CLASS II.—SALARIES AND EXPENSES OF CIVIL DEPARTMENTS.

HC Deb 13 September 1886 vol 309 cc188-288

(1.) 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. CLANCY (Dublin Co., N.)

I wish to draw attention to the figures given by the Commissioners of Woods and Forests with regard to the income derived from the woods and forests, and the expenditure incurred upon them. I think the figures are somewhat extraordinary, and deserve the closest attention of those who desire to see the public money applied to some useful purpose and not absolutely wasted. I find that the total receipts for Windsor Parks and Woods was £4,335 17s. 8d., and the total expenditure £23,681 18s. 1d., showing an excess of expenditure over income of £19,346 0s. 6d. For the New Forest, the total receipts were £12,215 9s. 10d., and the expenditure £11,401 10s. 11d. For Dean Forest, the total receipts were £7,677 7s. 1d., and the expenditure £6,503 17s. 6d. For the High-meadow Woods, the total receipts were £1,869 4s. 11d., and the expenditure £1,608 11s. 1d. For the Alice Holt Woods, the total receipts were £1,468 12s. 3d., and the expenditure £836 17s. 4d. For the Woolmer Estate, the total receipts were £1,081 12s. 6d., and the expenditure£166 1s. And for the Bere Woods, the total receipts were £1,315 7s. 5d. and the expenditure £922 4s. 2d. The total receipts for all these parks and forests amounted to £26,251 19s. 1d., and the expenditure to £22,007 0s. 5d., leaving an excess of receipts of £4,244 18s. 8d., which is carried to the credit of the country. That seems to me to be a most extraordinary result, and one that requires some explanation in defence of the Vote on behalf of the Commissioners of Woods and Forests, and unless there is a satisfactory explanation, I shall feel disposed to move the reduction of the Vote by the amount of the salary of the Commissioners. Allow me also to draw the attention of the Committee to the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General in reference to the accounts of the Commissioners of Woods and Forests of last year. In the first place, I must say that the way in which these Reports are laid before the House is most inconvenient. They may be produced at any time within three months of the 31st of March—that is to say, the autumn may have been reached before they are presented; they then take some time to print, and by the time they are submitted to Parliament the Estimates have been passed and there is no possibility of checking the accounts for that year. According to the Report last published there are several things in regard to this Vote which require explanation, and I trust that the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury, being the official who is responsible, will endeavour to explain them. They include a receipt for £20,000 from the South-Eastern Railway Company for the purchase money of Sandgate Castle, and upon that item the Comptroller and Auditor General remarks, in reply to an inquiry whether interest is not payable on the purchase money between the dates of the sale and the completion of the purchase— I am informed that it could not be ascertained that there was a binding contract for the sale until the purchase was completed. There is no charge for the demolition of Sandgate Castle, or for the erection of new works; but there are some items in reference to the expenditure on Sandgate Castle in the earlier Votes. The Comptroller and Auditor General says— I am of opinion, in the absence of any explanation to the contrary, that the surplus should be paid over to the Exchequer. He goes on to say— In my Report on the accounts last year, I called attention to the practice adopted by the Crown Receivers, of applying rent received from ordinary tenants towards the expenses of carrying on farms in hand, and I expressed a hope that this objectionable practice would be abandoned, but it has not been abandoned. The Comptroller and Auditor General adds— Although it is only a small amount, this practice can only result in casting a doubt upon the accuracy of the balance in the hands of the Receiver. Now, these balance-sheets are presented to the Committee, and we are asked to accept them as containing a proper account of the income and expenditure of this Department; whereas it turns out from the remarks of the Comptroller and Auditor General that they are nothing of the kind, and the objectionable practice which he has pointed out, instead of having been abandoned after attention was called to it, has gone on now for two years in succession. I think it is high time that some attempt should be made to deal with the matter and put a stop to a practice which misleads Parliament, and may lead to the misappropriation of the public money. It appears to me that all this arises from the fact that Members of the Government perform their duties in this and many other matters in a very perfunctory manner. These Reports are presented to Parliament year after year; they cost a great deal of money to prepare, present, and circulate, and the net result seems to be nothing at all, as the Members of the Government do not seem to pay the least attention to them, and wink at the malpractices of gentlemen who have failed to do their duty. I should like to know from the Secretary to the Treasury, whether the Report made by the Comptroller and Auditor General last year was brought under his notice or the notice of his Predecessor, and, if so, whether any action was taken upon it? There is another paragraph in this Report which refers to another matter, but which I think deserves the careful consideration of the Secretary to the Treasury. In the early part of last year the Comptroller and Auditor General says— Cases occurred in which an account of certain public monies was not returned to me. They had relation to the Crown rents, and on writing to the Receiver, Mr. Clutton, on the 6th March, 1885, the Comptroller and Auditor General obtained not only a refusal to hand over his bank pass-books in reference to the appropriation of this money, but a statement that the money itself had been incorporated by the Receiver of Crown rents in the banking account of his firm—namely, that of Messrs. Clutton. Mr. Clutton says— I have not, and never have had, any separate account, and I cannot therefore produce the pass-book as requested. This gentleman is so high and mighty in himself, and so thoroughly independent of the Government, that when called upon for an explanation of these accounts, he returns a most jaunty reply, which amounts in fact, to a virtual negative. I commend this reply to the Treasury, and the part which concerns the Treasury is the intimation from the Comptroller and Auditor General that he at once communicated the reply of Mr. Clutton to the Treasury—a reply which I cannot help looking upon as not only unsatisfactory but even impudent. In December last, the Comptroller and Auditor General refers to the same matter again, and he states that he had not yet received any intimation that Mr. Clutton had accepted the invitation addressed to him, and he adds— I am still without the evidence which would be afforded by the bank pass-book to show whether the amount in the hands of the Receivers is correct. There can be very little doubt now as to who is the real master of the Treasury. It appears to be Mr. Clutton, the Receiver of the Crown Rents. All the officials bow their heads before the great Mr. Clutton, and when he is asked to give an account of the public money received by him, and to show his passbook to satisfy the Comptroller and Auditor General of the correctness of his statements, he simply declines to do anything of the kind, and tells the Comptroller and Auditor General that he keeps the account mixed up with the private money of his own firm. He further implies that if the authorities do not like that arrangement, they may do what they like in the matter. When I find that conduct of this character is tolerated by the Treasury, I can only come to the conclusion that the responsible Ministers of the Crown, to whom the Irish people will have to pay attention in future, are the firm of Messrs. Clutton, and hereafter I presume it will become our duty to study the best means of conciliating those gentlemen. The policy of this House may be good or bad; but if Messrs. Clutton do not approve of it, it will make a very considerable difference. I want to know how it is that Messrs. Clutton exercise this ex- traordinary power over the Government, and why they are allowed to be so independent of the control and authority of the Treasury? If an explanation on this head is not forthcoming, and is not satisfactory, I shall certainly move to reduce the Vote by the amount of the salary of Mr. Clutton.

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

Before the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury answers the Question, I wish to ask him to give some information to the Committee as to how much Mr. Clutton receives in the course of the year. Does the money, which I believe to be a very large sum, remain for any length of time in the bank to the private account of his firm? I want to know what amount has been received upon this account during the year, and how much, if any, has been paid in to the Treasury? I must also draw the attention of the hon. Gentleman to the fact that anything more unbusinesslike—I do not want to use harsher words—but anything more unbusinesslike it is impossible to conceive than for the Receiver of Crown Rents, or, in other words, the Receiver of trust money, to mix up that money with his own banking account. What makes it worse in the case of Mr. Clutton is, that when he is called upon for an account by the Government authority, he declines to give any, on the plea that he has been guilty of what I merely characterize as a most unbusinesslike act. What I want to know is whether the authorities are content to be held at arms-length by Mr. Clutton? Mr. Clutton has been called upon for such an account as will enable the Comptroller and Auditor General to state to the Department whether the Returns sent in are correct. Mr. Clutton declines to give that information; whereupon the Comptroller and Auditor General sits down and writes a letter, but does nothing more; and I want to know what the Government are going to do? Are they going to follow the example of the Comptroller and Auditor General; or are they disposed to exercise their authority and compel Mr. Clutton to keep their accounts in such a way as will enable the authorities to see whether they are correct or not?

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

In answer to the hon. Member for North Dublin (Mr. Clancy), I have to say that I regret equally with him that the income from the Woods and Forests to which he has referred is not larger; but I am informed that these woods are in what may be called a growing condition; but, at present, it is impossible for them to bring in a larger income. The hon. Member seems to think that the expenditure upon them is too large, and I am disposed to agree with him in that opinion. But after the preliminary discussion of the Motion of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) which took place the other day, the Committee will be aware that I promised to pay attention to the question, and I hope that before this time next year the points which have been referred to will be cleared up. With regard to the remarks which have been made by the hon. Member on other points, I may say that the sum for the purchase of Sand-gate Castle has been paid by the South Eastern Railway Company to the Government in consequence of damage done to Government property. As to the question he has raised in reference to Mr. Clutton, the Receiver of Crown Bents, and what has taken plane in connection with that matter, I understand that the hon. Member was not reading from the last Report of the Public Accounts Committee, because I find that in the Report of the Public Accounts Committee for 1885 a question was put by the Chairman of that Committee—Sir Reginald Welby—to this effect—"There is a note made by the Comptroller and Auditor General in regard to the manner in which certain accounts are kept. Have arrangements been made that they shall be kept in a more regular manner in future?" The answer is—"Arrangements have been made, and I believe the course suggested by the Comptroller and Auditor General has been adopted." [Mr. MOLLOY: What Report is that?] It is a Report of the Public Accounts Committee which relates to a meeting which took place on the 1st of July, 1885. Mr. Culley was under examination, and in reply to the Chairman's question he said that that was so, and that the course suggested by the Comptroller and Auditor General had been adopted. Being asked if there was anything more he desired to say, he answered "No." In the Public Accounts Committee this year certainly no question was raised, as far as I remember, and I was a Member of that Committee. I understand that arrangements have been made since the date of the Report to which the hon. Member has referred—arrangements under which these accounts have been placed on a more satisfactory basis. I certainly go full length with the hon. Member and the hon. Member who followed him in saying that the mixing up of public money with private money is a system which no man of business would for a moment tolerate. I am not able to speak with regard to the details of this case; but I will inquire into the matter, and will satisfy myself that the system has been put straight. There was another question asked by the hon. Member for King's County (Mr. Molloy) which I think I can answer. He inquired what the amount is which Mr. Clutton has received in the course of the year. I hope, notwithstanding all that has been stated about the great power and authority of Mr. Clutton, that it will not be supposed for a moment that the Treasury consider it necessary to take any steps against him, or against anybody else, for the protection of the public interests. [Mr. MOLLOY: I made no charges against Mr. Clutton.] I think the hon. Member used the words, "misappropriation of public money," which, to my mind, certainly amounts to a charge. The amount received by Mr. Clutton in the course of the year, in the shape of poundage on revenues collected, amounted to £4,873 10s. 3d., and he received a sum for professional charges amounting to £2,505 16s. 11d. I hope the hon. Member will be satisfied with my assurance that the question shall receive, at the hands of those responsible for the business of the Treasury, most careful consideration in order that it may be placed on a proper basis.

MR. LABOUCHERE (Northampton)

I presume that by poundage the hon. Gentleman means commission?

MR. JACKSON

Yes.

MR. LABOUCHERE

I stated a day or two ago, when the Speaker was in the Chair, my intention to draw attention to this matter, and I understood then that the commission was 4 percent. I should like to know if that is so, and the hon. and gallant Member for North-West Sussex (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) will perhaps be able to tell me by-and-bye. If it is the fact, all I have to say is that 4 per cent is very excessive. My hon. Friend behind me (Mr. Clancy) has called attention to one or two points in regard to the revenue derived from Woods and Forests. His principal point was the large amount of expenditure upon Windsor Great Park and Windsor Forest. In a certain sense, we are paying rent for this property—that is to say, we give to Her Majesty a Civil List on condition that she hands over to us this property which is supposed to be remunerative; but, on consideration of receiving these rents, the country absolutely loses by the Windsor Great Park and Windsor Forests more than £21,000 per annum. It was said, when attention was called to the matter the other day, that a large amount of money is spent in maintaining the roads. I would again appeal to the hon. and gallant Member for North-West Sussex whether he would not take Windsor Great Park and Forests, and undertake to keep up the roads, without incurring an annual loss of £21,000 per annum? We all know that it would be done for a much less expenditure than now takes place. At present a most reckless and wasteful system is followed with regard to these Crown lands. I find that in the Windsor Park andForests£500 is spent in food for game. Seeing that the game and deer are maintained for the benefit of the Members of the Royal Family, I do not see why we should be called upon to pay £500 per annum for feeding the pheasants in this park. I presume that this matter, as well as others, will be referred to the Commission that is about to be appointed; but I maintain that we shall never have any real control over this large expenditure until we have publicity; and I would suggest, therefore, that all such items should appear in the Estimates. I have never been able to understand why this expenditure should not figure, like other expenditure, on the Estimates, and why it should not be submitted, in the usual way, to this House. We often move for the reduction of a Vote, although we seldom carry it; but still the fact of the accounts being submitted to this House, and of complaints being made of excessive expenditure, does exercise some sort of control over the authorities. I find that where there is the greatest waste is precisely in those matters that are not submitted to the House. I am sure that the Secretary to the Treasury has no desire that there should be any waste in this matter, and I would urge him to use his influence in insisting upon the whole of the accounts being presented, like all other public accounts, to this House.

MR. CLANCY

I wish to say that I made no charge against Mr. Clutton, except that made by the Comptroller and Auditor General. I did say, and I repeat it, that the action of Mr. Clutton was calculated to mislead Parliament, and that if similar proceedings were allowed it might possibly lead to the misappropriation of public money. It is obviously wrong to mix up the public money with private accounts.

MR. JACKSON

I have already informed the hon. Gentleman that that is not the case now.

MR. CLANCY

The hon. Gentleman quoted from the Report of the Public Accounts Committee for 1885; but I quoted from the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General of the 30th of June, 1886. If the hon. Gentleman will read this document, he will see that this is the second occasion upon which the matter has been mentioned.

MR. JACKSON

I may say that the Receivers not only give an adequate security for the money they have in their hands, but, in this particular case, it has been arranged recently that a separate account should be kept. Such separate accounts are, as a matter of fact, now kept by the Receiver.

MR. CLANCY

I do not understand when this change occurred. The Report I am now alluding to refers to a matter which was in existence in January last, and the Comptroller and Auditor General says that this is the second time he has called attention to it. He says in the early part of last year— I requested that Mr. Clutton's bank passbook, relating to transactions in reference to Crown rents, should be sent to me for inspection. Then came the answer of Mr. Clutton, which I already read. The Comptroller and Auditor General says— I at once communicated this reply to the Treasury, and in December last I received a letter in reference to the subject; but I have not, as yet, received any intimation that Mr. Clutton intends to accept that invitation addressed to him; and I am actually in doubt, owing to the absence of the bank pass-book, whether the balance in the hands of the Receiver is correct. I want to know if the request of the Comptroller and Auditor General has been complied with since January last? I strongly suspect that the Secretary to the Treasury is referring to something which took place in the previous January; and as I am not satisfied with the explanation which has been given I beg to move that the Vote be reduced by the sum of £4,000, being the amount of poundage received by this great authority.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £6,043, 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 Inrol-ments."—(Mr. Clancy.)

MR. BRADLAUGH (Northampton)

A phrase has been used during the course of this debate which I think ought not to be passed over—namely, that the lands under the control of the Commissioners of Woods and Forests are lands which have been surrendered by Her Majesty, and that in return for the surrender of those lands a Civil List has been granted. That is a pure fiction, and although it has been often repeated, it has not a word of truth in it; and I think it is necessary, every time it is repeated in this House, that it should be contradicted. I took occasion, in the late Parliament, when a Vote relating to this matter was under consideration, to quote to the then Members of the Government, who represented the Treasury, the whole of the Act of Parliament relating to this matter. It is not necessary to go very far back, because the first Civil List was only granted on the occasion of the accession of William III., and there is no pretence for saying that the Act 9 & 10 Will. III., c. 23, recites any surrender, or pretends that there was any surrender. On the contrary, it is an Act granting certain revenues for life to the King for the Civil Government of the country. When William III. died his whole interest in the Civil List ceased, and the grant reverted to the grantors—namely, the nation. On the accession of Queen Anne a new Civil List Act was passed, and that Act, 1 Anne, c. 1, contains no reference to any surrender. It was simply a grant to the Queen for her life only. On the accession of George I., when Queen Anne died, I believe it is not assumed that he had anything to surrender, because neither he nor his family, when they came to this country, had anything here which it was possible for them to surrender; when George I. came to the Throne a Civil List was granted to him by the Act 1 Geo. I., c. 1, and a similar Act was passed on the accession of George II. It was not until George III. succeeded to the Throne that any kind of alteration was made in the Act, and even then it was only in the recital portion of it. There is no claim in that Act on account of any surrender; but it says that— His Majesty has been graciously pleased to signify that such disposition may be made of his interests in certain hereditary revenues as might best conduce to the utility and satisfaction of the public. That signification is as nude and devoid of real meaning as it possibly can be. There never has been any surrender of any specific lands at any time, and the Civil List, for good or evil, is a grant on the part of the nation for the government of the country, and there is no pretence whatever for saying that there has been a single farthing surrendered to the nation.

MR. MOLLOY

The hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury commenced his remarks by protesting against charges having been made against the Receivers of Crown Rents. Now, neither my hon. Friend the Member for North Dublin (Mr. Clancy) nor I made any charge whatever. The only charge that was made was against the manner in which these accounts are kept; and since the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury made his reply my hon. Friend has shown that the answer of the Secretary to the Treasury gives no information at all, and does not tend in the slightest degree to elucidate the matter. All the hon. Gentleman told me was the amount of poundage received by Mr. Clutton. I did not ask for that information. I presume that the amount of poundage on commission is a matter of agreement between the authorities and Mr. Clutton.

MR. JACKSON

I understood the hon. Gentleman to ask me how much Mr. Clutton received during the year, and I gave him the amount paid for his professional services, and also the amount which he received in the shape of poundage.

MR. MOLLOY

The hon. Gentleman misunderstood what I said, and I will explain what it was that I meant. I understand that Mr. Clutton is the Receiver of Crown Rents, in regard to which there is very little trouble as respects collection. They are not like agricultural rents or house rents; and what I wished to ascertain was the sum received per year by Mr. Clutton, on behalf of the Crown, in the shape of Crown rents. There appears to be a gigantic salary received by Mr. Clutton, seeing that the Treasury pays him more than £4,000, in the shape of poundage, at 4 per cent. Now, I would submit that 4 per cent is more than a landlord gets out of his rents nowadays. The question I asked wasthis—what was the total sum received by Mr. Clutton during the year, not as poundage or commission, but the total amount received by him and paid in to the account of the Treasury? It is quite evident that it must have amounted to more than £100,000; and any person having a large sum of £50,000 or £100,000 lying in the bank would certainly place some of it at deposit, and would receive interest upon it; and the interest upon £50,000, payable under a deposit arrangement, would amount to a very considerable sum. I do not say that Messrs. Clutton make any such arrangement, or that they kept the interest they received. I should be very sorry to make any statement of the kind; but so little do the Treasury seem to know of the manner in which the accounts are kept, that, although we are discussing very large items, there is no one present who can tell us such a simple fact as this. What I maintain is that it is impossible for the Government to find this out so long as the two accounts are kept together; and I and my hon. Friend laid stress upon the fact that the trust account and the private account should be kept together. By pursuing such a system of keeping the accounts, it is impossible for the Comptroller and Auditor General to vouch for the correctness of the accounts; and accordingly he writes to the Treasury Authorities and says— I have been unable to get this bank passbook. Messrs. Clutton have refused to allow me to look at it, because the two accounts are mixed up, and therefore I am unable to tell the authorities whether this account is correctly or incorrectly kept. That was the point upon which I asked for information from the Government. I hope the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury will not suppose that I am making this a personal matter between him and myself. I am aware that he has only just accepted Office, and that it must be very difficult for him to understand these matters. I am not complaining of anything that he has done; but I am simply pointing out that this is a vicious mode of keeping the public accounts, and I laid stress upon it because I wish to justify the opposition I am making to it. I may state to the House the opinion of one of the highest Government authorities we have at present. I am told by the gentleman to whom I refer that if the Civil Service Accounts were properly kept, and due attention devoted to the items which are presented to this House, without in the least degree affecting the good work of the Civil Service, about £1,500,000 per annum might be saved to the country—a sum equal to the receipts from 1d. of Income Tax. The hon. Gentleman will therefore understand why I press the matter, and that I am not actuated by any personal motive with regard to the hon. Gentleman himself. I am satisfied that it is impossible for him to make himself master of these details in the short time he has been in Office; but his Predecessor, and others, ought to be able to give some information, because this kind of arrangement has gone on from time immemorial. The whole system is vicious; and, although I do not apply this remark to Mr. Clutton, it opens the door to waste.

MR. J. W. BARCLAY (Forfarshire)

I should like to have an explanation from the Government of the duties which Mr. Clutton has to perform for the large amount of £4,800 which he appears to have received in the shape of poundage. For my own part, I see no necessity for employing Mr. Clutton at all. The Woods and Forests have a large estabment of their own, and I do not see why they should not collect the Crown rents without the intervention of any person outside. As to the management of the Crown estates, I think it would be a better arrangement to employ a surveyor belonging to the Department, who should be directly responsible to the Commissioners for the management of the estates, and that this would be a more advantageous arrangement, not only for the State, but also for the tenants. I will ask the Secretary to the Treasury what is the nature of the arrangement with Mr. Clutton, and if it is not possible for the Department of Woods and Forests to manage the estates and collect the rents themselves without the intervention of Mr. Clutton; and if he does not think that that would be a much more advantageous arrangement for the tenants of the property?

MR. DILLON (Mayo, E.)

I find here a salary of £900 paid to a Receiver General in connection with the Department of Wood and Forests and Land Revenues. I want to know if that gentleman also gets poundage, or whether the Receiver General is Mr. Clutton? I also desire to know how much money is collected altogether through this officer; and, secondly, if the sum be £100,000 or £200,000, whether it takes more than one person to collect it? My own impression is that there is a sufficient staff of clerks in the Establishment to collect these rents easily. I cannot understand why so large a number of officials should be necessary in the Department. I also want to know why Mr. Clutton is not paid a reasonable salary—say £1,000 a-year—instead of getting a monstrous sum in the shape of poundage? According to the statement of the Secretary to the Treasury, Mr. Clutton receives something like £6,000 a-year, and, so far as I can make out, he receives that large sum for doing almost nothing at all; for not only are there other Receivers paid by the country, but there is an ample staff employed in the office, consisting of Commissioners at £1,200 a-year, Assistant Commissioners, a surveyor, a principal clerk, assistant clerks, junior clerks, Chief Mineral Inspector, Receiver General, Receiver for the County of Middlesex, assistant to the Receiver General, book-keepers, and drawing clerk, all of whom are liberally paid for doing the work of the Department. Then I want to know what Mr. Clutton does for this £6,000 a-year, and whether there are any other Receivers who are also paid for collecting this Crown Revenue, or whether the Receiver General, who appears here with a salary of £900 a-year, is Mr. Clutton, or some other official?

MR. JACKSON

In regard to the question as to the system of keeping the accounts, to which reference has been made in the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General, what I desired to convey to the Committee was that the system has been altered in consequence of what the Comptroller and Auditor General stated. It was altered after his remarks, and before the last meeting of the Public Accounts Committee; and, as hon. Members know, no reference was made to it at the last meeting of the Public Accounts Committee. I think that hon. Gentlemen opposite may accept that fact on my statement—namely, that the system has been altered, and that there is no mixing up now of public and private moneys. What I desire is to satisfy the hon. Member for North Dublin and the Committee that the system of which the hon. Member has properly complained has been changed. I am informed that Mr. Clutton regularly remits the money he receives, and that he seldom retains a larger balance than £500, which, he is allowed to do by Act of Parliament. That, I think, disposes of all question about the supposed loss to the public of a large amount of interest on the money in hand. I may point out that Mr. Clutton has nothing to do with the collection of rents with regard to public property in Pall Mall. Mr. Clutton has in his hands the valuation, letting, and collection of the rents of certain farms, together with their management, in the South of England; and I believe the amount of rent collected is something like £120,000 a-year. He has nothing whatever to do with the collection of rents upon house property. The hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) referred to the Receiver General connected with the Department of Woods and Forests. That gentleman is, I think, Mr. Higgins. He is paid a salary of £900 a-year, and he has the collection of certain rents for houses in London and Windsor. An other Eeceiver—Mr. Gower—is paid a poundage and a small sum in consideration of other work he performs. His duties are similar to those of Mr. Clutton, and he has to deal with the same kind of property in the North of England. The amount of his collection is about £44,000. He receives 2½ per cent on £6,000, and 4 per cent upon £18,000. Referring again to Mr. Clutton, I may say that he has to deal with the management of farms, and he has had a long experience in connection with, the work he performs. I think I have now answered all the questions which have teen put to me.

MR. BEADEL (Essex, Chelmsford)

Some expressions have been used in reference to Mr. Glutton to which I think it necessary to advert. I may say that, as far as Mr. Clutton is concerned, he stands at the head of his profession, and is altogether beyond reproach. I may go still further, and say that I have some little practical knowledge of what his management of the Crown estates has been, although I have not the slightest interest in his firm. The duties which devolve upon Mr. Clutton are of an extremely arduous and responsible character; and if hon. Members imagine that they are confined to the receiving of rents they are altogether mistaken. Mr. Clutton has to keep up a large and able staff in order to carry on the Crown business, and that staff he pays out of the sums received from his private receivership. In these troublous times, in consequence of the fall in rents, and the terribly low prices which the farmers are now receiving for their produce—a fact which is equally as applicable to this country as it is to Ireland—Mr. Clutton has not only to receive the Crown rents, but to undertake, to a great extent, the management of the farms on the Crown estates, and the duties which devolve upon him are much more responsible than could possibly be carried out by any other official, however competent he might be. Moreover, Mr. Clutton has to find people on the spot to look after the interests and rights of the Crown; and he is called upon to manage large forests over which, comparatively speaking, there is very little supervision indeed, but, nevertheless, involving a considerable amount of trouble and attention. In the interests of the Crown estates, I think it would be absolutely impossible to find anybody as competent as Mr. Clutton to do the business which he now performs.

MR. J. W. BARCLAY

I quite understand that Mr. Clutton is at the head of his Profession; but I do not understand that any exception has been taken to the manner in which he has discharged his duties. The question which I put to the Com- mittee was, whether the Commissioners of Woods and Forests might not have the services of someone in the Department, instead of employing Mr. Clutton at all? We all know that Mr. Clutton has a large number of estates under his management; and I am under the impression that the Commissioners of Woods and Forests would be able to manage the Crown property better than Mr. Clutton by employing a staff of their own, and placing themselves more directly in contact with the tenants than is now the case. The Commissioners are quite capable of exercising a sound judgment in regard to the management of land; and it must not be forgotten that we already possess, in connection with the Department of Woods and Forests, a very large staff indeed. Mr. Clutton has an important business, altogether independent of that which he conducts for the State, and it is impossible for him to devote to the Crown lands more than a small portion of his time. He is obliged to depend upon his officials; and I do not see why the Woods and Forests should not depend, in the same manner, upon the judgment of their staff of officials. I should like to know whether the hon. Member who addressed the House last (Mr. Beadel) has of late years been able to make any profit out of any of the land which he may have farmed? I have certainly not heard that any landed proprietor has been able to do so. They are obliged to be content with whatever amount of rent they can get, because, by taking the land into their own hands, they find that they receive much less. I am satisfied that it would be of great advantage to the tenants of the Crown lands if they were able to deal directly with the Commissioners of Woods and Forests, rather than with a third person.

MR. BEADEL

I am quite aware of the condition in which farming operations are now placed, and that there are landed proprietors who are unable to make a profit out of the land in hand. However, with regard to Mr. Clutton, there is no doubt that he has the management of a very large business, independently of that which he looks after for the Crown; but, at the same time, he is able to bring to bear on the management of the Crown property, in consequence of that large business, a judgment which no private person can possibly possess. Therefore he is the right man in the right place. With regard to the land in hand, if the hon. Member for Forfarshire had one tithe of the experience of Mr. Clutton, he would know that it is absolutely impossible to let certain farms, even if no rent at all is charged upon them; and the little loss which the State sustains in connection with the Crown lands is entirely owing to the management of Mr. Clutton.

MR. CLANCY

The apology offered by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Beadel) on behalf of Mr. Clutton is of the stereotyped form which we are accustomed to hear in this House. No official has ever been attacked in Parliament, or any abuse exposed, without our hearing from some authority or other that the person incriminated was a man of the highest possible ability and character, with the most respectable antecedents, and the very best man who could be obtained for the position. I will repeat again that I have made no charge against Mr. Clutton, except that which was made by the Comptroller and Auditor General; but I may add this—which I know from experience to be true—that a man may get a very good character in this House, and yet be quite a different sort of being in actual fact. Last year one of the most degraded and basest villains over employed in any country was sent to prison on a disgraceful charge in Ireland, although he had been only a couple of weeks before excessively lauded from the Treasury Bench. All that I have done in regard to Mr. Clutton has been to call the attention of the Committee to a statement of the Comptroller and Auditor General; and, in my opinion, that statement has not yet been answered by the Secretary to the Treasury. The hon. Gentleman assures us, and asks us to accept his assurance, that Mr. Clutton will graciously consent in future not to place the money of the Crown into his own private account, and that he will also graciously surrender his pass-books to the Comptroller and Auditor General; but he has not answered the charge made against him by the Comptroller and Auditor General in his last Report, dated January, 1886, which stated distinctly that Mr. Clutton defied the Treasury, and refused to surrender his pass-books with regard to past transactions. A pitched battle seems to have been fought between the Comptroller and Auditor General and Mr. Clutton, with the result that Mr. Clutton was able to walk off triumphant. Having gone off with the honours of war, he graciously consents now to comply with the conditions imposed by the Government. I do not think that his past conduct ought to be passed over without comment; and, therefore, I have moved the reduction of the Vote by £4,000, the amount of poundage received by Mr. Clutton.

MR. DILLON

I think that what has been stated by the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury justifies my hon. Friend the Member for North Dublin (Mr. Clancy) in going to a division on this Vote. What are the facts now before the Committee? They are that Mr. Clutton, whose earnings amounted to between £6,000 and £7,000 a-year, only spends a very small portion of his valuable time upon the Crown property. Now, I never heard the name of Mr. Clutton before, and I know nothing of him. I have heard the hon. Member for Chelms-ford (Mr. Beadel) declare that his services are exceedingly valuable; but the question is whether the services of any man are of sufficient value to the State that, for a small portion of his time, he ought to be paid £6,000 or £7,000 a-year. Are we to be told that the Government cannot get a man in England to give all his time and do all of this work for less than £6,000 or £7,000 a-year? Why, Sir, the President of the Board of Trade only gets £2,000 a-year, and the President of the Local Government Board a similar sum. Those Gentlemen are supposed to be men of ability, and they give all their time to the duties of their Department. Mr. Clutton, however, gets £6,000 a year for collecting the Crown rents, and has permission to devote the best part of his time to his own private business. We have heard the warm eulogium which has been passed on the conduct of Mr. Clutton by the hon. Member opposite. Mr. Clutton may be a man of great ability, and he may deserve all the praise which has been poured upon him; but, although the Secretary to the Treasury assures us that a change has been made in this most reprehensible method of keeping the public accounts, I cannot find that any severe reprimand has been passed upon Mr. Clutton for the course he has hitherto pursued. Then, again, how do we know that he manages these Crown farms so wonderfully well; because in this Report we find that he is continually in collision with the Comptroller and Auditor General in regard to the large expenditure he has incurred upon farm buildings. It may be a good expenditure; but the fact still remains that he has been spending £2,000 or £3,000 in that way, without making a proper Return to the Treasury, and that it has been necessary to call him to account. Now, I venture to submit that there is not a man in England, I do not care what his qualifications are, or what services are required in a collector of rents, who is worth £6,000 a-year to the State. I am perfectly satisfied that £1,500 would secure for the service of the State as good a man as can be required, and at least £4,500 a-year would in that case be saved to the Treasury. I therefore think that no time should be lost in reducing the emoluments now enjoyed by this gentleman.

MR. JACKSON

I wish to point out to the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Dillon) that he can hardly be aware that the sum paid to Mr. Clutton cannot, in any sense, be called a payment for his personal services. For the duties for which he receives this sum he has to keep up a very large establishment, and a considerable staff; and, therefore, it cannot be treated as a payment for his own personal services. I think the hon. Gentleman will clearly see that, if he will consider the vast amount of work that has been done in connection with the management and collection of rents for property extending over a large area of country. I am sorry that I have not been able to make the matter clear, and that the hon. Member for the Northern Division of the County of Dublin (Mr. Clancy) is still dissatisfied with my answer. I have endeavoured to show that the Report to which he refers was a Report made by the Comptroller and Auditor General before the last meeting of the Public Accounts Committee. It was made at the beginning of this year. This year the Committee of Public Accounts made the ordinary arrangements for the collection of these rents, and at this moment everything which the Comptroller and Auditor General asks is carried into effect. I may appeal to the fact that, at the last meeting of the Public Accounts Committee, the Comptroller and Auditor General did not call the attention of that Committee to Mr. Clutton, as he undoubtedly would have done, unless there had been an alteration in the system. Therefore, I hope the hon. Member will accept my assurance that the accounts are now kept as he desires.

SIR JOSEPH M'KENNA (Monaghan, S.)

I quite accept what the hon. Gentleman says—that the accounts are now kept according to the rules laid down by the Comptroller and Auditor General; but what I think the Committee have a right to complain of is that the accounts now presented to us really do not show what the actual remuneration received by Mr. Clutton is. I believe that between £6,000 and £7,000, which appears to be the gross sum paid for his services, is excessive; and I think that the Vote should be reduced, at all events, by £2,000. I would, therefore, ask my hon. Friend (Mr. Clancy) to withdraw the present Amendment, and move the reduction of the Vote by £2,000. I think my hon. Friend would, in that case, obtain more support than he is likely to get for the Amendment as it now stands.

MR. CLANCY

At present Mr. Clutton receives more than £6,000 a-year.

SIR JOSEPH M'KENNA

A portion of that sum, no doubt, is required for the payment of the staff; but I think, if the Vote were reduced as I suggest, Mr. Clutton would still receive ample remuneration for the services he performs. I would, therefore, ask my hon. Friend to withdraw his proposal for the reduction of the Vote by £4,000, in order to substitute £2,000.

MR. MOLLOY

I will not prolong the discussion; but I will point out to the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury that the sum received by Mr. Clutton is more than the salary of a Cabinet Minister. The Secretary to the Treasury says that Mr. Clutton does not receive the whole of it, because he has to pay his staff. Now, all that the staff has to do for the State is to keep the accounts that relate to the collection of rents, and I am satisfied that Mr. Clutton could get all the assistance he requires for £500 or £600 a-year. The fact still remains that a very large sum of money is paid to this gentleman for duties in the performance of which he employs only a small portion of his time. As a matter of fact, he actually receives a higher salary than the Prime Minister of this country.

MR. BRADLAUGH

I am not able to suggest whether Mr. Clutton is well or ill-paid; but I think there is one thing in which the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury will agree, and in regard to which probably he or the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is now in his place, will give me some assurance. I hold that payment by poundage is a very bad mode of payment, and that it very often results in gross jobbery. Whatever is the right sum to be paid for the services rendered Mr. Clutton ought to receive; but, in order to prevent the abuses which may result from the system of payment by poundage, we ought to have some assurance from the Treasury that steps will be taken to terminate that bad system.

MR. J. W. BARCLAY

I should like to know from the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury what extent of land belonging to the Crown is being farmed by the Commissioners of Woods and Forests without being let to tenants? I do not like to speak from memory; but I think there was a very considerable public clamour two or three years ago as to the excessive rents of the land belonging to the Woods and Forests. I cannot help thinking that it is an exceedingly bad system for the Government to keep the land in their own hands; because by that means it is producing no rent at all, and there is no land at the present moment in England which would not let for something or other.

MR. JACKSON

There is no difference of opinion between the Commissioners of Woods and Forests and the hon. Member that it is exceedingly undesirable to have farms in hand. The farms which are under the charge of Colonel Kingscote comprise, I believe, upwards of 70,000 acres; and the amount of land now in hand which has been held by seven tenants, two of whom held less than 120 acres, altogether comprises 1,762 acres. The farms now are practically managed as private farms.

MR. CLANCY

I desire to express personally my full sense of the courtesy of the Secretary to the Treasury. The hon. Gentleman's manner in this House is all we could desire; but I hope he will forgive me for repeating again that I am not satisfied with the explanation he has given. I have already admitted my perfect satisfaction that there is to be a new system for the future; but what I want still to know is whether, with regard to the past, Mr. Clutton has surrendered his pass-books? To that question I have obtained no answer, and I understand the Secretary to the Treasury to inform the Committee that he can give no answer. I am very much inclined to accept the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for South Monaghan (Sir Joseph M'Kenna). I think that to cut off £4000 at one blow from Mr. Clutton might be too great a shock to so mighty a person, and I have no wish to hurt the susceptibilities of so important an individual. Perhaps, if £2,000 were taken off his income for next year, he would be induced hereafter to be more civil to his superiors, and probably he would give way on the first attack that might be made upon him by the Representatives of the Treasury. With that view, and considering also that the amount of poundage paid to this gentleman is out of all proportion to that which is paid to other Receivers, I will, if the Committee will allow me, withdraw the Motion for reducing the Vote by £4,000, and substitute a Motion to reduce it by £2,000.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Original Question again proposed.

Motion made, and Question put, That a sum, not exceeding £8,043, 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. Clancy.)

The Committee divided:—Ayes 73; Noes 149: Majority 76.—(Div. List, No. 23.)

Original Question put, and agreed to.

(2.) £21,059, to complete the sum for Works and Public Buildings Office.

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

This, I know, is an Office which is generally held to be beyond criticism; but in regard to its work this year I wish to ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman in charge of the Vote to explain how it is that certain items in- serted in the Estimates for this year have not been submitted to the Committee? It will be in the recollection of the Committee that the first Votes we had to consider were, in accordance with a printed statement, circulated by the Treasury, and in that statement there was a Vote for the New Admiralty and War Office, and another Vote for Dover Harbour. When the Committee began its deliberations, we expected that those two Votes would, be put from the Chair; but they have been passed over, sub silentio, and the consequence was that a third Vote came on unexpectedly, and was passed without the discussion which would otherwise have taken place upon it. Now, Sir, the insertion of Votes of this kind for Services which do not, in reality, require any Vote of the sort is, at any rate, an unusual proceeding; and I should like to ask the First Commissioner of Works to explain the state of the case in regard to the Vote for the New Admiralty and War Office Buildings, and also the circumstances under which the Vote originally presented for Dover Harbour is not required?

THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. PLUNKET) (Dublin University)

I think I can give the hon. Gentleman a satisfactory explanation of the matter. It is quite true that a Vote for the new Admiralty and War Office Buildings was originally inserted in the Estimates, and that now it is not brought forward. The reason of that change is that during the last Parliament a suggestion was made by my right hon. Friend who is now Secretary of State for War (Mr. W. H. Smith) that it was desirable to reconsider the plans for the Admiralty and War Office Buildings. That suggestion was approved of by the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt); and accordingly it was afterwards proposed that a Committee should be appointed for the purpose of reconsidering the whole question, and such a Committee was nominated with the assent of the House. It was stated by my Predecessor (Lord Elgin) on the 27th of May, when a Vote on Account was taken, that nothing would be done beyond what was absolutely necessary in the way of demolition until Parliament had had an opportunity of reconsidering the matter, and until the Select Committee had reported upon it. A further statement to that effect was made in this House by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the last Parliament. Under these circumstances, it would obviously not be proper to press the Vote. It is the intention of the Government to propose the appointment of the Committee to report upon the subject in the next Session as early as possible. I know nothing whatever as to the Estimate for Dover Harbour.

THE CHAIRMAN

The question of Dover Harbour does not arise under this Vote.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL (Kirkcaldy, &c.)

The right hon. Gentleman has not been long in Office; but I should like him to give some promise that he will pay some attention to that melancholy subject to which attention has been called on more than one occasion—namely, the dying away of the trees in Kensington Gardens. I called the attention of the right hon. Gentleman's Predecessor to that matter. Things are now going from bad to worse; and, in these summer days, anyone who walks there for a little fresh air will find the trees still visibly dying. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give us some assurance that attention will be paid to the subject.

MR. LABOUCHERE (Northampton)

Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman propose to do anything in regard to the extension of Westminster Hall? It has been allowed to remain in the same condition now for some years.

MR. PLUNKET

Yes, Sir; I have recently been over the ground, and I can assure the hon. Member that the works will be proceeded with at once.

Vote agreed to.

(3.) £10,000, to complete the sum for the Mercantile Marine Fund (Grant in Aid).

(4.) Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £30,000, 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 Her Majesty's Foreign and other Secret Services.

MR. BRADLAUGH (Northampton)

I do not intend to do more now than express a hope that what the Government nave done in regard to the Secret Service money charged upon the Consolidated Fund they will do next year in regard to this Vote. The saving to the Consolidated Fund appears to be a sum of more than £9,000 a-year, and it is reasonable to hope that some similar saving may be effected in this Vote; and that, instead of having a Secret Service Vote of £50,000 for the year, an Estimate may be brought forward for the various Departments, each Department stating the sum which it deems necessary for Secret Service. There would then no longer be a large sum which Parliament is unable to trace, even to any Department, or to know what becomes of it.

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

I wish to point out to the hon. Member that if Secret Service money be granted at all, it must be granted so that Parliament cannot trace it. It is a Vote granted by Parliament to Ministers for public purposes, as to which Parliament trusts absolutely to the discretion of Ministers; and it is granted on the distinct condition and understanding that the employment of the money shall be absolutely secret. Therefore, on that ground, I would object to the arrangement suggested by the hon. Member, that the sum expended by each Office should be placed upon the Estimates. I would object to it on the ground that by so placing it on the Estimates it would diminish the secrecy of the expenditure. If Parliament chooses to grant this money as Secret Service money, the expenditure of it must obviously be left to the Ministry. If you do not choose to grant Secret Service money that is quite a different thing. If the House of Commons choose to deprive the Ministry of the day of these funds, that will be a very serious step for the House of Commons to take; and certainly, if the money be not granted, I do not believe that in the present day the Government can be carried on, or that the Services could be provided for, unless Parliament granted very liberal Estimates. I think the hon. Member will admit that the Government have established a claim upon the House by altogether sweeping away the expenditure on account of Secret Service hitherto charged upon the Consolidated Fund, which, I thought, was an expenditure which could not be defended in modern times; but I do hope that the Government, having shown that they are determined that Secret Service money shall be expended only in the interests of the State and for purposes Parliament controls, inquiry as to the details of expenditure will not be pressed.

MR. BRADLAUGH

I desire to acknowledge, in the fullest manner, the concession made by the Government in reference to the charge upon the Consolidated Fund. I desire, on the part of Radicals, to acknowledge that in the frankest manner. But what the noble Lord now says in defence of the Vote is precisely what used to be said in defence of the very expenditure the noble Lord has abandoned. I cannot help thinking that the same kind of consideration arises here. There are no means of knowing how this money is expended; and it appears from answers given by witnesses examined by the Public Accounts Committee that it has sometimes been used to supplement payments in the shape of salaries.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

That was many years ago.

MR. BRADLAUGH

Yes; but the expenditure was secret still; and perhaps a more acute Public Accounts Committee may extract similar information. While I admit that the noble Lord has been frank in recognizing the distinction between this Vote and the charge on the Consolidated Fund I shall be compelled to divide the House against the Vote.

Sir GEORGE CAMPBELL (Kirkcaldy, &c.)

I am not suprised that the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh) should have called attention to this Vote; but I do think that in a great Empire like this it is quite impossible for the Public Service to be carried on without the employment of Secret Service money. Nevertheless, the abstraction of £10,000 a-year from the Consolidated Fund for that purpose was an abuse, and I am glad that the system has been abandoned. I think the Committee ought to rest satisfied after the stop which has been put to the spending of Secret Service money for electioneering purposes. This sum of £50,000 is expended on the responsibility of Her Majesty's Ministers; and all that can be required by this House is a statement from Ministers on honour that the money has been expended for the Secret Service for which it was required.

MR. LABOUCHERE (Northampton)

A good deal of Secret Service money spent by the Foreign Office is not really Secret Service money in any sense of the word, but is expended in giving pensions to the widows of persons who have been employed by the Government. I think it would be better to separate the two items—namely, the money really employed for Secret Service purposes, and that which is given away in pensions. I am not asserting for a moment that these pensions to widows and others who have rendered service to the Government ought not to be paid; but still they are not Secret Service money, and it appears to me far more desirable that the Government should ask for a certain sum for pensions to widows and others, where there is no fund specially available for them, instead of putting it down for Secret Service money.

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

I wish to ask if there is any truth in the report that the Government have employed a shorthand writer, together with a detective, to follow Mr. Michael Davitt on his public tour in the United States; and, if so, whether the pay of those individuals is provided for under the head of Secret Service money?

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

The hon. Member must know that no Minister has ever answered a question with regard to the expenditure of Secret Service money, either negatively or affirmatively; and I cannot depart from that practice. With regard to the employment of a shorthand writer, I have no information on the subject, neither has my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 159; Noes 54: Majority 105.—Div. List, No. 24.)

(5.) £3,393, to complete the sum for the Secretary for Scotland's Office.

MR. J. W. BARCLAY (Forfarshire)

I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Scotland (Mr. A. J. Balfour) what authority he exercises over the Local Boards sitting in Edinburgh? It was one of the principal reasons for the appointment of a Secretary for Scotland that these Boards were practically irresponsible, and it was hoped that when the appoint- ment was made the Minister would be able to exercise some authority over them. The Boards to which I refer are the Fishery Board, the Lunacy Commission, the Poor Law Board, and the Board of Supervision. It has often been stated in this House that none of these Boards were responsible. Very considerable complaints have been made from time to time regarding the interference of the Board of Supervision in the administration of local affairs; and we know quite well that the Board practically consists of only one individual, the Chairman. The Board of Lunacy and the Fishery Board also require looking after; and I shall be glad to hear from the right hon. Gentleman whether he is in a position to exercise control over these Boards, so that he may be responsible in this House for their doings. It will be a very great satisfaction to the people of Scotland to know that the administration of affairs relating to Scotland is in the hands and under the control of a responsible Minister. If the right hon. Gentleman has not yet sufficient authority under the Act of Parliament, I hope that he will direct his attention to the subject, with a view to bringing the Local Boards in Scotland under his control. I believe this is the desire of the people of Scotland; and I am sure, if he succeeds in accomplishing this object, he will have done a great deal to justify the creation of his Office. I should also like to know whether the right hon. Gentleman exercises as much authority and control over the Boards in Scotland as the Local Government Board does over the various Local Boards in England?

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL (Kirkcaldy, &c.)

My hon. Friend the Member for Forfarshire has put a very important question to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Scotland; and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to give a satisfactory answer with regard to the Fishery Board, Lunacy Board, Poor Law Board, and the Board of Supervision. With reference to the other question asked by my hon. Friend, as to the extent of the control over the Local Boards in Edinburgh, I think the right hon. Gentleman would be in a much better position if he had that control in Scotland which the Home Secretary and the Local Government Board together have in England. Now, Sir, coining to the establishment of this Office—the Office of the Secretary for Scotland—I find we have the Secretary with a salary of £2,000 a-year; we have the Permanent Under Secretary, with a salary of £1,500 a-year, and £500, the portion of his pension in respect of service in the Education Department. We have then an Assistant Under Secretary, with a salary of £920. But under these three great Officers we have only three clerks. It would, therefore, seem that this Office has a very large head, but a very attenuated body. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will see that it is much better that he should have all these Scotch Offices and Local Boards under his control.

THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR) (Manchester, E.)

The hon. Gentleman (Sir George Campbell) has asked me the nature of the powers exercised over the Scotch Local Boards. The authority I exercise over these Boards is precisely the same as that which was exercised by the Lord Advocate under the law which existed before my Office was constituted by Parliament; and in answer to the hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. Barclay) I have to say that the authority I exercise over these Boards is as great as that formerly exercised by the Secretary of State for the Home Department here. The Statute by which my Office was created simply transferred to me the powers which the Secretary of State for the Home Department possesses. These powers, I admit, are not very great in extent; indeed, the control I have over any separate Department is very small; but I am not sure that that is a thing wholly to be regretted. The Scottish Boards are very peculiar institutions, and there is nothing analogous to them in England. They have worked well, and so long as they work well we are enabled through them to avoid undue centralization; and, therefore, I do not think it would be consistent with the ordinary rules of administration and legislation in favour in this country that we should, in deference to theory, abolish institutions which work well in practice. The hon. Gentleman said the Board of Supervision was complained of in Scotland because of its arbitrary interference with local affairs; but I would remind the hon. Member that the powers exercised by the Board of Supervision are as nothing compared with the powers exercised in England by the Local Government Board. When I first went to the Local Government Board about a year and a-half ago I was astonished at the minute supervision and control which that Board exercises over everything connected with the Poor Law Boards and other local institutions in England. There is nothing like that in Scotland; and so long as we get on without that control I do not think we ought to regard it as necessary. With regard to the Fishery Board and the Board of Lunacy, the work in those Departments is very great, and only one or two members of those Boards are paid for their work, the other assistance being given gratuitously; and it should be borne in mind that neither the Board of Supervision, nor any other Department, can altogether avoid complaints, sometimes just and sometimes unjust. For my own part, I do not think we Scotchmen have serious reason to be discontented with the system which already exists. Whether it will be modified by the Government bringing in another Local Government Bill is not settled. The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) asked me whether I can say conscientiously that I have earned my pay. Well, Sir, I have not had a long opportunity of studying that question; and I do not know, if I came to an unfavourable conclusion with regard to it, that I should care to confide my opinion to my hon. Friend. But I must say that the duties of the Scotch Office are not so insignificant as the hon. Member apparently supposes, because, as Secretary for Scotland, I am not only at the head of the general administration of the country, but also, as Vice President of the Council, I am at the head of the Education Department. These two Offices together may well prevent the duties of the Secretary of Scotland being those of a sinecurist.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

I simply expressed my surprise that there were three heads of the Office and only three clerks.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

The hon. Gentleman commented on the high pay of the two head permanent officials in the Scotch Office. He said one of them received £2,000 a-year. That is true; but he does not receive that as Under Secretary for Scotland; he receives only £1,500 a-year in that capacity. Owing to the fact that Sir Francis Sandford is the Permanent Under Secretary for Scotland, we have not only secured the services of one of the very ablest public officials, but we have also saved the country a large amount in hard cash; because Sir Francis Sandford is entitled to a large pension, the whole of which he does not draw, so long as he occupies the post of Permanent Under Secretary. The hon. Gentleman appears to me to think that you should not have highly paid officers at the head of a Department unless you have a large number of clerks under them. I cannot agree with that. The duties may not be so heavy and so numerous as to require a large staff of clerks; but in this case they are of so important a character that the gentlemen at the head of the Office must be equal in position and character to those of any other Office at Whitehall. Therefore, I say that these gentlemen eminently deserve the salaries paid to them; and I do not think we could secure the kind of men we want for less money.

MR. J. W. BARCLAY

I do not desire that the Secretary for Scotland should have any more interference with local affairs than there is at present. What we want is a responsible Secretary for Scotland, and not an irresponsible Board as in Edinburgh. Complaints have been made as to undue interference on the part of the Board of Supervision in Edinburgh, and in regard to the other Boards I shall have more to say later on. I desire that the supervision of the Boards should be exercised by someone who is responsible for it, and not by an irresponsible person in Edinburgh. The Board of Supervision, as I have said, consists only of the Chairman. ["No, no!"] The Lord Advocate expresses some doubt about that. I recollect that a Return was made of the attendance of the Board, and we found that seldom anyone besides the Chairman attended. When the Chairman alone was present it was called a Committee, and the Committee had the full powers of the Board. This question has been discussed in the House for many years. The Board has been unsatisfactory, and is unsatisfactory now; and I want the Secretary for Scotland to be responsible for the Board of Supervision, and also for the Fishery Board. I think that was what the Scottish people asked for when a Secretary was appointed for Scotland. I invite the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to these subjects, and to say that it would be better to have an improved control by the Secretary for Scotland, who is responsible to this House.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

I have known Sir Francis Sandford all my life, and I am aware that we could not have a more valuable public servant; but it does seem to me, from the very modesty and slenderness of the Staff, that there must be very little detailed work in the Office, with the exception of the educational work. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Forfarshire that it would be desirable for the Secretary for Scotland to exercise a more complete control over the Scotch Boards, which I agree are unpopular in Scotland, and centralize too much. We want a controlling power over them; and in so far as they are not responsible to the Secretary for Scotland they are not responsible to Parliament. I think these Boards should be made over to the Department of the Secretary for Scotland, in order that he may have full working power in connection with them.

Vote agreed to.

(6.) Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £2,755, granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1887, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of the Queen's and Lord Treasurer's Remembrancer in Exchequer, Scotland, of certain Officers in Scotland, and other Charges formerly on the Hereditary Revenue.

MR. LABOUCHERE (Northampton)

I observe in this Vote a charge of £500 for the Lyon King-at-Arms, and also a charge of £75 for three heralds at £25 each, and three pursuivants at £16 13s. 4d. each. Now, I have asked many times in this House what is the use of these heralds, pursuivants, and Kings-at-Arms; but I have never had a reasonable reply. I understand the duties of the Lyon King-at-Arms is to provide pedigrees and arms for those who have neither pedigrees nor arms. I am told by an hon. Member from Scot- land that he pursues a species of touting system. An hon. Friend of mine received a letter from the Lyon King-at-Arms, not long ago, offering to provide him with a pedigree at a reasonable price if he was ready to pay for it. Of course, my hon. Friend being a sensible man, entirely declined to have that pedigree forced upon him. Then there was another case of a gentleman from Scotland having a shield before his name in Dodd's Parliamentary Guide, on which a wild animal was exhibited; immediately he got a letter from the Lyon King-at-Arms, asking him what he meant by exhibiting this animal on the shield, and stating that he ought to pay a sum of money and have a genuine coat of arms. I may be told that this office pays for itself. That makes the case even worse. There are certain things which are immoral and ought not to be done. This is one of them, and we ought not to provide a salary for a Lyon King-at-Arms and persons connected with him, in order that he should foist off upon poor, simple-minded, ignorant Scotsmen pedigrees and arms for a small fee. I regard the whole thing as utterly immoral; and I object to the State having anything to do with these tomfooleries. By all means, let us do away with these heralds and pursuivants and this Lyon King-at-Arms. I shall divide the House against this Vote. I may not, perhaps, get a majority—I never do; but I shall give hon. Members an opportunity of protesting against this ridiculous office. If we do not continue to protest against the Lyon King-at-Arms we shall, perhaps, be called upon hereafter to pay £500 a-year for a Unicorn King-at-Arms.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £2,125, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1887, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of the Queen's and Lord Treasurer's Remembrancer in Exchequer, Scotland, of certain Officers in Scotland, and other Charges formerly on the Hereditary Eevenue."—(Mr. Labouchere.)

MR. HUNTER (Aberdeen, N.)

Can the right hon. Gentleman inform me what was the amount of fees received in the office during the year 1885?

SIR HERBERT MAXWELL (A LORD of the TREASURY) (Wigton)

The amount of fees received last year was £500, and the same amount is calculated as the receipts this year. The fines and forfeitures in the Justiciary and Sheriff Courts which come to the office of Lyon King-at-Arms amount to £4,500, making in all £5,000, against a charge for the Lyon Office of £6,425. The cost of the Lyon Office is not, as was stated by the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere), £500, but a little over £160.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: (Kirkcaldy, &c.)

I agree with the hon. Member for Northampton that the office of Lyon King-at-Arms is a very ridiculous one, and I shall vote with him for the reduction of the Vote. I shall ask the support of the hon. Member in opposition to some other items in the Vote to which I object—namely, those for the Law Agent and Clerk to the Bible Board, £180; Queen's Plate, £198, run for at the Caledonian Hunt.

SIR HERBERT MAXWELL

With regard to the Bible Board, the position is one which can be defended on the score of its cheapness, the annual cost being only £180. At the same time, its duties are not unimportant, inasmuch as it guarantees the text of every Bible in Scotland. The members of the Board perform their work gratuitously, and the £180 to which the hon. Gentleman takes exception is really paid to the Lord Advocate and Solicitor General. The offices of Majesty's Limner and Historiographer are the sole remnants of the ancient Monarchy of Scotland, and as they cost so very little I think they must be considered a very cheap memorial. With regard to the money voted for the Queen's Plates, I would ask the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy to compare the very modest amount for the Queen's Plates in Scotland with the sums voted for them in England and Ireland.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

I have always held that two blacks do not make a white; and I object to the Queen's Plates in England as well as in Scotland. With regard to the Bible Board, I should have thought that the correctness of the text of the Bible might very well have been left to the printer. I am under the impression that not long ago an august body found that the text of the Bible was very impure and incorrect.

MR. LABOUCHERE

I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment, in order to in- clude, in another Amendment which I will then move, the items to which my hon. Friend objects. The amount of the reduction I shall propose would be £1,200, and my Amendment would then include the items for the Bible Board, the Queen's Limner and Historiographer, and the Queen's Plates. It is very gratifying to find this feeling of economy amongst Scotch Members. I have generally found, in moving such a reduction, that Scotchmen have been inclined to think that all is grist that comes to the Scotch mill. I have, in this House, opposed Scotch Votes, and I have found even economical Scotchmen indignantly protesting against anything which the Saxon gave being cut off. They have generally acted on the principle of taking all they can get. I include the Historiographer and the Limner all the more readily for the explanation which the hon. Gentleman (Sir Herbert Maxwell) has given. The hon. Gentleman says that these are remnants of the Scotch Monarchy. The Scottish Monarchy has disappeared entirely. From his statement one would imagine that the hon. Gentleman was a Separatist. I do not see why we should pay salaries to two gentlemen of £184 and £97 respectively, merely to perpetuate the recollection of the existence of the Scotch Monarchy. The Scotch Monarchy is entirely merged into the English Monarchy. [Sir GEORGE CAMPBELL: No, no!] I see that I am now treading on dangerous ground, and I will, therefore, not continue my observations on this point; but simply ask leave to withdraw my Motion for the purpose of moving to reduce the Vote by £1,289.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Original Question again proposed.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £1,466, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1887, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of the Queen's and Lord Treasurer's Remembrancer in Exchequer, Scotland, of certain Offices in Scotland, and other Charges formerly on the Hereditary Revenue."—(Mr. Labouchere.)

MR. JORDAN (Clare, W.)

If there be not a single Bible Board connected with England and Ireland, I do not see why we should pay for a Bible Board for Scotland, except on the ground that the Scotch people are much more religious than the people of the other two countries. With regard to the offices of Queen's Limner and Historiographer, I understand that these are remnants of a past Monarchy, and on that ground I think they ought to be abolished. Finally, as to the Queen's Plates, if there ought to be Queen's Plates, by all means let them be Queen's Plates in reality, but do not pay for them out of the taxpayers' money.

MR. CLANCY (Dublin Co., N.)

I shall support the Motion of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere). I do not support the hon. Member's Motion from any desire to cut down Scotch Votes, because I do not think that the people of Scotland get their fair share as it is; but I am perfectly prepared to vote for a similar reduction in the case of Ireland, and when we reach the point I shall propose to reduce the Estimate by the item of the charge for the Ulster King-at-Arms. I think, however, it would be more satisfactory if the hon. Member would exclude from his Motion the charge for the Bible Board. For my part, I am certainly in favour of retaining that particular portion of the Vote, because I do not think that a provision of this kind, tending, as many consider, to the well-being of religion, ought to be excluded. I am, therefore, willing to vote with the hon. Member for Northampton, provided the charge for the Bible Board is excluded from the proposed reduction.

MR. LABOUCHERE

I am unable to make that alteration. I must point out to the hon. Member that this Vote for the Bible Board has nothing to do with religion. The printers' reader takes a Bible of any particular edition, and sees that the words are the same as in the orthodox edition. The same sort of thing goes on in every printing office. The Law Agent is simply an idle gentleman who takes the salary, and employs a reader to do the work.

MR. HUNTER

I should like the Government to tell us who is the Historiographer, and who is the Limner.

MR. ANDERSON (Elgin and Nairn)

Can the hon. Baronet tell us what is the arrangement with regard to the Law Agent and the Bible Board?

SIR HERBERT MAXWELL

The original arrangement was that this Vote should be omitted from the Estimates for 1884–5. I am informed that a settlement of the question is at present pending; and it is to be considered whether the duties shall continue to be retained by the Office, or be transferred to the Office of the Secretary for Scotland.

MR. J. W. BARCLAY (Forfarshire)

I should certainly think that the Secretary for Scotland, with a printer's reader, could do this work without the assistance of a lawyer. I understand that the effect of this arrangement is simply to create a monopoly in the book market. I suggest that the Secretary for Scotland might, with advantage, devote some of his attention to these matters, which take up a great deal of time year after year, and which, I think, could be very easily put on a satisfactory footing.

MR. O'HEA (Donegal, W.)

I shall support the Motion of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere); and I shall do so on the ground that I think a case has been abundantly made out on behalf of the taxpayers generally. These items ought not to be allowed, on the ground of economy, to remain on the Estimates, unless they are, at any rate, very considerably reduced. The remarks of the hon. Gentleman have been perfectly satisfactory to me, and I think they ought also to be so to the Committee. I altogether object to the extravagance of the sums proposed to be voted for this obsolete system. I understand that the function of the Bible Board has been to preserve the Bible in its condition of orthodoxy. Years ago there was a considerable outcry, and that outcry had the effect of extinguishing altogether in Ireland the circulation of Bibles purporting to be Douay Bibles, but in reality Bibles published by a proselytizing Protestant Society in England. The Catholic Episcopacy are quite able to attend to their own interests in this matter; and I think that the Scotch Presbyterians, in like manner, should themselves look after what they conceive to be the purity of their Bibles, and protect their own interests. An item which seems to me to be an unnecessary extravagance is that for the Queen's Limner and the Queen's Historiographer. If anybody wishes to make himself acquainted with the history of Scotland, he will find no difficulty in tracing that history down to the present time from the very earliest period of antiquity—from the very era of fable—by going to the public libraries and consulting their comprehensive histories. I, therefore, fail to see why we want this item for a Royal Historiographer.[Cries of "Divide!"] Even the cacoëthes loquendi of hon. Members opposite will not prevent me from making such observations as I deem expedient. As to the item for Her Majesty's Limner, it is to be supposed, and to be hoped, that Scotland possesses picture galleries in addition to libraries and museums—that it possesses portraits of celebrities who figured in the Monarchical times of Scotch history; and now that photography has been brought to such perfection, if anyone wants to have a copy of any of these pictures, he can get a photograph of it for 1s. I think, therefore, that this item for Her Majesty's Limner might be very well dispensed with. I make these observations purely on the ground of economy, as I think this portion of the Estimates should be very considerably reduced.

MR. HARRIS (Galway, E.)

I did not intend to take part in this discussion, though, indeed, I have felt for a long time that the Scotch people had been making fools of themselves with regard to this Limner and Historiographer. Next to this form of humbug, I think they are very much making fools of themselves about the Bible.

THE CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member will please address himself to the Vote, which is a financial question.

MR. HARRIS

I notice that in the debate on the Crofters Bill—["Order!"] —the right hon. and learned Gentleman the present Lord Advocate recommended that the only concession which should be made to the crofters should be to allow them to go to Manitoba, Kamschatka, or other places where they would be allowed to take their Bibles with them. Well, however valuable the Bible may be to the Scotch crofters—

THE CHAIRMAN

I must request the hon. Gentleman to attend to my advice, and to address himself to the Vote.

MR. HARRIS

Well, Sir, allow me to say that I support the hon. Member who has brought forward this proposition.

MR. HUNTER

We, as yet, have no information as to who this Limner and Historiographer are.

SIR HERBERT MAXWELL

The Historiographer is Dr. Skene, a very well known gentleman in Scotland, and the Limner is Sir Noel Paton.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

Does the Limner supply any pictures for the money?

MR. JORDAN

Is there a similar Vote for Ireland or England?

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 59; Noes 141: Majority 82.—(Div. List, No. 25.)

Original Question put, and agreed to.

(7.) Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £12,780, he 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 Fishery Board in Scotland and for Grants in Aid of Piers or Quays.

MR. J. W. BARCLAY (Forfarshire)

When the Vote on Account on the last occasion, was before the House, I took the opportunity of calling attention to the constitution of the Scotch fishery Board, and to some of its proceedings. The right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. J. B. Balfour) who then spoke for the Secretary for Scotland told us that everyone in Scotland was satisfied with it. But if the Secretary for Scotland had the advantage of representing a Scotch constituency he would find that that is not the case. All round the Coast of Scotland there are general complaints as to the constitution of the Board and its working. The people think it is practically worthless. There is no one practically acquainted with sea fishing on this Board. I have nothing whatever to say against the scientific portion of the Board. I have read, with great interest, their last Report, and I think the scientific side of the Board is well represented, and that it has done as much as could be expected in the direction of scientific investigation. But the fishermen complain, and I think with a great deal of justice, that there is no one on the Board practically acquainted with fisheries who can be of assistance to them on fishing questions, procure for them the information they ought to possess, and guard their interests in every way. We had a very good example of the acting Board, on a recent occasion, in an attempt to carry out the law with respect to restrictions on trawling. In that effort the Board defined certain areas, in accordance with the powers contained in a recent Act, one of these areas being on the Coast of Fife, and the other along the Aberdeenshire Coast. There was not much complaint about the Firth of Forth; but the fishermen in Forfarshire and Aberdeenshire complained very strongly that the areas there laid off were altogether inadequate in extent to answer properly the questions which the Board proposed to decide as to the habits of the fish and the effect of trawling on the food supply of the country. A deputation of fishermen came up to London, at great expense, both of time and money—a considerable number of them—and they stated their case to Lord Dalhousie, then Secretary for Scotland. As might have been anticipated, however, Lord Dalhousie did not feel himself justified in overruling the judgment of the Fishery Board. But I think that those present on that occasion, who were disinterested and took an impartial view of the case, were satisfied that the fishermen had made out their case, and that they had been put to the trouble and expense of coming to London unnecessarily. They saw, in fact, that though the fishermen had a good case, the result of their interview was a foregone conclusion. That is one illustration of the disadvantage the fishermen experience through having no fishermen on the Board, who would be able to keep the Board right on matters such as the area which should be allowed to test the effect of trawling, and would be able to satisfy the men that their interests were duly protected. Another important question with which the Board deals, I am sorry to say, in an unsatisfactory manner is that of fishing harbours. I think that a large proportion, if not the whole, of the money which has been spent by the Board on harbours has been practically thrown away. The last experiment was the making of a harbour at Ness Point in Skye, and that harbour has now silted up with sand, a contingency which, I am informed, was foreseen by the fishermen and foretold to the engineer of the Board. I do not wish to say a word against the engineers to the Board, who are gentlemen of high reputation. We know that all Government officials, when their doings are discussed in this House, are said to have a high reputation, and to be thoroughly qualified for the performance of their duties; but I think it would be much better for the Board to have an engineer exclusively at their own service, and not to have to take professional advice such as that of the Messrs. Stevenson. It has been strongly represented to me by those able to judge of this matter that it would be much more to the advantage of the Fishery Board if they employed their own engineers. Then I think the Board are in the habit of spending far too large sums of money on one harbour. The small amount of the grant was not intended to be accumulated in order that it should be spent in one large sum on one harbour, but to give assistance in comparatively small sums to many small fishing villages round the Coasts. I have myself brought under the notice of the Fishery Board a fishing port on the Forfarshire coast, where, I think, a very small expenditure may be made with great advantage to the fishermen and to the development of the fishing, and it was a case where arrangements might be made whereby the local proprietor would cooperate with the Fishery Board in order to produce the desired improvements. I think it would be very desirable if we could have a Return placed before us of how the money has been expended for some years past. [Sir GEORGE BALFOUR (Kincardine): We had that.] These are all points to which I wish the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Scotland would direct his attention. I would request him to bestow his attention particularly upon the constitution of the Board. Since I called attention to this subject in, I think, June last, one of the Members of the Board has resigned. I believe the Members are appointed for five years, and that the period of retirement of the other Members has not yet arrived; so that it will, of course, be impossible for the Secretary of State to exercise any active interference with the other appointments until the expiration of the term of Office. But I desire the right hon. Gentleman to express an opinion in favour of appointing to the present vacancy some practical fisherman—some person who is really acquainted with fishing, and who will keep the Board right on these matters. Several Members on the Board are, no doubt, very well acquainted with salmon fishing; but I do not think it can be said that any single Member has any practical acquaintance with sea fishing. I trust the right hon. Gentleman will be prepared to use his utmost endeavours to increase the efficiency of this Board in the filling up of the existing vacancy by a practical fisherman. I can assure him that there are many fishermen all round the Coast who have taken a very great interest in the subject, and that the universal opinion at the present time among them is that for their purposes the existence of the Fishery Board, as at present constituted, is practically useless.

MR. MARJORIBANKS (Berwickshire)

My hon. Friend who has just sat down (Mr. Barclay) has referred to three special points with regard to the action of the Scotch Fishery Board. The first of these three is with regard to the constitution of the Board. I think the hon. Member is rather unfair on the Board, for he gave us to understand that, as at present constituted, it is thoroughly worthless. I do not agree with the hon. Member in that case. As reconstructed, the Board has proved itself an exceedingly useful body; and its Reports, issued during the last four years, are exceedingly valuable. The work the Board has done in the collection of useful information in regard to sea fishing, and as to the way in which it may be better conducted, and as to the amount of fish caught at different places, is very valuable, and will be the foundation for much that will be very useful in the future. Then, again, I think the hon. Gentleman should remember that this Board, which carries on its work so well, is an unpaid Board. The Chairman is paid, and the Secretary receives a salary, and I believe that a scientific gentleman—Professor Cottar Ewart—also gets some remuneration; but as for the others they give their valuable work and services for nothing. Moreover, I think they are much better qualified to deal with the subject than the hon. Gentleman seems inclined to admit. As to the desirability of introducing some practical fishermen on the Board I entirely sympathize with the hon. Gentleman, so far as thinking that the Board is undoubtedly weak in this respect—that there is no one on it to give expression to the views of the fishermen themselves. But I doubt very much whether it would be possible to appoint a practical fisherman on the Board. I want to know, if you did appoint such a man, how he could give up his time and his occupation of fishing and go to live in Edinburgh, in order to attend to the business of the Board? I do not think that any fisherman of my hon. Friend's constituency would like to be constantly attending the Board. Still, I do think the Board might very well be strengthened by the addition to its Members of some gentleman who is thoroughly acquainted with all the views of the Scotch fishermen, and I recommend that consideration to my right hon. Friend the Secretary for Scotland (Mr. A. J. Balfour). Now, as to the question of trawling, let me, first of all, say, as a Member of the Trawling Commission, that our recommendation that power should be given to the Scotch Fishery Board to stop trawling in the territorial waters was something in the nature of a compromise between the opinions of the different Members of the Commission. I think the far better plan would have been to have altogether prohibited trawling in all territorial waters. That might have been done without injury to the trawling industry, and it would have been found of the greatest use and service to that very class of fishermen who are least able to go far to sea, and who carry on their arduous profession under most difficult conditions—I mean especially the very young and the very old fishermen, men who, perhaps, are possessed of only a small boat, who cannot get far out to sea, but who manage to eke out a living by fishing close to shore. These are the men with whom the steam trawlers, particularly those on the Coasts of Scotland, most interfere. But another thing to be considered is this—that the amount of fish caught by trawlers within the territorial limits of any coast is infinitesimal. Trawlers, as a rule, are well-found vessels, well able to go to sea, and well able to carry on their work. I need hardly say that a vessel which drags a heavy trawl behind her should be a strong vessel, and a vessel that will stand a considerable amount of knocking about at sea. Then, it seems to me that the conduct of the Fishery Board itself, in respect to our recommendation, was probably also the result of a compromise. They have done some- thing rather less than we intended should be done when we included the recommendation I have mentioned in our Report. The Board have taken it as if the recommendation was purely for the purpose of an experiment; but everyone who reads the Report will see that that is not so, but that it was recommended the Board should be given full and complete power to prohibit trawling within the three-mile limit all round Scotland. I think it is exceedingly unfortunate that when this recommendation was adopted in the Act of 1885 the Fishery Board did not extend the area of prohibited water; at any rate, they might have extended it to the Moray Firth. It must be remembered that on the Coast of Scotland the places within the three-mile limit where trawlers can come are few; it is essentially a rocky coast, and, excepting in a very few places, it is impossible to carry on trawling at all. My hon. Friend the Member for Forfarshire proceeded to deal with the harbour question, and to find considerable fault with the Scotch Fishery Board with regard to its action in connection with the harbour grant. Well, now, it is hardly fair to blame the present Board; and in regard to the old Board I must say that, in my opinion, its administration of this fund ever since it was granted in 1829 has proved most unsatisfactory. As a matter of fact, the Scotch Fishery Board between 1829 and 1882 dealt with no less than 28 harbours on the Coast of Scotland. Since then, of course, some others have been dealt with. If my memory serves me, the amount of public money spent on the 28 harbours between 1829 and 1882 was £149,000, and the money raised in the localities during the same time amounted to something like £71,000; in all, something like £250,000 sterling was spent on those harbours. Of that £250,000 sterling, £140,000 was spent on two harbours alone—namely, £60,000 on Dunbar Harbour, and £80,000 on Anstruther Harbour. Now, what is the result of this expenditure of money? Why, that of all these harbours on the Coast of Scotland, there is not a single one which an ordinary big fishing boat can enter at all states of the tide; indeed, there is hardly a single one which is not absolutely dry at low water. That is not at all a satisfactory state of things. The first requirement of a fishing harbour is that it can be entered by fishing boats at all states of the tide. The very least water that there should be at low water is 10 feet. Now, I quite admit that there is a grievance with regard to the engineers. The Fishery Board refuse to consider, or to help, any harbour, the plan of which is not drawn by their own engineer. The result of this is that every authority who is going to make a harbour instantly applies to this one engineer, or one firm of engineers, for the plans, in the expectation that in some way or other they may get helped by the Fishery Board. In that way the whole of the harbour business of the Coast of Scotland is practically thrown into the hands of one firm of engineers, who assist the Board in arriving at the conclusion which harbour they ought to make, and how the harbours are to be inspected whilst they are being made. That, I think, is an unsatisfactory state of things. My own idea is that it would be far better if the engineer employed by the Fishery Board to help them to arrive at a decision with regard to any particular harbour were specially appointed, and had nothing to say to them with regard to the plans of the harbours which are to be made. The preparation of the plans should be open to all engineers, and any harbour engineer's plans should be equally considered by the Board. Then, my hon. Friend (Mr. J. W. Barclay) alluded to the surplus from the herring brand fees. The Committee on the Herring Brand was, I believe, the first Committee of this House I had the honour of sitting on; and the recommendation we made was that any surplus from the fees should be handed over to the Scotch Fishery Board to use in any such a way as it might think fit, either for promoting harbours, for improving telegraphic communication, or for other purposes. That has been done since. If my hon. Friend refers to the Estimate, he will see that this surplus has been paid over to the Board, and that the way in which it has been expended is also accounted for.

MR. HUNTER (Aberdeen, N.)

I am anxious to press on the attention of the Government one point only, and that is the constitution of the Fishery Board. The fishermen on the Coast of Scotland feel it to be a very great grievance that there are no fishermen upon this Board. It is a Board which is constituted of three persons, who hold their offices under an Act of Parliament—these are three Sheriffs—and of six persons who were appointed in 1882, whose term of office expires in 1887. It is, therefore, important that the Government should take the question of the reconstitution of the Board into consideration without delay. Now, Sir, the Chairman of the Board is the only Member who is paid, and he is paid a salary of £800 a-year. Sir Thomas Boyd is a member of a well-known firm of printers in Edinburgh. He belongs to the Edinburgh clique, which has always managed to fall into the patronage of the Liberal Government; and he possessed the two indispensable qualifications of office under the Liberal Government. First of all, he knew absolutely nothing of the subject with which he had to deal; and, secondly, he had conspicuously failed to render any service to the Party which was so anxious to render him service in return. When they gave £800 a-year as salary to a gentleman who knew nothing whatever about fishing, it was reasonable to suppose that the Government would try to make up for the deficiency by appointing some gentlemen as Members of the Fishery Board who knew something about fishing. But they appointed two or three landed proprietors, one or two of whom are well acquainted with salmon fishing. I do not object to there being gentlemen upon the Board who are acquainted with salmon fishing; but I think it is most important that the sea-fishing industry should be represented on the Board. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Berwickshire (Mr. Marjoribanks) has said that fishermen are not rich men, and cannot afford to give their time to the duty of the Board; but that is a problem which could be very easily solved. All that is necessary is to take £200 off the salary of the Chairman, and expend it in paying the expenses of the fishermen who may be appointed to the Board. The salary of the Chairman is fixed on the amplest scale. I find that it amounts to £37 for every Board meeting. There are very few Chairmen or Directors of Companies who are so well paid for the services they render to their Companies. With the preparation of the statistics and the conduct of scientific investigations the Chairman has nothing to do; there is an abundant staff to attend to these things; and, therefore, I beg to move that the Chairman's salary be reduced by £200, in order to provide the means of paying the expenses of fishermen who may be appointed Members of the Board.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum not exceeding £12,580, 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 Fishery Board in Scotland and for Grants in Aid of Piers or Quavs."—(Mr. Hunter.)

MR. P. MCDONALD (Sligo, N.)

I desire to say a few words on the subject raised by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Forfarshire (Mr. J. W. Barclay). I think that, in the first place, I ought to congratulate my Scotch Friends upon the very creditable condition of the Scotch fisheries; the creditable condition compared with that of the Irish fisheries. In respect to the question dwelt upon at length by the hon. Member for Forfarshire, I find from the Report of the Scotch Fishery Board for 1885, page 333, that 653,425 barrels of herrings were branded in that year—an increase over the previous year of 182,429 barrels. The Board deemed it of importance to call attention to the fact that the demand for branded herrings continues to increase. In 1859, the year in which 3s. 4d. per barrel was charged for branding, the number of barrels branded was 156,676; in 1869, or 10 years later, the number had increased to 244,000; in 1879 it was 342,000; and last year the number had increased, to 653,425 barrels. There has thus been a continual and gradual increase, which proves very conclusively the value of the system of branding. The Board, in their Report, also pointed out that the great bulk of the branded herrings are sent to the Continent of Europe. They consider that the figures I have quoted afford most gratifying proof of the high and growing estimation in which the brand is held. The Commission which sat in 1846, and upon whose recommendation the system of branding was adopted, estimated that the fees ought to realize £3,500 a-year; but from the Report we have now in our hands we find not that that sum ought to be realized, but that the large and respectable amount of £11,488 has been received. Evidently, the increase in the amount of fees must be proportionate to the increased value that is attached to the branding. It is quite clear that the purchaser does regard the brand as some guarantee of the genuineness or soundness of the fish. The Report goes on to say— It may be here mentioned that the Board continues to do everything in its power to maintain the high character which the brand deserves. Why are we not given the brand in Ireland? If it be good for Scotland it ought to be good for Ireland. If the brand is so advantageous, as I think I have proved it is, by all means let our Fishery Board, if Fishery Board we can call it, adopt the brand, and benefit the Irish fisheries in like way. It may be said—I believe it has been said on previous occasions—that the Irish fishermen do not demand the brand. But I, as the Representative of a constituency which is bounded very largely by the Coast, ask, on behalf of the fishermen of Ireland, to have the brand applied to Ireland, and I believe I shall be joined in that request by a great number of my Friends around me. I maintain that a Government which professes to deal equally with England, Ireland, and Scotland, must grant to Ireland that which I have proved to be so beneficial to Scotland. I congratulate my Scotch Friends on the success which one of their industries has attained, and I hope they will persevere in their endeavours to secure still further and greater advantages and the removal of any defects that may exist. My sympathies are entirely with the Scotch and Welsh as well as the Irish fishermen. I shall, therefore, vote for the Amendment of my hon. Friend (Mr. Hunter) merely as a protest against the fact that the benefit which is conceded to Scotland is not granted to Ireland.

MR. ANDERSON (Elgin and Nairn)

As the Representative of a constituency that has a very large fishing population, I desire to say a few words to the Committee on this subject. Having discussed the matter with fishermen, and ascertained their opinion in regard to the Fishery Board, I must agree entirely with the views expressed by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Forfarshire (Mr. J. W. Barclay). The fishing popu- lation of Scotland look upon the Fishery Board, I regret to say, as having been, so far, a failure. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Berwickshire (Mr. Marjoribanks) seems to think that the Board has been a success. I understood him to get up in order to differ from my hon. Friend the Member for Forfarshire; but he had not proceeded very far in his remarks when he came to the very important question—the very burning question—of trawling. The right hon. Gentleman threw over the Fishery Board, for he thought their conduct with regard to trawling had been entirely wrong. Now, that is a rather curious way of proving that the action of the Fishery Board has been successful in promoting the fishing industry. This question of trawling is a most important one. As the right hon. Gentleman has said, it affects, very materially, the Moray Firth. The constituency I represent is by the side of the Moray Firth, and the fishermen there have over and over again protested that they ought to be protected from the depredations of trawlers. I have no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Scotland (Mr. A. J. Balfour) is aware of the evidence that was given before the Trawling Commission on this subject. With regard to the Moray Firth, the present officials of the Fishery Board came forward, and said they considered that trawling there did unquestionable harm to inshore fishing. In the face of that, and in the face of the other fact, that a great amount of injury is undoubtedly done in the Moray Firth to the line and drift-net fishermen, I ask this question—I asked it the other day, and the right hon. Gentleman was kind enough to get me the answer of the Fishery Board; but I am going to ask him to tell me to-night why, when it has been proved by evidence, given without contradiction, that considerable injury is done to fishing by the system of trawling, when it is admitted that there is a very large population on the Moray Firth of old men, many of whom have not the physical strength to go out for deep-sea fishing, the Moray Firth is not included in the area within which trawlers are not allowed to come? I am sure hon. Members of the Committee will agree with me that this is a very serious matter for Scotland. It is very hard for these men, when they have been going to church on a Sunday, and have been keeping the Sabbath in the way it is the custom to keep that day in Scotland, to see, as I have seen, one of these steam trawlers come up within 200 or 300 yards of the shore of the Moray Firth, doing great injury to the fishery, and, at the same time, wounding their susceptibilities by fishing on a day which they think ought to be kept sacred. It is but natural that, under such circumstances, a feeling of indignation at the present state of things should be engendered in the minds of the fishermen of Scotland. With these facts before him, I sincerely trust the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. A. J. Balfour) will tell us to-night that he will reconsider the question of the inclusion of the Moray Firth in the area within which trawlers are not allowed. As the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Berwickshire said, there is ample room for trawlers elsewhere. They only go on certain occasions to inshore waters; and I do appeal to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Scotland (Mr. A. J. Balfour) in face of the evidence generally, and of that of one Member of the Trawling Commission, most valuable evidence indeed—namely, that he was in favour of prohibiting inshore trawling altogether, to let us have some action in the matter if the Fishery Board or the Government is to be of any practical use at all. Trawling, as the right hon. Gentleman must be aware, is prohibited within three-mile limits on the Coast of France and Germany for the express reasons which have been urged to-night in favour of the prohibition on the Coast of Scotland. Do not let us hesitate in the matter any longer, and do what the Fishery Board is now doing—as far as I know with the sanction of the right hon. Gentleman—namely, starting on a career of fresh experiments. The Board say they do not propose to include the Moray Firth, because they are going to have some experiments in the Firth of Forth. I see that on the Board there is a Professor. I do not wish to say anything against this Professor; personally, I believe he is a very eminent man; but a Professor is a most dangerous person to have on any Board. This Professor seems to lead the Fishery Board completely by the nose, because they allow him to conduct whatever scientific investiga- tions he likes. There is, I see, to be a scientific investigation into the specific gravity of the water of the Moray Firth. What on earth, I should like to know, is the value of that? He is not satisfied with that; but there are elaborate plans produced in this Report of which the non. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. J. W. Barclay) speaks so highly. I hardly think the hon. Gentleman has examined it very carefully. There is to be a scientific investigation as to whether certain kinds of fish have red or white muscles; and there is in the Report a long disquisition as to the comparison between the muscular development of fish and poultry. The Professor goes on to investigate whether whiting can have fatty degeneration of the heart. Well, I am bound to say that these investigations may be very interesting; but it seems to me they spring from the inventive brain of this Professor. I imagine, too, that the idea of making an experiment in the Firth of Forth was also conceived in the brain of the Professor; and after you have experimented—after you have taken samples of water from parts of the Moray Firth, and analyzed it, and reported upon it; after you have made your investigations as to the muscular development of the unfortunate fish, you will be just where you are now. The Fishery Board has been a signal failure; it has been a signal failure for the very reason pointed out by the hon. Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Hunter) and the hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. J. W. Barclay), and that is that you have not got on the Board any practical men. The Committee is probably aware that the Chairman of this Fishery Board is a bookseller in Edinburgh. Do let me ask the Committee what would be thought if, supposing it was thought necessary to appoint a Board for the purpose of protecting the bookselling industry, for some reason or other a fish curer was appointed Chairman of the Board—not at all a more absurd thing than you have done here. I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Berwick-shire saying it would be difficult to get persons in the fishing trade to attend to the duties of the Board. I could get any number of men in the different branches of the trade who would be delighted to join the Board with the object of promoting the prosperity of their in- dustry. What I wish to ask the Secretary for Scotland is this—and here I must ask for a specific answer—will Her Majesty's Government undertake to say that when this Board comes to an end next year there shall be placed upon it a practical man whose appointment will be looked upon by practical men with confidence? With the indulgence of the Committee I will refer to another point. I understand that by Act of Parliament—and here I think the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. A. J. Balfour) will agree with me—it is part of the duty of the Fishery Board to take cognizance of everything relating to the Coast and Deep Sea Fisheries, and take such measures for improvement as, in their judgment, seems right. I think the Committee will see that one of the most important matters that the Fishery Board can consider is the question of bait. We all know that the success of line fishing depends on the supply of bait. There is an Act of Parliament which provides that the beds shall not be interfered with; and I know that they are interfered with. And, therefore, I say that it is the province of the Fishery Board to take cognizance of this matter of mussel beds. I think the Committee will be astonished when I tell them what occurred in the month of June last to some 20 fishermen from Lossiemouth, who were engaged below low water mark in the occupation of dredging for mussels to be used for the purposes of their industry. I think most hon. Members, as well as the Solicitor General, and, I hope, the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate also, will agree with me that it is very hard to prevent the right of dredging for mussels below low water mark. It is above low water mark that the alleged private rights with regard to mussel fishing exist—alleged rights which I think it will be proper to investigate and abolish, because I am of opinion that upon investigation they will be found to have no valid foundation. I ask the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Scotland when a Return will be furnished as to the alleged granting of private rights for fishing on the Coast of Scotland?

THE CHAIRMAN

The hon. Gentleman is travelling beyond the Question before the Committee.

MR. ANDERSON

I shall, of course, conform to your ruling, Mr. Chairman. I am criticizing now the conduct of the Fishery Board for not taking action with regard to the case which I have just mentioned to the Committee. I was saying that there were 20 fishermen dredging for mussels below low water mark; whilst they were dredging a person appeared in a boat from the shore, who said he was the agent or factor of someone who lived at a distance. The fishermen took away the mussels, and they were followed and prosecuted; they were brought before the Sheriff of Tain, and I think, although the Committee must be astonished that such a right was put forward, they must be still more astonished to find that a Court could be found to convict these men in heavy penalties. That took place in the month of June last. Now, Sir, I ask this question—where was the Fishery Board on that occasion? It seems to me that they should have been the first people to come forward and protect these men. I will go further, and say that, in my opinion, they were bound to do so. I have asked if anything can be done with regard to the remission of these penalties, and the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate says that at present nothing will be done, because the matter is under appeal. I sincerely hope that something will be done, and that this matter of the Fishery Board will be taken into the consideration of Her Majesty's Government. I am afraid that I am wearying the Committee with these details. [" No, no!"] There is another important point to which I desire to allude, and that is in reference to the question of harbours on the Coast of Scotland. It was stated, and it is perfectly well known, that one of the main objects of the creation of the Fishery Board was that they should interfere for the purpose of making these small fishing harbours capable for boats to enter at all states of the tide. It was, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, manifest that, in consequence of the fishing harbours being closed at low tide, the men could not enter them, and that loss of life as well as loss of boats had occurred; and, moreover, tons and tons of fish had to be thrown overboard in consequence of the harbours being in this imperfect condition. Here we have loss of life, loss of boats, and loss of fish, and one would think that something would have been done by the Board to remedy this state of things. I think that someone is to blame for the fact that, although you have created this Fishery Board and placed in their hands large powers, literally nothing has been done to improve these harbours, and to insure to a greater extent the safety of the fishermen who use them. When we consider the magnitude of the industry, and the importance of the various interests connected with it, I think the Committee will agree with me in the hope that Her Majesty's Government will take care that something is done in this matter. For these reasons, I venture to say that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Berwickshire was hardly accurate in saying that the Fishery Board was such a complete success. There are various other points about which the fishing population in Scotland have great cause of complaint, and which probably may be mentioned by other hon. Members in the course of this discussion; but I think I have said enough to show that the action of the Fishery Board calls for the most serious consideration on the part of Her Majesty's Government.

MR. A. SUTHERLAND (Sutherland)

I have no desire to detain the Committee with any remarks upon subjects which hon. Members have already discussed; but, being interested in the question of the Fishery Board, I should like to have from the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. A. J. Balfour) some information with regard to the provisions of the Crofters' Act of last Session. In that Act the Fishery Board is empowered to procure money from the Treasury, in order to assist fishermen to purchase boats and nets. I find, however, no sum included in this Vote for the purpose I have mentioned. Possibly I may be wrong in supposing that this is the proper place for the money to appear. I understand, however, that the money voted now is the money which is to be available for the year; and, that being so, I shall be obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for some information on the point I have referred to. As to what has fallen from my hon. Friend (Mr. Anderson) in regard to the question of mussels for bait, I would say that, in any case, it is a matter which the Fishery Board might very well undertake to look after; because it is within my own knowledge that fishermen often have to pay more for the mussels than they receive for the fish they catch with them. I have not sufficient confidence in the Fishery Board to make me so congratulatory and sanguine as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Berwickshire (Mr. Marjoribanks). I have seen, on several occasions the gunboats and steamers employed for the protection of the fishermen actually retarding the work of fishing. I fancy the only way in which these vessels are sometimes employed is in preventing the boats from going to sea. I think that, at least, some money might be given for the purpose of enabling poor fishermen, who have not got them, to purchase boats and nets. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give us some definite information on this point.

THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR) (Manchester, E.)

Before replying to the observations made by hon. Members upon the general subject I will deal with the point raised by the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken. The hon. Member for Sutherland has reminded the Committee that under the Crofters Act of last Session, and another Act passed last year, there is power to grant loans on certain conditions to fishermen. But I must point out that before that portion of the Act comes into operation it is necessary that an Order in Council should be passed. I can assure the hon. Member that the matter will be completed as soon as possible; and I may also inform him that already a Circular has been issued by the Fishery Board to the fishermen in crofting parishes, putting certain questions to them in regard to loans, and that everything is being done to hasten the work, so that when the Order in Council is passed there will be no delay in supplying the fishermen with the funds in the manner provided by the Act. Coming next to the general question with regard to the Fishery Board, Her Majesty's Government have no reason to complain of the discussion which has taken place this evening. I am perfectly aware of the great interest taken in this question in every part of Scotland, especially those having a seaboard, which few counties of Scotland are without. But although I do not complain of the length or the tone of the discussion, I cannot give a complete assent to some of the views which have been put forward by hon. Gentlemen opposite. I observe that hon. Gentlemen themselves are not wholly agreed in their criticisms upon the Fishery Board. The hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. J. W. Barclay) told the Committee that he did not complain of the scientific work done by the Board; but the hon. Member for Elgin and Nairn (Mr. Anderson) tells us that the scientific work of the Board is a signal failure.

MR. ANDERSON

I said that a great deal of the scientific work was unnecessary and useless.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I took down the words of the hon. Member, which I believe were that all the scientific work of the Board seemed to be useless. He protested against the presence of a Professor on the Board. He asserted that you ought not to have a Board dealing with the subject of fishing unless you have a fisherman upon it; surely then, by a parity of reasoning, you cannot have a Board to deal with scientific matters relating to fishing unless you have upon it a man scientifically acquainted with the subject. Then the hon. Member for Forfarshire complained of the fact that the Fishery Board had excluded trawlers from only a limited area on the Coast of Scotland. That area is from St. Andrew's along the Coast of Aberdeen-shire. Those who complain appear to think that the Board intended by their action to protect fishermen using drift net s from fishermen who trawl—that the object of the Board is to protect one class of fishermen against another class.

MR. J. W. BARCLAY

I said that the area taken by the Fishery Board was too limited for the purpose that they themselves intended to carry out.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I am aware that that is what the hon. Member fur Forfarshire said; but it is not all that other Members have said. Those hon. Members are attacking the system which he is in favour of; they appear to think that the Board had in view a protective object. Well, Sir, that is not the object of the Board. The Board considered themselves entirely precluded from taking the line of protecting one class of fishermen as against another, and selected the area simply and solely with a view to scientific investigation. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Berwickshire (Mr. Marjoribanks) has said that, in his opinion, trawlers ought to be excluded from fishing throughout the whole of the three-mile limit. I must point out that the danger is that legislation which steps in to protect one class may do so at the expense of another. The accusation against trawlers I understand to be not merely that they compete successfully with line and drift net fishermen, but that, in the course of their operations, they destroy capital which the drift-net fishermen use. That introduces a complication of the question which leaves a doubt in my mind whether it might not properly be the duty of the Government and the Fishery Board to consider how far they ought, or ought not, to exclude a class of men who, in pursuing their ordinary calling, cannot help destroying the small capital of their poorer brethren. There now remain two other questions for me to touch upon—the one as to the constitution of the Board; and the other the question of the use to which they put their powers. I say that if this discussion is taken as an index of the feeling in Scotland, it must be admitted that a considerable amount of dissatisfaction exists because no practical fisherman has been put upon the Board. The hon. Member for Forfarshire has complained of that, and allusion has been made to it by the hon. Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Hunter). I must point out that to take a fisherman out of his boat, and put him upon the Board to represent the whole of the fishing class in Scotland, will probably not give satisfaction to the fishermen themselves. It would be extremely difficult to get a fisherman who would take a national and not a local view of the question, and there would also be the question of payment. Hon. Gentlemen must recollect that the Fishery Board is not merely a scientific body, nor is it merely a body connected, except in a general way, with the interests of the fishing population. It has specific administrative duties of a very important kind. It has to look after fishing boats, to see that the trawling boats are numbered, and to do police work generally; it has to do with the inspection of inland fisheries; and it has, more than all, to exercise functions which may be described as semi-judicial in their character. Well, Sir, what kind of fisherman do you intend to put on the Board? Are you going to have a drift-net fisherman, or a trawling fisherman? If a drift-net fisherman, you will have the whole trawling industry think that they will be ill-used; if a trawling fisherman, you will have all the clients of the hon. Gentleman opposite up in arms. This is a question of very great difficulty, and I think the best solution of it will be not to put on the Board a practical fisherman—that is to say, a man actually engaged in fishing; but, if you can, to put on it some gentleman intimately acquainted with the ins and outs of this great industry, who is accustomed to practical administrative work, and who shall supply to the Board that practical knowledge which is said to be now wanting. How far it will be possible to find such an individual I do not know; but the attention of the Government will not cease to be directed to this most important subject. A great deal of criticism has been passed on the Fishery Board on account of their management of harbours; and I will point out to hon. Gentlemen that, at all events, the construction of harbours is not a subject in which the advice of a practical fisherman would be of much use. ["Certainly, it would!"] The hon. Member for Forfarshire says—"Certainly, it would." I confess I have my doubts about that. What is required in the case of a harbour is not fishing knowledge, but engineering knowledge. The difficulty is not to know what you want, but how to get it. Therefore, I repeat that I do not think a practical fisherman would be of much use on the Board. The hon. Member for Forfarshire has ciriticized the Fishery Board for expending considerable sums of money on large works, and not spreading out the wretched pittance at their command over many small ones. I think that the hon. Member for Elgin and Nairn, and those who agree with him, are directly opposed to this opinion, because he says you should make your harbours such as will admit fishing vessels at all times. But I would point out that works of that kind, or anything like that kind, can only be carried out by the expenditure of considerable sums of money on each harbour. The engineers in the service of the "Fishery Board cannot be described as incompetent, inasmuch as they belong to one of the most eminent firms in the country. It is easy to allege that some of the harbours have not fulfilled the expectations entertained of them; but no alteration of management would alter that state of things. Harbours are a standing reproach to engineers. Wherever you go in Ireland, Scotland, England, France, and Germany, the difficulties are so great, and the forces of nature so difficult to control, that, whatever command of skill and money you may have, to a certain extent failures must and will take place. The hon. Member for Elgin and Nairn has related to the House a certain number of failures that have occurred in connection with the Fishery Board; but I have no ground whatever to believe that the percentage of failures has been greater in the case of the Fishery Board in Scotland than we must expect. I do not know that I have anything more to add to the statement I have made. I think I have dealt with all the points raised by hon. Gentlemen who have taken part in this discussion; and I need only say, in conclusion, that it is very easy for hon. Gentlemen to criticize this Board. I never knew a Board that was not open to criticism. I will not say that I never knew a Board that did not deserve it; but what I do say is, that no alteration, no re-organization, no change in the class from which its Members are derived, no revolution in its constitution will ever make the Fishery Board or any other Board proof against all criticism. The truth is that the public naturally and inevitably expect more of such Boards than they can possibly do. I think that, though it may be true that, like all other human institutions, the Fishery Board of Scotland may have erred, they have, nevertheless, earned the gratitude of all who are interested in the fishing industry in Scotland. They may not be perfect,—it may be possible to improve the Board—but I would remind the Committee that a majority of the Board give their services gratuitously; that they laboriously work for the benefit of the fishing population, whose interests are so eloquently represented by hon. Gentlemen opposite; and if those hon. Gentlemen think it their duty to criticize the Board, I would yet ask them to recol- lect that no Board can be perfect. I doubt whether it would be easy to find any body of men who would do more thoroughly and more efficiently the work which the public have entrusted to these gentlemen.

MR. HUNTER

There is only one observation of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Scotland to which I wish to reply; and I wish to do that, because he has fallen into a gross error on the exceedingly important subject of trawling. He said that the question, so far as regarded trawling, was really a question of protecting one class of industry against another. Well, it is nothing of the sort, and there is no fisherman who would for a moment advance such a contention. The most important objection of the fishermen is one which has already been referred to, although the right hon. Gentleman has omitted to notice it. That principal objection to trawling is, that it is a mode of fishing which is very injurious to the fishing industry, and which destroys the fish, and especially enormous numbers of young fish. Whether or no there is any ground for that objection is a moot point. There is a considerable difference of opinion upon it; but, at any rate, that is one ground on which the fishermen in Scotland object to the Fishery Board. They say that trawling is disastrous to the fishing industry. Then as to the difficulty of appointing practical fishermen upon the Board; surely, when you consider that there are three lawyers put upon the Board by statute, it is not too much to ask that there should be three fishermen, or three persons acquainted with the fishing industry, put on the Board, if it were only to balance the three lawyers. It is quite clear that the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken does not represent any constituency where there are many fishermen. If he did, he would have found that there was not very much difficulty in obtaining exceedingly intelligent and well-informed men to represent the fishing industry on the Fishery Board of Scotland.

MR. J. W. BARCLAY

I cannot help feeling disappointed by the speech we have listened to from the Secretary for Scotland. I must concur in the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman to this extent—that we cannot expect the Fishery Board to be perfect; that we cannot expect it to be above criticism; but what we do expect is, that the Government, in appointing the Board, should take reasonable steps to insure the attainment of reasonable results from the action of the Board. The reasons given by the right hon. Gentleman, if they are worth anything at all, would simply go to show that it is an advantage in appointing the Members of this Board that gentlemen should be selected who know nothing whatever about the subject with which they are expected to deal. It seems to me that that has been the principle on which the Board has been constituted. The Chairman knows nothing whatever about the subject which is dealt with by the Board over which he is called to preside. There is no Member on the Board who knows practically about sea fishings, and the consequence is that the Board is of little practical use as regard sea fishings. All that we ask is that in future the Government should endeavour to select men who do know something practical about sea fishing. It would not be so difficult, as the right hon. Gentleman seems to think, to get members on the Board who are practically acquainted with the fishing industry, and who could give judicial opinions on such questions affecting sea fishing as came before them. Of course, there would be a difficulty in getting all sections represented; but the Government who appointed the present Board made little difficulty in appointing Members all interested in the river salmon fishing, and did not take measures to place upon it gentlemen connected with the fishings in the sea. I should have no objection to anyone representing the trawlers being put upon the Board, if the line fishing were also represented. I trust that when the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Scotland is better acquainted with the affairs of Scotland—and I hope he will be by-and-bye—he will know that many gentlemen connected with sea fishing in Scotland could be got to fill vacancies on the Board. I know that the Government did apply to a gentleman perfectly qualified by practical experience to sit upon the Board, and who was acquainted with the sea fishing industry; but this gentleman could not be induced to join it, because he considered that it was not sufficiently practical, and that the fact of joining it would not be likely to do him any credit. But if the right hon. Gentleman will exercise discrimination and common sense in making appointments, I think that the services of qualified persons might easily be secured. Why should he not appoint persons who have a practical knowledge of the subject with which they have to deal? I do not know that the Sheriffs are particularly well qualified to deal with matters affecting fishing. Probably the idea is that the Government will be able to get all the law required from them; but I fail to see that there is any great demand for law in connection with the work of a Fishery Board. Another point to which I would direct the attention of the right hon. Gentleman is the fact that no adequate steps are taken by the Fishery Board to protect the mussel fishing. In many instances the mussel beds have been taken by the landowners arbitrarily, the fishermen not having been able to resist them. The proprietors have done nothing to establish or cultivate these mussel beds, and yet they have seized upon them, and say that the fishermen shall not make use of them unless they pay. The rights which in this way are claimed are by no means natural rights; and it is, therefore, not extraordinary that the fishermen should complain. If the legal element on the Board would, in cases of this kind, advise the fishermen in contesting the legality of these proceedings on the part of the proprietors, their services would be valuable. They might inspect the titles of the landlords to the land, and ascertain to what extent they could lay claim to the mussel beds. In many cases, I believe, it would be found that the landlord's title is of the slightest description. The Sheriffs, I think, might be of use for this purpose, if they would apply themselves to the work; otherwise, I think it would be much better to have the Board composed of practical men.

MR. CRILLY (Mayo, N.)

I was very glad indeed to hear that the Government did not find fault with hon. Members for having discussed this question at some length, because it was, as they said, a matter of great interest to Scotland. Now, there is also great interest taken in this question in Ireland; and as the Representative of a large fishing community in that country I should like to as- sure Gentlemen from Scotland, who are taking action in this matter, that they have all the sympathy of my countrymen, and will have all our support in their endeavour to obtain what they possibly can to develop their fishing industries. The statement which has been put before us, and which has been referred to so interestingly by Scotch Representatives, is of much interest to Irishmen also, because it shows conclusively that the State nourishment of the fisheries of every country is not merely good in itself, but is profitable to the State, and to the people who engage in these industries. Now, for instance, as has been pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for North Sligo (Mr. P. McDonald) in a speech he delivered in the course of this discussion, the branding of herrings in Scotland has brought in a surplus of £5,200. If the same system were pursued in Ireland I am quite sure that the Irish fisheries would benefit in the same degree; but it is not merely, we conceive, from this statement in the matter of branding that the Government do all they can to encourage and develop the Scotch fisheries. We see that they grant annually in aid of piers and quays in Scotland sums which are required for the development of those works. We find that this year the sum of £3,000 has been allotted for that purpose. Now, nothing of that kind is done in connection with the fisheries of Ireland. We who represent Irish constituencies, and are familiar with Irish matters, know that wherever any money has been applied to the building of harbours it has been absolutely thrown away; but that is not the case in Scotland.

MR. AMBROSE (Middlesex, Harrow)

Mr. Courtney, I rise to Order. I understand that the Question before you is an Amendment to reduce the salary of the Chairman of this Fishery Board; and I wish to ask you whether the hon. Member is entitled to enter into a discussion in regard to Irish harbours?

THE CHAIRMAN

The question as to the Scotch Fishery Board is not confined to the Chairman's salary; therefore the hon. Member is not out of Order.

MR. CRILLY

I was expressing my gratification, Mr. Courtney, in dealing with this Vote, that the Government had put down the sum of £3,000 for the building of piers and quays in connection with the Scotch fisheries; and I am glad that in doing so I am not out of Order. I desire to he permitted to express a hope that the same generosity will obtain in regard to Ireland, because we know that the harbours built in that country are really monuments of the incompetence of the Irish Board of Works. But not merely does the Government grant large sums of money in aid of piers and quays in Scotland; but I find that there is a grant made in aid of telegraph extension. Where a line between a certain town or place and a fishing village will not pay the expense of working, the Government, very wisely, as I think, grant a sum of £392, and sometimes as much as £500, to sustain the telegraphic communication. This is as it ought to be. I am very pleased indeed to find that the sum of £26,780 has been allotted to develop and nourish the Scotch fisheries; and I believe that the right hon. Gentleman will carry out, or will do all he can to carry out, his promises to meet the representations which have been made to him by the Scotch Representatives. At present, undoubtedly, the Scotch Fishery Board does not seem to be an altogether capable one. On the contrary, on the face of it, I should say that it was an incapable Board; because we find that, although its main object is to maintain the fisheries of Scotland, the Chairman of that Body is actually a newsagent in Edinburgh, as if a news agent or a stationer were the best man to discharge the onerous duties connected with the Chairmanship of the Scotch Fishery Board. I have nothing further to say, except to express a hope, incidentally, that the Government will show towards the Irish fisheries the same kindly generosity and desire for their nourishment and their development that they have shown in regard to the Scotch fisheries. I find, as I have said, that the Government have allocated £26,780 to this purpose; and I find on a later page in this statement of Estimates, that the paltry sum of only £4,000 is granted to develop the Irish fisheries. I trust, therefore, that the Government will see its way—

MR. AMBROSE

I am afraid, Mr. Courtney, that you did not clearly understand my point. Are we, Sir, discussing the Scotch Vote?

THE CHAIRMAN

The line of argument which the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Crilly) is now indulging in has been admitted in Committee of Supply for many years. I cannot, therefore, interrupt the hon. Member.

MR. CRILLY

If the hon. Member opposite would only have a little patience he would find very little to complain of, as I am just now concluding my observations. I merely desired to address a few words to the Committee on matters that struck my attention on looking over the Estimates. I only hope that the Government will extend to the Irish fisheries the same consideration and generosity that they have extended to the Scotch fisheries.

MR. BYRNE (Wicklow, W.)

I also congratulate hon. Members from Scotland on the interesting discussion which has taken place on the question before the Committee—the question of the Scotch Fishery Board. I beg to support the Amendment proposed. It appears to me to be a very proper Amendment. I think Scotland is very much more favoured than Ireland, although that is no reason why either I, or any of my Colleagues, should be jealous of the Scotch in this respect. On the contrary, I should like to see the Scotch sea fisheries very much better developed than they are. And it seems to me that the best way to bring about this development would be to appoint Scotch fishermen on the Board, and give them the management of their own affairs. I cannot believe that the best thing for these fisheries—and in this I differ from the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Scotland (Mr. A. J. Balfour)—is to appoint gentlemen to manage them who know nothing whatever about fishing. I think there should be at least two or three individuals on the Board who are well up in nautical affairs and understand all about fishing. It appears that the Chairman of the Scotch Board receives the large salary of £800 a-year, and that he is not a fisherman, nor in any way connected with nautical matters. He only gets his appointment as a matter of patronage. It seems to me that the Government are not doing their best in the interests of Scotland, or of Scotch fisheries, when they foist a man of this kind upon the Fishery Board. There is another thing upon which I congratulate the Scotch fishing industry, and that is that the Government have not only given them a grant for piers and quays, but have also granted £2,000 for scientific investigations. I do not object to that at all; but I think it desirable that a thorough investigation should be made into the subject of preserving fish, and the best method of sending them into market; because, as well as being a benefit to Scotland, a satisfactory settlement of this question will conduce to the introduction of a larger quantity of fish into the centres of consumption in the United Kingdom and all over the world. The right hon. Gentleman says that the Scotch Fishery Board has employed a very clever and experienced engineer, although he admitted that this gentleman made serious mistakes. The right hon. Gentleman went further, and said that the making of mistakes in this manner was inevitable. Well, if you employ a man who does not understand the business—if you engage upon the construction of piers and harbours a fresh-water engineer who knows nothing about marine matters, no doubt he must make mistakes. A watchmaker may know a great deal about the wheels of a watch; but when he comes to deal with the wheels of a mill he may find himself without experience, and altogether incapable of turning out good work. Therefore, I contend that you should have upon the Scotch Board gentlemen who understand fishing matters. The Scotch people know perfectly well what they want and what they ought to have in this matter; and I trust that the Committee will assist in carrying out their wishes. A reformation is required on the Board, so that the fishing industry of the country can have the business of the Board more under its control.

MR. CALDWELL (Glasgow, St. Rollox)

I cannot join in the condemnation of the Chairman of the Fishery Board which has proceeded from hon. Gentlemen who are not connected with Scotland. I do not suppose that hon. Members from Scotland will find any fault with the ability of Sir Thomas Boyd, the Chairman of the Board. That gentleman was, for a considerable period, Lord Provost of Edinburgh, and he has talent sufficient to undertake the duties of Chairman of this Board. There is, however, one practical suggestion which I would offer to the Secretary for Scotland, and it is this—I quite agree that there ought to be representatives of the fishing interest on the Scotch Fishery Board. It seems to me that the salary of the Chairman might be reduced to about £500. I think that would be a reasonable remuneration for the Chairman of such a Board. With regard to the remaining £300, I would suggest that it should be given to representatives elected by the fishermen of Scotland. You might have either two representatives of the Scotch fishermen at £150 a-piece, or three at £100. In the case of Glasgow Harbour, it was found very beneficial to have representatives of the shipping interest on the Clyde Trust. That arrangement has worked remarkably well, several interests being represented on the Trust; and I venture to suggest that the interests of the fishermen can be represented in a somewhat similar manner. There is a roll made up of the shipowners in Glasgow, and there would be no difficulty in having a roll of fishermen made up, and in having an election of representatives of fishermen every five years to hold office for five years. If a plan of that kind were carried out it would satisfy the fishermen of Scotland, and would give them an opportunity of making any complaints they might have. I do not see any objection to this plan. One representative could come from the East, and another from the West; and this would give the fishermen a channel for communicating their suggestions, and would do away with any feeling that exists that their interests are being neglected by the Board.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL (Kirkcaldy, &c.)

I am sure we cannot settle to-night the difficult subject of sea fisheries. I only rise to express my satisfaction at what has been done in the Firth of Forth in regard to trawling. I am sure that all Scotch fishermen will have derived satisfaction from what has been done, and I trust that the result will be to show what the effect of stopping trawling is.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 65; Noes 154: Majority 89.—(Div. List, No. 26.)

Original Question put, and agreed to.

(8.) £2,482, to complete the sum for Lunacy Commission, Scotland.

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

I am not going to raise any discussion on this Vote, because the Lunacy Commissioners in Scotland manage their business as well, I believe, as it is managed anywhere in England; but I want to ask you to make a comparison with another Lunacy Board. I wish to ask how many visits the Scotch Lunacy Commissioners pay to Scotch lunatic asylums during the year? I see there are only two Commissioners in Scotland. Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me how many visits they make?

THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR) (Manchester, E.)

This question I am unable to answer with precision. The hon. Gentleman is in error in saying that there are only two Lunacy Commissioners. There are seven who have to do with the inspection of Scotch asylums. I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman how many visits the Scotch Lunacy Commissioners make, for I believe the question has never been raised before.

Vote agreed to.

(9.) £3,089, to complete the sum for the Registrar General's Office, Scotland.

(10.) £3,340, to complete the sum for Board of Supervision for Belief of the Poor, and for Public Health, Scotland.

(11.) Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £2,516, 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 of the Officers and Attendants of the Household of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland and other Expenses.

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

On this Vote I desire to bring before the notice of the Committee a matter which is of great importance, not only with regard to a particular Department of the Public Service, but as it appears in connection with the whole Tory administration of the Civil Service Estimates. We are asked, Sir, to vote a sum of, altogether, £7,516 for the Household of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland; but it by no means follows that we can feel at all assured that this £7,516 is for the financial year in which we are asked to vote it. Now, Sir, with regard to the accounts of the last financial year which have now closed, it would appear that when nearly the whole Vote was exhausted, there was sent in a claim for a sum of money of about £50 or £60. The Department was not able, out of the Vote for the year, to defray the charge, and accordingly they resorted to the very simple expedient of appropriating the sum of £27, which then remained to them unexpended from that year's Vote, in payment of part of the claim, and they deferred the balance of the claim until the next financial year. Naturally, the Comptroller and Auditor General took exception to the proceeding, and it came before the Committee of Public Accounts. The Committee of Public Accounts put it before the House, and stated that an important question of principle was raised by the Comptroller and Auditor General on this Vote.

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

Would the hon. Gentleman say to what page he refers?

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

To page 6 of the Report of the Public Accounts Committee. They say that an important question of principle is raised by the Comptroller and Auditor General on tills Vote. They point out that an amount of £55 5s. accrued to incidental expenses in one of the Departments, and of this £27 was paid on account, leaving £28 5s. to be defrayed out of the account for 1885–6. And they say that the deliberate postponing till next year of payments which have become due, for the purpose of avoiding expenditure in excess of the grant, is the common expedient in all Departments of the Civil Service. In the evidence taken before the Public Accounts Committee, with which I will not trouble the Committee at any length, reference was made to this matter. The representative official who was before the Committee was asked this question by the Chairman— Are the facts stated by the Comptroller and Auditor General in his Report correct—namely, that liability to the extent of £55 was incurred, of which only £27 was paid on account, and that the balance of £28 was left to be advanced out of the grant for 1885–6? The answer was "Yes." The next question was, if the witness could state if the whole liability had been left to be defrayed out of the following year's account, what would have come before the Comptroller and Auditor General that would have shown him that the Department could have incurred any such liability? The answer was— I do not think he would have found out the fact. I think no document would have come before him from which he would have observed the postponement of the payment. I draw attention to the significance of that answer. It amounts to this, that, under the present system, a liability incurred by a Department may not be defrayed in the year in which it was incurred, but may be defrayed out of such Votes as we are now taking—out of the Votes of a totally different financial year—and that it would be impossible for the Comptroller and Auditor General, or anyone else, until long afterwards, to find out anything about it. The witness was asked to explain what was the view of the Treasury after the observation made by the Comptroller and Auditor General as to this postponement of payment. The answer was— The Treasury would adhere to the view they took in the Minute of the 3rd of November that has been laid before the Committee. That is to say, that, in the first place, liabilities should not be incurred at all unless there was a prospect of being able to meet them; but if they are incurred, postponement is preferable to excess. In reply to definite questions put to him by various Members of the Committee, the Treasury official showed that the Treasury was exceedingly anxious to avoid, by hook or by crook, anything like an excess Vote. An excess Vote involves the Treasury coming down to this House and making a special explanation of the circumstances under which the amount voted in Committee has been exceeded by the Department in question. Of course, the necessity of the special explanation involved in an excess Vote exposes the Department to a good deal of criticism, and, possibly, to a close examination of the circumstances under which the excess has been incurred. It was admitted then by the Treasury official, that the Treasury are exceedingly anxious to avoid an excess Vote, no matter what the circumstances are under which the excess has been incurred— Where it is impossible to secure a postponement, you have an excess Vote?—Yes, And— Where it is possible—

THE CHAIRMAN

Order! The question which the hon. Member for East Donegal (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) is directing attention to is one of great importance, but it appears to have arisen in connection with the Vote for the Lord Lieutenant's Household in a former year. It is not pertinent to this particular Vote; indeed, it rather concerns the administration of the Civil Service altogether than any particular Vote. I think he is out of Order in entering upon it at this stage.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

I propose to move the reduction of the Vote by £27, which I hope to show to be necessarily connected with this financial year's and a past financial year's accounts, and which, if defrayed at all, must eventually fall upon this particular Vote— Where it is possible you avoid an excess Vote by adopting the plan which was adopted in this case?—Yes.

THE CHAIRMAN

I do not think it would be in Order to move a reduction of this Vote in order to correct what is said to be an irregularity in a former year.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

No; I I do not want to correct an irregularity. I want to withhold from the Treasury the sum of £27, which, if withheld from them on this ground, they will be unable to appropriate from the Vote anything towards the expenses of a former year.

THE CHAIRMAN

They will be unable to appropriate that without a reduction. It is against the law to appropriate a part of this Vote towards an irregularity in a former year. A reduction of this Vote will neither increase nor decrease their power.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

It is precisely because it appears that it is not out of their power—it is so stated by the Treasury official, and it is so stated by the Comptroller and Auditor General—and it is because I am anxious to enforce the rule which you have laid down as the law, I am bringing the question before the Committee.

THE CHAIRMAN

I understood the hon. Member to complain of the difficulty of detecting irregularity.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

The irregularity has been detected, and through its detection the general system has been revealed.

THE CHAIRMAN

That being so, it would be improper to appropriate any part of this Vote to cover an irregularity in a former year, which must come before the House by way of a Vote in Excess. It would be irregular to discuss the matter on this particular Vote.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

I will endeavour to confine myself closely to the remarks of the Public Accounts Committee on this Vote. The Public Accounts Committee report that the postponement of payments that have become due appears to be a common expedient in all Departments, and that it is defended by the Treasury as being the lesser of two irregularities. The Accounting Officers of the War Office and of the Admiralty state, on the other hand, that no such practice is ever adopted in their respective Departments, and they object, as a matter of financial principle, to the postponement of payments which have accrued, and which ought in the ordinary course to be paid. Your Committee concur with the Comptroller and Auditor General in the view that such, practice withdraws from the knowledge of the Comptroller and Auditor General and of Parliament the fact of expenditure in excess of grant having been incurred. In this case part of the excess has been paid, and the postponement of the payment of the residue obtained. If the whole, instead of part, had been postponed, the irregularity would probably never have been discovered until the accounts of 1885–6 were under audit. The Committee are strongly of opinion that if the practice heretofore sanctioned by the Treasury was allowed to continue, every payment postponed should be shown on the face of the Appropriation Account. Now, of course, Mr. Courtney, after your decision I am precluded from going over that portion of the ground which I had marked out for myself. If I were permitted to do so, I think I could show that it is practically impossible for the Department responsible for this particular Vote to defray the arrears of liability without infringing upon the Vote we are now asked to grant. But I think the noble Lord the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Lord Randolph Churchill) will recognize the importance, the far-reaching importance, of the question which has here been raised, and I think that every Member of this Committee, who has at all interested himself in the administration of public monies, will recognize at once that this is a matter which ought to be dealt with, and dealt with authoritatively once and for all, because, if the allegation of the Treasury official—

THE CHAIRMAN

I must interrupt the hon. Member again by reminding him that the question before the Committee is the voting of a certain sum of money to defray the expenses of the Lord Lieutenant's Household.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

I will endeavour to put myself in Order as far as possible. I am exceedingly anxious to keep in Order, and I will, therefore, move the reduction of this Vote by the sum of £27, on the ground that I believe there is an item to that amount involved in the sum we are now asked to vote which does not belong to the present financial year, and, I may be allowed to add, that I believe that if the whole of the Civil Service Estimates were investigated closely, it would be found that, in a very large number of cases, there are items of a like description that would be equally open to challenge. In this particular case the amount involved is small, but, small as it is, the principle is great. The illustration of the application of the principle may be infinitesimal; but, under the circumstances, I think there is nothing more to be done than to move the reduction of this Vote by £27, and I will throw myself upon the Committee so far as to ask them to express their sense of the system which has been adopted. I am not in a position to go into those details which I consider necessary to vindicate the position I take up; but unless there is some explanation of the way in which this £27 has been got rid of, the way in which this money has been furnished to pay the liability of the year before last, I think the Committee will see there is very good ground for impressing upon the minds of ths Treasary officials and upon the Heads of every Department in the Civil Service, the necessity of restricting their outlay to the Vote which Parliament makes for the Service of the financial year. I beg to move the reduction of the Vote by £27.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £2,489, 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 of the Officers and Attendants of the Household of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland and other Expenses."—(Mr. Arthur O'Connor.)

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

I am sorry, in one way, that the hon. Gentleman has been interrupted, though, of course, I easily see it is absolutely necessary that the discussion on this Vote should be confined to the Vote itself, and that the Chairman's ruling is indispensable. It is difficult to connect the point which the hon. Member has raised with the Vote before the Committee; but I think I can satisfy him so far as to induce him not to press his Motion to a division. I understood the hon. Gentleman to point to the fact that the Comptroller and Auditor General and the Public Accounts Committee have agreed that a certain transaction of the Civil Service Departments is a transaction wrong in principle and in practice. [Mr. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: Of the whole of the Services.] Just so. I think, in all probability, the hon. Member is right, and that he has acted properly in calling attention to the matter. My own opinion is this—that the Comptroller and Auditor General and the Public Accounts Committee, acting together, ought to be a superior authority to the Treasury, and that, if they distinctly lay down a rule as to the expenditure of money, it is the business of the Treasury to acknowledge their authority as superior to their own. Therefore, if the hon. Member will be content to leave the matter where it stands at present, I will undertake that the remarks he has made are carefully considered, and that an endeavour is made to bring the Treasury practice into accord with the recommendations of the Comptroller and Auditor General and the Public Accounts Committee.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

I am sure the Committee will feel with me that the reply of the noble Lord the Chancellor of the Exchequer is eminently satisfactory, and that I may venture to congratulate him upon the breadth of view with which he always looks at matters of this kind. In asking leave to withdraw my Motion for the reduction of the Vote, I may also add that I value the statement of the noble Lord very much indeed. He has committed himself, with the high authority of his Office, to the statement that the Comp- troller and Auditor General and the Public Accounts Committee are together, when they agree, an authority; if not greater, at any rate as great as that of the Treasury. I am the more gratified, because, only this very year, when the Public Accounts Committee reminded the representative of one of the great spending Departments that the representations of the Committee, made in a previous year, had not been carried out, he answered us, rather jauntily, that he did not take instructions from the Public Accounts Committee or the Comptroller and Auditor General, but from the Treasury, and that, if the Treasury do not choose to act upon the representations of the Committee, the spending Departments pay very little heed to them. Considering what the noble Lord has said, I am extremely gratified with the result of my intervention.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Original Question again proposed.

MR. T. W. RUSSELL (Tyrone, S.)

I desire to move the reduction of this Vote by the sum of £1,563, the amount set down for Queen's Plates. I believe that money to be wasted. I voted with hon. Members below the Gangway in favour of the Motion to disallow £218 for the Queen's Plates for Scotland. I hope I shall now receive their support.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £953, 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 of the Officers and Attendants of the Household of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland and other Expenses."—? (Mr. Thomas Russell.)

COLONEL NOLAN (Galway, N.)

I would like to say that it is really unfair to make this Motion with regard, to the Queen's Plates for Ireland. There are Queen's Plates run for in England as well as in Ireland, and the value of those in England is much greater than those in Ireland. Unfortunately, the money given in England is given out of the Queen's Privy Purse; while that given in Ireland is put on the Estimates. Men opposed to racing always attack the Irish Queen's Plates, while, in reality, any attack that is made ought to be made on the Plates in this country. I quite understand the hon. Member (Mr. T. W. Russell) has not made this Motion out of any hostility to the Irish Plates in particular, but simply because he objects to Queen's Plates generally, and he cannot attack the English Plates. I put it to the hon. Gentleman, whether he is acting fairly? Would it not be much fairer that he should ballot for a place on Tuesday or Friday in next week, to propose a Resolution to the effect that no money should be given for Queen's Plates in England? If Queen's Plates are good things in England, they are equally good in Ireland. Indeed, in Ireland they are particularly wanted. In the first place, it is well known that the great difficulty in Ireland is to get proper sires; and we know also that racing encourages a good class of horses. If you take away the Queen's Plates, you take away the only incentive to keep up any thoroughbred horses in Ireland. Ireland is peculiarly well suited for the breeding of horses, though Irish racehorses are not as good as the English. [An. hon. MEMBER: Yes; for Queen's Plates.] If you take away the Queen's Plates, you strike Ireland in the most vulnerable point as regards racing. The soil of Ireland is good for breeding; but take away this money, and you will practically destroy the very few racing establishments there are in the country; compared with the number in England there are very few. I look upon this sum, small and wretched as it is, as really one of considerable importance. I believe the Jockey Club will not allow Irish horses to be entered for the English handicaps until they have run three times in England; in fact, at the present time Irish horses are "Boycotted" in England. ["No, no!"] Let anyone inquire, and he will find that within the last six or 12 months a rule has been passed by the Jockey Club by which Irish horses cannot compete for certain races until they have run a given number of times in England. This is a very small sum of money, and I hope the hon. Member will withdraw his Motion, and thus refrain from doing anything to destroy the incentive to breed good horses in Ireland. If he objects to racing, let him bring up a Motion condemnatory of the system as applied to England, Ireland, and Scotland generally.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL (Kirkcaldy, &c.)

It is really very sad to find some Irish Members who are always so ready to appeal to us with regard to Irish grievances, and who, while attacking English and Scotch abuses, are still ready to defend some Irish abuses. It seems to me that this is one of the worst of Irish abuses. I do hope that in the interest of the people of Ireland we shall deprive them of these temptations to gamble. I believe that some day or other the Irish people will have self-government, and thus be able to regulate these matters for themselves; but, in the meantime, I shall support the Motion of my hon. Friend (Mr. T. W. Russell).

MR. LABOUCHERE (Northampton)

I voted just now against Queen's Plates in Scotland, and, if I remember rightly, pointed out that what is fair for the Scotchman ought to be fair for the Irishman. If we are not to have Queen's Plates in Scotland we surely ought not to have them in Ireland. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North Galway (Colonel Nolan) said that the breeding of good horses depended upon Queen's Plates. I am not myself a racing man, but I do know something about horses in general. I know perfectly well that the more racehorses you have the worse horses you have. Racehorses can run very quickly with a very light weight on their backs, but they are a weedy set of animals. If you want to encourage the breed of horses you ought to send some good stallions about the country—good sound roadsters and such like horses. It is absurd to think that this £1,563, given in 15 Queen's Plates, will benefit the breed of horses in Ireland. If Irishmen want to have races, let them get them up themselves. I want them to legislate for themselves in everything, horse-races included. Let them have gala meetings if they like. They can easily get up races; they have simply to charge something for entrance, and give good prizes. I hope they will have the courage to support a true economic principle, even when applicable to Ireland, and that they will join with the hon. Gentleman (Mr. T. W. Russell) in protesting against Queen's Plates, just as Scotchmen themselves joined with the Irish in voting against Queen's Plates in Scotland.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 36; Noes 178: Majority 142.—(Div. List, No. 27.)

Original Question again proposed.

MR. TUITE (Westmeath, N.)

I rise to move a reduction of the Vote by the sum of £3,469. My reason for doing so is the very unsatisfactory reply which I received this evening in connection with the Barbavilla conspiracy. In that case there are persons suffering penal servitude for a crime of which I believe, and the people of my country believe, they are innocent. They were convicted of an alleged conspiracy to murder, and I maintain that the real conspiracy is among the Crown officials who concocted that charge. It will be remembered that on April 2, 1882, a murder was committed in the county of Westmeath, the intended victim of which was a Mr. Smyth. The assassin missed his aim, and a lady was unfortunately killed.

THE CHAIRMAN

It would be more in Order if this discussion were raised on the next Vote, which relates to the Department of the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland.

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

May I ask you, Sir, if your ruling applies to the question of the Proclamation of Arms by the Lord Lieutenant?

THE CHAIRMAN

That will also properly be discussed on the Chief Secretary's Vote.

DR. TANNER (Cork Co., Mid)

I rise to move the reduction of this Vote by the sum of £789 for the salaries to the Chaplain and others in the chapel of Dublin Castle. The Chaplain for the Castle receives the sum of £184 12s. 8d., and also an allowance of £150 for a furnished house. I understand that it is a distinct mistake to have any chaplain set apart for the private use of the Lord Lieutenant. Last year, this Chaplain was of no use whatever, because the Lord Lieutenant happens to have been a member of the Presbyterian Church. Of course, I do not know of what persuasion the present Viceroy is; but the late Viceroy was certainly Presbyterian, and the consequence is that this item of wastful expenditure was of no use, except for keeping up a small fashionable church in one of the back parts of the City of Dublin. At the present day we are always trying to get rid of intolerance, no matter in what shape or form it may present itself. In Ireland, we have done away with the Established Church because it was unsuitable. This Chapel Royal appears to be one of the lineal successors of a state of affairs which we have abolished; and I think hon. Members will agree with me that it is altogether superfluous, and that it would be a great deal better that we should do away with it. I hope that in Ireland we may soon have a Catholic Lord Lieutenant; and when that comes about these matters will be placed on a footing more in conformity with the susceptibilities of the majority of the people of Ireland who have been so badly treated in the past. I hope this House, even in its present mood, will see that this item of expenditure is certainly an unjust one—not only unjust, but stupid, and I hope it will disappear from the Estimates.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £1,727, 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 of the Officers and Attendants of the Household of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland and other Expenses."—(Dr. Tanner.)

THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH) (Bristol, W.)

I do not quite understand if the hon. Gentleman objects to the amount paid to the Chaplain, or whether he desires to abolish the office of Chaplain altogether? [Dr. TANNER: Yes, Sir.] Yes, says the hon. Member; but that really depends on the Office of the Lord Lieutenant. If the Office of the Lord Lieutenant is to be maintained, and I understand the hon. Member and those who sit near him wish that it should be maintained, it must be maintained in the state and dignity appertaining to it; and part of that dignity is the religious establishment which is attached to the representation of Royalty. The hon. Member suggests that some day there may be a Catholic Lord Lieutenant, and says that the late Lord Lieutenant was a Presbyterian. Whether it would be permitted that the Lord Lieutenant should be a Catholic, is a matter for future consideration; but, at present, they are Protestants, and, being so, they are provided with the religious establishment which appertains to the Office, which, in the present case, I hope the Committee will not be unwilling to grant.

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

I do not think that my hon. Friend objects to the form of religion which Lord Aberdeen professed. I think arrangements might be made by which the Chaplain might be brought into conformity with the religion of the Lord Lieutenant for the time being. Everyone knows that if the Lord Lieutenant were to be a Catholic, there would be no objection to it from any quarter. I think, in these cases, we should come to some understanding by which a Catholic or a Presbyterian Lord Lieutenant would be provided out of the public funds with a chaplain of his own religion, and if this were done, I think that, in future, this Vote would not be challenged. In the absence of an assurance to that effect, I think my hon. Friend is quite right in challenging this portion of the Estimate, and I shall support him if he divides the Committee on his Motion for its reduction.

MR. T. W. RUSSELL (Tyrone, S.)

The late Lord Lieutenant attended more than once the Presbyterian church in Rutland Square and in Rathgar; but it is an error to suppose that he did not attend service in the Chapel Royal.

DR. TANNER (Cork Co., Mid)

The hon. Gentleman who has just spoken has had the singular advantage of attending both places of worship, and I could expect nothing else from the hon. Gentleman. But I cannot at all agree with the right hon. Baronet, that the bringing forward of this Motion to reduce the Vote is striking a blow at the Lord Lieutenant. We understand that nothing would tend to make the position of the Lord Lieutenant more secure than the doing away with these absurdities. This rev. gentlemen, like the Vicar of Bray, will be Chaplain at the Castle whatever King may reign. I am rather astonished that the right hon. Baronet should make the suggestion that a man of this sort would be any ornament to the position of the Lord Lieutenant. On the contrary, I think that, having regard to the circumstances, it is a piece of decorative absurdity, and that if it were done away with it would be a great deal better for the Lord Lieutenant and the country.

MR. JOHN MORLEY (Newcastle-on-Tyne)

Whether or not the office of Chaplain at the Castle of Dublin is futile, I will not discuss; but as far as the late Lord Lieutenant is concerned, he, on a previous occasion, when the same point was raised, desired me to say that he found considerable edification from the ministrations of the Chaplain. And, that being so, hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway may think that there is no sort of moral to be drawn from the fact of Lord Aberdeen having attended a Presbyterian place of worship. I think Lord Aberdeen would desire that no interference should take place with this office. I say all that without prejudice to my own views.

MR. JORDAN (Clare, W.)

I do not object, Sir, to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland having a chaplain; but I do not see why the Chapel Royal is a necessity in a city which contains Christchurch Cathedral and St. Patrick's Cathedral. I think that Christchurch would be as convenient a place as the Chapel Royal for the Lord Lieutenant to worship in. I remember being at Christchurch, Dublin, when the Prince of Wales was there; and I think that there would be nothing derogatory to the state of the Lord Lieutenant if he were to attend there. In my opinion, the Chapel Royal is unnecessary as a place of worship, and that the two Cathedrals offer quite enough facilities for the Lord Lieutenant in that respect. If the Household of the Lord Lieutenant wish to attend prayers on week days—and I much question whether they do—they may be theoretically held to go to the Chapel Royal; but I think very few of the Household find their way there. There are many other places of worship which they can attend, and, therefore, for the Lord Lieutenant's Household I think the Chapel Royal is wholly unnecessary.

MR. W. ABRAHAM (Limerick, W.)

I desire to raise my voice against this charge. If it were necessary to put forward the claim that the Lord Lieutenant should have a chaplain, and that he should be of the form of religion which the Lord Lieutenant professed, I could understand that the Committee should be willing to vote a sum of money for the purpose. But when we consider the changes which the Office of Lord Lieutenant is likely to undergo, and the possibility of our having a Catholic, and, I trust, an independent Lord Lieutenant, it is most undesirable that we should have permanently in Dublin Castle a chaplain belonging to the Church which has been disestablished in Ireland. Therefore, without wishing to do anything to lower the state of the Lord Lieutenant, I feel bound to object to this expenditure for a useless purpose.

MR. MAHONY (Meath, N.)

I think, if the Lord Lieutenant requires a chaplain, an allowance should be made so that he may obtain one to suit his own views. I do not see that the Church will gain any advantage by being placed in a false position in this respect. The office seems to me to be clearly a relic of the old state of ascendancy, and, therefore, I shall vote against the charge if the hon. Member goes to a division. I see with great regret that the Episcopalian Church in Ireland is fast degenerating into a mere political sect.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 55; Noes 179: Majority 124.—(Div. List, No. 28.)

Original Question again proposed.

MR. CLANCY (Dublin Co., N.)

Earlier in the evening I supported the Motion of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) to strike out of the Estimates a sum on account of the Lyon King-of-Arms, and I stated then I did so because I object to the retention of such offices, and that I should be quite prepared to move at the proper time a similar reduction in the Estimates for Ireland. I now beg to move the reduction of the Vote for the Lord Lieutenant's Household by the sum of £1,089, the amount of the salary of the Ulster King-of-Arms, and the salaries and allowances for clerks, messengers, and others connected with the office. We have heard to-night about me-diæval mummeries; but surely this is as good a specimen of mediæval mummery as is to be found in the civilized world. What on earth the use of the Ulster King-of-Arms is I cannot imagine, except, as the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) has said, to present coats of arms and mottoes to persons who have not got them. I do not want to discuss this question at any length, especially as other subjects of importance are waiting to be introduced; but I cannot help saying that if the present Ulster King-of-Arms were not an extremely inoffensive and harmless gentleman, the probability is that this office would long since have been abo- lished by the force of the Irish Party in Parliament. I think an effort should now be made to effect a reform in this Department of the Household of the Lord Lieutenant by the total abolition of the absurd office of the Ulster King-of-Arms. I beg to move the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £1,089.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £1,427, 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 31at day of March 1887, for the Salaries of the Officers and Attendants of the Household of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland and other Expenses."—(Mr. Clancy.)

MR. CRILLY (Mayo, N.)

I do not wish to take part in the division without knowing what I am voting for or against, as the case may be. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland will inform us what the duties of the Ulster King-of-Arms are, and also what the Athlone Pursuivant-of-Arms is supposed to do?

MR. O'HEA (Donegal, W.)

There is a good deal of curiosity, and no wonder, as to the functions appertaining to the office of the Ulster King-of-Arms. If the Ulster King-of-Arms is the custodian of Irish pedigrees, he has not shown himself courteous in all his dealings with the public. I may mention the instance of a clergyman who was presented by his parishioners with a new card. He was anxious to obtain some explanation of the armorial bearings on the card, and he wrote to Sir Bernard Burke requesting him to supply him with an explanation. A week passed and the rev. gentleman received no reply. He wrote a second letter, and on this occasion enclosed a stamped envelope addressed to himself for the reply. He did not receive an answer to his second request. This is one of those ornamental offices, the expenditure on which is considerable, but the utility of which is only fanciful. The Ulster King-of-Arms may be a very ornamental personage, but he is not a useful functionary. I certainly shall vote with my hon. Friend (Mr. Clancy).

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

It would be well if the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland would explain to us what particular functions are discharged by the Ulster King-of-Arms. I believe there are cer- tain persons in Ireland—baronets and lords—to whom this functionary is of some service; but, as far as the general population is concerned, Sir Bernard Burke is of no assistance. I am not surprised that the rev. gentleman my hon. Friend (Mr. O'Hea) alluded to failed altogether in his object, because, although he sent a stamped envelope for the reply, he did not enclose the necessary fee. I suppose that for a fee Sir Bernard Burke will give anybody a pedigree dating from the Norman Conquest. But we have a gentleman in Ireland—Mr. O'Hart—who engages to supply anyone with a pedigree from the time of Brian Boru. Anyhow, we do not know what Sir Bernard Burke does except to give pedigrees to distinguished people. Now, in Holland and other Continental countries, there are in every parish Marriage Registrars who profess to give the pedigree of people for at least 500 years. There are no such officials in Ireland. If there is anything to be done in the nature of the King-of-Arms business, it ought to be carried on on popular principles, so that those who may desire to have an account of their antecedents can obtain one. With regard to the inheritance to property, it is very desirable that some establishment should exist in the country by which the pedigrees of families may be traced. In Ireland we have practically nothing of the kind. Up to within the last 50 years, in fact, more recently than that, there has been nothing in Ireland of the nature of a regular registry of marriages, and the result is there are frequent disputes with reference to succession to property. I trust that we may receive some explanation from the Chief Secretary with respect to the duties Sir Bernard Burke performs.

THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH) (Bristol, W.)

I did not anticipate from what I have known of Sir Bernard Burke, and heard of him since I was first connected with Ireland, that any hon. Member would have objected to this office on the ground of unpopularity or misconduct on the part of Sir Bernard Burke. He is not only a gentleman who is universally respected and liked, but he thoroughly understands the peculiar duties which attach to this office. I must candidly confess I am unable to explain what the duties are; but the office is a very ancient estate and dignity. It is more than 300 years old. Of course, it has charge of matters connected with the history of Ireland, and the history of individual families in Ireland, and although hon. Members may not attach as much importance to these things as was formerly attached to them, I do not think the office should be abolished, especially when similar offices are maintained in England and Scotland. Now, I may state that, as far as I can gather, this office is of no real cost to the State at all. When Sir Bernard Burke was appointed to the office he was paid entirely by fees. Hon. Members will see what his emoluments from the office are. In a period of five and a quarter years after the commutation of the fees no less than £6,000 was paid to the Treasury in fees; therefore, I think it will be clear that as the Treasury now receives the fees, and Sir Bernard Burke only a salary, the country is the gainer and not the loser by the bargain. This, however, is one of those offices which, when it falls vacant, will have to be considered. It is clearly understood with regard to this and several offices of the same kind that, in the event of a vacancy occurring, it will not be filled up without full consideration of the duties of the office and the pay which should be given to any person who may be appointed as the successor of Sir Bernard Burke. I am afraid I can say no more than this upon the subject; but I hope what I have said will show that the office is one of antiquity, and that it does not involve any cost to the State. It is part, no doubt, of the appanage of the Lord Lieutenant's Office, and as such I think that for the present, at any rate, it ought to be maintained.

MR. CLANCY (Dublin Co., N.)

I believe I stated, Mr. Courtney, that I made no attack upon Sir Bernard Burke. I said, on the contrary, that he was a harmless and inoffensive gentleman, and that if he had not been of that character the office would probably have been abolished long ago, or, at least, an attempt would have been made to abolish it. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland now says the office is 300 years old. It has existed 300 years too long. This is the first time I have heard an abuse defended in this House on account of its antiquity. I object to the absurdity of the office, and I do not think its absurdity is diminished in the least by the fact that Sir Bernard Burke collects a certain amount every year in fees. We find the Ulster King-of-Arms, who discharges duties which the Chief Secretary for Ireland is not able to describe, is paid £750 a-year; the Athlone Pursuivant-of-Arms, who has to discharge duties which the right hon. Gentleman has not attempted to describe, is paid £20 in lieu of official fees; the allowance to a clerk in the Office of Arms as official reporter during the Castle season, whatever that may be, is £30; the allowance for the clothing of one kettle-drummer is £12 6s., though in another place it is said to be £13. The only persons who, in my opinion, deserve to be paid are the office cleaner, and he or she receives £30 a-year, and the porter or messenger, who gets £76. I should like to allow these officials their salaries; but, of course, if we abolish the office we shall not want an office cleaner or messenger.

MR. O'HEA (Donegal, W.)

I, and I have no doubt others, imagined when the right hon. Gentleman rose that he would give us some information as to the functions of the Ulster King-of-Arms; but beyond informing the Committee that it was an office dating back 300 years, and that its antiquity is a recommendation for its maintenance and continuance, he has said nothing to induce any hon. Members on this side of the House to alter the intention they had formed of voting against the items in the Estimates to defray the expenses of the office. Now, Sir, I think that the speech of the right hon. Gentleman confirmed us in the opinion we had formed of this office—namely, that it is one of those fossil remains that perhaps sprung from the feudalism which was in its expiring state some 300 years ago. I do not think antiquity could be put forward as the reason for the maintenance of any office in this country. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for North Dublin (Mr. Clancy) that a hardship may be inflicted upon a couple of very deserving and, no doubt, very meritorious individuals by the abolition of this office; but perhaps there are other ways in which the services of these people may be brought into requisition. The Government have given no satisfactory explanation, and, therefore, I trust the good sense of hon. Members will prompt them to take the step necessary for the abolition of the office.

MR. BIGGAR (Cavan, W.)

This is one of the Votes upon which there is a discussion every year, and I appeal to the Government whether it would not be better to give Sir Bernard Burke a lump sum and abolish the office at once? It is all very well for the Chief Secretary to say—"We will take it into consideration when Sir Bernard Burke drops off." There is not the slightest doubt someone will exist then to whom it will be considered desirable by the Government of the day to give outdoor relief. This is the way in which the money of the British taxpayer is squandered in very considerable sums amongst a very considerable number of people. Why not treat this office like that of the Chaplain to the Castle of Dublin, in relation to which there is this foot-note— This allowance is personal to the present Chaplain, and will not be continued to his successor? If, to-night, we put in the Votes that the office of Ulster King-of-Arms will not be filled up when Sir Bernard Burke ceases to hold it, there might be some reason for future Committees of Supply to pass the Vote over rather lightly; but as long as there is a risk that this office will be filled up again, it is perfectly certain that successive Committees will give the Vote their attention, and the Minister of the day the trouble of getting up to defend something which he knows to be perfectly indefensible. I think the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary should go so far as to say that the Department will undertake that when Sir Bernard Burke ceases to hold this office it shall not be filled up. This gentleman seems to be very liberally paid, because, besides the £750 he gets as Ulster King-of-Arms, he is paid £500 as the Keeper of State Papers in the Irish Record Office. Taking everything into account he has a very comfortable competency for a gentleman who seems to be very inoffensive, not to have much intelligence, but who is really a burlesque upon public officials.

DR. TANNER (Cork Co., Mid.)

There does not appear to be any feeling of animosity amongst hon. Gentlemen sitting on these Benches against Sir Bernard Burke. On the contrary, everybody appears to coincide in the view that Sir Bernard Burke is an extremely inoffensive gentleman. We have also heard, in the course of this really interesting debate, that another gentleman, a Mr. O'Hart, who has a love for genealogical research, and is good at supplying pedigrees of distinguished people, would be much more suitable for this post than Sir Bernard Burke. Mr. O'Hart, we are told, has looked up the genealogy of Her Majesty, and discovered that she is descended from Moses—

THE CHAIRMAN

I must ask the hon. Gentleman to address himself seriously to the Vote before the Committee.

DR. TANNER

Mr. Courtney, the reason why I called attention to Mr. O'Hart is that he has published a volume dealing with this very question of genealogy, which Sir Bernard Burke has never done. If you want to have a really good man in the absurd position of Ulster King-of-Arms, why not have the best man you can possibly get? If this country is called upon to pay the sum of £750 in order that Privy Councillors and others may get their pedigrees drawn up, it would be better to get the most capable man to do the job. For that very reason I have to advocate the cause of Mr. O'Hart against that of Sir Bernard Burke; if the post is to be kept up, it ought to be filled by the best man. There is another curious functionary provided for in this Vote—namely, the Athlone Pursuivant-of-Arms. One of my hon. Friends has asked what this office is. This may be an office in the Militia for aught we know. What is the position that this gentleman holds? There is also a very singular fact in connection with this account. The Athlone Pursuivant-of-Arms gets £20 in lieu of official fees. It does seem to me to be absurd that this Athlone Pursuivant-of-Arms, whoever he may happen to be, should be kept in office if there are no fees; if the office is a sinecure, it ought to be done away with. If the services of the Athlone Pursuivant-of-Arms are required by no one, and if, in lieu of employment, he has to be paid £20 a year, it is a palpable absurdity to keep up the office. There are many items of this character in the Estimates—in the English and Scotch Estimates—but surely it does not at all follow that because you happen to have absurdities in one section of the Estimates, you should try to perpetuate them in another. Sir Bernard Burke has given great satisfaction on many occasions. I do not like to speak at too great length, but there are two or three facts in connection with Sir Bernard Burke I should like to mention. He was the man who originated the celebrated Dublin botanical—

THE CHAIRMAN

The hon. Gentleman must be aware that his remarks are not pertinent to the Vote before the Committee. If he persists in irrelevancy, I must call upon him to resume his seat.

DR. TANNER

I had no intention of overstepping the limits of Order; on the contrary, I was only trying to illustrate what I was saying. My desire always is to keep in Order, and I now bow to your ruling, Mr. Courtney. I sincerely hope that those items will be erased from the Estimates. I will not detain the Committee longer.

MR. J. O'CONNOR (Tipperary, S.)

If my hon. Friend (Mr. Clancy) goes to a division, I shall follow him into the Lobby with very great pleasure indeed; but only through a sense of esprit de corps shall I do so. I sincerely hope that we shall be able to prevail on my hon. Friend to withdraw his opposition to this Vote. This Ulster King-of-Arms is, to my mind, a relic of old decency in Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland took great pains to show that he was quite unacquainted with the duties of this office, which has occupied the attention of the Committee so long; in fact, it appears to me the Ulster King-of-Arms has nothing else to do but draw his salary, and that he does that with the greatest possible precision. At the same time, I do not think the Irish people are sufficiently democratic yet to abandon all the pride, pomp, and circumstance of glorious war in which they were once accustomed to indulge. Now, the Ulster King-of-Arms is a very martial term, and I am inclined to think the Irish people will stick to their martial terms as long as they possibly can. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary also said that this office is one of the appanages of the Household of the Lord Lieutenant. If we are to play at Royalty in Ireland, let us stick to all the appanages. I should be very sorry to abolish the Ulster King-of-Arms if he adds éclat to the many parties we have at Dublin Castle from time to time. I have no doubt he impresses with very great solemnity the minds of the gay and festive young ladies and gentlemen who assemble at the Viceregal Lodge from time to time. Now, Mr. Courtney, I would not like to see such offices abolished, so long as we are to have a Lord Lieutenant at all. I believe it is contemplated by both sides of this House to dispense with the position of Viceroy of Ireland, if possible, in the very near future. Then let the Ulster King-of-Arms, and the Athlone Pursuivant-of-Arms, and the kettle-drummer, and the rest go with the Lord Lieutenant; but, until you are prepared to abolish the Viceregal system altogether, let us have everything that adds to its lustre and its glory. I have never seen the Lord Lieutenant in State in Ireland; but I believe that at times, it is a very glorious sight. I believe it pleases our people, because our people are not a democratic people. They have not been impregnated with your principles of democracy at all. The Irish people are by tradition and by religion, aristocratic.[A laugh.] It is a fact, and let us not deceive ourselves. The Irish people are by race, religion, and tradition, aristocratic; at all events, they are not democratic in the sense the word is understood in England. ["Oh!"] You do not understand the true meaning of democracy. The Irish people have never been inoculated with democracy. Let us have our Ulster King-of-Arms. If my hon. Friend (Mr. Clancy) recognizes the truth of these statements, he will withdraw his Motion, although, as I said at the outset, if he presses it to a division, I shall be bound to follow him into the Lobby.

MR. O'HANLON (Cavan, E.)

I must join my hon. Friends in protesting against this Vote. The Conservatives in the district from which I come know little about the office of Sir Bernard Burke, and the Liberals are just in the same position as far as that is concerned. The Chief Secretary is unable to explain the duties of the Ulster King-of-Arms, and that, to my mind, is a most extraordinary fact. I cannot understand how it is possible for the Committee to be asked to vote away money for an office which is of no real advantage to the people of Ireland. I trust that the division which is to be taken will lead to the abolition of this absurd office.

MR. CONYBEARE (Cornwall, Cambourne)

I am bound to say I listened with great interest to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for South Tipperary (Mr. J. O'Conner) in which he advocated the retention of aristocratic usages of which Conservatives usually think there is too little in Ireland. [Interruption.] I also listened with interest to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland, a speech which may be summed up in a couple of lines, which are probably familiar to hon. Gentlemen opposite, as lines written by one of their Leaders not many years ago— Let laws and learning, wealth and commerce die, But save, oh save, our old nobility! [Interruption.]

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

I rise to Order, Mr. Courtney. I wish to know whether the hon. Gentleman, being in possession of the Committee, is not entitled to proceed without interruption?

THE CHAIRMAN

Of course, there is only one answer. He is entitled to proceed.

MR. CONYBEARE

I thought that would be your ruling, Mr. Courtney. I shall certainly proceed. We have heard from the hon. Gentleman the Member for South Tipperary an interesting disquisition upon the difference between democracy in England and in Ireland. ["Question!"] I will not follow him in that respect, because I desire, as far as possible, to keep within the ruling of the Chairman, and to address myself with all seriousness to this absorbing topic. I find, however, a little difficulty in addressing myself in a serious spirit to the question of paying the Ulster King-of-Arms £920 a-year, the Athlone Pursuivant-of-Arms £20 a-year, and sundry allowances for kettle-drummers and other personages of a similar kind. Anybody who has been in the habit of watching with care Royal pageants must be struck with the ridiculous aspects they assume. [Interruption.] If I were not afraid of a fresh howl from hon. Gentlemen opposite I would comment upon the tomfoolery of these Royal exhibi- tions. No one with common sense can look seriously upon these matters; and therefore we are bound, in the fulfilment of our duty as the Representatives of persons who do not enjoy large salaries such as the Ulster King-of-Arms and such like people get for doing nothing, and as the Representatives of persons who are not in the habit of having their names genealogically and historically reported upon in the pages of Sir Bernard Burke, to protest against the continual voting of money for these ridiculous personages. I want to know who and what the Athlone Pursuivant-of-Arms is? I believe the question has already been asked twice this evening; but if it has been asked twice it has not been answered, and that is all the more reason why it should be asked a third time. It is incomprehensible that we should be seriously asked to vote away money for people whose names and duties we cannot ascertain. I suggest that the allowance to the Ulster King-of-Arms be refused and given to somebody who does something. I observe that there is an office cleaner who is paid £30 a-year, and a porter and messenger who receives £76 a-year. As it may be taken for granted that the office cleaner and porter and messenger do five or six times as much work as the Ulster King-of-Arms and the Athlone Pursuivant-of-Arms, I would humbly suggest that we should discontinue the salaries to the latter functionaries, and apply some portion of the money to those who work for their living, and let the remainder go back into the pockets of the people who are now called upon to supply these salaries.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 62; Noes 172: Majority 110.—(Div. List, No. 29.)

Original Question again proposed.

MR. DILLON (Mayo, E.)

I cannot allow this Vote for the sum of £40 for the Insignia and Banners of the Order of St. Patrick, and £20 for Emblazoning Arms, &c, to pass without dividing against it, at least unless some assurance is given that it will not be repeated. I do not know what are the customs of this country in matters of this kind; but I do know something of the Order of St. Patrick, and I feel bound to protest against spending any further sums of public money on that barren insignia. The wish of the people of Ireland is that, at any rate, no more money should be spent upon it. But I wish to say, besides, that there is a principle involved in this sum of £60, because from time to time very much larger sums are called for in connection with the Order on the installation of Knights, when any Imperial persons happen to be in Ireland. Therefore, with the view of insuring that no more money shall be wasted on this Order in Ireland in future, I shall move that the Vote be reduced by the sum of £60.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £2,456, 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 of the Officers and Attendants of the Household of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland and other Expenses."—(Mr. Dillon.)

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

I have no particular wish to see the Order of St. Patrick abolished. I think if the Lord Lieutenant is desirous of retaining these honours that the least he can do is to pay for them himself. We are, however, called upon to pay, and to this I strongly object. If a man wishes to have a banner in St. Patrick's Cathedral for his family, I do not see why he should come upon the taxpayers of the country for the expense; nor do I see why, if he wants his arms emblazoned for the purpose of magnifying himself in the eyes of those who think as he does in these matters, he should come almost as a pauper and ask the people to pay for them. The people never see these banners and never see these arms; in fact, they knew nothing about them, and it does seem to me a mean thing for men who want honours for their own gratification to call on the public to defray the cost. We are called upon year after year for these sums, although it is true that the present demand is not a large one. As far as my observation goes, these honours are not granted in Ireland for distinguished services. They are merely political grants, and I ask the Chief Secretary whether it is quite fair to call on the people of Ireland to pay for these honours? The noble Lord the Chancellor of the Exchequer belongs to a family of renown, and I put it to him whether he does not think it right to put an end to this scandal and allow these gentlemen to pay for them themselves? I ask the Chief Secretary to give us some assurance that this scandal shall appear no more on the Estimates.

THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH) (Bristol, W.)

It is not the case that when a person is made a Knight of St. Patrick the cost of his receiving that honour is paid by the country, unless special circumstances arise, in which case a special Vote is proposed. As a rule, the fees paid by the Knight amount to £300; and, besides, he has generally to pay £250 or £300 for the collar and badge. These are honours appreciated by those who receive them. The charge in this Vote is for a banner, a helmet, and so on, which are placed in St. Patrick's Hall, Dublin Castle, just as the banners of Knights of the Garter are placed in St. George's Chapel, Windsor; and they cost very little indeed as compared with the large expense charged on the Knights themselves. All I would say is that if the Order of St. Patrick is to be maintained, and I understand that it is the desire of hon. Members that it should be, you must have this expenditure. How far it should be borne by the country is a matter for consideration.

MR. CLANCY (Dublin Co., N.)

I object to the Order of St. Patrick altogether. I have here a list of the members of the Order to whom I should like to call attention. Excluding the Royal Princes and one or two others, amongst them Viscount Powerscourt, there is scarcely any one of the Order deserving of the respect of the people. The Order is composed of men who stand in the position of convicted rack-renters.

THE CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member is using language unworthy of this Assembly. He must withdraw it.

MR. CLANCY

I withdraw the words in obedience to your ruling. I was explaining that these persons have been found guilty of having extorted exorbitant rack-rents for many years past, and, accordingly, their rents have been cut down by the Land Commission. For instance, there is the Earl of Kenmare, and I ask what respect can Irishmen have for men like him? The Earl of Cork is in a similar position; and then there is Lord Wolseley, who some time ago expressed the intention of leading a portion of the people of Ireland against the Queen's troops. ["Question!"] This is the question; and I say, further, that to this charge Lord Wolseley has never given a denial. There is also the noble Lord who has a residence in my constituency, but who is very seldom there, and he is about the greatest obstacle to the welfare of the little town near which he lives. What title have these gentlemen to be Knights of St. Patrick? Let them call themselves by any other name than this. I think that half my objection to the Order would vanish if this anti-Irish gang called themselves by any other name than that of the Apostle of Ireland. It is absurd that, in the 19th century, Parliament should vote money for the sake of having a few gentlemen pretending to be Knights and ready to wage war on horseback, when most of them can hardly keep their seats on the steadiest old nags that can be bought in Ireland. I shall persist in the Motion for the reduction of the Vote.

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

I remember that last year there were two installations of noblemen in the Order of St. Patrick, and it was made a pretext for expending £1,000 in doing up a room in Dublin Castle for the purpose. My hon. Friend, therefore, is quite right when he says that the expenditure does not end at £60. It goes on, and no one knows where it stops. In the Estimates of last year there was a charge of £1,000 on account of the installation of these gentlemen. Although they themselves paid £500, they put the country to the expense of £1,000 for preparing the room in Dublin Castle for their gratification; and this is the reason why I, for one, oppose this Vote. The amount of taxation upon the people makes it essential on our part to oppose this useless outlay. I am bound to say that if these gentlemen would pay for the cost of installation there would be no objection on my part to their being made Knights of St. Patrick; but so long as the cost is thrown upon the country, so long shall I resist this Vote.

MR. DILLON (Mayo, E.)

The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary says that the hon. Member for King's County (Mr. Molloy) does not object to this Order. I, however, do object to it, and I say that it is a distinct grievance that the country should be called on to pay large sums in connection with it. I object to the Vote chiefly because I object to the Order. It is an Order of so-called merit, and is conferred upon men who are detested by the people of Ireland. Not a single individual who enjoys the respect and confidence of the people of Ireland is a Knight of St. Patrick, and I will go further and say you could not get any person enjoying the respect of the Irish people to accept the Knighthood. As sensible men we ought to get rid of this Order at once, and the fact that you cannot get a single man who enjoys the confidence of the people to accept the Knighthood is alone sufficient to condemn any Order; and to call upon the Committee to support such an imposture as this is mischievous.

MR. O'HANLON (Cavan, E.)

I observe that the amount charged for insignia and banners for last year was £50; whereas this year the charge is £40; and I should like to know what is the cause of this reduction? With regard to the insignia, we have had no explanation whatever from the right hon. Baronet as to why this expense is charged upon the Estimates at all. And although the right hon. Baronet has told us that everyone who is installed as a Knight of St. Patrick has to pay fees amounting to £300, he has not explained whether this amount goes to relieve the taxes of the people? These are two points which I think the Chief Secretary for Ireland should fully explain.

MR. P. J. POWER (Waterford, E.)

I think the Irish Representatives would be wanting in duty if they did not protest against this charge. It would be interesting to know what the Members of this Order have done for Ireland, because it seems to me that it is on account of their having done a good deal of good for England that they have been made Knights of St. Patrick. In my opinion, they have done nothing whatever for Ireland, where they have simply acted as an English garrison. Why, then, should we be called upon to pay anything towards the expenses of these Knights? I say that it is our duty to enter a protest against this sham, which most Irishmen look upon as a disgrace and dishonour.

MR. A. BLANE (Armagh, S.)

We are here asked to vote money not for the use of the Lord Lieutenant, but for a purpose which we are told is highly or- namental. I say it is strange that these sums should be uselessly expended in the face of so many complaints of bad trade and want of employment on the part of the people throughout the country, and which is constantly made the excuse for not voting money for useful purposes. I protest against these Votes for ornaments in society; they are utterly worthless, and the sooner they are brought to an end the better. This Vote is only one instance of the way these persons foist themselves upon the public purse, and I shall, for the reasons I have given, vote with my hon. Friend against this charge.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 56; Noes 165: Majority 109.—(Div. List, No. 30.)

Original Question again proposed.

MR. CRILLY (Mayo, N.)

Before we leave this Vote I desire to enter my protest against a system associated with it which I consider to be unjust and vicious. It appears to me, in studying these Estimates, that establishments such as the one we are discussing are merely vehicles for reckless expenditure. They are, it seems to me, establishments for providing snug places for various persons—they are offices in which the duties are in an inverse ratio to the pay. The duties are light and the pay is heavy; and not merely do we find gentlemen associated with one situation such as this, but we find them cropping up continually like Jack-in-the-box. They are, to use an illustration which was adopted some time ago, as thick in these Estimates as barnacles on the bottom of a Transatlantic liner. I intend to move the reduction of the Vote before I have done. I find that the Master of the Horse is put down here to receive £200, and I also find that, in the Vote we have passed, this gentleman is also down as Deputy Ranger of the Curragh of Kildare at a salary of £276. I find, further, that a gentleman described as Surgeon to the Household, is down for £100, and in addition to that I see he receives a salary of £245, and a large sum for travelling expenses, as Surgeon to the Dublin Metropolitan Police, and £150 from the Public Education Department in Ireland. Before we leave this Vote I want to enter my protest against it, because I object on principle to the coupling of offices in the way I have described. It is, in my opinion, wrong and immoral; and amongst other things it has this injurious effect, that it prevents deserving men from receiving salaries. The salaries go to people who are in occupation of four or five or even half-a-dozen different positions in the Public Departments in Ireland. To put myself in Order I will move that the Vote be reduced by £362, which is made up of £200 paid to the Master of the Horse, £100 paid to the Surgeon of the Household, and £61 13s. 3d. paid to the State Porter.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £2,154, 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 of the Officers and Attendants of the Household of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland and other Expenses."—(Mr. Crilly.)

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

No one in this part of the House will disagree with the remarks of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Crilly). It occurs to me that the observations he has made upon this Vote could, with equal justice, propriety, and relevance be applied to every other Vote for Ireland; but as this question can be raised on almost every other Vote, and as we have had a long discussion upon the matter before the Committee, perhaps my hon. Friend will not persist in his Amendment, but allow the Vote to be taken.

MR. A. BLANE (Armagh, S.)

I find that under this Vote the Queen's Plates in Ireland are provided—["Order, Order!"]

THE CHAIRMAN

Does the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Crilly) withdraw his Amendment?

MR. CRILLY

Yes; of course, Sir.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Original Question put, and agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £17,866, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1887, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Offices of the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland in Dublin and London, and Subordinate Departments.

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

My hon. Friend the Member for North Westmeath (Mr. Tuite) endeavoured to raise his Motion preliminary to going into Committee with regard to the prisoners in the Barbavilla case. My hon. Friend was unable to go into that matter at that time, and it was ruled that he could do it on this Vote. I would ask the Government whether they think that that inquiry can be entered upon conveniently at this hour? My hon. Friend is willing to go on with it if the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland thinks it desirable.

THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH) (Bristol, W.)

I feel there is some reasonableness in the appeal the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Sexton) has made. This is an important Vote, and the question the hon. Member (Mr. Tuite) proposes to raise will lead to considerable discussion; but we have been a very long time on the Votes we have taken, and the nature of the discussion we have had can hardly be said to have been important. I would rather appeal to the hon. Gentleman to endeavour to make progress with the Votes which are coming on. There are some following the one before the Committee which are not of great importance. I refer to the Votes dealing with the Record Office, the Registrar General's Office, the Ordnance Survey—and which, I think, may be taken practically as unopposed Votes. If hon. Gentlemen opposite will allow us to take those Votes, we will consent to postpone this Vote, and also the Vote for the Irish Local Government Board, so that they may be discussed at a more convenient hour. I think, however, we may be allowed to make some further progress with Supply.

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

I understand from my hon. Friends around me that they would be willing for all the Votes mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman to be taken without discussion, except the Registrar General's Vote.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

(12.) £819, to complete the sum for the Charitable Donations and Bequests Office, Ireland.

(13.) £2,414, to complete the sum for the Record Office, Ireland.

MR. DILLON (Mayo, E.)

I do not wish to discuss this Vote for the Public Record Office; but I desire to ask the Government if they can give us any in- formation as to who it is proposed shall fill the vacancy which has taken place? The position is an exceedingly important one, and I have heard a rumour on the question which I should like to have contradicted or verified.

THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Sir MICHAEL HICKS - BEACH) (Bristol, W.)

I do not think the matter is absolutely settled.

MR. DILLON

The appointment, I assume, rests with the right hon. Gentleman?

SIR, MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH

I think the Lord Lieutenant makes the appointment, with the consent of the Treasury.

MR. DILLON

I will not prolong the discussion, but I trust that the Chief Secretary will give us the information I seek as early as possible.

Vote agreed to.

(14.) £8,826, to complete the sum for the Valuation and Boundary Survey, Ireland.

Resolutions to be reported.