CLASS II.—SALARIES AND EXPENSES OF CIVIL DEPARTMENTS.

HC Deb 10 September 1886 vol 309 cc29-153

[Mr. COURTNEY in the Chair.]

MR. SEXTON (Belfast, W., and Sligo, S.)

I beg to move, Mr. Courtney, that the entry in the Votes in reference to the Motion of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Cork (Mr. Parnell) last night to report Progress be amended by stating that the Motion was withdrawn and not negatived.

THE CHAIRMAN

My recollection does not coincide with that of the hon. Member. The hon. Member for Mid Cork moved to report Progress; I put the Question from the Chair, and it was negatived.

(1.) £3,707, to complete the sum for Friendly Societies Registry.

(2.) £10,111, to complete the sum for Land Commissioners for England.

MR. CLANCY (Dublin Co., N.)

The Report of the Land Commissioners shows that the Commissioners have very little work to do. Last year they appear only to have had four applications before them—two for the regulation and two for the inclosure of commons. I do not find that the amount of work performed is in any respect adequate to the sum of money voted for this Commission. Indeed, the duties of the Commissioners are preposterously small, and yet there is a Parliamentary Vote amounting this year to £24,509 for the Commission. I venture to say that there is not a single Land Commission Court in Ireland which does not do 10 times the amount of work in a month that this Commission transacts in the course of 12 months. I should like to have some explanation of this extraordinary sum. Upon the face of the Vote there is comparatively no work whatever done by these three Commissioners for the amount of salary they receive. Unless I obtain a satisfactory explanation from the Government, I shall certainly move to reduce the Vote by the amount of the salaries of the Commissioners.

THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. STUART-WORTLEY) (Sheffield, Hallam)

I will answer the remarks of the hon. Gentleman as far as I have been able to gather from them the point of his complaint. I understand him to say that the business of the Land Commission does not receive that amount of attention from the Land Commissioners which it demands.

MR. CLANCY

No; that is not my complaint. What I submit is that a very small number of applications come before them, and for that work they are paid the enormous sum of £24,000 a-year. The hon. Gentleman does not appear to have read the Report of the Commission.

MR. STUART-WORTLEY

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that applications for inclosures are not the only matters which the Land Commissioners have to deal with. There are many other things they have to attend to, and during the year they do a great deal of work. Their functions are exercised under the Acts which create the Commission to which they are attached. In addition, there are duties thrown upon them under the Acts which relate to the improvements of landed estates.

MR. CLANCY

I have only drawn attention to the facts which are stated in the Report of the Commission; and I repeat that there seems to be a very small amount of work done in comparison with the amount of money voted for the Commission. On the face of this Report it is not difficult to understand why Sir James Caird can apply himself once a week to writing letters to The Times on matters that he does not seem to understand very much about. It is true that a sum of £18,000 has been paid into the Exchequer out of the fees received by the Commission; but a clerk paid at the rate of £100 a-year would have been quite sufficient to receive those fees, and one Commissioner with £5,000 a-year would be quite adequate to discharge the rest of the duties of the Office. I beg to move that the Vote be reduced by the sum of £15,181.

THE CHAIRMAN

I must point out to the hon. Member that the total amount of the Vote is only £10,000.

MR. SEXTON (Belfast, W., and Sligo, S.)

The hon. Member can move the rejection of the remaining portion of the Vote.

MR. CLANCY

I find, under the head of the expenses of this Commission, that the items amount to £15,181; but, of course, a portion of that sum has already been voted on account. I beg to move the rejection of the Vote.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Lord RANDOLPH CHURCHILL) (Paddington, S.)

The hon. Gentleman will excuse me if I say his remarks were couched in so extremely low a tone of voice that scarcely any of them reached the Treasury Bench. I understand that he objects to the cost of the Land Commission for England. I think the hon. Member can have very little idea of the enormous amount of work this Land Commission has to do. The whole of the duties of the Inclosure Commission fall upon it, and they involve considerable and very arduous labours. In the next place, advances of public money, which are made for the improvement of land estates under the Inclosure Acts, are made by the Land Commission; and those advances represent a very considerable sum. The Land Commission has also other duties which devolve upon it under the Settled Land Act of 1881. The Land Commissioners have also large duties thrown upon them in connection with the Tithe Commission. I happened the other day to meet Sir James Caird, and he told me that his time, and that of his Colleagues, was occupied, to a considerable extent, in consequence of the labours thrown upon the Commission in connection with the extraordinary tithe in Kent. I understood him to say that it would occupy a greater part of the time of the Commission for the next six months. I have never heard it alleged within recent years that the Land Commission for England was not accomplishing most valuable work, and that it was well worth the money laid out upon it. I feel quite sure that the hon. Member would not wish to deprive Sir James Caird of the position and salary he enjoys for the duties he performs, because I understand that, at the present moment, Sir James Caird is one of the great authorities on land on which the Party opposite most rely in connection with their policy under the Land Act.

MR. CLANCY

I will pass by the sneer which the noble Lord made as to the nature of my remarks. All I will say is that they are founded on the contents of this Report, which I do not believe the noble Lord can have read. Indeed, nobody on the Treasury Bench appears to have read it. Anybody who has read it will see at once the small amount of business which has been transacted by the Commissioners. I defy anyone to read that Report, and to say that the amount of business done is in any degree proportionate to the amount of money spent upon it. I shall certainly go to a division if the noble Lord will not give some assurance that he will require from the Commissioners a Return of the number of days' work they transact in a year, and the hours they are occupied each day.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

I admit that the Vote has not been very fully explained; but upon the Report a fuller explanation will be given by someone more intimately acquainted with the Department.

MR. CLANCY

Will the noble Lord require from the Commissioners a Return of the number of days' work they transact in a year?

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

No; I cannot do that.

MR. CLANCY

Such a Return is required from the Judges of the County Court in Ireland.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

I have already promised that a fuller explanation will be given on the Report.

MR. CLANCY

I think that would be altogether too late. I wish to make this further remark. It has struck me, as a new Member, that it is extraordinary what pains the House of Commons takes in sending out Commissioners, and in printing Reports, and then the extraordinary laxity it displays—especially on the part of Members in charge of the Votes—to make themselves masters of the contents of the Reports presented to them.

MR. BIGGAR (Cavan, W.)

The noble Lord the Leader of the Government in this House has certainly failed to give a satisfactory explanation of this Vote. Sir James Caird may be a very able gentleman; but, at the same time, it does not appear that the Land Commissioners have any sufficient amount of work to transact. I, therefore, think it ought to be amalgamated with some other Office, so that the abilities of the present officials might be utilized in some other direction. The noble Lord has stated that one of the duties connected with the Office is the control of loans to landlords for the improvement of land in this country. Now, I maintain that the lending of money by the Government for the purpose of improving land is not a proper outlay of public money. We know of many cases where money has been ostensibly borrowed for the purpose of improving land which has really been utilized for some other purpose, and certificates have been taken from engineers or surveyors certifying that there has been a larger outlay than was originally expected. I have been informed by an hon. Friend that he went one day with a certain surveyor to survey the land upon which an outlay of this nature was taking place. I believe it had some connection with drainage; but the entire extent of the survey made by this gentleman was that he stood on one of the fences and surveyed with his eye the amount of drainage alleged to have taken place. That is one sample of the way in which the public money is expended. I quite agree with my hon. Friend the Member for North Dublin (Mr. Clancy) that the expense incurred in the payment of these Commissioners is altogether disproportionate to the work they have to do; and, in the next place, I contend that part of the work they do is work that should not be undertaken by this or any other Government. Another part of the duty of these gentlemen is to give certificates as to expenditure upon life property. I do not see why there should be a tribunal of that sort paid by the State; at any rate, the persons who derive benefit from the service rendered should recoup the Government for the expenditure incurred in maintaining a staff to carry out the survey. In this particular instance it does not appear to me that any amount of fees charged would be sufficient to recoup the country for the expenditure incurred.

MR. BRADLAUGH (Northampton)

I understand the noble Lord to give an unconditional promise that upon the Report the Minister in charge of the Vote shall make an explanation in order to meet the objections which have been raised. Under these circumstances there would be clearly an opportunity of dividing upon the Vote if the explanation was not considered satisfactory. The hon. Member has done good service in pointing out what the Vote is; but I think, in view of the promise which has been made, he may now withdraw his opposition to the Vote.

MR. CLANCY (Dublin Co., N.)

My principal object in calling attention to the matter, and not taking a division upon it, was to enter a protest against what I consider to be a scandal in passing over, without taking any notice, important Reports of this kind. I consider it altogether improper to ask the Committee to vote large sums of money, year after year, without knowing the purposes for which the money is voted. I certainly shall take every opportunity of obtaining from Ministers in charge of these Votes a full explanation of their object, and the way in which they are dealt with. At present the Representatives of the people are altogether without knowledge, and do not understand what they are doing, when they are voting away the public money.

THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY(Mr. JACKSON) (Leeds, N.)

With regard to the expenditure of this Commission, probably the hon. Member is aware that a considerable portion of it is returned to the Exchequer by the fees paid for various purposes. In fact, the greater part of the amount voted for the Commission is repaid by fees of one kind and another. In consequence of a Motion which was made in the House of Commons in 1878, a scale of fees in the shape of stamps was prescribed by which a sum of £7,000 or £8,00 a-year is raised. These ad valorem fees are paid into the Exchequer. Therefore, the argument of the hon. Member, that the work of the Commissioners is disproportionate to the expenditure, is not strictly correct. As far as the payments by the Exchequer are concerned they are very much less than the hon. Member imagines. I trust that, with this explanation, the hon. Gentleman, having done good service by drawing attention in so pointed a manner to the question, will not put the Committee to the trouble of a division. So far as the investigation of the Government is concerned, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the work is not extravagantly paid for, and that very good public service is done by the Commission. I will promise to look carefully into the matter between this and the Report, and to make then a complete statement as to the work done and the actual net cost of the Commission.

MR. BRADLAUGH (Northampton)

I understood the noble Lord to give a distinct promise that that should be done.

MR. CLANCY (Dublin Co., N.)

I did not attempt to conceal from the Committee that fees to the amount of £18,000 were received; but I maintain that those fees would be received in any case, and that a clerk with £100 a-year would receive them, and would do quite as much work as three Commissioners, who cost the country something like £5,000 a-year.

SIR JOSEPH M'KENNA (Monaghan, S.)

What we wish particularly to know is the amount of time and attention devoted by the Commissioners to the work for which they are so highly paid.

SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT (Sussex, North-West)

The three Commissioners have to inquire into matters of a most important character, and the amount of work they perform is far beyond what the hon. Gentleman has any conception of.

Vote agreed to.

(3.) Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £175,956, 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 Local Government Board, including various Grants in Aid of Local Taxation.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR (Donegal, E.)

I propose to move the reduction of this Vote by the sum of £16,500, that being the item which, under Subhead U, is to be appropriated for public vaccination. The reason why I make this Motion is that I believe the sum of £16,500 is a mainspring, or, at any rate, one of the mainsprings of a system which is in itself immoral, stupid, and cruel, and which inflicts immense physical suffering upon the objects of the operation, and a needless amount of mental anguish upon tens of thousands of fathers and mothers in this country. This charge of £16,500 is made under Section 5 of the Vaccination Act of 1857; and the terms of that section are that on the Report made to the Lords of Her Majesty's Council with regard to the number and quality of the vaccinations performed in the several vaccination districts of England, awards are made to the public vaccinators, from time to time, by payment out of the money provided by Parliament, and under regulations authorized to be made to any medical officer, in addition to the payments received by them from the Guardians and Overseers, such further payments as shall not exceed in any case 1s. per child who should have been successfully vaccinated. The Committee will see that that provision is not imperative, but that it is merely permissive. It says that their Lordships may, out of the money provided by Parliament, and which may or may not be provided by Parliament, grant these rewards in addition to the sum which was received from the rates. What I propose to do is to ask the Committee not to provide any money for that purpose. The Committee will perceive that this pecuniary reward is, in the first place, limited to England. You look in vain for any similar charge on account of skill at all corresponding to the charge in Vote No. 34, or in the corresponding Vote for Ireland, No. 38. It is, first of all, a reward entirely reserved for this country. Moreover, it is to be charged in addition to the amount which may be received from the Guardians or the Overseers of the District Unions. It will also be noticed that the amount asked for this year is in excess of the item of last year. If I remember rightly, £15,800 was the sum voted last year, and this year it has gone up now to £16,500. Now, the history of this item is very remarkable. When, in the year 1868, the first charge was made on account of public vaccination, the sum asked for was only £2,700 odd; but by 1872, in four years, it had risen to £6,000, and in 1878, or six years later, it had doubled that amount, being then slightly over £12,000. Last year it was £15,800, and this year it amounts to the sum I have named— £16,500. Since 1868 there has been paid to the public vaccinators of England, under this head, no less a sum than £200,000. And what does it supplement? It supplements a charge of no less than £120,000 a-year, taken out of the pockets of the ratepayers of this part of the Kingdom—all of it for public vaccination, and in support of a system which probably brings into the pockets of medical men in England alone something like £250,000 annually. The charge is part and parcel of a system which tends to establish, and year by year to strengthen, a vested interest in an influential body, the members of which, at any rate, it may be reasonably regarded as calculated to induce them to maintain a system which is opposed to the moral sense of a very considerable section of the community. It is also opposed, as I said before, to the parental instincts of tens of thousands of conscientious people in this country. The defence of vaccination itself by a large number of medical men is by means of this Vote, and by means of similar charges; and it is a defence, not of medical theory, but of pecuniary vested interest. It is not more surprising, under the circumstances, that medical men should be so obstinately wedded to the maintenance of the present system, than it was surprising that the Irish Church Establishment should have been defended by the clergymen of the Establishment, or that the institution of slavery should have been maintained by the slaveowners of the Southern States of America. It is no more surprising than the resistance and the unscrupulous opposition which was offered by many ship-owners of this country to Mr. Plimsoll's Bill some years ago, when he endeavoured to protect the seamen of the United Kingdom from the unscrupulous proceedings of certain shipowners, who were in the habit of sending men in certain cases to almost certain death in unseaworthy vessels. How does this money go? I find that the public vaccinator in Birmingham gets between £200 and £300 every year. A similar sum is annually divided between three public vaccinators in Liverpool. There is a similar charge for Manchester; and about the same amount is paid in St. Pancras and London, not every year, but every alternate year. Well, what is it for? At the end of the section of the Act to which I have already referred it is stated as being paid for successful vaccination. Well, Sir, is it successful vaccination? Let us judge of it by the result. In 1881 there was a Return of the number of births and of the num- ber of children vaccinated, and it seems from this Return that the births in Birmingham numbered 9,000,but those who were successfully vaccinated were only 8,000. Of course, a number of children would die unvaccinated. As would always be the case in every population, there would be a number of children who would be presumably at their birth not fit subjects for vaccination. The percentage of children unaccounted for by vaccination was only 1.5. Under these circumstances, one might reasonably expect that, if the system is to be justified, Birmingham, as compared with other places where vaccination has not been so successfully carried out, would have been singularly free from smallpox. But what is the fact? The epidemic of small-pox in Birmingham has always been of the same severe description. Then, again, with regard to London, which, in the opinion of the authorities at the Local Government Board, is a very successful instance of the satisfactory treatment of vaccination, we know that small-pox is not only occasionally an epidemic, but that it is practically an endemic. We never get rid of small - pox in London, although the people of London are more completely vaccinated than almost any other portion of the United Kingdom. Well, Sir, in London, in every one of the 19 different Unions, these payments are made annually to certain public vaccinators. What is the result? There was an epidemic of small-pox last year, and the number of small-pox patients who entered the small-pox hospital, I will not say in London alone, numbered no less than 9,000, being larger by 4,000 than the number who entered the hospital in the previous year. The number in 1884 was 5,000, and in 1885 it was 9,000. Yet in the town of Leicester, where not more than 40 per cent of the children born were vaccinated, the small-pox hospital was tenantless. I ask, therefore, if it is not fair to say that the successful vaccination, for which this Vote was taken year by year, and for which this Vote grows so rapidly year by year —that it is not a ridiculous and mischievous delusion, at any rate, open to serious doubt as to its value? Can there be any reason for wonder that in considerable districts of the country where the people have had a fair opportunity of judging of the relative safety of the vaccinated and non-vaccinated condition—such places, for example, as Keighley, Dewsbury, Brighton, Bedford, and Leicester—they should object not only to this particular item, but to the whole system with which it is bound up? They regard it as a great hardship and as a public scandal—a scandal both public and private. From what I have been able to learn, I believe that at least one-third of the population of this country do not believe in vaccination at all; and most assuredly, outside, the majority of the population is strongly opposed to compulsory vaccination. But, Sir, the system by which this payment of rewards is made for the effective poisoning of healthy children is a part and parcel of a most direct incentive to a most cruel and persecuting system. It is about as cruel a system of persecution as can very well be conceived. It makes it to the interest of hundreds of thousands of men, educated men, men of refinement and remarkable for their kindly and charitable disposition, to seek to maintain and almost insist upon the systematic persecution, prosecution, and punishment by fine and imprisonment, repeated sometimes over and over again, of persons who, on moral and religious grounds, or on matters personal to themselves, arrived at by reason of terrible personal experience, object to this filthy rite being imposed on their children. It explains the secret why we so often hear of some poor man or woman who has had his or her first child done to death by vaccination, or, at any rate, permanently disfigured by vaccination—it explains why it is that in spite of that man's or woman's instinct, and possibly in spite of their consciences, they are sent to prison or fined over and over again. I do not look at this matter from a sentimental or from an hysterical point of view. I am not given, I think, to look at anything from an hysterical point of view. On the contrary, as the son of a physician, the brother of another, and the nephew of a third, I am as much disposed as any layman to take a professional view of the matter. I have also looked at the other side of the question. I have inquired into the matter, and I have read what I could lay my hands upon in reference to it. I may say that most of us have had a good deal of literature sent to us upon the subject. I have also listened to many discussions upon it, and the result is that I have become convinced that vaccination is neither a preventive nor a palliative. I believe that the whole system is a huge and deplorable delusion. I have stated that I intend to move the reduction of the Vote. I do not know what amount of support I may receive; but even if I should find myself almost alone, which I certainly hope will not be the case, I should still conceive it my duty to take this step in order to protest, not only against a system which I believe to be wrong, and in itself immoral, stupid, and cruel, but also in the hope of drawing still more public attention to the fact that there are, from time to time, many instances in this country of men and women who conscientiously object to vaccination, and who are systematically prosecuted, but whom the Local Government Board has it in its power to protect if they will—persons who are subjected to repeated punishment, and whose lives have been permanently darkened by the recollection of the loss of children, and of the disfigurement of their offspring, and who, in consequence, have a conscientious objection to subject their children to what they believe to be not only a filthy but an injurious operation. But even if I do not carry with me either the sympathy or the votes of any considerable number of the Committee, I hope, at any rate, that I shall be able to obtain from the right hon. Gentleman who represents the Local Government Board here to-day an assurance that the authorities of the Local Government Board will do what lies in their power to protect the people I have referred to, who are made to suffer in the way they do because they entertain some conscientious scruples, which, although some persons might scarcely appreciate them, all of us can heartily sympathize with. I beg to move the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £16,500.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £159,456, 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 Local Government Board, including various Grants in Aid of Local Taxation."—(Mr. Arthur O'Connor.)

THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE) (Tower Hamlets, St. George's)

Considering the importance of the subject which has been introduced by the hon. Gentleman, I think it better to reply at once to the remarks which he has made, rather than wait for other Members to take part in the discussion. The hon. Member evidently anticipates that he will only be followed into the Lobby by an exceedingly small number of Members; and I must say that, in my opinion, it would be nothing short of a national disaster if the hon. Gentleman's expectation in this respect was not realized. I cannot conceive anything which would be more likely to inflict injury on the public good than that the impression should go abroad that a considerable section of the House shared the objections to vaccination which the hon. Gentleman has stated. The hon. Gentleman divided his objections into two heads. First of all, he objects altogether to the amount which is spent upon vaccination; and, in the next place, he objects to the particular Vote now under discussion, which Vote is, as he rightly stated, a Vote given by this House to be distributed to the medical vaccination officers as a reward for meritorious successful cases of vaccination. In reference to the general question of vaccination, I should have been glad if the hon. Gentleman had given me some Notice that he desired to enter into so very important a question. But the question is one which lies in so small a compass, that perhaps it is hardly necessary that much Notice should be given. The hon. Member has used some strong language regarding the system of vaccination. He has denounced it as immoral, stupid, and cruel; arguing that it was the cause of the effective poisoning of healthy children, and that it is of no avail for the purpose for which it has been instituted. Now, Sir, I have here a Paper containing extracts from the annual Report of the Medical Officer of the Local Government Board upon vaccination. I shall only trouble the Committee with one or two extracts from that Report, in order to show what, in the opinion of the Medical Officer of the Local Government Board, has been the result of vaccination. The hon. Gentleman alluded to the cases of Birmingham and London, and he stated that, seeing the large number of meritorious cases of vaccination that had occurred, it might be rea- sonably supposed that vaccination was in a favourable condition in those places; but, nevertheless, that neither Birmingham nor London could compare favourably, so far as small-pox is concerned, with many other towns in which vaccination is not so successfully carried out. Of course, the hon. Gentleman knows very well that the conditions both of London and Birmingham are exceptional. The fact of the greater crowding of the population is perhaps sufficient to account for smallpox when it does occur, being very rife. With reference to the children of London, I should like to quote an extract from the Report of the Medical Officer of the Local Government Board. He says— It has been already said that in 1881, among 55,000 children who had not been vaccinated, 782 deaths from small-pox occurred. Among 861,000 children who had been vaccinated there were 125 deaths from small-pox. If the London children under 10 years of age who were unvaccinated had the protection which the current vaccination gives, not 782 deaths would have occurred; but at the outside nine would have died from small-pox. If the 861,000 vaccinated children had died at the rate of the 55,000 unvaccinated children, we should not have been considering 125 deaths from smallpox, but we should have been confronted with an additional 12,000 more deaths from smallpox occurring during the year in the London population under 10 years of age. The number of deaths that actually occurred from small-pox was not 6,000 or 1,000, but, at the outside, 125; and if there had been no vaccination there would have been, instead of 125 smallpox deaths among the vaccinated children, more than 12,000 deaths occurring from small-pox during the year among children under 10 years of age. Therefore, in spite of what the hon. Member has said, it must be evident to the Committee that if we were to revert to savage times when there was no vaccination, London, Birmingham, and all large towns would show very different results from those to which we are now able, happily, to point in consequence of vaccination. Now, Sir, the hon. Gentleman has spoken about the action of the Local Government Board, and the conscientious objections of parents to vaccination. I will go this far with him, and say, that I have the utmost sympathy with parents who conscientiously object to vaccination; and while I shall certainly feel it my duty to use every exertion in my power to secure the end for which Parliament has passed these Acts, yet I would be very sorry indeed that the Local Government Board should be made the engine of any unnecessary persecution of parents who entertain conscientious objections to vaccination. The Committee will see that it is absolutely essential we should use every effort in our power to see that the Acts are carried out for the public good. I may say that, with reference to the action of the Local Government Board, they do not require that anything in the nature of persecution should take place. I will give the Committee some extracts from a letter which was sent in September, 1875, by the Local Government Board to the Guardians of the Evesham Union, which letter was subsequently distributed very largely among the Guardians of the various Unions, in order to show what the views of the Local Government Board are with regard to the extent to which pressure should take place in respect of vaccination. The extracts which I propose to read will show the hon. Gentleman that there is no desire on the part of the Local Government Board to go beyond what it is their plain duty to do. The letter says— It is distinctly contemplated by Article 16 of the Board's General Order of the 31st of October, 1874, that, independently of any proceedings which may be taken against the person in default, under Section 29 of the Vaccination Act, 1867, the vaccination officer shall be authorized to take proceedings against him if he continue contumacious, at least once also under Section 31 of that Act. Until, therefore, proceedings under the latter section have been taken in a case and a conviction obtained, the Board considered that the general means, which the law provides with a view to insure the vaccination of a child, have not been used. The Board would here observe that, from the information in their possession, it is not clear whether all the means above alluded to have been resorted to in the case of Mr. Hensley. The Board, at the same time, direct me to point out that, by Article 16 of their abovementioned Order, it is provided that in any case in which a magistrate's order has been obtained, and summary proceedings have been taken under Section 31 of the Vaccination Act, 1867, no further proceedings shall be taken by the vaccination officer without the express instructions of the Guardians. The hon. Gentleman will see that it is the duty of the Vaccination Officer to take action up to a certain point, and that he cannot take further action without the consent of the Guardians. The letter goes on to say— The intention of this provision is that the Guardians should carefully consider, with regard to each individual case, the effect which a continuance of proceedings is likely to have in procuring the vaccination of the individual child, and in insuring the observance of the law in the Union generally. The Board may further state that it is, on the one hand, undeniable that a repetition of legal proceedings has, in numerous cases, resulted in the vaccination of a child when such vaccination has not been procured by the previous proceedings; and it is therefore important, with a view of securing a proper observance of the law, that parents should be well assured that proceedings in case of noncompliance with its requirements will not he lightly discontinued. On the other hand, the Board are prepared to admit that, when in a particular case repeated prosecutions have failed in their object, it becomes necessary to carefully consider the question whether the continuance of a fruitless contest with the parent may not have a tendency to produce mischievous results, by exciting sympathy with the person prosecuted, and thus creating a more extended operation to the law. The Board entertain no doubt that, in all cases of the kind in question, the Guardians, having before them the preceding observations, will not fail to exercise the discretionary powers confided to them in the manner best calculated to give effect to the policy of the law. The hon. Gentleman will thus see that the object of the Local Government Board is this—that every proceeding which the Guardians feel they are justified in adopting should be taken so long as they feel convinced that the object and aim of the Vaccination Acts are likely to be secured, but that it is not desirable to make martyrs of those who steadily refuse to carry out the law, and where there is reason to believe that no amount of prosecution would secure the desired result. With reference to the other point raised by the hon. Gentleman as to the extra payment made to the medical officers for successful vaccination, it is perfectly obvious that if what I have stated already is accepted by the Committee as being true, and that it is desirable that effective vaccination should take place—it is obvious that every precaution should be taken that the operation is performed with due care and proper skill. The object which Parliament had in sanctioning these extra payments to the Vaccination Officers was to secure that vaccination should be effected with proper skill, and in a proper manner, and in that way which is best for securing the object we have in view. The hon. Gentleman has spoken of this additional payment as if it were something over and above that which the Vaccination Officer has any right to calculate upon as payment for the duty performed. But it is perfectly clear that these rewards for meritorious vaccinations do enter into the calculation of medical officers charged with that duty, and that they have considered it a portion of the remuneration which they are entitled to receive. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is not aware that these extra payments were made on the recommendation of a Select Committee of the House of Commons, which sat on the Vaccination Bill of 1866. A careful examination was also made into the whole question by Mr. Lingen when he was at the Treasury, and he was of opinion that the payment was one which ought to be continued. I hope I have made it sufficiently clear to the hon. Gentleman that, in the first place, as far as our information goes, vaccination is highly beneficial, and ought not to be departed from. In the second place, I hope that I have also made it clear that the arrangement which the Committee is now asked to upset has the sanction of a Select Committee of the House of Commons, has been inquired into, and has been approved by an efficient officer of the Treasury, and is distinctly advantageous to the public. As to the action of the Local Government Board, it is its duty to insist, as far as possible, on the law being carried out. As far as I am concerned, I am extremely anxious to do everything in my power to secure the effective working of the Vaccination Acts. I quite admit that there are persons who are conscientiously opposed to vaccination, and that in certain cases unhappy results have taken place. Whenever a case is laid before me where a suspicion may exist on the part of a parent that his child has suffered or died in consequence of any fault in the mode of vaccination, or in the material used, I shall always consider it my duty to take every step in order to clear up any doubt which may exist on the subject. I believe there would be nothing more prejudicial to vaccination generally than to allow it to go forth that such cases have occurred without any attempt to ascertain the truth of the matter.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR (Donegal, E.)

I admit that the right hon. Gentleman has some ground for complaining that I did not give him Notice of my intention to bring forward the question; but I think I may say truthfully that the right hon. Gentleman does not appear to have required any Notice of the matter; for I feel that oven if the right hon. Gentleman had had notes in his possession he could not have given a much more effective answer to my proposition than he has given. That answer is drawn from the Reports of the Medical Officers; but it is a purely hypothetical answer—namely, that if so-and-so had been the case, then that something else might have been expected to happen. There is nothing more substantial than that in the whole of this Report of the Medical Officer of the Local Government Board; and not only is that the sort of statement we have from the Government Officer, but we have the same answer from other Medical Officers interested in the matter, who reported on the matter, and who number about 1,000. It is quite true that this amount of money is looked upon by the public vaccinators as part of the emolument to be paid to them, as a matter of course, in addition to that which they draw from the rates. But I object to it on the ground that it is part and parcel of a vicious system which is intimately connected with it, and of which it is one of the main springs. The right hon. Gentleman seems to be satisfied himself— and most of the Committee will be satisfied with him—that the vaccination is effective, that it is preventive, or, at any rate, protective. If so, let those who believe in vaccination get vaccinated; if they are vaccinated, and vaccination is a protection, then they are saved. But what right have they to insist that their neighbours, who have conscientious objections to vaccination, should also undergo the operation, although they do not believe in its utility? The right hon. Gentleman spoke of "savage times" before vaccination was instituted. Now, I really believe that the day will come— and I hope it will come soon—when the people of this and other countries will look back with amazement at the horrible fetish which seems to have seized upon some people, and is now sanctioned by the law of the land. With regard to the directions which the Local Government Board have given to the Boards of Guardians, and the letter of instructions which the right hon. Gentleman has quoted, I wish to observe that in reality these directions are not likely to have anything like direct control over the action of any large number of Boards of Guardians in the country. Many of the Provincial Boards of Guardians are imbued with a great deal of the spirit of Bumbledom; and when their officers go out and give directions to poor people to do this, that, and the other, if it is done with the sanction of the Board of Guardians, it very often happens that however hard the directions may be, and however trying to those who receive them, the Board of Guardians show very little consideration to the feelings of the people, and have no compunction whatever in putting in force, to the very full, what powers they have. I maintain that poor people require some stronger protection than is contained in that Circular Letter, and I had hoped to hear from the right hon. Gentleman that the Local Government Board is prepared to issue something a great deal more stringent to the Local Authorities in order that the people I refer to may be protected. I know it is perfectly true that the legal proceedings taken in some cases have caused parents to get their children vaccinated who otherwise would not have done so; but what expense to the parents' peace of mind, and what misery must these prosecutions have caused? These poor people have been really exposed to one or other of two alternatives — they must submit their children to this rite which they both detest and abominate, or render themselves liable to legal proceedings, which occasion a considerable expenditure of money, and also threaten them in the immediate future with possible restraint and imprisonment. The result of vaccination is certainly not so satisfactory as many people think, and I am satisfied of this—that the Local Government Board, in not restraining the hands of the legal authorities, are causing an amount of misery which is, to a great extent, preventible, and ought at no time to be made excessive.

MR. TAPLING (Leicestershire, Harborough)

I have the honour to represent one of the Divisions of Leicestershire, and the Committee will be aware that the town of Leicester is the centre of the anti-vaccination movement. Personally, I am in favour of compulsory vaccination; but I have given a pledge to my constituents that I will vote for an inquiry into the subject of vaccination if the proposal should be made to the House, and I now throw that out as a suggestion for the Government to take into consideration. I think that an inquiry could only be productive of good. It appears to me that if vaccination is a good thing, it can have nothing to fear from an inquiry; and if it is wrong, then the sooner it is done away with the better. If the inquiry should prove, as I have no doubt it may, that vaccination is a good and beneficial thing, then I think it would have the effect of removing the prejudices which now exist against it in the minds of people who are really conscientious in the view in which they take.

MR. W. A. M'ARTHUR (York, E.R., Buckrose)

I do not think it ought to be supposed that every hon. Member who opposes compulsory vaccination in this House does not himself believe in vaccination. I believe in vaccination, and have myself been vaccinated; but I have a strong opinion that Parliament has no right to enforce a practice to which many thousands of people in England have well-defined and strong objections, and who make it almost a part of their religion to resist it. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board has intimated that he does not wish to see prosecutions instituted except where it can be shown that such prosecutions would be effective, and would secure obedience to the requirements of the law.

MR. RITCHIE

I do not wish to be misunderstood. What I said was that the Local Government Board put the law in force in the hope that people would obey it; but I added that the Local Government Board would not encourage the Guardians in entering upon a course of persecution with a view of obtaining that which there was every reason to believe they would never obtain. At the same time, the Local Government Board certainly would not consider that they had put in force all the powers vested in them, unless they took steps to ascertain whether a certain amount of pressure would not bring about compliance with the provisions of the law.

MR. W. A. M'ARTHUR

Would the right hon. Gentleman suggest that fresh prosecutions should be entered into after the first prosecution has failed to bring about a satisfactory result?

MR. RITCHIE

I have already read an extract from the letter of the Local Government Board to the Guardians of the Evesham Union, which states that— It is distinctly contemplated by Article 16 of the Board's General Order of the 31st October, 1874, that independently of any proceedings which may he taken against the person in fault under Section 29 of the Vaccination Act, 1867, the vaccination officer shall he authorized to take proceedings against him if he continue contumacious under Section 31 of that Act.

MR. W. A. M'ARTHUR

Then I understand that the feeling of the right hon. Gentleman is this—that if a prosecution has been entered into under the Act, the Board of Guardians shall have authority to take proceedings in further cases where there is a contumacious non-performance of the act of vaccination. Now, I would suggest that the Local Government Board should allow a licence to be taken out by the parents who are prepared to take an affidavit that they have conscientious objections to the performance of vaccination. Many people would be prepared to pay, if necessary, what would virtually be a fine for the non-performance of vaccination; and this would be a much less degrading practice than that which now prevails of dragging people before legal tribunals for the non-performance of a rite to which they have strongly-defined and conscientious objections. I may add that in many cases there is an impression that the children of poor people have not been vaccinated with lymph as pure and as good as that which the children of the rich can procure. I think it would be possible, without clashing to any great extent with the existing law, to obviate what is certainly regarded as a hardship by persons who have conscientious objections to vaccination.

SIR JOSEPH M'KENNA (Monaghan, S.)

I have a strong belief in the efficacy of vaccination. I have myself been vaccinated on more than one occasion, and all my children have been vaccinated. Indeed, there are no more strenuous advocates of the principle than the Irish people, and there is no place where vaccination has so very few opponents as in Ireland. The question now before the Committee, however, does not depend upon whether vaccination is good or not, but whether we ought not to procure, by the exercise of economy, some reduction in this item of £16,500. I may point out that neither in Ireland nor in Scotland has there been any such Supplementary Vote as is represented by this sum of £16,500 for England; and although I should not be prepared to press for the entire disallowance of this grant, still I think it is well worth consideration whether the system of economy, which has succeeded so well in Ireland and Scotland, should not be followed in England also.

MR. MOLLOY (King's Co., Birr)

I regret that I cannot agree with my hon. Friend the Member for East Donegal (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) in the proposal he has made, because I believe that vaccination is one of the greatest blessings of modern days. Nor can I agree in the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Yorkshire (Mr. W. A. M'Arthur) that licences should be granted to those heads of families who have an objection to vaccination itself. It should be remembered that there is a second party to that consideration—and that is the general public. Personally, I am strongly in favour of vaccination; and I think that if people were released from the Compulsory Clauses of the Act it might be the means of introducing infectious diseases into the very house in which I live. I have no doubt there is a very great objection, and a conscientious objection, among a great number of the people of this country in regard to vaccination, and I believe that it arises to a great extent from the fact that the lymph which is supplied is impure. Whatever the case may be, there is, undoubtedly, a conscientious objection among a large class of persons in the country to compulsory vaccination; and yet I am of those who are prepared to maintain vaccination even in its compulsory form. I think it would be well to make an effort to convert people who object to it to my way of thinking, and to get them to recognize the extreme value of the principle, the validity of which modern science is confirming. I see no reason why an inquiry should not be made. It is all very well to say that we cannot inquire into the matter because we have already settled it. It must be remembered that at the time it was settled we had the mind of the public with us. Circumstances may have changed since, and public opinion may have veered round in the matter. There are certainly a large number of people who are conscientiously opposed to compulsory vaccination. Therefore I think that an inquiry may be valuable in converting those who are opposed to us by giving them further proofs of the importance of vaccination. I myself looked into the matter somewhat seriously some years ago, and I became absolutely convinced by the evidence which was placed before me. I believe that others would be similarly convinced if the facts of the case were clearly made known. There is no reason whatever why an inquiry should not take place. The present Government is a Government of Inquiry—a Government of Commissions, and a little Commission more or less is not likely to injure the stability of the Government. It will satisfy a large number of those who have helped to keep the Government in power; and I think it would be a very desirable extension of that policy of Her Majesty's Government which takes the form of the appointment of little Commissions.

MR. BRADLAUGH (Northampton)

The Committee seems unaware that at present the practice prevails of licensing persons who object to vaccination. At the present moment any person who can afford to pay the fines imposed escapes the Vaccination Law. Those persons who pay the fines obtain an immunity, while those who cannot do so are sent to gaol. The law, therefore, is inoperative against the rich, and oppressive against the poor. I have a case in my own mind in which an hon. Member of this House— a very much respected Member—was summoned for the non-vaccination of his child. Probably because he was a Member of this House he was let off with one insignificant fine, and has never been troubled since; whereas another person, who did not occupy the same social position, has been fined more than 30 times, and even sent to gaol. I believe that there is an enormous feeling arising in the country against this system of persecution. I do not think it right to take up the time of the Committee by discussing the merits of vaccination; but, seeing that the operation of the law has been made most oppressive, I shall support the hon. Member for East Donegal (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) if he goes to a division.

MR. LABOUCHERE (Northampton)

I do not exactly understand what the arrangement proposed by the President of the Local Government Board is. Are we to understand that any person who can obtain a certificate—any person who has a conscientious objection to his children being vaccinated, after he has once been fined, is not to be subjected to any further prosecution? I maintain that you destroy the principle of insisting upon vaccination when you say that a person, who is able to pay the fine shall not have his child vaccinated. The hon. Member for King's County (Mr. Molloy) supports compulsory vaccination on the ground that small-pox may be introduced into his own establishment; but as he happens to have been vaccinated himself, together with all his family, I do not see how that circumstance ought to influence him.

MR. H. SMITH-WRIGHT (Nottingham, S.)

As a Representative of a large Midland town, I wish to say that the question of vaccination is one which excited a great deal of feeling at the time of the last Election. I am, myself, in favour of vaccination; and I felt that I could not altogether give way on the subject in the course of my electioneering campaign. I believe that vaccination is essential in order to secure the good of the country, and I have applied myself to the task of inquiry. A point raised by the hon. Member for East Donegal (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) and the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Brad-laugh) is why those who object to vaccination should not be allowed to be exempted from it. My reply to that is that those who are in favour of vaccination do not claim that vaccination gives complete security. It is very well known that persons who have measles are generally exempt thereafter; but, nevertheless, it is possible to have measles even a second time. It is well known, in the same way, that there may be a second attack of small-pox. Therefore, if we were to prevent any large body of the people of the country from being vaccinated, they would thus constitute a nucleus for the spread of the disease, to some extent, at all events, among those who had been vaccinated. I would ask the hon. Member for East Donegal to look back to the state of things that existed 100 years ago. At that time there was scarcely a Royal Family in Europe in which one or two of its Members were not marked with small-pox. It was quite the exception in those days for anyone to be free from the marks of small-pox, and anybody who was not marked was considered to be an absolute beauty. Now, we have no wish to recur to that state of things. This is a very grave question, and no doubt there is a great deal of feeling upon it. As the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh) has said, there is one law for the rich and another for the poor, seeing that one is able to pay the fine without much inconvenience, whereas the other is put to great straits, and even compelled to undergo imprisonment. I myself feel the force of that argument, and during the late Election campaign I advocated the making of imprisonment universal, and doing away with fines altogether. The consequence was that for a month the walls of Nottingham were placarded with the announcement that "Mr. Smith-Wright wishes to imprison the working man for not being vaccinated." That is all I got out of my proposal. I feel sure that the Government will give this matter their best attention, and will see that the powers of compulsory vaccination are exercised with every care and with every possible consideration for the feelings of those who object to it.

MR. RITCHIE

A number of suggestions have been thrown out in the course of the discussion on this Vote to which I should like to make a reply. One hon. Member intimated that the Government have thrown out some hope that certificates may be granted to persons who have a conscientious objection to vaccination. I do not know where the hon. Member obtained his information. The granting of a certificate was mentioned, but certainly not by me. As far as the Government are concerned, I am obliged to the hon. Member for the suggestion he has thrown out; but it is not one that could be entertained for a single moment —namely, that a certificate should be given to any person who broke the law. The hon. Member himself will see how impossible it would be for any Government to adopt such a proposal. The hon. Member for King's County (Mr. Molloy), and also the hon. Member for Leicestershire (Mr. Tapling), have suggested that we should grant an inquiry, and the hon. Member for King's County added that we were essentially a Government of Inquiry, and therefore that it would come well within our duties. No doubt, we are a Government of Inquiry, where inquiry is necessary in order to obtain information which we do not possess; but we are not a Government of Inquiry in order to obtain information which we do possess. If there is one subject on which the Government possess accurate information more than another it is upon the subject of vaccination; and therefore Her Majesty's Ministers could not consent to any Committee of Inquiry into the Vaccination Laws, not because they fear the result of an inquiry, but because, while on the one hand they do not believe the inquiry would have the least effect in removing the objections of those who at present resist the law, on the other hand it might have the effect of implying doubts on the part of the Government which the Government do not possess in the slightest degree. I may add that only two years ago an exhaustive inquiry was made by the Statistical Society, not only into cases arising in this country, but all over the world, and they came to the conclusion that the benefits of vaccination were undoubted. One matter has been mentioned with which I have a considerable amount of sympathy. An hon. Gentleman stated that poor people objected to the lymph which is supplied. I wish it to be understood that the Government have an establishment already in existence where pure lymph can be obtained by medical practitioners, and it may become a question whether or not such establishments should not be extended. If the Government can do anything in that way to destroy the prejudice which undoubtedly does exist in the minds of some people they will be most happy to consider the question.

MR. SHEEHY (Galway, S.)

The hon. Member for East Donegal (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) has called attention to the fact that a grant from the public funds of £16,500 appears in this Estimate for the encouragement of vaccination in England. No explanation is given of it; and I would only ask why, if this pecuniary reward is necessary in England for the encouragement of vaccination, a similar reward is not granted to Ireland and Scotland? If it is necessary that this sum should be given to English practitioners for suc- cessful vaccination in order to prevent the spread of disease, is it not also necessary that something should be given to prevent the spread of disease in Scotland and Ireland? The hon. Member for East Donegal has shown how the grant has jumped from £2,000 a-year to £16,500, and how there has been an increase this year of £900. No explanation has been given by the Government of this increase. As to the merits of vaccination I would not venture to speak; but it strikes me as somewhat extraordinary that we should be told that small-pox can be prevented by vaccination, and yet that small-pox should, nevertheless, be so rife. Why not deal with other zymotic diseases in the same way? Why not require the public to be vaccinated as a preventive against rabies? I think it is a powerful argument in favour of those who entertain conscientious scruples against vaccination that if a man believes in it he has only to provide that he himself and his family shall undergo the ordeal in order to protect himself. Under such circumstances, why should the man who has obtained security for himself object to give full force to the conscientious scruples of another man who entertains conscientious objections to vaccination, and refuses either to be vaccinated himself or allow his children to undergo the operation?

DR. TANNER (Cork Co., Mid)

I have listened with great attention to an extremely interesting debate on this great question of vaccination, and I am certain that the result of the debate has been most satisfactory. I was rather astonished, at the outset, that my hon. Friend the Member for East Donegal (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) should object altogether to vaccination, because I think that anybody who will take the trouble to inquire into the past history of vaccination and the beneficial results which it has brought about—the great and material blessings which it has conferred upon humanity—cannot fail to be struck with the enormous progress it has made and the great success which has attended it. Not only does my hon. Friend object to vaccination as a preventive of small-pox, but he objects to it on the ground that it is a pregnant source of the poisoning of healthy children. Now, Sir, I am perfectly well acquainted with more than one case in which vaccination certainly did poison healthy children; but the difficulties the people and medical men have to deal with in treating cases of vaccination are two-fold—in the first place, the virus matter must be pure, and must not be used in too strong or too concentrated a form; and, secondly, the child who is to be operated upon must not suffer from any debilitating or constitutional malady. Unfortunately, in dealing with vaccination, many people have arrived at the impression that due care is not taken in selecting the lymph, and that serious complications arise in consequence. Now, anyone who has inquired into the subject must know the serious risk which a child runs who is vaccinated from lymph taken directly from the calf. It is found, however, that when a healthy child has been successfully vaccinated from lymph taken from the calf, the vaccine matter taken from that child will successfully vaccinate any other child in turn, and thus pass on the advantages of vaccination from child to child, so that the same beneficial results may be obtained by a child to whom the lymph has been transmitted even in the 10,000th degree, the result being quite as successful as that which was produced in the case of the child who was vaccinated directly from the calf. I think this fact shows that at the present time there must be faults in dealing with the system of vaccination, and that it does not require medical skill or knowledge to deal with vaccination. It is patent that any child can be successfully vaccinated with lymph taken from another child without being subjected to that source of danger which is incurred by a child directly vaccinated from the calf. My hon. Friend the Member for King's County (Mr. Molloy) says that it would be a very good thing if a Commission were appointed to inquire into the question of vaccination, I quite agree with him, and fully endorse what he has said; but I know perfectly well that in England—it has not been so in Ireland—there is in the present day an outcry against vaccination which has been taken up in a practical form by gentlemen who have formed themselves into an Anti-Vaccination Society— a Society which is even represented at the present day by a journal. The result of this combined effort against vaccination on the part of no inconsider- able portion of the public has tended to create discontent, and many persons have come to the conclusion that in allowing their children to be vaccinated they may possibly incur a grave risk. In cases where children die while suffering from the effects of vaccination the death is put down to vaccination and nothing else; whereas, in nine cases out of ten, the death occurs from other causes and complications. If, therefore, a Committee or a Commission were appointed, as asked for by my hon. Friend, to inquire into the present state of the question of vaccination, I think it would be doing good service, because vaccination, like every other branch of medical science, is not at a standstill. It is progressive, and vaccination at the present day ought to make some advance upon the system which was in vogue some years ago. But that is not the only point to which I wish to draw the attention of Her Majesty's Government. There is another point which I think will justify me in urging that the appointment of a Commission of Inquiry would be advantageous to the country. It has been found that the child of a father who has been vaccinated without being vaccinated in turn will not get the smallpox in the same virulent form as the child of a non-vaccinated father would be likely to receive it. That points to the value of the system of inoculation, although there may have been a break in it for several generations. Children even of the third and fourth generation have received the benefit of the vaccination undergone by their ancestors, and are certainly not so prone to be attacked with the dreadful malady of small-pox as even children of the second generation. Therefore it is believed that gradually as we go on from generation to generation the receipt for vaccination will become proportionately less. Instead of the great outlay which is now incurred in supplying vaccine lymph and in remunerating the public vaccinators being progressive and getting larger it ought to be gradually growing less. There is no doubt that the system of inoculation practised at the present day has its enemies as well as its friends. The enemies of vaccination have an idea that the world has gone mad in its efforts to extirpate disease by resorting to inoculation. Even "pigoculation" has been adopted for the vaccination of children for the measles. There can be no doubt that the people of the United Kingdom have acquired many advantages from vaccination, and I sincerely trust that the system will be carried out to the fullest extent. I hope also that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board will consent to the appointment of a Commission to inquire into the present state of vaccination, and also to ascertain whether the expense already incurred in connection with vaccination may not be cut down. There is another point to which I wish also to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman, in some detail, entered into the benefits of vaccination; but in speaking of those benefits he omitted to mention that in Ireland we are provided with no centre of vaccination whatever. Ireland, be it remembered, contributes to the Imperial taxation, and helps to supply a portion of the amount that is provided in this Estimate for the remuneration of public vaccinators in England; but, at the same time, there is no vaccination depôt in Ireland, and, what is still worse, we have no public vaccinators. Of course, there are in Ireland a great number of dispensary doctors—doctors of dispensary districts—which I believe is a system which does not prevail in England. These doctors are looked upon as public vaccinators; and it was understood to have been suggested by the President of the Local Government Board, the year before last, that that should be their position. Unfortunately, that position has never been recognized, and the certificates which are given by these dispensary doctors in Ireland are not recognized in England as certificates from a public vaccinator. The consequence is that in order to fulfil the functions of a public vaccinator Irish students are required to take out a diploma from the Royal College of Surgeons in London, and even then the certificates which are granted in Ireland are not looked upon in this country as sufficient, because they have not been supplied by a legal public vaccinator. We regard this in Ireland as a standing injustice; and I think we may not unreasonably hope that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board will take the circumstances of the case into consideration, and either have public vaccinators appointed in Ireland for the purpose of carrying out there, in the same way as in England, the duties proscribed by the Statute, or else provide that the certificate granted by a dispensary doctor in Ireland shall have the same effect as that granted by a public vaccinator in England.

MR. E. HARRINGTON (Kerry, W.)

I wish to explain, the vote that I intend to give on the Motion of my hon. Friend the Member for East Donegal (Mr. Arthur O'Connor). Personally, I have a firm belief in vaccination; but I cannot ignore the fact that there are a great number of persons in this country who do not believe in it; therefore, I am of opinion that, as the present Government is a Government of examination and inquiry, they might reasonably allow an inquiry into this very important question. I intend to vote with my hon. Friend; but simply as a matter of courtesy in consequence of the refusal of the Government to grant an inquiry. The reply which was given by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board to the request which has been made for an inquiry was that the Government of the day declined to grant an inquiry into things that are already known. Nevertheless, in our opinion, the Government have already intimated their intention to inquire into things as perfectly well known and established as the fact that the sun shines at noonday. I may further say that the Government itself has already been vaccinated, and the lymph with which they have been vaccinated as a protective against the rush of Radicalism is the lymph which has been taken from the "three acres and a cow." I shall vote with my hon. Friend the Member for East Donegal, not because I have any doubt as to the value of vaccination, but because I protest against the attitude of the Government in refusing to grant an inquiry.

THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. LONG) (Wilts, Devizes)

I may remind the hon. Member that my right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board promised in the early part of the evening that arrangements would be made for an issue of certificates from Dublin. Attention has been called to the considerable increase which has taken place in this grant. I may, how- ever, point out that during the last four years the sum asked has been £15,000. That sum, however, has been invariably exceeded; and, therefore, it has been deemed expedient to ask for the sum which will, in the opinion of the Board, be actually expended. As a matter of fact, it is not anticipated that the annual expenditure this year will involve any increase upon the expenditure of last year; and in asking for a sum which will cover the real expenditure the Government think they are introducing a principle which should deserve the support and encouragement of the Committee.

MR. W. A. MACDONALD (Queen's Co., Ossory)

I have been much surprised and disconcerted at the tone which the Government have taken in reference to this matter. There is no doubt whatever that at least a considerable section of intelligent and fairly educated people in this country have a very strong objection to vaccination; and it seems to me no argument to reply to this volume of public opinion—"We know all about the matter already, and we will not sanction any inquiry into it." As long as this volume of public opinion against vaccination exists it must necessarily be met, and the only way to meet it is by an inquiry, which those who object to vaccination will regard as thoroughly impartial. If you converse with people who are opposed to vaccination you will find them invariably assert that evidence which is given in favour of vaccination is tainted evidence—that is, evidence given by the medical practitioners who have an interest in the matter. That is what they say—namely, that the medical practitioners have an interest in upholding the present system, and that that interest depends upon the very Vote which the Committee is now asked to sanction. Now, it seems to me that if a Government inquiry were set on foot by a Commission or otherwise, which would really be of an impartial character, and which would be above the suspicion of unfairness, it would have a very considerable effect in calming the public mind upon this question, and making the path of future Governments both clear and easy. And if, as I think is very likely to be the case, it should be proved that the present system is upon the whole right, and that compulsory vaccination is good for the com- munity, we should be able to set at rest a question which has been disturbing the peace of the public mind for year after year, leading to continual discussions in this House, resulting in a great many people breaking the law, and placing the Local Government Board in considerable difficulties as to how they may best be able to maintain the law. Under these circumstances, I would most earnestly press upon the Government, from the point of view of settling this question satisfactorily, that they should grant such an inquiry as has been asked for. At the same time, I do not feel so strongly on this matter as to be able to vote with my hon. Friend the Member for East Donegal (Mr. Arthur O'Connor), and therefore I shall not give my vote on this question at all. I am satisfied that his arguments, which I am sure are advanced in the most conscientious spirit, are abundantly sufficient to justify an inquiry.

Question put, and negatived.

Original Question again proposed.

MR. DILLON (Mayo, E.)

I wish to call attention to the salaries of two of the Government Secretaries—the Secretary to the Local Government Board and the Secretary to the Board of Trade. The salary of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Local Government Board is, I see, fixed at £1,500 a-year, whereas if we turn back to the salary already voted for the Board of Trade it is fixed at £1,200 a-year. Now, I find that both of these salaries, until last year, stood at £1,500 a-piece, and that they were then reduced to £1,200; and before we proceed any further with the Vote I want a clear explanation from the Government why they are continuing to pay £1,500 to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Local Government Board and only £1,200 a-year to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade? I have never heard any hon. Member contend that the Local Government Board has more to do than the Board of Trade. If in a country like England any comparison is to be made, it must be admitted that the Board of Trade is entitled to have its officials more highly paid than those of the Local Government Board. If I am correctly informed, we have here evidence of a very unsavoury job. I am disposed to admit the present Govern- ment are not responsible for it, and I have no fault to find with them in regard to it. Least of all am I inclined to find fault with the present Parliamentary Secretary. But what has occurred, so far as my information goes, is this. Some time ago it was arranged that the salaries of these two officials—the Secretaries to the Board of Trade and the Local Government Board—should be fixed at £1,200 a-year. But a rather distinguished Gentleman—now representing the Bordesley Division of Birmingham (Mr. Jesse Collings)—whose name was identified with the "three acres and a cow" was appointed to the position of Parliamentary Secretary to the Local Government Board, and he seems to have discovered that £1,200 a-year was not sufficient for the brilliancy of the genius and services he brought to bear in support of Her Majesty's Government; but the President of the Local Government Board at that time was a Cabinet Minister, and a personal friend of the hon. Member, and it is said that through the influence of that Cabinet Minister the original arrangement was broken through, and that the salary of £ 1,500 a-year was continued to the Secretary to the Local Government Board. Well, the salary of the Secretary to the Board of Trade was reduced in strict accordance with that understanding to £1,200 a-year. There can be no doubt that the Secretary to the Board of Trade was an equally able and accomplished official; but he does not seem to have possessed the influence of the Secretary to the Local Government Board, and therefore his salary remained at £1,200 a-year. Now, Sir, I regard this transaction as most discreditable, and I think that we have a right to ask that the salary of the Secretary to the Local Government Board shall be reduced, so that the remuneration paid to these two officers shall be equal. I think it is highly disrespectful that because the hon. Member for the Bordesley Division of Birmingham (Mr. Jesse Collings) happened to have a personal friend, in the Cabinet his salary should have been raised by £300 a-year, whereas that of the Secretary to the Board of Trade should have been left at £1,200. Unless I get a satisfactory explanation of this matter I shall certainly move to reduce the Vote by the sum of £300.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £175,656, 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 Local Government Board, including various Grants in Aid of Local Taxation." — (Mr. Dillon.)

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Lord RANDOLPH CHURCHILL) (Paddington, S.)

I should have hoped that the hon. Member who has brought forward this question would have satisfied himself with facts, and not have drawn, as he has done, upon his imagination. In this particular case he is altogether in error, and the explanation I have to give in regard to it is this. When the Estimate was originally framed by the late Government the salary for the Parliamentary Secretaryship to the Local Government Board was placed at £1,500 a-year, an amount at which it had stood for a long time—I believe ever since the establishment of the Board of 1854. That being so, the actual figures in the Estimate have been altered. But these are the facts of the case. When the late Prime Minister appointed the late Secretary to the Board of Trade and the late Secretary to the Local Government Board he made it a condition that the salaries for both of those Offices should be reduced to £1,200 a-year. The hon. Member for the Bordesley Division of Birmingham (Mr. Jesse Collings) was appointed Secretary to the Local Government Board before the arrangement to reduce the salaries was made. This is why the salary of £1,500 was paid to him; but it will not be paid to the present Secretary to the Local Government Board, because the arrangement made by the late Prime Minister is still in force, although I must confess that I am unable to see the advantage which the late Prime Minister aimed at in making these rather small reductions in official salaries. I am not prepared to depart from the decision which the right hon. Gentleman came to; and, therefore, the salaries of these two Parliamentary Secretaries have been reduced to £1,200 a-year. They still remain at £1,200 a-year, and the balance of £300 in each case will be paid into the Exchequer. Of course, the hon. Gentleman will understand that I have absolutely no knowledge whatever of anything which has taken place between the late President of the Local Government Board, the right hon. Member for West Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain), and the hon. Member for the Bordesley Division of Birmingham (Mr. Jesse Collings) as to the salary of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Local Government Board, nor had I thought it any matter of concern to the House. All I have to say is that the arrangement which the late Government made in regard to these two salaries will be carried out, and that the Secretary to the Local Government Board, like the Secretary to the Board of Trade, will only receive a salary of £1,200 a-year. It is not necessary, therefore, to submit the Amendment which the hon. Member for Mayo has proposed.

MR. BORLASE (Cornwall, St. Austell)

What the noble Lord has stated is entirely correct. When the late Prime Minister asked me to become the Secretary to the Local Government Board he mentioned to me that the salary would be at the rate of £1,200 a-year. I had previously seen statements in the newspapers to the effect that the salaries for the Parliamentary Secretary ships to the Board of Trade and the Local Government Board were to be reduced from £1,500 to £1,200 a-year. Under those conditions, and without making any comment upon them, because I did not think it my place to do so, I accepted the Office. I then found, on going to the Local Government Board, that my Predecessor had been receiving remuneration at the rate of £1,500 a-year. Perhaps I may say that a curious anomaly occurred with regard to myself which I should like particularly to point out to the noble Lord, and that is that I received my salary at the rate of £1,500 a-year up to the last payment, which I only received the other day. Upon that occasion the old rate of payment had been reduced all along the line; and therefore, although I had been receiving a salary at the rats of £1,500 a-year, when it came to the last part of the year daring which I had held Office I found that I was only entitled to be paid at the rate of £1,200 a-year. Now, I cannot exaggerate—certainly not in my own estimation — the value of the Offices which I and my Colleague in the representation of Cornwall (Mr. C. T. D. Acland) filled. Although the salaries had been reduced, I must say that I trust in future, when the great import- ance of the Board of Trade is fully considered, and the great, if not equal, importance of the Local Government Board is also borne in mind, this House will, I venture to hope, arrive at the opinion that these two Parliamentary Secretary ships are worthy of the higher salaries which were originally paid to them.

MR.LABOUCHERE (Northampton)

My hon. Friend need not flatter himself that we are going to raise these salaries. I think my hon. Friend the Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) has stated the facts of the case with perfect accuracy. His statement was that when Mr. Jesse Collings was appointed Secretary to the Local Government Board he had £1,500 a-year, and that then Mr. Chamberlain— [Criea of "Order!"] I think I am in Order. My hon. Friend the Member for East Mayo complains that the late Prime Minister when he came into Office arranged that the salaries for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Local Government Board and the Secretary to the Board of Trade should be £1,200 instead of £1,500 a-year. Mr. Chamberlain—[Cries of "Order!"] Mr. Courtney, I appeal to you as to whether I am not in Order?

THE CHAIRMAN

If the hon. Member is speaking of Members of the last Parliament he is in Order. He would not be in Order in naming Members of the present Parliament.

MR. LABOUCHERE

Well, Sir, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham was very powerful in debate, and he insisted that his follower, the present Member for Bordesley (Mr. Jesse Collings), should have £1,500 per annum, whereas the Secretary to the Board of Trade only received £1,200. When we lost Mr. Jesse Collings, my hon. Friend who took his place was not under such powerful protection, and although he thought he was to receive £1,500 a-year yet he only received £1,200. The statement of the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) is entirely confirmed as to the fact that the hon. Member for Bordesley received £300 a-year more than the hon. Member for West Cornwall (Mr. Borlase) when he succeeded him.

MR. DILLON

I listened with the utmost attention to the noble Lord the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I could not gather from his statement any sufficient reason for the difference in the Estimates; nor did the noble Lord make any attempt to meet my statement that Mr. Jesse Collings was in receipt of £1,500 a year. But when his successor (Mr. Borlase) came into Office the reduction of the salary to £1,200 was allowed to come into force, and the whole loss fell upon that hon. Gentleman. Now, I consider that that was a most discreditable and unfair thing. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain) should not use his influence to increase the salaries of his particular clique in this House, and I shall certainly go to a division on this question. The noble Lord stated with regard to the present Estimate that this sum of £1,500 a year would not be used, and that a repayment would be made into the Exchequer; but he did not give any satisfactory explanation of the reason why the Estimate is for £1,500 for the Local Government Board, and £1,200 for the Board of Trade. Therefore, I shall move a reduction of the Vote by the sum of £300, not because I have any feeling at all as to those salaries being too large, and still less because I have any objection to the present occupant of the Office, but because it is the only way in which I can raise the question as to the action of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £175,656, 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 Local Government Board, including various Grants in Aid of Local Taxation."—(Mr. Dillon.)

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL (Kirkcaldy, &c.)

I do not see why the Chancellor of the Exchequer should not accede to the Motion for the redaction of the Vote, because I understood him to say that the excess would be repaid to the Treasury. I think that the Chancellor of the Exchequer might justly accept the reduction of the Vote. But there is another point which I wish to draw attention to—namely, that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain) and the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bordesley (Mr. Jesse Collings) are not in the House at the present time, and I think it was unfair on the part of the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) to impute to them what he did in their absence. We were told by the successor of the hon. Member for Bordesley, that he expected to get £1,500 a-year, and that when he came into Office he found that the salary had been, reduced. Probably it would have been the same in the case of the hon. Member for Bordesley.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Lord RANDOLPH CHURCHILL) (Paddington, S.)

I do not exactly understand the course which the hon. Member for East Mayo wishes us to take. The hon. Member says he wishes to go to a division in order to censure the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain). Does the hon. Member wish us to go to a division in order to censure the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, or the hon. Member for Bordesley (Mr. Jesse Collings)? I do not think that the Committee by going to a division would convey the smallest censure on either of those Gentlemen; and, again, the conduct of the right hon. Member for West Birmingham and of the hon. Member for Bordesley is not in any way before the Committee. I have stated to the Committee that the present Secretary to the Board of Trade only receives £1,200 a year, and it has been so ever since the hon. Member was appointed. I own that, as the present Secretary to the Board of Trade is being paid at the rate of £ 1,200 a-year, I fail to see that there was any useful purpose served by asking for an additional sum of £300, and therefore I am perfectly ready to accept the reduction. I wish, however, to guard myself against any responsibility for that reduction, which, as has been pointed out, was made by the late Prime Minister. I therefore express a hope that the hon. Member for East Mayo will not put the Committee to the trouble of dividing on this Vote.

MR. DILLON

I see the force of the noble Lord's objection, and I shall not put the Committee to the trouble of dividing. With regard to a censure on the right hon. Gentlemen the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain), I stated that it was only by moving a reduction of the Vote that I could raise the question at all. I am bound to say, after all that the noble Lord has said, and after what has been said on this side of the Committee, it is clear that the hon. Member for the Bordesley Division of Birmingham (Mr. Jesse Collings) drew £1,500 a-year, and that when another hon. Member took his place a reduction was made. I think this a most disreputable transaction. I believe the intention was to continue the £1,500 a-year to Mr. Jesse Collings as long as he had the place, and to reduce it when another hon. Member came into Office. I have no hesitation in saying that this was a disgraceful transaction.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR (Liverpool, Scotland)

I believe the Chancellor of the Exchequer is responsible for the finances of the country. Now the statement of the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) is that the hon. Member for the Bordesley Division of Birmingham (Mr. Jesse Collings) drew a salary at the rate of £1,500 a-year. Are we to understand that the noble Lord assents to that statement? [Lord RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: Yes.] Then I have nothing further to say.

MR. PICKERSGILL (Bethnal Green, S.W.)

I desire to draw attention to the inadequate and improper performance of a duty which is imposed upon the Local Government Board. It is an important question involving very closely the interests of my constituents, but even in a greater degree the interests of the right hon. Gentleman whom I see opposite, and generally the interests of hundreds and thousands of the poor ratepayers of this Metropolis. Now, Mr. Courtney, the facts are simply these. We have in London what is called the Metropolitan Common Poor Fund. This is a Fund to which each Union contributes according to its rateable value, and out of this Fund certain charges in connection with poor relief are defrayed.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

I rise to Order. Am I right, Mr. Courtney, in the opinion that the hon. Member is out of Order? The hon. Member is referring to a subject that has nothing to do with the Amendment of the hon. Member for East Mayo, which has not yet been disposed of by the Committee.

THE CHAIRMAN

The Amendment is to reduce the Vote by a certain sum. There is nothing in the Amendment to identify any particular item, and, there- fore, the question put covers the point which is being raised by the hon. Member.

MR. PICKERSGILL

The noble Lord, perhaps, has no great acquaintance with the Unions. I was aware that unless I raised this question now I should be shut out from raising a question of great importance to the ratepayers. In districts where the aggregate rating value is large and the poor are few a larger contribution is made to the Common Poor Fund than is drawn from it, the reverse being the case where the rating value is small and the poor are numerous. One of the charges on this Metropolitan Common Poor Fund is the cost of the rations of certain officers. The Local Government Board and the right hon. Gentleman the President (Mr. Ritchie) are concerned in this— that the Legislature, in making the cost of these rations a common charge, empowered the Local Government Board to fix the scale for these rations. My first allegation is that this scale is inadequate. Some hon. Members may have noticed that I have recently put a series of Questions on this subject to the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board. I regret to say the right hon. Gentleman has not been very communicative; but he did inform me of the particulars of the scale fixed for the Board. It appears that the officers are divided into two classes, called principal and subordinate. As regards the rations of the principal officers, an allowance of 12s. per week per head is made by the Board; and as regards subordinate officers, an allowance of 7s. per week per head, is made. The other day I asked the right hon. Gentleman what was the average cost of these rations in the Metropolitan Unions. The right hon. Gentleman was either unable or unwilling to supply me with this information, and, under those circumstances, I took the only course which remained open to me —that is to say, I set about obtaining all the information I wanted for myself, and in a few hours I obtained from Mr. Howard, the Clerk to the Bethnal Green Guardians, the information I was asking from the right hon. Gentleman. Now in Bethnal Green I find that the actual cost of these rations, taking principal and subordinate officers together, is 12s. 8d. per head per week. The amount allowed by the Local Government Board works out at 7s. 5½d. per head per week. The Local Government Board, in this case at any rate, allows very little more than half the actual cost. I communicated these facts to the right hon. Gentleman as representing the average cost throughout London, and the right hon. Gentleman replied that he had no reason to doubt the general accuracy of my statement. So that, interpreting that as official answers must generally be interpreted, I think it may be taken that the inadequacy of this scale is established. But I may mention to the Committee, however, that I have been also in communication with the Clerk to the Shoreditch Guardians, and, through the courtesy of that gentleman, I find that in Shore-ditch the actual cost is 13s. 9d. per head, whereas the allowance works out at 7s. 5d., so that it appears that the difference between the actual cost and the allowance for rations is very nearly as great as the official grant. There is a further point which I wish to mention to the Committee. Mr. Clay, of Shore-ditch, who is a gentleman of great experience in these matters, informs me that, although the cost of rations for the principal officers is materially greater than the cost of rations for the subordinate officers, still it is not nearly so great as the difference fixed by the Local Government Board; so that it is clear that we have the evidence of an expert to show that the scale of the Local Government Board is wrongly constructed. But in order to establish and bring home this charge against the Local Government Board, it is not sufficient for me to show merely that the scale is inadequate; I must also show that it is contrary to the intention of the Legislature.

COLONEL HUGHES (Woolwich)

I rise to Order. I ask whether the subject to which the hon. Member is drawing attention can be discussed upon the Vote before the Committee, having regard to the fact that the expenditure to which the hon. Member is alluding is entirely defrayed by an expenditure from the rates?

THE CHAIRMAN

I understand the hon. Member to be discussing the question of payment out of the rates by the direction of the Local Government Board, who have framed a scale of allowances. If that is so, the hon. Member will be in Order in continuing his observations.

COLONEL HUGHES

The Local Government Board control the action of the Guardians in many cases; but there is no single item of the Vote before the Committee which can include the question which the hon. Member is now discussing.

THE CHAIRMAN

That is not the point.

MR. PICKERSGILL

I am not at all surprised at the interruptions by which the hon. and gallant Member opposite endeavours to prevent my exposing this matter. When I was interrupted by the hon. and gallant Member I was at this point—that it was not sufficient for me to show that this scale was inadequate, but that I must also show that it is contrary to the intentions of the Legislature. Now, I must refer to the Metropolitan Poor Act, 1867. Under that Act the salaries of the officers are made common charges, the rations of the officers are excluded. But by the 2nd section of the Metropolitan Poor Act of 1870 it is provided as follows:—namely, That the item of salaries of the officers referred to in the ninth section of the Metropolitan Poor Act of 1867 shall include the cost of the rations of the officers according to a scale to he fixed by the Local Government Board. Well, Sir, the right hon. Gentleman opposite argues that it is obvious that the cost of the rations is not on all-fours with the salary. Now, I submit that so far from this proposition being obvious, on the contrary I maintain that the cost of the rations is precisely on the same footing with the question of salary. The right hon. Gentleman will, no doubt, tell the Committee that the cost of the rations to be allowed to the Guardians is to be determined according to the scale fixed by the Local Government Board; but my answer to that is that the salaries—the amount of the salary repayable to the Guardians—is a matter to be fixed by the Local Government Board. In both cases a discretion is given to the Local Government Board, but it is a discretion which is to be judicially exercised in both cases alike. I admit that the Local Government Board is not bound to allow the actual cost, but the reasonable cost—not a cost that they might find or take here or there, but the cost taken upon average. Well, I believe that the right hon. Gentleman will tell us that it would not be in the interest of economy that the Local Government Board should allow any amount which might be demanded in respect of these rations. ["Hear, hear!"] The right hon. Gentleman says "Hear, hear!" but I submit that a statement of that kind is mere idle beating of the air. No one has ever maintained, certainly least of all have I, that the Local Government Board would be justified in allowing a Board of Guardians to maintain its officers on turtle soup and bottles of old port; but what I maintain is that the Local Government Board are required by this Act to provide a reasonable scale —a scale such that a Union exercising fair economy would not exceed, and might charge against the Local Government Board. I say that they have fixed a scale to which the Metropolitan Unions cannot possibly bring down the cost of their officers' rations. It will be perfectly clear that if the scale is inadequate when it ought to be adequate, it is very unfair upon the poorer districts of London; and that it is unfair to the poorer districts of London I may show by stating a single fact—namely, the cost of the rations in Bethnal Green Union alone is considerably more than £1,000 in excess of the sum which the Local Government Board allows. Well, Sir, I submit that the revision of this scale is most urgently required. I do not know that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Ritchie), who represents an East End constituency, would be disposed to deny that it is not very astonishing that I should wish, if possible, to relieve the burdens of the poor ratepayers of those places. It is to me a most painful sight—acquainted as I am with painful sights—to see thousands of respectable ratepayers struggling quarter after quarter to keep their heads above water, and to see them from time to time sink into pauperism under the crushing weight of the enormous local imposts which they have to bear. The only question, then, is this, What was the intention of the Legislature in passing this Act? In addressing the Committee I can use arguments which would not be permissible if I were pleading before a Court of Law. I will refer to the statement made by Mr. Goschen at the time he was President of the Local Government Board. Mr. Goschen, who was the author of the Act of 1870, declared to the House that he introduced a Bill, the object of which was to equalize the rates throughout London as far as possible. When I find that in the parish of St. George's-in-the-East, which the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Richie) represents, the poor rate is 3s. 5d. in the pound, whereas in the parish of—

THE CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member is now travelling beyond the definite question, which is the discretion of the Local Government Board in fixing this scale.

MR. PICKERSGILL

I submit, of course, to your ruling, Mr. Courtney, and point out that if this scale is not revised it will have the effect of making the poor of this Metropolis worse off than they are at present. In conclusion, I simply ask that the President of the Local Government Board should do that which I conceive to be his duty, and to act on the principle of the distinguished man who, when he was President of the Board, was responsible for the Act of 1870.

THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE) (Tower Hamlets, St. George's)

I also would appeal to the hon. Gentleman to consider what, perhaps, may be news to him—namely, that it was the distinguished man he refers to who fixed the scale of rations to which he objects. The argument of the hon. Gentleman was that the Bill of Mr. Goschen had for its object the equalization of the rates throughout London. I can hardly understand that the hon. Member was aware that Mr. Goschen fixed the scale; but that is the case, and, therefore, if his object was to give to the parishes the total amount of the rations of officers, and if these are not paid for by the scale fixed, it is Mr. Goschen who is responsible. I have here Mr. Goschen's circular. [Mr. PICKEESGILL: I do not dispute that.] Then if I have not stated the argument of the hon. Member correctly I do not know what his argument is. Well, Sir, Mr. Goschen also said in the same debate it was a portion of the plan that a margin should be left in order to secure economy. Well, now, of course, the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Pickers-gill) said, and said very truly, that I, as the Representative of very poor parishes, ought to have some sympathy for the course he was pursuing. I have been connected with the East End of London perhaps twice as many years as the hon. Gentleman has been months, and, therefore, the Committee may well imagine that I am deeply interested in the condition of affairs in the district to which the hon. Gentleman has referred, and that nothing would be wanting on my part, which I thought I ought properly and justly to do, to mitigate the conditions under which the unfortunate poor lived in the East End of London. But, Sir, we must bear in mind this, that in dealing with questions of this character a scale ought to be fixed which would secure economy in the administration of rates by Local Bodies. What Mr. Goschen did at the time he fixed that scale was to inquire throughout the Unions in the Metropolis what was the minimum it would be proper to fix the scale at. I am not now contending that that scale is sufficient; I am only showing how the scale was fixed. I think it can hardly be contended that the case of rations has arisen between 1870 and the present time. However, what I want to point out to the hon. Gentleman and the Committee is that before the hon. Gentleman called attention to this subject at all I had made it the subject of investigation; and not only have I made this the subject of investigation, but I have for some time been investigating the whole incidence of the Metropolitan Common Poor Law Fund. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Pickersgill) thinks we ought at once to proceed to fix a higher scale without making any inquiry. I myself do not think that would be a judicious course to adopt. I am making inquiries; I have previously informed the hon. Gentleman that I am making inquiries. When I have satisfied myself as to the exact condition of affairs I shall not hesitate to take such action as my inquiries may show to be right; but it is perfectly impossible for me to say now, without having made any inquiry at all, I can recommend to the House that the scale should be raised. The hon. Gentleman has given figures as to the cost of rations in Bethnal Green and Shoreditch. I have no doubt that the figures he has quoted are substantially correct; but it does not at all follow it would be right to take these figures as the basis everywhere. The average must be taken, and the very minimum of the average must be taken, in order to promote eco- nomy in the various Unions. However, I do not propose to enter into the question the hon. Gentleman has raised. I have only to state again what I have stated in answer to Questions, that the whole matter is being investigated by me, and that my course of action will be dictated by the result of my inquiries.

MR. BUXTON (Tower Hamlets, Poplar)

I think the Committee generally will have heard with pleasure that the right hon. Gentleman has already instituted an inquiry into the whole question which has been raised by my hon. Friend (Mr. Pickersgill). Knowing as we do the sympathy the right hon. Gentleman has always shown on behalf of the ratepayers of London, and knowing also the immense knowledge he has acquired as a Member of an East End constituency for so long a time, we may safely leave the inquiry into this important matter in his hands. I am sure that the Committee and all those interested in this question will feel that great good will come from the inquiry the right hon. Gentleman is now prosecuting. We hope that in this particular question which my hon. Friend has raised greater equality and greater fairness may be shown between the different districts in London with reference to this Metropolitan Fund. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Ritchie) stated that Mr. Goschen had fixed the scale, and that, therefore, the scale must have been a fair one; but I think it is evident from what Mr. Goschen said in the debate which took place at the time of the fixing of the scale, and from the wording of the two Acts themselves, that there was no intention of fixing that scale, or any of the grants from the Common Poor Fund, on the principle of the laws of the Medes and Persians—on the principle that there was never to be any alteration. Mr. Goschen fixed the scale as fairly as possible; I acknowledge he fixed it as fairly as possible, according to the knowledge he then had, for the matter was then an entirely new experiment. Fresh information and light has been thrown on the question from time to time, and, therefore, I do not think we need take Mr. Goschen's proposals or Mr. Goschen's references to the matter as absolutely final and precluding us from making alterations. I trust the whole question of the Common Poor Fund may receive adequate consideration in the next Ses- sion. I think the answer the right hon. Gentleman has given is very satisfactory under the present circumstances; and I hope my hon. Friend (Mr. Pickersgill), who has most carefully considered this question, will be satisfied with the answer he has received.

MR. ISAACS (Newington, Walworth)

Mr. Courtney, I am particularly anxious to urge on the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. Ritchie) that it is the poorer parishes or Unions in the Metropolis that are most interested in this question. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Pickersgill) has pointed out that, in Bethnal Green Union, £1,000 per annum is at stake in this matter—that is to say, that sum represents the difference between the allowance and the actual cost of the rations. Much the same sort of thing prevails in most Unions, and I, as the Representative of one of the poorest Divisions of this Metropolis, respectfully urge upon the President of the Local Government Board the desirability of setting this matter right at the earliest possible moment. I am sure I have only to make this appeal to him to insure that there shall be no unnecessary delay. What has occurred to-night only points to the necessity of considering that far larger question—namely, the equalization of the poor rates throughout the whole of the Metropolis.

MR. F. S. POWELL (Wigan)

I must apologize for endeavouring to engage the attention of the Committee for a few moments, while I refer to a subject in which, as Chairman of the Canal Association, and as Chairman for many years of the Sanitary Department of the Paddington Vestry, I have taken considerable interest. The question which I wish to ask my right hon. Friend (Mr. Ritchie) is, What is the nature of the duties which are imposed upon the Inspector under the Canal Boats Act, 1884? We have already had a discussion in this House with reference to the addition to the staff of Inspectors. I do not wish to enter now upon that large question, but hope I may be allowed to say at least this, that when there is an addition made to the staff of Inspectors we ought to receive some guarantee that his duties are fairly discharged by him, and that they are clearly defined by the Department under which he serves. I should like to know how the duties of the Inspector under the Canal Boats Act, 1884, have been arranged; in what manner he has been asked to serve the Department, whether he visits different localities along the line of canals, or whether he is resident and receives reports which may be sent to him? I had the honour of giving evidence before the Committee which dealt with this subject, and I confess I felt some doubt at the time as to whether the Inspector, having command over so large a mileage as the canals of this country cover, could devote sufficient attention to any particular point as to render his services so effectual as could be desired. I ventured also, before that Committee, to suggest that there would be one difficulty in connection with this Inspectorship, and that was that an officer, whose duty appeared to me to cause him to travel very much, must incur large expenditure in travelling; but I confess, although I did at that time feel some apprehension on the subject, I was not quite prepared to discover, at so early a stage as the present, that the travelling expenses would amount to £270, an increase, as compared with last year, of £80. I am not at all raising any difficulty as to the change of law. I am not making any objection, and I hope I am not erring in asking the Department to give the Committee some explanation on the point I have mentioned. I believe that some inspection is necessary; I am not hostile to reform, I am only asking the Department in charge to give us some explanation. The entire cost of the Inspector is shown in the Estimate of the present year as no less than £800. That is a serious charge, and one which I hope I may be excused in drawing the attention of the Committee and the Department to. At the same time, I distinctly say that I am not averse to the Inspectorship; I am only asking the Government to give us some explanation as to the working of the new experiment. There is another point to which I desire to refer, but it has relation more to the form of the account than to the account itself. On the 137th page of the Estimate, under the heading "Grants in Aid," there is a charge of £74,000 for "Medical Officers of Health and Inspectors of Nuisances." It certainly does appear to me to be very inconvenient that officers, whose duties and whose positions in the world are so far remote as those of Medical Officers of Health and Inspectors of Nuisances, should be grouped together in the same sum total in these Estimates. I hope that on future occasions we may know actually the cost of the Medical Officers under the Public Health Act, and also the exact cost of the Inspectors of Nuisances, and I hope also that we shall be informed in this case, as we are in some others, of the number of those officers. I do not grudge the growth of this item; on the contrary, I welcome it; I believe its growth is an indication of a more healthy condition of public feeling on these subjects, but, at the same time, I do hope that in the Estimates presented to the House in future years we shall be informed how many Medical Officers there are, and also how many Inspectors of Nuisances. I trust, too, that in the future the number of these officers will not be less than it is now, but that, on the contrary, the number of both class of officers will be increased, I shall hail with pleasure rather than with pain any increase of the Vote under this heading. I am very reluctant to intrude upon the attention of the Committee; but I trust that, as I have devoted considerable attention to the points I have raised, I may be pardoned in asking these questions.

THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. LONG) (Wilts, Devizes)

Perhaps I may answer the questions which my hon. Friend (Mr. Powell) has asked. So far as the Department is concerned we are very happy to have the opportunity of answering any questions hon. Gentlemen may put in connection with the Inspectorship of Canals. As regards his duties, the Inspector is directed generally to inspect the condition of boats, and do his utmost to improve what was unquestionably a bad condition of things. It is with great pleasure I can inform my hon. Friend that the Inspector has carried out his work very satisfactorily, The Sanitary Authorities in the different districts through which canals pass have become much more alive to the duty of superintending the condition of canal boats; and I may perhaps point out that in connection with this work the Inspector must of necessity be very careful he does not unnecessarily interfere with the passage of the boats. Of course, if a boat were stopped several times on one journey, it would cause considerable dissatisfaction. On the whole the work seems to have been satisfactorily done; not only have the Sanitary Authorities become more alive to their duties, but the boats have been greatly improved. The condition of the inmates has been materially improved; there has not been so much herding together as before, and the condition of the young women especially has been greatly changed for the better; many of them, in fact, have been induced to abandon their wandering life and enter domestic service, and so improve their condition. I may also tell my hon. Friend that, notwithstanding the fact that the bargemen have the reputation for using rather strong language at times, our experience, through our Inspectors, goes to show that in hardly a single instance has there been the slightest attempt to resent the Inspector's interference; on the contrary, the bargemen seem to be very much gratified with the efforts of the Inspector to improve their condition. In the opinion of the Department the amount put down for travelling expenses is not excessive; but I can assure my hon. Friend that the point will receive the attention of my right hon. Friend (Mr. Ritchie). As to the grouping together of some of the charges in the Estimate, I think my hon. Friend (Mr. Powell) will find that the officers to whom he referred do not object to the grouping, so far as they are concerned, so long as they receive the money their services entitle them to. But even if they did object, it does not rest with us to separate the charges, but with another Department of the State.

MR. F. S. POWELL

I am anxious to know how many medical officers there are receiving assistance in this manner? It is really a most important point of sanitary administration; and I do hope that on future occasions the charges will be shown separately, and that we shall know exactly the number of Medical Officers and the number of Inspectors of Nuisances.

MR. LONG

If my hon. Friend will let me know exactly what his wishes are, I will take care that an endeavour is made to meet them.

MR. CLANCY (Dublin Co., N.)

There is a note at the foot of page 132 which seems to require some explanation. I find there are several officers employed by the Local Government Board who receive double salaries—who hold double offices and receive double salaries. I do not quite understand such a system of carrying on the Public Service. The note to which I refer is as follows:— Another Inspector received in addition to his salary, under sub-head A, £829 0s. 8d. from the Vote for the Household of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland as Private Secretary, for himself and clerks. I do not understand how a Local Government Board Inspector in England, unless he possesses the qualities of Sir Boyle Roach's bird, can be Private Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland at the same time. No doubt, if all the Noblemen who have filled the Office were like the present holder of the Office and stayed away from his post it would be easy to understand. But the last three holders of the Office of Lord Lieutenant were always at their post; they lived in Ireland, not like the Marquess of Londonderry, in Seaham. I want some explanation as to how it comes to pass that a Local Government Board Inspector in England can also be at the same time Private Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant in Dublin, and receive double salary for this practically impossible work?

THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE) (Tower Hamlets, St. George's)

The point which the hon. Gentleman has raised is one that is new to me. I will make inquiries into the matter, and if he thinks it necessary to put another question concerning it on Report, possibly I may be in a position to afford him the information he desires.

MR. CLANCY

I will certainly raise the question on Report; and I will also raise on Report, if the right hon. Gentleman is not able to give me an answer now, the whole question of these allowances. I see, by another note at the foot, that one of the Inspectors receives an addition to his salary. £100, I see, is put down as a temporary allowance. I do not understand how an allowance can be temporary when it is every year granted to a man.

MR. RITCHIE

I am now in a position to afford the hon. Gentleman information as to the first question he raised. Mr. Boyle received the amount quoted as Private Secretary to Earl Spencer. Of course, as he is no longer Private Secretary he does not receive that amount; and I understand that at the time he was receiving it he was not an Inspector.

MR. CLANCY

It is stated that he was one of the Inspectors of the Local Government Board.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR (Donegal, E.)

The discussion on this Vote has taken some time, and I am unwilling to trespass unnecessarily on the attention of the Committee; but I wish to mention a few points in connection with the administration of the Local Government Board, which, though they may appear trivial, do affect in a serious manner a considerable number of persons. The first point I will raise has reference to the accommodation of the aged couples in workhouses. In regard to this point a Question was asked in this House the other day. Since that Question was put, I have been in communication with several of the most intelligent Guardians in this Metropolis, and I am glad to say that the opinion I have always expressed on this subject was confirmed by those gentlemen. They said that whenever any cases of this kind arose in their Unions they endeavoured to secure for these aged couples outdoor relief. The officers of the Metropolitan workhouses are averse to accommodation for old married paupers; they are unwilling to allow the paupers to know their rights under the law, and they are very angry with those who take any steps to inform paupers over 60 years of age what their rights are; and, under these circumstances, they have endeavoured—and endeavoured successfully, as they assure me—to secure outdoor relief for all respectable old couples. Now, I submit to the Local Government Board, whether it would not be advisable for them to draw the attention of the Guardians generally to the desirability, first of all, of avoiding the difficulty, in matters of workhouse administration, of having these married paupers on the premises; secondly, the advisability of avoiding the expense which these paupers entail; and, thirdly, the advantage of giving a small amount of outdoor relief in all cases where these old married couples are respectable people, and where they may be presumed to get assistance from other quarters if they do get assistance from the rates? The second point I want to urge on the attention of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Ritchie) is this—that in many of the workhouses in England there are a number of unfortunate people classed as dangerous lunatics, but of such a condition mentally that they require a certain amount of care and attention; they really want a little more than nursing. Their life at present is a very hard one. They are exposed to a great deal of unkindness from the somewhat uncultivated people amongst whom their lot is cast. The classification of lunatics is not by any means perfect. In some cases the crowding of lunatic wards in workhouses is something perfectly hideous; and if authoritative information is wanted on the subject I direct the right hon. Gentleman's attention to page 40 of the last Report of the Lunacy Commissioners in this country, in which he will find special reference made to the scandalous condition of the lunatic wards of the Dudley Workhouse. I only mention it because it has often been reported upon before without any effect. I direct the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the lunacy wards of the Dudley Workhouse; and if he is satisfied that the complaint is well-grounded with regard to that workhouse, perhaps he will think it worth while to communicate with the Lunacy Commissioners with regard to the condition of a considerable number of other workhouses in Great Britain. He will find, if he pursues the subject, that the condition of hopeless lunatics in the English workhouses is often very pitiable, and, to a great extent, depends upon causes which might easily be removed by a proper classification.

MR. RITCHIE

I promise the hon. Gentleman that I will make special inquiries; and if I have reason to believe that the evils of which he complains exist at Dadley Workhouse, I shall certainly take steps to do what I can to put an end to them. The hon. Gentleman is, no doubt, aware that great efforts have been made to put down what was at one time a great evil; and the result is that an improvement has been made. Of course, I cannot say that these evils do not exist; but I will certainly inquire and take such course as is desirable. With reference to old couples living together, no doubt it is perfectly true that in some cases difficulties have been overcome by the outdoor relief given to aged couples. The hon. Gentleman must know that this question of outdoor relief must be approached in a very careful manner by Poor Law Guardians, and that if the Local Government Board were to encourage the system, the effect might be very injurious. With reference to the provisions made in workhouses for old couples, I do not think the hon. Gentleman is correct in saying that any attempt is made to hide the rights of these old couples from them.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

Will the right hon. Gentleman allow me to explain. I am speaking as a Guardian of some experience in London. When I found the condition of the Chelsea Union pointed out to the Members of the French Ministry as that of a model workhouse, I, as a Guardian of that Union, made it a point to go amongst the old people, and inquire which of them were married, and I was beset by the officials of the workhouse, who deprecated the line I was taking, and who explained that they would find it exceedingly difficult to maintain discipline in the workhouse if the old people knew what their rights were. I need not say that the result of my proceeding was that I did not ingratiate myself with the officers.

MR. RITCHIE

How long is that ago?

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

Eight years ago.

MR. RITCHIE

I think I explained, in answer to a Question put to me the other day by an hon. Member, that a Circular had been sent out to all Boards of Guardians specifying what their duties were in that respect, and calling upon them to perform them. I also stated that in a great many cases where accommodation had been provided aged couples had not availed themselves of it. Of course, it does not at all follow that there may not be exceptions in which accommodation is required and not provided. At the same time, I repeat what I said the other day, that if any instances are brought to my knowledge where the obligations of the law are not fulfilled, I shall consider it my duty to call upon the Guardians to fulfil their obligations under the law. I have the most entire sympathy with the object of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Arthur O'Connor), and the object of those who desire that arrangements shall be made for aged couples to live together when they desire to do so. I only repeat what I said then, that if anyone will bring to my knowledge instances in which the law has not been fulfilled, I will make it my duty to call on the Guardians to carry out the law.

DR. TANNER (Cork Co., Mid)

I wish to draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board to an item which amounts to £4,396, for a Chief Inspector of Alkali Works and seven Assistant Inspectors. Looking at the condition of this House in which we are assembled, I should very much like to know what these Inspectors are for?

MR. RITCHIE

The Inspectors are to see that the Alkali Acts are carried out.

DR. TANNER

I see that the Inspectors are appointed under the Alkali Works Regulation Act of 1881, and, that being the case, I presume that the duties of these gentlemen are to see that the Act is carried out. If they do carry out the Act, how is it that we find the stonework of this building peeling off day after day? Looking at the amount of money that we spend on these Inspectors, I think we have a right to look for some result from their labours, especially when we know it can be displayed in connection with the very building in which we are assembled. We have a right, so far as we are brought into immediate contact with that which forms a part of the duty of these gentlemen, to expect that they shall perform their functions with intelligence and circumspection. If, in connection with a building like this, we find such gross and palpable neglect on the part of these Inspectors, no doubt, were we to travel further, we should find that elsewhere the condition of things is much worse. I should like the right hon. Gentlemen to tell me how it is that these Inspectors have not carried out their duty so far as that duty should be brought to bear upon the condition of the exterior of this building?

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR (Liverpool, Scotland)

I cannot see how the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board, who is at the head of the Department to whom these Inspectors are responsible for the pro- per discharge of their duties, can sit still without attempting to offer a reply when a charge of this kind is made against the subordinates who are mentioned in this Vote.

MR. RITCHIE

I hardly thought that the hon. Gentleman opposite could be serious in connecting the Inspectors under the Alkali Acts with the condition of the stonework of the House of Commons. I failed to see the cause and effect—

DR. TANNER (Cork Co., Mid)

The effect is observable on the structure of this House.

MR. RITCHIE

The Inspectors under the Alkali Acts have to visit alkali works, and see that they obey the provisions of the law. How the fact that the stone peals off the walls of the Houses of Parliament can go to show that these Inspectors have not properly carried out their duties of inspection I fail to see. I say I cannot trace the cause and effect in the condition of the House of Commons and the details of this Vote.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR (Liverpool, Scotland)

The right hon. Gentleman forgets that right opposite the House of Commons, on the other side of the river, are situated Messrs. Doulton's extensive pottery works. I remember the Alkali Act being passed, and, if I am not mistaken, it applies to all works, the noxious gases from which are calculated to injuriously affect the health of the population or the condition of property around them. I believe I am right when I state that the effect of Messrs. Doulton's works on all surrounding buildings and on the health of the people in the neighbourhood has been the subject of strong complaint and of controversy for the past 15 years. The late much respected Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Tait, over and over again called attention to the injurious effect of these works upon Lambeth Palace and its inhabitants; and if any Inspector will only take the trouble to examine the outside of this building, he will have no difficulty in satisfying himself that the works in question have a most damaging effect upon the stonework of these Houses. I think my hon. Friend (Dr. Tanner) was amply justified in the observations he made.

MR. MOLLOY (King's Co., Birr)

I noticed a gesture of dissent run along the Benches opposite when my hon. Friend (Dr. Tanner) suggested a connection between the Inspectors under the Alkali Acts and the condition of the stonework of this building. But, as a matter of fact, there is a very strong connection. By a certain section of an old Statute, Messrs. Doulton are permitted to open the flues of their works whilst carrying out certain operations. Salt is used in the furnaces to produce a glaze upon the pottery, and the gases that are evolved pass into the atmosphere, combine with the moisture, and eventually form hydrochloric acid, which settles on the stonework of this House and causes very material injury.

MR. RITCHIE

If the hon. Member (Dr. Tanner) will communicate with me privately on this subject I shall be glad to consider the matter.

MR. MOLLOY (King's Co., Birr)

I have mentioned this subject frequently in previous Sessions of Parliament; but, though I have always received the same kind of answer as that just given, nothing has ever been done.

Question put, and agreed to.

(4.) Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £6,239, 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 Office of the Commissioners in Lunacy in England.

MR. MOLLOY (King's Co., Birr)

I beg to move the reduction of this Vote by the sum of £9,000, the amount paid to the Lunacy Commissioners in this country, and I do so because I have always looked upon these Commissioners as I look upon them to-day—namely, as a body utterly worthless for the purpose for which they are appointed. The main purpose for which these Commissioners were instituted, as I have pointed out Session after Session, was for the protection of the unfortunate lunatic. Now, let me just in a few words explain how these gentlemen carry out their work. There are, in all, six Commissioners in Lunacy, three lay and three professional. They are under the Act bound to go about the country in couples; therefore, we may say that for the purpose of inspecting the different lunatic asylums of this country there are only three Commissioners. Now, the duty of these Commissioners is not only to visit and look after the asylums, but to visit and examine the patients separately for the purpose of ascertaining what their condition is, and for the purpose of preventing any misuse of the law — this miserable and detestable Lunacy Law. The number of lunatics in the country is 80,000; so that it comes to this—as the Commissioners must go in couples—that 80,000 lunatics have only the protection which can be given in the time that three men can devote to their interests. Now that, on the face of it, is an absurdity. Year after year I have called attention to the subject, and year after year I am told— "We are about to introduce a Bill—we agree with all you say, and we hope that by next year our measure will be passed into law and the evils you complain of remedied." How does the matter stand? Three or four Bills have been introduced into the House on the subject. The hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn) has introduced a Bill; the Earl of Selborne introduced another in the House of Lords; but though it passed all its stages in the other House there it rested, and there, I suppose, it will rest until Doomsday unless we can induce the Government to be active in the matter. The Commissioners do not do the work as they ought to perform it; and I complain this year, as I have complained year after year, that, by what means I am unable to tell, in the case of private lunatic asylums, when the Inspectors go to visit the patients the fact of their intended visits is invariably known beforehand to the keepers of these establishments. As it came out in evidence in our Law Courts not long ago, and in evidence before the Select Committee on the question of Lunacy, the fact of an intended visit is known beforehand and preparations are made for it, everything is cleaned and everybody is looking happy and smiling. Such visits are not worth a straw. These Inspectors have under their protection unfortunate people, some of whom we know are incarcerated improperly for private purposes, and are no more lunatics than we are in this House. This was proved in some of the evidence which has recently been given in lunacy cases. Now, what are these private asylums, because it might appear that an inspection and close ex- amination into the condition of the people in these establishments is not necessary? Well, the Earl of Selborne, in the House of Lords, when speaking on these subjects—I think it was the Earl of Selborne—mentioned the fact that the discharged coachman of one of his friends was then keeping a private asylum. I should be sorry to say that that is the general character of the keepers of these institutions. Far from it. Still, such people do keep them; and, therefore, it will be seen how necessary it is that these institutions should be subject to the closest inspection and examination. Of course, visits to the public asylums are not of such importance, in one sense, because public asylums are under public view, and the difference between public and private institutions of this kind is that whilst in the former the keeping of lunatics is not a question of gain, in the latter it is the reverse. The public asylums are public institutions, the people connected with which are paid by the State; whereas the other class of asylums are private undertakings, the whole aim and object of the keepers being to make a profit out of the patients. I will not go into detail on this point, although it is a very serious matter, and I am very much in earnest with regard to it. I could show, by quotations as to the number of deaths in private asylums and the number in public asylums, and the number of cures in the one class of institutions and in the other—I could give a clear indication, nay, absolute proof, that the interest of the patient is not looked after in the private asylums, but that he is kept there for the purpose of gain. You would get at this indication by comparing the death-rate and the number of cures under the two systems. I have another objection to the Lunacy Commissioners. When the Earl of Selborne introduced his Bill last year, they made some recommendations, which, of course, were received as such recommendations always are received—namely, with respect; but these recommendations were not carried out, and the Chairman or the Head of these Lunacy Commissioners resigned in high dudgeon. Well, I think it would be a good thing if the other Commissionsers would follow this example, and we could get rid of them all. This is the way they deal with the proposed reform of the Lunacy Laws. In their last quarterly Report they complained of the proposed intervention of a County Court Judge, a Stipendiary Magistrate, or two Justices of the Peace, in the matter of the incarceration of a lunatic. At present the law is that two persons, even if unconnected in every shape and form with an individual, can, by procuring a certificate from two medical gentlemen, obtain the incarceration of that individual. So that if I have a grievance against anyone, and can find two medical men who will give me a certificate—not a probability, but certainly not an impossibility, as we know from circumstances which have recently transpired—I can obtain that person's incarceration in a lunatic asylum. An hon. Member opposite is laughing at me; but I tell him that if I can get two medical men to certify to his insanity I can incarcerate him in a lunatic asylum. [Laughter.] I beg the hon. Member's pardon; I did not mean anything personal. I was endeavouring to explain what the law is. These Commissioners were appointed for the purpose of protecting the public as well as the lunatics, and the object of the Bill introduced into the House of Lords was to allow of the intervention of a County Court Judge, of a Magistrate, or two Justices of the Peace, in this sense— that before you could obtain the incarceration of a person, the medical certificate was to be certified by a public Local Authority. Then, a second object sought to be obtained by a reform of the Lunacy Laws is power for these Local Authorities to visit and examine the asylums on certain fixed occasions. The Commissioners object to the Local Authority having power to visit and examine lunatics, I think, once in three years. Now, these are the gentlemen who have been appointed to protect the interests of lunatics, and who receive— six of them—£9,000 a-year, or £1,500 each. I assert that when reforms are proposed by Parliament these gentlemen object to them, on the ground that they will give further protection to these unfortunate lunatics. But the very system which they object to is the system in vogue in Scotland at the present time, where it has been found to work exceedingly well. It was because of the experience we had obtained in Scotland that the reforms were introduced in the measure I have referred to, which passed through all its stages in the House of Lords last Session. I object to these Commissioners, because I think they are useless for the purpose for which they were appointed. As collectors of statistics they are, no doubt, very good indeed; but the collection of statistics is a work which can be very satisfactorily performed by persons paid at a much less rate and possessing much less power than these Commissioners. I should like to see men appointed as Commissioners who would look into the law, inquire into the circumstances of the cases, and understand the wants of these poor people. By no act of the Commissioners has freedom ever been restored to an alleged lunatic. For six or seven years I have taken an interest in this matter, and yet, in that period, I cannot recall a single case in which an alleged lunatic has been freed from his incarceration by any act of the Commissioners. On the contrary, so far as my memery serves me, they have invariably acted as obstacles to the freeing of alleged lunatics from the asylums. Their visits and examinations must be of the most cursory character; because, if you take the private asylums alone, they have not sufficient time to do the work. The inspection of these places alone would more than occupy all the time they have at their disposal. And this question of inspection is a question I call more attention to than anything else, because the public asylums, like public prisons and hospitals, are open to public inspection. That is not the case with private asylums; and it is ridiculous, on the face of it, to suppose that three sets of Commissioners can visit all the persons incarcerated and detect such fraudulent cases as in the course of the debates in the House of Lords were shown to be possible. I hope the Bill which passed through the House of Lords will be introduced in this House next Session by the Government. If it is not introduced, it will be brought forward by a private Member, if not in its entirety, at least in its main features. There is one point in the Bill as introduced into the House of Lords to which I object. My objection to private asylums is based on the single ground that the interests of proprietors is not the protection or cure of a patient, but is that of a common tradesman in the matter. That is a principle which, I think, is quite enough to put an end to all private asylums in the country; but the proposition which was made in the House of Lords on this matter was one which, to my mind, was utterly ridiculous. They proposed a kind of tontine arrangement; and if it is proposed again, I shall give it my strongest opposition, and I know several hon. Members who will do the same. They proposed in this Bill that no more certificates shall be given for the holding and maintaining of private asylums, but that those who hold certificates at the present time shall be entitled to continue to do so. They begin by asserting, as I assert, that the whole system of private lunatic asylums is wrong in its very essence, and then they compromise the matter by allowing existing institutions to continue. They allow the assigning of a certificate of an asylum just as if it were a public-house. They express an opinion against the continuing of private asylums, and then they allow them to continue with just the same force. If their proposal has any other meaning, it is this, that as the holders of private asylums die out the money interest of the remaining owners shall be increased; and they propose this on the ground that otherwise they would be compelled to pay compensation to the proprietors of the private asylums, if they refused to allow them to continue their trade. Now, to my mind, that is incomprehensible. You grant a certificate to a man to permit him to keep a private asylum. He pays a small fee, but that small fee does not give him any property. It is simply to bring him, so to speak, under the supervision of the Lunacy Commissioners, and to prevent people from keeping asylums without being registered. I object to this provision in the Earl of Selborne's Bill, and I allude to it now because it is sure to be introduced in any future Bill coming from a similar quarter. I object to it altogether, because I say that the certificate is simply a certificate of registration, and that it gives the holder no more right than is possessed by any private individual. To introduce the question of compensation because you put an end to that which is wrong, is carrying the doctrine of compensation to a most ridiculous point. Well, as I have said, I do not wish to detain the Committee by going too fully into this ques- tion. I have made my protest against this Vote regularly for the last three years. I make my protest against it again this year. I have gone a little into detail simply for the purpose of drawing attention to a proposal in the proposed legislation which ought not to be accepted—that is to say, the proposal continue existing private asylums, which we are all agreed are wrong in principle, and also the proposal to grant compensation because you refuse to allow these men holding your certificate to continue a trade which is wrong and which is injurious to the public good. I move to reduce the Vote by £9,000.

THE CHAIRMAN

I would point out to the hon. Member that the sum now asked for is only £6,239.

MR. MOLLOY

Then I move to reduce it by £6,000.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £239, 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 Office of the Commissioners in Lunacy in England."—(Mr. Molloy,)

MR. W. J. CORBET (Wicklow, E.)

I agree with every word that has fallen from my hon. Friend—or with everything but one observation. He complimented the Commissioners as a body for the collection and publication of statistics. I must disagree with my hon. Friend in that matter, and I wish to give some information to the Committee on one or two points in regard to it. In the first place, I want to point out that in the Report which the Commissioners have just issued, and in preceding Reports, there is to be found no account of the cost of maintaining the lunatic poor of England. Now that is a very remarkable fact. I find that in the Reports of the Scotch Commissioners and of the Irish Commissioners there are very complete and admirable tables setting forth in full the details of the expenditure for maintenance, and also setting forth the cost for buildings and every other charge connected with the maintenance of the lunatic poor, and I fail to see how it would be impossible in this country, where finance is supposed to be conducted in so superior a manner, for the English Lunacy Commissioners to give a similar statement of account. There is another remarkable feature in this Report of the Lunacy Commissioners. They have stated, over and over again, that insanity is not on the increase. They have attempted to show that such is the fact in ways of their own, but I find from this Report that the actual numbers of insane have increased year by year from 36,762 in 1859, to 80,156 in 1885; and yet they go on asserting annually—they have a paragraph for that purpose in their Reports—that there is no increase at all. In their 15th Report, page 75, they say— During the 10 years, from 1st January, 1849, to 1st January, 1859, the number of patients in the various asylums of England and Wales has advanced from 14,560 to 22,853. And they go on to say— The great increase which has taken place in the number of patients in asylums is limited almost entirely to pauper and criminal patients. They then enter into figures as to patients in private asylums, and they say— The foregoing calculations clearly show that while the number of pauper patients has increased so enormously"— they admit the enormous increase— there has been no augmentation of the private cases. Now, I just wish to dwell for a moment on this matter—and perhaps it is a more important one than some hon. Members would imagine. I hold it to be the duty of these Commissioners, so far from minimizing and making light of so grave a matter as the affliction of insanity—it is their duty, I say, as honest servants of the public to let the public know the actual truth. In one of their Reports they attempt to account for the increase under three heads. First, the large number of cases previously unreported and only recently brought under observation; secondly, the increased number of those sent to asylums; and, thirdly, the prolongation of their life which occurred in consequence. Now I admit to the full the justice of the way in which they proceed to explain the increase; but this explanation was given 26 years ago, and the numbers were only then brought up to 22,855, and the solution they gave was in my mind a reasonable one. But then how does the matter stand at the present time, when the number has quadrupled? They give in their 40th Re- port a Table which completely upsets all their theories of no increase. I will not trouble the Committtee by going through all the figures on page 10 of the 40th Report. But in 1859 I find that the number of lunatics in borough and county asylums was 15,844; the number in those asylums to-day is 48,139; the number in registered hospitals was 1,855, the number at the date of their last Report is 3,219; the number in Metropolitan licensed houses in 1859 was 2,551, at present it is 2,426; the number residing with relatives and friends was 5,920, it is now 6,313. The total in 1859 was 36,762, and the gross total, including those in Broadmoor and the Metropolitan District Asylums, is now 80,156. It is then quite plain that in every department, both in the public institutions and in regard to those provided for by their friends, there has been, with trifling exceptions, an enormous increase. Now, with regard to their position, which has been referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for King's County (Mr. Molloy). With reference to the Lunacy Bill, which was read three times in the House of Lords, and a first time in this House, I think it a very remarkable thing that they should have opposed the measure, which I consider would have been a very beneficial one in regard to the insane population of the country. There is one matter to which I desire to refer before I sit down. I allude to a case upon which the Lunacy Commissioners obtained an order from Lord Chancellor Selborne to make a Report—the case of a lady and her daughter, both alleged to be insane, and who were detained in the house of a gardener at Newport, Isle of Wight. The Commissioners endeavoured to execute the Lord Chancellor's order, but were met with determined opposition on the part of the gardener and his wife, who, on two successive days, refused them admission to the house. These people were in consequence summoned before the magistrates, the wife was discharged, but the husband was convicted and fined in a mitigated penalty. The order was subsequently executed; but it was found that the younger lady had been removed, and had left England, and that the mother was in a moribund state, and, it appears, died very soon afterwards. The Commissioners did not say that there were any inquiries further than this. I shall certainly support the Motion of my hon. Friend for the reduction of this Vote. I desire to draw attention to the Report itself, and to say that it is incomplete. Several times I have brought before the House the fact that these Commissioners do not produce their Report until Parliament is either risen or is about to rise; and now I find, from their preliminary observations in this Report, that they complain rather bitterly of having been forced to bring it out so early as in July, and allude to the fact that the Report is in consequence wanting in some particulars. We all know that Committees of this House sit and take evidence, and print it in the course of a few weeks, producing Reports—in a few months certainly—which are of much greater importance than the Report of these Commissioners; and, therefore, I do not think that they have any just ground of excuse for failing to produce their Report in full within the time specified. Sir, I beg to support the Motion of my hon. Friend.

DR. TANNER (Cork Co., Mid)

No doubt, the Report resulting from any inquiry into the existing state of affairs by the Commissioners in Lunacy is a most valuable and important document. When we look into the state of these unfortunate people, who are afflicted in the greatest degree, and see how dependent they are upon the benevolence of the State, we find many instances which must move the natural feelings of hon. Members to try and promote the comfort of this class. I cannot help saying, from what we have heard this evening, that a complete case has been put before the Committee by my hon. Friend, and I shall have pleasure in supporting his Motion. When we consider that there are 80,000 people in England afflicted with insanity, and when we take into consideration that a large number of these persons are left to the tender mercies of managers and proprietors of asylums, when what we know of these asylums is a disgrace to the humane feelings of the majority of the population, the importance of the subject impresses itself most deeply upon our consideration. Now, it seems to me that the Commissioners in Lunacy, from what we have heard to-night, do not perform their work in a satisfactory manner. For my own part, I cannot help saying, and I believe many hon. Members will agree with me, that we are, to a certain extent, biased by the expressions which are used in connection with this subject. The history of the past shows us that the insane have been dealt with in a way not at all suited to their condition; and perhaps many Members of this House have read a book which at one time tended more than anything else to bring this matter under the consideration of Parliament. I refer to Valentine Vox, a book which I read many years ago. There are many points mentioned in that book which are, practically speaking, true to-day. Of course, we appoint Commissioners to inspect the asylums; but, speaking as a medical man, I know that these Commissioners find very great difficulty in dealing with this part of the work, because we know that a person suffering from what is called dementia may be perfectly sane for a week or a fortnight, and then go off his head again for two or three days, passing from complete sanity to savage mania. In many instances it is very difficult for them to express an opinion in these cases, and the consequence is that, when the Commissioners go down to any of the asylums, they have more or less to act upon the ipse dixit of the medical man in charge, which, unfortunately, is not always reliable. As a medical man, I dislike to say anything against the Profession to which I have the honour to belong. In dealing with this subject of private lunatic asylums the element of profit must not be lost sight of; and this is a point which demands the strictest investigation. I think this ought to be seen into more thoroughly than it is at present. I remember a case in point which occurred about four years ago in connection with a private lunatic asylum. The case was not brought forward, because the relatives of the lunatic did not like to make the matter public. The lunatic in question was a professional man who had been a clergyman, and was afflicted with a propensity for the excessive use of alcoholic liquors. He was a man of weak constitution, which brought about the particular form of insanity with which he was afflicted, and he was confined in a private asylum. We know that people who go mad in consequence of drink get worse for a few days after they are deprived of it, and afterwards, as a rule, improve and recover. Well, this gentleman was confined for about nine or ten months, and a member of his family wished to get him out of the asylum; but, on inquiry, they were told it would be better to wait a little longer. This is the usual answer that is given at private asylums. After a great deal of trouble Commissioners were appointed to visit the asylum. The Commissioners came down, but decided to postpone their examination until the next day. What had been done to this poor man? The fact is, in the meantime, he had been allowed to get hold of some liquor. When the Commissioners came to the asylum they were received with a smirk on the part of the proprietor, and notably on the part of the underlings in charge; they were shown into a room, and there they found this unfortunate man lying on a table with his abdomen quite bare; upon it was a kettle of water; and he informed the Commissioners that he had a fire inside him, and was boiling the kettle to make punch. The Commissioners would not be satisfied with simple investigation; but they went further and inquired into the cause. What happened was that, in the course of a fortnight, the man, whose case was considered as hopeless, became completely well; and, owing to the efforts of his relative, who insisted upon the Commissioners going down again, he was released. But it is not easy to get the Commissions to go down a second time. They are often satisfied with a single visit; and it is a notorious fact that they take the ipse dixit of the medical man in charge. Unfortunately, they remind me of the practice of consulting physicians, who, when they are called in to see a case and have announced the determination they have come to, always begin by stating that they completely and entirely agree with the physician in charge; the only difference being that the ordinary consulting physician is always bound to do some little thing, if possible, in the case, because it is expected of him. These Commissioners are bound to send in a Report; and here I must endorse the statement of my hon. Friend the Member for King's County (Mr. Molloy), who referred to the Reports of the Commissioners as a scandal and as utterly worthless as regards the main purpose for which the Commissioners are appointed— namely, the protection of lunatics. It is for issuing such Reports as these that the Commissioners enjoy large salaries. I trust that this debate will produce some results. I hope that a yearly Report will be issued, setting forth on the face of it the number of private asylums which have been visited by the Commissioners. When we look into the case of private asylums and contrast them, and the way they are managed, with public asylums, we see that the private asylums are not so well cared for as the public asylums. The reason of this is perfectly clear; the statistics at our hand show us that the patients conned in private lunatic asylums live for a long time. Of course they do. Why? Because they are paid for; and we know that in many eases people who are sent to private lunatic asylums are actually paid for after they are dead. That is stated in the Report of the Commissioners; and there have been many instances in recent years. But, although the inmates of private asylums do live for a considerable time, still they do not recover in the same ratio as those in public asylums. This is a matter which ought thoroughly to be investigated by the Commissioners, who ought to add their quota to the knowledge we already possess of this remarkable portion of medical science; and I trust that in future they will attend to their duty in this respect more fully and completely than they have done hitherto.

THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. STUART-WORTLEY) (Sheffield, Hallam)

I have listened with great attention to the hon. Gentlemen who have brought under the notice of the Committee the serious defects of the present system. It is not the first time that I have listened to their earnest and conscientious pleading, and it is not the first time that I am compelled to refer to the overmastering circumstances which prevent the Government taking in hand legislation to meet the evils of which they speak. Last year I undertook, on the part of Her Majesty's Government then in Office, that they would view with favour all efforts to promote legislation; and, accordingly, I am able to tell hon. Members opposite that the then Lord Chancellor had prepared a measure which he would have submitted to the House of Lords had that Government remained in Office. The noble and learned Lord who occupied the Woolsack in the time of the last Government did introduce a Bill, which passed the House of Lords and came down to this House; but, owing to untoward circumstances, legislation had to be put a stop to. It is rather hard that the Commissioners should be found fault with, and that a proposal should be made to reduce their salaries, because Parliament has been unable to amend the Lunacy Laws in the direction in which they required amendment. I have had difficulty in making out, from the speeches of hon. Members opposite, whether they wish to increase the number of Commissioners or to have none at all; whether it is wanted to make easy their difficulties, so as to make them able to prevent abuses. I believe that the latter is the true policy, and such would have been the object of the legislation of the House of Lords last Session. The Bill of last Session aimed at the gradual extinction of private asylums; but hon. Members will see that we cannot abolish these all at once, because we have at present no substitute for them, and the only way to extinguish them would be by the establishment of asylums for paying patients. With regard to the question of requiring an order of a magistrate before you detain a lunatic, it is hard to find fault with the Commissioners because they disapproved of this portion of the Bill. I can assure the hon. Member for King's County (Mr. Molloy), and other hon. Gentlemen who take an interest in this subject, that between this and the next Session of Parliament it will occupy my most earnest attention, and that of Her Majesty's Government, and that no time will be lost in asking the assent of Parliament to legislation. I do not propose to deal any further now with the undoubtedly important matters raised by hon. Members opposite. I ask them to be content with the fact that nothing will be left undone for the purpose of securing what they consider to be conducive to the welfare of this class of the afflicted. The hon. Member for Wick-low (Mr. W. J. Corbet) has referred to the Report of the Commissioners. The Commissioners were asked to bring out their Report earlier this year; but they were supplied with no additional staff and no additional powers for the purpose of acceleration. With regard to this, I may say that the arrangement might possibly have been made more lucid had they been allowed more time in which to bring out their Report. I trust, after this explanation, the hon. Gentleman will not see any necessity to offer serious opposition to the Vote.

MR. CLANCY (Dublin Co., N.)

My hon. Friend the Member for the Birr Division of King's County (Mr. Molloy), who moved the Motion for the reduction of this Vote, is not present at this moment; but I am sure we shall be consulting his wishes if we take a division. My hon. Friend has stated to-night that this is the fourth year he has drawn attention to this subject. Notwithstanding this, he is treated in the scantiest manner—in such a manner, in fact, as almost leads one to suppose that the Government doubt the hon. Gentleman's sincerity in bringing the matter forward. Under these circumstances, and considering that the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Stuart-Wortley) gave us no assurance that there will be any legislation tending in the direction pointed out by my hon. Friend, we are bound to go to a division. We shall divide as a practical protest against this system of procrastination. The assurance that this subject will receive the most earnest attention of the Government is of the most stereotyped character. In Ireland, when we hear that the Government are going to give most earnest and serious attention to any matter, we come to the conclusion that they are not going to do anything whatever until they are absolutely compelled. The hon. Gentleman(Mr. Stuart-Wortley) has said that there is other Business before Parliament which prevents legislation on this subject. He must know perfectly well that, even though Irish questions do monopolize the larger share of the time of Parliament, non-contentious legislation—and no one will pretend for a moment that legislation on this subject is other than of a non-contentious character—has in these times a good chance of passing. I will not assume that anyone in this House has any other motive than to benefit this unfortunate class of human beings; secondly, I cannot imagine anyone in this House setting up his views in opposition to those which will be generally conceded to be right; and I am confident that if a Bill were introduced dealing with this subject, and commanding the support of a large number of Members, it would not experience any difficulty in passing through all its stages in the busiest time. This is the fourth time the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Molloy) has drawn attention to this question. I do not know whether he went to a division on previous occasions —probably he did not, and it turns out that his forbearance has been rewarded by nothing being done. I think we are bound to go a step further on this occasion; and, therefore, if I am allowed to do so, I shall insist upon a division being taken.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR (Donegal, E.)

I do not rise for the purpose of offering any opinion on the question of the debate, and for the very reason that I have not heard the whole of the debate; but before going to a division I should like to draw the attention of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Stuart-Wortley) to one or two points in connection with this Vote. The first point I wish to raise is that of the utter want of attention which the representations of the Commissioners with regard to the employment of paid skilled attendants for imbecile inmates of workhouses have hitherto met with at the hands of Guardians. The other point is that of the necessity of a diet superior to that which is given to ordinary inmates. On these two points the Commissioners have more than once complained that their representations are all in vain. Then I assume that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Ritchie) will take notice that the Commissioners have remarked upon the unsatisfactory surroundings or circumstances of post mortem examinations in the Metropolitan District Asylum at Leavesden. The Commissioners reported that the practice of making post mortem examinations was not so general as they believed it might be; and the chief reason why they urged that careful post mortem examinations should be held was that they had some ground for suspecting that many of the deceased patients had suffered personal injuries, which escaped observation, such as broken limbs. Broken limbs may often result from ill-treatment by attendants not particularly well qualified for the positions they occupy. The Commissioners go on to compare favourably the state of things in the county and borough asylums with the circumstances of the management of the Metropolitan Asylums Board. Now that, certainly, is a matter which ought to receive the attention of the proper authorities. The last point to which I desire to ask the attention of the Government is in reference to the Roman Catholic inmates of a number of these lunatic asylums. No one will question that the influence of religion has often a very quieting and salutary effect upon persons suffering from mental disorder. Now, in the Birmingham Asylum there are no less than 50 Catholic patients, who, mad as they may be on certain points, are yet keenly alive to the fact that according to the dictates of their religion they are obliged, if possible, to hear Mass on Sundays and Holidays of Obligation. The Commissioners are of opinion that the absence of facilities for the purpose is a grievance which ought to be remedied. That is not an isolated case. On page 278 of the Commissioners' Report the same representation is made with regard to the Roman Catholic patients in the New-castle-on-Tyne Asylum. These patients number between 40 and 50, and the Commissioners are of opinion that the ministrations of a priest of their own faith should be obtained for them. I trust the attention of the hon. Gentleman will be directed to this point also.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 67; Noes 123: Majority 56.—(Div. List, No. 19.)

Original Question put, and agreed to.

(5.) £29,081, to complete the sum for the Mint, including Coinage.

MR. DILLON (Mayo, E.)

Upon this Vote I should like to raise the question of the desirability of continuing the circulation of half-sovereigns. We all know that this question was raised, I think, about two years ago in a very unpleasant shape. I cannot recollect the exact amount, but it is a very large one, which it was then stated is lost annually through the depreciation in the value of half-sovereigns. The amount of gold in half-sovereigns circulated in England is exceedingly great; and, in my opinion, the time has come when the Government ought to abolish the circulation of half-sovereigns altogether. I am quite aware that such a course would meet with considerable opposition from men who consider the half-sovereign a convenient coin.

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

MR. DILLON (resuming)

I was pointing out, Mr. Courtney, that by some people the half-sovereign is considered a very useful coin; but that now it has become a very grave question whether, for the sake of the convenience of persons who like the coin, a continuous loss through its circulation should be sustained by the country. Everyone who knows anything about gold coinage knows that the wear and tear of half-sovereigns is exceedingly great as compared with the wear and tear of sovereigns. I should think it is fully double, if not more; and the consequence of this is that a loss of a very considerable amount—I have not ascertained the amount—is sustained every year, and will go on as long as these coins are circulated. What I wish to urge upon the Committee is that, in my opinion, the proper course for the Government to take is to call in half-sovereigns, and to discontinue their circulation. Well, now, when we come to examine the coinage of both countries—I will deal with that of the United States of America and that of Italy, having had some opportunity of studying the coinage of both these countries —we find that the circulation of gold is exceedingly scanty; that, practically, there is no coin such as the half-sovereign circulated in those countries. I am not aware that in the United States any serious inconvenience arises from the non-circulation of gold. The circulation of gold is almost entirely confined to the 20-dollar piece, which is worth rather over £4. On account of its size this coin circulates very little, and therefore the loss through wear and tear is exceedingly slight. Of course, I know that in the United States paper money takes the place of gold. The tendency of civilization is to increase largely the circulation of paper money and decrease the circulation of gold. It may be said that the point I have raised is but a small branch of the great question of currency. But it still is one worthy of consideration: it is well to consider whether the circulation of gold to such an extent as is witnessed in this country, an extent which does not exist in any other country, should be any longer continued, especially when regard is had to the fact that such a circulation leads to perpetual waste and loss. As I have said, and as hon. Members are no doubt aware, in the United States of America the place of gold is enormously taken by paper. My experience, and it is somewhat considerable, is that no inconvenience arises from this fact. Indeed, I believe that besides the loss in wear and tear, which is prevented by the great substitution of paper for gold, the convenience to individuals, as well as to the State, is very great. I recognize that it would not be proper to raise the large question of paper currency at this particular time, and in so informal a manner; and, therefore, I will simply say that in view of the growing scarcity of gold, and of the difficult questions which have arisen out of that scarcity, the Government are bound, without entirely revolutionizing the currency system of England, to consider what newer methods they can adopt to stem the waste of gold in this country. I believe no substantial inconvenince would be inflicted on the public of England if the coinage of half-sovereigns was entirely stopped, and those that are at present in circulation called in and melted down, and a silver currency substituted for them. I know perfectly well that such a measure as this will have a very small effect indeed in meeting the difficulties which are known to exist on account of the scarcity of gold; but, so far as it goes, to will help, temporarily, at all events, to relieve the pressure in this direction: it will take in at least £10,000,000 sterling of gold, and throw it on the market—perhaps more; I have only made a rough guess—and in the replacement a considerable quantity of silver will be absorbed. While the continuous fall of silver is inflicting great hardship on individuals, and I believe leading to widespread difficulties in trade, even while the Committee which has been appointed to inquire into these matters is sitting, I do not think so small a matter as this ought to be neglected by the Government, if it will, as I think it will, check the downward tendency of silver in the market.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Lord RANDOLPH CHURCHILL) (Paddington, S.)

Mr. Courtney, I was not aware that this subject was to have been brought forward to-night. The hon. Member opposite (Mr. Dillon) must know that he has raised a question which is of very large and wide range, and, in some sense, very unfathomable and mysterious; and it is not due to any want of courtesy to him at all if I ask the hon. Member to excuse me from attempting to follow him with any amount of elaboration into the suggestions which he has made. I must frankly admit that I do not feel myself able at the present time to deal with the questions he has raised. These are questions which must before very long come before the House of Commons for very serious consideration. I imagine that the hon. Gentleman has combined, to some extent, two questions which ought to be kept distinct and separate. He has combined the question of the quantity of light gold coin which is at present in circulation, and he has raised the much larger question as to whether it is advisable that we should continue to coin small gold coins. As to the question of the quantity of light coins in circulation, I hope that the Revenue will be in a sufficiently satisfactory state to allow of its being dealt with next year; but the question as to whether it is politic or prudent to circulate, or to withdraw from circulation, small gold coins is a matter on which I am not able at the present time to arrive at a definite conclusion. The hon. Member suggests that we should discontinue the coinage of half-sovereigns, in order, if I understand him right, that we should, so far as it goes, rehabilitate the value of silver. But the hon. Member himself admits that the effect of such a course will be extremely small, and can only act as a very slight palliative upon the depreciation of silver in the market. I admit, however, that this question of the withdrawal of half-sovereigns is one well worthy of consideration, and I am not at present aware of any great or overwhelming objection to it; but, at the same time, I should be sorry to-night to express a definite opinion with regard to it. No doubt, it is quite open to argument that our currency arrangements are not, from one point of view, considered strictly with a view to economy of gold, and to economy in the use of gold. But, on the other hand, I submit to the hon. Member that what may be called our extravagance in the use of gold adds indirectly to English credit. It may be extravagant for us to use gold so very freely; but, on the other hand, I am not prepared to deny that our being able to afford to use gold so freely may be in itself a source of credit to this country. Then the hon. Member must recollect, when he advocates a greater use of paper money, as in the United States, how strong in England is the force of custom and of habit. For very many years—in fact, since the time of Lord Liverpool—the people of this country, who are singularly influenced by habit and custom, and who in questions of this kind are marvellously conservative, have been accustomed to a gold coinage, and to a free use of gold in all ordinary commercial and trading transactions; and it is quite possible that the greatest imaginable mischief to all classes might arise from any very sudden or violent interference by the Government, or the Legislature, with what has come to be, perhaps, a deep rooted and almost ineradicable habit on the part of the people of this country. I only make these remarks in order to show to the hon. Member that the subjects he has raised are far, indeed, from being absent from my mind. The moment the exigencies of Parliament allow me to do so, it is my hope and intention to devote close and careful study to these questions; but I trust the hon. Gentleman will not expect me to commit myself to any particular opinion on the questions he has raised, but will be content with the assurance that these questions are receiving the most careful attention of the Government. A certain portion of the subject, that with regard to the excessive use of gold in our currency bearing upon the depreciation of silver, is obviously a matter which must come under the consideration of the Royal Commission which the Government have appointed. That Commission will, I trust, investigate the matter with as much expedition as its nature will admit of; but before it reports it obviously will be impossible for the Government to take any definite action.

MR. DILLON

The answer of the noble Lord the Chancellor of the Exchequer is entirely satisfactory to me. I did not expect for a moment that he would stop the circulation of half-sovereigns without consideration. Perhaps it is as well that I should say I only alluded incidentally to the greater question of currency reform, and that I admitted that the question I raised was a small one, but that I thought it was well worthy the attention of the noble Lord. The noble Lord, I think, slightly misunderstood me. I did not say the stoppage of the coinage of half-sovereigns would have any great effect on the silver, or bullion market. My intention certainly was to convey that if you were to take in all the gold which is now circulating in the shape of half-sovereigns and replace it by silver, and do all this in one year, if it could be done, it would act as a sort of check upon the depreciation in the value of silver.

MR. CONWAY (Leitrim, N.)

I beg to point out that the loss on the coinage of gold is estimated at £2,000, and that on the coinage of silver £500. I trust the Chancellor of the Exchequer will see his way to adopt the circulation of silver to a greater extent than now obtains. There is one question I should like to ask, and it has reference to steel coinage. The late Professor Jevons recommended that steel ought to be employed for the manufacture of smaller coins, instead of bronze. If rust could be prevented, it is quite clear that such a coinage would be very picturesque and advantageous. I should like to elicit from the noble Lord the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the authorities have any intention of carrying into effect this recommendation of the late Professor Jevons?

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

This question has not been before me, and really I am not sufficiently acquainted with it to pronounce an opinion upon it.

MR. CAINE (Barrow-in-Furness)

It seems to me that the £400 put down under Sub-head G. for Brokerage is not a proper expenditure. I see no reason whatever why the Deputy Master of the Mint should not go into the silver market himself, and do his own buying, and thus save this amount for brokerage. I trust we shall receive some explanation upon this point.

THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON) (Leeds, N.)

I think anyone who is accustomed to transact business in London in articles of produce coming from abroad his pretty well aware that it is the custom in almost every branch of business to employ brokers. It may be, and no doubt it is, true that any individual who goes into the London Market can, without any difficulty, get any reasonable quantity of either gold or silver bullion; but as a matter of economy—and I understand the hon. Gentleman raises the question entirely on that ground—I should say, from my own personal experience of business in London, that the Government are wise in following the custom of the trade, and that probably the £400 a-year which is spent in this way is more than saved by the employment of a broker. By buying bullion ourselves we might save the broker's commission; but I am confident we should have to pay fully its equivalent, and probably more, in the extra price asked us.

MR. JORDAN (Clare, W.)

The usage in ordinary trade is, I think, that brokerage is paid by the seller, and not by the buyer. That has been my experience in the sale and purchase of American produce. That being so, I do not see why, in this case, the brokerage should be charged to the buyer instead of to the seller.

MR. A. BLANE (Armagh, S.)

I see that the loss on the coinage of silver is put down at £500, and that on the coinage of gold at £2,000. The loss on gold is charged for, while that on silver is not. Gold is supposed to be the money of rich men, and yet they get the weight of gold back. Silver is the money of poor men, and for any deficiency they are charged. I think we ought to receive some explanation on this point.

MR. JACKSON

I think I can explain to the hon. Member the practice with regard to gold coinage. Gold coins are issued free of charge in exchange for bullion.

MR. A. BLANE

But will the hon. Gentleman explain how it is that silver is charged for and gold is not? If the hon. Gentleman does not give us a satisfactory explanation I am afraid I shall have to move to reduce the Vote.

MR. JACKSON

If the hon. Gentleman means to reduce the Vote, perhaps he will kindly put his question in a form in which the Government can understand it?

MR. A. BLANE

It is quite easy. A man brings a certain weight of gold to the Mint, and gets the same weight back. If he brings silver he is charged for it.

MR. JACKSON

The coinage of silver is charged for, and it arises from the fact that silver is not a legal tender in this country, and gold is. The coinage of this country is a gold coinage, and silver is merely a token coinage.

MR. CAINE

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury will say whether any Commission is charged on gold when it is purchased?

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

No.

MR. CAINE

Is there nothing paid to brokers?

MR. JACKSON

I imagine there would be if you had to go into the Market to buy gold; in that case you would leave to pay brokerage on gold just as on silver. I take it, however, that the £400 is charged as brokerage on the purchase of silver only.

MR. CAINE

The whole tendency among men of business in London is to get rid of brokerage, and I cannot accept as satisfactory the explanation given by the hon. Gentleman. I shall not divide the Committee on the present occasion; but if this amount appears in next year's Estimates I shall repeat the question, and most certainly take a division.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Caine) advocates the abolition of brokerage; but, in connection with the purchase of silver, the position of the Government does not differ from that of private firms. The Government goes into the Market just as other purchasers do, and has to employ and pay brokers in the ordinary way. If an individual wanting silver did not employ brokers he would have to add to his own expenses, so there would be very little difference in the long run. If we abolished this brokerage, and expect the Master of the Mint to go into the market whenever he wants silver, he would have to add to his own establishment in order to provide that the purchases of silver should be properly and economically made. Obviously, it must be a saving to the Government to employ men to puchase silver who are properly qualified; it must be more economical to employ persons who are connected with that special business than to add to our own establishment men unaccustomed possibly to the Market, and who at times would not be employed at all. I put it to the hon. Gen- tleman, as a man of business, whether he really thinks it is extravagant of the Government to do what every private firm finds it advantageous to do?

MR. CAINE

I can assure the noble Lord it is not the custom of firms in London to employ brokers. I myself am a merchant in produce in the City of London, and I never dream of paying brokers. This silver is consigned to the dealer in silver by the owners of the silver, and you pay him brokerage. The Deputy Master of the Mint is not at all overworked; he is a large dealer in this produce; and why should he not go to Market and buy from the man who has silver to sell? As a matter of fact, two commissions are paid for every pound of this silver that is purchased by the Mint. This £400 is an unnecessary charge, and if the matter is properly looked into, there will be no difficulty in obviating the charge in future.

MR. DIXON-HARTLAND (Middlesex, Uxbridge)

May I ask if the same amount of silver is bought every year, because £400 has been regularly charged for years past? It is a notable fact that silver is a great glut in the Market. There is a great amount in the banks; indeed, managers find the greatest difficulty in getting rid of it. I should like to know why £400 is charged regularly every year for buying this silver, when probably no such sum is ever spent?

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

I promise the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Dixon-Hartland), and hon. Gentlemen generally, that I will take the earliest possible opportunity of discussing the question with the Master of the Mint, in order to inform myself more fully upon it.

MR. BIGGAR (Cavan, W.)

On the question of brokerage I should say that if the Master of the Mint is really a judge of the value of silver he ought to buy silver himself; but if he does not understand silver, and has not time to watch the fluctuations of the Market, a broker is a very proper man to employ. As a man of business, my experience in that a person who only goes occasionally into the Market, and who does not carefully study the Market, is very likely to make injudicious bargains, and may, in consequence, very easily lose £400.

MR. CRILLY (Mayo, N.)

Notwithstanding the comments made from the Treasury Bench, I do not quite see why we should give way on this matter all at once. I do not recognize the force of the remarks that have been made by the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Jackson), or by the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Lord Randolph Churchill). I agree with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Caine) that two brokerages are paid, and that the Deputy Master of the Mint, who receives £1,500 a year, ought, when necessary, to purchase the silver himself. But if it is found that the Deputy Master of the Mint cannot buy silver owing to the pressure of other duties, the "Master and Worker" of the Department, who happens to be the Chancellor of the Exchequer, might do some practical and actual work, and thus allow the Deputy Master sufficient time to go to market, and purchase the silver for which £400 is now paid to brokers. I know that formerly a very large business was done on the Liverpool Cotton Exchange by brokers; but it gradually dawned on the Lancashire manufacturers that they could make their own purchases, and save brokerage. They thus saved a great deal, and this public Department could do the same if they acted as the Lancashire manufacturers did. This £400 might be absolutely saved if the Gentleman to whom £1,500 a-year was paid bought the silver himself; and if he could not do the work, why not bring into requisition the services of the "Master and Worker?"

MR. P. O'BRIEN (Monaghan, N.)

The question raised by the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) is, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Lord Randolph Churchill) admitted, one of wide and large range; but I do not think the Committee will agree with the noble Lord in considering it very mysterious. I do not think it would be very mysterious in its operation. The effect of withdrawing half-sovereigns from circulation would, I am sure, be very beneficial in many respects; and therefore the suggestion of my hon. Friend deserves the consideration of the Government. But, Mr. Courtney, it strikes me that the charge of £2,500 for loss of gold and silver withdrawn from circulation is worthy of some consideration.

MR. MOLLOY

If there is a loss of £2,000 on the gold coinage, the whole of the sum ought to be recovered from the "sweep." I should like to know how it comes to pass that there is this heavy loss upon gold coinage, and only a portion of it is obtained from the "sweep?"

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

The hon. Member puts to me a technical question which I am quite unable to answer; and I do not think that if he remains in the House 50 years he will ever find a Chancellor of the Exchequer ready to answer off-hand questions of this kind. I do not know whether he has ever been to the Mint. I went there not many years ago, and I was informed that a considerable amount of gold was lost in coinage, in waste of one kind or another; but that from time to time a very careful "sweep" was made by the workmen, in which a great portion of the gold lost in the process of manufacture was recovered. Whether the recovery from the "sweep" balances the loss on coinage I am not quite prepared to say.

MR. MOLLOY

I admit the question is rather intricate, and my intention was simply to draw the noble Lord's attention to it. I assert, however, from my knowledge of these matters, that there ought not to be any loss on the coinage of gold. The whole of the loss in coinage, within a fraction, ought to be recovered from the "sweep."

MR. J. ROWLANDS (Finsbury, E.)

Perhaps the noble Lord the Chancellor of the Exchequer can tell us what becomes of the "sweep"?

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

Obviously, what is recovered by the employés in the "sweep" is used in subsequent manufacture.

MR. J. ROWLANDS

As I have had some practical experience in this matter, perhaps the noble Lord will excuse me if I say that the employés do not use up the "sweep." The "sweep" is sold; someone purchases it; and I think it should be shown on the Estimates exactly how much it realizes.

An hon. MEMBER

I think the noble Lord was perfectly correct in saying that no Chancellor of the Exchequer during the next 50 years will be able to answer every question of this character off-hand. As a matter of fact, the "sweep" is sold.

Vote agreed to.

(6.) Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £5,796, 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 National Debt Office.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL (Kirkcaldy, &c)

The question I wish to raise is, whether it is advisable in the public interest that Sir Rivers Wilson, the Comptroller of the National Debt, should also occupy the position of Director of a private financial undertaking? Sir Rivers Wilson, as Comptroller of the National Debt, is paid a salary of £1,500 a-year, and in addition he has been appointed a Director of the Suez Canal, with a salary of £500 a-year. He was not satisfied with his lot, and therefore gave his name to a private financial undertaking. The attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone), then Prime Minister, was called to the subject, and the result was that Sir Rivers Wilson resigned his private appointment. I find, however, that Sir Rivers Wilson has still continued to be a Director of the British and Foreign Life and Eire Insurance Company. I have no doubt he is paid for his services as a Director of this Company; his salary may not be a large one; but, nevertheless, a very large principle is involved. The late Prime Minister undertook to consider the general question of the connection of permanent Civil servants with private undertakings. The right hon. Gentleman did not come to a conclusion; but the late Chancellor of the Exchequer—the present Member for South Edinburgh (Mr. Childers)—considered the question another year, and ended by saying he was afraid he could not lay down any rule, but must leave the matter to the discretion of the Heads of Offices. It does seem to me that, of all officers of the Government, the Comptroller of the National Debt ought not to embark in private enterprizes. It seems to me the principle that he ought not to do so was conceded when he was obliged to resign the appointment he had at one time ac- cepted. I will not detain the Committee longer; but I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will give his serious attention to the matter, and that he will deem it right to direct, or to request, Sir Rivers Wilson to give up the Directorship of the private Company, and be content with the two appointments he holds under the Government.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Lord RANDOLPH CHURCHILL) (Paddington, S.)

In reply to the hon. Gentleman (Sir George Campbell) all I have to say is that Sir Rivers Wilson is a most valuable public servant, one of the most valuable this country possesses. I have no knowledge whatever of the circumstances to which the hon. Gentleman alludes. The great charge the hon. Member brings against Sir Rivers Wilson is that he is a Director of an Insurance Company, the name of which I recognize as being that of one of the most respectable Insurance Companies in this country. I can see no reason, on my present information, why Sir Rivers Wilson should not be a Director of this Company; and if that is all the hon. Member has to urge against Sir Rivers Wilson I really cannot undertake to interfere.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

I regret that the Chancellor of the Exchequer does not see any objection to Sir Rivers Wilson holding an appointment in a private undertaking at the same time that he is the Comptroller of the National Debt. I beg to move the reduction of this Vote by £500.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £5,296, 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 National Debt Office."— (Sir George Campbell.)

MR. BIGGAR (Cavan, W.)

The noble Lord stated that Sir Rivers Wilson is a very able official, and the Director of a most respectable Assurance Company; but that, I think, is to a very large extent begging the question. The question seems to me to be whether public officials shall hold appointments in private Companies, outside their position as officials of the Government. There is, at the present time, a considerable amount of agitation among a certain class of people against public officials being Directors of Supply Associations. I certainly think the Government officials should be paid a reasonable salary for their services, and that they should not exceed the duties of their Office; and, more than that, I think that gentlemen holding Office under Government should not be allowed to sell the use of their names as "guinea pigs" to public Companies which are wanted, simply because they have Offices under Government. I assent to all the noble Lord has said in favour of Sir Rivers Wilson; but I entirely dissent from the position he has taken up, that there is no objection to Government officials becoming members of private firms. After the remark of the noble Lord, that Sir Rivers Wilson could become the Director of a respectable Assurance Company if he thought fit, it is probable that many other officials will become members of Assurance Companies of shady character, and by that means may carry ruin to a large number of people. I venture to hope that the noble Lord will reconsider this question, and give a firm decision, not only on the merits of this particular case, but with regard to the position of Government officials generally in matters of this kind.

MR. SHEEHY (Galway, S.)

I shall be inclined to vote for the Motion of the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell). I think that the noble Lord has made a very indiscreet defence of Sir Rivers Wilson; because, as the hon. Member for West Cavan has said, there are other officials who may be led by it into similar employments.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

I have a strong opinion in these matters derived from a long official career. I was in hope that I should have received from the noble Lord a more conciliatory answer. I remember the case of the high official in the National Debt Office which was settled by the late Prime Minister, the official having to resign an employment which he held. I appeal to the noble Lord to reconsider this matter. The words which the noble Lord has uttered are words which, coming from him, are most dangerous words, because not only has he excused, but he has justified, the conduct of Sir Rivers Wilson. As far as anything he said is concerned, Sir Rivers Wilson might have represented half-a-dozen Companies, or received any number of appointments; and unless I receive a more satisfactory answer from the noble Lord it will be my duty to divide the Committee.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

I have not the slightest objection to the hon. Gentleman dividing the Committee. The hon. Gentleman's idea of a conciliatory reply is, that I should deprecate the conduct of Sir Rivers Wilson. If the hon. Gentleman supposes that I am going to depreciate the characters of Government officials for the purpose of conciliating Gentlemen opposite he is mistaken.

MR. P. MCDONALD (sligo, N.)

I wish to add my protest to that of the hon. Gentleman (Sir George Campbell) against the holding of private appointments by public officials, a practice which tends to giving credit to many Companies that are unsound, and to ruin the subscribers. I say that this principle is a wrong one altogether. It is the complaint generally of the trading community that they are injured by the extension of so-called co-operative stores. Therefore, I protest against the principle in question, and if any hon. Member will second me I am quite prepared to divide against the Vote.

MR. ARTHUR WILLIAMS (Glamorgan, S.)

It is extremely unfortunate that the noble Lord the Chancellor of the Exchequer should adopt this line. We all have, I am sure, great respect for the official in question. I think the hon. Gentleman who brought the subject forward has discharged a very grave duty in showing that an official like Sir Rivers Wilson, a man in high position, is occupying his time in the service of a private Company. It is desirable that a fact of that kind should be brought under the notice of this House; because if this is done by men in his position, and is countenanced by Her Majesty's Government, we shall find it done by minor officials, and great inconvenience will result. Therefore, I hope that it may be recognized by the Government that officials, either in high or minor positions in the Public Service, are not entitled to accept other employment.

MR. GEDGE (Stockport)

The hon. Member who has just spoken seems to lay down the principle that a servant of the Crown is obliged to give his whole service to the Crown. Is it really to be the case that the servants of the Crown are to be slaves, who are not at liberty to do anything else but their public duty; and are they not to be allowed to occupy their spare time? Is Mr. Matthew Arnold, the Inspector of Schools, not to be allowed spare time in which to write those poems which we all admire? No one does his work better than Sir A. Stephenson, the Solicitor to the Treasury, and there is no reason why he should not be a Director of the Economic Life Office. But is he to be told he is not to give his spare time to any occupation he thinks fit that is of an honourable character? If it is said that, because Sir Rivers Wilson is a member of an old established Insurance Company, some other gentlemen in the Service may become members of Fishery Companies, I reply, let the matter be dealt with when it comes up. I say, let us hear no more of this subject in connection with Sir Rivers Wilson; but let us accept with gratitude the services he has performed with so much credit to the country.

MR. CAINE (Barrow-in-Furness)

I am quite sure, from my experience in these matters, that no one can be a Director of the Alliance Insurance Company without giving some hours a day twice a week during the greater portion of the year. Now, that would be given at a time when a public servant ought to be in his office. In this way, the services of Sir Rivers Wilson would be required just at the middle of the day, when we should expect to find him in his place. We know, of course, that he would not take any appointment that was not conformable with the discharge of his duty; but a principle is involved in this matter, and I should like to know whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer would approve of the Secretary to the Admiralty becoming Director of a shipbuilding firm on the Thames? The question of the employment of public servants as Directors of Companies is a very important one, and I trust that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Kirkcaldy will divide the Committee upon it.

MR. HOWELL (Bethnal Green, N.E.)

I protest against the Chancellor of the Exchequer calling in question the conduct of those who object to servants of the Crown undertaking private business when they ought to be devoting their time to the public business for which they are paid. The position we take up is one of principle; the question has been raised long enough; and all I can say is, that unless the Chancellor of the Exchequer can give us some idea that the Government will take it into consideration, we, on this side of the House, shall do our best to force the hand of the Government upon the question. The practice has been complained of over and over again. The hon. Gentleman who has just spoken (Mr. Caine) has referred to a matter which comes home rather closely—namely, that of a man being associated with private undertakings similar to that for which he is paid by the Government. It seems to me that a public servant ought to devote his whole time to the work for which the country pay him; and I think it would be of greater advantage to the country if Mr. Matthew Arnold were to devote more time to the work for which he is paid. I altogether dissent from the principle that a man in the Public Service should be allowed to devote any portion of the time for which he is paid to other employment.

MR. BIGGAR

I believe that hon. Members who oppose this Vote will not take any exception to the particular Insurance Company with which Sir Rivers Wilson is connected. But I protest against the argument of the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Gedge), who said that we ought not always to criticize the action of Government officials when they become members of what I may call shady Companies, or when they are deficient in the duty which they owe to the State. There are public Companies which are presumably solvent, and beyond criticism possibly; but that is not the question. I think we ought to go on the general principle, and consider whether or not these gentlemen should be allowed to become directors of trading Companies, and, at the same time, public servants. First of all, it appears that these gentlemen give, on several days a week, some hours to the work of the Insurance Company, and ignore their public duty. ["No, no!"] Well, it seems to be so. And, in the next place, as in the case of Mr. Matthew Arnold, we find that poems are written in business time. There is the fact to be considered that a man may write good or bad poetry, and it does not much matter; but when a public servant becomes a member of an Insurance Company, a great many people may suffer by the fact that his name has been lent to an unsound concern. It is a much more dangerous thing for a public servant to become a Director of a Company than it is for him to write poems, or occupy his time with similar work. I hope the hon. Gentleman will divide the Committee on this question, in order to show that this House requires that public servants should give their whole time to the performance of their duties, and have nothing to do with business speculations.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

I wish to say one word of protest against the doctrine laid down by the hon. Gentleman below the Gangway opposite (Mr. Gedge) —that a public servant is only bound to give a modicum of his time to the Public Service. I think that is a most dangerous doctrine, for this reason especially—that the money which he receives as salary is a fixed quantity, and that which he makes from his other position is a variable quantity; and, therefore, as the means of increasing it, he is likely to devote more time to the latter than to his public duties. I have many years of official experience; and I think the doctrine propounded by the hon. Member for Stock-port, with the sanction of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, is most dangerous.

MR. HARRIS (Galway, E.)

There are many grave evils connected with the practice of public men becoming members and Directors of public Companies. Had it not been for the fact that the late Mr. Sadlier was a Lord of the Treasury, he would not have been able to swindle the public to the enormous extent that he did. I see no reason why we should consider public officials as any better than other people, but rather the other way, as being less occupied. I have been in their society, and am able to speak with some knowledge in this matter. I think the question under discussion is one of much importance in the interest of the people; and if the hon. Gentleman goes to a division I shall certainly vote with him.

MR. A. BLANE (Armagh, S.)

I do not think that this Committee would act justly if they did not apply to the heads of Departments the same rule as they apply to subordinates. It is of no use saying, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said in effect, that because a man is respectable he should be allowed to do what other people are not allowed to do. I protest against that doctrine, and shall therefore vote for the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell).

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 73; Noes 139: Majority 66. — (Div List, No. 20.)

Original Question put, and agreed to.

(7.) Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £25,303, 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, connected with the Patents, Designs, and Trade Marks Act.

MR. MOLLOY (King's Co., Birr)

I do not wish to discuss this Vote in any sense; but I desire to put a question to the Government upon it. I should like to know whether it would not be possible to have an index of foreign patents prepared for reference in our Library? Such an index would be of the greatest value. Another suggestion I would make—and it is one which I made on a former occasion— is that a museum of patent models should be established in England similar to those which are to be found in almost every other country of the world.

THE SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (Baron HENRY DE WORMS) (Liverpool, East Toxteth)

In reply to the hon. Member I have to say that the index he refers to is being proceeded with, and that I trust it will be completed in a very short time. The other suggestion the hon. Member makes is a very good one, and will receive favourable consideration.

MR. P. MCDONALD (Sligo, N.)

I wish to call the attention of the Committee to a very great want existing in this Kingdom, and I would trouble hon. Members with a few words of explanation thereupon. I would contrast the American trade mark system, and some portions of the Continental system, with our own. In America, I believe, the system is that the trade mark, when submitted to the Registry Department, is not recorded until it is properly and duly examined; and when it is found to clash with an existing trade mark it is refused admission on the index. The same thing applies, and perhaps still more strongly, in the matter of patents. A different system exists in England. I believe, as far as I am aware, that any person can bring forward a patent or trade mark, present it to the Department, and have it indexed, without taking into consideration whether or not it clashes with any pre-existing patent or trade mark; and the consequence of that system is that the trader who has a pre-existing patent or trade mark is put in a position of being obliged to bring an action at law against the subsequent patentee, or person registering, to defend his right. The result is that long and tedious law suits occur, often to the serious detriment, and even to the ruin, of one or other of the parties. We have in this country frequent instances of the unsatisfactory result of this system; and we had in Ireland, quite recently, a case in point which accentuates the necessity of having some change in the law. I would, therefore, beg to draw the attention of the noble Lord the President of the Board of Trade (Lord Stanley of Preston) to the necessity of introducing an examination system combined with the indexing, and of ordering that the indexing alone shall not be sufficient. He should have an examination system combined with the present process, so that immediately a person presented an invention clashing with one already registered, it would be rejected, and the party presenting it told that he had no right to any protection in regard to it. I beg to call the attention of the Department to this question, as I believe the system I propose would tend greatly to the advantage of the trading interests of the country. It would be a reform which I believe to be very urgently called for.

MR. TOMLINSON (Preston)

It is a matter for regret that hon. Gentlemen should address themselves to subjects with which they do not appear to have made themselves fully acquainted. Those who know anything about trade marks are aware that they cannot be admitted on the register without previous examination.

Mr. P. MCDONALD

I have confident personal knowledge to the contrary.

MR. TOMLINSON

This is not the time to go deeply into the question of the laws relating to patents and trade marks. The hon. Gentleman seemed to confine his observations to trade marks; and I wish to point out that the law, as established by the existing Acts, prevents two trade marks of a similar design being registered with respect to the same class of goods.

MR. M. J. KENNY (Tyrone, Mid)

On a point of detail, I should like to know how it is that there are two items in the Vote relating to indexing? How can this double charge be made for the same thing; and will the hon. Gentleman opposite (Baron Henry De Worms) explain what is the meaning of this item of £4,000, which is a considerable increase upon the charge for last year?

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR (Liverpool, Scotland)

I am sorry that the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Tomlinson) should have thought it right to say what he did to my hon. Friend sitting near me (Mr. P. McDonald). He says my hon. Friend addressed himself to a subject of which he knows nothing. Well, I have sat with the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Tomlinson) for four years in this House, and I must say that during the whole of that period the hon. Member has never seemed to me to know anything, except how to block a Bill, and how to fill up those interstices in debates which talkers against time know so well how to avail themselves of. ["Oh, oh!"] In reply to the interruption of hon. Members, I would point out that I myself never talk against time. My hon. Friend says he has had experience of trade marks being granted without proper investigation; and I would recommend to the hon. Gentleman, the champion blocker, this important fact for his consideration—that, at the present moment, the noble Lord the President of the Board of Trade (Lord Stanley of Preston) is engaged in a consideration of a Bill for re-arranging the whole of the law of trade marks, and a Bill is to be brought in next year. If trade marks are in the happy condition the hon. Member (Mr. Tomlinson) supposes them to be in, there would be no occasion whatever for the introduction of the Bill the noble Lord is engaged upon.

MR. TUITE (Westmeath, N.)

I believe the present cost of obtaining a patent is too high, and that it operates very harshly against the working class of this country. The total cost is much more in England than in any other country. I would ask the Government to do what they can to reduce the cost, so as to enable our intelligent artizans and labouring classes to patent their inventions.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER) (Isle of Wight)

Perhaps it would be convenient that I should say a word or two at this point on the three questions which have been raised. First, as to the examination of patents and trade marks. Perhaps I ought to point out to hon. Members that the question of the examination of patents and the question of the examination of trade marks are distinct. As to the examination into the validity of letters patent before a patent is granted, I need not remind the House that that is a subject which has occupied the minds of those who have studied the Patent Law for the past 15 or 20 years. Rightly or wrongly it has been considered neither possible nor desirable, in the interest of inventors, to attempt to make examinations as to novelty. The whole matter was carefully considered prior to the passing of the Act of Parliament of 1883. I must remind the Committee that the matter is dealt with in Section 7 of the Act, under which there is an examination and report as to the nature of an invention; and if the application, specification, or drawings have not been prepared in the prescribed manner, or if the title does not sufficiently describe the subject-matter of the invention, the application may be refused. That, the Committee will see, is an examination into what I may call the validity of the patent, to find whether, on the face of it, the subject-matter has been properly described. Then I would remind the Committee that when there is an opposition the matter is governed by Section 11, which provides that there may be such opposition on the ground that the applicant has obtained the invention from the opponent, or from the person who is his legal representative, or on the ground that the invention has been patented in this country on an application of prior date. The Committee will observe that, the subject-matter being advertised in the case of important inventions, it is pretty well known whether or not any important patent intrudes upon the rights of prior patentees. Where the owner of a previous patent opposes it, it rests with the Law Officer to decide whether or not a patent is to be granted. The suggestion of the hon. Member opposite would be that, in the interest of every inventor, there should be an examination as to the validity of every patent, to see whether or not the patent should go on. The subject has been most carefully considered, and those who have studied the working of the Patent Law have come to the conclusion that unless such an examination were thorough, so that the State could guarantee the validity of the patent, it would be of no real value to the patentee. I do not wish to repeat the names of the eminent men who have expressed opinions upon this matter. Some of them are no longer with us, though others, I am happy to say, are still living. Sir William Siemens, who came to this country for the sake of the Patent Laws, having started originally with the idea that an examination would be desirable, at last came round to the opposite view, and sat on a Committee to consider this question, which reported that it was not desirable that there should be such examination. The cost of an efficient examination would be very great indeed; and the desire, of course, is to reduce the cost to inventors of obtaining patents. I do not think that anyone who is conversant with the daily working of the Patent Office, and of the Patent Laws, will be of opinion, especially now that there are much larger powers of amendment than before the passing of the last Patent Act, that it would be desirable, in the interests of the patentees, to attempt a system of examination. I do not know that I need say anything further on that question. With regard to the cost of indexing, I may be allowed to tell the Committee—though it is scarcely within my province, but as I happen to have had the matter brought prominently under my notice I may be permitted to say a word or two with regard to it—I may be allowed to tell the Committee that the main cost of the increase of indexing is the increase of work thrown on the officials of the Patent Office. It has been already pointed out that the matter of indexing is of one great importance to patentees, and especially to those who are bringing out patents for improvements. It would be astonishing to Members, on inquiring into this subject, to find how frequently it happens that inventors, who think they have hit upon a per- fectly original idea, find on making investigation that the same thing has been invented before. Indexing is a most difficult process; and, owing to the large increase which has taken place in the number of patents since the passing of the last Act, it has been necessary to incur great expense in the matter. But a large increase has taken place on the other side of the account. There is a countervailing balance; therefore, the patentees who pay the fees have a right to be considered. With regard to the cost of obtaining the patent being too high, that was a matter which was considered prior to 1883. The initial cost was largely reduced. In the first instance it is only £4—£1 on application for a provisional protection, and £3 on completion of specification. There is no further payment until the end of four years. Practically speaking, therefore, every useful invention can get protection for four years for £4; and there are few inventions indeed which cannot be developed, and tried, and tested in four years. And when a man has got an invention which is so useful that it is worth while to obtain a monopoly for it, then, at the end of four years, he can continue the patent. The sum charged is not at present considered too large; but whether a reduction is possible and desirable, I am sure those who have control over the Patent Office will be very glad to consider. So far as the interests of working men inventors are concerned, I do not think there have been anything like the complaints as to the high cost of patents since the passing of the Patent Act that there were previously. Certainly, the endeavour of those who have had the framing of the laws has been to put it in the power of those working men who have been fortunate enough to hit upon an original invention to obtain a patent for it on the most moderate terms, and then to secure their right at the least possible expense. I am not aware that any other question has been raised upon which I can afford the Committee any information; but I think I can say that, as to the examination of trade marks, the Comptroller does not allow two trade marks of a similar kind to be put on the same class of goods. All these matters have been lately under the consideration of the Patent Office and the Board of Trade; and I do not think there is any question of weight which has been overlooked, and on, which every effort has not been made to make the Act work as successfully as possible.

MR. P. MCDONALD

My remarks were in the direction of improving the law as to trade marks. I did not intend so much to address myself in the course of my observations to the question of patents, inasmuch as I am more concerned in the one than the other. I am pleased to find that the observations of the hon. and learned Gentleman have fully borne out the necessity that exists for effecting some change in the law; and that, indirectly, has been a complete answer to the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Tomlinson), who has earned the reputation of champion blocker of the House.

MR. CONWAY (Leitrim, N.)

It must be satisfactory to hon. Members to hear from the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General that there is likely soon to be a consolidated index of patents. As to cost, I would point out that the total income from patents is £86,980, whilst the cost of the Department is £53,000, leaving a profit of £34,000. It appears to me, therefore, that having £34,000 at their command they may very well see their way to reducing the charge, and to extending the initial period of protection. I think the Department ought to take that matter into consideration. Looking at the Annual Report of the Patent Office, there appears to me to be one feature of it that demands the attention of the House. Here is a paragraph stating that during the year certain hardships arose under Sections 8 and 9 of the Act, owing to applicants not having complied with the statutory requirements; and as to the production of an amending Act, enabling the Comptroller to allow sufficient time for the completing of specifications. The time allowed is too short, and it will, no doubt, be wise to make arrangements for meeting the complaints of inventors. We all know how great are the complaints of inventors. We hear tell of their exceedingly sensitive natures; and one can well understand the feelings of anxiety of a man who submits a specification to the Patent Office, and the worry and the care which he must endure, owing to the over-methodical and circumlocutory system adopted by the authorities. The feelings of inventors ought to be considered by those engaged in the Departments; and I trust that this paragraph in the Report to which I call attention will meet with consideration from the Attorney General, and that the time for putting in specifications after application has been made will be extended.

MR. HARRIS (Galway, E.)

I should like to ask whether facilities could not be given to working men to enable them to take out a patent without the intervention of a lawyer? I myself thought I had an invention worth patenting; but I found that I should have to go to a lawyer, and give him something like £30 to begin with, in order to take out a patent. I thought that too much to pay for an experiment. I, therefore, ask whether arrangements could not be made to enable a working man to go to the office and take out his patent without the intervention of a lawyer, or the trouble and annoyance of having to obtain legal assistance?

DR. TANNER (Cork Co., Mid)

I was led to understand by the hon. and learned Gentleman on the Treasury Bench (the Attorney General) that since this new Patent Law had been brought in the number of applicants for the protection afforded by Letters Patent had greatly increased. Well, Sir, in looking into the statistics, we find that the number of applicants has increased, but that the number of patents which have been taken out have not increased; on the contrary, that there have been more heart-burnings over this question than over many others. ["Oh, oh!"] Yes, than over many others that arise here every night. [Laughter.] Hon. Gentlemen opposite may laugh, but perhaps they are not inventors. Well, Sir, there is one point to be noticed in connection with this Estimate, and that is that there is a considerable expenditure of public money involved for which there is no return whatsoever—I mean the amount paid in salaries to the examining staff. They receive somewhere between £14,000 and £15,000 a-year, and that is altogether exclusive of the payment of writers and others in the same Department. There is no proportion between the numbers of these officials and the numbers of the applications. The number of applications shows that the amount paid in this Department is not far from £1 for each application, which is actually the initial fee which has to be paid by those who apply for patents. The initial fee may, therefore, be said to be spent in examination and preliminary specification. We may thus put aside this £1 per application as spent without advantage to anyone concerned. The Committee which has been appointed to deal with this question has shown that the method is of practical advantage. Though it has given general satisfaction in its working, still it is a fact that the reduction of fees which was made was mainly clamoured for on the initial stage. If the number of patents applied for is to be taken as a criterion of the value of the Act there can be no question about that value, for its success in this respect exceeded the most sanguine anticipation of its promoters. In the first year the number of applications was no less than three times what it had been in the preceding year. In the year just passed there were only 16,101; though in the first year there were 17,110. That is a falling-off of 1,000; and it is to be accounted for by the fact that there was an accumulation just before the Act was passed. Of course, when a reform is made in a Department of this sort, naturally enough the applicants will wish to take advantage of it, and will wait until it is completed. The applicants, therefore, waited until the reform took place, when they were able to take practical advantage of it. It will be highly satisfactory if the quality of this enormous number of inventions could be readily tested. Unfortunately, we are told that that is not possible. However, there is a rough test afforded, and that is by the number of applications that are allowed to lapse at the first stage. With respect to this number of applications, there are a few statistics which have been furnished that I should like hon. Members to learn. The Patent Office has, with a delightful amount of candour, lately published a full list of applicants for patents since the year 1884, and which have become void in consequence of complete specifications not having been lodged within ten months of the date of application. This list numbers 7,013, and the addition of applications voided for other reasons brings the total to 7,064, or 41 per cent of all the applications made in a year. Though there have been such a con- siderable number of applications made in order to take advantage of the new Patent Law, still, practically speaking, though the applications have been made, you must take into account the number of people who have lost their patents by letting the whole thing lapse. The number of patents voided under the old law was 35 per cent; and, putting the two figures side by side, we have the result that there has been a greater percentage during the period to which I have drawn special attention. It is a little surprising that the percentage should be increased, and that the fee of £1 should yield no less than three-fifths of all the applications for patents— that is to say, that the inventors of two-fifths of the inventions for which patents are applied do not consider them worth £3 a-piece nine months after they have taken the first steps to protect them. This is an important point, and possibly the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite will deem it worthy of his consideration. It used to be said, under the former law, that it was the heavy fees and the initial stages which killed the patents; but that argument cannot be advanced now. It would not be true. It is admitted that the taking out of patents is not now confined to such important matters as it was in days gone by—in fact, that many smaller minor inventions are now worth patenting which formerly were not deemed of sufficient value—in consequence of the lowering of the charges. We cannot walk down any street of importance without seeing many shops in which are exposed for sale small patented articles which formerly you could not have obtained. ["Order!"] I was talking about the examiners and the amount paid to them, and from that we come to argue on the price of patents; and it is clearly discernible, even to the most superficial inquirer, that owing to the lowering of the price of patents many minor articles are patented. A man will nowadays take out a patent for a cork-screw, though, in days gone by, he would not have thought it worth his while to do so. We now find patents taken out not for one, but for dozens of minor articles, such as cork-screws. It is worthy of consideration how you can best give information of all these small patents to future inventors. It is important that we should have an index; because, if the patents were destroyed, we should have no record of what had been previously detected. Besides, an index is necessary, so that future inventors may be able to see what has already been patented, and may be able to guard themselves from the risk of having their patents interfered with by the owner of an abandoned application, and that the owners of the abandoned applications themselves may be able to relinquish their first claims, and substitute fresh applications based on a fuller knowledge of the machine or implement they may have invented. It would also be well worth considering whether the destruction of all provisional specifications would not in itself be an advantage. In that case, the examining staff would not have to be relied upon to see that an inventor did not introduce fresh matter into his specification, which he had probably obtained from a rival. Of course, the examination of applications has succeeded to a degree, and it certainly is a matter which should be inquired into. Inventors themselves, especially those of the poorer class, like it, because they believe that, after their specification has once been taken into consideration, it is safe from subsequent attack, and that, whether or not, they have secured an indefeasible right to their inventions. They have, at all events, obtained a right not to be impugned except by legal proceedings. [Cries of "Divide!" and "Question!"] If I have not explained myself intelligently, I will endeavour to do so at greater length. What I wanted to show was that the examining staff receive a large amount of money, and that, unfortunately, the benefit the people who take out inventions derive from the operations of these gentlemen is not altogether commensurate to this amount of money. The results are not altogether satisfactory. The existence of the examination has induced a great many inventors to rely upon themselves and upon the officials for the proper drafting of their specifications, without the intervention of a patent agent. That is a very great mistake, and is to be deprecated as likely to work to the disadvantage of persons who may wish to obtain patents in the future. I hope this matter will receive the deliberate and mature consideration of the noble Lord the Presi- dent of the Board of Trade (Lord Stanley of Preston).

MR. A. BLANE (Armagh, S.)

I would draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that a patent can be had in the United States of America for less than it can be obtained in this country; and I look upon that fact, and the impetus it gives to American industries, as one of the reasons of depression of trade here. I have been many times in the United States Patent Office, and I never saw a policeman there; but in this Vote I see a large sum charged for police. I do not see why we should have this charge in the Estimates. In Washington the police do their duty outside, and certainly not inside, the Patent Office. As I object to this item, I shall move to reduce the Vote by the amount for the Police.

THE CHAIRMAN

I did not catch the amount by which the hon. Gentleman wishes to reduce the Vote.

MR. A. BLANE

£400.

Motion made, and Question, That a sum, not exceeding £24,903, 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, connected with the Patents, Designs, and Trade Marks Act,"—(Mr. Alexander Blane,) —put, and negatived.

Original Question again proposed.

MR. CONWAY

I should like the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General to answer the question I raised as to an extension of time being allowed between the date of the application and the date of delivery of specifications.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER) (Isle of Wight)

The time under the old Act was six months. It has been extended to nine months, and that limit of time has been found to be quite sufficient. The cases the hon. Gentleman referred to were exceptional cases of delay. There is ample time now for the authorities to consider the applications, and it is considered that nine months is quite long enough for complete specifications to be kept out of the Patent Office. To increase the time would only be to give an opportunity to some inventors to put into the specifications more than was thought of at the time the patent was applied for.

Original Question put, and agreed to.

(8.) £11,190, to complete the sum for the Paymaster General's Office.

(9.) Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £4,014, 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 Establishments under the Public Works Loan Commissioners.

MR. MARJORIBANKS (Berwickshire)

I wish to elicit the opinion of the Government on two points in connection with this Vote, and they both refer to the functions of the Public Works Loan Commissioners as to advances for harbour improvement. It will be in the recollection of the Committee that some years ago a Committee of the House sat and recommended that large grants should be made for harbour works in the country. Later on, in 1861, Mr. Milner Gibson, in conjunction with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone), as an alternative to such a policy of grants, passed a Bill—the Harbours and Passing Tolls Bill—to enable the Loan Commissioners to make advances for harbour works, by way of loan, at a low rate of interest—3¾ per cent. That rate of interest prevailed until 1868, when Lord Iddesleigh placed these loans on the same footing as other loans granted by the Public Works Loan Commissioners. I believe that to have been a breach of faith with the House and the country; because these loans, at a low rate of interest, were distinctly given as an alternative to grants. I want to know if the present Government will do anything in the way of restoring the advantages which Harbour Authorities had all through the country for obtaining money at a low rate of interest when the security is good? I do not ask that where the security is bad they should have these advantages, but where the security is good. I do contend that, for purposes of improvement, the Harbour Authorities should have the advantage of State credit, and should be able to get money from the Public Works Loan Commissioners at the lowest possible rate of interest, which would not cause loss to the State. My second point is this—the Public Works Loan Commissioners are, undoubtedly, very capable of judging what the value of a security is; but I entirely deny that they are a Body who are at all fit to judge of the policy of particular harbour works, or are a Body at all fit to inspect such, works whilst they are in process of construction. I wish to know whether Her Majesty's present Government are inclined to adopt the suggestion of the Committee I had the honour to preside over during the last Parliament but one, which recommended that this power of deciding as to the policy of any future harbour works, and this power of superintending any work whilst in course of construction, should be taken out of the hands of the Public Works Loan Commissioners, who are not qualified to discharge those functions, and put into the hands of a Department capable of exercising them?

MR. ANDERSON (Elgin and Nairn)

Before the noble Lord the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Lord Randolph Churchill) answers the question, I desire to ask him whether his attention has been called by the Secretary to the Board of Trade to the very strict terms enjoined upon the Harbour Commissioners in advancing money in respect of harbour works at Lossiemouth, on the North-East Coast of Scotland? I had the honour to attend on a deputation the other day which waited on the Secretary to the Board of Trade (Baron Henry De Worms) in regard to this matter. It was represented to him that the Commissioners insist that, in the event of a loan being granted, their charge shall be a first charge upon the works, and the result was the suspension of negotiations for the loan. I placed the facts before the Secretary to the Board of Trade; and he stated that, in his opinion, this was a case where a concession ought to be made by the Commissioners in regard to the rule of their advances, and that he would make a representation on the point to the noble Lord the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I only now desire to know whether the noble Lord takes the same view of the case that the Secretary to the Board of Trade took, because it is a most important matter, as affecting this harbour and the improvements that are contemplated with regard to it.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Lord RANDOLPH CHURCHILL) (Paddington, S.)

If I understand the hon. Gentleman rightly, he is inclined to blame the Board of Trade, because they will not allow public money to be advanced for purposes of harbour construction in Scotland on other security than a first charge. Is that so?

MR. ANDERSON

The case I laid before the hon. Member (Baron Henry De Worms) is that the Commissioners insist on this advance coming before every other charge.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

I think the Commissioners were justified in that. I am afraid I could not, for a moment, approve of the advance of public money on any other terms save as a first charge. The right hon. Member (Mr. Marjoribanks) has asked two questions of the Government, to one of which I am sure I can give an answer in the affirmative. I would say that the money of the State should certainly be advanced for purposes of harbour accommodation in England at such a rate of interest as would not involve a loss to the Exchequer. I have no objection to make to the right hon. Gentleman's proposition in that respect, and I am sure there is none on the part of the Board of Trade. I think it quite possible that former Governments have been rather lethargic in coming to the assistance of the localities in respect to the development of harbour accommodation. It is within my knowledge that the right hon. Gentleman has rendered great service to the House and the public by bringing this matter of harbour accommodation before Parliament; and his formula that the Government should advance money for the purpose of carrying out important public improvements at the lowest possible rate of interest is one which I shall be glad to adopt. The right hon. Member's other question was, whether the Government would be prepared to remove these decisions as to the value of harbours from the Public Works Loan Commissioners and place them in the hands of a Government Department? That is a question which I cannot speak upon at present. We have had no time to examine the Report to which the hon. Member refers; but I undertake, if the action of the Commissioners is shown to have been improperly taken, and that the action of a Government Department would be more satisfactory, to give the matter consideration.

MR. BIGGAR (Cavan, W.)

I think the noble Lord is certainly right in saying that he will not consent to lend public money except upon perfectly good security—that is to say, a first charge upon the works. I believe the noble Lord will be perfectly right, on those conditions, to lend money for the completion of harbours.

Question put, and agreed, to.

(10.) £8,326, to complete the sum for the Record Office.

(11.) £22,211, to complete the sum for the Registrar General's Office, England.

(12.) Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £241,424, 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 Stationery, Printing, and Paper, Binding, and Printed Books for the several Departments of Government in England, Scotland, and Ireland, and some Dependencies, and for the two Houses of Parliament, and for the Salaries and Expenses of the Establishment of the Stationery Office, and the cost of Stationery Office Publications, and of the Gazette Offices; and for sundry Miscellaneous Services, including a Grant in Aid of the publication of Parliamentary Debates.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR (Liverpool, Scotland)

Mr. Courtney, you will remember that last night I was called to Order by you on my endeavouring to raise some discussion upon a Vote then before the Committee with regard to the reporting of Parliamentary debates, and that I was referred to this Vote as the Vote on which my observations should be made. In the first place, then, there is a very extraordinary discrepancy between two items of this Vote —that is to say, the charge for printing Parliamentary Papers, binding, &c, amounts to no less a sum than £80,000; whereas the charge for the preparation and publication of Parliamentary debates and records is only £5,580. I venture to say that if these sums were reversed—that if £80,000 were spent upon Parliamentary debates and records, and £5,580 on printing Parliamentary Papers, we should make a much better bargain than we have under the present arrangement. I wish to press this most earnestly on the attention of the Government. At present we have a system of Parliamentary reporting which has no example in the whole world, or in the history of mankind. Up to a short time ago Hansard's Parliamentary Debates were entirely made up of extracts taken from the daily papers. I suppose that when hon. Gentlemen took up Hansard's Parliamentary Debates and wanted to find out the opinions expressed by Ministers on previous occasions, they were under the impression that they were reading some carefully compiled official report of what Ministers had said—they were under the impression that they were reading an original report specially taken for Hansard's Parliamentary Debates. Well, Sir, the fact was the reverse of this; it was simply a cutting from the report of a newspaper supposed to give a good report, and passed off as an official report of the words of the Minister. Some time ago a change was made in this matter; Mr. Hansard was given a certain sum so that he might employ a reporting staff of his own. A compromise was arrived at of a very peculiar character. Hansard at present reports only a certain portion of the proceedings of this House. If I am rightly informed, Hansard reports only discussions in Committee. The moment the Speaker leaves the Chair Hansard commences to report; the moment he resumes the Chair Hansard ceases to report. Well, Sir, I wish to call the attention of the Committee to the extraordinary consequences of this arrangement. We have the whole debate in Committee reported, and, on Report, we have none of the debate reported; everything said in Committee is reported verbatim in the first person. ["No, no!"] I can assure the hon. Gentleman who says "No!" that I speak with accurate and precise information on the question. You have, for instance, a certain clause discussed in Committee reported verbatim; you turn to the Report stage and you find, instead of a report verbatim et literatim, either a very partial mention of the clause, or, perhaps, no mention of it at all. The result of all this is that Hansard's reports at the present moment are most disproportionate. You have a system of the most careful and accurate reporting of the least important stage of a Bill, and you have a most scanty, vague, and often unintelligible record of the more important stage of a Bill. In more recent years reporting in the daily papers has undergone a revolutionary change. I hope the noble Lord the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not think that I am making an unfair personal allusion; the gentleman who wrote to me on this subject says that if you were to try to develop the career of the noble Lord from his speeches in Hansard you would find more than one hiatus in the series. I am sure that the position of the noble Lord will make every word he utters interesting and important to Parliamentary historians in this country; but if you take the last six years, in which the noble Lord has taken a very prominent part in the debates in this House, you will find very little of his speeches reported. On the other hand, if you were to trace the Parliamentary career of Mr. Disraeli, you could do so with very great advantage, and almost completely, through Hansard's Parliamentary Debates. Mr. Disraeli spoke for the first time on the 7th of December, 1837; he made his maiden speech on that occasion. He was a man who made a position for himself in literature; but I suppose that no one is considered a great man who speaks in this House for the first time. And yet, if you turn to The Morning Chronicle and one or two more daily papers of the time, you will find the same report of his speech as if he had occupied the position of Sir Robert Peel or Sir James Graham. That, I think, was one of the most historical speeches ever delivered in this House—the speech of a man who was to become Prime Minister. But had Mr. Disraeli been present to make his speech in 1886 he would have been dismissed in three lines, and the loss would be ours, for in his case the world would have been debarred from turning to the words which were uttered at the commencement of the career of a very distinguished statesman. Well, Sir, I think that either we ought to have complete official Parliamentary reports, or that we ought to allow Mr. Hansard to stick to his old plan of making out his reports from the newspapers. What can be more absurd than that you should have one part of a discussion collated from the daily papers, and another portion of the same discussion taken verbatim by Mr. Hansard's staff? I am strengthened in my demand by this fact— that, as I believe, England at the present moment is the only country in the world with Representative Institutions that has not an official Parliamentary report. They have it in France, in Germany, and in every foreign country; and, further, all the Colonies—every country with Parliamentary Institutions has an official Parliamentary report, except the one which has been described as the mother of Parliaments. I maintain that every word spoken by a Member of this House is of sufficient importance to be recorded for future reference; but I say, for myself, that I regard the present system of Parliamentary reporting as so grotesque that I never open the reports sent to me by Mr. Hansard. I do not see the good of a system under which a speech made in the earlier part of the evening is very imperfectly reported, and a speech made later in the evening reported by Mr. Hansard in full. For these reasons I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will pay some attention to the serious defects of this system, and make a change which is as much needed in the interest of this House as in the interest of the historical records of the country.

MR. CLANCY (Dublin Co., N.)

I would add to the remarks of my hon. Friend who has just spoken that such a record as he has indicated would probably be continued with advantage, and appreciated by Members of the House and the Government, whomsoever they might be. I understand that the custom of some hon. Members is to write speeches and commit them to the printer, which they never deliver in this House. I dare say that a good many Members of the House write their speeches and deliver them, not for the benefit of the House, but of their constituents. If this form were established, probably many hon. Members would avail themselves of the system, and deliver their manuscripts to the official reporters, and thereby save the time of the House. I would like to draw the attention of the Committee to two or three other matters in connection with this Vote. In the first place, the Chancellor of the Exchequer last night made what I think was a fair offer in reference to a question put to him about the supply of Parliamentary Papers to free libraries and mechanics' institutes. He said that any Parliamentary Papers required by them would be supplied free of cost. But I would remind the noble Lord that his promise is somewhat illusory; because it would be very difficult for anyone who does not see the Papers themselves to determine what Papers such institutions would require, or what Papers would interest the Members. I would, therefore, ask the noble Lord, in addition, to have a printed list of these publications, with a description of their contents, in order that the institutions referred to might know exactly what Papers they want. A more serious matter in connection with this Vote are certain paragraphs in the last Report of the Committee of Public Accounts. I refer to this particularly, because I am astonished that such indifference is displayed on both sides of the House with regard to the Report of the Committee and the remarks of the Comptroller and Auditor General. I have seen Reports connected with large sums of money, in connection with which the Comptroller and Auditor General makes some most important remarks. The Committee of Public Accounts takes evidence with reference to these matters, and also makes recommendations with regard to them; and yet, time after time, Votes have been taken in this House without a single observation being made upon them. Now, there are two or three observations in the Report to which I think the attention of the Committee might be very properly directed for a few minutes. The Comptroller and Auditor General called the attention of the Committee of Public Accounts to the fact that complete and satisfactory vouchers as to the contents of packages of stores were not forthcoming. This is certainly a matter which deserves the attention of the Treasury. He went on to say that there could be no difficulty in a list of stores being furnished to the Departments. But the recommendations of this officer are treated with contempt; they are passed by year after year. It is essentially a bad example to those who have the spending of public money to hold out the prospect to the Heads of Departments that whatever they may do no action will be taken in the Committee of this House simply because the Vote may happen to be taken at half-past 12 o'clock, when there is no time for proper discussion. I think if this occasion were seized for the purpose of entering another practical protest against this system, which has been described by the Committee on Public Accounts, of supplying inaccurate, incomplete, and unsatisfactory vouchers, it might tend to stop the practice. I would take this opportunity also of drawing attention to one other matter, and that is the extraordinary increase of the cost of the establishment of the Stationery Office. I find by a Report of the Comptroller, issued in 1881, that the cost of the establishment at that time was £14,575; but it was estimated that in future the establishment would only cost £10,327. I think the Committee will be rather surprised to find that, instead of this saving of from about £4,600 being effected, there is actually an increase from £14,515, in 1881, to £23,000 for the year 1886–7. In view of this increase, I venture to think that the public at large have very just reason for complaint that the expectation of this promised reduction has not been realized. I understand that certain contracts expired in 1886, and that it was recommended, in 1881, that those contracts should not be renewed. I should like to ask the Secretary to the Treasury what arrangements are going to be made with reference to this matter, and whether the test of open competition will be applied not only in this case, but to every branch of Government printing both in England and Ireland? I should like to understand why it is that Messrs. Thorn are the only persons in Dublin who are supposed to be capable of printing for the Government? They seem to have a sort of immunity from attack which certainly requires consideration. No matter how they execute their printing, no matter what prices they charge, they seem to hold their ground at all times, and the principle of public competition is in their case entirely disregarded. I venture to bring these matters before the attention of the Government, and hope to receive from them some satisfactory assurance, failing which I shall feel it my duty to move a reduction of this Vote.

MR. HENNIKER HEATON (Canterbury)

I wish to say a word with regard to the utter uselessness of Hansard in its present form. In regard to the reports of Parliamentary debates I think it would be best if these were issued the morning after the speeches were delivered. They would then have a special interest for hon. Members, and they would be likely to yield a larger return than they appear to yield at the present time. Hon. Members would then have an opportunity of correcting them before they were published in a permanent form. In the South Australian Assembly their report is printed in connection with the large newspapers, and is issued by those newspapers as a special supplement. Recently I have frequently seen leading Members of the Government and Opposition consulting the admirable compilations of the debates now issued by The Times newspaper. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have agreed that for the purpose of reference Hansard's Debates are utterly useless both for this Parliament and the last Parliament. A few days ago hon. Members had the example of the late Chancellor of the Exchequer and Members of the Government, referring to this compilation of The Times, and quoting speeches delivered in the course of the previous week. I do not know who is in charge of Hansard's compilations; but I should be sorry to see this Vote passed without an appeal being made to the Government to carry out the suggestion I offer. Either we must abolish this Vote in view of the ample compilations given by The Times, or we should have Hansard issued in a form which would enable hon. Members to receive the report the morning after the speeches were delivered. It is an enormous sum to pay for the debates in their present form; and, having some knowledge of the matter, I trust my observations will have weight with the Committee.

SIR JOSEPH BAILEY (Hereford)

So far as the supply of Parliamentary Papers is concerned, I venture to say there is not one Member of this House who reads a tenth part of the Papers sent to him. The supply of these Papers is absolutely and entirely useless. As an illustration, I will take one Paper only of those issued yesterday morning. It had reference to certain changes in the currency of Cyprus. Well, Sir, the Government at home received an enormous number of letters from its officials on this subject. Letters were sent to and from Malta to this country in great numbers; the whole of these are printed and laid out in a form which is very costly, and, after all, useless so far as the majority of hon. Members are con- cerned. I venture to think that the contents of this Paper could have been put into a single page. Of course, it is important that when the Government is to be attacked on a question of foreign policy all the Correspondence should be before us; but I think it would be sufficient to lay it on the Table in manuscript. It would thus be available to everyone, though I do not suppose half-a-dozen Members would read it. It could be read quite as well in manuscript as in print, an enormous amount of money would be saved to the country annually, and no hon. Member would be a bit the worse for the change. I hope the Government will use their best efforts to control the great extravagance in Parliamentary printing.

MR. LABOUCHERE (Northampton)

I do not agree with the views of my hon. Friend, the Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) so much to-day as I generally do. It may be that future generations, or future historians, will regret they have lost any words which have dropped from our lips; but the present generation bear up exceedingly well against it. I am sorry to say that, so far as the public is concerned, we may be said to be throwing pearls before swine. My hon. Friend has said that the reports in the newspapers are shorter now than they used to be some years ago. This is the reason why—I am not speaking of The Times, but of the other London newspapers. Some years ago, when there was a debate of any importance, there was a greater demand for the newspapers containing reports of the discussion, and it was necessary to print an additional number of copies. I do not think that at present any penny paper in London does print an additional number of copies, unless the paper contains some speech like that of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) on the second reading of the Home Rule Bill. But on ordinary occasions there are no additional copies of the paper printed, simply because the public do not want them. For that reason, also, the reports are reduced. A newspaper only has a certain amount of space, and it has to fill its space up with that which is required or wished for by its readers; and they, it is sad to think, seem to prefer other things to our speeches. Now, Sir, with regard to Hansard''s reports. We pay for Hansard's reports a lump sum of £4,500. We take 120 copies at £5 5s. each — that is, £630 — which brings the total to £5,130. It is perfectly true, as my hon. Friend (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) said, that we give this sum to Hansard because some years ago, when the arrangement was made, the Press did not print so many copies as at present, the newspapers had to go to press at an earlier hour than now; and the result was, speaking generally, the newspapers were unable to publish any report of the proceedings after half-past 12 o'clock at night, or, if they were, the report was of the most meagre description. At the present time that is not the case. I have here some of The Times' reports. The Times draws no line at half-past 12 o'clock; the reports of The Times after half-past 12 are conducted on precisely the same scale as before half-past 12. If hon. Gentlemen care to inquire what has taken place during the last year or two, they will find very important speeches delivered as late as 2 o'clock have been reported in The Times. I take one instance. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sheffield (Mr. Mundella), then the Vice President of the Council, brought in the Welsh Education Bill after 2 o'clock; and the right hon. Gentleman's speech was reported, I think, verbatim, in The Times. There are several other instances of the same kind. Besides, when the House sits too late for the proceedings to be reported in the first edition, The Times inserts the conclusion of its report in the second edition, and also prints it on the following day. Well, with regard to Hansard, Hansard does itself report, as my hon. Friend says, Committee stages, because they are not reported very fully in The Times, and it puts on its own reporters after 12.30 at night. Other speeches, I think, it takes absolutely from The Times, the report in The Times being the longest one published.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

It takes many reports from the country papers.

MR. LABOUCHERE

Sometimes they may take speeches from country papers. I suppose that is when the Member arranges for himself to be reported; when he sends his speech first to a country paper, and then up to the Gallery. I may point out that any hon. Gentleman can be reported verbatim if his constituents are anxious to read his speeches. A gentleman in the Gallery has issued a circular, a perfectly legitimate circular, offering, for a small retaining fee and so much per column, to furnish verbatim reports of his speeches to any Member of the House. I do not, in the least, complain of these gentlemen in the Gallery; I only mention this in order to show that anyone who is anxious to have verbatim reports of his speeches for his own constituents or himself, or the world in general, can obtain them for a very little outlay. Now it seems to me that, looking at these facts, looking at the fact that Hansard does take reports from The Times, except when the House is in Committee, he might take the reports from The Times after half-past 12 o'clock. The Times' report really seems to me quite long enough—in it are given all the principal speeches, and the main features of the other speeches. Besides, I must point out to my hon. Friend the immense amount of space which would be occupied if every word spoken in the House were reported. We may take it that a column of The Times represents 20 minutes' speaking. I have made a calculation when a Gentleman has been reported—in 20 minutes, or a little less, a column of The Times is spoken. The House sits, on an average, from 5 o'clock in the afternoon to 1 o'clock in the morning; the consequence would be that, besides the other columns which are occupied with questions and answers, we should have six pages of report. Now, that would be too much even for The Times; but it would be impossible and useless for other newspapers. I think that this £5,100 is wasted; I do not think it is desirable that we should pay this money to Hansard in order to get these re-copies, for practically they are re-copies, from other papers, issued to the public, too, one month or so after the speeches have been delivered in the House. Now, as the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Henniker Heaton) pointed out, there is a weekly publication of The Times' reports, which is issued, I think, on Mondays. I think the price is 25s. for the Session. These reports I have generally seen quoted by hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House. It seems to me that, instead of enhancing this payment of £5,000 to Hansard, we should content ourselves with, these reports of The Times, and that we ought to encourage The Times to report Members who speak at a late hour a little more fully by saying that we will take a considerable number of copies of their weekly publication. If we took, for instance, 1,000 copies, that would cost a little over £1,000. Take 2,000 copies if you like; that would cost a little over £2,000. A copy might then be given to each Member of the House. There is no particular reason for inundating us with Blue Books. The hon. Baronet the Member for Hereford (Sir Joseph Bailey) said he did not read one-tenth of the Parliamentary Papers. I do not read one-fiftieth part of them, and I hope I never shall. But these debates are of greater importance than many Blue Books; and if we are supplied with Blue Books it seems reasonable we should be supplied with a weekly record of what takes place in this House. That would take 670 copies. The rest of the copies might be distributed—I see you now take 120 copies; I presume you want them for the Public Offices—amongst the Public Offices and the public libraries and mechanics' institutes of the country. I would, therefore, venture to suggest to the Government to take into consideration the expediency, both on financial and many other grounds, of putting an end to the arrangement with Hansard, and of resting satisfied with the report in The Times. Instead of spending £5,000, as now for Hansard, we might spend about £2,000, which would insure that at the end of each week each Member of the House would be supplied with a record of what transpired in the week, and that a certain number of copies would be sent to mechanics' institutes, public libraries, and other similar establishments.

THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON) (Leeds, N.)

The hon. Gentleman the Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) has raised the question of the printing contracts, and I think he very properly laid stress upon the desirability of submitting the work to public competition. The printing contracts expire at the end of this year, and the new contracts have been submitted to public competition. Fresh contracts have been accepted, with the result that a very large expenditure has been saved. The new contracts are for 10 years. They come into force on the 1st of January, 1887; and, compared with the prices paid in 1880, they show a saving of over £15,000 a-year in printing alone. In addition to that, there must be added £4,300 saved yearly on the paper, which has hitherto been provided by the contractors, but which will in future be provided by the Stationery Office. I ought to say that, in addition to that, special contracts have been made for printing Provisional Orders, Bills before the House, and matters of that description, and also the printing for the Foreign Office. With regard to the first, the contract which has been made shows a saving of £1,000 a-year; and with respect to the latter, a saving of £1,500 a-year has been effected. I ought to say also that an arrangement has been made for the sale of the Government publications. This contract was also submitted to public competition, and has been let to the highest bidder. By this contract we shall derive an income of between £3,000 and £4,000 a-year. These contracts have, according to the Rules of the House, been laid on the Table. The hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) spoke about the cost of Hansard. I believe the minimum price paid to Hansard is £3,000 a-year for six volumes, and £500 for each additional volume. That is the most recent arrangement which has been made. So far as the printing of the House is concerned, I may say it has been subjected to very close examination. My immediate Predecessor (Mr. Henry H. Fowler) took very great interest in the matter, and I believe the general opinion is that it has been put upon a very satisfactory basis.

MR. LABOUCHERE

After the explanation, or rather non-explanation, of this Vote by the hon. Gentleman, after the statement that both the hon. Gentleman and his immediate Predecessor regard the present arrangement as satisfactory, I must move to reduce the Vote, in order to enable those Members who do not take that Utopian view to express it. Hansard is an absolute waste of at least £3,000 per annum. We can get the same thing, as I have already pointed out, and as the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) knows perfectly well, for £2,000, and have, in addition, nearly 2,000 copies of the report to distribute among museums and free libraries and mechanics' institutes. I cannot understand how anyone knowing what Hansard is, knowing what a compilation it is, can assent to the expenditure of this large sum of money. Hansard picks up the reports of speeches here, there, and everywhere, and reprints them a month afterwards. It is a publication which hardly anyone reads, except those who want to quote from it; and, therefore, to say that the arrangement is the most satisfactory we can make, and that we are to continue it for ever, does not seem to me to accord with plain common sense. I, therefore, beg to move the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £5,150.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £236,274, 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 Stationery, Printing, and" Paper, Binding, and Printed Books for the several Departments of Government in England, Scotland, and Ireland, and some Dependencies, and for the two Houses of Parliament, and for the Salaries and Expenses of the Establishment of the Stationery Office, and the cost of Stationery Office Publications, and of the Gazette Offices; and for Sundry Miscellaneous Services, including a Grant in Aid of the publication of Parliamentary Debates."—(Mr. Labouchere.)

MR. HENNIKER HEATON

As Hansard is admitted to be obsolete, and that The Times publication has taken its place, I think the hon. Gentleman who has charge of this Vote might give us an assurance that some alteration will be made in the publication of Hansard. I think it would meet the views of hon. Members if the hon. Gentleman gave us the assurance that Hansard will be published, if not daily, certainly weekly— that, in fact, it will become what the Americans call a "live paper."

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

I should like to put the Committee in possession of a few facts which I think will clearly prove to the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) and the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Henniker Heaton) that they are making an entirely impossible demand. The publication of Hansard is certainly too much delayed; but, surely, hon. Gentlemen know the reason why. Hansard is obliged to send every Member a proof of his speech; he gives each Member three or four days in which to correct his proof, and he is not able to go to press until the time during which a Member has the right to read his proof has elapsed. They might go to press the day after a debate, so far as I am concerned, because I never take the trouble of opening the proof. But my hon. Friend (Mr. Labouchere) misunderstands the reason why I do that. I object to Hansard's report at present, because it is a mixture of incompatibles—in one part it gives information at full length, in another part it gives information in an abbreviated form. I say that is an absurd arrangement, which deprives Hansard of the value it otherwise would have. My hon. Friend, who is himself an experienced journalist, says we should get the reports supplied from The Times. I do not wish to say anything against The Times; its weekly reports are very excellent; but, at the same time, they are not as good as those in Hansard, and for this reason. It very often happens you find in a Provincial paper a better report of a particular speech than you find in The Times, and this report Hansard uses. I do not know whether there is a daily paper or not in Northampton; but I am perfectly sure that valuable as are the hon. Gentleman's remarks, and interesting as they evidently must be to everybody, you will find in the newspapers of Northampton a rather fuller and better report of his speeches — [Mr. LABOUCHERE: No.]—than you find in the columns of The Times. Then I must say my hon. Friend does not do his duty by the Northampton Press, or the Northampton Press does not do its duty to the hon. Member for Northampton. If I were to deliver a speech in this House I think I should have a much better chance of finding a good report in one of the Liverpool papers than in The Times newspaper. Hansard gets the best report wherever he can find it; if he can find a good report of the speech of the hon. Member for Northampton in a Northampton paper he extracts it. Look at the position my hon. Friend would put us in. All the London Members, all Ministers and ex-Ministers, would be sure of good reports, because The Times gives them good reports; but the unfortunate Gentlemen who represent Provincial constituencies, who have some chance now of cutting a very decent figure, because Hansard takes the trouble of going to Provincial newspapers in order to find the best reports, would receive very scant fare indeed. I do not think Hansard is everything it should be; but I think we should be taking a step entirely in the wrong direction if we deprived him of the sum he now receives. I shall, reluctantly, be obliged on this occasion to go into the Lobby against my hon. Friend (Mr. Labouchere).

Question put.

The Committe divided: — Ayes 30; Noes 176: Majority 146.—(Div. List, No. 21.)

Original Question again proposed.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

I had some twinges of conscience on finding myself in the Lobby for the purpose of helping to keep up here an increase of public expenditure, and I wish to say just one thing—namely, that if my hon. Friend (Mr. Labouchere) had proposed to reduce the amount of the Printed Paper Account I should have been very glad to go into the Lobby with him. I agree with the hon. Baronet (Sir Joseph Bailey) when he said that the supply of Blue Books ought to be largely reduced, and I hope that some step will be taken in that direction before long. I understand it is the fact that not only do some hon. Members never read their Blue Books, but that they actually sell them for a certain sum per annum to the booksellers. ["Oh, oh!"] I understand that to be the case; but I do not pronounce any opinion upon such conduct. I may say that I myself have received circulars from law stationers, offering me as much as £6 if I would sell my Blue Books to them. I have not hitherto closed with any of these offers; but I think it very possible that other hon. Members of a more mercantile turn of mind may have done so, looking upon it as a recognized perquisite of hon. Members to turn these Papers to account. I pronounce no opinion upon this proceeding; but I certainly consider it a monstrous thing that the country should be asked to spend £80,000 for stationery, a large portion of it being devoted to the supply of books which, as I say, may subsequently be sold for one-third of their value to some enterprizing law stationer or bookseller. I would not, at this hour of the morning (1 o'clock), put the Committee to the trouble of a division; but I would say that the first opportunity I have, after to-night, of taking action in this matter, I shall move to have it reduced by one half, and to have some stop put to this enormous and terrible burden upon the taxpayer.

COLONEL NOLAN (Galway, N.)

I also have a proposal to make; but mine would not lead to the imposition of a very heavy burden upon the taxpayer, unless it were combined with that of my hon. Friend the Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. T. P. O'Connor). I think it a great pity that Members should not be supplied with a copy of the proceedings of the House. In all other Assemblies, unless I am very much mistaken, the Members are supplied with copies of the report of the proceedings of their branch of the Legislature; and I, therefore, think that we should have either copies of Hansard's Debates, or of The Times' reports, purchased and circulated amongst us. That could be done without extra expense if you suppressed the distribution of a certain number of Blue Books. In my own case, fully three-fourths of the Blue Books which I receive are quite useless to me, and I think that many other Members of the House will agree with me as to the uselessness of some of these publications. I think it would be a very good Member indeed who read even a fourth of the Blue Books sent to him; and I am, therefore, not ashamed of myself for not wading through all this official matter. It seems to me that it is essential that Members should be supplied with the proceedings of the House; I do not think they should be expected to pay a single shilling out of their own pockets for this purpose; and therefore I would urge upon the Government to seriously consider whether these reports should not be supplied. A copy of Hansard would be £5 5s.; but a copy of The Times' reports would only be £1 5s.; and either of them would be more useful to us than the enormous supply of Blue Books we receive. I hope the Government will take this matter into their consideration.

MR. DILLON (Mayo, E.)

On this Vote of £80,000 there is a point to which I should like to call the attention of the hon. Gentleman who is now in charge of the Estimates (Mr. Jackson). I do not wish to discuss the matter to-night; but I would just draw attention to the fact that an enormous sum is set down hero, and that we are furnished with no details with regard to it. We do not know how much is spent on note paper, how much on printing, and so forth. This is a very slovenly way of making out the Estimate. We ought to know the details, and we ought to have information as to what public officer is responsible for the contracts. I have noticed in this House of late an immense falling-off in the quality of the note paper. I do not complain of that quality; but I should like to know if a less price is paid for the paper than formerly? Would the hon. Member (Mr. Jackson) tell us who is responsible for the contract? I wish to give Notice to the hon. Gentleman than there is a very important question under this Vote to which I wish to draw especial attention—namely, the Brehon Laws Report, and the manner in which it is edited. I have not the papers with me just now to enable me to go into the question; and I therefore think it would be better to reserve my observations on the subject until we reach the Report. I beg to give Notice that on the Report I will call attention to this matter. I consider it desirable to raise a question as to these Brehon Laws, as I look upon the whole thing as a job.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR (Donegal, E.)

I would point out that a large number of Papers are issued only on demand. There are many Papers relating to Ireland which are only to be obtained by a Member when he takes the trouble to ask for them. No doubt an enormous number of volumes of Papers are issued without being asked for, and Members never take the trouble to read them. What I would suggest is that all Papers should be made Papers only obtainable on demand, so that if an hon. Member wanted to read the Papers relating to a certain subject he would be obliged to take the trouble to go to the Vote Office to obtain what he required. In this way a great saving might be effected.

Original Question put, and agreed to.

Resolutions to be reported.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £10,043, 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 Office of Her Majesty's Woods, Forests, and Land Revenues, and of the Office of Land Revenue Records and Inrolments.

MR. DILLON (Mayo, E.)

I should like the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Jackson) to make me some reply to the observations I have just addressed to him.

THE CHAIRMAN

There is a new Vote before the Committee—namely, £10,043, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of Her Majesty's Woods, Forests, and Land Revenues, and of the Office of Land Revenue Records and Inrolments.

MR. DILLON

I move to report Progress.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(MR. Dillon.)

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Lord RANDOLPH CHURCHILL) (Paddington, S.)

If it is the wish of the Committee to break off work at this hour it will not be the desire of the Government to offer opposition; but the hour is early. ["Oh, oh!"] I would remind hon. Gentlemen that Progress to-night has not been very great. We have only succeeded in obtaining 12 Votes, although yesterday, beginning as late as 9 o'clock, we got 16. However, I merely point out the fact that progress to night has been slow, and that, in my opinion, the hour is not sufficiently late for us to stop work; but if it is the wish of the Committee that we should stop, the Government will agree to report Progress, only hoping that the Committee will be inclined to assist us next week by sitting to a later hour and making more rapid progress.

MR. DILLWYN (Swansea, Town)

I think we ought to correct the impression which appears to be gaining ground that the hour (1.15 A.M.) is very early to be leaving off. Of late years it seems to be assumed that we are to go on with the Estimates to a much later hour than that which we have reached—it is assumed that there is some unwritten rule or law that requires us to do so. But I would point out that that is not the old practice. It used to be the reverse some years ago; we used to think 12 or half-past 12 quite late enough for work of this kind, even when the Committee was not Committee of Supply. When I first came into the House that used to be the practice. We used to take Supply up to 12 or half-past 12, and then adjourn. I have referred to the authority we all look to on these matters— namely, to Hansard, and I have come across some of the old debates which occurred on Motions for the Adjournment. The very first volume I opened was the one containing the debates on July 25, 1855. I find that on the Civil Service Estimates, when Progress was reported, Lord Palmerston said he would not ask the House to take a Vote which would lead to discussion at that time of night—namely, shortly after midnight. The noble Lord opposite (Lord Randolph Churchill), in assenting to the adjournment, expresses a hope that we may sit later in the future. I merely wish to call attention to the new practice which seems to be coming into vogue, and to point out what used to be the old practice.

MR. TOMLINSON (Preston)

The wish on this side of the House is that we should sit later. After to-night we have two days' rest before us.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolutions to be reported upon Monday next.

Committee also report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.