximately true?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (MR. W. H. SMITH): I am happy to say the statement is neither true, nor approximately true.

  ASYLUMS FOR THE POOR (IRELAND)— MONAGHAN ASYLUM.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIENasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the architect to the Commissioners of Asylums for the Poor in Ireland, after his inspection of the Asylum at Monaghan in 1883, recommended to the Board of that Institution several important alterations in the construction of the buildings as necessary for the safety and comfort of the inmates; whether the recommendations of the official in question included the carrying of the several dividing walls of the different departments, which at present terminate at the ceilings, over the roofs, and the reconstruction of some of the ceilings, which are cracked and in danger of falling; whether the carrying of dividing walls over the roof is always insisted on by architects in similar and other public Institutions under Government control in England, as a precaution against the spread of fire; whether the Board of the Monaghan Asylum sanctioned the recommendations referred to, and received tenders for the execution of the works; and, whether they have yet carried out the alterations referred to; and, if not, whether he will explain why, and say whether he will cause

  1731
  them to be proceeded with without further delay?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH), in reply, said, he thought there must be some mistake in this matter. The Commissioners stated there was no record in their office of any such Report as that referred to in the Question. However, they would make further inquiries about it; and if they found that the works suggested were considered necessary, steps would be taken to have them carried out.

  ARMY (INDIA)—MEDICAL SERVICE— HONORARY COMMISSIONS.
  MR. LAWSONasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether he is aware that under Government Resolution, No. 190, dated Bombay, January 12th, 1881, it was ruled that no more medical subordinates would be promoted to honorary commissions unless they had obtained medical diplomas; that three warrant medical officers came to England under this rule, and, after much study and expense, obtained English medical diplomas; and that, on their return to India, the rule was abrogated by Indian Army Circular, Clause 83, paragraph 4, dated July 1884, by the decision that no further promotions would be made to the rank of honorary surgeon; and, whether, considering the circumstances under which they acted, he will take steps to secure their promotion to the honorary commissioned rank under the rule of January 12th 1881?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JOHN GORST): Prior to July, 1884, a diploma was, as stated in the Question, one, but only one, of the several qualifications requisite for selection for the rank of honorary surgeon. At that date, on a re-organization of the subordinate medical establishment, the selection of warrant officers for the post of honorary surgeon was put an end to on public grounds; but, instead, certain other privileges were conferred on the Department to which the warrant officers belonged. There is, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, no reason for making an exception in the case of the three officers referred to.

  ARMY (AUXILIARY FORCES)—SERGEANT INSTRUCTORS TO VOLUN- TEER CORPS.
  MR. HOWARD VINCENTasked the Secretary of State for War, What is the reason for the distinction in the rank of the senior non-commissioned officers in battalions of the Regular Army, the Militia, and the Volunteers; and, if, having regard to the great and continuous responsibility devolving upon those deserving soldiers who are attached as Sergeant Instructors to Volunteer Corps, the senior of them could be accorded either warrant rank or substantive rank, as in the Standing Army and Militia?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (MR. W. H. SMITH): The reason for the distinction is that the duties required of the senior non-commissioned officers of the permanent staff of Volunteer Corps are less than those required in the Regular Army and Militia. I must refer the hon. and gallant Member to the answer given by my Predecessor on March 19 last, in which he fully explained the case. I see no grounds for re-opening the question.

  POST OFFICE (IRELAND)—ARRANGEMENTS IN COUNTY MEATH.
  MR. O'HANLONasked the Postmaster General, Whether the correspondence between Grangegeith and Slane, county Meath, has increased threefold since the 16th August; whether this increase is due to the fact that the people there have appointed a postman, at their own expense, who carries their letters since that date; and, whether, owing to this increase, he will have a post office established at Grangegeith forthwith?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (MR. RAIKES): In answer to the hon. Member I have to state that the increase since the 16th August last in the number of letters between the villages of Slane and Grangegeith, which are 3½ miles apart, has been so rapid and remarkable that I have caused special inquiry to be made, in order to ascertain what may account for this sudden growth. When the Returns were taken in July there were only 34 letters a week, and now the number has more than doubled, a most unusual occurrence. It will be

  1733
  necessary to see whether such an unprecedented growth as nearly 200 per cent in three weeks is likely to be maintained before considering the matter further. At present the inhabitants send a private messenger to Slane daily for letters.

  FRANCHISE (IRELAND) ACT—REMUNERATION TO CLERKS OF UNIONS, &c—KINSALE.
  MR. HOOPERasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to a Resolution recently passed by the Kinsale Board of Guardians, requesting Parliament to vote a sum in remuneration of clerks of unions and rate collectors for services under the Franchise Act; and, whether the Government will make some provision this year for the claims of these officials to such remuneration?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH), in reply, said, he had to thank the hon. Member for having sent him a copy of the resolution referred to in the Question; and a copy of a similar resolution, he believed, had also been received by the Local Government Board. He had already answered more than one Question on this subject; and he was afraid that he was unable to give any additional information.
  MR. HOOPER: Are we to understand, then, that this is the last word the Government will say on the question, either now or in the future?
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: That will depend upon whether any more Questions are asked.
  MR. HOOPER: I wished to know whether it is intended next year to take this question into consideration?
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: I have already explained that a special grant was made in this matter last year on account of the special circumstances of that year's registration. If any reason is shown to the Government to take up the question again, of course that will be considered next year.

  A MINISTER OF EDUCATION—REPORT OF COMMONS COMMITTEE, 1884.
  SIR JOHN LUBBOCKasked MR. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether Her Majesty's Go-
  1734
  vernment propose to take any action on the Report of the House of Commons Committee of 1884, which unanimously recommended the appointment of a Minister of Education?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Lord RANDOLPH CHURCHILL): I cannot say that the matter alluded to in the Question of the hon. Member has yet come under the notice of the Government, nor can I hold out any hope that it is likely to come very soon under our notice. Speaking as Chancellor of the Exchequer, I will not conceal from the hon. Member that I have a strong suspicion that the proposal which he appears to advocate would involve an increased charge upon the public revenues; and every alteration, or reform, or modification of a Department which would involve an increased charge possesses in my eyes an incurable defect.

  NAVY—PAY OF SEAMEN—LOSS THROUGH DEPRECIATION OF SILVER.
  COMMANDER BETHELLasked the Secretary to the Treasury, If the gain or loss to the State arising from the difference between the local rate of exchange and the rate at which the crews of Her Majesty's ships are paid, when a silver currency is used, is shown in any statement presented to Parliament; and, if it is not, whether it can be shown in future?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (MR. JACKSON): The present arrangement with regard to the issue of dollars and rupees is that the rate is fixed annually on the average price of standard silver in the London Market during the previous year. This system was arranged between the Treasury and the Departments concerned some years ago. It is very difficult to form any idea as to the results to the State of these fluctuations in the rate of exchange. I have, however, looked at the profit and loss account of the Hong Kong Treasury Cheat, and I find that on the 10 years ending March 31, 1885, this account shows a dead loss of more than £11,000, arising from Naval, Military, and Civil Services taken together. The total gain or loss to the State arising from payments it has to make to soldiers, sailors, and civilians outside the United Kingdom is shown in the annual Trea-

  1735
  sury Chest account under the head of profit and loss. The result of the 10 years ending March 31, 1885, was a net profit of somewhat over £8,000, which has been paid into the Exchequer. The profit and loss accounts at the different stations are not published separately.

  EVICTIONS (IRELAND)—ACTION OF THE POLICE AT WOODFORD, CO. GALWAY.
  MR. SHEEHYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether certain placards, calling on the people in the neighbourhood of Woodford to come and save the harvest belonging to the evicted tenants and others who were arrested during the recent evictions, were torn down by the police; what authority the police had for so doing; and, will they be prevented from doing so in the future?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (MR. HOLMES): The placards referred to were removed by the police on the grounds, as the District Inspector reports, that, owing to the lawless demeanour displayed by the people at Woodford at the recent evictions in that neighbourhood and the excitement still prevailing, the police considered the placards of a highly inflammatory nature. Having seen and read one of them, I am of opinion that, not merely were they highly inflammatory, but that they had a direct tendency to lead to a breach of the public peace, and that the police were perfectly justified in their action.
  MR. SHEEHYasked, if the right hon. and learned Gentleman would read the inflammatory language to the House?
  [No reply.]

  LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND)—ALLEGED ASSAULT ON DR. D'ALTON, OF BRANMORE.
  MR. SHEEHYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether Dr. D'Alton, of Branmore, was assaulted on Sunday 30th ultimo, by Constable Rooney; whether the police prosecuted Dr. D'Alton; whether the Bench dismissed the case against Dr. D'Alton, the presiding magistrate remarking that the police seemed to have a "set" on Dr. D'Alton; whether Dr.
  1736
  D'Alton is still under medical treatment, and in very serious danger; and, what action has been taken by the authorities to bring Rooney to justice?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (MR. HOLMES): There is a mistake as to dates, and there is some confusion as to facts, in the Question of the hon. Member. The police took proceedings against Dr. D'Alton to compel him to find sureties to keep the peace and to recover two penalties for drunkenness on the 4th of August last. The former of these proceedings was dismissed on technical grounds, and one of the latter was dismissed without prejudice and the other adjourned for a fortnight on the application of the defendant; and Mr. Lyster, the Resident Magistrate, stated on that occasion that there seemed to be a set on Dr. D'Alton. This observation appears, however, only to refer to the adjourned case of drunkenness, which seemed to the Magistrate to be trivial in its character. The first part of the Question probably refers to a transaction that occurred on the 28th of August, which is to be investigated at Petty Sessions on the 15th instant, and pending these proceedings it would be inexpedient to make any statement on the subject.

  PIERS AND HARBOURS (IRELAND)— UNEXPENDED GRANTS.
  MR. CLANCYasked the Secretary to the Treasury, What further sums are available for the construction of piers and harbours in Ireland under the Act 46 and 47 Vic. c. 26, from the following sources—namely, the unexpended balance out of the £20,000 allocated by the Board of Public works for expenses; the difference between the estimated cost of the harbour works undertaken, and the actual sum expended thereon; and the interest on the balances remaining in the hands of the Treasury out of the £250,000 voted by Parliament for piers and harbours, which interest a former Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury, the honourable Member for the Bodmin Division of Cornwall, promised would be added to the Piers and Harbours Fund?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (MR. JACKSON): I am afraid it is impossible to give any very definite reply to this Question.

  1737
  The £250,000 may be divided into three portions. First, £20,000 reserved for expenses; out of this some £5,000 or £6,000 may be expected to be saved. Secondly, £203,000 allotted as free grants; looking to the uncertainty which always attaches to sea works it would not be safe to count on any saving here. Thirdly, £27,000 granted on loan; this amount will be available hereafter when the loans have been repaid. As regards allowing interest on the undrawn balance of the fund, I do not find that any distinct promise was given; but in any case, as the hon. Member knows, legislation would be necessary.

  POST OFFICE (IRELAND)—POSTAL FACILITIES AT KINSALE.
  MR. HOOPERasked the Postmaster General, Whether his attention has been called to a memorial from the Town and Harbour Commissioners of Kinsale, dated 17th November 1885, calling attention to the necessity for increased postal facilities for their town; and, whether he will take steps to meet the postal wants of a town which constitutes so important a military and fishing station?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (MR. RAIKES): The Department has for a long time been in negotiation with the Cork and Bandon Railway Company for certain improvements on the lines of that Company; but I fear it will not be practicable to obtain the trains on the Kinsale branch which would be necessary to give effect to the wishes expressed by the Town and Harbour Commissioners. I will, however, see whether the local arrangements cannot be somewhat improved, so that a delivery of the letters may take place more quickly after the arrival of the letter bags.

  CUSTOMS ESTIMATES—SURVEYOR OF THE PORT OF LONDON.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether it is the fact that, although the Customs Estimates include an item for the Salaries of sixty-nine Surveyors for the Port of London, the number actually employed since the 1st day of January has not exceeded sixty-two; and, whether it is the intention of the Board of Customs to fill up the existing vacancies?
  THE CHANCELLOR OFTHE EXCHEQUER (Lord RANDOLPH CHURCHILL): The number of Customs Surveyors for the Port of London was 69, and salaries for that number were included in the Estimates. But early in this year the Customs Commissioners instituted an inquiry for the purpose of ascertaining whether a lesser number of Surveyors would not suffice for the duties to be performed. The Report of that inquiry was received in March last, and the result of it would be that the number of Surveyors would be reduced to 60, at which number they now actually stood. While the inquiry was taking place it was not thought prudent or possible to reduce the number of Surveyors. Of course, the saving to the Exchequer would be the difference between 69 and 60 Surveyors, and an account would be rendered to the Exchequer in due course.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked, whether the Customs Vote would be reduced in consequence?
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: I own that at first I was inclined to ask the hon. Member to move the reduction of the Vote, to which I should have assented; but I think, on the whole, the explanation of the Commissioners is a satisfactory one, and as there will be no loss to the Exchequer I will ask the hon. Member to be satisfied with the explanation I have given.

  INSPECTORS UNDER THE EXPLOSIVES ACT—THE ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY.
  MR. WILLIAM ABRAHAMasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he will consider the advisability of having the duties of Inspectors under the Explosives Act performed in future by the Royal Irish Constabulary, instead of by persons paid out of the Rates for the Relief of the Poor, and whose appointments are made and salaries fixed by the Magistrates at Petty Sessions?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH): This is a matter which it is within the power of the Local Authorities to deal with. They can, if they see fit, appoint members of the Constabulary to act as Inspectors under the Explosives Act, and thus relieve the rates.

  1739
  An hon. MEMBER asked if the right hon. Gentleman was aware that the Boards of Guardians had made repeated representations to the Local Government Board in reference to this matter, and that those representations were unattended to. The magistrates comprised the Local Authorities, and the Boards of Guardians appeared to have no authority in the matter whatever?
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, the Government had done all they could in the matter. Some time ago a Circular was issued to the Local Authorities, pointing out that they had power to appoint members of the Royal Irish Constabulary as Inspectors. Inquiry would be made as to how far the recommendations had been carried out.

  EGYPT—THE ARMY OF OCCUPATION— HEALTH OF THE TROOPS AT ASSOUAN.
  MR. R. G. WEBSTERasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is a fact that the British Troops quartered at Assouan are in mud huts, on the site of an Arab graveyard, in the midst of a district where dust storms are prevalent; whether there is any knowledge of the average temperature in these huts during the day in the summer months; whether the water used by the Troops for drinking purposes is so thick with mud that it has to be partially clarified by the use of alum; if any filters have been supplied for the use of the Force at Assouan; what is the number of Troops stationed at Assouan, and the proportion of them who were, by last returns, suffering from enteric fever, dysentery, and heat apoplexy; for how long has any portion of this Force been there continuously; and, when is it proposed to relieve these Troops?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (MR. W. H. SMITH): The troops at Assouan are quartered in huts with mud walls, which is probably the best material of which huts could be composed, on a hill to the southwest of Assouan. There is an old Mahomedan cemetery at a considerable distance from the lines. The temperature between April and June has ranged from 100 degrees F. to 122 degrees F. in the huts. All Nile water is, I am informed, impure from suspended matter which is got rid of by the use of alum
  1740
  and strainers. The troops have filters, and, as far as practicable, the water for drinking purposes is boiled before being used. The number of troops at Assouan on August 20 was 1,690, and nine cases of enteric fever and five of dysentery remained in hospital on that date. I am unable to say how long any portion of this force has been there continuously. The disposition of the troops in Egypt rests with the General Officer commanding. It is understood that he proposes to relieve shortly those troops that have been at Assouan during the summer by fresh troops from Cairo.

  POST OFFICE (TELEGRAPH DEPARTMENT—DEFICIENT ARRANGE MENTS AT WEST HAM.
  MR. FORREST FULTONasked the Postmaster General, Whether his attention has been drawn to the inadequate telegraph accommodation in the Upton Park district of the borough of West Ham; and, whether, pursuant to the petition forwarded to the Post Office by the inhabitants on the 25th of June last, he will provide additional facilities?
  THE POSTMASTER GENEEAL (MR. RAIKES): In reply to the hon. Member I have the pleasure to say that instructions were given some days ago for the telegraph to be extended to Upton Park in accordance with the wishes of the Memorialists.

  THE METROPOLITAN POLICE FORCE— SUMMER CLOTHING.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he can see his way to any alteration in the summer clothing and helmets of the Metropolitan Police Force, so as to make that outfit more suitable than it is at present for warm weather?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (MR. MATTHEWS): The question of any alteration in the summer clothing of the Metropolitan Police has not been brought under my consideration; but I am informed that the Chief Commissioner is in favour of the present system of clothing, thinking that in our variable climate there is more danger from wet and cold than from excessive heat. However, any suggestion that

  1741
  the Police Authorities may have to make will receive my best attention.

  METROPOLIS (MAIN DRAINAGE OUTFALLS)—POLLUTION OF THE RIVER THAMES.
  MR. W. P. LAWRENCEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, What steps the Metropolitan Board of works are taking to remedy the nuisance arising from the pollution of the River Thames by the main drainage outfalls?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (MR. MATTHEWS): In answer to my hon. Friend I have to say that it would be impossible for me in an answer to detail the plans and scientific processes by which the Metropolitan Board have expressed their intention of disposing of the sewage without nuisance to the Thames. If the hon. Member will call on me at the Home Office I will show them to him—they are very voluminous. The views of the Home Office were communicated to the Board in May last; but the Board did not entirely accept those views, but said that they were fully persuaded that the measures which they did propose to adopt would be found sufficient for the prevention of any pollution of the river water by the London sewage, and the Board have since informed me that designs for permanent works for the treatment of the sewage at Barking Creek have been prepared and are being printed with a view to obtain tenders for the execution of the necessary works.

  EDUCATION DEPARTMENT—SCHEMES OF THE CHARITY COMMISSIONERS.
  MR. F. S. POWELLasked the Vice President of the Committee of Council, Whether he will present to the House, at the commencement of next Session, a Return of the schemes submitted to the Education Department by the Charity Commissioners, and not dealt with by that Department before the 1st of January 1886, and of the schemes submitted to that Department by the Charity Commissioners under the said Acts during the year 1886, and subsequently up to the date of the Return, the Return to give the dates at which each scheme was sent to, approved by the Department or otherwise dealt with, and the date of Her Ma-
  1742
  jesty's approbation (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 135, of Session 1886)?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT (Sir HENRY HOLLAND): There will be no objection on the part of the Education Department to make such a Return at the commencement of next Session if the hon. Member will then move for it.

  ARMY (CLOTHING DEPARTMENT)— ARMY CLOTHING FACTORY, PIMLICO.
  ADMIRAL SIR JOHN COMMERELLasked the Secretary of State for War, If he has any objection to allow a tunic manufactured at Limerick, and another at the Clothing Establishment, Pimlico, with their prices attached, to be left, for the convenience of inspection by Members, in one of the Committee Rooms; and, whether, taking into consideration the distress in the Metropolis last winter, and its possible recurrence, he will allow the Clothing Establishment at Pimlico to remain at its full strength?
  THE SURVEYOR GENERAL OF ORDNANCE (MR. NORTHCOTE): I do not think a Committee Room of the House is a suitable place for exhibiting tunics; but any Member wishing to inspect garments will receive every attention from the Director of Clothing at the Royal Army Clothing Factory, where he will be able to see tunics manufactured at both establishments. The strength of the clothing establishment must vary according to the requirements of the Service, the increase or decrease of the number of employés being regulated by the amount of work to be done.
  MR. WILLIAM ABRAHAMasked, whether, in view of the fact that the manufacture of Army clothing in the Pimlico Factory entailed the loss of several thousand pounds a year to the country, the hon. Gentleman would consider the desirability of limiting the production of that extensive factory?
  MR. NORTHCOTEsaid, he was afraid he could not answer the Question of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Limerick, because he was not able to accept the premisses that the extravagance was as general as was represented by the hon. Gentleman.

  CHINA AND BURMAH—TRADE IN OPIUM.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELLasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether, in the agreement with China in reference to Burmah, trade in opium between Burmah and China is mutually prohibited?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON): The agreement contains no stipulation in regard to opium.

  ADMIRALTY—STATE OF EUROPE— REDUCTION OF THE DOCKYARD ESTABLISHMENTS.
  SIR SAMUEL WILSONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether, in view of the disturbed state of Europe, the Government will reconsider the question of reducing the establishment in Her Majesty's Dockyards by the proposed dismissal of some hundreds of excellent workmen, many of them of long service, and, if possible, find them continued employment at useful work, which will increase the efficiency of our Naval defences?
  THE FIRST LORD (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON): No orders have been given for any large discharges of workmen from the Dockyards; but the number of men employed in the Yards must be arranged in accordance with the amount of work to be executed and the money which has been voted. I am anxious to expedite the completion of the work now going on in our Dockyards, and to obtain a rapid and economical output; but I am satisfied this can better be done by improved methods of administration than by redundant establishments.

  DISTRICT LUNATIC ASYLUMS (IRELAND)—SALARY OF OFFICIALS.
  MR. BARRYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If his attention has been drawn to resolutions passed by a majority of the Boards of Governors of District Asylums in Ireland, in favour of the claims of the asylum officials and attendants for an increase of salary and superannuation allowance; and, whether the Government intend to take any stops in the matter this year?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH), in reply, said, he was informed that a large number of resolutions had been received in reference to this matter. He had not yet had time to give much attention to them. He was not aware of any sufficient reason for taking the steps suggested in the Question with reference to the salaries of officials employed in lunatic asylums in Ireland. Individual cases brought before the Government by the Boards of Governors would be, however, duly considered. Cases of superannuation follow the Civil Service Rules.

  THE POSTAL UNION—PAYMENT IN FRENCH CURRENCY.
  MR. SAMUEL MONTAGUasked the Postmaster General, If his attention has been called to the fact that, under existing postal arrangements, most Continental letters are carried at a less cost than is the case with letters posted from this country; whether he is aware that a letter from Russia is carried to any place within the Postal Union for seven kopecks, or less than 1¾d., and from Austria for ten kreutzers, or less than 2d., as against 2½d. if posted from the United Kingdom; whether any compensation is obtained in settling accounts; and, whether steps will be taken to obtain for this Country a more favourable arrangement?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (MR. RAIKES): The postage to and from countries which, like Great Britain, Russia, and Austria, belong to the Postal Union is fixed by the International Convention in French currency. The single letter rate is 25 centimes; but the Convention allows of fractional variations, upwards or downwards, to meet the case of countries which have not the franc for their monetary unit. The equivalent of 25 centimes in British currency is a fraction under 2½d., which is recognized by the Treaty as the English equivalent. The sums of seven kopecks and 10 kreutzer are the sums admitted under Treaty as the Russian and Austrian equivalents for 25 centimes. As, under the Postal Union system, every country keeps the whole postage collected by it, the question of compensation in settling accounts does not arise. The present arrange-

  1745
  ments, laid down by the Postal Congress, work on the whole satisfactorily, and it is not proposed to alter them.

  INDIA (MADRAS)—THE LAND UNION IN TANJORE—LAND TAX IN MADRAS.
  MR. PINKERTONasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether mass meetings of landholders in the Madras Presidency have recently been held to protest against the action of the Government of Madras in demanding as arrears of land tax several lacs of rupees remitted in regular course by the Tanjore district authorities; whether the Madras Government has made these demands on the confidential report of their special Commissioner, MR. H. S. Thomas, representing that remissions had been made owing to misrepresentations by district officials; whether numerous officials have, in consequence of this report, been dismissed the service without trial, and otherwise punished; whether the landlords have publicly challenged the accuracy of the secret report of Mr. Thomas; whether, since the present senior member of the Madras Board of Revenue, the present Chief Secretary to the Government of Madras, and the present Revenue Secretary to the Madras Government, have each in succession been of late years Principal Collector at Tanjore, and responsible for the district administration, he will explain how such wholesale corruption, as alleged by MR. Thomas, could have existed; and, whether he will order further inquiry to be made?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JOHN GORST): In March, 1885, the collector of Tanjore reported to the Madras Government that owing to heavy rains and floods in October, November, and December, 1884, it would be necessary to remit land revenue to the extent of nearly seven lakhs of rupees. Before sanctioning the proposed remission the Madras Government sent MR. Thomas, senior member of the Board of Revenue, to make a personal inquiry. His Report left no doubt that there was a widespread conspiracy among the officials of the district to defraud the Government, and that little more than half the remission proposed could justly be claimed. Numerous officials, whose conduct had been personally inquired into by MR. Thomas, were dismissed or otherwise
  1746
  punished; and such remissions of land revenue as were recommended by him were alone sanctioned. The action of the Madras Government has been approved by the Secretary of State in Council. Her Majesty's Government have no information of the holding of mass meetings by the landowners, and of their having challenged the accuracy of Mr. Thomas's Report. The three officials, of whom Mr. Thomas is the first, alluded to in the fifth paragraph of the Question, ceased to be collectors of Tanjore in the years 1878, 1881, and 1883, respectively. The frauds reported by Mr. Thomas took place at the end of 1884 and beginning of 1885, and could not, therefore, have been discovered by them. The matter requires, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, very careful inquiry, which has already been ordered.

  ARMY (AMMUNITION)—CARTRIDGES.
  MR. EDWIN DE LISLEasked the Secretary of State for War, If he can state what quantity of solid-drawn cartridges there are in store; and, whether there is not fear that, in case of war, it would be necessary largely to make use of the Boxer Cartridges which have been manufactured since they were condemned on account of failure in the Soudan War?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (MR. W. H. SMITH): On public grounds I entertain a strong objection to giving the information asked for; but I can assure the hon. Member that there is no fear of the supply of solid-drawn cartridges being deficient in case of war.
  MR. DE LISLEinquired whether it was a fact that the Boxer cartridges had been manufactured in large quantities since they had been condemned?
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, it was a fact that those cartridges had been manufactured, and issued, for practice purposes, to Volunteer corps.

  FISHERY PIERS AND HARBOURS (IRELAND)—CULDAFF PIER.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, with reference to Culdaff Pier, If he will state upon what information he stated that the Piers and Harbours Commissioners had approved of the plan of the

  1747
  Board of works; and, whether he would ascertain what the opinion of the Inspectors of Fisheries is as to the extension of the pier?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH), in reply, said, that the hon. Member was under some misapprehension with regard to this matter; but if he would refer him further to the points complained of he would inquire into them.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORintimated that he would ask a further Question of the Secretary to the Treasury on the same subject.

  EDUCATION DEPARTMENT—INTERMEDIATE AND HIGHER EDUCATION (WALES).
  MR. THOMAS ELLISasked the Vice President of the Committee of Council, Whether his attention has been drawn to the statement in the Report of the Departmental Committee on Intermediate and Higher Education in Wales, that,
  "according to calculations made after the Census of 1871, out of a population of 1,426,514 in Wales and Monmouthshire, no less than 1,006,100 habitually speak Welsh;"
  and, whether, in view of the distinctive national characteristics of Wales, he is willing to reconsider his decision not to publish a separate annual Report on Elementary Education in Wales, in a form and at a price which would make it available to those connected with and interested in the progress of Welsh Education?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT (Sir HENRY HOLLAND): I am aware of the statement referred to in the first part of the Question. The point raised shall receive consideration; but for the reasons given in my reply on the 6th instant, I am not at present prepared to disturb the arrangement deliberately made by the right hon. Member for Sheffield (MR. Mundella), which has only been in force two years, and has been found to work satisfactorily. The hon. Member will observe that the general Report for 1886–7 will, as a matter of course, contain a Report on Wales, and I will arrange to have a number of copies issued separately in a form that shall be more generally accessible to those interested in Welsh education.

  BULGARIA—ABDICATION OF PRINCE ALEXANDER.
  SIR HENRY TYLERasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, To state, as far as he can do so without detriment to the public service, the latest information received in regard to the position of Prince Alexander in Bulgaria, and the nature of any communications that have passed between the Great Powers as to the future of Bulgaria, as well as the position which has been taken up by Her Majesty's Government on that subject?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON): The position of Prince Alexander is that he has abdicated his Throne, and the proceedings prescribed by the Treaty of Berlin with reference to the election of a Prince of Bulgaria will naturally follow. They are—a free Election by the Assembly, the confirmation by the Sublime Porte, and the assent of the Treaty Powers. While the action following upon the late events in Bulgaria is in so early a stage, I believe that the House will approve of my excusing myself from entering upon the communications between the Great Powers. Such a course at the present time could hardly fail to embarrass Her Majesty's Government, and to diminish its beneficial influence. I am permitted, however, to say that Her Majesty's Government have no reason to believe that the action of any of the Powers will be inconsistent with their Treaty engagements.

  LABOURERS (IRELAND) ACT—THE DONAGHMORE UNION SCHEMES.
  MR. WILLIAM MACDONALDasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the Board of Guardians of the Donaghmore Union, before its dissolution, adopted thirteen schemes under the Labourers Act; and, what the Government propose to do, in order that the proceedings already completed may not prove abortive?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH): The Donaghmore Guardians adopted the 13 schemes under the Labourers Act at the beginning of last April; but they do not appear to have exerted them-

  1749
  selves to proceed with, them promptly, so that they might have been concluded before the dissolution of the Board, as the petitions of the Sanitary Authority and the necessary accompanying documents were not lodged with the Local Government Board until the 21st of August. The Local Government Board are taking the opinion of their legal adviser as to the best course to pursue under the circumstances.

  NAVY-EDUCATION OF JUNIOR EXECUTIVE OFFICERS—ADMIRAL LUARD'S COMMITTEE.
  ADMIRAL FIELDasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether he will lay upon the Table the Report of Admiral Luard's Committee on the "Education of the Junior Executive Officers of the Navy;" and, whether a certain number of copies can be supplied for the use of Members who may desire to possess the same?
  THE FIRST LORD (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON): Yes, Sir; copies of the Report will be laid on the Table.

  WESTERN AUSTRALIA—DISCOVERIES OF GOLD.
  MR. SALTasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, If he can afford any authentic information respecting the character and probable extent of the recent discoveries of gold in Australia?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. E. STANHOPE): My hon. Friend is referring, no doubt, to the gold field discovered in Western Australia. The Governor has proclaimed the district between 126 degrees and 129 degrees east and 16 degrees and 19·30 degrees south as a gold district, and an Act has been passed for its management similar to the Queensland Act. According to our latest information (May 21), the Kimberley gold field, as it is called, continues to make progress. More than 1,000 ounces of gold have come down to Derby or Cambridge Gulf. The number of miners at present on the field is 600 or 700. The rapidity of the rush is checked by the fact that the gold field must be approached by a difficult tropical land journey of over 300 miles, and that the miners must be provided with horses and stores, and must, therefore, be men of some capital.

  ARMY (AUXILIARY FORCES)—PAYMENTS TO VOLUNTEERS IN CAMP.
  COLONEL EYREasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether, in come Volunteer Corps, non-commissioned officers and privates are paid when in camp; whether the capitation grant is applicable to such purposes; and, whether some steps will be taken to put a stop to this practice if it is not in accordance with the Volunteer Regulation?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (MR. W. H. SMITH): The Returns show, as far as they have been examined, that in some Volunteer corps the men receive pay when in camp. It was not the intention that the capitation grant should be applied to this Service, and it does not follow that it is, as the corps which adopt the practice show generally an expenditure in excess of the grant. There is no regulation to prevent officers supplementing the capitation grant out of their own pockets or by subscriptions. I may add that a special allowance is granted to cover the general expense which Volunteer corps are necessarily subject to in the formation of camps.

  LIABILITIES OF TRUSTEES—INDIAN GUARANTEED RAILWAY SHARES.
  MR. PULESTONasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether the Government would support a Bill extending the authority of trustees to invest in Indian Guaranteed Railway Shares?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JOHN GORST)said, the Question should be addressed to the Attorney General.

  RAILWAYS—SAFETY RAILWAY COUPLINGS.
  MR. COCHRANE - BAILLIEasked the Secretary to the Board of Trade, Whether any notice has been taken by the Government of the competition for the improvement of safety Railway couplings, held at Nine Elms goods yard in the spring of this year; and, whether they will cause any inquiry to be made into the results that were obtained?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE BOARD (Baron HENRY DE WORMS): Some of the Inspecting Officers attended the competition referred

  1751
  to by the hon. Member; but the Board of Trade have expressed no opinion upon the results, not wishing to assume a responsibility which must necessarily rest upon those who have the control and management of railways. The result of the competition can, no doubt, be obtained from the Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants.

  INDIA—TRANSFER OF THE SEAT OF GOVERNMENT TO SIMLA.
  MR. JAMES MACLEANasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether Her Majesty's Government has received any representations from the Government of India with reference to the proposed transfer of the seat of Government from Calcutta to Simla, and whether any statement can be made to allay the apprehension created in India by the rumour that the Finance Commission is about to recommend fixing upon Simla as the seat of Government; whether Parliament will be consulted before any definite decision is come to on this matter; and, whether, in case of the transfer of Government to a salubrious spot in the hills, when the unhealthiness and discomfort of life is no greater than in any British town, he will take care that the salaries of the entire official staff becoming resident at Simla shall be reduced and assimilated to that of English officials, for the benefit of the Indian taxpayer?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JOHN GORST): No proposal has been made by the Government of India to transfer the seat of Government from Calcutta to Simla. I hope this statement will allay the apprehension in India referred to in the Question. Should such a proposal as that of changing the seat of Government in India be ever made, I have no doubt that Parliament would have ample opportunities of expressing its opinion before any definite decisiou was come to. The Secretary of State will defer the consideration of the necessity of a revision of official salaries until some necessity giving rise to such necessity has arisen.

  FRANCE—ARREST OF MR. FARREN, A BRITISH SUBJECT.
  MR. KENYONasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether any intelligence has
  1752
  been received at the Foreign Office relative to the alleged arrest of Mr. George Farren, J.P., of Carnarvon, and his party, on board the yacht Lady Bessie, by the French authorities, off the coast of Brittany?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON): The Foreign Office have received no information or complaint upon the subject referred to.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND)—THE WOODFORD PRISONERS (GALWAY).
  MR. SHEEHYasked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Whether he is aware that substantial bail has been offered on behalf of the Woodford prisoners; and, whether, having regard to the present peaceable condition of the district, he will instruct the Crown Solicitor of Galway to take bail for the appearance of the prisoners at trial?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (MR. HOLMES): It is the Court of Petty Sessions or the Supreme Court, not the Crown Solicitor, that makes an order allowing a prisoner to be discharged on bail; but it is usual, when such an application is made, for the Crown Solicitor to consent or to oppose. The charge against the Woodford prisoners is a very serious one; and the Crown, I fear, will be obliged to oppose any application on the part of the prisoners for bail.

  METROPOLITAN ASYLUMS BOARD— REPRESENTATION.
  MR. PICKERSGILLasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether his attention has been called to a Resolution, unanimously adopted at a recent Conference of Guardians, that—
  "The Metropolitan Unions are inadequately represented on the Asylums Board, and that fuller and more satisfactory accounts should be published by the Board of its receipts and payments;"
  and, whether he proposes to take any steps to give effect to this Resolution?
  THE PRESIDENT (MR. RITCHIE): With regard to the representation of the Metropolitan Union on the Asylums Board, an order was issued last week increasing the number of elected managers by nine. Information as to the expenditure of the Asylums Board is already

  1753
  furnished by the managers to the Guardians; and, prior to each half-yearly audit, the ledger accounts of the managers are open to the inspection of any ratepayer or owner of property in the Metropolis. If any suggestion specifying precisely what additional accounts are desired is submitted to me on behalf of the Conference alluded to, it will receive my consideration.

  METROPOLIS—THE POOR RATEPAYERS OF LONDON.
  MR. PICKERSGILLasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether, seeing that he has promised a day for the consideration of a Bill to relieve the poor tenantry of Ireland, he will also give his favourable consideration, during the present Session of Parliament, to the Bill which has been introduced to relieve the poor ratepayers of London?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Lord RANDOLPH CHURCHILL): I am very much interested and greatly impressed by the close analogy which the hon. Member draws between the condition of the tenantry of Ireland and the condition of the poor ratepayers of London; and I have no doubt that the analogy will afford a very valuable argument in the debate on the Land Bill when it comes on. But, having admitted this, I see no occasion to depart from the position taken up by the Government, either to initiate themselves, or to encourage on the part of private Members, legislation during the present Session.

  ARMY—ORDNANCE COMMITTEE—CALCULATED BURSTING STRAIN OF GUNS.
  SIR HENRY TYLERasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he will refer to the Ordnance Committee with Special Associate Members, the following Questions:—What was the calculated bursting strain; what was the actual calculated strain under the charge with which the gun burst, in tons per square inch, for each of the guns that burst on board H.M.S, Active, Thunderer, and Collingwood; whether "jamming" of the shot, in consequence of the increasing twist of the rifling, be sufficient to account for the bursting of each of these guns; and, whether he will report the answers to these questions to the House?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (MR. W. H. SMITH): I will take care that the information which he is desirous of obtaining shall be furnished to the hon. Member.

  NAVY—NAVAL SCHOOLMASTERS' PENSIONS.
  SIR SAMUEL WILSONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether he will grant to Naval Schoolmasters, on completion of their period of service, the same scale of pensions that other petty officers in Her Majesty's Navy now receive?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON): The rates of pension for naval schoolmasters were recently improved, though they were not actually assimilated in all respects to those in force for chief petty and petty officers. The Order in Council of the 3rd of August last removes the limit that was placed on schoolmasters' pensions, and extends to men of over 20 years' service the same rate for each year served as is awarded to chief and petty officers.

  INCOME TAX (IRELAND)—OVERCHARGE, EDENAGEE, CO. FERMANAGH.
  MR. JORDANasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If Mr. J. J. Maguire, of the town of Cavan, applied to the Surveyor at Enniskillen for repayment of overcharge in Income Tax out of the lands of Edenagee, County Fermanagh; if said Surveyor informed him that the papers relating thereto were in the office in Dublin; if he has written repeatedly to the Commissioners there, without receiving any reply; and, if the Commissioners will be instructed to give due attention to the matter?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (MR. JACKSON), in reply, said, that there was some misunderstanding in this case, owing, firstly, to a mistake in the addresses of the letters, and, secondly, to a confusion between two persons who were concerned. The memorial on the subject of Mr. Maguire's complaint was before Somerset House, and would be duly dealt with. As to the statement that Mr. Maguire had not received replies to his letters, he was informed that every communication he sent had been answered.

  PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  MR. C. B. LEWISasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether, considering the importance of the Vote for the Royal Irish Constabulary, the Government would undertake that it should come on at a reasonable hour of the evening, or at the commencement of a Sitting?
  THE CHANCELLOE OF THE EXCHEQUER (Lord RANDOLPH CHURCHILL)said, that the Government agreed with the hon. Member as to the importance of the Royal Irish Constabulary Vote, and thought that the Vote ought to be taken at a time which would be convenient to the House; and, therefore, they would undertake that it should come on at the commencement of a Sitting; but as to the other Votes they were desirous of proceeding with the Estimates, as far as possible, in the order in which they had been placed before the House.
  MR. C. E. LEWISsaid, that in consequence of the answer he would not that evening proceed with his Motion for an official inquiry into the conduct of the magistrates and police in Derry.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY.—COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

  POOR LAW (ENGLAND AND WALES)— THE METROPOLITAN COMMON FUND—QUOTA FOR OFFICERS RATIONS.—OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. PICKERSGILLrose to move—
  "That the scale fixed by the Local Government Board for the cost of the rations of the officers of the Metropolitan Unions, repayable out of the common fund, is grossly inadequate, not in accordance with the intention of the Legislature, and unfair to the poorer districts; and that this House is of opinion that the immediate revision of the scale is a matter of pressing urgency;"
  when—
  MR. SPEAKER: I must point out to the hon. Member that he has introduced a Bill, which is now standing on the Paper for a second reading, which contains a distinct reference to the subject-matter of the present Motion; and, as that Bill is to be brought on upon
  1756
  a future day, the hon. Member would not be in Order in moving his Resolution now, as he would be anticipating the discussion upon the Bill.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: May I point out that the Bill which I propose to bring forward is intended to bringabout an alteration in the law, while the grievance complained of in the Resolution is that the Local Government Board do not carry out the existing law. I only wish to insist upon one of the most ancient principles of the Constitution—that the consideration of grievances should precede Supply.
  MR. SPEAKER: It is not a question of grievance preceding Supply; but it is a question of the hon. Member infringing an Order of the House.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: May I ask you, Sir, if I should be in Order in making some remarks on the special subject I have referred to?
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member would not be in Order in anticipating the discussion upon his Bill.

CRIME AND OUTRAGE (IRELAND)— THE BARBAVILLA CONSPIRACY.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. TUITE: I rise to move the Resolution of which I gave Notice early in the evening, and which has reference to the case of the Barbavilla conspiracy to murder. We are in a position to prove that the persons now undergoing penal servitude for that conspiracy to murder have been unjustly convicted, and should be released.
  MR. SPEAKER: I must call the attention of the hon. Member to the fact that the Resolution which he proposes to move is not pertinent to any of the Estimates before the House. The salaries of the Judges who administer justice in Ireland are not included in these Estimates; and the conduct of the Sheriff, or of any officer whose salary is embraced in the Estimates, is not impugned by the hon. Member. I understand that the hon. Member proposes to impugn the conduct of the late Lord Lieutenant, and the salary of the late Lord Lieutenant is not in question. I am bound by the Standing Order, which says that no question shall be raised as a Motion, except such as appertain to the Estimates to be taken in Supply.
  MR. TUITE: What I desire to call attention to is the action of the Lord Lieutenant in refusing an inquiry. The

  1757
  administration of justice in Ireland has thereby been impaired. We are ready to produce the new evidence which has been forthcoming since the trials in support of the allegations which have been made as to the innocence of the prisoners.
  MR. SPEAKER: The Lord Lieutenant's salary is not upon these Estimates, and I do not see how the object of the hon. Member can be attained without infringing the Standing Order.
  MR. SEXTON: On the point of Order I would respectfully submit that the salaries of the Lord Lieutenant and of the Chief Secretary for Ireland, who represents the Lord Lieutenant in this House, are dealt with in the Estimates. The Lord Lieutenant is responsible for the prerogative of mercy in Ireland; and I contend that the Motion of my hon. Friend is, therefore, pertinent to the Estimates, because it complains that the prerogative has not been exercised in the Barbavilla case.
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member proposes to discuss a general subject. Last year I gave a ruling which, I think, completely covers the point now raised. Mr. Hopwood, who was then a Member of the House, proposed, on the Motion for going into Committee of Supply upon the Civil Service Estimates, to move a Resolution on the subject of appeals in criminal cases. That may have seemed to deal, to a certain extent, with the Estimates then before the House; but I ruled that it was a general question, and that, as it did not deal with any special Estimate proposed to be taken, it did not come within the Standing Order that any Resolution moved must appertain to the Estimates before the House.

EDUCATION (GRANTS TO SCHOOLS).

  RESOLUTION.
  MR. CONWAY, in rising to move—
  "That this House is of opinion that it is expedient that every school conducted in suitable premises, with an attendance of not less than thirty scholars, under a duly certified teacher or teachers, and complying with the other provisions of the Code, and favourably reported on by Her Majesty's Inspector as being efficiently taught, shall be entitled to a share in the annual Parliamentary Grant for Public Education,"
  said, that at the time Board schools were
  1758
  first introduced it was intended that they should only supplement voluntary schools where the latter did not meet the necessities of the districts; but in the small country places, where the School Boards were not so enlightened as in, for instance, London or Liverpool, the Boards refused to give their consent to the building of new voluntary schools, and ignored the claims of the denominationalists. The House ought to come to the rescue of the voluntary schools, and prevent small Boards, such as those he had referred to, refusing their consent. If the Motion were adopted, he contended that no harm would be done to the cause of popular education. The grievances which the people complained of would be removed, and the schools which were fulfilling all the conditions of the Code would be sharing in the grant for public elementary education. Since the Education Act came into force no fewer than 48 of these voluntary schools had been suppressed by a powerful minority, and £6,000,000 sunk in aid of the cause of education was practically lost. His Resolution was intended to rescue the denominational schools, and, at the same time, to relieve the Vice President of the Council of much labour connected with all schools which complained of the action of the Board.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "this House is of opinion that it is expedient that every school conducted in suitable premises, with an attendance of not less than thirty scholars, under a duly certified teacher or teachers, and complying with the other provisions of the Code, and favourably reported on by Her Majesty's Inspector as being efficiently taught, shall be entitled to a share in the annual Parliamentary Grant for Public Education,"—(MR. Conway,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Sir HENRY HOLLAND)said, he was inclined to agree with a great deal of what had fallen from the hon Member. The House might not be aware that the Motion stated exactly the practice of the Department which was followed in districts not under School Boards; but he understood the chief objection of the

  1759
  hon. Member to apply to cases within a School Board district, and to the fact that voluntary schools were not allowed to earn grants in a district where a Board school had been once set up. In considering this point it was necessary to bear in mind that a School Board was not started unless there was a deficiency of voluntary work. A School Board was only called into action when they could not obtain a voluntary school in a district to supply insufficiency of school accommodation. Upon failure of voluntary action the Department had no option but to fall back on the ratepayers, and insist on their finding school accommodation. Directly a School Board was started it had certain powers vested in it by the Act of Parliament; it was bound to find sufficient accommodation in the district; and, further, if at any subsequent time sufficient accommodation was wanting, it was bound to provide it. The Education Department was bound to see that sufficient accommodation was provided, and the School Board were bound by the Act of 1870 to provide it. Supposing that the managers of a voluntary school came forward and said that they desired to start a voluntary school within a School Board district, it was the duty of the Department first to ascertain whether there was or was not sufficient suitable accommodation in the district; and if there was sufficient the Department would not allow a grant to the voluntary school. If they did, it would be hardly fair by the ratepayers who had had to contribute to the School Board, and who, in fact, had created a public elementary school which was giving sufficient accommodation for the district. It must be observed, also, that if this concession was made to one voluntary and denominational school, it must be made to any others in the district that could fulfil the conditions and secure the minimum average attendance. This would tend to the multiplication of small rival schools, unnecessary from the educational point of view; there would be danger of lowering the standard of education, as was found to be the case in small schools as compared with larger schools; and there would be an unnecessary expenditure, as every school, however small, must have the proper staff. Supposing, again, a time arrived when there was not sufficient accommodation in the district, and a
  1760
  representation to that effect was made to the Department, they would at once call on the School Board to find sufficient accommodation. If the managers of a voluntary school came forward and said, "Give the grant to us, and we will find that accommodation," the Education Department would be obliged in these circumstances, according to the present system, first to say to the School Board, "Will you find that accommodation? If not, we shall give the grant to the voluntary school; but it is your duty first to find the accommodation, and we call upon you to do your duty." If the School Board is unwilling or fails to provide the accommodation, the Department would make a grant to a voluntary school fulfilling the necessary conditions; or they would make that grant at once to the school, if the Board assented to the want of accommodation being supplied by a voluntary school. Where a voluntary school had been started for denominational purposes in a School Board district, and was certified as efficient, if it came to the Education Department and asked for a grant, it was the practice of the Education Department to say to the School Board, "Do you object to a grant being given to the school?" and the cases were very rare indeed in the large towns, and comparatively rare in the country, where the School Board objected. But School Boards did object sometimes, and especially, he thought, in Wales. In a case of that kind he agreed so far with the hon. Member as to wish that the Education Department had a little more power. He did not agree with the hon. Member in thinking that, if the Motion were adopted, it would relieve the Vice President of the Council of much labour; because, on the contrary, it would impose on the Department a more careful examination than now took place. But the Department ought to be prepared to take that responsibility; and, therefore, he agreed with the hon. Member so far. He hoped the hon. Member would not think that he was discourteous, or that he underrated the importance of the question, if he hesitated to discuss the full bearings of the Act and the Code on this point; and for this reason—that the whole matter, and other important questions of a kindred character, were at the present time under the consideration of a

  1761
  Royal Commission on Elementary Education. Evidence had already been given on this point; the practice and system of the Department had been fully and ably stated by the Permanent Secretary of the Department; and further evidence would, no doubt, be forthcoming. Seeing, therefore, that if any change were made in the direction desired by the hon. Member, or in the direction indicated by himself, some legislation would be required, he thought the Education Department would not be justified in introducing legislation, or, indeed, any important change in the present system of education, until they were made aware of the views of the Royal Commissioners. He could assure the hon. Member that the question, which was one of importance, and in which great and increasing interest was felt throughout the country, would not be lost sight of. He trusted the hon. Member would be satisfied with having brought the matter before the House and obtaining a discussion upon it, and that he would not press for a division, but withdraw his Resolution.
  MR. CALDWELLsaid, that the Motion of the hon. Member was exactly consonant with the spirit of the Act of 1870. The object of that Act was not to supersede voluntary effort, but that the School Board system was to be supplementary to the existing voluntary system. In carrying out the Act, however, the English Education Department and also the School Boards had interpreted its meaning as if School Boards were to supplant private schools wherever they possibly could. The Vice President pointed out what he thought would be a hardship in the case of Board schools having been erected, and of private schools rising up afterwards. There was, practically, no hardship, supposing they sanctioned a private school where there was sufficient accommodation in the Board school, for this reason—that a school was not a profitable investment in any case. Apart from the cost of the school buildings, the maintenance of the school, however numerous the pupils, was a positive loss; and the loss need not be increased by a reduction of pupils, the School Board correspondingly reducing the teaching staff and expenditure. There was no reason why the community should not have the bene-
  1762
  fit of the private competition if the Board school, for any reason cognizant to the parents, was not doing its duty. He, therefore, considered that if there was a Board school half empty it was better that it should remain so, in order that the community should have the full benefit of the private enterprise and competition. The Vice President of the Council practically held the position that once a School Board was formed in a district there was an end to private enterprize, because if the School Board was willing to provide sufficient school accommodation, then private schools were to be kept out. The effect of that was simply that where a Board school had got possession of a district it would practically exclude private enterprize for all time coming, even if the private schools were able to increase their accommodation. The consequence would be that in England, as in Scotland, private enterprize would be driven out of the field, and education would be placed solely in the hands of the Board schools. When they reached the Scottish Education Estimates he would show that to be the result in Scotland, and they were tending in the same direction in England. He could not understand how there could be any objection to giving a grant to any voluntary school which complied with the conditions set forth in the Amendment. There was no fear of private enterprize starting useless schools. No managers would undertake the building of schools that would not fulfil the requirements of the Code, and they were not likely to do it out of mere grudge to the School Boards. It should be the object of the Department to foster and encourage education, and to give the community the benefit of this competition so long as they protected the interest of the ratepayers by refusing to give grants to schools unless they were thoroughly efficient in the terms of the Code.
  VISCOUNT CRANBORNEsaid, he desired to express his sympathy with the object of the hon. Member who had moved this Amendment. From the statement of the Vice President of the Council, he understood that in cases where there was no Board school the Department acted in accordance with the view expressed in the Amendment; but in cases where there were Board schools with

  1763
  sufficient accommodation there was a very great difficulty in the way of giving grants to voluntary schools, which he did not think the hon. Member for Glasgow appreciated. If the grant were given to the voluntary school as well as to the Board school the Department would have to pay twice over. In such cases he should be unwilling to see the House express any opinion; but it was different in cases where Board schools existed and did not give sufficient accommodation. In those circumstances he confessed he should like to see the Department give preference to the voluntary schools over the Board schools. That was a change in the law which he confidently looked for as a result of the Royal Commission sitting on the subject. Although sympathizing with the hon. Member, yet, as that Royal Commission was sitting, he trusted most earnestly that the hon. Member would not press his Motion to a division. At the present moment, when the Royal Commission was sitting, it was impossible for the House to come to any definite and satisfactory conclusion; and, at the same time, many hon. Members on the Conservative side of the House were unwilling to appear to be opposed to the objects of the Mover of the Amendment, with which they were in sympathy.
  MR. SALTobserved, that the Amendment was limited in its scope, and did not express all the points that the Mover desired to bring forward. Moreover, although the views of the hon. Member met with sympathy from all parts of the House, yet, as had been pointed out, it would be better to let them go on until the subject was ripe for discussion than to force a division at that particular moment. This matter would be much better thrashed out by the Royal Commission than by a discussion in the House at the present time. As to the financial aspect of the question, he doubted whether the proposal of the hon. Member to give denominational schools, side by side with Board schools, the grant in certain cases, would really injure the ratepayers very much. If a portion of the children in a district were educated at the Board schools and a part at denominational schools, it could not injure the ratepayers to divide the Vote between them.
  MR. E. S. POWELLsaid, he thought the hon. Member, by his Amend-
  1764
  ment, had hit a blot in the Education Act; and he trusted that Her Majesty's Government, when they received the Report of the Royal Commission, would take steps without delay to remove what he considered a serious injustice. If at present, in a place where it was perceived that a growth of population would occur, persons out of their own funds built a school, he could see no reason why the Department should refuse to acknowledge it. This was one of many cases where great hardship and wrong was now inflicted under the present system. There were some districts where Board schools were not in accordance with the views of the population; and if they, out of their own fund, built a denominational school to give religious instruction with a proper teaching staff it ought to be recognized and receive the grant. He sincerely trusted that this question would not be allowed to drop, but that on some future occasion a change might be made in the law. In the meantime, the hon. Member who had moved the Amendment might be satisfied with the discussion that had taken place.
  MR. HARRISsaid, he professed to be a Liberal, but he did not agree with that portion of the Liberal Party who were in favour of mixed as against denominational education. He thought it would be a truly Liberal programme to give denominational education to those who desired to have it.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, that considering the Ministry had expressed themselves to a great extent in sympathy with the views of the hon. Member, and considering that a Royal Commission was investigating the education question, he could not help feeling that his hon. Friend would be ill-advised if he proceeded further with his Motion at present.
  MR. CONWAYsaid, he would accept the advice of his hon. Friend (MR. Arthur O'Connor) and withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Main Question again proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

  SCOTLAND—CONTRAVENTION OF THE TRUCK ACT.—OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. BRADLAUGHsaid, that a few days ago he put a Ques-

  1765
  tion to the Secretary of State for the Home Department as to alleged breaches of the Truck Act in Scotland; and that right hon. and learned Gentleman answered that the Inspectors of Factories reported to him that they knew nothing of such breaches of the law. He (MR. Bradlaugh) therefore took advantage of the present opportunity to show that the law upon that subject was, in Scotland, persistently, wilfully, and upon a wholesale scale broken. That applied to Tiree and Shetland, to Lanarkshire, and to part of Ayrshire. It was impossible that the Inspectors of Factories in the various districts could be ignorant of the fact; and if they pleaded ignorance to the Home Secretary, there must be some other reason for their want of knowledge than was apparent to the mind of a private Member. At a large meeting of coal and ironworkers, which he (MR. Bradlaugh) attended, as did the hon. Members for the local divisions, at Motherwell, thousands of men declared that the whole of the labourers there present were cognizant of breaches of the Truck Act happening in the works in which they were employed, and a resolution was passed condemning the system declared to be largely in vogue in the county. He would not trouble the House with details as to Tiree, which was partially dealt with in the Report of the Crofters' Commission, nor would he on that occasion go into the broach of the law in Zetland and Fair Isle, though he held in his hand a careful statement of the breaches made on high and indisputable authority; he would confine himself to Lanarkshire, where the state of things seemed every bit as bad as when reported upon in 1871 by the Truck Commission, which thus described the practice as proved before them—
  "When a man wants an advance before payday, he goes to the cashier or the clerk with his book, in which is entered the amount of work he has done. The cashier or clerk marks on the hook the sum which the workman is to receive, and hands the hook hack to him with cash. On receiving the money the workman is expected to take it to the store and deliver it to the head storeman, who in return provides him with a line or ticket for the amount. This line is available for articles at the store to the extent of the figure written upon it. In some cases the man is permitted, either by the clerk or the storekeeper, to carry away a small proportion in actual cash, 1s. or 2s., or 2s. 6d. in 10 s., being the usual allowance."
  He (MR. Bradlaugh) had investigated
  1766
  many cases; but the difficulty was that the men entreated that their names and addresses might not be given unless the Government took the matter up, as they would be at once dismissed from their employment and their families would starve. He had in his hand a pay-note which was issued within the last five weeks, and it contained two items, one for "cash" and the other was what was called the "cash account." The first thing that occurred to the mind was that it was somewhat extraordinary that two such separate items of cash should be printed on each man's pay-note. Really, the practice was to pay fortnightly, or at longer periods. The poor man, unable to exist, obtained an intermediate advance, but not until after he had earned it. Such advances were entered against the first "cash" in the pay-note; but for any money advanced upon this account he was charged interest, though the money had been already earned. The rate of interest was astounding. Upon the ticket before him the charge was 9d. for an advance of 15 s. for five days; but the regular rate was 6d. for 10 s. for a week, 1s. for £1, which was, at the lowest, 250 per cent per annum; and this was charged to men for lending them their own money. Then the second line "cash account" was the shop account, which was remarkable. The man applied, and got "a line" that nominally entitled him to receive a certain amount in cash; but, in reality, he could only obtain goods. If he should get cash, and with it buy goods elsewhere, he would have to leave the works. One poor man in Lanarkshire wrote him thus—
  "The proprietor one day was going into the town, and met one of his workmen's children with a basket on her arm; he looked into the basket and found a few provisions—he asked her where she had got them, and the girl telling him, he told the father he would not allow it, there was a shop there, and he must use it; and I believe it is very prevalent all through Scotland, I beg to say that I send this in all confidence, as I should suffer the penalty of instant dismissal should it become known."
  He would not now delay the House from going into Committee by stating further instances; but if he could insure protection to the men he could furnish evidence of over 200 cases which he had himself investigated. The House might wonder why, the law being so audaciously broken, it was not enforced in

  1767
  Scotland, as it had been recently by the Treasury in Wales. Prosecutions in Scotland were conducted by the Procurator Fiscal in all cases in which that official could get his expenses; but, curiously enough, the Truck Act was drawn by English lawyers, who made no provision for prosecutions being conducted in Scotch Courts. That difficulty had been noted by the Truck Commission of 1870; and he would trouble the House with the following extract from the examination by the Royal Commissioners of the Procurator Fiscal of the Hamilton district—
  "Can you inform us whose duty it is? It is the duty of every man who finds himself aggrieved.—But of nobody in particular? Of nobody in particular.—Suppose a miner were aggrieved, would the information be given to you, or to the police? To either; but I never had an information of the kind.—And I rather gather from what you have said that you would not move in the matter, although you had? I would not.—Then to whom ought a complaining miner to make his complaint? He would require to employ an agent to conduct his case for him, and proceed in his own name.—Even if he was complaining of a criminal offence? If he was complaining of an offence against the Truck Act.—And wished to prosecute? Yes, and wished to prosecute.—I am not talking of a case in which he wished to recover money back? No; I am speaking of a contravention of the Truck Act.—Then he would have to employ an agent at his own expense, and proceed in his own name? Yes.—Suppose he were to complain to the police, what would they tell him? That he must proceed himself.—Is not that a very exceptional state of things in the law? It is so; I do not remember any other Act of Parliament in the same condition."
  And yet the law has been left in this unsatisfactory state. The Procurators Fiscal did not, unfortunately, take up prosecutions in cases of breach of the Truck Act; nor, perhaps, could they be expected to do so until they knew they would get their expenses paid, and that was a state of things which he desired to see remedied. He was advised that to secure this it needed a short amending Bill to enact—(1) That all prosecutions under the Truck Acts may be brought in the Sheriffs' Courts, and by the Procurators Fiscal thereof; (2) That the expenses of such prosecutions should enter the Sheriffs' accounts against their counties, and be repayable in Exchequer, as in other prosecutions; and (3) That pecuniary penalties adjudged by Sheriffs should be accounted for by them in Exchequer. The Royal Commission of 1870 had denounced, and he (MR. Brad-
  1768
  laugh) would again denounce, this truck system as demoralizing in the highest degree. The Secretary of State for the Home Department said that he had no information upon the matter, though it was perfectly well known to 30,000 or 40,000 workmen. He was not attacking the right hon. and learned Gentleman personally, who had received his (Mr. Bradlaugh's) statements with great courtesy, and who, he believed, desired to suppress this shameful system. But it was the Secretary of State who had to answer in that House. He (MR. Bradlaugh) had in his possession allegations of cases where employers, reputed for their honour and integrity, and who gave large donations to churches, had beer shops and whisky stores at the doors of their places of business, and who advanced money to the men to go in and spend in these places, and charged them, in addition, 250 per cent interest on the advances. It was intolerable that when breaches of the Truck Act had almost entirely disappeared in England and were punished in Wales, the law should be allowed to become a dead letter in Scotland. The putting of the law in force should surely not be left to poor ignorant men without pecuniary means, who could not proceed without employing law agents' counsel.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (MR. MATTHEWS)said, that he could not follow the hon. Gentleman upon the province of fact into which he had entered. He had done his best within the last week to make inquiries on the subject. He had some, although imperfect, information with regard to Tiree; and he was bound to say about it that, although the state of things was by no means satisfactory, and one for which he could wish to see a remedy, he was not satisfied that what took place there could be reached by the Truck Act at all. As he gathered, the workmen in Tiree, who were paid in goods instead of money, were not artificers within the meaning of the Truck Act. They were simply persons who collected sea weed or tangle, which was ultimately used for glass manufacture, but who were not employed in any manufacturing process. Moreover, in extenuation of the practice which seemed to prevail in Tiree of giving these labourers goods instead of money for their wages, various excuses

  1769
  were urged by the employers. Some said that the workmen themselves preferred it. He would scrutinize a plea like that closely before accepting it. Others alleged that the system of giving meal was preferred by the men.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: That very excuse was made and dealt with by the Truck Commissioners, who rejected it as an invalid excuse.
  MR. MATTHEWSsaid, that the Crofters' Commission had dealt with the case of payment with meal instead of coin, and expressed no very positive conclusion on the subject. They did not state positively whether the custom prevailed so as to bring it within the Truck Act. Another excuse was made, and if true would, he thought, be a valid one, that the difficulty of reaching Tiree was so great, owing to stormy weather, that the getting of regular supplies of coin was a matter of almost impossibility. He did not pretend so set himself on an equality of zeal with the lion. Member in this matter; but he claimed the next place to him in zeal, and he would assure the hon. Member that if any efforts could tend to prevent any abuse which came within the letter or the spirit of the Truck Act, they should not be wanting in order to protect the workmen, whose cause was advocated with such ability by the hon. Member. With regard to what went on in Lanarkshire, he was not able to assist the hon. Gentleman with any statement of facts at present; he had done his utmost within the last four or five days to get information on the matter. He had no reason whatever to doubt the accuracy of the information which the hon. Gentleman had laid before the House, but he was not at present able to confirm it; and, of course, the hon. Member would not expect him to take official action without that confirmation. He had reason to suspect, though he did not know yet, that the system to which the hon. Member had alluded of charging what was called a "commission" by some employers for advances of wages did exist in that part of Scotland. The Scotch law seemed to him to be as impenetrable as a Scotch mist, and he did not profess to have any knowledge of the subject; and the Lord Advocate, he was sorry to say, was not at his elbow to enlighten him. At the same time, he thought that the system of making a workman's wages
  1770
  payable every fortnight, and to charge him 6d. or 1s. for an advance of 10 s., was a very great abuse, and if it was not freely and voluntarily consented to by the workmen themselves it was a matter which any friend of the workmen would be justified in protesting against. As to compelling them to deal at a particular shop, the hon. Member was as good a judge as he was whether that was against the spirit of the Truck Act; and if he could do anything with the assistance of the Secretary for Scotland and the advice of the Lord Advocate, he and they would do their utmost to stimulate Procurators Fiscal and to induce them to inquire into these matters.
  MR. DONALD CRAWFORDsaid, he regretted that he had not known beforehand that the hon. Member for Northampton was to bring forward this subject to-night. If he had he would have looked into the law of the subject, and would also have endeavoured to get more facts from the county of Lanark than he had at present. In fact, he was not aware that the Forms of the House would have allowed of the subject being brought forward now. If he had it would have been his business to bring forward the subject himself, as he was aware that it was regarded with great interest in the county. The abuses complained of in Lanarkshire were of two kinds. The one was the system of poundage by which a miner got an advance on his wages on what he had earned, and was charged an exorbitant interest upon it. He might explain to the Home Secretary that this was a matter which had nothing whatever to do with the Scottish law. It required no familiarity with the Scottish law, and the Truck Act and the subsidiary Acts dealing with the subject were equally applicable to every part of the United Kingdom. There was no doubt a very considerable difference of opinion from the information he had received as to how far the system of truck prevailed in Lanarkshire. But he quite agreed with his hon. Friend that it did prevail to a considerable extent. He knew one employer who denied that the shop system continued in existence now, although it was very bad 15 years ago, and who was even astonished to hear that the system of poundage prevailed, although there was no doubt it did. He would press the matter on the atten-

  1771
  tion of the Home Secretary and the Secretary for Scotland; but would not express any conclusion himself on the subject just now, not having had an opportunity to look into the law on the subject. No doubt the Truck Commissioners 15 years ago pointed out that the machinery of the law for bringing breaches of the Truck Act before Courts of Justice was ineffective as regarded Scotland. It was constructed for England. The statement of the hon. Member for Northampton that the hitch lay in the non-provision for expenses did not explain the whole cause for inaction. There was frequently difficulty in prosecuting what were called quasi-criminal offences. Criminal offences were prosecuted by the Public Prosecutor, and that official did not receive or ask for his cost; but in quasi-criminal cases, such as breaches of the Factory or Truck Acts, difficulty sometimes arose, although it might be got over occasionally. The Solicitor General for Scotland would probably corroborate him in saying that it was sometimes got over by the issuing of an order, as it was in the power of the Lord Advocate to do, directing that the Procurators Fiscal should conduct such prosecutions. One point he asked the Home Secretary to consider was how far the law as regarded the mode of bringing offences against the Truck Act before the Courts of Law might be amended; and the second point he asked the right hon. Gentleman to consider was whether the Truck Act covered the system of poundage. The shop system and the poundage system were a very great hardship to the workmen; and he asked the Home Secretary and the Lord Advocate to consider whether the present law would suffice, and whether it ought not to be extended.
  DR. CLARKsaid, that in all the Highland quarries the truck system was in operation. When in Argyllshire in June and July, before the present Lord Advocate was appointed, he had called his attention to the matter, particularly in connection with the Easdale quarries. The probability was that in Tiree, the Procurator Fiscal being the agent of the proprietor, nothing was done. He knew that in his own county the truck system prevailed in the flagstone quarries; and the Procurator Fiscal, being also agent for the proprietor, winked at it. There the
  1772
  men were paid, not once a fortnight, but every three months. The accounts were made up every three months, and then the men had to wait another month before receiving payment. The only pier to winch a ship could bring coals belonged to the Company who had only once in a considerable number of years allowed any ship to come there except their own. They imported meal and coal, and sold them to their men, and the local merchants could not compete with them. He was glad the Home Secretary had taken up the question; and he hoped that by next Session they should find the subject had been investigated, and that the Procurator Fiscal, who had been tolerating, if not aiding and abetting, would receive proper attention.
  MR. CALDWELLsaid, he wished to point out that in Scotland there was a civil remedy for these grievances. If a workman were paid in kind he could sue for payment in money, going back for a considerable period; and if he were in the position of not being able to conduct the prosecution, the law of Scotland provided him with counsel, provided he could show a primâ facie case. Therefore a remedy was within the reach of even the poorest man in Scotland, and expenses would always follow the success of the case. With regard to poundage it was difficult to bring it under the Truck Act, because the matter was outside the contract of service, the workman desiring payment in advance. That was a private arrangement between him and his master. Under the law as it at present stood he did not think that that would necessarily come under the Act. It was a question whether it ought not to be brought under the Act; but he merely wished to point out that a civil remedy at present existed.

  HOSPITALS AND INFIRMARIES (IRELAND)—THE ROYAL HOSPITAL, BELFAST.—OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. SEXTONsaid, he wished to ask the Government what course they would pursue in reference to the Belfast Royal Hospital? The board of management had forwarded a Memorial on the subject of the strain on their means owing to the late riots; and he was sure the Government would deal liberally with

  1773
  the demand for aid. The Belfast Royal Hospital was entirely supported by voluntary contributions, and had never received Government assistance; but the recent riots had made an extraordinary demand upon the resources of the institution, for, for weeks and weeks, wounded persons—some wounded by the rioters, others by the forces of the Crown—were continually brought in. Already there was a deficit in the accounts for the year, and the Governors would have been entitled to close their doors to the afflicted on the ground that they had no money to carry on the work. However, in a humane and public spirit these gentlemen opened their wards to 369 victims of gunshot and other wounds. The careful treatment given to these was in most cases successful. Deaths had been prevented, and families saved from much sorrow, and the area of destitution greatly limited. This was a case of great magnitude. At the time of the riots the funds of the hospital were some £300 behind, and now this deficit was increased to £1,100. If this £800 were made good the Governors would be enabled to meet the ordinary admission of wounded and sick. Before their dependeme was always on voluntary subscriptions; but owing to the general depression in business the subscribers were unable to increase the amounts of their gifts. Hence he saw nothing for it but for the Government, if it did not intend to be parsimonious, to help to save the Governors from the necessity of closing the hospital's doors. The Government allowed about £15,000 a-year to certain hospitals in Dublin, and about £8,000 to Government hospitals. He did not suggest a redistribution of these grants; but he did think that an emergency grant of £800 to the Belfast institution by the Government should be made.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Lord RANDOLPH CHURCHILL)said, the question was entirely new to him, for he had seen nothing of the Memorial from the Governors of the hospital to which allusion had been made. That Memorial would not come before him necessarily; but he would undertake, in conjunction with the Chief Secretary and the Attorney General for Ireland, to go carefully into the circumstances of the case. He was
  1774
  not willing that the hon. Member should have the chance of bringing, with any show of justice, a charge of parsimony in this case against the Government. The hon. Member, he believed, did not ask for an annual grant—[MR. SEXTON: Nothing of the kind.]—but an exceptional and special grant. [MR. SEXTON: Hear, hear!] Well, that being the case, if it was the opinion of the Authorities in Ireland that a special grant should be made from the Treasury to this hospital on account of the expense it was put to in consequence of the riots, he, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, should throw no difficulty in the way of that being done.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND)—ADMINISTRATION.—OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. TUITEsaid, he rose to call attention to the administration of justice in Ireland, and to the fact that successive Lords Lieutenant of Ireland, in the face of new facts which had come to light in connection with the Barbavilla prisoners, had neglected their administrative duties. His Friends and himself were ready now to offer evidence strong enough to have those unfortunate men released and restored to their homes. They had the evidence of a constable who himself was engaged in these trials, and who would prove that the very sources of justice in Ireland were polluted. The hon. Gentleman proceeded to refer to the Barbavilla murder.
  MR. SPEAKER: I must call the attention of the hon. Member to the fact that I have already ruled, at an earlier period of the evening, that the question of the Barbavilla murder has no reference whatever to the Estimates now before the House. The Standing Order states that distinctly—that no question shall be raised or Motion made that is not strictly relevant to the Estimates to be taken in Supply. I have already allowed two subjects to be brought before the House, because in my opinion they were pertinent to the Estimates—namely, the Motion proposed by the hon. Member for North Leitrim (MR. Conway), and the question of the Truck Act, raised by the hon. Member for Northampton (MR. Bradlaugh). Those two subjects are clearly connected with grants contained in the present Estimates. But the subject which the

  1775
  hon. Member for Westmeath (MR. Tuite) now seeks to bring before the House is, in my opinion, not relevant to the Estimates, and cannot, therefore, be discussed.
  MR. BIGGARsaid, he wished to point out the enormous expense which was incurred in Ireland by employing the Constabulary to assist the landlords in carrying out evictions. He did not think it fair that the ratepayers should be burdened by the cost of the evictions of Irish tenants. He had a strong opinion that it was not the Government's duty to assist landlords at enormous public expense, more especially in cases of ejectment, where there was no movable property on the premises for distraint. He believed the Government would be justified in aiding a fair levy of personalty; but when they went so far as to expend a monstrous sum of money on an almost pauperized peasant, he thought the public ratepayers had a right to enforce a claim of consideration for their interests, and not be punished in addition to the evicted people, who would become immediately chargeable to the rates as well.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! I do not understand how the hon. Member can connect the question of evictions in Ireland with these Estimates.
  MR. BIGGAR: I am perfectly aware that there is nothing in the Estimates; but that is another argument in favour of my contention; but, from a public point of view, the Government, in lending their aid to these evictions, have displayed very bad judgment.
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is quite out of Order in the observations he is making.
  MR. BIGGAR: Shall I not be in Order in giving my view of the evictions which from time to time have been carried out in Ireland, and of the experience which we have gained of the action of the Government in connection with them? Not long ago a gun-boat was wrecked off the coast of Donegal while engaged in assisting the landlords to levy rents to a small amount in Tory Island. The Constabulary Vote appears in these Estimates, and I want to know why the Government should expend the public money in the employment of the police to assist the landlords in enforcing executions and evictions?
  MR. SPEAKER: There is nothing in the Estimates which refers to the subject, and the hon. Member is altogether out of Order.
  MR. BIGGARresumed his seat.
  MR. DILLON: There is a subject in connection with the Irish Constabulary which has been a long-standing grievance in Ireland, and I hope I shall not be ruled out of Order in calling attention to it. The Standing Order provides that any subject may be discussed on first going into Supply upon the particular class of Estimates to which it relates. I see that in Class III. the Vote for the Irish Constabulary is to be taken; and, therefore, I think I am entitled to call attention to the character of the expenditure under that head. It is a notorious fact that the cost of the Irish Constabulary has long been greatly in excess, having regard to the number of population, to that of any other country on the face of the earth; and, instead of showing any sign of diminution, it has gone on steadily increasing year by year. If attention is not directed to it, in all probability it will still continue to increase. The whole Vote his been augmented in nearly every single item. There is one particular item bearing on this point to which I wish to draw the attention of the Committee—tin item for the Transport Service. This year it has increased from £1,500 to £5,000, which I cannot help regarding as a monstrous state of things. The increase itself is no less than 200 per cent, or £3,500 upon a Vote of £1,500. The cause of this increase is not difficult to understand by those who have watched the course of events in Ireland. It is all owing to the unreasonable action of certain landlords. A considerable portion of it will go, no doubt, to pay the expenses of the large body of police which has been concentrated at Gweedore in order to assist in the evictions which have been carried out there, and in the course of which the amount of money collected for the landlord did not exceed £20, although the expense of that campaign to the country will at the very least amount to £500. I think this is a very strong case to justify the dissatisfaction which is expressed in Ireland against the conduct of the Executive. Then, again, there has been a continual campaign carried on by Lord

  1777
  Kenmare against his tenantry—carried on at enormous expense, and leading also to other contingent expenses owing to the large number of police it is necessary to provide for the protection of his property, and which costs several hundreds of pounds annually. The other day a body of no less than 700 or 800 police was concentrated in the town of Woodford. The traders of Portumna refused to supply them with provisions, and transports had to be employed at an enormous expense to carry them, in their own carts, a distance of 30 or 40 miles. After the campaign had lasted for some days three or four men were evicted, and the amount of rent collected certainly fell short of £100. Altogether the campaign, which has excited the public mind and created a great deal of annoyance, will have cost the country £400 or £500 at the very least. And this is not all; because if hon. Members will look into the details of the case they will find that when the campaign was over it was found that the tenants against whom it was undertaken were altogether destitute, and it would never have been undertaken if the landlords would have consented to meet the tenants in a reasonable spirit. Because the landlord would not meet his tenants the whole Forces of the Crown have been put into operation at an enormous expense to the country, contrasted with the result. It is said that the Government had no discretion in the matter, but that they are obliged to place the Forces of the Crown at the disposal of the Sheriff whenever he requires their aid. I know that perfectly well; but I contend that it is the business of the Irish Government to ask and insist upon obtaining some measure from Parliament to relieve them of this odious duty until some better settlement of the Land Question can be arrived at. I raised the question in this House last week; but I am sorry to say that I got no satisfaction. Since then the evil has gone on unchecked, and therefore I feel it my duty to raise it again. Upon every opportunity I shall continue to protest against the waste of public money in carrying out unreasonable evictions in Ireland. It is ridiculous to tell me that the Irish Executive have no choice in the matter. My answer is that they ought to come to this House and ask for powers that will give them a discretion
  1778
  so far as lending the assistance of the police is concerned. Any sensible man must see that the entire population of Woodford were in unanimity. It became necessary to supply the police with provisions drawn from a distance of 30 or 40 miles, and that fact alone must convince every man of common sense that there is something radically wrong in the state of the law. During the campaign something like £400 or £500 were spent in bringing in provisions—which sum would have been a God-send to the poor shopkeepers in the West of Galway, and yet so intense was their feeling that none of them would consent to take a single farthing of the money. The feeling must not only have been unanimous, but exceedingly strong; and I think the time has come when it is absolutely necessary to introduce a measure to give the Executive Government discretionary powers. I think I am perfectly entitled to draw the attention of the Government to this matter, and to make an appeal to the House for sympathy towards these poor people during the coming winter, in view of the destitution which is likely to exist. I hope the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary will be able to give us some hope that this expectation will not be disappointed, and that the Government will refuse to send out large bodies of the police upon similar expeditions as that to Woodford, and that before Parliament is prorogued they will be able to provide some measure of relief.
  MR. CHARLES GRAYsaid, he rose to call attention to the hardship to farmers caused by their having to go long distances at inconvenient times in order to appeal against assessments of taxes under Schedules A and B, when, he contended, the amount at which they had been assessed was manifestly absurdly high.
  MR. HENRY H. FOWLER: I rise to Order. I beg to submit to you, Sir, that the hon. Gentleman is out of Order in raising a question as to the Income Tax appeals against the assessment under Schedules A and B. There is no Vote in the Estimates about to be brought on which relates to Income Tax appeals, and the matter is altogether in the hands of local Commissioners, whose services are rendered voluntarily. There is no charge

  1779
  whatever for their services in the Estimates.
  MR. SPEAKER: As far as the local Commissioners are concerned, the remarks of the hon. Member have no reference to anything that appears in the Estimates; but I understand that he was advocating a policy of appeal to the Commissioners of the Inland Revenue, and, as far as they are concerned, his remarks would be pertinent.
  MR. CHARLES GRAYsaid, the farmers thought so much of the hardship that they often preferred not to appeal, and then it was said of them that times could not be so bad as they represented them to be because they paid taxes on so high an income. He hoped the Government would try and make the procedure of appeals in such cases more simple and less inconvenient than they were.
  MR. P. J. POWERsaid, he rose to complain of the very large sum of money spent on the Royal Irish Constabulary, which had lately been increasing. For the reason of that increase he contended they had not far to seek, and if they took the trouble to inquire they would find it to be owing to the forces of the Crown being lent to Irish landlords for the purpose of enabling them to extract extravagant rents from poor Irish tenants. Hon. Members from Ireland maintained that it was necessary that a suspension of evictions should now take place, otherwise they believed that it would be the duty of the Government, considering the social state of the country and the inability of the tenants to pay rent, to bring in a Bill to temporarily suspend evictions. If evictions were suspended the great cost of which he complained would be largely curtailed, because much of the expense was incurred in looking after derelict farms, which were of no value to those who lived on them, as their property was the landlords, or creditors, and were merely curses in the district, causing crime, and arousing the spirit of retaliation. He urged the House to insist on lessening this criminal expense by checking evictions. He was sure such a course would be advantageous to the tenant and landlord alike, and would largely restore peace and tranquillity to Ireland. The hon. Member was proceeding to enlarge on this point, when—
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Gentleman is speaking more particularly of evictions than of the employment of the police, and the policy of evictions has nothing to do with the Constabulary Vote.
  MR. P. J. POWER: I was endeavouring to point out that the increased cost of the police was due to their employment at evictions, and that is a work which we consider to be not only unnecessary, but ill-advised.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH)said, it was rather difficult to understand the precise object of the discussion which had been going on for some time. The House could not on that occasion enter into the question of the law with regard to evictions. That had been discussed at great length during the debate on the Address, and the House would have before long another debate on the same subject raised on the Bill which he understood the hon. Member for Cork (MR. Parnell) intended shortly to introduce. For these reasons, therefore, he could not understand why the question should be raised now, or what profit, even if it were in Order, would result from the discussion. The hon. Member for Mayo (MR. Dillon) had raised a point in reference to the expenses of the Constabulary and their transport. He was quite aware that those expenses were large, and that they had increased materially; but the hon. Member and his Friends did not charge the Government with any improper or illegal action in the matter. They admitted that, as the law now stood, expenses had to be incurred, and their arguments only went to show that the law which existed at present ought to be altered. But that was a question which it was impossible for the House to discuss at that stage. So far as the expenses were concerned, he could assure the House that no one regretted charges of that kind more than Her Majesty's Government. Why were these charges so large? Not from any desire on the part of the Government, or, he was quite sure, on the part of the late Government, to use the Constabulary to assist landlords to evict tenants, but because the Government, by reason of their position, were compelled to respond to the demands which were made upon them, not by landlords,

  1781
  but by Sheriffs and Sub-Sheriffs, for the protection of themselves and their officers in the execution of a duty which the law imposed upon them. Hon. Members had referred to the large expenditure which undoubtedly bad been incurred the other day in carrying out certain evictions at Woodford. But any hon. Member who had seen the accounts of what occurred on that occasion would admit that, but for the presence of a large force of Constabulary, not only would the Sheriffs and their officers have been subjected to the grave and serious assaults which were committed upon them, but it would have been impossible for them to carry out a duty which the law imposed upon them. The Government, therefore, were obliged, in response to the request of the Sheriffs, to send Constabulary into the district for the preservation of peace and the protection of the officers of the law. Indeed, the whole history of that event showed, not an inability on the part of the evicted tenants to pay their rents, but a determined and desperate combination of the whole of the inhabitants of that district against the execution of the law. He did not wish to enter now into the reasons of that combination. It might be, as the hon. Member who spoke last considered, that the law was not in accordance with the wishes of the population. In that case let the hon. Member and his Friends apply to Parliament to alter the law. That was not a matter to be discussed on the Constabulary Vote. But if hon. Members desired to question the mode in which that Vote was expended, and the details of that expenditure, it would be much easier to do so on the Vote itself, on which his noble Friend had promised a good opportunity for discussion. He hoped that hon. Members would not think it necessary to continue the debate on this occasion, but that they would permit the House to proceed with the Business of Supply, and then hon. Members would come in due course to the discussion of the particular Vote in which they took so proper and great an interest.
  MR. E.HARRINGTONsaid, he recognized the conciliatory manner in which the right hon. Gentleman made his appeal; and he could assure him, on the part of his hon. Friends, that it was not intended to have a long discussion on this particular subject at
  1782
  the present stage. But they felt that it was incumbent upon them to protest against the system of misusing the Constabulary of Ireland, as was done at the present time. They had a right to raise the question, and they were impelled by a sense of public duty to do so. Every increase which was made to the Constabulary Force, abnormally and preposterously numerous as that Force already was, might be traced to the attempts of this country to bolster up the landlords of Ireland in their rack-renting efforts. In the county of Kerry, which he had the honour to represent, there was an extra force of 300 constables. The contrast with the state of affairs in England had struck him very forcibly. He was not a person who was particularly attached to the society of constables, since on two or three occasions he had enjoyed more of their attentions than he desired. But it happened recently that in New market, in Cambridgeshire, he did desire the assistance of the police, and he learned to his surprise that in that town of 6,000 inhabitants the whole police force consisted of four individuals; while in the town of Castleisland, in Kerry, they had the services of 97 policemen to keep the peace for 1,200 people. He stated without fear of contradiction that these extra constables were peace-breakers rather than peace-makers, or peace conservators. The noble Marquess at the head of the Government had called attention the other day to the number of men who were kept employed in protecting the Earl of Kenmare and a lady who resided near Tralee. Some of these constables who were in charge of the estates of this lady had been seen fetching band-boxes and bonnets from the lady's house to the nearest railway station. There were now eight or nine constables on special protection duty on account of this lady, and the calculation was that this special service cost £900 a-year. It was a serious matter that this charge should come upon the public, and be paid for out of the pockets of the ratepayers. He did not pretend for a moment to say that the protection which Kerry landlords had asked for was needless. As a Representative of the County Kerry he confessed with humiliation that in some cases protection was necessary. But he said also that the claim for protection had been abused. He instanced the case of Herbert in North

  1783
  Kerry, who the other day obtained protection on the ground that he had been shot in the nail of his forefinger. No doubt Mr. Herbert was unpopular and desired protection. But Mr. Herbert had recently got a side-car for his own accommodation, Since he had got police protection the police rode about the country on the side-car, for the use of which he was paid, while he himself went about in his common cart. He thought the Government might with advantage give some supervision to these matters, to see that those who sought the protection of the police were not exposed to the temptation of mating a good thing of the arrangement. He mentioned the case of another Kerry landlord who was well known in Tralee, who made sport of his protectors, dodging them in the market place so that he might be able to make a report against them. In another case, in the village of Currans, the constable who ought to be on protection duty outside the house of a farmer named Murphy was seated before the kitchen fire in the company of Miss Murphy, when, perhaps, in the course of demonstrating to her some scientific experiment or other his gun exploded, and the charge entered the arm of her brother. The constable and his companion in arms immediately began skirmishing round the premises outside, and made it appear that the brother had been shot through the window by a "Moonlighter." Thus the story was repeated in the English newspapers, the English public were horrified to read of another disgraceful and cowardly outrage in County Kerry. But although he had watched the newspapers carefully since he had found no contradiction or true explanation of the preposterous story. He mentioned the matter for the purpose of showing the exceptionally friendly relations on which the Constabulary entered with the people whom they were employed to protect, and asked how the people of the country could be expected to have confidence in the Constabulary under such circumstances as he had narrated? It was extremely hard that the people of the country should obtain a bad character on accouut of incidents like these. He did not say that crime and outrage did not occur. He had himself denounced crime and outrage at the risk of his life. But what he said was that the country was over-policed in
  1784
  a ridiculous manner. He had himself been driving back to Tralee a few nights ago from a place in County Kerry which he had been visiting, when he saw a figure rise out of a hedge by the wayside. It looked like a man dressed in a woman's petticoat. His first impulse was to throw a stone at him, as he suspected him of mischief; but it was fortunate that he restrained himself, since it turned out that the man was a sergeant of police, who had with him two armed policemen hiding behind the hedge. He ventured to say that if he had obeyed his first impulse and had cast the stone, he would not now have been present to trouble the House with his observations. The system under which the Constabulary warped their minds filled them with suspicions about everything and about everybody. The police were managed by the landlords. In the County Kerry the present High Sheriff, Mr. Meredith, was a landlord. His father-in-law was Clerk of the Peace and Assessor for the County. The Assessor's son—that was to say, the brother-in-law of the High Sheriff—was the Sub-Sheriff. Mr. Goodman, another relative of the family, was Vice Deputy or Deputy's Deputy of the High Sheriff. It was absurd to tell him after that that there was no connection between landlordism and the extra number of police employed in Kerry. The whole reason why so many extra police were employed in the County Kerry was that the whole administration of the county was in the hands of the landlords. The hon. Member proceeded to comment on the fact that General Buller, who had been sent down as a Special Commissioner to Kerry, stabled his horses with the Earl of Kenmare, whom the police were protecting, and lodged at the hotel where his Lordship's agent boarded. He objected to the maintenance of an inordinate police at the expense of the ratepayers in order to bolster up an oppressive landlordism. ["Oh!"] If the hon. Gentleman opposite had any fault to find with his statements let him reply in fair argument. An "Oh!" or an "Ah!" a grunt or a "Bah!" proved nothing. Something more logical was requisite in the House of Commons. He felt that if he much further detained the House he might not raise himself in its esteem. [Laughter.] Hon. Gentlemen who cheered that statement no doubt meant to imply that

  1785
  he was doing something disreputable. Since that was the case, and he had no character left to lose in their estimation, he might continue his remarks. He proceeded to quote a case from the practice of the Land Court, in which a tenant had had his rent reduced from £145 10 s. to £100. The meaning of this was that the tenant in this case had been unduly rack-rented to the amount of £45 10 s. a-year. He objected to the imposition of an extra police upon a county to exact these rack-rents.
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman is going into the whole subject of the Land Question in Ireland, and the only colourable justification he puts forward is the employment of the Constabulary, the pay of whom is included in the Estimates. The hon. Member is altogether out of Order.
  MR. E. HARRINGTON: I feel that I have already received considerable indulgence from the Chair; and I will not, therefore, persevere further than to reiterate my contention that the need and occasion of this expenditure is the disturbed state of Ireland, and that if you will remove the irritating causes which have led to the necessity for increasing the Constabulary you will do something in the interests of humanity and towards securing the integrity of the Empire.
  MR. HAYDENsaid, that the Constabulary were employed in some cases in large numbers where their services were perfectly useless, and an undue tax for their maintenance was cast upon the ratepayers. He hoped the Government we would remedy that state of things, and also desist from so extensively using the police during the coming winter in enforcing evictions. He was surprised to hear the Chief Secretary make the statement that the non-payment of seed rate and rent, for the recovery of which the police were employed at vast expense, was not due to inability, but to unwillingness to pay. Why, there never was a debt so satisfactorily paid under such circumstances as had been the seed rate, the value received by the people under it being very much under what it would have been were it not for the delay of the Tory Government of the day to recognize in time the distress which prevailed. The absurdity of branches of the League, as alleged, encouraging people not to pay seed rate would be evident when it was
  1786
  recollected that every default in the payment of the rate increased the burden on the landholders in the division, who themselves constituted the greater proportion of the members of the League.
  MR. GILHOOLYsaid, it would be easy for him to quote a number of instances to show that the services of the police were abused. In one case in his own district a girl 10 years of age, who was suffering from fever, was one of a family whom the police assisted in evicting. The poor girl died next day. In another case the wife of one James Phelan, to whom a clergyman had administered the last rites of the Church, had been put out upon the ditch side, although the doctor in attendance certified that she was dying. In the district which he had the honour to represent the people were very poor, and in numbers of cases where the police attended evictions no benefit could be derived to the landlords, because the cost of the policemen was infinitely more than the chattels of these poor people would make when seized for the expenses of evictions. He contended that it was the duty of Irish Members to use every legitimate means in their power to bring forward these cases, and show how the English taxpayers were burdened for aiding the landlords in their acts of injustice and cruelty.
  Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present,
  MR. B. KELLYsaid, he cordially endorsed the observations of his hon. Friends who had preceded him. He came from a division of Donegal, and he could speak from personal painful familiarity with the facts that in that division evictions had taken place with painful frequency, and had been attended with those appalling circumstances that invariably distinguished evictions. Landlordism asserted its power in the most grinding way—
  MR. SPEAKERreminded the hon. Member that the Question before the House had reference to the Constabulary.
  MR. B. KELLYsaid, that as the Constabulary had been chiefly used for maintaining evictions in Ireland during recent years, he trusted he would not be out of Order if he referred to the painful circumstances with which evic-

  1787
  tions were attended. The police had been principally used in maintaining eviction in Ireland. He could speak from his own personal knowledge that in the district which he had the honour of representing a whole country side at the present time had been swept from their homes. The people had been cleared from their dwellings, and the police had been posted in those dwellings. Their presence there was an object of social discontent, for it was the direct cause of those social inconveniences and social disturbances that were much too frequently illustrated in Ireland. There was one landlord who had bought an estate in his district, and who had swept the poor people from their houses for arrears which they had believed had been wiped out. The Constabulary had there been enlisted to carry out the fell purposes of the landlord. He had been pointed out a most fruitful district in his division of five miles in extent where not the slightest vestige of human existence was to be found. He had been pointed out a bleak hillside where a poor widow and her children had been ruthlessly evicted. The police were there. At one eviction the authorities took the heartless course of engaging a drumming party to deaden the cries of the helpless children who were being driven from their homes. The Government lent all, and furnished all the powers at their command. He believed it was a proper and suitable thing for them to utter a protest against the voting away of money to uphold a force which had been identified in latter days with such heartless and cruel injustice.

  DEPARTMENT OF WOODS AND FORESTS—ADMINISTRATION OF THE DEPARTMENT.—OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he rose to call attention to the administration of the Woods and Forests Department. He had intended bringing forward the subject in Committee of Supply on the Vote for the salary of one of the Commissioners; but he thought this was a good opportunity to bring the matter under the notice of the Government. As the House was, no doubt, aware, the theory generally held was that at the commencement of the present reign a bargain was struck with Her Majesty the Queen to give up all the Crown lands in consideration of an ad-
  1788
  dition to the Civil List. The cost of the Office of Woods and Forests in London alone amounted to £16,738; and, in addition to what appeared in the Estimates, there was a detailed account of receipts and expenditure in regard to Crown lands, which he supposed was laid on the Table of the House, because it was to be found in the Library. As an example of what was going on, he would take Windsor Park and Woods. There was an Estimate of £2,307 for the Windsor Home Park and Kitchen Gardens; and besides that there was the Windsor Forest. It must be remembered that a quid pro quo was given yearly for the income supposed to be derived from these properties, and the business of the House was to look at the matter in its commercial aspect. Most men would say that if the Crown would give them a lease for nothing of the Windsor Park and Forest they would accept it, and would expect to make a good thing out of it. But the Commissioners, whose receipts were £4,885, expended £26,218, so that there was a loss of £22,333 per annum. The outlay was accounted for by there being a Ranger and a Deputy Ranger and other officials. There was £327 for gamekeepers, and £245 was spent in improving the head-keeper's lodge. This was in the year 1884–5, and appeared in the Abstract of Accounts in the Library. There were repairs to lodges at Ascot and Datchet and the Royal stables and kennels, and these were put down at £4,815. Food for deer cost £418, and food for game—that was, for pheasants—£500. Who shot the pheasants? He believed it was Prince Christian. But it was never understood that in taking over this as a matter of business we were to provide game for His Royal Highness. There was £180 for a chaplain, but it was difficult to say what there was for him to do. The case of the New Forest was not so bad. The receipts of the New Forest were £13,632, as against an expenditure of £11,885; but, considering it was said that this Forest was kept up to obtain Wood for the Navy, it could not be supposed that the sole amount of profit obtained was a little over £2,000 a-year. One item of expenditure was £103 for dog kennels, which presumably were required only by some Inspector or Ranger, and were therefore ordered at the public expense. Spread over the

  1789
  pages were items for schools and churches, sometimes not distinguishing what was given to each separately. The question arose whether these donations were confined to the Established Church, and if so why? When he was asked recently for a subscription to a church he said to the applicant—"No; go to your Bishops and ask them for a portion of their salaries; I shall give nothing."
  MR. SPEAKER: I do not know how the hon. Member proposes to connect his remarks with the Estimates. It is altogether out of Order to enter into details on the Motion that the Speaker do leave the Chair, and further it is out of Order to refer to Estimates which are not now before the House, but which have been already disposed of in the previous Session.
  MR.LABOUCHERE: Perhaps you will allow me to explain that the Vote I was referring to is not in Class I., but is Vote 25 of Class II., which includes the salaries of the Commissioners of Woods and Forests. On that Vote I wish to raise the point that the administration is bad, and that something ought to be done in the matter. I have no desire to go into the details of the Vote.
  MR. SPEAKER: It would be irregular to go into any details on any Vote submitted in Committee; and I understood that the hon. Member was referring to the Vote for Windsor Park, which has already been passed.
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he would give way at once, but that the difficulty was that part of the expenditure was in the Vote, and part was shown only in the Return in the Library. However, as he was out of Order he would not discuss the matter in detail now; but he trusted the points he desired to raise would be looked into. In the Vote there were a Receiver General at £900, an Assistant Receiver General at £400, and £100 for clerical assistance; and in the Library it was shown that there were charges for professional services amounting to £5,800. He was given to understand that the gentleman who received the rents was paid 4 per cent thereon; and if he received £1,000 he would, as a matter of course, keep £40 and pay over £960. By an Act of George IV. the Department had the right to sell land and to grant leases, and in the
  1790
  shape of leases some persons got uncommonly good bargains. One gentleman had 2½ perches of land, with conveniences thereon, and part of the Grand Stand at Ascot, for £1 10 s. per annum; and, as they knew, a box on Ascot Grand Stand was worth £30 or £40 per annum. Then, the Royal Yacht Squadron had Cowes Castle for £225 per annum; whereas, as a speculation, he would give £500 a-year for it if he could get a long lease. He thought he had at least made out a primâ facie case for some sort of investigation. Perhaps the Secretary to the Treasury would agree to the appointment of a Committee next Session. He understood there was to be a Committee appointed to look into the spending Departments of the State, and perhaps this matter might be investigated by that Committee. The expenditure he had pointed out ought to be upon the Estimates for the year, and as it was not it was just possible it might be excluded from the purview of such a Committee.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (MR. JACKSON)said, that the several points raised by the hon. Member were quite susceptible of explanation. The hon. Member had made this subject his own, and had, indeed, made it an annual Motion. [MR. LABOUCHERE: I never brought it forward before in my life.] It would be annual. However, he had not the smallest fault to find with the manner in which the subject had been brought forward. As to the donations to churches and schools, the Treasury must accept the responsibility for them. The principle on which they were made was that those who managed the property recognized as devolving upon them the same duties and responsibilities as were generally recognized by private landowners, and on this ground it had always been the custom to contribute to the erection of churches and schools on the estates. This might or might not be wrong, but it was the custom. Much of the expenditure on Windsor Park was incurred in the maintenance of roads and in other expenses of like character, about which there could hardly be much question. With regard to the suggestion which really was the core of the hon. Member's speech—if there was any core in it at all—it would be obvious that he was not in a position, in the first place, to remark upon a Commission which had not yet been intro-

  1791
  duced to the House. It appeared, however, that the hon. Gentleman had got some information that a Commission was to be appointed to inquire into the great spending Departments. Although, for his part, he had no knowledge on the subject, he would say that he thought that such an inquiry as had been suggested by the hon. Member might very properly be undertaken by the Members of that Commission. Further than that he would only say—and he did not say it as a mere matter of form—that in consequence of what the hon. Gentleman had said he would endeavour to make himself acquainted with the details of that particular office; and if he found the facts to be as the hon. Member had stated them he would endeavour to effect some improvement. He hoped the House would now be allowed to go into Committee.
  MR. HENRY H. FOWLERsaid, he felt bound to say, having recently held the Office which the hon. Gentleman (MR. Jackson) now held, that he was very pleased to hear an inquiry would be granted into the management of the Woods and Forests, because he believed it to be absolutely necessary in order to bring about effective Parliamentary control over the current expenditure of that Department. The Committee would be asked to vote £30,000 for this Department; but that by no means represented the expenditure, which would be much greater, and there were some very serious items in connection with the Crown lands. As a matter of fact this Department had borrowed between £200,000 and £300,000. He thought the House would agree that there should be an effective inquiry with a view to reducing the cost of management and increasing—as he was sure it could be increased—the income of that Department. He had himself intended next Session to move for the appointment of a Committee on the subject; but if the hon. Member thought the work could be better done by the Commission he had nothing to say.
  MR. PYNEsaid, he thought that the Constabulary had been employed unnecessarily in very many cases. He knew of a gentleman who had got himself "Boycotted," and then applied for police protection, his object being to become a stipendiary magistrate. That gentleman was himself a tenant, and while he was extorting his
  1792
  rents from his own tenants he did not pay his own rent. He made an arrangement with his landlady, and subsequently became a bankrupt; so that his landlady got no rent. That was the sort of men the police were protecting. The hon. Member also referred to his own imprisonment for using his influence with the people to protect his landlord.
  MR. SPEAKER: The matter to which the hon. Gentleman is now referring has no relation to the Constabulary Vote.
  MR. PYNEsaid, he was alluding to evictions by the police, and what he would do in case it was proposed to evict him. He was intimating that it would take more than one policeman to turn him out. He had a very great respect for the Police Force themselves; but it was well known that the police behaved in the most arbitrary manner when engaged in suppressing prohibited meetings. He denounced the employment of constables as spies. One such, in his own part of the country, was relieved of the trammels of discipline in consideration of his labours in this direction, and was in the habit of coming to the barracks late at night and drunk. When asked where he got his drink from the reply was that he had been getting information. Those were the men to whom he objected.
  DR. TANNER, who was called to Order for irrelevancy, complained of the way in which the Constabulary were utilized in Ireland. They were employed to extract rack rents for the benefit of extravagant landlords living in London under the control of Jews. The Constabulary were used really by the classes against the masses. He hoped that the two democracies of England and Ireland would be enabled to say that the police would no longer act in this outrageous way in carrying out unjust evictions against an unfortunate people.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The remarks of the hon. Member have nothing whatever to do with the Constabulary.
  DR. TANNER: Of course, Sir, I bow to your ruling. I do not wish in any way to go outside the subject which has been brought on for discussion. I was trying as far as possible to confine my remarks to the employment of the police in evicting Irish tenants.
  MR. O'HANLONrose to call attention to an item in the Estimates—
  MR. TOMLINSON: I rise to Order. After the ruling you have already given, I submit that the hon. Member is not in Order in discussing, in detail, the items which appear in the Estimates.
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member in taking that course would be altogether out of Order, on the Motion that the Speaker leave the Chair.
  Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.

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

  CLASS I.—PUBLIC WORKS AND BUILDINGS.
  (1.) £9,931, to complete the sum for Royal University, Ireland, Buildings.
  (2.) £17,000, to complete the sum for Science and Art Buildings, Dublin.

  CLASS II.—SALARIES AND EXPENSES OF CIVIL DEPARTMENTS.
  (3.) Motion made and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £15,978, 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 1887, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Offices of the House of Lords."
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I have an Amendment to move on this Vote. The object of it is this—there are certain officers in the House of Lords who perform similar duties to those which are performed by the officers of this House, and who ought to have equal salaries to the officers of the House of Commons. I am not raising the question whether any of these salaries are too high or too low. I know that it is not open to any private Member to move that any salaries shall be raised. I am not prepared to say that the gentlemen who sit in the House of Lords ought not even to have their salaries raised; but I do maintain that our officers ought to have equal salaries to the officers of the House of Lords. As a matter of fact, I am of opinion myself that they ought to have a good deal more; but, taking a mild and temperate
  1794
  view of the matter, I say that, at any rate, they ought to have the same. The four officers whose salaries I propose to reduce are the Clerk of the Parliaments, the Clerk Assistant, the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, and the Yeoman Usher of the Black Rod. I have divided them into two separate Amendments; but perhaps it will be more convenient that I should move both Amendments together. As to the Clerk of the Parliaments, we know very well that an abominable job was committed by the Tory Government last year. It will be in the recollection of the Committee that there was a vacancy in the office of Clerk of the Parliaments, who is the principal officer of those who sit at the Table of the House of Lords; and it was assumed that Sir Thomas Erskine May, who was the gentleman best adapted for the office, would be appointed. All that Sir Thomas Erskine May had to plead in his favour was his unrivalled fitness for the office, and the fact that he had passed his life in the service of the House of Commons. Another gentleman, however, was appointed, who, as far as I can make out, had passed his life in some office in a lunatic asylum, but who had the superior qualification of being a relative of a noble Lord who was a Member of the Conservative Ministry. That fact would, of course, outweigh any actual services rendered to either House of Parliament. I am not complaining in particular of the Conservative Government, because, if a Liberal Ministry had been in Office, it would probably have been one of their cousins. Indeed, I cannot venture to say which of the two Parties has committed the greatest number of jobs. At any rate, this particular appointment was a rather strong measure; but I will not allude to it further. I have only felt it my duty to mention it incidentally. What I submit is that officers who are hero from 10 to 12 and 14 hours a-day ought to have at least salaries equivalent to the officers of the House of Lords, who sit for an hour or two, and only very occasionally later than 8 o'clock. I propose to move the reduction of the salary of the Clerk of the Parliaments by £500, of the Clerk Assistant by £200, of the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod by £800, and of the Yeoman Usher of the Black Rod by £200. Those sums make £1,700

  1795
  altogether, and I therefore move that the Vote be reduced by the sum of £1,700.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £14,278, 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 1887, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Offices of the House of Lords."—(MR. Labouchere.)
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Lord RANDOLPH CHURCHILL): The Amendment moved by the hon. Member combines two different questions. It is a kind of censure on the appointment of Mr. Graham as Clerk of the Parliaments—[MR. LABOUCHERE: Not the Amendment.] It combines a stricture upon the appointment of Mr. Graham in the last Parliament, and it also alludes to the disparity, in point of salary, between the officers of the House of Commons and those of the House of Lords. As to the latter, I will only say it is a subject which, for a very long time, has attracted the attention of the public, owing to the saying and doings of the hon. Member and those who agree with him—namely, the question of the salaries of the officers of the House of Lords. But with regard to the appointment of Mr. Graham, I have to state, in the first place, that it chiefly concerns the House of Lords, of which he is the principal officer. Therefore, if it is open to the strictures, criticism, and condemnation passed upon it by the hon. Member and many others who have openly expressed their condemnation, it stands to reason that Members of the House of Lords in the position of Lord Granville, Lord Kimberley, or Lord Rosebery, who, if the hon. Member will pardon me for saying so, are quite as good judges as he—[MR. LABOUCHERE: No!]—quite as good judges of the interests of the Public Service, and with far more experience as far as regards the House of Lords—it stands, then, to reason that they would have stood up and condemned the appointment. But nothing of the kind has taken place, and the House of Lords has shown itself perfectly satisfied with the appointment made by the First Lord of the Treasury of that day, and not a word was said by us calculated to throw a slur upon the appointment of Mr. Gra-
  1796
  ham. Therefore, I maintain that as the House of Lords, who are the persons principally interested in the matter of the appointment of their own chief officer, there is certainly a primâ facie ground for no interference, on the part of the hon. Member or of this House, with the appointment. And now let me come to the appointment itself. The hon. Member, with that extraordinary freedom of language which he alone of all English Members allows himself to use, characterizes the appointment as an "abominable job." I ask the House to realize what such an expression means. It means that Lord Salisbury, who is responsible for the appointment, has been actuated by the most disgraceful and corrupt motives. [Cries of "No!"] I maintain either that the words mean something, or that they do not. I assume that when a Member of this House characterizes an appointment to an important office as an "abominable job," he distinctly means to bring a charge which is to carry with it the imputation of disgraceful, abominable, and corrupt motives on the part of the persons responsible for the appointment. Otherwise, the hon. Member stands convicted of using language in this House to which he attaches no importance whatever. The hon. Gentleman went on to say that Mr. Graham had passed his life in a lunatic asylum. I suppose he thought that a very humorous and witty way of describing the fact that Mr. Graham had been a Master in Lunacy. That is the way in which the hon. Member has thought it consistent with the dignity of this House and his own position to describe a gentleman who has for some considerable time faithfully served the public. He went on to say that Mr. Graham was appointed because he was a relation of Lord Cranbrook. That is an insinuation I decline to notice. It appears to be based upon the gossip-mongering and scandal in which the hon. Member, in his capacity as a society journalist, takes a warm and professional interest. And now let me see what were Mr. Graham's qualifications, dropping all the license and exaggeration of the hon. Member for Northampton. Mr. Henry Graham was for six years principal Private Secretary to Lord Cairns. Lord Cairns, during two of those years, was Lord Chancellor of England, and I do not think that, on the whole

  1797
  record and roll of Lord Chancellors, there has been a name more illustrious. Lord Cairns was essentially a man who required a first-rate Private Secretary, and his Private Secretary must, in the course of six years, have acquired a most intimate knowledge of the working and work of the House of Lords. For six years Mr. Graham served Lord Cairns, and assisted him not only in the work which would fall to the Lord Chancellor as Speaker of the House of Lords, but also in the most important work which falls to the Lord Chancellor as presiding over the Appellate Tribunal of the House of Lords. Lord Cairn's Secretary was able, during those six years, to obtain a thorough mastery over all the Judicial Business of the House of Lords. If that is not an important qualification for the post of Chief Clerk in the House of Lords, I am really at a loss to know what would be a qualification. The hon. Member made it a ground of complaint that Sir Erskine May—the late Lord Farnborough—whose loss we all deeply deplore, had not been promoted to the vacancy. I am not at present concerned to discuss the reason why that promotion did not take place, or the exercise of the discretion of the Prime Minister in not appointing him. But is the hon. Member aware that there is no precedent for the Chief Clerk of the House of Commons being appointed Clerk of the Parliaments in the House of Lords? It does not at all follow that experience in the work of the House of Commons is an evidence of qualification for work in the House of Lords. The work of the House of Lords is totally different, especially the judicial work. The hon. Member assumed that Mr. Graham was appointed solely because he was Private Secretary to Lord Cairns, and seemed to think that his position as Private Secretary to Lord Cairns was a disqualification rather than a qualification. The hon. Member amuses himself by writing every week in The Daily News, or in that other journal with which he is connected, panegyrics on the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (MR. W. E. Gladstone), and by dooming to ostracism from the ranks of the Liberal Party everybody who presumes to differ from the right hon. Gentleman. Well, I will read an extract from a speech of that right hon. Gentleman
  1798
  which bears upon this subject, and I read it with the more interest because the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman were made in answer to observations coming from myself. On a former occasion, the right hon. Gentleman, with reference to an appointment in the Customs out of the regular course, used these words, and I commend them to the notice of the hon. Member—
  "I shall contend that such appointments—appointments of Private Secretaries—although in some cases they may be bad, have in many cases been the best that could be made. There have been many men prominent in the Public Service who have been Private Secretaries. There can be no other relation in political life which gives such knowledge of the capacities of a man as the relation of Private Secretary. I shall not hesitate to affirm, with regard to such offices, that they require qualifications which have often sufficed for the creditable discharge of political functions. In two cases I have appointed Private Secretaries. One of them was Mr. West, whose capacity has been tested by those who differed from him in politics; the other was Mr. Godley, than whom no person has more distinguished himself."
  That was the right hon. Gentleman's opinion as to the appointment of Private Secretaries, and so freely did he act upon it that the House will be surprised to learn the number of Private Secretaries the right hon. Gentleman appointed to high offices. Mr. Ryan, Private Secretary to Mr. Gladstone, was appointed Comptroller and Auditor General; Mr. West (now Sir Algernon West), Private Secretary to Mr. Gladstone, was appointed Chairman to the Board of Inland Revenue; Mr. Godley, also Private Secretary to Mr. Gladstone, was first appointed to a Commissionership of Inland Revenue, and then to the permanent Under Secretary ship of India; Mr. Horace Seymour, Private Secretary to Mr. Gladstone, was appointed permanent Commissioner of Customs at a salary of £1,200 a-year; and only the other day Mr. Primrose, Mr. Gladstone's last Private Secretary, was appointed to the lucrative and delightful post of permanent Assistant Commissioner of works. In the appointments made by other Liberal Cabinet Ministers I find that Sir Charles Rivers Wilson, who was Mr. Lowe's Private Secretary, was appointed Controller of the National Debt; and that Mr. Milford, Sir William Harcourt's Private Secretary, was appointed permanent Secretary to the Office of works. I do not blame the right hon.

  1799
  Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian nor his Colleagues for having made these appointments; but it is certainly a long list of appointments of great importance which are looked upon as great prizes in the Civil Service, and which have been given—and rightly given—to the Private Secretaries of the right hon. Gentlemen and his Colleagues. Therefore, I decline altogether to entertain for one moment any accusation that may be brought against Lord Salisbury for appointing to an office in the House of Lords a man who had served Lord Cairns as Private Secretary for six years. The appointment of Mr. Graham has been approved by the House of Lords, who are primarily concerned, and it cannot, in any degree, be censured as a political job. Lord Salisbury singled out the man who was, by his qualifications and experience, fitted in every way to fill the office; and the persons whose comfort and convenience are mainly interested have expressed themselves thoroughly satisfied with the way in which Mr. Graham has discharged his duties. So much for this "abominable job." I now come to the question of the alleged disparity between the salaries of the officers of the House of Lords and of the officers of the House of Commons. It is not the case that there is a great disparity between the salaries of the Clerk of the Parliaments and of the Chief Clerk of the House of Commons. The salary of the latter is £2,000 a-year, in addition to £200 a-year as Secretary to the Caledonian Canal Commissioners. [An hon. MEMBER: No!] Then the information which has been furnished to me appears to be wrong. The salary of the Clerk of the House of Commons, then, is £2,000 a-year; he has an official residence provided for him; furniture is given to him; lighting and firing are provided for him; and he does not have to pay rates and taxes. These privileges are worth from £800 to £1,000 a-year. The Clerk of the Parliaments has a salary of £2,500 a-year, with £500 as an allowance in lieu of an official residence. Therefore, in respect of the salaries of the two officials there is no great difference. The duties of the Clerk of the Parliaments and of the Chief Clerk of the House of Commons are, to a certain extent, different. The duties of the Chief Clerk of the House of Commons,
  1800
  it is true, are very heavy while the House is sitting. There is a great deal of night work, which must be very trying. But it must be remembered that the Clerk of the Parliaments has duties to perform as registrar of the appellate tribunal of the House of Lords. Although he has not the night work to do which falls to the Clerk of the House of Commons, he is employed for a much longer period annually. He has to remain at his post from November until the commencement of the Long Vacation. Balancing the circumstances of the two offices, therefore, there seems to be no great disparity between them. The hon. Member alluded also to certain other officials—to the Second Clerk, to the Usher of the Black Rod, and the Yeoman Usher. Many Members of this House may not be aware of the fact that until 1869—and to this I would direct their attention—that up to the year 1869 the salaries and expenses of the officials of the House of Lords were mainly defrayed out of the fees paid in connection with Private Bills or arising from forfeiture. The deficiency, when any occurred between the amount of the fees and the expenditure of the House of Lords, was made good by the House of Commons each year. Until 1869 the House of Lords defrayed all its expenses, to the amount of £36,900 a-year, and only came to the House of Commons for £8,300, the total expenses of the House of Lords having been £45,200. In that year the House of Lords surrendered all its fees to the Exchequer, on the condition that the House of Commons should vote a sufficient sum for its expenses. From that time the expenses, which, in 1867, were £47,000, have diminished until, in the year 1886, they came to £46,000—a diminution of £1,000 a-year; and, moreover, the sum of at least £1,000 is invariably saved in the Vote granted by the House of Commons. Therefore, the actual expenses of the House of Lords have diminished, since they gave up their fees to the Exchequer, by no less a sum than £2,000 a-year. But that does not represent anything like the profit which the House of Commons makes. In the course of the year 1877, when Sir Augustus Clifford, the then Usher of the Black Rod, died, a sum of £2,000 came upon the Votes. But the salary and fees of the Usher of the Black Rod amounted, in 1869, to no less

  1801
  a sum than £4,000 a-year; so that the Treasury, by the bargain which was made in that year with the House of Lords with regard to this particular office of Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, have made a clear profit of £2,000 a-year. Instead of £4,000 a-year, the Usher of the Black Rod has only now £2,000 a-year, and the balance goes into the Exchequer. If, then, you take the £2,000 a-year which the House gained by the arrangement arrived at in 1869, and the £2,000 a-year gained in connection with the office of Black Rod, you get a resulting profit of £4,000 a-year from the House of Lords having given up its fees to the Exchequer. I do not think these facts are below the notice of the hon. Member, and of those who look upon the House of Lords as an Establishment which is going to be immediately abolished, and as one which reflects discredit on the country. But if that is the motive of the hon. Member in moving this Amendment, I will only say to him, and to those who support him, in the words used by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian at the commencement of this Session, in reply to the hon. Member's Colleague the other Member for Northampton (MR. Brad-laugh)—"If you want to attack the House of Lords, or abolish the House of Lords, bring up your proposition boldly, and let the House of Commons and the country decide upon it;" but do not in this petty, niggardly, and underhand fashion lay down an insidious hue of attack against the House of Lords and attempt to deprive it of the money which is absolutely necessary to enable it to discharge its functions as a Legislative Assembly and judicial tribunal. Bring up your proposition, and let us see whether Parliament is in favour of abolishing the House of Lords. But, until that moment arrives, let the hon. Member have sufficient generosity and chivalry to admit that the House of Lords is an Establishment that must be maintained in a certain amount of dignity and comfort, and not to attempt to deprive it of money which is necessary to enable it to discharge its functions with efficiency. I have shown that the House of Lords has given up to the House of Commons, from revenue which was its own, and absolutely under its own control, a sum of £40,000 a-year
  1802
  —all its fees were placed in charge of the House of Commons on the condition that the House of Commons should then undertake all the expenses of the House of Lords. Now I come to another matter. I am of opinion that the general sense of Parliament and the people is that the time has come when all our public Establishments might advantageously be examined into and reviewed; and it is quite possible that the Houses of Parliament will be found among the first of the public Establishments of the country which will usefully bear examination and inquiry. The proposal that I would be inclined to make to the House is this. That next Session there should be a Joint Committee appointed—a small Joint Committee of certainly not less than, and perhaps not more than, three Members of both Houses, who should examine into the Establishments of both Houses jointly—so that the knowledge acquired in the House of Commons may be applied to the House of Lords, and the knowledge acquired in the House of Lords may be brought to bear on the Establishment of the House of Commons. One matter which would be inquired into and reported upon would be the cost of each House. That is a procedure which I think might result in a considerable diminution of the Establishment charges. This would especially be the case if the Committee included within the scope of its inquiry the subject of Private Bill legislation. If that inquiry is undertaken with a view to diminish the duties which fall on Parliament in connection with Private Bill legislation, I think it is possible that the charges of both Houses might be very considerably diminished. What I want to impress on the House of Commons is this—that those who indulge in criticisms of the Establishment of the House of Lords, and the officials of the House of Lords, ought to remember that they live in a glass house. It is, of course, possible that the Establishment of the House of Lords may admit of reduction; but the same remark applies equally to the House of Commons. At the present moment there is no doubt that it is the bounden duty of the House of Commons to vote the reasonable demands of the House of Lords for its efficient maintenance, and I am sure that the groundless Motion of the hon. Member for

  1803
  Northampton will be repudiated by a large majority.
  COLONEL NOLAN: In speaking upon this subject I will not go into the comparative importance or license implied in the use of the word "underhand," as applied to the Motion of the hon. Member for Northampton (MR. Labouchere) for reducing the expenditure of the House of Lords. I think the hon. Member deserves the gratitude of the country for raising the question, and I believe that he has occupied the time of the Committee with advantage. I certainly failed to see anything in the remarks of the hon. Member to justify the severe censure of the noble Lord. The hon. Member has made no underhand attack upon the House of Lords. His proposition is simply to place the two Houses of Parliament on a footing of equality, and to save the money of the taxpayers, which is one of the most laudable functions of a Member of this House. The purpose for which I have risen now is to protest against the appointment of a Joint Committee. I do not care whether there are three Peers on it, or 15, or 20; but I altogether object to the proposal to select three Members of the House of Commons for the performance of these functions. May I ask if it is intended that one of them should be an Irish Member?
  THE CHAIRMAN: I am afraid that the discussion is straying away from the Amendment. The hon. and gallant Member cannot discuss the appointment of a Committee which has been merely foreshadowed by the noble Lord.
  COLONEL NOLAN: I have no wish to discuss the appointment of the three eminent Members of the Committee further. I only wanted to suggest that each of these three eminent Gentlemen would probably have a Private Secretary, and that I think is strictly in accordance with the argument of the noble Lord. The fact of having three Private Secretaries to appoint might probably influence the action in the matter of noble Lords and right hon. Gentlemen who have been Cabinet Ministers and of those who hope to be Cabinet Ministers. After the panegyric which has been pronounced by the noble Lord on Private Secretaries, I think there is likely to be a tremendous rush for the appointment. We have bad a most formidable list of
  1804
  appointments read out; but although it consists of appointments made on the Liberal side, I think it is quite probable that an equally important list could be given of appointments on the Conservative side. As the rule, I have not seen that Conservatives have been in the habit of treating their friends worse than the Liberals, and I should say that the prizes in the Civil Service have been applied in rewarding handsomely the devotion of Private Secretaries. There was one part of the noble Lord's speech which I think was chiefly conspicuous and important from its omissions, and that is, that he took no notice whatever of the object which the hon. Member for Northampton has in view—not separation on the part of the House of Commons, but complete equality with the House of Lords. Why should there be these extra payments to the officials of the House of Lords, because extra payments they are, wrap them up as you may? In short, the officers of the House of Lords are paid at a much higher rate than those of the House of Commons. Why should we submit to that inequality? Why should the House of Lords, with better appointments, claim from that fact a superior position for the Upper Chamber? That is the strongest reason why I support the hon. Member in his proposal to reduce the Vote. I think we are extremely good to the House of Lords, who represent nobody but themselves, to allow them equality; but if we consent to establish their superiority we deserve to be regarded as their inferiors. There was one argument used by the noble Lord which is altogether fallacious. He said that the House of Lords have given up fees to the extent of £47,000 a-year, and therefore we are bound, in ordinary justice, to find them the money. Now, if the House of Lords had given up £47,000 a-year out of their private property, there really might be something in the argument of the noble Lord. But what was it that they really did? They had been imposing taxes on the suitors, and those fees are now paid into the Exchequer, and it is a very ordinary kind of reform indeed that such fees should be paid into a common fund. The Attorney General for Ireland used to be paid in the same way, £2,000 a year, out of the Patent Fund; but because he surrendered it, are we in future to have

  1805
  no control over his salary? The argument of the noble Lord amounts to this—that the House of Lords has a vested interest and private property in these fees, which are wrung from the persons who go to them for justice. This £47,000 was a mere matter of account. The House of Commons of that day took a proper view of the importance of the matter, and insisted on there being one fund under the control of the Exchequer. This is not a very new Motion; it has often been brought forward before. [Cries of "Divide!"] I hear hon. Gentlemen opposite say "Divide!" but if there is any attempt to control the discussion of the Estimates, I, for one, shall not feel inclined to submit to it, and shall feel it my duty to speak on every Vote. At present we are engaged in an attempt to save the money of the taxpayers, and if in doing so we are to be cried down by the Conservative side of the House, it is our duty to assert ourselves and endeavour to affect these economies. I do not think the country will accept the principle of the noble Lord—that the officers of the House of Lords ought to be paid more than those of the House of Commons. I think that the hon. Member for Northampton, instead of deserving the severe censure which has been showered on his head by the noble Lord, deserves the gratitude of the whole country for bringing forward the question in the way he has done. The noble Lord tells us that, after a service of six years as Private Secretary, a gentleman was placed in a post to which a salary of £3,000 a year is attached; whereas there are Clerks at the Table of this House who have served for 14 years with nothing like an equivalent. I do not say that this appointment is worse than that of other Private Secretaries, but I think the hon. Member is right in the course he has taken.
  MR. HENEY H. FOWLER: I always admired the ability of the noble Lord in dealing with difficult questions, and the admirable manner in which he skates over the thin ice, as in this case, and puts before the Committee two or three issues altogether distinct from those which have been raised. I do not propose to follow him into his defence of the appointment of Mr. Graham as Clerk of the Parliaments. All I will say in regard to the doctrine that the House of Lords
  1806
  are the only judges of the exercise of the patronage of the Prime Minister, is, that the Prime Minister is responsible for the exercise of that patronage to the House of Commons as well as to the House of Lords. But it is a mistake to rest the matter upon the merits or demerits of Mr. Graham. Everyone agrees that if Sir Erskine May had lived, he would have been the most competent person to fill that office. But Sir Erskine May has gone, and I am not prepared to say that Mr. Graham is disqualified or incompetent to perform the duties. I am sure that in reading out the list of Private Secretaries promoted by the late Prime Minister, the noble Lord forgot to state that every one of those gentlemen, before he became Private Secretary, was already a distinguished member of the Civil Service, and merely won a legitimate prize of his own profession. The grave question is the startling discrepancy in the salaries paid to officials for doing the same work in the two Houses of Parliament. The noble Lord attempted two or three defences of these discrepancies. The first was, that there was, in reality, no discrepancy at all; but the fact remains that the Chief Clerk of the House of Commons is paid £2,000 a-year, and has an official residence, whereas the Chief Clerk of the House of Lords is paid £2,500 a-year, and is allowed £500 a-year for an official residence. Therefore, for all practical purposes, there is a difference of £500 a-year between the two. With reference to the work, it is perfectly idle to compare the two. The House of Lords sits barely for three weeks in the month of November as an appellate tribunal. Pile it up over and over again, as you like, it is ridiculous to say that the Chief Clerk of the House of Commons, and the Clerks at the Table, do not perform as much work in one month as the Clerks of the House of Lords do in 12 months. I have no wish to place the House of Lords below the level of the House of Commons, but I support the proposition that the officers of both Houses should be placed on a level. Take another office—that of Usher of the Black Rod. Compare the duties of that office with those of our Serjeant-at-Arms. Yet the Sergeant-at-Arms gets £1,200 a-year, and an official residence, while the Black Rod has

  1807
  £2,000 and an official residence, together with emoluments as an Admiral on the Retired List, and fees for his own use as an officer of the Order of the Garter. I do not mean to contend that Black Rod should be paid less than the Serjeant-at-Arms; but the fact is patent to everybody that the work which the Serjeant-at-Arms has to do is very much heavier than that of Black Rod. "But," says the noble Lord, "Sir Augustus Clifford received a large sum in fees, and when the office became vacant, those fees were given up to the Treasury." I venture to say there was no officer who was not originally paid by fees. The Secretaries of State, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Lord Chancellor, and the Judges, were all paid by fees; but, after considering what the future remuneration of various officers should be when a new appointment was made, the Treasury received the fee and the person appointed was paid a salary. The Lord Chancellor now gets £10,000 a-year; but the fees in Lord Eldon's time amounted to as much as £27,000 a-year. It is a stock phrase in all these debates on the discrepancy of the salaries paid to the officers of the two Houses, that the Lords surrendered up a large amount of fees into the control of the House of Commons, out of which it previously paid its officials. That is true, and it is not true. The House of Lords did not pay its officers out of fees exclusively, but it had to come to the House of Commons for a Vote. If hon. Members will look at the Papers placed before them, they will see that the estimated receipts from the House of Lords are £26,000 only, while the requirements are £46,000, and, that being admitted, it is clear the House of Commons has a right to discuss and control the expenditure of that £20,000. The fees paid by the suitors—paid by the public for exercising their rights in one of the tribunals of the country; and, as a matter of fact, the House of Lords' fees do not cover the House of Lords' expenditure by something like £20,000. The simple issue upon which the Committee is now called to express its opinion is, whether the servants of the two Houses, without going into the question of the amount of work, should, as between the two Houses, be paid at the same rate. I think the noble Lord
  1808
  practically admitted before he sat down his own dissatisfaction with his own argument, because he said that the time has arrived, and I quite agree with him, for a regular overhauling of our spending Departments, and he threw out a hint that he was prepared to concede that the expenditure of the two Houses should be subjected to an inquiry of that sort. The Secretary to the Treasury also said, a short time ago, in refer-once to the Woods and Forests, that he was disposed to look favourably on the suggestion that the forthcoming Commission should embrace an inquiry into those two Departments. I think that suggestion was readily accepted by the House; but, I venture to think that it is not desirable to let a Joint Committee of both Houses determine questions which belong Constitutionally to the House of Commons. The House of Commons alone has control over the Expenditure of the country, and we must be careful how we admit even the thinnest end of the wedge. The noble Lord has a full right to discuss how such an. inquiry should be carried out—that is only a fair and reasonable proposition; but as far as the general principle is concerned, I cannot for one moment see, as between the two Houses, why the Chief Clerks, the Black Rod, and the Serjeant-at-Arms, and every other official, no matter what position he occupies, should not be paid the same level sums. Without raising the question of the work itself, I see nothing in the work done by the Clerk of the Parliaments in the House of Lords to justify the payment of that officer at a higher rate than the Chief Clerk of the House of Commons.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: I wish to point out that the right hon. Gentleman has not carried his argument quite far enough. It would seem to be a long time since the right hon. Gentleman visited the House of Lords, or he would be aware that there is absolute inequality between the two Houses. Indeed, there is a shocking inequality between ourselves and the House of Lords—an inequality that fills me with shame and humiliation as a Member of the House of Commons. Hon. Members will have noticed that the staircase descending from the House of Lords is carpeted; our staircase has no carpet. The right hon. Gentleman will have ob-

  1809
  served that at the corners of that staircase there are magnificent attendants, dressed in scarlet and gold; we have no attendants dressed in scarlet and gold. If the right hon. Gentleman goes into the House of Lords itself, he will see that the benches are far more comfortable than ours, and that they are covered with scarlet leather. It must be perfectly shocking and humiliating to a patriot to observe all the marks of inequality between the two Houses. Therefore, the argument of the right hon. Gentleman is worth nothing, unless he is prepared to go further, and sweep away and abolish for ever these inequalities, or anything that might lead the public to suppose that this House is in any way inferior to the House of Lords. The whole idea itself of the House of Lords—and you may abolish it if you like, or if you can—is to surround it with far more of pomp and state and circumstance than the House of Commons. All the pomp and state and circumstance which surround the Throne and the administration of justice is centred in the House of Lords. If you want to alter the character of the House of Lords, by all means do so if you can; but to say that all things are to be placed on a footing of equality, when there is no parity whatever between them, is absurd. It falls entirely to the ground, unless you are prepared to change the whole character of that Institution, and to make it nothing but what the right hon. Gentleman would probably like to see it—an Elective Senate, like that of the United States of America.
  MR. BUXTON: It is very difficult to know where to have the noble Lord; we have now had two speeches from him. In the first speech he argued that the House of lords was entirely on an equality with the House of Commons as to salaries and everything else; and now he comes down upon my right hon. Friend the Member for East Wolverhampton (MR. Henry H. Fowler), and says the social inequality between the two Houses is so great, that it must of necessity extend to the salaries also. I do not propose to enter into the question which has occupied a large share of the speech of the noble Lord—namely, the appointment of Mr. Graham. I am not one of those who are anxious to scent a job
  1810
  in every appointment, and I believe that both sides of the House are actuated by a very high sense of the requirements of the Public Service, and that these accusations of jobbery on both sides are, in 99 cases out of 100, without the slightest foundation. On the question of the actual salaries between the House of Lords and the House of Commons, I think the noble Lord made out a pretty strong case as between the salary of the Chief Clerk in the House of Lords and the Chief Clerk here; but I would point out this fact in reference to the salary of the Assistant Clerk of the House of Lords, which is included in the Amendment of the hon. Member for Northampton (MR. Labouchere), that the Second Clerk of the Upper House receives a salary of £1,800 a year, and £300 for a house; while the Second Clerk in this House only receives £1,500 a year, and no allowance for a house. And surely this is an office in regard to which it cannot be said that the work of the Clerk in this House is not as great or very much greater than that of the Clerk of the Upper House. That is one of the points on which the Committee are asked to vote, and it is one on which we hope to obtain something more approaching to economy than we have at present.
  MR. DILLON: I rise to ask an explanation from the noble Lord the Chancellor of the Exchequer, of the reason why two Irish Votes, upon which I was anxious to make some remarks—that is to say, the Votes for University Buildings, and for Science and Art Buildings in Dublin, were taken at the commencement of the proceedings in Committee? I believed that the Votes would be taken in order; but, to my astonishment, I find that a considerable space in the Estimates have been passed over, and these two Votes taken.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: I am sorry that the hon. Member has been disappointed in his wish to speak on the Votes referred to; but it would be a very hard thing to blame the Government for asking money for Ireland. The simple explanation, however, is that two Votes, one for £25,000 for the new Admiralty and War Office, and the other for £800 for Dover Harbour, have not been brought forward, because Her Majesty's Government have decided not to spend the money this year. The two

  1811
  Irish Votes were, therefore, taken in their order.
  MR. DILLON: The explanation of the noble Lord is so unsatisfactory that I must say I think it would have been better to have appended a note to the Paper for our instruction. The Paper appears to show that the Votes referred to by the noble Lord would be taken.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (MR. JACKSON): As I am technically responsible for this, I beg to assure the hon. Gentleman that there was not the slighest intention to mislead the Committee. The fact is, as the noble Lord the Chancellor of the Exchequer has stated, these two sums of £25,000 and £800 which appear on the Estimates were not wanted this year, and therefore, following the usual course, they were passed over.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 98; Noes 173: Majority 75.—(Div. List, No. 17.)
  Original Question again proposed.
  MR. P. J. POWER: I wish to draw attention to the question of the salary of the Librarian of the House of Commons. His salary is not as large as that of the Librarian of the House of Lords, but we must agree that he does ten times as much work. I think also that it is unfair that the Librarian of the House of Lords should have a residence provided for him, while our Librarian has no residence. We must all acknowledge that we receive every attention from all the gentlemen in the Library when we require their services; and I believe that it is not too much to say that a gentleman who is kept here until 3 o'clock in the morning might more reasonably expect a residence than the gentleman who occupies a similar position in another House and who does not remain until so late an hour. This question was raised in a previous Parliament; there was then a strong minority in favour of it—of a residence being provided for our Librarian. I think it must be acknowledged by hon. Members in every quarter of the House that this gentleman performs more important duties in connection with this House than does the Librarian of the House of Lords in connection with that Chamber. I shall
  1812
  be glad to hear the remarks which the Government have to make on this matter.
  DR. CLARK: The noble Lord opposite(Lord Randolph Churchill), in some of his remarks on the last Vote, was, I think, hardly in Order in speaking of the decorations of the House of Lords. There may be carpets, and there may be red morocco leather, as well as other extravagances in the House of Lords; but as they do not appear in the Vote, we cannot properly discuss them. However, the noble Lord, in common with those hon. Members who object to the political action of the House of Lords, should have the courage of his convictions and vote against the whole sum. I think the House of Lords uses its powers in a way in which it ought not to use them, and I would call the attention of the hon. Gentlemen opposite to one of the last things done in the House of Lords last year.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman should recollect that criticisms on the political action of the House of Lords would be out of place on this Vote; but the hon. Member will be quite in Order if he speaks against the Vote as a whole.
  MR. BUCHANAN: I have one question to ask with regard to this Vote. The Committee will be aware that the opening of the House of Lords and the House of Commons to the public on Saturdays is under tie control of the Lord Great Chamberlain. There has been a strong feeling that the House of Commons might now be again thrown open to visitors on Saturdays. Although Members of the House of Commons, some time ago, were in favour of opening the House to the public, yet it was discovered that this official, the Lord Great Chamberlain, had it in his power to prevent. I think the time has arrived when the House of Commons might again be thrown open to visitors on Saturdays, and I shall be glad if the noble Lord the Leader of the House would make a representation to the Lord Great Chamberlain to that effect.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: I think, if the hon. Member will take into consideration the circumstance that the Lord Great Chamberlain was for many years a popular Member of this

  1813
  House, he may be assured that that official will not put any obstacle unnecessarily in the way of the public having access to the House of Commons, and I am sure he will find, if he inquires, that any arrangement with regard to the admission of the public to the Palace of Westminster has been made entirely in accordance with the Police Regulations which it became necessary to impose after the outrages which occurred two or three years ago.
  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  (4.) £22,498, to complete the sum for House of Commons Offices.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: On this Vote I desire to draw the attention of the Committee to some items which appear under Sub-head III., page 90, with respect to the salaries of the Clerks of the House. Now, one would have supposed that in the House of Commons, the House of the Representatives of the people, there would be as much free and open competition for appointments as there is in other Departments of the Service. But this is not the case. There are four principal Clerks, whose salaries go from £850 to £1,000, and seven senior Clerks, at salaries from £650 to £800. I make no objection to the salaries, and have no doubt that the gentlemen who receive them are worthy of the money paid for their services. It is, of course, necessary to have gentlemen of a certain social position to fill places of this kind; but I do not know that the qualifications of gentlemen for these posts are higher or in any way better than the qualifications of men in the Foreign Office, Colonial Office, in the Admiralty, and War Office, and other Departments of Secretaries of State. But whereas, some few years ago, all the clerkships in these superior Offices were thrown open to competition, here, in the House of Commons, these appointments are reserved for the direct, or all but direct, nomination of an official of the House. Recently the position has been somewhat modified and explained by a letter which was laid before the House a few days ago from the Clerk of the House to Mr. Horace Mann, Secretary to the Civil Service Commissioners, to the effect that he informed the Commissioners that it was his intention, while remaining responsible for the appointment of clerks to
  1814
  the House of Commons, to make such appointments depend on the result of competitive examination among such candidates as he might nominate for the positions, and that subjoined was a schedule showing the subjects of examination to which candidates would be subjected. The schedule is as follows:—Handwriting and orthography; power of accurately perusing, connected with original documents; arithmetic, including vulgar and decimal fractions; English composition; history of England from 1603 to 1860; Constitutional history of England as gathered from four text-books; and, finally, Latin. The schedule goes on to say that for qualification, translation from Latin to English will be required, but marks will be given for translation from English to Latin. Now that is the standard of examination to which are to be subjected a very small number of gentlemen nominated by the Clerk of the House. I say that to fill up the staff of Clerks of the House of Commons in such a way as this, when positions in all other important Offices of State are open to the public by free competition, is to reserve to this House, which is the House of the people, a system of exclusiveness that ought not to continue. It is not to be contended that, in point of examination, there is any particular reason why the men in the Admiralty or the War Office should be superior to the clerks in the House of Commons, and yet the examination required to be passed by the clerks in the Department of the Clerk of the House is radically inferior to that to which persons competing for appointments in the Offices of the Secretaries of State are subjected. I do not want to move any reduction of this Vote, and yet I ask the Committee to consider the evident unfairness of reserving to a small number of men—the personal friends, possibly, of the Clerk of the House, or the friends of his friends—appointments which, as regards their financial remuneration, are so very much superior to those other appointments in the Civil Service open to competition, but the securing of which is so very much more difficult. If you require men who ought to be paid these large sums, then you ought to get the very best men as tested by the recognized system of examination; and you ought to have these posts in connection

  1815
  with the House of Commons as much open to competition amongst the great body of the people as the posts in all the Offices of the Secretaries of State and other Departments of the Public Service. The pay of these gentlemen is very much higher than the pay of any other persons who have to submit to so small an examination as that I have described. I stated that recently the position has been somewhat modified. Formerly it was more exclusive than it is now; there has been, to a certain extent, a yielding of ground. But what is the effect? The effect is small. It may appear paradoxical, as a rule, to extend patronage rather than to restrict it. When you have one post to fill, and you fill it by appointing a single individual, you discharge your obligation to a political supporter or friend, and to one only; but directly you adopt a system of limited competition for each post you have in your gift, you may throw a sop to half-a-dozen or even a dozen people. It was Lord Palmerston who was cute enough to see that first. He was decidedly in favour of doing away with direct nomination, and of instituting a system of limited competition, because, for every post he had to fill, he was able to satisfy half a-dozen different political supporters instead of one. I am decidedly of opinion, and I trust many other Members of the House are of opinion, that posts in connection with the House of Commons, which is the House of the People, should be as open to public competition as any other post in any other Department of the Public Service; and I trust this concession—for it is a concession—which has now been made will be followed up, and that the next move will be to throw open to public competition all the posts, all the small clerical posts, in connection with the House.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (MR. JACKSON): The hon. Member (MR. Arthur O'Connor) has correctly stated that these positions are filled up upon what may be called the principle of limited competition. I understand that the plan adopted is that not more than six or less than three men are selected in case of a vacancy; and that these men have to go through a certain examination, and that the one who is most successful receives the appointment. Hon. Members will, how-
  1816
  ever, bear in mind that the Clerk is practically responsible for the conduct of the Business of the House, and that he is not likely to appoint any gentlemen who are in any sense incompetent. I think we may take it for granted that the Clerk will see that none but suitable men are appointed.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: I am afraid the hon. Gentleman (MR. Jackson) does not quite see the point of my observations. I did not for one moment question the discretion of the distinguished gentleman who is at present the Clerk of the House of Commons. I am perfectly certain that that gentleman would be incapable of appointing to one of these posts anyone who was not perfectly fitted for it. But the same thing may be said of the Head of every other Department in the Civil Service; and if the argument holds good with regard to the Clerk of the House of Commons, why should it not hold good equally with regard to the Secretary of State for the Colonies, the Secretary of State for War, and the First Lord of the Admiralty? Surely they can be trusted quite as much as the Clerk of the House of Commons to be as anxious to fill the posts under them by men qualified to occupy them. The question is not the discretion of the Clerk of the House of Commons, but the right of the people of this country to have open to public competition, and to all who will offer themselves and prove themselves qualified, the posts which are connected with the House of the People.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I am sorry the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury (MR. Jackson), who I would describe as a Progressive Conservative, should have taken up the attitude he has upon the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for East Donegal (Mr. Arthur O'Connor). There is not a single argument which the hon. Gentleman (MR. Jackson) has used that has not been exploded in the course of the controversy which took place a long time ago with regard to the nomination system of this country. Everything the hon. Gentleman has urged in favour of the discretion of the Clerk of the House was urged in favour of the discretion of the Heads of all the other Departments, and we all know what homilies were preached as to the danger to the Service

  1817
  of the country, if the situations in it were exposed to the risks and inconveniences of public competition. The sense of the country and of Parliament upon this question, which has been displayed in an unmistakable manner, is that all situations under the Crown shall be the rewards of success in competitive examinations; and I hope the hon. Gentleman will rise immediately after me, and give us a promise that this last bit of patronage will be taken away, and that the situations in this House will be given as rewards of ability and of knowledge, as are the other posts of the country. Now, as I have risen, perhaps I had better not sit down before I have alluded to one or two other matters on which I should like information from the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury. I find £1,600 is put down for shorthand writers. I assume this is paid to Hansard for reporting the debates of the House. Well, Mr. Courtney, I am sure I shall enlist your sympathy in making some inquiries with regard to this question, for I am sure it was largely due to your action that the small reform in the reporting of our debates has taken place. But, Mr. Courtney, what was effected some years ago in regard to reporting our proceedings was but a compromise, and, like most compromises, it left things in a rather worse position than they were in before. What is the present state of affairs? I am sure hon. Members of this House can have no conception of how the reporting of this House is conducted at the present moment. Everybody knows that a revolutionary change has taken place in the reporting of Parliamentary proceedings by the daily Press. Anybody who refers to the newspapers of 30 or 40 years ago will find full reports, not only of the speeches of prominent Members of Parliament, but even of the very inferior and very minor Members of this Assembly. For instance, when Mr. Disraeli, in 1837, got up to make his first historical speech in this House, he was, in a Parliamentary sense, a person of no very great consequence; and yet, if we go back to the daily papers of that day, we find a very full report indeed of the speech of Mr. Disraeli. When a man makes a maiden speech nowadays, we find him dismissed in a couple of lines, or perhaps find him consigned to that limbo of reporting—"after a
  1818
  few words from Mr. So-and-so, Mr. So-and-so said." I mention the case of Mr. Disraeli, because it shows the remarkable importance of the question I am raising. I maintain it is important to the country that it should have a record of the utterances of its public men in the Assembly of the people. A gentleman who has written to me on the subject points out that, in his early days, which are not very remote, the present Leader of the House (Lord Randolph Churchill) made a good many speeches, but in Hansard you find him dismissed in three or four lines. You, Mr. Courtney, were one of the Members of this House who first called attention to the defective reporting in this House, and in a Committee which sat upstairs to inquire into the reporting by Hansard you elicited the very extraordinary fact that Hansard is mainly filled up with the reports of The Times newspaper, that the reports in The Times are largely regulated by the gentleman who holds the position of chief of the reporting staff of The Times newspaper. It therefore comes to this, that the records of the proceedings in this House are entirely dependent upon the will or the judgment—or it may be the caprice—of the chief of the reporting staff of one of our daily newspapers. That was a state of things so extraordinary as to require a remedy, and a remedy was provided. But the remedy was about as extraordinary as it could well be. What was done was this—a certain sum of money was allowed to Mr. Hansard for reporting debates in this House; but Mr. Hansard was strictly confined to—
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! The reporting under this head is the reporting of the proceedings before Committees upstairs. The reporting of the proceedings of this House to which the hon. Gentleman refers is provided for in the Stationery Vote, and the discussion with regard to it must take place on that Vote.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I should like to say a word upon the subject raised by the hon. Member for East Donegal (Mr. Arthur O'Connor)—namely, the nomination of the clerks in this House. It will be in the recollection of hon. Gentlemen who were Members of the last Parliament that a Motion on this subject was put upon the

  1819
  Paper by the right hon. Gentleman who is now Postmaster General (MR. Raikes), who, unfortunately, I do not see in his place to-night. The subject bad to be considered by the late Government, and I consulted my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Lothian(MR. W. E. Gladstone) in regard to the Motion which the right hon. Gentleman the present Postmaster General had put upon the Paper. I have not the exact words of his Motion; but if I remember right, it was to the effect that the nomination of the Clerks of this House ought to be placed in the hands of Mr. Speaker; and certainly we came to the conclusion that the arrangement suggested by the right hon. Gentleman would be better than the existing one, and we should have been prepared to have supported his Motion upon that footing. If the nominations are to be in the hands of any individual, it is well that they should be in the bands of the principal Officer of the House—at all events, that was the conclusion at which we arrived. The bon. Member (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) bas raised another important question—namely, whether there ought to be single nominations at all, whether they ought to be an exception to the general rule of the Public Service, whereby places in the Public Service are open to public competition. I confess I am disposed to agree with the hon. Member that, as that principle has been accepted in the Public Service of the country, there is no reason why the appointment of Clerks of this House should be an exception to the general rule. But I would ask the Government to consider this matter, both from the point of view adopted by the hon. Member, and also from the point of view of whether, if the nominations are to continue, they ought not to be in the hands of the Chief Officer of the House who, of course, is Mr. Speaker. I think the present arrangement is capable of improvement, and I hope the Government will look at the matter from that point of view.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: I do not quite gather what the right hon. Gentleman is aiming at. Is he aiming at transferring the nomination of the Clerks of the House from the present Clerk of the House to the Speaker?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: That was the proposal of the right hon. Gen-
  1820
  tleman the Postmaster General (Mr. Raikes), and certainly, as between nominations by the principal Clerk and the Speaker, we should prefer nomination by the Speaker. The question of competition was not raised at that time, and, in fact, it had not occurred to me. Now that it has been raised, I do think there is a great deal to be said in favour of the principle of competition, subject, of course, to the control of the Speaker as to the conditions on which the competition should be conducted. If I may take the liberty of expressing it, my present view is that the Speaker should be the Head of the Department, and that the appointments should be open to competition, the conditions of which should be laid down by the Speaker in the same way as conditions of competition are made by the Principals of every other Department of State.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: Let me point out to the right hon. Gentleman (Sir William Harcourt) that although he has advocated this change, he has not suggested any reason why the change should be made. From time immemorial, as far as I know, this patronage has been vested in the Clerk of the House; it is vested in him by Act of Parliament, and by Letters Patent, and I did not gather from what the right hon. Gentleman is urging that the patronage has been at all improperly disposed. On the contrary, I should say that it is owing to the fact that this patronage was so well disposed by the late Clerk, that the House of Commons is so well served at the present time. Again, there is this to be said. The difference between the Speaker and the Clerk of this House is this—that one is a Member of the House of Commons, and the other is not; and that is certainly a difference which ought to be taken into account before any great change is made. I should also say, though I speak with less knowledge and authority than I wish to on the subject—I should say that the Clerk of the House is brought more into connection with the general clerical staff than the Speaker, and that, therefore, it is important the Clerk should have the direction of that staff. I admit the whole thing might be usefully considered, particularly in connection with the throwing open of the appointments to competition. I understand that the present Clerk of the

  1821
  House has decided, on his own authority, to make that change. [MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: Only partially.] As the Clerk has initiated such a change, it is well that we should proceed cautiously in the matter. There are qualifications which would not necessarily be secured by free and open competition, and, therefore, caution is desirable in making any large change in this matter. But I can assure the right hon. Gentleman (Sir William Harcourt) that what has fallen from him and from other hon. Members will be considered by the Government, and that the Government will, in regard to this subject, enter into careful and close consultation with the authorities of the House.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: The competition proposed by the Clerk is not open competition; it is a limited competition in which there will be only three nominees. That is a totally different thing to free and open competition. I cannot see why the Clerkships of the House of Commons should be the only exception in the Civil Service to the system of open competition. [An hon. MEMBER: The Foreign Office.] No doubt, there is an exception in the case of the Foreign Office; but in regard to the Clerkships in the Foreign Office, it is to be observed that a considerable number of young men are nominated, so that practically there is a very open competition. I think that even in the Foreign Office the principle of open competition might be carried out. What greater reason can there be for limiting the nomination or competition in the case of the Foreign Office and the House of Commons, than there is in the case of the Treasury? I venture to say that the Clerks in the Treasury have duties quite as important, quite as confidential, quite as essential in every respect to the Public Service, as the Clerks of the House of Commons or of the Foreign Office. I therefore hope the Government will bring pressure to bear on the Chief Clerk of this House, in order to introduce the system of open competition in the case of the Clerkships in this House. The principle has now been generelly adopted throughout the Public Service, and I do not think it ought to be infringed, even in the case of the Clerkships of this House.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Shaw
  1822
  Lefevre) hopes the Government will bring pressure to bear on the Chief Clerk of the House. I think pressure is not necessary. The Chief Clerk has but one object—the general efficiency of the work of the House of Commons; and, certainly, in the matter of reform in the House, the Government will not take the advice of the right hon. Gentleman to bring pressure to bear on the Chief Clerk. The Government have the fullest confidence in the Chief Clerk who, they know, only desires to be guided by knowledge and information.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: It was stated that a change could not be made without an Act of Parliament, because it is under an Act of Parliament that this patronage is now vested in the Clerk of the House. The initiation of any change must rest with the Government, who, therefore, might legitimately exercise the only pressure to which I referred.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: Mr. Courtney, I must object to the tone which the noble Lord opposite (Lord Randolph Churchill) has adopted. The noble Lord endeavours to make it appear that we are making this a personal question in regard to the present Clerk of the House. That is not the question at all. My hon. Friend (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) who introduced the subject, began with the declaration that he had the most perfect confidence in the judgement and in the desire to do right of the gentleman who now holds the position of Chief Clerk. The noble Lord, in discussing this question a few moments ago, made an unfavourable contrast between the Clerk of the House and the Speaker of the House. [Lord RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: No.] He made a contrast most unfavourable to the Speaker. Perhaps the noble Lord does not know exactly what he said. I will repeat for his benefit what he did say, and draw my own conclusions, and the Committee will be at liberty to judge whether my inferences are correct or not. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt) drew attention to the fact that the present Postmaster General (Mr. Raikes) put down a Motion, during the last Parliament, in favour of transferring this patronage from the Chief Clerk of the House to the Speaker of the House. The right hon. Gentleman was followed

  1823
  by the noble Lord (Lord Randolph. Churchill), who said it must be recollected that the Chief Clerk was not a Member of the House of Commons, whereas the Speaker was a Member of the House of Commons. What did that plainly mean? I do not object to the observation at all, but what did it mean? It plainly meant that the Speaker, being a Member of the House, was subject to pressure from his constituents. ["No!"] Well, I should like the noble Lord to get up and say what it did mean. What did he mean by drawing a distinction between the Clerk not being a Member of the House of Commons and the Speaker being a Member of the House of Commons in favour of his proposition that the Clerk of the House was a better depository of the patronage of the House than the Speaker? I think it is very necessary the noble Lord should make it clear what he meant.
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES): I only wish to say one we rd, as the hon. Gentleman (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) appears to be under some misapprehension. I gave Notice of the Motion to which reference has been made, when the position of the Chief Clerk of the House was vacant, and the Motion contained no reflection either upon the Speaker or the Chief Clerk. When I gave Notice of the Motion, my intention was to suggest that on such an occasion it was desirable to consider whether any change was necessary. I do not in any way attempt by that Notice to prejudge the question which was to be examined by the Committee.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR; The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Raikes) has entirely misunderstood my observations. I did not suggest for a moment that he meant to cast any reflection upon the Clerk or the Speaker. What I did say was that I objected altogether to Members being accused of disrespect to particular persons because they wanted to make these positions subject to public competition instead of to patronage. I was merely answering what I considered the most unfair argument of the noble Lord the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: I have nothing to object to in the remarks of the noble Lord (Lord Randolph Churchill); on the contrary, I think
  1824
  they are eminently satisfactory, because by them, he has indicated the readiness of the Government to consider the question, and I do not think we can well expect him to say more. The noble Lord, however, dropped an expression which I should be sorry to let go by without a disclaimer. He seemed to suggest that it was desired to asperse the qualifications of the gentlemen occupying the positions as Clerks under the Clerk of the House of Commons. He probably did not mean that; but I should be sorry such an expression should go abroad without contradiction. Speaking for myself, and I suppose my experience is similar to that of every Member of the House, I have, whenever I have had to have recourse to the staff of the House of Commons, including these gentlemen, always found them not only highly qualified, but eminently courteous; and my remarks had no reference whatsoever to the present officers, but only to the filling up of future vacancies.
  Vote agreed to.
  (5.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £23,506 (including a Supplementary sum of £788), 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 1887, for the Salaries and Expenses in the Department of Her Majesty's Treasury, and in the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel."
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I have to propose the reduction of this Vote by the sum of £3,000, being a portion of the salary of the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Lord Randolph Churchill). But I may state, at the outset, that there is nothing personal in the matter; in fact, that when in the last Parliament the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt) was Chancellor of the Exchequer, I had the same Motion on the Paper. I had also on the Paper a Motion to reduce the salary of every Gentleman sitting on the Treasury Bench—with the exception of that of the Prime Minister, because I thought the right hon. Gentleman occupied an exceptional position—who had £5,000 a-year to £2,000 a-year. I confess it seems a fortunate accident that the Chancellor of the Exchequer's should

  1825
  be the first salary on the list in the present Vote, because the noble Lord who at present occupies that position (Lord Randolph Churchill) has spoken a great deal lately about economy in the Public Departments. The noble Lord has told us that he wishes to appoint a Royal Commission to see whether economy cannot be effected; but I think the tendency of these Royal Commissions generally is to begin economizing by reducing the salaries of small people and not of great people, and I am sure the noble Lord the Chancellor of the Exchequer will feel himself bound to accept my Motion. No doubt, I shall have his support in this proposal, for it would be a hint to the Royal Commission whom he proposes to appoint, that he is serious in his desire to promote economy—which is an important desire for one in the position which the noble Lord occupies—were he to agree to the reduction of his salary from £5,000 to £2,000. I remember speaking to the late Mr. Fawcett one day about the salaries of the women in the Post Office. I said to him—"Why do you, who are so strongly in favour of the principle of putting we men on an equality with men—why do you pay women less than men?" His reply was that "in every Department you must have regard to the market value of the article," and that "you can get women for less than men." It, therefore, becomes important to see for what we can get a Cabinet Minister. I find that Cabinet Ministers are divided into two categories; some get £5,000 a-year and some £2,000 a-year, and it has always appeared to me, both in regard to the present Government and the last Government, that the Gentlemen who receive £2,000 are just as good value as those who receive £5,000. For instance, take the present Government. We have the noble Lord the President of the Board of Trade (Lord Stanley of Preston), and the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. Ritchie)—though the latter is not in the Cabinet, but never mind him. The President of the Board of Trade I have always regarded as a most able man—though differing from him on most political questions—yet we get him for £2,000 per annum. Now, can the noble Lord the Chancellor of the Exchequer show us, as he is bound to show us if
  1826
  he claims this £5,000 a-year, that he is worth two and a-half times as much as the noble Lord the President of the Board of Trade? We will take another point. Quite lately a new Minister was created—namely, the Secretary for Scotland. I do not believe that the right hon. Gentleman who at present holds that Office (Mr. A. J. Balfour) happens to be in the Cabinet, but we may naturally suppose that this is a post which will be very frequently filled by Gentlemen in the Cabinet. Well, this Office was created, and the amount of the salary was fixed at a sum which was deemed sufficient for a Minister. What is that sum? £2,000 per annum. That proves conclusively that—in the present day—it is felt that £2,000 per annum is amply sufficient for a Cabinet Minister. But what I would point out is this—and I believe every Gentleman here will agree with me—that it is very objectionable to have two categories in the Cabinet. There is no difference in the work or in the position in the Cabinet; and yet you have some Ministers there receiving £2,000 and others receiving £5,000. What is the consequence? Why, that it is looked upon as a species of promotion to get from the £2,000 class to the £5,000 class. Thus, a man who has made a speciality of a certain subject, it may be that he has been Minister of Commerce as President of Board of Trade, which is one of the most important positions in the Cabinet, may change in a moment into the Minister representing some other Department of the Service. A Gentleman who has made a speciality of commerce, and who may have been President of the Board of Trade for a considerable time, very naturally desires to be something else in the Cabinet, because it means promotion, and it is a very natural wish, nowadays, for a Gentleman to prefer £5,000 per annum to £2,000. But let us look abroad in this matter. It used to be said, "Oh, living is cheaper abroad than in England;" but I should think that living in Paris, or in Berlin, and certainly in Washington, is as dear as living in every other country. What are the salaries paid abroad? Well, a Minister in the United States receives 8,000 dollars per annum—that is,£ 1,600. In France he receives 60,000 francs per annum, or £2,400. In Prussia the Ministers receive 30,000 marks per annum,

  1827
  or £1,800, with the exception of Prince Bismarck, who receives 54,000 marks, that is to say, £2,600. Therefore, I will not suggest that the President of the Board of Trade is as good a Minister as the noble Lord the Chancellor of the Exchequer; but I will put it that the noble Lord has the ability of Prince Bismarck, and yet Prince Bismarck only receives £2,600 per annum, while the noble Lord receives £3,000 more than the President of the Board of Trade. I think I may say that if Prince Bismarck is adequately paid at £2,600 a-year, the noble Lord would be adequately paid at £2,000 a-year. I would not say that all Cabinet Ministers should be paid £2,000 per annum, because, no doubt, there are exceptions to the general rule. The Prime Minister ought to have something more. He is at the head of the Government, and I think it only reasonable, as is the case in Prussia, that the Prime Minister should have something more. I think also that the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and the Secretary of State for the Colonies should receive something more than £2,000 a-year; for the former should be able to entertain Foreign Ministers, whilst the Secretary of State for the Colonies—although I do not see that either of them do it—should entertain all the Colonial visitors that come to this country. With respect to other Ministers, I really cannot understand why they should be expected to spend more money whilst in Office than they would do if they were not Ministers. Do they entertain anybody? I do not know that they do. They live in a certain position when they are Ministers; but they also live in that position when they are not Ministers. No doubt, they give parties with ices occasionally, but you can do that with an expenditure of very little money. I should think that if you give them £2,000 per annum, you will find that they have made money by the transaction at the end of the year—they will make more out of their salary than the extra cost they are put to by the fact of their being Ministers. I shall be told to-night, perhaps, something about the dignity of these Offices. What does that mean? It simply means the old-fashioned idea that it is a grander thing to be rich than to be poor. But that is an exploded idea. I will admit that it is a more pleasant thing to be
  1828
  rich than to be poor; but to think that a man is a better man because he lives in a large house instead of a small one, and to think that a man who is connected with a Department of the State is bound to live in a house of a certain size is an absurdity. I remember reading in the letters of Sir William Neville that when he went over to Holland he contrasted the surroundings of the Pensionary De Witt with those of Lord Clarendon in this country. Lord Clarendon was a man in receipt of £30,000 or £40,000 a-year, living in a great palace; but when he (Sir William Neville) called upon De Witt, he rang the bell, a servant opened the door and showed him in, and he found the Pensionary occupying three or four rooms. Neville contrasted these two men; and surely it would be absurd to suppose that, because Lord Clarendon lived in greater style, that he was the greater man of the two. Then, with regard to Mr. Pitt. We have always been told what a grand and noble thing it was for Mr. Pitt to die in debt, having been Prime Minister; but, for my own part, I have always considered it the most scandalous thing he ever did, and he did many scandalous things in the course of his career. Mr. Pitt was a young man, and received from the State £15,000 a-year during a large portion of his life, and yet he is to be praised because he could not live at the rate of £15,000 per annum, and because, when he died, his creditors came upon the country to pay his debts. It is because that sort of delusive idea respecting the dignity of Office still exists that it is thought that a man, because he is a Minister, ought to live in a certain way. As a matter of fact, they do not spend more money on account of their Office, and probably they put by all they get as Ministers. This notion about the dignity of Office, indeed, is carried so far, that when a Minister is out of Office, he has only to sign a certificate to the effect that he has not enough money to live in a sufficiently dignified way to obtain a pension from the State of, I think, £2,000 per annum. These pensions do not appear on the Estimates; I only wish they did. Let us consider what the duties of Ministers are. We may divide them into two. They have to attend their own businesses, and they have to look after the affairs of the country at Cabinet

  1829
  Councils and attend in this House. Probably they have very hard work putting the two things together. But so have we. We do not receive anything, as Ministers do, though we have just as hard work to perform in looking after these right hon. Gentlemen. You cannot suppose that the sheep have more work than the sheep dog. It is all the more important that we should look into these salaries, because there is a tendency to select Ministers from the privileged classes. ["Oh, oh!"] Hon. Members cry "Oh!" but take the present Ministry. The total payment per annum on account of what one sees in the newspapers, when a new Government is formed, under the head of "Ministerial appointments," is something like £160,000. Will the House credit it that £110,000 of this is divided between Peers and Peers' sons. How many Peers are there? About 600, and some of them are Liberals; so that, taking Conservative Peers and their sons, one may doubt whether they will amount to more than 1,000 persons in number. On the other hand, there are 31,000,000 and odd persons that inhabit this country; and yet we are asked to believe that these 1,000 persons possess in an especial way capacities for being Ministers which are not possessed by the 31,000,000 of Her Majesty's subjects. The noble Lord will say this has absolutely nothing to do with the question, just as he did in his reply in reference to the appointment of Mr. Graham as Clerk of the Parliaments. He will say—"These Gentlemen are selected because they are the salt of the earth," the wisest and best of the country's produce, and that, therefore, they must be Ministers. We know what that means. We know what an aristocracy means. We know that we are living under an aristocratic Government, a Government of the privileged classes; and when you talk about looking after economies in the Public Departments, you should not merely look to a Royal Commission composed of three Members of this House and three of the other House, as proposed by the noble Lord, but you should see that these appointments, which seem to be especially in the hands of the aristocracy, are reduced to their absolute market value. It is in that spirit that I move this reduction. My Motion has nothing personal in it, either in regard
  1830
  to the noble Lord or the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt). I have no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman and the noble Lord will support me in the division; and I trust that every hon. Gentleman who hopes ever to attain to the position of Secretary of State will abstain from voting against me.
  Motion made, and Question put,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £20,500 (including a Supplementary sum of £788), 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 1887, for the Salaries and Expenses in the Department of Her Majesty's Treasury, and in the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel."—(Mr. Labouchere.)
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 66; Noes 181: Majority 115.—(Div. List, No. 18.)
  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  (6.) £40,632, to complete the sum for the Home Office.
  MR. MOLLOY: I should like to ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Matthews) a Question which, on a previous occasion, I put to his Predecessor in regard to the appointment of County Court Judges. Many of the County Court Judges hold also the position of Recorder; and when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt) held the Office of Home Secretary, I asked him whether he would consent in future, on the appointment of any County Court Judges, to compel them to give up the position of Recorder. I pointed out that the position of Recorder, which had not a shilling of emolument attached to it, was a position of honour which ought to be given, as far as possible, to members of the Bar—
  THE CHAIRMAN: The question of the nomination of County Court Judges will not come under this Vote.
  MR. MOLLOY: I think the question of the appointment of Recorders comes under the Vote, because those appointments are vested in the Home Office, and the point I wish to raise has reference to the Recorders, and not so much to the County Court Judges. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby stated that as far as

  1831
  he was concerned, if he had to deal with the matter, County Court Judges in future would have to give up the position of Recorder. I ask the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will carry out the rule laid down by his Predecessors?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS): In reply to the hon. Gentleman opposite, he will remember that all the Judges are appointed during good behaviour. I am not aware of any single case of a Recorder who, being appointed Judge of a County Court, has been asked, still less obliged, to give up his Recordership. I can hardly believe that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby agreed to make that alteration. It is, at any rate, entirely beyond my knowledge.
  MR. MOLLOY: I did not say that the late Home Secretary had agreed that those who now unite in themselves the offices of County Court Judge and Recorder should give up the position of Recorder. I referred to the future. When I brought forward this question, I dealt with future appointments, and in that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby agreed with me.
  MR. HENRY H. FOWLER: I think my right hon. Friend would not have spoken of a Recorder as being asked to give up the position. It might have been that he said he was not prepared to recommend the appointment to a Recordership, who was at the time a County Court Judge.
  MR. MATTHEWS: I must say I approve of what the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Henry H. Fowler) has stated as being the views of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt); but I should certainly hesitate before pledging myself to ask a Recorder to give up that position.
  MR. MOLLOY: I did not ask that.
  MR. MCLAREN: I wish to say a few words upon this Vote with regard to the inspection of factories and workshops. The Trades Congress only yesterday passed a resolution to the effect that, in the opinion of the Congress, the Factory, workshop, and Mine Act was destined to become a dead letter, unless a much closer supervision was inaugurated, and for this
  1832
  purpose a considerable increase in the staff of Factory, workshop, and Mine Inspectors was indispensible; and that the Congress therefore instructed the next Parliamentary Committee to continue to urge upon the Government the importance of appointing a considerable additional number of practical working men, and, where expedient, women as Factory, workshop, and Mine Inspectors. It is to the last part of that resolution that I wish to ask the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary. I am a large employer of labour, and I know it is most necessary that there should be a better system of inspection of factories and workshops. At our factory we have no difficulties with the Inspector; he comes there seldom, but I have no doubt that when he does come, he pays attention to those points which it is his duty to attend to. One thing which particularly demands attention is the inspection of tailors' workshops. I have seen numbers of persons employed in those places, which are often underground, and are thoroughly defective in the matter of ventilation. I could give instancess of workshops which the Inspector has only visited once in three years; and I may point out that the Inspector for all the workshops in the North of Scotland lives in Dundee. The tailors in the workshops in Inverness tell me that the Inspector only visits them once in three years. With reference to the employment of women as Inspectors of workshops where women are employed, I think it exceedingly desirable that women should be appointed in that capacity, and that this system should be adopted as soon as possible. For these reasons I earnestly appeal to Her Majesty's Government to give their attention to this important matter.
  MR. CLANCY: I would ask the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Matthews) to give his attention to the desire expressed by the miners for the appointment of men of their own class as Mine Inspectors; and I refer to the distinct declarations on this subject which have been made by the various mining bodies. The men have declared that their interest will never be looked after, until Inspectors of their own class are appointed.
  MR. TOMLINSON: With reference to this question I would point out that, in a discussion which took place

  1833
  in 1884, opinions were expressed by those who represented the mining population not greatly differing from those of the employers. The desire of both was that the inspection should be efficient. Employers do not concern themselves with regard to the condition in life of Inspectors previously to their appointment; all they wish is that the Inspectors should be competent and qualified men—men possessing at least the qualifications required in the case of certificated managers of mines. With reference to the inspection of factories, I know that in the town which I represent this subject is occupying a good deal of attention on the part of the working classes. What is desired is that the inspection of factories should be efficient and adequate. With regard to the appointment of working men as Inspectors, the desire is, as in the case of mines, that whether the man appointed has worked in a factory or not he should be qualified to judge of those things which it is the duty of an Inspector to ascertain. I would desire to press strongly upon the Secretary of State for the Home Department that if we are to appoint working men as Inspectors of Mines and Factories these are considerations which ought not to be lost sight of by Her Majesty's Government.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: I desire to elicit, if possible, from Her Majesty's Government an explanation of what they propose to do with regard to the inspection of mines, because it is at present eminently hopeless to attempt to press forward the Bill which I brought in last Session. That Bill provided for an increase of Inspectors. It is very well known that the staff of Inspectors is insufficient to do the work of a reasonable system of inspection. It is far short of anything of that kind; it is perfectly inadequate to make anything like an approach towards proper inspection. There are mines which ought to be inspected once a quarter—that is to say, the majority of mines; but there are many mines, especially where there is fire-damp, which ought to be inspected at least once a month. The system of inspection at present is ridiculous. I can appeal to anyone acquainted with the mining districts to confirm what I say—namely, that much of the inspection of mines goes on to a great extent after an accident has happened; whereas the pit
  1834
  which is an unsafe one is left uninspected for a long time because there has been no accident in it. I have had a large amount of correspondence from different persons connected with mines, and I find that they agree on this point—namely, that there is a very great need of an increase in the frequency of inspections. If an inspection is to take place at all, it is necessary that it should take place without any communication between the Inspectors and the colliery. It is known that Inspectors sometimes go through their work in a perfunctory manner, and that many preventible accidents arise from the almost entire absence of regular inspection. I know the case of a man in Lancashire who owns several mines, and who boasted once that in every one of his collieries the same man was fireman, roadsman, and overseer. Now, to anyone acquainted with collieries, it is perfectly plain that such a system is a very bad one. As fireman, his duty would be to look after the shutting of the doors; as roadsman, he might have the duty of removing a stone from the road; but, as overseer, it might be his duty to report on the conduct both of the fireman and of the roadsman? What, then, is the use of his reporting when all these duties are concentrated in one person? Now, that is the sort of thing which Inspectors are likely to overlook, and I fear that many accidents are due to causes of that kind. Then, again, from the Midlands I have a communication which says that some of the certificated managers of collieries have, some two, some four, and some as many as twelve collieries under their management. In the Mines Regulation Act, 1872, it says, in reference to this matter, that every colliery should be under the daily superintendence and control of a certificated manager. Hon. Members will observe that the law is that there should be daily superintendence; and I am satisfied that if the Inspectors would inquire, they would find that, in many cases, a number of collieries were under the nominal superintendence and control of managers under the Act of 1872. I say, then, it is a physical impossibility for a man to discharge the duties incumbent on a manager under that Act; but this is a point which Inspectors seldom report upon, or take the trouble to inquire into. I will not trouble the Committee further with this question, which resolves itself into this

  1835
  —that it is absolutely necessary there should be a very large increase in the number of Inspectors of Mines. Now, we shall be told that you will not pay for what my Bill proposes—that is to say, 130 Inspectors instead of 30. But, Sir, it would be better to have 230 Inspectors in order to prevent accidents; and, therefore, I hope that this House will not consent to sacrifice the people engaged in mines to the niggardly policy of the Government. Not long ago, when there was a bad smell in this House, the Government did not hesitate to take the matter in hand and spend money, because the health of a score of men were jeopardized; but here you have many men, men who are the cause of the wealth of this country, and who are exposed to preventible dangers all the year round, which could be avoided altogether if you had anything like an efficient system of inspection. I hope, before the end of the Session, the working and mining population will obtain from the Government some assurance, no matter what the expense may be, of that protection which they have a right to expect.
  MR. CHANNING: With regard to the adequacy of the inspection of workshops, I have received since I had the honour of a seat in this House repeated communications from my own constituency with reference to the very inadequate inspection of workshops there. I had a letter the other day which stated that a workshop, where there were employed 400 men, had not been inspected for four years I make these few remarks simply in confirmation of what has fallen from the hon. Member for Crewe (Mr. McLaren).
  MR. MATTHEWS: I sympathize very much with almost all that has been said by the hon. Member for Crewe (Mr. McLaren) and the hon. Member for East Donegal (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) on the subject of the inspection of mines. I think that no one who is acquainted with mines, and takes into account the enormous extent of underground workings, the great difficulty of examining those workings from the working face to the bottom of the shafts, who measures the mileage which an Inspector would have to travel in the course of a year, can say that the Inspecting Staff is otherwise than very insufficient; but an increase of Inspectors means increase of cost. The Estimates in this respect
  1836
  have been steadily growing year after year, and the hon. Member for East Donegal knows perfectly well how the salaries of Inspectors have grown from time to time. In view of that fact, it would be a very difficult thing to provide such an increase in the number of Inspectors as would be necessary to carry out the system of inspection which we all desire for the protection of the men engaged in the perilous operations of collieries. Of course, in these Estimates, no such provision could be made; but if there should prove to be any disposition on the part of this House to make such provision I should be glad. The same observations apply to the inspection of factories and workshops. It is a physical impossibility for the Inspectors to go through all the workshops in their districts; but here, again, the question of cost arises. There is a difficulty of getting the consent of the Treasury to the expenditure of the money that would be required for an extended system of inspection, although, so far as I am aware, there has never been any lack of desire on the part of the Home Office to increase the staff of Inspectors. The hon. Member for Crewe (Mr. McLaren) expressed a desire that women should be appointed as Inspectors. I entirely agree with him that, in large towns, women should be employed to inspect milliners' and other shops where women are employed; but I am by no means prepared to say that there are under the present law powers to appoint we men. I will, however, undertake to look into that matter, and I shall be extremely glad if I can find that there is power under which women can be appointed. The desire has also been expressed that working men should be appointed as Inspectors. I have only had to do with the appointment of one Inspector; and in that case I did my utmost to have a working man appointed. The hon. Member will be aware that there are certain difficulties in the way of this arrangement. There is a limit as to age, and other rules laid down by the Privy Council; and here, again, the Treasury are bound to object. The Treasury are a little stubborn on the point of pay. Then there is the further difficulty on the point of examination. A working man naturally finds it difficult at the age of 35 to go through an examination in vulgar and

  1837
  decimal fractions, which, under the present regulations, would be required of him. It is true that I have to some extent an expansive power in this matter. I have had to interfere in one instance, and I should certainly be disposed to exorcise that power again in favour of an efficient and competent working man. With regard to the other matters, however, hon. Members will see that in attempting to deal with them the Home Office would be met with difficulties, not the least of which would be that of finance.
  MR. SCLATEB-BOOTH: I should like to have heard some expressions of sympathy with the Treasury from the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Matthews) in resisting these encroachments on the public purse. I venture to say that this is not a question of money alone. The system which has been advocated in this discussion is one for the carrying out of which not hundreds but thousands of Inspectors would be required, and the cost of which it is impossible to calculate. And not only that, but the proposal is one which, if it were carried out, would have the effect of demoralizing both, servants and masters, and would destroy, by carrying too far, a system which points out what are the obligations between the two classes. Now, if the right hon. Gentleman were to yield to the requests of hon. Members opposite, he would soon be made open to the charge of extravagance as well as of having abolished a sense of responsibility, and created a false reliance on a system of excessive inspection. I have offered these few remarks because I desire to make my protest against Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench swallowing the extravagant suggestions which have been made on this subject, which, if they were adopted, would be sure to lead to great financial difficulties, and would be open to other and very serious objections.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: I will ask the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary to concede this point—that inquiries in cases of accident should be conducted openly. At present, when there has been an accident in a mine, and the mine has to be inspected, the inspection is of a very close and almost secret nature. The only persons who are allowed to attend are practically Her Majesty's Inspector and the manager, and the inquiry takes place at the particular colliery
  1838
  where the accident has occurred. I think there is no doubt that if the Government would make arrangements that there should be an open inquiry, a great many things would be revealed which relate to the causes of accidents, and which are now cloaked by the present secrecy of the proceedings. This is an arrangement which would cost no money, and would be the means of getting men to come forward and give evidence as to the mode in which the mine is worked. At present those things are very closely cloaked, and evidence is not always forthcoming; whereas if the men were allowed to know what was going on, and to point out to the Inspectors the facts within their knowledge, it is very likely that many accidents would be prevented.
  MR. CLANCY: I hope the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Sclater-Booth) will be taken to heart by the mining population of this country. It is rather astonishing that any Member of the House can be found to make such observations in the face of the fact that there has been an increase in the number of fatal accidents in mines.
  Vote agreed to.
  (7.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £31,671, 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 1887, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of Her Majesty's Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs."
  COLONEL NOLAN: I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will now (12.30) agree to report Progress. We see that hon. Members cannot keep awake; besides it is generally considered that the money of the country ought not to be voted after half-past 12.
  MR. HENEY H. FOWLER: I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Sir James Fergusson) whether the arrangements with reference to the Legal Department of the Foreign Office, which were approaching completion when the late Government went out of Office, have been completed? A Departmental Committee recommended the change which, I think, involves a saving of £1,000 or £2,000 a year.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON): The arrangements are all but complete. There has been a difficulty with the Treasury as to some small matters of detail; but it has now been overcome, and the arrangements will be immediately completed.
  DR. TANNER: I really think that at this period of the evening (12.35), and especially in view of the fact that the Vote we are now asked to discuss—that for the Foreign Office—is one which should be criticized amply and thoroughly, it is high time to report Progress; and if it is the wish of the Committee I shall have much pleasure in making the Motion that you, Mr. Courtney, do now report Progress.
  MR. SEXTON: Perhaps it will be convenient for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say what progress he thinks would be reasonable to make with Supply to-night?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Lord RANDOLPH CHURCHILL): The hon. Gentleman (Dr. Tanner) may not be aware that Committee of Supply generally sits long after half-past 12. [Colonel NOLAN: No; half-past 12.] The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. Henry H. Fowler) will bear me out that the Committee of Supply always sits later than half-past 12. Of course, we are anxious, considering the period of the year, to make an unusual effort to make progress with Supply. Hon. Members will also bear in mind that from one cause or another we were not able to commence the work of Supply this evening until after 9 o'clock. I trust that we may rely on the co-operation of hon. Members to get through the work as speedily as possible.
  MR. SEXTON: The reason why I asked the question was that yesterday the Navy Vote relating to the supply of ammunition was postponed, and I have a question to raise upon it.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: Perhaps it will be better to proceed until we get to some Vote which involves a lengthy discussion.
  DR. TANNER: I simply rise to move that you, Mr. Courtney, do now report Progress. I think we have now arrived at an hour of the evening when the proceedings of the Committee ought to cease. I merely repeat what I said a few moments ago—that this is a Vote which requires strict
  1840
  investigation, and the hour is already too advanced to enter into such an investigation. I have been here night after night—[A laugh.] Hon. Members may laugh; but I have been here night after night when Business emanating from these Benches was not allowed to come on after this hour, and when hon. Gentlemen, some of whom now adorn the Treasury Bench, got up one after another and moved that the House do adjourn. Now, Sir, I beg to move that you do now report Progress.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Dr. Tanner.)
  MR. SEXTON: I must agree with the noble Lord (Lord Randolph Churchill) that the discussion on the Motion to go into Committee did occupy a great portion of the evening, and also that it is not usual in Committee of Supply to move to report Progress at half-past 12. I am certainly inclined to ask my hon. Friend (Dr. Tanner) not to press his Motion; but I would couple with that request an appeal to the Government not to take many more Votes.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Original Question put, and agreed to.

  (8.) £17,016, to complete the sum necessary for Colonial Office.

  (9.) £22,816, to complete the sum necessary for Privy Council Office.

  (10.) £46,817, to complete the sum necessary for Board of Trade.

  (11.) £142, to complete the sum necessary for Bankruptcy Department of the Board of Trade.

  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR; I am not going to detain the Committee more than one moment; but I desire to ask whether it is not a fact that there were considerable misunderstandings, or indications of dissatisfaction, in the Department of the Chief Official Receiver under this Vote, and whether a Committee was not appointed to inquire into the cause of the complaint; and, if so, whether any Report was made by the Committee, and what was the nature of the Report?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (Baron HENRY DE WORMS) : In answer to the question of the hon. Gentleman, I may say that an inquiry has been made into the working of this Department, and that the Report of the Committee is in the hands of the Department. I am afraid the Report must be considered strictly confidential, and that I cannot, therefore, communicate its nature to the Committee. At the same time, I may assure the hon. Gentleman that the working of the Department is now very satisfactory, and that there is every reason to believe that friction will be avoided in the future.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: May I ask the hon. Gentleman if he can, without divulging any official secrets, say whether the system under which the Chief Official Receiver disposes of the allowance for his clerical staff is to continue? There is an abnormal condition of things in this Department. The Chief Official Receiver is allowed a certain sum of money for a clerical staff. This staff is partly composed of men who were in professional life before the formation of the Bankruptcy Department of the Board of Trade, and who were induced to come into what they called the Public Service by representations that if they did so they would obtain permanent appointments and have a right to pensions. It appears the Chief Official Receiver has been allowed by the Government to treat these clerks as if they were his own personal clerks. He was allowed some thousands of pounds a-year for the purpose of paying the clerks. I believe he has recently been compelled to disgorge the money unexpended, and that the accounts are now audited by the Comptroller and Auditor General. But the clerks are not allowed to be Civil Service clerks, but are absolutely at the disposal of this official, who himself is supposed to hold only a temporary appointment. Their whole position is exceedingly unsatisfactory, both from the Public Service point of view and from the individual point of view of the persons concerned. Will the hon. Gentleman say if the present system is to be continued, and, if it is not, what will be the position of these clerks in future?
  BARON HENRY DE WORMS: The system of which the hon. Gentleman complains will not be continued; but the position of these clerks in future will
  1842
  be governed by the provisions of Schedule B. They will rank as quasi-Civil servants, but not be entitled to superannuation allowances.
  DR. TANNER: Touching the Board of Trade Office in the City of Cork. The Board of Trade Office—
  THE CHAIRMAN; The Vote for the Board of Trade has been agreed to; this is the Vote for the Bankruptcy Department.
  Vote agreed to.

  (12.) £14,965, to complete the sum necessary for Charity Commission.

  (13.) £14,554, to complete the sum for the Civil Service Commission.

  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: I think, that as we have taken the last two or three Votes very easily, the Government should not begrudge the time necessary to answer a query as to their intentions with regard to the Civil Service writers and clerks of the Lower Division. I do not want to go into the details of their case; no doubt, every Member of the Committee is conversant with them; but, as far as we learn, nothing has been done, and nothing of a satisfactory character has been promised to be granted to either of these classes of public servants. Their case is certainly one which does deserve some attention at the hands of Her Majesty's Government.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON): I am sure the hon. Member does not desire to state the case unfairly. Although it is true that in the answers to many Questions which were put to me last week I was unable to make any definite announcement, I can assure him that it is not a fair or accurate statement of the case to say that nothing has been done. The position of these public servants has been engaging the attention of the Treasury. The hon. Member knows that the Treasury has not lately been in the most favourable position for considering such matters, because within the last 15 months there have been, I believe, six separate occupants of the position I now hold. The hon. Member and the Committee knows that under such, circumstances it is most difficult for anyone to find the time to give continuous examination to such, a

  1843
  difficult question as this. Although I have not seen it, I have the best reason for supposing that the draft of the Report of the Departmental Committee has been prepared, and is now awaiting correction. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that a great deal of time and attention has been given to the question of the condition of the Civil Service writers and Lower Division clerks, and that we hope very shortly to be in a position to say something definite, or to make some proposals.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: The hon. Gentleman was good enough to say that the language I used was scarcely fair, and then he imputed language to me which I did not use.
  MR. JACKSON: It was certainly not my intention to say that the hon. Gentleman's language was unfair.
  MR ARTHUR O'CONNOR: I said that, so far as we had been able to learn, nothing had been done, and I think the Committee will agree with me that even the answer of the hon. Gentleman does not enlighten us particularly as to what has been done. We are given to understand that because there have been six occupants of the post he now so worthily fills, within the short space of 15 months, nothing has been done, but that a great deal of consideration has been given to the matter, and that some time or other shortly the hon. Gentleman will be in a position to make some statement as to what it is intended to do. My complaint is that, year after year, these unfortunate men have been treated most unfairly; many of them have had to do work far above the grade for which they are paid—far above the work which they ought to be given according to their status; and though they have all sorts of prospects of improvement held out year after year, they find themselves precisely in the same position as they were at the beginning. We get these assurances from every Administration; but really nothing whatsoever is done.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Lord RANDOLPH CHURCHILL): The Government have really had no time to turn round, and this subject is one of great importance. It has, as the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Jackson) has just said, been the subject of anxious and close consideration by a Departmental Committee. The
  1844
  Report of that Committee will, in due course, receive the anxious consideration of the Treasury.
  MR. CLANCY: I see that there is a charge in this Vote for advertisements, and I should like to receive some information as to the newspapers in Ireland to which advertisements are given. ["Oh, oh!"] Hon. Gentlemen cry "Oh, oh!" but I will nevertheless explain the reason why I make this inquiry. In Ireland it is unfortuately the experience that Government advertisements are always given to one class of newspapers only; what are known as the Castle newspapers in Ireland get all the advertisements, and it is well known that these newspapers are about the least fitted for the advertisements. The papers that are most read in Ireland are the Nationalist newspapers, and they never get any of these advertisements at all. Now, I want to receive an assurance that these advertisements will in future be given to the Nationalist newspapers in Ireland as well as to the Castle newspapers, and unless I get an assurance to that effect I shall certainly move to reduce the Vote by £500, the amount asked in respect of advertisements.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON): I am sorry I am unable to give the hon. Gentleman the information he asks. I do not know how the money is expended; but if the hon. Gentleman will accept my assurance I will look into the matter, and endeavour to secure a fair and proper distribution of the advertisements amongst the newspapers of the country.
  MR. CLANCY: I am afraid the assurance of the hon. Gentleman is hardly satisfactory; it is a little too vague. I ask for a distinct pledge, and certainly I will go to a division if I do not get it. I ask for a distinct pledge that these advertisements will be given to the Nationalist newspapers in Ireland as well as to the Castle newspapers. I ask for that on the ground that these newspapers are the most widely read, and that consequently from the point of view of the Public Service it is most advantageous to advertise in these journals. [Interruption.] If I am interrupted in making the remarks which I consider necessary in regard to this matter I will certainly do my utmost to detain the

  1845
  Committee until I get a satisfactory assurance.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Lord RANDOLPH CHURCHILL): I trust the hon. Member will give my hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Jackson) time to examine the records of the Office, so that he may ascertain correctly what newspapers the advertisement do appear in. This is not a subject which my hon. Friend could imagine was likely to be brought up, nor do I understand that the hon. Member (Mr. Clancy) is exactly informed on the subject. If he will allow this matter to stand over, I am sure my hon. Friend will be glad to make a statement either in reply to a Question or on the stage of Report. Of course, if the statement is not satisfactory, it will be within the power of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Clancy) to oppose the Vote.
  MR. CLANCY: I accept the suggestion of the noble Lord; but I think it right to mention, in defence of the action I have taken, that I recollect distinctly an application being made last year by the proprietor of a Nationalist paper in Dublin to the Board of works for certain advertisements which were to be given to the public Press. I remember that these vague assurances that justice would be done were given by the authorities, and I am informed that from that day to this not a single advertisement has been given by the Board of works to a Nationalist newspaper.
  Vote agreed to.
  (14.) £20,955, to complete the sum for the Exchequer and Audit Department.
  MR. SEXTON: This is a large Vote, raising questions of some importance, and therefore perhaps the noble Lord will consent to report Progress.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Lord RANDOLPH CHURCHILL): I hope hon. Members will allow us to take the Navy Votes which stood over from yesterday, and to which, I understand, there is no objection to their being taken.
  MR. SEXTON: This Vote was postponed in consequence of a misapprehension.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON): One Vote was post-
  1846
  poned on account of a misapprehension, but another Vote had not been reached at the time for adjournment.
  MR. SEXTON: I wish to raise one or two questions on the Navy Votes.
  Vote agreed to.

  NAVY ESTIMATES.
  (15.) £61,600, to complete the sum for Medicines and Medical Stores, &c.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: Upon this Vote I desire to ask some explanation from the Government of a small matter that is connected with the appropriation in aid. If the soldiers and sailors in the Army and Navy are invalided, if they are rendered unfit for duty by causes which result in and from the Service, they are mulcted of their pay. It is very unfair that they should be so mulcted. When a sailor, from exposure to weather, from such causes as the noble and gallant Lord (Lord Charles Beresford)d welt upon yesterday, is broken down in health, and has to go to the hospital, is broken down by reason of his services and only by reason of his services, it is very unfair that he should be deprived of his pay. If a soldier or sailor brings on illness, whether it be delirium tremens or any other form of sickness incurred through his own misconduct, he is liable to have his pay stopped altogether. That is only fair and reasonable, because if he renders himself unfit for duty he has no claim to the pay which attaches to duty; but when a man is, by reason of his fidelity to duty, and by reason of circumstances over which he has no control, and in consequences of services, become invalided and obliged to go to hospital for a week or a month, or it may be for six months, I say that man has a right to receive his pay without any deductions at all in the shape of hospital stoppages, or, at any rate, the hospital stoppages should not amount to more than he would have to pay for rations if he were out of hospital and on active service. What I submit to the noble Lord (Lord George Hamilton) in charge of this Vote is that in future there should be by Warrant, or by whatever the official instrument may be, a regulation made by which invalided soldiers shall be entitled to receive their hospital treatment without any further hospital stoppages than would amount to the sum they would

  1847
  have stopped from their pay in case they were not in hospital.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON): The point which the hon. Gentleman has raised is one which I am bound to say I have not looked into, though I know the general operation is very much as he has stated. Of course, if any alteration is made it will result in an increased Vote, and that is rather a serious matter. I will look into the matter, and between now and Report obtain the information that will enable me to give the hon. Gentleman an answer.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: Will the noble Lord be good enough to go further, and use his influence with the War Office to secure that a similar system will be adopted in the Army Service as in the Navy Service, and that soldiers shall not be mulcted of their pay for hospital stoppages if their sickness is due from the service?
  Vote agreed to.
  (16.) £134,700, to complete the sum for Miscellaneous Services.
  MR. SEXTON: I wish to call the attention of the Committee to the case of the widow of a man named Patrick Hooper, who served for many years in the Royal Navy and died from a complaint accelerated by injuries he received whilst in the performance of his duties. He was injured in 1866; again in July 1884 he received another injury to the left side which incapacitated him; and in the following January he died. I have here a medical certificate as to the cause of the man's decease in which the medical gentleman states what was the direct cause of death, but points out that the ailment was rendered fatal by the injuries the man had received from accidents which had occurred to him whilst in the performance of his duty. The Regulations affecting allowances to widows and children of deceased sailors set forth that assistance is to be rendered in cases where death results from accidents or from the effects of injuries caused by accidents which are met with whilst in the execution of duty. The wife of the man to whom I refer wrote to the Admiralty asking for some allowance, but was told that the circumstances attending her husband's death did not entitle
  1848
  her to a grant from the Greenwich Hospital Fund. I am not expert enough in the matter of these Regulations to say that this decision was incorrect; but I do contend that when a man has served for years in the Navy, has earned both the long service and the good conduct medals, and has received injuries in the Service which has accelerated his death, his widow and children are entitled to some assistance from the Admiralty. The man leaves behind him a wife and seven children, five of whom are under 14 years of age. The widow has never even received the gratuity to which she is entitled on account of the good conduct medal. I appeal to the First Lord of the Admiralty to say whether or not this woman should receive the Greenwich Hospital pension, and to say whether the case is not one which should be dealt with in a generous spirit.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON): If the hon. Member will be good enough to send the particulars of the case, I will make a careful inquiry into the matter; but I could not say off-hand that the widow ought or ought not to receive a pension. I do not know the man's age, or the Rules of that branch of the Service in which he was engaged at the time of his death. I do not know on what ground a pension was refused to the widow—whether or not it was that the cause of death did not justify the grant. Last year there were two cases decided in which it was considered that too technical a construction had been put upon the Regulations relating to cause of death, and I directed that pensions should be paid to the widows. I should be glad to do what is right in the case to which the hon. Gentleman draws my attention; but, of course, I cannot give an answer to his question off-hand. If he will allow me the use of the papers bearing on the case I will inquire into it, and shall be in a position to make a statement with regard to it to-morrow on Report of Supply.
  DR. TANNER: I wish to draw the attention of the noble Lord to the subject of the Cork Sailors' Home. I may say that I did not know the Vote was coming on, and, consequently, am unprepared with certain documents which I had intended to use, and which would have enabled me to

  1849
  put the case clearly before the noble Lord. Ten years ago, the Cork Sailors' Home received from the Admiralty a grant of £100. Of course, the numbers who made use of the Home were greater than they have been since—or up to quite recently. Being situated in a very central position in the port of Cork, it is naturally made use of by a large number of merchant seamen. It was established, like similar institutions throughout the United Kingdom, for the accommodation of seamen who happened to be on shore, and to save them from the lodging-house keepers who had been in the habit of treating them almost as sharks treat small fish. Well, this Cork Sailors' Home, owing to the admirable work it did, was granted first £50, then £75, then the grant was increased from £75 to £100. Subsequently, however, another Sailors' Homo was started in the port of Queenstown; and, naturally enough, the sailors who happened to be at Queenstown on board the flagship made use of it every time they went on shore, and, of course, their names were taken down as having been in it. In that way this Home was able to show a very large list of men of the Royal Navy having been to it, and, as time went on, owing to the efforts of some very influential people in the district, and owing to what I do not care to go into—namely, the action of a gentleman who has since died—de mortuis nil nisi bonum—the Sailors' Home at Queenstown advanced at the expense of the institution at Cork. The grant to the Cork Home was cut down to £75, from that to £50, and from that again to £25. Now, I desire to draw attention to this matter. Unfortunately, in Ireland, where money is scarce, charitable institutions are proportionately scarce. I am certain that every one in the House who knows anything at all of the subject will bear me out that these Sailors' Homes are very valuable institutions, and that they ought to be supported as far as we possibly can support them. I happen to have been Secretary to the Cork Sailors' Home for about a year and a-half; therefore, I know something about that establishment, and feel very much for it in regard to the way it has unfortunately gone down. The greater part of the money formerly granted to the Cork Sailors' Home has been taken from that insti-
  1850
  tution and given to the Queenstown Home. I can produce Returns from the Cork Home to show clearly and conclusively and distinctly the number of sailors belonging to the Merchant Service who frequent it, and the number who frequent the Queenstown Home; and it will be found that the majority go to the former institution, because it is situated in the city of Cork, where the men have the Board of Trade offices, and where they can more easily ship on board vessels that sail from the port of Cork. I should be able to show the Committee, if I had the documents to which I have referred with me, that if you made an increased grant to the Cork Sailors' Home—if it were only £25 per annum, and you might divide £50 between the two institutions—you would be doing an act of charity and conferring a great benefit on the men of both the Merchant Service and Her Majesty's Navy. The number of sailors belonging to the Royal Navy who have passed through the city of Cork recently—that is to say, since the Channel Fleet went to Bantry Bay to perform their annual evolutions—has been very great indeed. Last year no less than 400 of these men passed through the city, the greater part of them obtaining accommodation in the Sailors' Home; and I feel perfectly confident that if the noble Lord (Lord George Hamilton) will only look into the matter he will be able to recommend the Admiralty to give us that increased support which is absolutely necessary for the success of the Home. I would ask the noble Lord to discount the utterances which have from time to time been given forth to the detriment of the Cork Home. Unfortunately, as I have said, there were in the past many faults to be found with the establishment, owing to the action of a gentleman who is no longer living; but, at the same time, I think that if the noble Lord were to listen to what the late Admiral Commander- in- Chief on that Station said about the Home, and to what the present Admiral at Queenstown has said, he would have no hesitation in advising the Admiralty to bestow an increased grant upon the Cork Sailors' Home.
  MR. PENROSE-FITZGERALD: I think I can, perhaps, more or less, answer the observations of the hon. Gentleman opposite, with regard to these

  1851
  two Sailors' Homes, without making any very lengthened remarks. I am happy to be able to inform the Committtee that there is at the present moment a scheme on foot for amalgamating the two Homes, and I am sure that in the endeavour to promote that scheme we shall have the advantage of the assistance of the hon. Member himself, who has already taken deep interest in the Cork Sailors' Home. I need not go into details with regard to these Homes. They are both admirable institutions, and I only hope that they will be amalgamated under one Committee, and that every effort will be made to put an end to the spirit of rivalry and competition which has taken place between them. If we should be able to bring about this amicable settlement, we shall then be in a position to arrive at a distinct understanding as to the manner in which the Government grants should be bestowed.
  DR. TANNER: I quite understand what the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Fitzgerald) has stated. I am aware that he has taken a great deal of interest in the Queenstown Sailors' Home, against which I should be loth to say a we rd. All these institutions are worthy of support. But what I am anxious to impress upon the noble Lord is—and I feel certain that the hon. Member will agree with me—that the Cork Sailors' Home is more fitted for sailors of the Mercantile Marine than the Queenstown Home, which is more patronized and taken advantage of by the sailors in Her Majesty's Service. The scheme the hon. Member opposite refers to has often been brought forward; but, unfortunately, while plans of this kind are being considered, these institutions are suffering. If the noble Lord would allow me, I certainly would suggest that until some raison d'être has been arrived at an equal grant of £50 should be made to each of these institutions.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON): I think it is unnecessary for me to take any part in this discussion, seeing that the observations of the hon. Gentleman opposite (Dr. Tanner) have already been answered by the hon. Gentleman behind me (Mr. Fitzgerald). The Admiralty have only a certain sum at their disposal for the maintenance of Sailors' Homes, which, I believe, were
  1852
  originally established for the benefit of the men of the Royal Navy, and they are obliged to distribute that as best they can. I observe that it is because the sailors daily make more use of the Home at Queenstown than of that at Cork that a larger sum is paid to the former than to the latter. I trust that that which I hear as probable will come about, and that the two institutions will be amalgamated. In this way all dispute as to the relative merits of the two institutions would cease. The amount then paid to the institutions would be in one sum, and, the administration and other arrangements being amalgamated, the united institutions would be on a much better footing than they are now. I cannot undertake to give more money to these institutions than is provided for in the Estimate. It would not be in my power to do so. We are limited to the sum in the Estimate.
  DR. TANNER: I think the noble Lord is in error in imagining that the Sailors' Homes throughout the country were instituted for the benefit of the men of the Royal Navy; on the contrary, I think, if the noble Lord will go into the history of these establishments, he will find that they were started by merchants in Liverpool for the benefit of the sailors of the Mercantile Marine, and were at first maintained wholly by the subscriptions raised in the country. Then the Government granted them allowances. If the noble Lord will allow me to say so, I think he will find that he is mistaken in his idea as to the origin of these Homes. With regard to the matter to which I have already directed his attention, if he will compare these two Homes, he will see that the one at Cork ought to be supported. I know that a dead set has been made against the Cork Home—and whilst I am on my legs I will say what is in my mind on this subject. The Cork Home was an institution, supported by the citizens of Cork. An aristocratic clique living in the vicinity of Queenstown were not satisfied unless they got the matter all their own way. They started a little arrangement, got the support of the Admiral and some of the naval officers in Queenstown, and then said—"We will smash down the Cork Sailors' Home." They have done their best to carry out that declaration. They have not exactly smashed down the Cork Home yet; but I think that

  1853
  when an injustice is being perpetrated by an aristocratic clique of landlords—some broken-down, landlords and some rich ones, all of whom I cannot describe as gentlemen—the Government should come to the rescue of the victims of this injustice. I submit that these aristocratic gentlemen are endeavouring to do harm to a charity in order to enhance their own position and purchase cheap popularity. [A laugh.] Of course, the hon. Gentleman opposite laughs; he is distinguished for his sneering and laughter in the course of these debates; but I trust he will restrain himself whilst the particular subjects of these Homes for the sailors of the Mercantile Marine and Royal Navy are on the tapis. I really think that if the noble Lord and Her Majesty's Government will go carefully into the matter they will see that it is wrong to give State aid to enable gentlemen to feather their twopennyhalfpenny—
  THE CHAIRMAN: I must observe that the hon. Member is wandering very much from the point.
  DR. TANNER: I thought I was talking about the Sailors' Home.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order!
  DR. TANNER: If the noble Lord will go into the merits of the case and see the way in which this dispute was brought about between the two Sailors' Homes, I feel perfectly confident that he will make the Cork Home the grant that was made in the past—namely, £100 per annum. As I have said, it was cut down from £100 to £75; it was further reduced from £75 to £50; and then, finally, it was cut down to £25; and that was done by a certain clique for a certain purpose.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is still wandering from the subject of the Vote. The rivalry between two Sailors' Homes is not the matter under the consideration of the Committee.
  DR. TANNER: I am endeavouring to deal with the subject before the Committee, and to give reasons why the Vote should be increased. I will, however, bow to the Chair. I sincerely trust that the noble Lord, having heard what I have said, and having read the documents which I shall be happy to furnish him with, will take the side of justice and truth, and will grant the Cork Sailors' Home, if not the original amount, at least £50 per annum.
  MR. DEASY: As I have for the last couple of years had occasion to consider this subject, I desire to say a word or two with regard to it. I do not wish to enter into the question of the rival merits of these Homes—though I may have my own opinion on that matter—or into the grant, or part of the grant, having been withdrawn from the Cork Sailors' Home; but unless a satisfactory answer is given by the noble Lord (Lord George Hamilton) on the subject, if my hon. Friend persists in demanding favourable consideration for it, and feels it his duty to bring it before the House on the Report stage, I shall give him my cordial support. I think great injustice has been done to the Cork Institution. I have gone into the matter very closely; and though I have no interest in either one Home or the other, I think the noble Lord ought to decide in favour of the claims of the Cork Home, as against those of the Queenstown Establishment, because Cork is a great centre for sailors, whether they belong to Her Majesty's Navy or to the Merchant Service, and it is the place they are most likely to go to when they want shelter. I think, if the noble Lord will only give close attention to the facts of the case, he will be disposed to alter the opinion he seems to have formed on the statement of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge (Mr. Fitzgerald), who is himself a Queenstown man, and is, therefore, prejudiced in favour of the Queenstown Home. I believe that hon. Member would do nothing unfair, but it is certain that on account of his connection with Queenstown, he is anxious to do all he can for the Home there, and has not the same regard for the institution at Cork. The noble Lord has formed his opinion upon the statement of that hon. Member. I do not at all object to the spirit of the hon. Member's speech, and, so far as I am concerned, I am extremely anxious that the quarrel between the rival Homes should come to an end, and that a satisfactory arrangement should be arrived at. I believe the arrangement referred to by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Fitzgerald) would be a satisfactory settlement of the dispute that has been carried on now for some years; but, in the meantime, I would suggest that the request made by my hon. Friend (Dr. Tanner) should be

  1855
  favourably considered by the noble Lord, because it is really a matter of serious importance to the sailors that the Cork Sailors' Home should be conducted in such a manner as to be valuable to those people who from time to time find themselves obliged to apply to it. If the facts are given to him by my hon. Friend, I hope the noble Lord will be prepared to consider the matter.
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: I have already stated the principle on which the distribution of this money is made. It was formerly paid to the Sailors' Homes in the interests of the men in Her Majesty's Navy. If it is true that a larger number of sailors make use of one of the Homes to which reference has been made, than make use of the other, no doubt it is right that an attempt should be made to do justice between the two.
  DR. TANNERt: The noble Lord will pardon me—["Divide!"]—I rise to make an explanation—will the noble Lord go carefully through the figures in the case of each Home, and in doing so will he make sure that the figures furnished by the authorities of the Queenstown Home represent the number of men bonâ fide dwelling and sleeping in the Sailor's Home for the night, just as the figures from the Cork Home represent the number of men who have entered the establishment and remained in it for the night? I hope he will make sure that he does not count as persons really using the Home the "shore men," commonly so-called, who come in on tramp from the Guard Ship, wash their hands and comb their hair and go out again. Such men as these are entered on the books of the Queenstown Home, and such entry, unfortunately, gives rise to a great deal of ill feeling on the subject. I sincerely hope that the noble Lord on this occasion will grant us what we ask.
  Vote agreed to.
  Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.
  Committee to sit again To-morrow.

  SUPPLY—REPORT.
  Postponed Resolution [7th September] considered.
  (1.)"That a sum, not exceeding £1,369,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge for the Sup-
  1856
  ply, Manufacture, and Repair of Warlike and other Stores for Land and Sea Service (including Establishments of Manufacturing Departments), which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1887."
  MR. SEXTON: Sir, I wish to ascertain, from the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War, what are the conditions and terms upon which ammunition is supplied from Her Majesty's stores to certain registered Rifle Clubs in Ireland, and especially in the town of Belfast? Recent events compelled me to make particular inquiries into the subject, and the result of my investigations led me to believe that the Secretary of what is known as a Registered Rifle Club, in Ireland, has only to send a request to a keeper of Her Majesty's ammunition stores in order to obtain as much ammunition as he wants at the cost of production. I am informed that the local clubs are supplied in this way with gunpowder. I need scarcely tell the right hon. Gentleman that there are no Nationalists in these clubs, which are composed only of persons of one creed and one political conviction; and when it is considered that the people of Ireland are debarred by legislative enactment from carrying arms, it becomes a serious question whether the money which the taxpayers supply for the Military Service of the Queen should be used in arming and supplying ammunition at cost price to a privileged class of persons; and, not only that, it is a serious question for the taxpayer, and also for the ordinary trader, because in Belfast there are persons who have to pay for licences to the Crown for selling ammunition, and these persons are undersold by the system I have described. There is a well-founded impression also that ammunition was recently procured from the Queen's stores in Ireland, and used in the streets of Belfast for the purposes of riot and murder. The right hon. Gentleman is aware that on two Sunday mornings, the 8th and 15th of August, there was a fusillade maintained in the Springfield quarter of the town, of which Inspector Warburton and his constables were the object. They were in a field in the suburb, and it was fortunate for them that they were able to get behind a pile of bricks there, because they were fired upon, and it was

  1857
  only in that way that they escaped death. It was observed that the men firing at them were excellent marksmen, and they were able to satisfy themselves that the ammunition was of excellent quality. I think the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War could not do better than send to Belfast to inquire into this matter. I want to know how it is that Rifle Clubs of this sort get into relations with Her Majesty's Government? Again, how many clubs of this kind are there in Ireland; and what is the number of their members? It will be a serious question if it should turn out that not only ordinary citizens, but the Queen's soldiers and the police, are to be fired at and shot down on strictly economical principles with ammunition supplied at cost price. I think, as the people of Ireland generally are disarmed, that if there is a special class in Ireland privileged to bear arms, the least we can ask is that they should buy their ammunition at the ordinary price and in the ordinary way. I strongly object to any exception being made in these respects in favour of Belfast. I object also to the officers of the Army and Militia assisting the members of these Rifle Clubs with their instruction and advice, as well as to the clubs using the Government rifle ranges. I shall not be contradicted when I say that the use and profession of arms in Belfast is quite as extensive as it need be, without these clubs having the priviledge of getting the Queen's ammunition in the manner I have described. If it be proved that this system really exists, I certainly intend to bring forward a Motion in this House with the object of putting an end to it.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. W. H. SMITH): I rise to give such information as I have been able to obtain in reply to the inquiries made since the hon. Member for West Belfast was good enough to inform me of his intention to bring this subject forward. I find it has been the practice for many years past to supply Government ammunition to some clubs in Ireland upon payment, and after application has been made to the Lord Lieutenant. The officers in the Army have themselves no discretion in the matter. The Regulation appears to have been laid down in the distant past
  1858
  by the Government in Ireland. I was myself entirely ignorant of the fact—I assume it to be a fact—to which the hon. Gentleman refers, that the practice of the clubs has at any time been carried on at the Government ranges with the assistance of sergeants of the Army or Militia. If the hon. Member will allow this portion of the subject to stand over till to-morrow I will endeavour to communicate to him the result of my inquiries into the matter.
  MR. J. O'CONNOR: Many persons are acquainted with the fact that up to as recent a date as 1885 not only has ammunition been supplied to favoured persons in the North of Ireland, but that arms have been sent from the Government stores to the North. This practice of supplying favoured persons in the North of Ireland has been going on ever since the Union; and that, too, not only at less than the cost of production, but altogether without payment. I consider it monstrous that this state of things should be allowed to continue; and I think this House ought to be thankful to the hon. Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton) for having brought the matter under our cognizance. When we remember the disloyal expressions of those to whom these arms and ammunition of war have been supplied; when we remember the incitements that have been addressed to them; when we know that they have indulged in such expressions as that they would "kick the Queen's Crown into the Boyne;" and when we know that they have used these munitions of war for offensive purposes, I think we are greatly indebted to the hon. Member for having drawn the attention of the Secretary of State for War to this fact. Now, I was greatly struck by one portion of the hon. Member's statement, and that was with regard to Sub-Inspector Warburton and the constables. It would be a very deplorable fact if it should be proved that these men were injured in the performance of their duty, and that by weapons and missiles obtained from the Government stores under such peculiar circumstances; and I am glad to hear from the right hon Gentleman that he will inquire into the circumstances with a view of putting a stop to this very reprehensible practice. If Rifle Clubs in the North of Ireland are to be indulged in the use of arms, let them pay for it

  1859
  themselves; and I believe the statement which my hon. Friend has made will have the effect of checking the facilities which have been afforded to them for getting their ammunition at the cost of the nation.
  MR. SEXTON: I am satisfied for the present, and have no further opposition to offer to the Resolution before the House.
  Resolution agreed to.

MOTION.

  SUBMARINE TELEGRAPH ACT (1885) AMENDMENT BILL.
  On Motion of Baron Henry De Worms, Bill to amend "The Submarine Telegraph Act, 1885," ordered to be brought in by Baron Henry De Worms and Sir James Fergusson.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 45.]
  House adjourned at a quarter before Two o'clock.