Commons Sitting of 28 February 1887

MINUTES.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—CIVIL SERVICES (SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1886–7); CLASS I.—PUBLIC WORKS AND BUILDINGS, Votes 2, 4, 6, 7, 27; CLASS II.—SALARIES AND EXPENSES OF CIVIL DEPARTMENTS, Votes 5, 9, 11,and 28; CLASS III.—LAW AND JUSTICE, Vote 23; CLASS IV.—EDUCATION, SCIENCE, AND ART, Vote 2.
PRIVATE BILLS (by Order)—Second Heading—Dublin Southern District Tramways; Willesden Local Board.*
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Owners of Dogs' Liability* [181]; Vexatious Indictments (Amendment) * [182]; Licences (Belfast)* [183]; Merchant Shipping Act (1854) Amendment (No. 2) * [184].
Second Reading—County Courts (Expenses) [177].
Second Reading—Referred to Select Committee—Hyde Park Corner (New Streets) [135].
Committee—Supreme Court of Judicature (Ireland) [1], debate adjourned.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  DUBLIN SOUTHERN DISTRICT TRAM- WAYS BILL (by Order).

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Dillwyn.)
    MR. SEXTON: Since this Bill was postponed on Friday last I have communicated with the agents for the promoters, and also with the Corporation of Dublin. I have received a letter from the agents, in which they say—
    "We are instructed and hereby undertake to withdraw from the Bill all the provisions except those relating to the return of deposit money in Clause 4."
    That arrangement is satisfactory to those for whom I am concerned, and therefore I shall not offer further opposition to the Bill.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill read a second time, and committed.

  QUESTIONS.

    ARMY MEDICAL OFFICERS—STATUS.
    MAJOR RASCHasked the Secretary of State for War, What

    691
    will regulate the status of Army Medical Officers on board ship or for choice of quarters, their relative rank having been abolished?
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. E. STANHOPE): I would remind my hon. and gallant Friend that relative rank was neither actual nor titular rank, but only a classification for precedence, allowances, and widows' pensions. As relative rank served no useful purpose, it has been abolished; but the classification which it represented remains and still regulates all such matters as those referred to in the Question?

    INDIA—ARMY CLOTHING DEPARTMENT—EXCLUSION OF EUROPEAN ARTICLES.
    MR. HOYLEasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether the Superintendent of Army Clothing, Madras, in inviting tenders for the use of the Army Clothing Department for the official year, 1888–9, made the following stipulation:—"Articles of European manufacture are not required;" and, if so, what is the reason that goods of Lancashire and Yorkshire manufacture are excluded from competition in Madras with those of "local manufacture or indigenous origin."
    THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JOHN GORST): It is a rule of the Indian Service that articles of European manufacture must be purchased through the Store Department of the India Office, in order that they may be properly inspected in this country. A large demand for Army clothing for Madras for 1888–9 is now being dealt with in that Department. Where it is more economical to use an article of local manufacture or indigenous origin, the purchase is effected in India. The expression referred to in the Question, which does not seem a very happy one, appears intended to give notice of this limitation of authority to purchase on the part of the Government of Madras. The attention of the Government of Madras will be called to the subject.

    INTESTATES (SCOTLAND).
    DR. CAMERONasked the Secretary to the Treasury, If he has any objection to cause to be
    692
    printed and published annually, the names, designations, and addresses of all persons who have died intestate in Scotland, and whose estates have fallen to the Crown as ultimus haeres?
    THE SECRETARY (MR. JACKSON): I have no objection to giving an Annual Return, similar to that already given for England, as an Appendix to the Statement of the Crown's Nominee Account; but with such modifications in form as may be required to meet the requirements of Scottish law.

    CRIMINAL LAW (SCOTLAND)—PRIVATE PROSECUTION.
    MR. BIGGARasked the Lord Advocate, Whether a criminal charge against a Police Inspector of Glasgow can be proceeded with at the instance of a private prosecutor, at his own cost and risk, without the concurrence of the Procurator for the public interest; and, whether such concurrence can be refused by Law?
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD): In Scotland it is competent for a private individual to prosecute at his own cost and risk, and that the person accused is a Police Inspector makes the case in no way different from an ordinary one; but the private party cannot do so without the concurrence of the Public Prosecutor. On the other hand, the Public Prosecutor cannot capriciously or oppressively refuse to give his concurrence. If the private party can show that the Public Prosecutor has refused to give his concurrence, either on improper grounds or from corrupt motives, the High Court of Justiciary will intervene to prevent the injustice.

    POST OFFICE SAVINGS BANK DEPARTMENT, QUEEN VICTORIA STREET— INSANITARY CONDITION.
    DR. CAMERONasked the Postmaster General, Whether his attention has been called to the insanitary and inadequate nature of the accommodation provided for the staff of the Post Office Savings Bank Department at 147, Queen Victoria Street; whether the gross cubic space of one room, in which 40 employés have to work, allows less than 360 cubic feet of air per head, and the rooms are dark, ill-ventilated, and disturbed by the

    693
    noise and vibration of adjacent machinery; and, whether, in view of the fact that these conditions are unquestionably detrimental to health, and that several years must necessarily elapse before a new building can be erected on the site which has been purchased under the sanction of Parliament, he will at once take steps to provide suitable accommodation in some other building or buildings?
    THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (MR. RAIKES): I have personally inspected the premises, No. 147, Queen Victoria Street. They have been taken for a temporary purpose only, and were the best that could be obtained, it being necessary to have the accommodation as near as possible to the main Savings Bank Office. The premises are not all that could be desired; but I do not think they can be considered as very objectionable for a mere temporary purpose. I will, however, make inquiry whether improvement can be effected in the ventilation. Attention is also being given to the question of obtaining additional temporary accommodation to meet increase of business, and of thus relieving any inconvenience which may exist at present.

    VACCINATION ACTS—KEIGHLEY, &c.
    MR. BARRANasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether in the towns of Keighley, Bingley, and Leicester, where there exist large unvaccinated populations (the Vaccination Acts being practically a dead letter) there have been more or fewer cases of small-pox during the past 10 years than in other towns where the Vaccination Acts are generally complied with?
    THE PRESIDENT (Mr. RITCHIE): I have communicated with the Registrar General, and am informed that, practically, there has been no epidemic of small-pox worth mentioning in any of the 19 great Provincial towns dealt with in the Registrar General's Reports in the last 10 years. Only one small-pox death was registered in that period in Leicester itself; but 10 more were registered in the Leicester Borough Hospital, outside the town. This gives an annual rate of nine in 1,000,000 living; a rate, however, which, small as it is, was nevertheless higher than the rates at Ports-
    694
    mouth, Norwich, Plymouth, Bristol, and Bradford. Neither Keighley nor Bingley are towns for which separate statistics are published by the Registrar General. Both, however, are situated in the Registration District of Keighley, and have a population equal to about three-fourths of that of the whole district. The last calculated rate for this district is for the 10 years 1871–80, as given in the last Decennial Supplement. The annual rate in the district in that decennium was 270 per 1,000,000 living; and higher than in 25 out of the 32 remaining districts in the West Riding; higher also than in any of the following great towns, out of the 20 dealt with, in the Registrar General's Reports:—Hull, Bristol, Manchester, Leeds, Oldham, Bradford, and Brighton.

    ARMY—REPORTED REDUCTION OF HORSE ARTILLERY.
    GENERAL FRASERasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether, in view of batteries of Horse Artillery being so difficult to construct, so impossible to improvise, and in the interests of the efficiency of Cavalry in the field, the Government will postpone the proposed abolition of five batteries of Horse Artillery, out of a Home strength of 13, until this House shall have had an opportunity of discussing the whole question?
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. E. STANHOPE): I am afraid that to give any such undertaking as that asked for by my hon. and gallant Friend would be to transfer to the House of Commons a responsibility which must be borne by myself. But, as the Army Estimates will be brought forward in a very few days, my hon. and gallant Friend will have full opportunity of raising this question at a time when he has before him all the reasons for this conversion.

    POST OFFICE-CENTRAL TELEGRAPH OFFICE—PROMOTION.
    MR. BRADLAUGHasked the Postmaster General, Whether the system of promotion in the Central Telegraph Office is according to salary; and, whether that system places London clerks at a disadvantage, as compared with Provincial clerks, so that Provincial clerks junior in date of appointment are promoted to London vacancies over

    695
    the heads of London clerks senior in date of appointment; and, if so, whether he will consider the possibility of placing London and Provincial clerks on a footing of equality as regards promotion?
    THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES): I am not quite sure that I understand the Question; but if the hon. Member will call at the General Post Office, I will take care that he shall receive the fullest information.

    IRELAND—LETTER OF THE ARCH-BISHOP OF CASHEL.
    MR. JOHNSTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to a letter signed "T. W. Croke, Archbishop of Cashel," addressed to The Freeman's Journal, from "The Palace, Thurles," on the 17th February, in which it is said—
    "Had a Manifesto against paying taxes been issued at the time (of the No Rent Manifesto), I should certainly have supported it on principle. I am precisely in the same frame of mind just now. Our line of action as a people appears to me to he in this respect both suicidal and inconsistent. We pay taxes to a Government that uses them not for the public good and in accordance with the declared wishes of the taxpayers, but in direct opposition to them.…. Our money goes to fee and feed a gang of needy and voracious lawyers, to purchase bludgeons for policemen to be used in smashing the skulls of our people, and generally for the support of foreign garrisons, or native slaves who hate and despise everything Irish, and every genuine Irishman;"
    and, whether Her Majesty's Government intend to take any, and, if so, what, action in the matter?
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH): Mr. Speaker, I can only say at present, in reply to my hon. Friend, that this matter is engaging the close and serious attention of the Government.
    DR. COMMINSasked whether the assessed taxes, which were the principal direct taxes in England, were not imposed in Ireland?
    [No reply.]

    INDIA (MADRAS)—THE COLLECTOR OF CHINGLEPUT.
    MR. TUITEasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether the Government of Madras is now making inquiries and collecting
    696
    evidence with the view to re-open the Chingleput Case, which, five years since, created great excitement; whether a detective officer has for some months been specially employed to work up the case; whether the Collector of Chingleput, in 1882, obtained the sanction of Government to prosecute certain villagers for complaining against a magistrate; whether these villagers were sentenced to imprisonment for so complaining; whether an aged member of their number died in confinement; whether they and numerous witnesses were made to travel over the district for weeks together, with the camps of the Collector and Sub-Collector; whether, at last, the Native community throughout Southern India combined, subscribed large sums of money, and exposed the true character of the magistrate complained of; whether he then absconded, and deserted his post; whether he was subsequently brought to trial, convicted of stealing and making away with official records, and sentenced to a term of imprisonment; whether the Government then appealed against this sentence of the Mofussil Court; whether the High Court upheld the conviction; whether the Collector adopted the unusual course of bringing forward fresh evidence, and inducing Government to appeal a second time; whether the High Court refused to admit the relevancy of any of this fresh evidence, and again confirmed the conviction; whether the Collector urged on the Government the unusual course of over-ruling the adverse decisions of the Courts of Justice; whether the magistrate was released by a strained exercise of the Governor's prerogative; and, whether the Collector is now acting Secretary to the Government of Madras, Revenue Department?
    THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JOHN (GORST: The case referred to began in May, 1881. Certain ryots of the Chingleput District charged the Tasildar, who is a subordinate Native revenue official, with extortion. A variety of criminal proceedings took place; but as the records of trials in India are not sent to the India Office it is impossible to answer the Questions categorically. Some of the complainants appear to have been convicted of perjury, and the Tasildar himself of stealing and making away with official records. The Tasildar appealed twice to

    697
    the Madras High Court. On the first occasion the sentence was reduced from two to one year's rigorous imprisonment. The High Court had no jurisdiction to entertain a second appeal; but on May 31, 1883, the Madras Government made an Order, stating that—
    "The Governor in Council, after considering the further opinions expressed by the Judges of the High Court in this peculiar case, has come to the conclusion that it will be most consistent with justice to give the accused the benefit of the doubt raised by the subsequent evidence, and he is accordingly pleased under Section 401, Code of Criminal Procedure, to remit the remainder of the sentence."
    Mr. Price, now Acting Secretary to the Madras Government, was Collector of Chingleput between 1878 and 1884. The Secretary of State is not aware of any intention on the part of the Government of Madras to re-open this case.

    INDIA (MADRAS)—BOARD OF INLAND REVENUE.
    MR. TUITEasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether the senior member of the Madras Board of Revenue was last year engaged four months making a special Report on the district administration of Madura; and what action will Government take on the Report?
    THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JOHN GORST): Yes; the action to be taken on the Report is still under the consideration of the Governor of Madras.

    FISHERY PIERS AND HARBOURS (IRELAND)—GREYSTONES HARBOUR.
    MR. W. J. CORBETasked the Secretary to the Treasury, What was the amount of the contract for the construction of Greystones Harbour; how much has been expended up to the present time; and, what is the balance in hands of the Board of Works out of the original grant and local contribution?
    THE SECRETARY (Mr. JACKSON): The amount of the grant was £10,000. The amount of the contract, exclusive of salary of clerk of the works, is £9,000. The payments made up to date are £4,617 4s. 1d., leaving in the hands of the Commissioners of Public Works available for completion £5,382 15 s. 1d.

    COMMISSIONERS OF IRISH LIGHTS— DAUNT'S ROCK, CORK HARBOUR.
    MR. HOOPER(for Mr. MAURICE HEALY)asked the Secretary to the Board of Trade, Whether his attention has been called to the Correspondence between the Cork Harbour Commissioners and the Commissioners of Irish Lights, and subsequently between the Cork Harbour Commissioners and the Board of Trade, with reference to the necessity for an additional buoy for the better marking of Daunt's Rock; whether the Cork harbour-masters have reported that a second buoy is necessary north-west of the rock, not for the requirements of local trade, which approaches Cork Harbour almost entirely from the eastward, but for the protection of the general oversea trade; and that at least one-half of the oversea sailing vessels approaching Cork Harbour do so by day to the westward of the rock, this course being much more convenient in certain winds; whether a sum of about £6,500 is collected annually in light dues through the collector of Customs at Cork; whether Daunt's Rock being outside their jurisdiction, the Harbour Board are unable to apply their own funds for the purpose in question; whether the Irish Lights Commissioners have refused to erect a second buoy; and, whether, under the circumstances, the Board of Trade propose to take any steps to protect the oversea trade of the port by requiring that the suggestions of the harbour masters shall be carried into effect?
    THE SECRETARY (Baron HENRY DE WORMS): The Commissioners of Irish Lights, who are the General Lighthouse Authority in Ireland, have considered with care the representations of the Cork Harbour Commissioners in favour of an additional buoy in the vicinity of Daunt's Rock. They are of opinion that, as this second buoy would be purely for the advantage of the local trade, they would not be justified in recommending that any expense in respect of it should be borne by the Mercantile Marine Fund. The Board of Trade do not propose to interfere with this decision of the Irish Lighthouse Board, and have no power to

    699
    initiate new sea marks. Their function is to control expenditure.

    FISHERY WEIRS (IRELAND—STATE WEIRS ON THE LOWER SHANNON.
    Mr. W. ABRAHAMasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he is aware that the Board of Conservators of the Limerick District allow State weirs on the Lower Shannon to be fished for some time during the beginning of the season, without the Licence Duty, as directed by Act of Parliament, being first paid; whether any such weirs are being fished at the present time, the Licence Duty being still unpaid; whether the owners, lessees, or occupiers of such weirs are liable to heavy penalties and forfeiture of these engines for such offences; whether the owners of any such weirs, now being fished without licence, are conservators, magistrates, or both; whether he will cause a Return to be furnished, giving the names and addresses of the owners of such weirs, stating whether they are conservators or magistrates, also the names of the occupiers who may be liable for the penalties; and, if he will call the attention of the Inspectors of Fisheries to the case, and take any other steps to enforce the Law?
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH): The Inspectors of Fisheries have been communicated with, and they have written to the Board of Conservators at Limerick for the required information. There has not been time for the receipt of their reply.

    BORNEO—THE LIMBANG RIVER.
    ADMIRAL MAYNEasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether any, and what, information has been received from the Consul General of Brunei, as to the forcible seizure of the Limbang River by the Rajah of Sarawak, against the formal protest of the Sultan of Brunei, the Native Chiefs, and the Brunei Malays; and, if so, what steps Her Majesty's Government propose to take?
    THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON): Her Majesty's Government have received no official information of the seizure of the Limbang River by the
    700
    Rajah of Sarawak; but they have been informed by the North Borneo Company that news to that effect has been received. Inquiries about the report will be made by telegraph. The matters involved are complicated, and are receiving the consideration of Her Majesty's Government.

    THE PARKS (METROPOLIS)—BATTER-SEA PARK.
    MR. BAGGALLAYasked the First Commissioner of Works, If the Government would exclude from the Bill for the transfer of certain Parks to the Metropolitan Board of Works, the lands adjacent to Battersea Park, which constitute a separate estate from the Park, and which are mortgaged to the Public Works Commissioners for a sum amounting with accrued interest to about £173,000?
    THE FIRST COMMISSIONER (Mr. PLUNKET): As the London Parks Bill stands at present, it proposes to hand over to the Metropolitan Board of Works the debt on the Battersea Park, at present amounting, with interest, to £173,000; but it also proposes to hand over to the same Body the Battersea Estate, on the security of which that money was borrowed, and which we estimate will, in a few years, produce £6,800 a-year, and we believe that would not be a bad bargain for the Metropolitan Board. But if, in Committee, it should appear to be thought better that the Government should keep the debt and the estate with it, I am authorized by the Treasury to say that we shall not resist such a change, so that, in fact, they may have it whichever way they prefer. If the latter suggestion be adopted, the financial result of the carrying of the Bill would be to hand over to the Metropolitan Board of Works, free of all debt, a property upon which has been expended, from Crown and Government grants, in respect of the acquisition of land, the construction of Westminster Bridge, and other works, sums of money amounting to a capital outlay of £500,000 in round numbers, while the annual maintenance may be taken at about £19,300 a-year, or less than 4 per cent upon the amount which has been contributed up to the present time from Imperial sources towards the cost of these Parks and other works.

    LOSS OF LIFE FROM FISHING VESSELS.
    MR. A. SUTHERLANDasked the Secretary to the Board of Trade, Whether his attention has been called to the fact that, because of the unprotected state of the decks of fishing boats, the gunwales being only a few inches in height, the estimated loss of life from these vessels by being "Washed overboard," "Struck overboard by the sail," and "Missing while alone on the deck," amounts to 50 per cent of the total loss from all causes; whether the Government intend to provide that owners of boats who neglect to provide guard-rails, and other life-saving apparatus, shall be made liable under the Employers' Liability Acts, or otherwise; and, whether this subject has been investigated by the Royal Commission on Loss of Life at Sea?
    THE SECRETARY (Baron HENRY DE WORMS): The loss of life from fishing vessels has, I am glad to say, fallen off very materially during the last few years. It is true that of the lives recently lost from fishing vessels about 50 per cent have been lost from falling, being washed, or knocked overboard. I cannot yet say what steps may be taken under the Employers' Liability Act, or otherwise, in the matter. The subject of the Employers' Liability Act has been brought to the notice of the Royal Commission on Loss of Life at Sea; but until the Report of the Royal Commission is received I am unable to say what action will be taken.

    CHARITY COMMISSION—SCHEME FOR CHRIST'S HOSPITAL.
    MR. F. S. POWELLasked the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, What course the Education Department intends to adopt with reference to the scheme for the administration of Christ's Hospital, which was submitted to the Committee of Council by the Charity Commissioners in March 1886?
    THE VICE PRESIDENT (Sir WILLIAM HART DYKE): The course to be adopted in reference to this scheme is now under consideration.

    THE MAGISTRACY (IRELAND)—SPEECH OF MAJOR GEORGE JOHNSTON, J.P., AT GLENTIES, CO. DONEGAL.
    CAPTAIN M'CALMONTasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether a correct report is given, in The Freeman's Journal of the 13th December last, of a speech made by Major George Johnston, J.P., at Glenties, in the county of Donegal, on the occasion of the Plan of Campaign being adopted in that neighbourhood; and, whether the speech in question has been brought under the notice of the Lord Chancellor?
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH): The newspaper report of the speech in question was brought under the notice of the Lord Chancellor, who at once demanded an explanation. Major Johnston thereupon denied the language and action imputed to him, and the Lord Chancellor apprised him that he would closely observe his conduct in future. If any further reports should reach the Lord Chancellor he will at once investigate them.
    MR. SEXTON: Will the right hon. Baronet have any objection to bring under the notice of the Lord Chancellor any other magistrate in Ulster who within the last year delivered speeches in violation of the ordinary Criminal Law?
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: Anything that happened would be brought under the notice of the Lord Chancellor at the time. This matter happened in December, and what the hon. Member refers to happened, I think, in June.

    NAVY—PEMBROKE DOCKYARD—DEFECTIVE SHEERS.
    ADMIRAL MAYNEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether it is intended to replace the present obsolete and decayed sheers at Pembroke by efficient sheers capable of lifting the boilers and machinery into the Aurora and Nile now building there, and any large ships which may be built there; if not, will it be the most economical course, and consistent with safety, to launch these vessels as mere shells and tow them round to other yards in a state of utter

    703
    helplessness to be engined and completed?
    THE FIRST LORD (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON): The expense of replacing the sheers at Pembroke will be very considerable, and could not be effected in time to place the Aurora's machinery on board. The Admiralty do not feel justified in incurring the expense of new sheers solely for the Nile's machinery, being of opinion that it would be more advantageous and economical to tow the ship to Portsmouth. Such a removal it is considered can, under proper precautions, be made with perfect safety.

    SASINES OFFICE, EDINBURGH—REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE.
    MR. FRASER-MACKINTOSHasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether he will lay upon the Table a Return showing the annual Revenue and Expenditure of the Office of Sasines, Edinburgh, from 1876–7 to 1886–7 (in continuation of the Return made in the year 1877)?
    THE SECRETARY (MR. JACKSON): I stated on Tuesday last, in answer to the hon. Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. M'Ewan), that a separate account is not kept of the amount received in fees from each branch of the General Register House; and I am, therefore, unable to give the Return of the revenue and expenditure of the Sasines Office which the hon. Gentleman asks me to furnish.

    POST OFFICE—MAIL SERVICE TO THE ISLAND OF HARRIS.
    MR. FRASER-MACKINTOSHasked the Secretary for Scotland, Whether, in reply to a Memorial from the inhabitants of Harris, the Under Secretary, on 9th November last, in a letter addressed to Captain Paterson, at Tarbert, of Harris, promised—
    "A service of steamers which will call at Harris and connect the Island with Oban on the one hand, and Strome Ferry viâ Portree on the other;"
    whether he is aware that the Postmaster General has since declined to connect Harris by steam postal service either with Oban or Strome Ferry; and, whether he will use his influence with the Postal Authorities to procure the facilities desired by the people of Harris?
    THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): In the letter referred to by the hon. Member, it was stated by my desire that arrangements were under consideration which would meet the wishes of the inhabitants of Harris in the manner indicated in tie Question; but financial difficulties have, unfortunately, arisen, which I will endeavour to remove by further communication with the Treasury.

    WAR OFFICE (ORDNANCE DEPARTMENT)—THE BOXER MARTINI-HENRY CARTRIDGES.
    COLONEL HUGHES-HALLETTasked the Surveyor General of the Ordnance, Whether, with regard to the 45,000,000 Boxer Martini-Henry cartridges made yearly, the cartridge cases are manufactured entirely by the Royal Arsenal at Woolwich, or whether any are made for the Government by private manufacturing firms, and if he will give the names of the firms; and, if he can state the cost per 1,000 at which they are manufactured for the Government, either by the Royal Arsenal or by a private firm?
    THE SURVEYOR GENERAL (Mr. NORTHCOTE): I am informed that the whole of the rolled-case cartridges for the Martini-Henry Rifle are manufactured in the Royal Laboratory at Woolwich, and that their cost is £3 2s. per 1,000 B.S. No. 1.

    ARMY—PURCHASE OF HORSES FOR MILITARY SERVICE.
    COLONEL HUGHES-HALLETTasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether his attention has been called to statements in the Press that Foreign Governments are largely purchasing horses for their military requirements at the various horse fairs in this country, especially in the North; and, whether Her Majesty's Government have recently purchased and are still contemplating the purchase of horses for their own military requirements in Canada and other parts of our Colonies?
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. E. STANHOPE): I think that my hon. and gallant Friend will find that this Question has practically been already answered. The

    705
    First Lord of the Treasury stated on Thursday last that Her Majesty's Government did not consider that necessity had arisen for restraining the exportation of horses; and I explained a few days ago our intention of purchasing horses in Canada, and the reasons for that measure.

    SKYE CROFTERS—WITHDRAWAL OF POLICE.
    MR. PATRICK O'BRIENasked the Lord Advocate, Whether two detective officers are at present, and have been since the termination of the military occupation of Skye, acting as bodyguard to Sheriff Ivory in Edinburgh; and, if so, if he can state whether it is the city of Edinburgh or the county of Inverness that will have to bear the expense of thus protecting the sheriff from apprehended crofter violence?
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD), in reply, said, it was not the case that two detectives were at present, and had been, acting as a bodyguard for Sheriff Ivory in Edinburgh. That made it unnecessary for him to answer the latter part of the Question.

    BURIALS ACTS—BROMPTON CEMETERY.
    MR. BAGGALLAYasked the First Commissioner of Works, What is the acreage of Brompton Cemetery; how many burials have taken place there since its establishment in 1837; what is the yearly average at the present time; and to what extent and under what conditions are coffins allowed to be placed one above the other; whether the local health statistics show that the area immediately surrounding the cemetery is far more unhealthy than any other part of West London; and whether, considering the enormous increase in recent years of population in the neighbourhood, any limit will be fixed to the number of interments; and, does the Government derive any profit from the cemetery?
    THE FIRST COMMISSIONER (Mr. PLUNKET): Brompton Cemetery contains in ail 38 acres and 20 perches. There now remain available for future graves 4 acres and 34 perches. Since the first burial in
    706
    Brompton Cemetery, in 1840 up to the 26th of February last, there have taken place 135,617 burials. The average number of burials in the last three years is, in round numbers, 5,000. The graves are of different depths, and the coffins are placed in the ground subject to restrictions laid down by the Home Office. I have not been able to ascertain the health statistics of the neighbourhood; but it is stated to me that the neighbourhood is not more unhealthy in consequence of the existence of the cemetery, which has sufficient open space about it. No limit can, unless by Act of Parliament, be fixed to the number of interments, except that each year there is less space available for the purpose. The Government does derive a profit, which was last year £7,070, from the cemetery. This is paid over to the Paymaster General.
    MR. BAGGALLAYinquired whether there were burials in old graves?
    MR. PLUNKETsaid, that interments took place according to bye-laws framed by the Home Office.

    IRISH LAND COMMISSION—PURCHASERS OF GLEBE LAND.
    MR. REYNOLDSasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the Irish Land Commission are taking proceedings in a large number of cases against glebe purchasers under the Irish Church Act for the purpose of foreclosing the mortgages held by the Commission for the instalments of purchase money; and, if so, whether he will state in how many cases such proceedings are pending?
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH), in reply, said, that the Irish Land Commissioners had informed him that there were 47 cases in which such proceedings had been taken as the hon. Member referred to.
    MR. REYNOLDSasked if the claims of the glebe purchasers would be considered by the Government in connection with the projected legislation on the Land Question?
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHwas understood to say that they would.

    MAURITIUS—SIR GEORGE BOWEN.
    MR. HENNIKER HEATONasked the Secretary of State for

    707
    the Colonies, Will he state the dates of Sir George Bowen's appointment and resignation of the Government of Mauritius; the actual time he was on the island during his Government; the amount of Money he received while on leave, and while administering the Government; and, will he give similar information regarding Sir George Bowen's Governorship of Hong Hong, and the amount of pension on which Sir George Bowen retires?
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir HENRY HOLLAND): It is not desirable to lay a Return upon the Table; but I will briefly give the information asked for. Sir George Bowen assumed the Government of Mauritius on the 4th of April, 1879, and received full salary (60,000 rupees per annum) from that date to the 9th of December, 1880; being in the island 20 months and six days. He was then on leave with half salary (30,000 rupees per annum) for two years. On the 9th of December, 1882, he was appointed Governor of Hong Kong; he assumed the Government on the 3rd March, 1883, and drew full pay (24,000 dols. per annum) till the 20th of December, 1885. He was granted leave on half salary (at the rate of 12,000 dols. per annum) from the 20th of December, 1885, till the 19th of June, 1887; but he will return to resume the Government of Hong Kong before the expiration of that leave. During his previous service of 29 years Sir George Bowen had had only 18 months' leave; and his leave from Mauritius and Hong Kong has been granted under strong medical certificates.

    POST OFFICE—THE SUBMARINE CABLE COMPANY.
    MR. HENNIKER HEATONasked the Postmaster General, Whether he can state the amount of money paid to the Submarine Cable Company for conveying messages from England to France and from France to England last year; also, the total amount paid to the Company for Continental messages last year?
    THE POSTMASTER GENERAL(MR. RAIKES): I do not think I am in a position to give a categorical answer to the hon. Member's Question; but it may interest him to know that the Post Office received during the year 1886 on account of Anglo-
    708
    French messages the sum of £37,906; and that the total earnings of the Post Office under the joint purse arrangements with the Submarine Telegraph Company were for the same year £132,223.

    ARMY (MANUFACTURING DEPARTMENT)—MANUFACTURE OF STEEL AT WOOLWICH.
    MR. MUNDELLAasked the Secretary of State for War, If he can state the total amount of steel produced in the Government Factories at Woolwich in the years 1884, 1885, and 1886 respectively; and, what has been the heaviest weight of any single casting in each of those years?
    MR. HOWARD VINCENTsaid, that, before his right hon. Friend answered that Question, he should like to ask him whether the undertaking he gave the other day as to the Government employment of the steel trade applied to large ingots only, or to all the gun forgings required by the War Department?
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. E. STANHOPE): The steel produced at Woolwich during the last three years has been as follows:—In 1883–4, 1,564tons; in 1884–5, 1,698 tons; in 1885–6, 2,279 tons. The heaviest single casting in each of the first two years was about 19 tons, and in the last year about 12 tons. In reply to the second Question, I have to state that my answer applied to forgings of all sizes; and I propose, subject to unforeseen contingencies, during the coming financial year to give to the trade nearly three-fourths of all the gun forgings which may be required.

    ARMY—THE IMPERIAL INSTITUTE— THE RAGLAN BARRACKS.
    MR. CONYBEAREasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is the fact, as stated in The Western Daily Mercury of the 24th instant, that at the Raglan Barracks—
    "an officer addressed his company in compliance with his orders, and told them frankly that he did not intend himself to give to the Imperial Institute scheme, and that they need not subscribe, if they were indisposed to do so," and that "there was not a single favourable response;"
    whether the officers of the Army generally have received orders to canvass

    709
    their men; whether such orders directed them to inform their men that
    "they need not subscribe if they were indisposed to do so;"
    and, in how many cases, where such liberty of choice has been afforded, a favourable response has been returned?
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. E. STANHOPE): The officers of the Army have not received orders to canvass their men for subscriptions to the Imperial Institute. As to the other Questions of the hon. Member, I have no information.
    MR. CONYBEAREasked the right hon. Gentleman whether he could obtain such information?
    MR. E. STANHOPEsaid, it was not his business to ask whether officers or the Army subscribed to that or any other object.

    LAW OF EVIDENCE-EVIDENCE OF ACCUSED PERSONS.
    MR. ADDISONasked Mr. Attorney General, Whether the Government propose to bring in, during this Session, a Bill enabling persons accused of crimes to give evidence in their own behalf?
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER): The hon. and learned Member is, doubtless, aware that a Bill dealing with the matter referred to in the Question was introduced on Thursday last in the House of Lords by Lord Bramwell, and received the support of the Lord Chancellor. Her Majesty's Government hope that the Bill in question may be carried through both Houses and become law during the present Session. I wish to add that Her Majesty's Government had prepared a Bill dealing with the matter.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: Did I understand the hon. and learned Gentleman to say that it is intended that this Bill shall apply to Ireland? Because, if so, I shall oppose it in the strongest manner?
    [No reply.]

    POST OFFICE (IRELAND)—THE GRANGEGEITH LETTER CARRIER.
    MR. O'HANLONasked the Postmaster General, Is he aware that the people in the district of Grangegeith have been, and still are, paying out of their private purse the wages of
    710
    a letter carrier and the rent of a post, office in their district for over eight months; will he try and hasten the inquiry so long promised by him; and, will he also say when the inquiry will be made into this matter, which is in itself a great grievance and hardship to the people of this particular district?
    THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES): The facts are, I believe, accurately stated by the hon. Member. I can assure him that I shall carry out my promise to institute an inquiry into them, and I shall lose no time in communicating to him the result; but for obvious reasons it would not be desirable to announce in advance the time at which the inquiry will be made.

    LUNACY LAWS—ALLEGED DETENTION OF A FEMALE.
    MR. W. J. CORBETasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, The result of the inquiries promised into the confinement in a lunatic asylum for seven years of a female, alleged to be of sound mind, and whose case was recently under the notice of the Board of Guardians of Paddington Union?
    THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. STUART-WORTLEY)(who replied) said: Perhaps the hon. Member will allow me to answer the Question. I have made inquiry, and have ascertained that the woman referred to in the Question was not an inmate of a county asylum, but of the asylum at Darenth, belonging to the Managers of the Metropolitan Asylums Board. The President of the Local Government Board has accordingly taken up the matter, and is making inquiries as to the case.

    POST OFFICE—POSTAGE RATES FOR INDIA.
    MR. KINGasked the Postmaster General, Whether, in view of the fact that, as lately stated by him, the price of postage of letters to India and China is only charged at the rate of 1½d. per half ounce to the Governments of France, Belgium, and Germany, whilst the price to British merchants is as high as 5d. per half ounce; any steps are being, or will be, taken to abolish this anomaly, and to reduce

    711
    the rate to India and China to 2½d. per half ounce?
    THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES): The low sea rate charged to foreign countries for letters carried by British Mail Packets to India and China is fixed by the Postal Union Convention; and, as a matter of reciprocity, this country has the right to send letters, on equal terms, to parts beyond sea by foreign steamers so far as they are available. The hon. Member is, perhaps, not aware that the sea conveyance is only part of the cost incurred by this country in sending letters to India and China. There is besides a foreign transit rate for the accelerated train service through France and Italy, amounting to another 1½d. per half ounce; a charge which is not incurred by either France or Italy for their own letters. The question of reducing the British postage from 5d. to 2½d. is one for the consideration of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

    EVICTIONS (IRELAND)—EVICTIONS IN LEITRIM.
    MR. CONWAYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention had been called to a report in the London Standard, of Friday, 25th February, in which is set forth a record of the proceedings of Mr. Smith, R.M., and the police under his charge, in connection with the carrying out evictions on the property of Mr. Montgomery, of Dowra, County Leitrim; whether Mr. Smith directed the police to charge with their bâtons the crowd gathered together to witness the proceedings; whether, subsequently, Mr. Smith gave orders for the police to load their rifles with buckshot, and ordered them to fire, when a number of people fell wounded; how many persons are seriously injured; whether any deaths are likely to result from injuries inflicted by the police; and, whether the Government will take steps to ensure the fullest inquiry into the whole of the proceedings?
    SIR JOHN SWINBURNEasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he can state under what circumstances Mr. Smith, R.M., ordered an escort of police under his command to fire upon a crowd at Dowra, County Leitrim, on Thursday last; what was the injury
    712
    caused by the firing; and, if any loss of life ensued?
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH): I have obtained a full Report on this subject, and I would ask the House to allow me to quote from it at some length, as it shows the difficulties under which the police have to act on these occasions, and what is really meant by what the hon. Member (Mr. Conway) called "crowds gathered to witness the proceedings." The Sub-Sheriff of Leitrim proceeded last week, in the discharge of his duty, to carry out a small number of evictions in the neighbourhood of Dowra. Notwithstanding the fact that he was accompanied by a protecting force of 100 police, he was met by obstruction so violent and obstinate that the work occupied two days, the police on the second day being on duty for 13 hours. The mobs were composed, mainly of strangers gathered in from other districts. The stone-throwing was excessively violent—so much, so that the majority of the 100 police on duty, officers and men, were wounded more or less severely. One constable was rendered insensible for some time. On the first day there was no firing. The mob was charged by a party of bâton men. No woman or child was bâtoned. After this the crowds, though they continued stone-throwing, kept at a distance. On the second day the violent resistance was renewed, and it was greatly facilitated by the nature of the ground. After traversing a road which had been found blocked by loose stone walls and bushes, the Sheriff had to pass through a narrow defile, flanked by steep hills. The hills were occupied by parties of men, who flung volleys of stones, and hurled down large boulders, which were dashed with great force across the road. These people had to be dislodged before the Sheriff could be conducted through the defile; and this was done with difficulty, after the Riot Act had been read, but not until one round of buckshot had been fired. Later on, in order to reach, one of the houses, the Sheriff and his party had to ascend a very steep hill, when they were so violently assailed by the mob that it was found impossible to proceed until after 12 shots had been fired by the police. The crowds then moved off and commenced to reconstruct the barricades on

    713
    the road by which, it was thought the police would return. The order to fire was only given as a last resort. Without it the execution of the writs must have been abandoned. It is not easy to get accurate information as to the result of the firing; but it is believed by the police that two persons were wounded, one badly. If any statement on this subject calling for inquiry is brought under my notice, inquiry shall be made. But at present I prefer to believe the Report from which I have quoted to newspaper gossip; and, judging from that, it is my opinion that the officers and men employed on this service did their duty well.
    DR. TANNERasked the right hon. gentleman to state whether, according to the medical evidence, the police were really injured, or whether it was only bogus?
    [No reply.]
    SIR JOHN SWINBURNEasked if the right hon. Gentleman had taken steps to ascertain how many persons had been injured, and killed, and wounded?
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, he had already answered that, so far as the police had been able to ascertain, two persons had been wounded.

    NORTH AMERICAN FISHERIES—THE FISHERY QUESTION.
    DR. TANNERasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether his attention had been drawn to the following cablegram:—
    "New York, Feb. 24.—A Convention of smack-owners and others connected with the fishing interest has met at Gloucester, Massachusetts, and adopted Resolutions in favour of retaliatory measures against Canada."—Reuter;
    and, whether any measures are being taken by the Government to reconcile the differences existing between the United States of America and Great Britain on this Fishery Question?
    THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON): I am aware of the paragraph quoted by the hon. Member, and of other news showing the strong feeling entertained in the United States in regard to the Canadian Fishery Question. Her Majesty's Government are giving to the subject the earnest attention which the importance of the matter requires.

    ADMIRALTY—COALING STATIONS— THE SEYCHELLES.
    DR. TANNERasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether his attention has been drawn to the present unsatisfactory arrangements for coaling British ships of war in the Seychelles; whether this was pointed out by the late General Gordon in his Report upon the defences of the Seychelles; whether the agent for the Messageries Maritimes is also Consular Agent for France; whether, as agent to the Messageries, he commands nearly a monopoly of the coaling wharves; whether, in consequence of the decision of the Directors of the Messageries to make the Seychelles their tête de ligne in these waters on the Australian route, the agent has applied that the space between the coal island and that on the main pier should be filled in and let to the Messageries Maritimes; and, what measures the Admiralty intend taking to prevent a coaling monopoly in those islands being formed under foreign guidance and control?
    THE FIRST LORD (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON): My attention has not been specially drawn to the point referred to in this Question, but inquiries will be made into the subject. General Gordon's Report being confidential, I am not at liberty to refer to it. The Consular Agent for France is also agent for the Messageries Maritimes, and as the only coal importer he has practically a monopoly. This application should be made to the Colonial Office or to the Local Authorities, as we have no information on the subject. Pending an inquiry into the subject, I am unable to say what steps it may be proposed to take in the matter.

    CRIME AND OUTRAGE (IRELAND)— SAMUEL DOWNING—CO. KERRY.
    Mr. SHEEHANasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, at Kilgarvan, County Kerry, on the 9th instant, a poor man named Samuel Downing was fired at by a Captain Taylor and his son, and brutally beaten by Captain Taylor with his gun, who left him (Downing) insensible on the road; whether the authorities have taken any steps for the arrest of Taylor and his son; whether the presiding magistrate at Kilgarvan Petty

    715
    Sessions Court, on 15th instant, refused to grant informations; and, whether a magistrate of the county (in Kenmare) refused to grant Downing information or a warrant for their (Taylors') arrest, although a gentleman well-known to the magistrate said he would make an affidavit that Taylor absconded?
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH): The circumstances, which are not accurately described in the Question, are about to form the subject of judicial investigation, as the police have received instructions to prosecute Captain Taylor for assault in the event of Downing failing to proceed himself. I cannot, therefore, make any detailed statement on the subject at present.

    AFRICA (EAST)—PORTUGAL—THE ZANZIBAR COAST.
    DR. CAMERONasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether his attention has been called to a telegram from Mr. H. M. Stanley, dated Zanzibar, 24th February, published in The Times of Friday, in which it is alleged that Portugal has seized upon a portion of the Zanzibar Coast, which a Commission had recently adjudicated to Seyyid Bargash in return for the surrender of important rights in the interior to England and Germany; that a steamer belonging to the Sultan had been seized and converted into a Portuguese transport; and that the Bombay Mail, carried by the Sultan's steamer Malacca, was detained, the Captain fearing capture by a Portuguese cruiser; and whether he can give the House any information on the matter; whether it is true, as stated, that Portuguese subjects at Zanzibar have been taken under the protection of Germany; and, whether any steps have been taken for the protection of British subjects and interests?
    THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON): It is true that the Portuguese Government have seized upon a portion of the African Coast held since 1854 by the Sultans of Muscat and Zanzibar. It is not quite correct to say that a Commission had recently adjudicated that territory to His Highness. A Commission consisting of Representatives of England, France, and Germany, found that the territory in question was
    716
    held by the Sultan and reported accordingly; but this declaration was not in return for the surrender of rights in the interior. A steamer belonging to the Sultan has been seized by them and converted into a Portuguese transport. The Portuguese Government have sent orders to their naval commander not to interfere with any Zanzibar vessels except those carrying arms or munitions to Tungi. It is, therefore, understood that the mail steamer will not be interfered with. It is true that Portuguese subjects at Zanzibar have been taken under the protection of Germany. British subjects and interests are protected by Her Majesty's Consul, and by Her Majesty's ships on the Station, but trade is inevitably impeded by the state of affairs. Her Majesty's Government, in conjunction with that of Germany, are taking steps at Lisbon and Zanzibar which they hope will lead to an amicable solution of the difficulty.

    STATE OF IRELAND—PROHIBITION OF MEETING AT COOLGREANY.
    Mr. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the Government question the legality of the purpose announced in the placard convening the Coolgreany meeting; whether he an cite any judicial decision establishing the right of the Lord Lieutenant, at common law, to prohibit the holding of such a meeting; and, if not, whether he can say upon what authority it is intended that the Lord Lieutenant possesses such a power; whether the attendance of Sir Thomas Esmonde at a public meeting on the day appointed for the Coolgreany meeting was the sole cause of his removal from the office of High Sheriff of Waterford; when the Lords Justices who superseded Sir Thomas Esmonde were sworn into office; when they inquired into the case of Sir Thomas Esmonde; when the order for his supercession was made and issued; when the order for the appointment of his successor was made and issued; when and where Colonel Hillier was sworn into office; and, whether any communication was made to Sir Thomas Esmonde inviting him to explain the circumstances which led to his supercession?
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH):

    717
    The Coolgreany meeting was not pro claimed on account of any tiling in the placard convening the meeting, but on account of what the Government had good reason to believe was the object and would be the effect of it, and what took place in the attempt to hold it put that beyond doubt. Judges have repeatedly laid down that an unlawful assembly may be dispersed by the conservators of the public peace, and Proclamations have frequently been issued by successive Lord Lieutenants warning persons against attending such meetings and of the consequences of their doing so. The Lords Justices removed Sir Thomas Esmonde for the reasons stated in their letter, which referred to previous conduct as well as to his attendance at these meetings. They were sworn into office early in the morning of the 21st instant, and inquired fully into the case as it stood in connection with the events of the preceding day. The office of High Sheriff is held "during pleasure," and can be determined at any time. When a new High Sheriff is appointed there is never any separate order for the supercession of his predecessor. The order for the appointment of Colonel Hillier was made on the 21st instant, and he was sworn into office the next day in Dublin according to law. No communication was made to Sir Thomas Esmonde beyond that which was published.
    MR. SEXTONasked if the right hon. Gentleman could give any precedent for the removal of a High Sheriff by Lords Justices and not by the Lord Lieutenant, and any precedent for the supercession of a High Sheriff without previous notice or invitation to him to explain his conduct?
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: It is impossible for me to give an answer without Notice.
    MR. T. M. HEALYasked whether the frequent proclamations of meetings to which the right hon. Gentleman had referred were not all issued under statute—that was to say, under the Crimes Act; and whether the proclamations which had been issued by the late Liberal Government had not been issued under the provisions of the statute?
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: No, Sir. Proclamations have been issued when the Crimes Act was not in force.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: What were the dates?
    [No reply.]

    BRITISH HONDURAS.
    MR. MARJORIBANKSasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether a Memorial has been received from British Honduras, praying that the present Governor be not again sent back to that Colony; and, what steps Her Majesty's Government intend to take in the matter?
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir HENRY HOLLAND): No such Memorial has been received.

    THE INDIAN OCEAN—THE SEYCHELLES—MR. CLIFFORD LLOYD.
    MR. CAREWasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether Mr. Clifford Lloyd has left the Seychelles, and is now in this country; and, whether he still occupies the post of Governor at the Seychelles, or whether his services have been dispensed with; and, if so, on what grounds?
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir HENRY HOLLAND): Mr. Clifford Lloyd never went to the Seychelles, having left Mauritius for England on sick leave before the Secretary of State's despatch appointing him to act as Chief Civil Commissioner of Seychelles reached Mauritius. He is now in this country. He has never occupied the post referred to, having remained in England on leave since his return from Mauritius. The Chief Civil Commissioner, whose place it was intended last year that he should temporarily fill, will shortly resume the duties of this office, and Mr. Lloyd's services will not be required.
    DR. TANNERasked whether Mr. Clifford Lloyd had come home in connection with the removal of the late Governor of Mauritius?
    SIR HENRY HOLLAND: No, Sir; he has not. He has come here on sick leave.

    INLAND REVENUE—THE DOG TAX.
    Mr. COGHILLasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether the Dog Tax is at present evaded in the great majority of cases; whether he will undertake to remove the existing exemption from it—

    719
    "of dogs kept solely for the purpose of tending sheep or cattle on a farm and by shepherds;"
    and, whether, for the protection of the public and in the interests of the Exchequer, he will consider the advisability of increasing the Tax to 10 s.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN): In answer to the first part of the Question I should not say that the Dog Tax is evaded in the great majority of cases, although, doubtless, there is much evasion. I cannot undertake to comply with the request contained in the second part of the Question. With reference to the third part of the Question, I have to say that I am not prepared to advise an increase of the tax to 10 s. The hon. Member also sent me private Notice of the following Question:—Whether anumbered metal-ticket should not accompany every dog licence, and owners be compelled to attach this ticket to the collars of their dogs? I am not prepared, upon such short notice, to agree to such a suggestion as this; but I may say that I think the practice which the hon. Member advocates would be very inconvenient both to owners and dogs.

    LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (IRELAND)—THE BANKERS' ACCOUNT OF THE MACROOM BOARD OF GUARDIANS.
    DR. TANNERasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether it is a fact that the Board has declined to accept or recognize the reasons set forth in an unanimous Resolution of the Macroom Board of Guardians on the 29th January for changing the accounts of the Union from the National Bank (Limited) to the Munster and Leinster Bank (Limited), and whether the Board are now prepared to sanction such a change; what were the reasons which actuated the Local Government Board in refusing to sanction the change of treasurership; whether it is a fact that the National Bank dishonoured the cheques presented by the Union at first, when their overdraft did not exceed £1,493 1s. 5d., and, secondly, when the overdraft was diminished to £1,077 6s. 1d.; whether such action on the part of the said bank has seriously embarrassed the Union for several months, most of the officials and contractors not having been paid for
    720
    several months; whether several of the contractors have threatened to discontinue supplies; whether the Munster and Leinster Bank offered the Union accommodation to the extent of £2,000; and, whether the Local Government Board will see fit to sanction and promote the change of treasurer in the said Union?
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH)(who replied) said: This Question only appeared on Saturday, and the required information has, therefore, not yet been received from the Clerk of the Union at Macroom.

    EVICTIONS (IRELAND)—BANBRIDGE BOARD OF GUARDIANS.
    MR. M'CARTANasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to a report which appeared in The Belfast Morning News, of the 22nd February, of a meeting of the Banbridge Board of Guardians, held on the previous day; whether a relieving officer named Beck reported to the Board that he had been served with eight notices of intended evictions on the estate of Earl Annesley, and that he had not been informed of the date on which, the evictions would take place; whether several weeks often elapse between the service of notice on the relieving officer and the execution of ejectment degree by the Sheriff; and, whether the Government will require reasonable notice to be given to the relieving officer of the day appointed for carrying out those evictions, or if some other provision will be made to secure support and habitation for the tenants and their families pending their return to their homes?
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH): I have to thank the hon. Member for having been good enough to send me a copy of the newspaper report to which he refers. I am not aware of any reason to doubt its accuracy; but the hon. Member did not give such notice of the Question as would have enabled me to confirm it by local inquiry. Assuming it to be correct, I am glad to see that the Guardians and the relieving officer appear to be fully alive to their duties and responsibilities in the event of relief being required by any evicted persons. I have no information before me to show

    721
    that a change in the law is required, or that where Boards of Guardians and their officers are acting in the discharge of their duties the objects of the statute passed for the protection and relief of the evicted poor are not attained.

    DRAINAGE AND NAVIGATION—SHAN-NON DRAINAGE AND NAVIGATION WORKS—LECARROW HARBOUR.
    MR. O'KELLYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the Report of the Royal Commissioners, presented to Parliament on 8th February 1882, recommended that the Commissioners of Public Works of Ireland should carry on their operations on the Shannon with a view primarily to the drainage of the country; whether the Canal, under the control of the Commissioners, leading from the Harbour of Lecarrow, County Rosecommon, to Lough Kee is a portion of the Shannon Drainage and Navigation Works; whether it has been allowed to be choked up with weeds and silted mud to the detriment of riparian owners and tenants; and, whether he will call the attention of the Commissioner of Public Works to the subject?
    THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON)(who replied) said: Lord Monck's Commission recommended that the Shannon should remain under the care of the Commissioners of Public Works, who, while maintaining the navigation should regulate the depth of water, so far as might be in their power, with a view primarily to the drainage of the country. This recommendation is, and has been, most scrupulously attended to. The Lecarrow Canal was constructed by the Shannon Commissioners as a temporary measure and solely for facilitating the execution of the works, but was treated for a few years as part of the navigation. There being no traffic, it was given up 15 years ago, and is now in great part choked with weeds and silted. I have communicated with the Commissioners of Public Works and learn that, the water surface being on a level with Lough Kee, the riparian owners and tenants could not be benefited unless Lough Kee were lowered, and this could not be done, looking to the necessity of insuring the preservation of the legal navigation depth, without incurring enormous expenditure.

    THE WATCH TRADE—HALL-MARKING OF WATCH CASES—MERCHANDIZE MARKS ACT (1862) AMENDMENT BILL.
    MR. KIMBERasked the Secretary to the Board of Trade, Whether Her Majesty's Government will accept the introduction of a Clause into the Merchandize Marks Act (1862) Amendment Bill exempting watch cases from the compulsory obligation of assay in the United Kingdom, as recommended by Mr. Prideaux, Clerk of the Goldsmiths' Company of London, in his evidence before the Select Company of Hail-Marking (1878–9); and, whether Her Majesty's Government will confer with the Goldsmiths' Company of London before proceeding with the Bill, especially with reference to the results to the watch-making industry to be expected from the passing of the measure in its present form?
    THE SECRETARY (Baron HENRY DE WORMS): The particular question raised by the hon. Member can properly be discussed when the Bill is in Committee. I may say, however, that the Board of Trade have been, and are in communication with the Goldsmiths' Company as regards the Watch Clause of the Bill; and that, as at present advised, they do not see their way to exempting watch cases from the provisions of the law as regards hallmarking.

    AGRICULTURAL LABOURERS' ALLOTMENTS.
    MR. WALSHasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to introduce at an early date a Bill for facilitating the acquisition of allotments by agricultural labourers?
    THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): It is the intention of the Government to introduce a measure of this character as soon as the state of Public Business will allow.

    THE QUEEN'S JUBILEE CELEBRATION —SPECIAL SERVICE IN WESTMINSTER ABBEY.
    MR. JOHNSTONasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether it is intended to hold a Special Service in Westminster Abbey on Monday the 20th of June, in commemoration of the fiftieth anniversary of the accession of

    723
    the Queen, and if he will recommend to Her Majesty to direct the Archbishops and Bishops to prepare a special form of thanksgiving and prayer for that occasion for general use throughout England and Wales, and also take steps to secure the observance of the day as a general holiday?
    THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): In answer to a question which last week I asked the hon. Member for the Tradeston Division of Glasgow (Mr. Corbett) to postpone till I could consult my Colleagues, and also in answer to the present Question, I wish to state that Her Majesty has been pleased to express her pleasure to attend a Thanksgiving Service on Tuesday, the 21st of June, at Westminster Abbey, and arrangements fitting for the occasion will be made. It is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to recommend that the day shall be observed as a national holiday.
    MR. SEXTON: May I ask if the Government would request the hon. Gentleman to facilitate this laudable purpose by producing a prayer of his own?
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

    ARMY AND NAVY ESTIMATES—REFERENCE TO A SELECT COMMITTEE.
    MR. MASONasked the First Lord of the Treasury, When the Government intend to move for a Committee to refer the Army and Navy Estimates for examination and report; what the constitution of the Committee is to be; and, whether a Select or Standing Committee?
    THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. H. SMITH): After the first Votes have been, taken the Army and Navy Estimates will be referred to a Select Committee, which will have power to send for persons and records and to take evidence. My right hon. Friend, in introducing the Estimates of the above-mentioned Departments, will state to the House what the constitution of the Committee will be.

    AMERICA (SOUTH)—VENEZUELA—SUSPENSION OF DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS.
    MR. HOWARD VINCENTasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether it is true that diplomatic relations
    724
    with the Government of Venezuela have been suspended?
    THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON): It is the case that Her Majesty's Government received intelligence that diplomatic relations would be suspended between Her Majesty's Government and the Republic of Venezuela on the 21st instant. We understand that the cause of the suspension is stated to be the difference about the frontier between British Guiana and Venezuela.

    BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (RULES OF PROCEDURE).
    In reply to Mr. CURZON (Lancashire, Southport):
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH)said, It is the intention of the Government to put down the Rules of Procedure for consideration to-morrow. I am not yet in a position to offer facilities for the discussion of any other subjects, however important, and I must decline to enter into engagements which I may not be able to fulfil.

    PARLIAMENT—ORDER—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—NOTICE OF MOTION ON GOING INTO COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY.
    MR. SEXTON: Sir, I gave you Notice of a Motion which I proposed to submit on the Motion that you leave the Chair for the purpose of enabling the House to go into Committee of Supply. I do not find my Notice on the Paper, and, therefore, I wish to know whether you have ruled it to be out of Order?
    MR. SPEAKER: This being a Monday, and the first Order of the day being for the consideration of Supplementary Estimates in Committee of Supply, it will be my duty the moment the Order is read to leave the Chair, without putting the Question.
    MR. SEXTON: Shall I have any other opportunity of bringing the Motion forward?
    MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member will have an opportunity of moving the Resolution of which he has given Notice when the regular Estimates come on.

    METROPOLIS—CHURCH PARADE OF SOCIALISTS AT ST. PAUL'S CATHEDRAL.
    MR. DIXON-HARTLAND: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether the accounts of the proceedings in St. Paul's Cathedral yesterday have been brought under his notice; and, if so, whether he will give such orders to the police, as will, in future, prevent the recurrence of such disgraceful scenes?
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): I have seen the newspaper accounts of what took place in St. Paul's yesterday. Those accounts appear to me to be considerably exaggerated. From an interview I have had to-day with one of the officers of the City Police, who are not under my jurisdiction, I have no doubt that in future they will act vigorously in order to prevent any recurrence of the disturbance.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICES (SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1886–7).
    SUPPLY—considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)

    CLASS I.—PUBLIC WORKS AND BUILDINGS.
    (1.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £825, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which, will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1887, for the Maintenance and Repair of Marlborough House."
    MR. BRADLAUGH: I have no desire to detain the Committee on this Vote, which is a Vote for the repairs of Marlborough House. The expenditure in the repairs of Marlborough House have, in some years, been very large indeed, and there is no good reason now for this supplementary increase; but my real desire is to secure that all the items connected with the cost of the Royal Family shall, in future, be placed under one head, so that the total may be easily and certainly known, and that the various items shall not be distributed in different parts of the Estimates,
    726
    and only discoverable with official knowledge.
    MR. CONYBEARE: I understand that this item is for the repairs of Marlborough House. Now, Marlborough House is occupied by the Prince of Wales, and I want to know why the Prince of Wales does not undertake the repairs of his own house himself?
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 209; Noes 99: Majority 110.—(Div. List, No. 28.)
    (2.) £8,200, Supplementary, Houses of Parliament.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: I wish to ask, whether, as a matter of fact, there are not some surpluses under other sub-heads in connection with this Vote which ought to render this expenditure unnecessary?
    THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. PLUNKET): As the Committee are aware, this sum is asked for in connection with the works which have been undertaken for improving the drainage of the Houses of Parliament, and the work is being carried out in accordance with the Report of a Committee which sat last year to inquire into the sanitary arrangements of the House.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: Then the sum asked for is only in respect of this Vote. Before entering into the Supplementary Estimates, I think it should be incumbent on the Government to make a complete statement in regard to the whole Vote, as far as the different sub-heads are concerned. I am not objecting to this charge; but I only ask whether there may not have been savings under other heads which might be utilized in reduction of these charges?
    THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON): The total cost of the drainage works is £20,675; but there has been a saving under other sub-heads from which the balance of expenditure of the current year can be met; principally in connection with works for the restoration of Westminster Hall, in regard to which there will be a saving of £7,000. £5,000 will be included in next year's Estimates, and will complete the cost of the drainage works.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: I think that, in a case of this kind, the real facts ought to be laid before the Committee. The Committee votes certain sums of money to be appropriated for specific purposes. For two years in succession several thousands of pounds have been voted for the restoration of Westminster Hall; but, when something else turned up, the Government have considered themselves entitled to stay the work in Westminster Hall, and spend the money for some other object that has not been authorized by Parliament. I cannot help thinking that that is a very bad system; and, if I had not made the inquiry, the fact would not have been brought out now.
    MR. PLUNKET: The hon. Member is quite right; but I did not understand what his inquiry really was. It has been considered that this is the most convenient way of dealing with the matter. The works in connection with Westminster Hall were stayed in consequence of delays in the decisions of the House of Commons on the subject; and we have applied the money to other works which it was necessary to undertake at once. Among the other works undertaken have been the construction of a corridor which forms a new approach to the Strangers' Gallery, and which has cost £1,500. We have also supplied additional lockers for the use of hon. Members. They have often been asked for, and we have now made further provision in that respect, at a cost of £460, and there have been some slight improvements in the Reporters' Gallery.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL (Kirkcaldy, &c.): I should like to know whether the drainage is now working properly, and is likely to stave off the prospects of fever and those other disagreeable consequences we were threatened with last year. If that is so, I do not think the House of Commons will grudge the money; but, at the same time, I think this plan of voting money for one thing and doing something else with it after it has been voted, is a very unsatisfactory one.
    MR. EDWARD HARRINGTON: I should like to know how many additional lockers are to be given to Members of this House?
    MR. PLUNKET: We propose to supply as many as we can find space for, and the cost is estimated at £460.
    MR. EDWARD HARRINGTON: My object in asking the Question was to divide the sum voted by the number of lockers provided, in order that I might find out what the cost of each locker is.
    MR. PLUNKET: I can assure the hon. Member that these lockers are very expensive, and I have had a hard struggle with the Treasury, under the pressure of the House, to obtain leave to make them. I do not think it possible to make them more economically than we are doing. As regards the Question put by the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) I believe that the works are being carried out in a perfectly satisfactory manner.
    SIR HENRY ROSCOE: As Chairman of the Committee which has considered the subject of the drainage of the House, I may say that I believe the House will be thoroughly satisfied with the work which has been done. It has been done in a completely workmanlike manner, and in my opinion the House will not suffer as it did last year. I certainly trust the Committee will see the desirability of voting this sum. I am quite sure that it is money well spent.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: When we were considering this Vote last year, I drew the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the disadvantageous position in which Members of this House were placed as to the hearing of the House. I think I am in Order in referring to that subject now.
    THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS (Mr. COURTNEY): The hon. Gentleman will only be in Order in referring to the items under discussion now.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I understood that this Vote was the result of several Votes not set forth in the Estimate.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The discussion has been upon the item included in the Vote for the drainage scheme.
    DR. TANNER: We have now under consideration a Supplementary Estimate for new works and alterations connected with the Houses of Parliament. I can certainly say, speaking as a private Member knowing a little about sanitary arrangements, that there is an immense amount of money spent upon these buildings, and with very little effect. The state of the House

    729
    was found at the commencement of the Session to be very far from satisfactory. Upon one evening when the House was sitting a fog got into the building, which was so bad and so dense that I may legitimately refer to it as a November fog. I never saw a fog in the month of November worse than the fog which prevailed in this Chamber on the occasion to which I refer. I know that it was impossible at this end of the House to see the Speaker in the Chair, and I am afraid that the fogginess of the atmosphere may also have tended to obscure the intellect of the speakers. Therefore, I think that when we are asked to consider a Vote like this—a Supplementary Vote—and when we know the immense amount of money which has been and is being spent on the Houses of Parliament, we have a right to complain when we find matters so unsatisfactory as they have been. We ought not to ask the House to throw away the money of the taxpayers. Anybody who has ever looked into the subject—anybody who has seen proper appliances in connection with the filtration of the air and the atmosphere in other great public buildings, knows that the atmosphere can be rendered perfectly pure, and deprived of all those particles which we have here floating about us night after night. [Laughter.] Hon. Members may laugh; but I am afraid they are not thoroughly acquainted with the subject. I will put before the House an actual case in connection with one of the largest hospitals of Paris, the "Maison de Dieu." In that hospital the air is filtered through successive layers of cotton wool. Not long ago I was speaking with a gentleman of intelligence upon the subject, and he stated that a London fog could be thoroughly filtered in this House, and deprived of all its fogginess. What I complain of is that we are asked to come down here night after night, to take into consideration the expenditure of large sums of money without any practical result, and I am afraid that we are making ourselves a laughing-stock not merely for England, but for the world at large. [Laughter.] Hon. Members laugh. They are perfectly welcome to laugh and jeer at my observations; but I think that we ought to be here for some practical purpose, and that practical purpose, if we are to spend the Public Money, should be in return to secure
    730
    that we have some value for it. What I maintain is, that we get no value for our money. The smells in this House are so bad, that only the other night I heard 12 or 14 Members complain bitterly of the horrible state of affairs, especially in regard to the galleries leading to the tea room. There is a powerful stench still existing there, which ought to be done away with at once, and if this Vote is pressed, I for one am prepared to go into the Lobby against it. I ask the right hon. Gentleman who has the conduct of these Votes to make some statement as to what the actual state of affairs is, and what is proposed to be done. I have no desire to weary the House, and I thank it for its indulgence.
    MR. PLUNKET: I can only promise the hon. Member that if he will suggest to me how the evil he complains of can be remedied, I will have the matter inquired into. So far as the drainage works are concerned, for which the Vote is now asked, all I can say is that the works have been carried out to the entire satisfaction of Members in all parts of the House. Personally, I know of no plan of filtering the air which would prevent a fog from entering the House.
    MR. O'HEA: The right hon. Gentleman has stated that, according to his belief, these works are being carried on satisfactorily and with due regard to economy. I should like to know if they have been carried out by contract under specifications in due form similar to those which are made upon works of a similar nature are undertaken, outside this House.
    DR. TANNER: Let me remind the right hon. Gentleman (Mr.Plunket) that I did actually put a case in point in which the air has been filtered through successive layers of cotton wool, which are taken out and renewed every three or four days. Seeing then that what I suggest is already done elsewhere, I think the matter is one which deserves the consideration of the right hon. Gentleman.
    Vote agreed to.
    (3.) £9,275, Supplementary, Public Buildings, Great Britain.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: I have no wish to object to this Vote; but I should like to put the same question in regard to it,

    731
    which I put in reference to the other, I want the right hon. Gentleman to state the condition of the sub-heads of the Vote, as it is not specified or set forth in this Estimate, As far as I have been able to ascertain, by a hasty reference to the accounts for the previous year, I find that there is a similar irregularity in regard to this Vote. A large number of Works are set forth as necessary and as about to be undertaken at once, and generally there is an appropriation of money for works which are not touched at all in the financial year. No doubt the sums have been voted; but the money has been applied to other works which have never been before Parliament at all; but which have been taken in hand on the authority of the Treasury and money spent on them which has never been obtained from Parliament. In 1884–5 there was an excess in various items in that way, which amounted to £6,700; and if that were taken from the amount of £9,275 asked for now the Vote would have been reduced to £2,500. That would be the entire sum for which the Treasury would have any occasion to draw. Therefore, I ask upon this Vote, as upon the previous one, for some explanation of the real condition of the services for which the Vote is asked.
    MR. MONTAGU: This Vote covers a special grant for the Mint, and thus affords me an opportunity of saying a few words as to the regulations of the Mint and their effect upon the coinage.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must confine his remarks to the building of the Mint, not to the regulations of the Mint.
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON: There is one point upon which I should like to ask for information. I see that these Estimates show a considerable amount of excess. Under sub-head E there is an item of £1,400 for the extra cost of gas, and it is stated in an explanatory note at the foot that "the cost of gas was greatly under-estimated," I should like to know what system is adopted in regard to forming this calculation for the year for this purpose, because I think that an average estimate might be accurately formed every year. This is a matter in which a very large excess seems to have been incurred; and I wish to know
    732
    from my right hon. Friend what the system is that is adopted, because I do not remember an excess of this kind in such an item before.
    MR. JACKSON: I believe the explanation of this excess is a very simple one. Of course, it is not difficult to estimate the cost of gas if we are to judge by the experience of different years. The simple explanation of this excess is, that the gas in some of the public buildings, owing to a fear of outrage or attack on them, has been kept alight nearly all night throughout the year, which was not the case in previous years.
    DR. CAMERON: I perceive that a sum of £3,000 is required for works at Dover House and buildings in Whitehall, Surely that is a very large sum to be expended in improving Dover House. There has been some discussion on previous occasions in regard to the unsatisfactory position of Dover House: Are we to understand from the right hon. Gentleman that at last, after the expenditure of this additional sum of £3,000, Dover House will be placed in a proper and satisfactory condition; and that adequate protection will in future be afforded to the Secretary for Scotland, the Lord Advocate, and the officials connected with the Scotch Department.
    MR. PLUNKET: Dover House, when taken over by the Scotch Office, was found to be most defective as regards drainage, and there were constant and very loud complaints on the subject. For instance, it was found that the drain was connected with another drain in the covered way under the Treasury, which was of a very old pattern, and in a very bad state indeed. Those who have passed along that passage must have noticed the bad smells which proceeded from it. It was ultimately discovered that the Dover House drain went into it, and that it was not in working order at all. The works which have since been undertaken in connection with Dover House have been expensive, but they are intended to place that building in a proper condition both with regard to drainage and all other matters.
    MR. O'HEA: There is an item in this Vote of £840 for alterations, &c, at the residence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I think it would be satisfactory to the Committee if we were

    733
    supplied with some particulars, or had some accurate information given to us in respect to the manner in which this expenditure has been incurred. I believe that for some years past no Chancellor of the Exchequer has resided at this official residence, and this is certainly a large sum of money to be voted away for alterations. It must also be remembered that this is only a Supplementary Estimate, and I should like to know what other sum has been expended for this purpose. When sums of money so large and extravagant are brought forward in the Supplementary Estimates, the Committee ought certainly to be supplied with full particulars. As a private individual, I should like to have some information as to how this expenditure has been incurred—for instance, whether the money has been actually paid away, or is only about to be spent in the ornamentation of the building.
    MR. M. J. KENNY: There is another item in this Vote—namely, a sum of £1,400 for works connected with the transfer of the Seamen's Registry to the Custom House. I should like to have an explanation of that item. It appears to me that the contractors, or persons engaged in carrying out works of this nature, who get contracts from the Treasury, are able to fix their own terms; and it would certainly seem that the system of inviting tenders by the Treasury is altogether at fault. I am told that it is only those persons whose names are down on a list who are invited to send in tenders. That may not be a corrupt system, but I think it is a mistaken one, and it is altogether unfair to the public. I think, in a matter of this kind, when public works are being carried out, that the Government should submit their contracts to the whole nation, so that all persons should have an opportunity of competing. I believe that if that were done the Estimates would be very materially reduced. The system of keeping a list, and receiving tenders from specially favoured persons only, is a system which leads to gross extravagance, and ought to be put a stop to.
    MR. PLUNKET: In regard to the residence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I may say that when the right hon. Gentleman the present Chief Secretary for Ireland occupied that position, he proposed to live in the house in Downing Street, which had not for some
    734
    time previously been used as an official residence; and it was, therefore, found necessary to undertake certain alterations, which alterations have been carried out. The work has been done as economically as possible; but it was not possible to include this item in the Estimates of last year. It is, therefore, necessary to insert it in the Supplementary Estimates now brought forward. In regard to the question of the transfer of the Seamen's Registry to the Custom House, I think I can also give a satisfactory explanation to the Committee of that matter. The nation has, in fact, made a very good bargain. The sum included in the Vote is £1,400; but this expenditure, by providing accommodation for the Registry in the Custom House, has given a clear profit of £98,000 to the country, by enabling it to sell the old building. In regard to the tenders sent in for Government contracts, I believe that a general competition is invariably invited, and the Government never refuse any respectable firm the liberty of tendering. When the tenders have been sent in, they are carefully gone through, and the Government almost always accept the lowest that may be submitted by a solvent firm.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: I should like to have some explanation from the right hon. Gentleman as to the other sub-heads in this Vote?
    MR. PLUNKET: The Vote includes the sum of £160 for the Stationery Office, and that work is complete. Then there is a sum of £3,000 for sanitary works required chiefly in connection with Dover House, and certain buildings in Whitehall. That also is complete. The other items are £1,400 for works connected with the transfer of the Seamen's Registry to the Custom House; £840 for alterations in the residence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer; £300 for providing protection from fire for the Exchequer Chamber, Edinburgh; and £775 for improved accommodation for the Fisheries' Inspectors in connection with the Board of Trade. The whole of those works have been completed.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: The right hon. Gentleman has misunderstood me. I did not ask him whether the work was complete or incomplete, so far as these separate items are concerned; but what I desire to ascertain is the condition of the different sub-heads of the Vote A, B, C, D, and so on. In some

    735
    of these items Supplementary Votes are asked for, but there have been economies effected in reference to others which I think ought to be set off against them.
    MR. JACKSON: I am afraid I have not got the information which my hon. Friend asks for in regard to the subheads mentioned in this Vote. If, however, there is any surplus, it must, of necessity, be surrendered every year.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: In theory what the hon. Gentleman says is the case; but in practice it is altogether different. The balance is not always certain, and it by no means follows because Supplementary Estimates are asked for, that the Treasury has not enough money in hand to supply all its wants. We had a notable instance of that before the Committee of Public Accounts last year, when it was found that instead of wanting £7,000, there were actually savings of £10,000 on one head and £20,000 on another.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: In reference to the item for the alterations in connection with the residence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I believe that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mouth Edinburgh (Mr. Childers) was the last Chancellor who lived in that residence. As to the item of £300 to protect the Exchequer Chamber in Edinburgh from fire, I should like to know how it is that offices in particular localities can get these sums of money spent upon them, while in other places no such provision is made at all. No one knows better than the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works, that the Exchequer Chamber in Dublin has a very valuable library attached to it containing a large number of books that are priceless in value, and it would be most deplorable if anything were to happen to them. It would appear that the Exchequer Chamber in Edinburgh is able to secure a grant of public money for protection from fire; but in other parts of the Kingdom no such protection is afforded. I want to know why that is so, because I believe that in Dublin if a fire were to break out, books worth many thousands of pounds would be at the mercy of the fire brigade. I should like to have a guarantee from the Government that they will look into this matter in connection with all the Law Courts and places where books of value are deposited.
    MR. PLUNKET: The explanation of this item is that it has been found necessary to provide fire-proof rooms for the valuable records now in the Exchequer Office in Edinburgh. This work was recommended to be done in the year 1882–3. So far as the Law Library in Dublin is concerned, I presume that no similar representation was made in that year to the proper authorities in Ireland. I have nothing to do with it in my Office, but I quite agree with the hon. and learned Member that it would be most deplorable if the valuable library he has mentioned were to be destroyed by fire, through carelessness, or from any other cause.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I would press upon the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury the importance of the question put to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Tyrone (Mr. M. J. Kenny) as to the manner in which these contracts are issued. As I understand, the method pursued by the Treasury is this—they have a certain number of firms on their list, and the members of those firms have an opportunity of tendering for public work. I should say, judging from the extravagant rate at which all the public works of this country are maintained, that that is a valuable monopoly to the persons who possess it. Some time ago, a gentleman came to me—a contractor—and told me that some official in the Treasury had removed his name from the list of contractors. He represented the case as a very hard one. The person of whom he complained was not the right hon. Gentleman opposite; but I think it was his Predecessor in Office, and the man stated that in consequence of having been taken off the list of contractors he was deprived of the greater part of his income. Now, there can be no doubt that the reason why this privilege was worth so much to him was that the Government work is done at a very extravagant rate, and that only a certain number of persons are allowed to compete for it. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman if there is any objection whatever against opening up these public contracts to every firm who is able to compete for them? If the Government have any doubt as to the solvency of any particular firm who may tender for a contract, they could easily make inquiry, and compel the contractors to give solvent bail. I think it a most unbusinesslike proceeding to make a sort of select list of contractors, and by

    737
    that means prevent the general body of the public from having any opportunity of tendering. The right hon. Gentleman has already, I understand, agreed to reconsider the manner in which the public advertisements are given at the present moment to a select coterie of newspapers. I shall be happy if the right hon. Gentleman will be able to make a similar announcement with regard to tenders for contracts.
    MR. PLUNKET: The practice where the contract exceeds £500 is to advertise for tenders, except in a few special cases—such, for instance, as the works now being carried on in connection with the Houses of Parliament for drainage and other improvements. In such cases as that the work is put up to competition among a few very well-known firms; but, as a rule, in any contract involving an expenditure of over £500 there is an advertisement inserted in the newspapers inviting competition.
    MR. JACKSON: I would point out to the hon. Member that the question of advertising the tenders rests with the Treasury.
    DR. TANNER: I really cannot altogether understand what is the use of repairing a house for gentlemen who never live there. We have been told that the last two Chancellors of the Exchequer have not resided at this official residence; and I understand that the present right hon. Gentleman who adorns that high and exalted position has another residence which he prefers. Therefore, I do not see the necessity of bringing on this Estimate now for doing work which is not required, and making the public pay for what is practically of no use whatever. Then, again, the last sub-head is somewhat singularly drawn up. It is an item of £1,400 for fuel and light, and then in a foot-note there are these words—"The cost of gas was greatly under-estimated." Surely when right hon. Gentlemen assume the position of Secretaries of State and Ministers of the Crown they ought to enter upon their duties in a businesslike way, and ought not to tax the country in the manner we find they are doing. Such an item as this, if submitted in connection with any public building in the City of London, would certainly not be tolerated without a protest. I ask for some clear explanation of this subhead "fuel and light," and why the
    738
    cost of gas was "greatly under-estimated?"
    MR. O'DOHERTY: I think that all the items included in these sub-heads ought to undergo careful consideration. It is difficult to understand how the Departments have been so much out in their calculation of the Estimates as originally framed.
    MR. BLANE: There is an item in Sub-head E of £775 for improved accommodation for Fisheries Inspectors in connection with the Board of Trade. This item seems to me to apply to the Inspectors of Fisheries appointed under 11 & 12 Vict. c. 92. In my opinion such Fishery Inspectors are a wholly useless and valueless body of men; and their salaries, together with the expenses of the office, have more than devoured all the revenue derived from the fisheries. Under these circumstances, it is a matter of surprise to find that money is now asked for to provide Inspectors with improved accommodation. I trust that I may succeed in eliciting some information as to these Inspectors from the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant.
    THE CHAIRMAN: This item refers entirely to offices in Great Britain, and not to the Irish Office.
    DR. TANNER: I wish to know whether the Vote includes accommodation for the Irish Inspectors?
    MR. PLUNKET: It has nothing to do with the Irish fisheries at all.
    MR. O'HEA: As there are a number of Scotch Representatives, I think they ought to ask for some information in respect of the constitution of the Fishery Board in Scotland.
    THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! There is no reference in this Vote to the Fishery Board in Scotland.
    Vote agreed to.
    (4.) £800, New Admiralty and War Office.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: I never like to propose the reduction of a Vote unless I feel that there is a very substantial ground for it; but I think that in regard to this Vote there is ground of a most substantial kind for asking the Committee to reject it altogether. The Vote as it stood originally in the Supplementary Estimates amounted to £374. Since then there has been a further paper circulated stating that that was a

    739
    mistake, and that the sum required is £800. I do not allude to that fact, except so far as it illustrates the uncertainty of the position of the Treasury in regard to the Public Services. The ground on which I object to this Vote altogether is that a very serious irregularity has been committed by the Treasury in connection with it—an irregularity, as far as I can ascertain, which is absolutely without defence or explanation. Now, Sir, in the Vote for 1884–5 there was a surplus of £22,241, which ought to have been surrendered to the Exchequer. Of that £22,241, £17,000 were, in fact, surrendered; but £5,241 remains in the hands of the Department with the sanction of the Treasury. That is a course which is at once unusual and seriously irregular. The Treasury has no right to keep over from one financial year to another admitted balances on any one of these Votes. The surrender of this money—£5,241, which the Committee will see is very far in excess of the Supplementary sum now asked for—was promised by the Treasury in March last year. In July the Paymaster General stated that he then had sufficient cash in hand to enable him to make the surrender; and he desired instructions from the Treasury as to whether he should, in compliance with the law, pay over the amount or not. But no surrender was made or ordered by the Treasury. In September or October the Department over which the First Commissioner of Works now presides asked the Treasury what they were to do with the money; and on the 26th of October last, or up to that date, the Treasury still refused to acquiesce in the surrender of it, and said the money would be kept until it had been ascertained what amount it would be necessary to ask Parliament to vote in a Supplementary Estimate on account of the Service in the present Spring—that is to say, at the time at which we have now arrived. The Treasury—I do not know on what ground, for I do not think there is a precedent for such, a proceeding—persisted in retaining in its hands this sum of £5,241. It is perfectly clear that no alteration of the balance of the Vote of 1884–5 can lawfully be appropriated, either for the service of the financial year for which these Supplementary Estimates are being taken, or for the financial year we are now about to deal with. The money has been improperly and, as
    740
    I think, illegally detained by the Treasury; and, having this sum in their hands, they now come down to the House of Commons and ask, first of all, for £374 for the new Admiralty and War Offices, and then for a sum of £800. It is quite clear that in this matter the Treasury have acted, not only in an unusual manner, but in a manner evidently irregular and illegal. Under these circumstances, I shall oppose the granting of the Vote.
    MR. CONYBEARE: I should like to have some information in regard to this Vote of £800 for legal expenses in connection with the purchase of property under the Public Offices Site Act of 1882. What kind of legal expenses are they? I presume that the Government have their own legal officers, who are perfectly competent to transact the legal business of the country on matters of this kind. Does this sum go towards the payment of the expenses of these officers, or is it for stamps, or some other purpose? I should certainly like to have further information as to the particular character of these legal expenses we are asked to vote. I. should also like to know whether, in connection with the new Admiralty and War Office, it is proposed to carry a new road from Charing Cross to the Mall, or whether that proposition has been abandoned?
    MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works will inform the Committee what course Her Majesty's Government intend to take in regard to the erection of new buildings. There was a plan proposed by the late Government which I should have been very sorry to see carried into effect. Since then I have heard a whisper that my right hon. Friend and the Government are about to take a new action in the matter. I should like to know whether part of the new scheme is that the existing Admiralty building should not be taken down? I think we should all regret if the portico there, the well-known work of Robert Adam, were to be destroyed. Will the right hon. Gentleman appoint a Departmental Committee to consider the matter?
    THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. PLUNKET): In answer to the questions of the hon. Members opposite, and also of my right hon. and

    741
    learned Friend (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck), I may say that the way in which the case stands in regard to the Admiralty and War Offices is this. Last year there was a considerable amount of feeling expressed in favour of reconsidering the whole question as to whether it would be well or not to pull down the old Admiralty House, and to carry out the new plans for housing the Admiralty and the War Office under one roof. After some communications on both sides of the House, a Committee was granted by the late Government for the purpose of considering this question. But the Committee was never actually named, and, owing to the Dissolution of Parliament, it fell through. The present Government have undertaken that as soon as possible a similar Committee to that which was proposed last year by the late Government shall be appointed for the purpose of considering the subject. I have given an undertaking to the House that no further expense shall be incurred in the way of building until a final conclusion is arrived at. That is the way in which the case stands at present. The Committee will report upon it, and, if it be necessary, the House will be asked to decide upon their Report before any further steps are taken. As regards the particular item under consideration, I may mention that it has been increased from £374 to £800, in consequence of the unexpected receipt in the present financial year of a bill of costs incurred in connection with the purchase of one of the sites for the new building. It was not expected at the time the Supplementary Estimate was first framed that we should be able to enter the cost of that transaction, as the bill had been sent to be taxed. It has been returned, however, and we have had to provide for the increased sum which now appears in the Estimate. As regards the balances in the hands of the Treasury, I am afraid that I cannot give a very lucid explanation. It is rather a technical question; and I can only say, as has been explained to me, that the simple fact is that if these balances had been paid into the Exchequer it would have been necessary to vote the money again in this House. Part of the balances will be applied to the works now in hand, and whatever surplus remains will be paid into the Exchequer later on.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: Really this matter is so important that I must press the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to give the House a full explanation of the circumstances under which the distinct terms of an Act of Parliament have been departed from. It is clearly illegal to appropriate for the purposes of any other financial year than that for which it has been voted any portion of a surplus which ought to be surrendered to the Exchequer. The Department in this case had a clear surplus of £22,241. They admitted their liability to the extent of £17,000, which sum they surrendered to the Exchequer; but in regard to the balance of £5,241 they distinctly refused to do so. They have refused now for the whole of the financial year. They were invited by the Paymaster General to give him permission to make the necessary surrender, and they refused their sanction. They were then asked by the Department which has the balance in hand what was to be done with it. The Department knew perfectly well that they could not in law make use of it; but the Treasury said—"We will not surrender it until the beginning of next year." We have now reached the beginning of the next year, and we now find the Treasury asking for a Supplementary Estimate of less than £1,000, while they are retaining illegally a sum five or six times as great, and which ought long ago to have been surrendered. If they are able to do that on a particular Vote without challenge in this House, then good-bye to all the check this House holds over the Expenditure of the country. The appropriation of money will become a perfect farce, and in the course of time the Treasury will claim the right to retain, without surrendering them, all the balances. If they are allowed to do that now, they will, undoubtedly, do it on many more occasions, and the whole of our paraphernalia of Committee of Supply will be mere moonshine.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: There are other objections to this Vote besides those which have been urged by my hon. Friend. I should like to know into whose pockets this sum of £800 goes! Only a few days ago—on the 23rd of February—when this Supplementary Estimate was first presented, the sum set down for this purpose was £374, and it has since been raised to

    743
    £800. So far as I understand the matter, the property which is being purchased by the Admiralty is simply the transference to the public of a certain amount of property belonging to the Crown. It is altogether a fancy thing. There can be no dispute whatever about the title; and as there are no stamps to be purchased, I should like to know into whose pockets this £800 is to go?
    MR. O'DOHERTY: Was the Estimate £374 before the bill of costs was taxed, and was the amount increased to £800 after taxation? Does the taxed bill of costs represent the entire cost to the country?
    THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON): The hon. Member for East Donegal (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) has asked a question as to the amount of surplus which, in his opinion, ought to have been surrendered to the Exchequer. The matter is somewhat complicated, and yet, at the same time, to those who have any knowledge of the subject, it is very simple. It is difficult, however, to explain. The hon. Member is perfectly right when he says that there was a surplus in the year 1885–6.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: The hon. Member is mistaken; it was 1884–5.
    MR. JACKSON: No; it was 1885–6, as I understand, that that surplus would, in the ordinary course of events, have been surrendered. It so happens that the Vote which was to have been taken—I believe £25,000—was put down in the Estimates of the current year for the Admiralty and War Office building. As a matter of fact, no Vote was taken, and, therefore, no expenditure can be made; and the reason for this Supplementary Vote now arises entirely from the fact that, without the sanction of Parliament, it is impossible to pay the money. The manner in which the surrender of a surplus is made, as I understand, is this. If, at the end of the financial year, there is a surplus of, say, £10,000, and for the succeeding year a Vote is taken for £12,000, then the sum of £10,000, the amount of the surplus, would be written off the £12,000, leaving only £2,000. If we had surrendered the surplus of 1885–6, we must have issued money unnecessarily from the Exchequer. I hope I have made it quite clear that there has been no desire on the part of the Treasury either to make a fresh pre-
    744
    cedent or to violate any rule that has existed. The difference between the item now under consideration and the sum of £374 originally asked for I have already explained, and I hope the Committee will agree to the Vote with the assurance I give that the surplus in hand will be surrendered at the end of the year.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: The liability of the Treasury in reference to the surrender of the original surplus is perfectly clear, and they admit it themselves. They permitted the surrender of £17,000 out of £22,000, and there was no reason why they should not have sanctioned the surrender of the whole surplus. It would have been quite as easy, seeing the condition of the present year's Estimates, to surrender £22,000 as it was to surrender £17,000. Why should a distinction be drawn between the two portions of the surplus? My contention has reference to more than the mere matter of convenience. I say that what has been done is irregular and illegal. [MR. JACKSON: No.] The Comptroller General has so reported it, and he has refused to recognize the arrangement at all. According to the argument of the Secretary to the Treasury, it would appear that if this House votes a sum in any single year for such a thing as a monument to General Gordon, and the expenditure does not reach the full Vote, there being no Vote for a similar service, it would be impossible to surrender the surplus, and it would have to be hung up for the present.
    MR. JACKSON: What I stated was that if it came to the knowledge of the Treasury that further works of the same character would require to be undertaken in the succeeding year, the surpluses should be retained in order to avoid an unnecessary issue from the Exchequer.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: The Treasury have no right to appropriate for the payment of the liabilities of one financial year sums of money which have been voted for the service of the previous year. The Treasury have taken this sum of £5,200 into their own hands, and they know they have done wrong in doing so. I believe they will find it impossible to point to another instance in which the Treasury have acted in the same manner. The whole thing is grossly irregular. Why should

    745
    the Treasury ask for a sum of £800, when they admit that they are retaining a sum of more than £5,000?
    GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR: I hope that this Estimate will be withdrawn. The whole business appears to me to be illegal and irregular. On the year closing all moneys not used out of the year's grants are yielded up. It is well known to many Members of this House that it is contrary to law for the Treasury to retain, or to allow Departments to retain, the year's unexpended balances in their own hands. I hope that in future this system will not be continued.
    MR. LOCKWOOD: I trust that before the Committee leaves this Vote some right hon. Gentleman opposite will take the trouble to answer the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) as to how this sum of £800 has been spent. The attention of the Government has been called to it in most unmistakable terms, and strong objections have been taken to the Vote. I know that an answer has been given from the Treasury Bench; but in that answer the objection of my hon. Friend in regard to this charge for illegal expenses was entirely passed over; and the Secretary to the Treasury devoted his reply to the objections taken by the hon. Member for East Donegal (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) to the appropriation by the Treasury of certain cash balances. I think it would be well for the Committee to appreciate exactly the position of the Government with regard to this Vote. On the 23rd of February they presented an Estimate in which they asked the Committee to vote in respect of legal expenses in connection with the new Admiralty and War Offices a sum of £374. They then came up to the Committee on the 26th of February with another Estimate, in which, instead of the sum of £374, they ask the House to give them £800. They are directly challenged by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton to tell the Committee how that sum of £800 is made up, and they have been asked whether any portion of it is for stamps, or whether any part of it consists of the cost of inquiries as to title. But the right hon. Gentleman has not given us the slightest information on the subject.
    746
    What I understand my hon. Friend to want in the way of information from the right hon. Gentleman is that he should give the Committee a full detail of the original item of £374, and also of the sum of £800 we are now asked to vote. At any rate, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will condescend to give the Committee a sufficient amount of detail to enable them to form some opinion as to how an item of £374 on the 23rd of February was converted into one of £800 on the 26th.
    MR. PLUNKET: I thought I had explained to the Committee already. The affair is as simple as possible. These expenses are legal expenses incurred in connection with the purchase of property in the neighbourhood of Charing Cross and Spring Gardens, and of arbitrations which have taken place in connection with that purchase. These legal expenses have not been incurred since the Supplementary Estimates were first laid on the Table. But when the Supplementary Estimates were circulated, the costs which had been incurred had not been returned by the taxing officer; but before the Estimate was brought on for discussion the return of the taxing officer did come in, and it has been thought better to submit the whole sum to the Committee.
    MR. BYRNE: I wish to put a question to the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works in reference to a reconsideration of the site and plans for the new Admiralty and War Offices. I will ask him whether it is not possible to reconsider the proposed site for the Admiralty and War Offices, with a view of setting the building back very considerably from the point shown on the plans now before the House? I would also ask if it is the intention of the Government to utilize the whole of the site at Charing Cross, including Messrs. Drummond's Bank, in order to open up The Mall to Trafalgar Square? Most of our public buildings have been spoiled in consequence of there being no point from which they can be seen, because of their not being set back far enough from the street. Take St. Paul's, for instance; it is impossible to obtain anything like a view of it without going to the top of some of the houses in the neighbourhood. I hope that such a gross blunder will not be perpetrated in the year 1887.

    747
    On the other side of Charing Cross and Whitehall there is land having frontages to these streets and the Victoria Embankment which the Government have or could acquire that would add to the beauty and importance of these handsome buildings; and I think something should be done to preserve the view of the new Public Offices. I am informed, in reference to Messrs. Drummond's Bank, that a very unwise promise has been given that it will not be interfered with. Now, that appears to me to be a very shopkeeping view to take. The preservation of Drummond's Bank will destroy very nearly the whole of this magnificent building for the Admiralty and War Offices. I think it would be far better to provide some accommodation in the new building for Messrs. Drummond's if it is found impossible to get rid of them in any other way. I cannot help thinking, however, that Messrs. Drummond or any other bankers would be only too glad to take the proper value of their property if the site is required by the public. Certainly, the site ought not to be spoiled by confining it to too small a piece of land; and, therefore, I trust that some arrangement will be made to set the proposed new building back and open up The Mall to Trafalgar Square.
    MR. PLUNKET: I am afraid that I cannot satisfy the hon. Member. It is not for the Government to decide the question, seeing that the whole matter has been referred to a Committee. Therefore it is not for me to say what they will or what they will not do when the question conies back from the Committee. The hon. Member is quite right in saying that the taking of Drummond's Bank is no part of the present scheme; but I cannot give the hon. Member any further explanation until the Committee shall have concluded their investigation and presented their Report.
    MR. B. COLERIDGE: We now know, for the first time, what these legal expenses are. We now hear that some portion is the costs of arbitration. I think the Committee ought to be told what sums have been awarded by way of arbitration, and what amount of money we shall have to pay upon the awards which have been made against us. We are here to represent the taxpayers of the country, and we know that in the case of trans-
    748
    fers the law costs are always estimated upon a scale of value. We should like to know what the value of the property proposed to be transferred is in this case, so that we may have some knowledge of the scale of the legal costs incurred in proportion to the value of the property.
    MR. M. J. KENNY: With regard to the enormous increase of the original Estimate, I cannot conceive how it was possible to make such a mistake in the estimated cost of the transfer. Surely it ought to be possible to estimate to a nicety what the cost of a transfer is likely to be, when the value of the property is ascertained. It is complained that the Treasury have entirely failed to give the Committee information in sufficient detail in regard to the real manner in which these Votes are presented. I see, under the head of Details, that there is only an announcement that the sum of £800 is required for—
    "Legal expenses in connection with the purchase of property under the Public Offices Site Act, 1882."
    But for the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for East Donegal happened to be acquainted with the manner in which the Treasury have acted in regard to the non-surrender of a balance in their hands, amounting to upwards of £5,000, the Committee would have been induced to vote this sum of £800 without demur. We now find the Treasury coming here with a demand for £800, for which there is only the slightest need. They have in their hands a sum of £5,241, and if they pay this sum of £800 out of it, they will still have more than £4,400 left. The Treasury, there can be no doubt, have acted illegally in regard to this balance. In March, 1886, they promised to surrender it; but they have not surrendered it yet, and there has been no proper explanation at all in regard to it. It appears to me that the Committee are asked to sanction a Vote of £800, which the Government ask for without having the slightest necessity for it. They have already a sufficient surplus in their hands if they want to enter into further expenditure. I am quite at a loss to know what they propose to do with this £5,000. We know perfectly well that in nearly every case in which the Government come down here with Supplementary Estimates they have a sufficient balance at their disposal to discharge their debts,

    749
    if they only choose to do so. The law which compels the Departments to surrender all balances, although strictly binding, is a law which is constantly violated. In this case we find that it has been violated; and the Treasury, who talk about having no money at their disposal, have really more than they want. I should like to press for a further explanation of the matter which has been referred to by the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield (Mr. Coleridge)—namely, an elucidation of the singular increase of this Vote by the sum of £426. Is it for the cost of conveyancing, or of stamps, or of arbitration?
    MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: As this is a matter in which I had some concern, I may inform the hon. and learned Member for the Attercliffe Division of Sheffield that the cost of this property was estimated at £160,000, and as that sum represents a very large amount of property, I have no doubt that this item of £800 represents a part of the legal charge involved in the arbitrations. The question which has been raised by the hon. Member for East Donegal appears to me to be an extremely important one; but I hope I may be permitted to remark that it comes before the Committee in the shape of a correspondence between the Auditor General and the Treasury. It has not yet come before the Committee on Public Accounts. It is necessary that it should go before them, and I presume that it will be then thoroughly investigated. I would, therefore, suggest to the Committee that it would be as well to postpone any further discussion until we have their Report on the matter. I quite agree with the hon. Member that an important principle is involved; and if the statement of the Comptroller and Auditor General is right, there has, undoubtedly, been some indiscretion on the part of the Treasury.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: (Kirkcaldy, &c.): The question of the surrender of the Treasury balances is a very important one, and I hope to hear more on the subject. So far as the details are concerned, we may wait for them until we get the Report of the Committee on Public Accounts. I have always understood that what sums were not spent in the financial year ought to be surrendered. That is a very important principle, and the Treasury have now set up an. entirely
    750
    new principle. What I understand the Treasury to say is this—if we refuse to surrender the balances and prefer to keep them over for another year we may do so, on the understanding, however, that the money is not spent until the expenditure is sanctioned by Parliament. If that is so, it destroys altogether the principle that the balances ought to be surrendered every year. I think it is a most dangerous doctrine, and I hope I have misunderstood the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. At any rate, I trust the Committee will receive some further explanation.
    MR. JACKSON: The explanation of the increased amount of the present Estimate is a very simple one. The Treasury put in an Estimate of the sum that was required for a certain purpose up to a certain date. It subsequently came to their knowledge that a further sum would be required; and they took the first opportunity, after they obtained that knowledge, of submitting a further Estimate giving the altered sum required. An hon. Member has said that there is no necessity to vote this sum now, because the Treasury have in hand a balance more than sufficient to meet it; but the Treasury have no power to pay a single shilling of money except after the sanction of Parliament to the payment has been obtained. It is, therefore, necessary to ask the Committee for this sum in order to enable the Treasury to pay it. With reference to what the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) has said, I have laid down no new doctrine at all. What I endeavoured to explain was, that the surplus of a previous year may be written off the Vote of a succeeding year. That is a simple question of book-keeping, and it merely saves the issue of the sum so written off. In regard to the principle that all surpluses must be surrendered, there is no difference of opinion upon that point at all. That practice is invariably followed, and I believe it is impossible to find a single exception.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: I hope the hon. Gentleman will not suppose that I do not regard the explanation of the alteration of the amount of the Vote as satisfactory. I think the explanation is ample. The hon. Gentleman says that certain bills of costs have come in since the Estimate was first drafted, and that they have been added to it; but in

    751
    regard to the other and much larger point, I must say that I failed to gather any explanation, or any excuse, for the line of conduct which the Treasury have pursued. I must draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that the Treasury have admitted every allegation which I brought forward, and now I will make another, and that is that in March, 1886—because this transaction relates to 1884–5, and not, as the hon. Gentleman supposes, to 1885–6—in March, 1886, the Treasury promised to surrender the sum of £5,241; but they have retained it in their possession ever since. They are retaining it now, and they are detaining it irregularly and illegally. It is perfectly true that if it had been voted in 1886–7 the unsurrendered balance would have been treated as a set-off by transfers, and instead of being paid actually into the Exchequer it would have been taken as a diminution of the Vote for the coming year. That is quite clear, and is in accordance with the usual practice; but when there is no Vote it is impossible to treat a surplus in that way. On several occasions money has remained unspent and unaccounted for, and at this moment the Department is in irregular and illegal possession of £5,240 with the consent of the Treasury; and, that being the case, the Government come down and ask for a further sum under this Vote. In reply to the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman above the Gangway (Mr. Shaw Lefevre), to the effect that the matter will come before the Committee on Public Accounts, and that they will deal with it, I am willing to adopt that course if the Treasury will agree to the postponement of this Vote until the Public Accounts Committee have inquired into the matter. [Mr. JACKSON: No, no!] The hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury says he cannot do that, and in that case I have no other course to take but to protest against what is undoubtedly an illegality, and to divide the Committee on the Vote.
    MR. JACKSON: I think the hon. Member for East Donegal will, on consideration, see that we cannot agree to his proposal to postpone this Vote until the Public Accounts Committee have had before them the question which has been referred to by the hon. Member. We are now approaching the end of the
    752
    financial year, and we cannot, therefore, postpone the Vote.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: Will the hon. Gentleman pay over the balance to-morrow morning?
    MR. JACKSON: Yes, Sir.
    Vote agreed to.
    (5.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £15,900, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1887, for Diplomatic and Consular Buildings, including Rents and Furniture, and for the maintenance of certain Cemeteries Abroad."
    MR. LABOUCHERE: I rise to move the reduction of this Vote by the sum of £14,400, which is the amount charged under Sub-head E. for the purchase of the freehold of the Legation House at Brussels. In times gone by there has been a very strong objection shown in this House to the purchase of houses for our Embassies abroad. That was the case with regard to the Embassy Houses at Paris and Constantinople. It was thought that these houses cost a very large sum annually, because, whenever there was a change of Ministers, the new Minister always wanted to have some alterations made, and there were demands perpetually made upon the House to carry out those alterations and re-arrangements in addition to the large sums spent in the purchase of the houses. Two years ago there were very large sums spent for the purchase of Embassy Houses at Rome and Berlin, and now we are asked to vote this sum of £14,400 for a Legation House at Brussels. We are paying at present £600 rent for the house; and therefore, on the face of it, the speculation is not a good one, because the interest upon this sum of £14,400, at 5 per cent, would be £720 per annum. There are two other objections that I have to the Vote. In the first place, I do not see why we should charge upon one year all the gross sum, instead of spreading it over a number of years and allowing other Parliaments to bear their shares of the Vote. In the next place, there is, perhaps, no necessity to have a Legation at Brussels. We know, and the Secretary of State knows, that small countries sometimes disappear from the map, and become

    753
    merged into large countries. It is possible that Belgium may continue to exist; but there is no reason why we should not cease to spend these large sums of money upon Embassies abroad. This money is voted to enable Ministers abroad to live in a certain way; to give balls and parties to fashionable people in the place and fashionable English people who go there. The houses are not wanted for the transaction of the business of the country abroad. It might be well enough to pay a gentleman £1,000 as Chargé d' Affaires; but here we are asked to pledge ourselves to maintain, on the present scale, the Legation at Belgium. I put aside the argument founded upon the expectation of some that Belgium will not continue to exist; but a legitimate reason why we should not pledge ourselves to this large expenditure is that we shall probably have to pay in alterations and repairs a far larger sum than £720 a-year. I think the whole system of purchasing these Legation Houses abroad is exceedingly bad. Let us by all means pay for a house that the Minister can live in; but in Brussels there is no such run upon houses that we cannot hire a house for our Representative there. There are many houses being built in Brussels; and I would myself undertake to provide the Minister with as good a house as ever he has had for £600 per annum.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £1,500, be granted to Her Majesty for the said Service."—(Mr. Labouchere.)
    THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. PLUNKET): I do not, of course, pretend to follow the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) into his argument with regard to his expectation that the country will in the future at one day present us with a House of Commons more sensible than the present. My view of this matter is a more simple one, and I will endeavour to satisfy the Committee that this transaction is a great saving to the country, and that it does not constitute an increase of expenditure at all. The expenditure on the old Legation House at Brussels was £720 a-year; but in 1884 the Treasury determined that they would not renew the lease, and a lease was taken of more convenient premises, at a rent of £600. In that lease, a
    754
    clause was inserted which gave the option to the Government of purchasing the building at any time within three years. It was decided in 1885, under the late Government, that the right of purchase should be exercised, and, as a matter of fact, the building has been purchased for £14,000. I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman that this is an expensive arrangement. Of course, if we wanted to raise money we should not pay 5 per cent for it, but 3 per cent, which would be £420 a-year; and, therefore, I submit that there has been a saving to the country upon the amount hitherto paid of £ 180 a-year.
    DR. CAMERON: I am always very suspicious of these saving arrangements. A year or two ago we were told that there was to be a large saving to the country effected by the purchase of the Embassy House at Berlin, which has not been realized. Under this Vote we have a charge of £500 for the Preliminary Expenses of Purchase of Site, &c, for the Residence of the Agent and Consul General at Cairo, of which we are told that the total will be £27,000. I should like to have some explanation from the right hon. Gentleman of that item. The right hon. Gentleman has such a winning way of placing his facts before the Committee, that I have no doubt he will be able to convince hon. Members that we are about to effect a huge economy by this outlay. The right hon. Gentleman, however, has said nothing about rates, taxes, and repairs that have to be taken into account in stating the cost of these houses. In looking over the Estimates we find that a very considerable amount has to be voted, in addition to the purchase money for repairs and other expenses. I cannot see why, if by paying rent, and keeping the principal in our own pockets, we can make anything like as good a bargain we should not do so. We have the same excuses brought forward in respect of every increase of expenditure on national property, and especially with regard to houses for our Envoys and Ministers, and the result is always the same—that we have large sums added to our annual expenditure for the details of repairs and other matters that I have mentioned. I think it is our duty to protest against every transaction of this kind, unless it can be shown that a real and substantial eco-

    755
    nomy will be effected thereby. The right hon. Gentleman has stated that there will be a saving in the case of the house at Brussels of £180a-year; but that I think is not sufficient to justify the Committee in passing the Vote.
    Question put, and negatived.
    Original Question again proposed.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: I have another Amendment to propose to this Vote—that is to say, that it be reduced by the sum of £500 under Sub-head V. for the Preliminary Expenses of Purchase of Site, &c, for the Residence of the Agent and Consul General at Cairo; and I hope my hon. Friends will understand the matter sufficiently to answer "Aye" this time when the Question is put from the Chair. This £500 is one of those prolific sums which in themselves seem very small, but which lead to a much greater expenditure. It is the first step towards the payment that appears on the Estimate of the approximate cost of Site, Building, and Furniture for the Resident at Cairo—namely, £27,000. Now, I should like to know whether we have at present any property at Cairo—whether anything there belongs to us? However that may be, the same reasons which I have urged against the purchase of a house in Brussels for our Minister there apply to this proposal to spend £27,000 for a site, building, and furniture at Cairo. Why are we to pay for furniture? I have never known of any furniture being given in these cases. Whenever we have to do anything in Egypt, we always have to pay more for it than we have to pay anywhere else, and that is the case with the £27,000 we are asked to spend for the Agent and Consul General at Cairo. What does the Agent and Consul General live in now? Does he live in a hired house, or does it belong to him? He has a salary, and I presume that the rent of a house has to be paid for. Another reason against voting this money is that we ought not to spend large sums of money for the benefit of Egyptians. There are a vast number of palaces in Cairo; and surely, in common decency, considering that we are maintaining the Khedive on the Throne, he ought to lend us one of his palaces for the accommodation of our Agent and Consul General.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £15,400, be granted to Her Majesty for the said purpose."—(Mr. Labouchere.)
    MR. PLUNKET: I can assure the Committee that there is every desire on the part of the Government to insure economy in this matter. With regard to the site and building for the Residence of the Agent and Consul General at Cairo, I would point out that there is the greatest possible difficulty in obtaining accommodation in that city, nearly all the existing houses being badly ventilated and badly constructed. Besides that, they are below the level of the Nile, and, as a consequence, there is great difficulty in the matter of drainage. Further, the furniture existing in the house of the Agent and Consul General at Cairo was found unsuitable. A proposal was made to purchase a house in 1886; but Sir Evelyn Baring said that he could not recommend the purchase of any house, and he advised that a house should be built at a cost not exceeding £30,000. The hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) has overlooked the fact that there will be a set-off, by way of reduction, of £600 a-year, which is the allowance now made to our Agent at Cairo. I would also point out to the Committee that it is necessary to provide for the safe keeping of the archives.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I think there should be a broad distinction drawn between the regular Estimates and the Supplementary Estimates. Now, if that is a proper thing to do, why is it that this Vote should not have been put into the regular Estimates, which for nearly a month have been upon the Table of the House? According to my right hon. Friend the First Commissioner of Works, this proposal was made to the late Government. I understand that a Supplementary Estimate is one which provides for certain things which have nothing to do with the regular Estimates; and therefore it is that I ask why this Vote does not form part of the latter, which have been in the hands of hon. Members for a considerable time? And I venture to appeal to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Goschen) whether this is not a sound principle of finance to be observed in these cases? I confess that I am against

    757
    the purchase of these houses for our Embassies abroad—I disbelieve in buying them. In my own opinion, to build a house is not an economical arrangement. My right hon. Friend thinks that by spending the sum of £27,000, which is on the Estimates for building a house for the Agent and Consul General at Cairo, we shall save £600 a-year, the amount of allowance now made to Sir Evelyn Baring. But if you built a house of your own, you might find, after a few years, that it does not suit your purpose, and that you could have been more content elsewhere than you can be in the house on which you have laid out a large sum of money. The right hon. Gentleman says that the archives must be taken care of, and therefore it is necessary to build a house for them; but I would point out that half the Governments of the world have their archives in hired houses. I greatly doubt whether, on this Estimate of £27,000, we shall have a saving as compared with the present yearly payment of £600; and I think it would have been better that we should have continued to spend the latter sum rather than build a house at the cost of this large amount of money. Under any circumstances, I contend that the charge ought not to have been brought into the Supplementary Estimates.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON): I think, if I expressed my own views and the views of the Treasury, they would be found to be generally in agreement with those of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt), as to the desirability of purchasing houses for the residences of our Ministers abroad. But there are cases and cases. The right hon. Gentleman says we ought not to have brought this Vote forward as a Supplementary Estimate. The reason why that has been done is that the question was raised in the latter part of last year. It was pointed out that Sir Evelyn Baring was living in a house which certainly no hon. Member would be content to live in. It was stated that if Sir Evelyn Baring entertained anyone at his house, he had to send the members of his family to a hotel, and it was under the strong pressure of these representations that the Treasury came to the conclusion that it was their duty to sanction the pur-
    758
    chase of a site for a house for our Representative at Cairo. It is true that it can hardly be said that the saving that will be effected will be great; and no one, I believe, would put that forward as the reason for asking for the present Vote. It is a fact that every other house that was available was found to be unsuitable; and, after great care had been taken to find a solution of the difficulty, the Treasury, as I have said, thought it necessary to sanction the purchase of a site on which to build a residence for our Agent and Consul General. On arriving at this conclusion, it became necessary to make some preliminary provision with regard to the matter; and hence it is that we ask the Committee to agree to the present Supplementary Vote. I may add that the Treasury were advised that there was no other site so suitable as that decided upon.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL (Kirkcaldy, &c.): I was about to take the same objection to this Vote for the house of the Agent and Consul General at Cairo which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt) has expressed much better than I should have done. But I may point out that, by assenting to this small sum of £500, it seems to me that we shall be committing ourselves to a much greater expenditure. All I shall say besides on the present occasion is that, if the Vote is agreed to by the Committee, the Government ought not to grudge us the exercise of our right to a full and thorough discussion of the whole subject hereafter.
    DR. CAMERON: We are told that the reason for the purchase of this site is to provide Sir Evelyn Baring with proper accommodation. I ask, how long will it be before this new Consulate House is erected? I point out to the Committee that it is possible that before long another Government may sit on the Treasury Bench, and that Egypt may be in a very different position hereafter with regard to this country than that in which it now stands. One argument of the Secretary to the Treasury is that the site is the only one that can be obtained, and that, if we did not make haste, we should lose it altogether. But the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works (Mr. Plunket) told us a few minutes before that a report came in

    759
    from the Surveyor that the site was to be had at a lower cost. [Mr. PLUNKET: No, Sir; I said it was found not to be so.] However, the right hon. Gentleman pointed out that there was no advantage to be gained by delay. But these Egyptians very often ask much more than they will take; and if they find their present demand rejected, the probability is that the proprietors will be willing to reduce it; and if the purchase is postponed, the probability is that, by the time we come to discuss the Estimates of the year, we shall reap some advantage from the delay. Therefore, if my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) thinks it his duty to divide the Committee on the Vote, I shall vote with him.
    MR. M. J. KENNY: We are asked to commit ourselves by this Vote to an expenditure of £27,000. I object to the Government taking this money for the purpose of building a house at Cairo for the Agent and Consul General. There is no doubt that a house quite large enough for that gentleman and his family could be built for a much smaller sum; and I do not see why we should be asked for a sum of money so largely in excess of the amount that is necessary. In my opinion, the sum of £27,000 is altogether excessive; and on that account, and on account of the irregular manner in which the sum has been placed upon the Estimates, I hope the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) will divide the Committee on this Vote.
    MR. HENRY H. FOWLER: I think that whenever it is known that the Government want to buy land anywhere it will be found out that many others are exceedingly anxious to obtain the site. The right hon. Gentleman will find that some months before the present Government came into Office the late Government decided that they could not approve the erection of a house for the Agent and Consul General at Cairo. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Tyrone (Mr. M. J. Kenny) objects to the proposed expenditure of £27,000 as being excessive; but the hon. Gentleman is, in my opinion, under a very great mistake if he thinks that it is all we shall be called upon to pay for this business. I venture to say that if the Committee votes this sum the actual cost will reach a far larger
    760
    amount. It will be much nearer £50,000. We all recollect what happened in the case of the Embassy House at Berlin. We have had Representatives in Cairo for nearly half a century, and they have been able to reside in the houses there; palaces have been available there before now, and the probability is that other palaces will be available hereafter. I do not dispute the figures of my hon. Friend, or the statements put forward; but the Committee must remember that the same statements would be forthcoming from every Embassy in the world if there were a chance of getting a new building erected. The late Government were of opinion that it was desirable to put a stop to the erection of these houses, and I hope my hon. Friend opposite will take the same view of this matter. I submit that no reason has been given for the expenditure of this money; and, as a protest against the principle involved, I shall vote with my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton.
    SIR ALGERNON BORTHWICK: I have been several times in Cairo, and am able to say that the house in which Sir Evelyn Baring is lodged is in a most unhealthy situation. The house is very small; there is no room for his Staff, and the place is altogether unsuitable for the purpose for which it is intended. As to finding another house, and one that would be suitable, which the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) says could easily be done in Brussels, I would point out that this cannot be done in Cairo. Everything in Cairo is done in the same meagre way, and it is almost impossible to get a large house, or anything approaching to it, in Cairo. I can testify, from my personal experience, that the site on which it is proposed that the money should be expended is certainly a most excellent one, and I do not think that the expenditure is at all extravagant in view of our peculiar position in Egypt, and the importance of maintaining the dignity of this country in Egypt.
    MR. BRADLAUGH: The Government have said that Sir Evelyn Baring has not room in his house at Cairo for the accommodation of visitors. I do not consider that it is the duty of the Committee to provide

    761
    accommodation for the visitors of Sir Evelyn Baring, and it is certainly a monstrous thing that we should be asked to commit ourselves to an expenditure which will continue to swell, as all these expenditures do, without being told precisely what is to be the cost of the site, the cost of the building, and the cost of the furniture. I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton intends to join us in voting against this Estimate.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: I have never known a question of such importance as this raised on a Supplementary Estimate, and I think that the proceeding is most objectionable, more particularly as the late Government had decided against the purchase of a site in Cairo. I think the course adopted by the present Government in reference to this matter is totally unprecedented, and that we ought not to assent to it. The Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Jackson) has given us no reason why this Vote should be inserted amongst the Supplementary Estimates rather than in the Estimates for the coming year. Again, he has not told us the cost of the site, the building, or the furniture. I have had some experience in these matters, and I am satisfied that the Estimates will be very largely exceeded, and that we shall be called upon for a very much greater sum than that which appears here. My conviction is that however desirable it may be sometimes to buy a house, yet that the building of a house is the most expensive operation that can be entered into. It has been the case at Rome and elsewhere, where large sums of money have been spent in building. A house can generally be bought at a reasonable price; but, as I have said, there is nothing more expensive than building a house for our Representatives abroad. Therefore, I appeal to the Government to postpone this Vote until the Estimates of the coming year are taken, when we shall probably have a full statement of the cost of the several items of which the Vote is composed. As far as my experience goes, it is a very unusual thing to furnish these houses, except, at all events, the State Apartments, which, in a few cases, have been furnished. I do not know a case in which the whole house has been furnished.
    THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON): The amount to be paid for the site is £3,700, which is a considerable reduction on the sum originally asked. It is, in fact, a low price, and we were advised that the site would not be available unless it was secured. Sir Evelyn Baring states that another offer has been made for it, and that it is best, if it is to be secured at all, that it should be secured now. It is, therefore, necessary to take some money for preliminary expenses in these Estimates. As hon. Members are aware, the accommodation is absolutely inadequate for the requirements of the Consulate. The estimated cost of the building is £20,800; furniture, £2,500; and purchase of site, £3,700; and I would mention that a gentleman from the Office of Works was sent out for the purpose of ascertaining the cost for the purpose of the Estimates.
    MR. BRADLAUGH: HOW much will it cost for sending that gentleman out?
    SIR JAMES FERGUSSON: There will be no cost beyond his travelling expenses.
    MR. BRADLAUGH: It is manifestly unfair to say that the total proximate cost is £27,000; to say that one item is £20,800, and refuse to tell us how much the others are.
    SIR JAMES FERGUSSON: I stated that the total £27,000 is made up of three sums—£3,700 for the purchase of the site; £2,500 for estimated cost of furniture; and the remainder for the cost of the house.
    MR. BRADLAUGH: That leaves £20,800 for the building; surely that is an enormous sum, and it is only fair that the Government should have given us some information as to the details. If they cannot give them, then it is improper to put down this Vote for discussion now.
    MR. J. ROWLANDS: I think the right hon. Gentleman opposite has given us good grounds for voting against this charge. I should like to know whether this Estimate will cover the whole cost! The sum is very large, and I protest against such Votes as this in the present state of the country. We are not in a position to pay for luxuries. We ought at this time to study economy,

    763
    and if the Government want to know where economy can be exercised, I will give them a little information as to how they can profitably spend money on houses—that is to say, in housing the poor in the East End of London.
    MR. ANDERSON: If I understand rightly the information given to the Committee, it is intended to enter into a contract for the purchase of the site. Then what we are doing in granting this Vote is to authorize the Treasury to enter into a private contract to buy property in Cairo which will involve us in a very large expenditure. We have to decide by "yes" or "no" the question whether this property is to be acquired; and I think we ought to be careful how we decide it, because, when the Estimates come forward, our objections will be met with the cry from the Treasury Bench—"You sanctioned our entering into this contract." We are, virtually, now asked to sanction the spending of a large sum of money on a site and building at Cairo. The Secretary to the Treasury says that Sir Evelyn Baring has great inconvenience in entertaining his friends in his present house. I ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether this is the first instalment only of the house building programme of the Government, and whether we shall next be asked to build a house for Sir H. Drummond Wolff? I trust that either the Vote will be rejected by the Committee, or that it will be withdrawn, until we have before us the whole of the details in the proper way for consideration.
    MR. JACKSON: I think it quite fair to say that if this Vote of £500 is passed the Committee will have sanctioned practically the building of the house at Cairo for Sir Evelyn Baring. I do not wish to conceal from the Committee that fact. With reference to this particular sum, the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Anderson) will know that on entering upon contracts for the purchase of land a certain preliminary expenditure is necessary; and we have included in the Estimate only such sums as, according to the best information which can be obtained, would come in course of payment during the present year. I wish the Committee to understand that by sanctioning the expenditure of this £500 they are sanctioning the building of the House; but as to the certainty of
    764
    the Estimates being exceeded, I am sure that the right hon. Member for Central Bradford (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) has no foundation for making that statement, except, perhaps, his experience of what occurred when he was in Office. I may say, so far as the value of the site is concerned, that has been ascertained. With regard to the cost of furniture, I think hon. Gentlemen will agree that £2,500 is a reasonable sum. [An hon. MEMBER: £3,000.] The hon. Member who refers to it as £3,000 has in his mind the cost of the site perhaps; but the item for furniture is as I have stated—£2,500. It is for furnishing the State rooms in the house, and will, in all probability, be sufficient for the purpose. The figures are, of course, stated to be approximate; but we are given to understand that the closeness of the Estimate is such that it would be impossible to arrive nearer at the figures, unless tenders were obtained. We have taken the best means at our command; we have sent out an officer of the Board of Works to Cairo, who assures us that the estimated sum is sufficient for building the house. Having said this much, I trust the Committee will see that we have done all we can to place at the disposal of the Committee the information in our possession.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: The hon. Gentleman has informed the Committee that £2,500 is to be expended in furnishing the State rooms in the house of the Consul General at Cairo. I will simply say that if the Government would give me the contract for £2,000 I should make £1,000 profit out of it.
    MR. M'CARTAN: I think the expenditure of this large sum of money in the present state of the country will be little less than a scandal. In former times the Ambassadors of this country lived in houses that were rented on lease, and we had no complaints made; but now, when we have the poor people of this country crying out for bread, we find these Estimates on the Table. I understand the whole building is estimated to cost £27,000. The Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Sir James Fergusson) has himself given a strong argument against this Vote, by saying that the price of the site was a considerable reduction on the sum originally asked for it. I am of opinion that if we

    765
    wait a little longer we shall get the site at a still lower price. The value of ground does not seem to be rising in Egypt any more than it does in Ireland. I hope the Government will turn their eyes to the place where houses are being pulled down, houses which are not occupied by Ambassadors living in luxury, but houses belonging to men who are spinning out a miserable existence in poverty.
    MR. M. J. KENNY: I rise for the purpose of asking the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Jackson) whether, in consequence of the objections taken to this Vote and the further opposition it is likely to give rise to, he will consider the propriety of postponing it and bringing it forward again in the course of the year? We have had no explanation as to how this £500 is to be expended. We are told that it is in connection with the preliminary expenses of purchase; we are told that a certain person has been sent out to examine the site; but we do not know what the travelling expenses of that individual are. All we know is, that we are committing ourselves to an enormous expenditure, the estimate of which is likely to be largely exceeded, and the interest on which at 3 per cent is £810. That item in itself shows a loss to the country of £210 a-year. I think the feeling of the Committee is greatly against this Vote, and therefore I trust the Government will consent to postponing it and placing it on the Estimates of the coming year.
    DR. TANNER: I think we are spending the evening in a most satisfactory manner, because we are proving to the country that economy is asked for by hon. Gentlemen sitting on this side of the House, and that hon. Members who support the Government are altogether on the side of extravagance, and that at a time when there is want and destitution in the country. I cannot help asking, looking at this Vote and hearing the arguments of several right hon. Gentlemen in support of it; hearing that the site is to cost £3,700, and that the money ought to be forthcoming at once—I cannot help asking why the Government do not ask at once for the whole of the money? There appears to be a want of principle in connection with the whole Vote. I do not allude to the Vote for the furniture, for that is not wanted at the present
    766
    time; but if you want to purchase the site, why do you not ask for the money fearlessly and honestly? That is the course which I think ought to be pursued by right hon. Gentlemen opposite in connection with this matter. It is clear to anyone who knows the actual state of the case, and the way this Egyptian occupation is being carried out, that the way in which this money is being asked for is only an attempt on the part of the Government to get in the thin end of the wedge for the purpose of showing Europe that England is determined, under a Conservative Government, permanently to hold Egypt, and the Government know that it will be so understood outside this House. I think it will be wrong for any Member to allow this iniquitous Vote to pass unchallenged.
    An. hon. MEMBER: It appears that the question raised is not so much on account of the sum of £500 here asked for, as on account of the larger expenditure of £27,000 which is to be incurred. Therefore, I think we ought to hear from the Secretary to the Treasury, whether the Committee grant the £500 or not, if the Government is already committed to the purchase of the site, and the expenditure of the money? It would be very useful to know whether the Division about to be taken will decide whether the £27,000 is to be spent, and whether the Government have committed themselves to this scheme? I trust the Secretary to the Treasury will reply upon that point.
    MR. JACKSON: I think I have already answered the inquiry of the hon. Gentleman in saying that the Committee will sanction the purchase of the site by this Vote of £500. Of this sum £100 is the estimated legal expense, £150 the Government tax on the purchase-money, and £250 is for the preliminary work.
    ADMIRAL Sir JOHN E. COMMERELL: It is a sufficient answer to the argument of the hon. Member for Mid Cork (Dr. Tanner) that our buying a site in Egypt is a proof that we intend permanently to occupy Egypt to say that it does not follow because we are going to build a house in Brussels that the Government are going to occupy Belgium. But the real question is this—is it necessary for the Government to keep up

    767
    in Cairo the dignity of our Consul or not? I say that in an Eastern country the dignity of the English Ambassador must be second to none. I know that it is perfectly impossible to get a house at Cairo fit to live in, and I say that from personal knowledge, having been there frequently. I do not suppose that hon. Gentlemen really propose that our Ambassador should be the guest of the Viceroy of Egypt, who should lend him one of his palaces. I trust that hon. Gentlemen opposite will now consent to give the Government the amount asked for, on account of the preliminary expenses necessary for carrying out this important work.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 123; Noes 153: Majority 30.—(Div. List, No. 29.)
    Original Question again proposed.
    DR. CAMERON: This Vote is composed of three items. The first we intended to vote against, but lost the chance; the second we have not been allowed to reduce; and the third, for the purchase of a site and building for a Consulate at Samoa, is equally objectionable with the others. We shall, therefore, challenge the whole Vote.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 151; Noes 111: Majority 40.—(Div. List, No. 30).

    CLASS II.—SALARIES AND EXPENSES OF CIVIL DEPARTMENTS.
    (6.) £658, Supplementary, Foreign Office.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: I notice that on this page reference is made to the Vote for Law Charges, Class III., Vote 1. I find there is a charge for £2,000 for Counsel to Law Officers on Foreign Office matters. But there is a further note on that page, that it is paid by fees for consultation on foreign business. If you take from the Law Charges Vote the £1,000, it will, of course, effect an apparent saving of £1,000. But I wish to know what becomes of the other business with regard to which the same counsel is consulted, and with regard to which he gets further fees. Will those fees be paid from the Foreign Office Vote or from the Law
    768
    Charges Vote? Is it intended to abolish the existing Vote and transfer the officer from one office to another? Is there a reduction of the salary of the present officer; and, if so, what compensation is to be given him for the loss which he sustains? I shall be glad if the right hon. Baronet will give the Committee some information on these points.
    THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON): This matter, Sir, was settled in the time of the late Government, who decided that the legal officer should retire, and that a new officer should be appointed at a salary of £1,000 a-year, who should give his whole time to the office. This Vote of £658 is necessary to pay the balance of his salary for the present year. I hope this explanation will be satisfactory to the hon. Member.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: Are we to understand that there is a corresponding saving on Class III., Vote 1?
    SIR JAMES FERGUSSON: There is a permanent saving of £1,000 a-year.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: Is there a saving on the Vote for this year?
    SIR JAMES FERGUSSON: No, Sir. We do not say this year, because we have to pay the balance of the salary of the retiring officer; but in future there will be a saving of £1,000 a-year.
    (7.) £10, Supplementary, Bankruptcy Department of the Board of Trade.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: Mr. Chairman, this appears a very simple Vote—only £10—but in reality it involves a charge of £14,000. The charge is apparently met by an appropriation to an equivalent amount of £14,340, but in reality it is no justification for the charge. It is as much a drain upon the Exchequer as if there had been a substantive Vote for a similar sum. The £14,340 is received in respect of fees and other incomes incidental to the administration of the Bankruptcy Act. The principal item on which the present increased Estimate is based is that for Country Receivers paid by fees and commissions. Now, the history of that item is remarkable. In the year 1884–5 the sum of £33,000 was reckoned upon as the sum to be paid to Country Receivers; but so far from that being necessary hardly more than two-thirds was required. £10,000, in fact, was sur-

    769
    rendered as not needed. The Estimate of the following year was £33,000 again, supplemented by a further Vote of £5,780, making £38,780, and that is about the amount which was expended, so that already you had an increase from £23,000 to £38,000 in one year. But we have now a much more remarkable increase. The £38,000 has now gone up to £45,000, with this curious result that whatever increase you may have in the fees derivable from the Bankruptcy business of the country, all is to be swallowed up in further fees paid to Country Receivers and to other officers connected with the administration of the Bankruptcy Department of the Board of Trade. When this form of estimate was put on the Paper I objected to it as of an unsatisfactory character, but it was said that the fullest information would be given. Anyone who does not take the very greatest possible care to follow out in detail the whole system connected with the working of the Bankruptcy Act can have not the least notion of what this means. I object to the way in which the Vote is submitted to the Committee, and I trust that full and satisfactory explanation will be given of the astonishing increase under sub-head D. But what is proposed more astounding, is this. At the bottom of the page is to be found an item of £1,900 to meet additional charges for stationery under the new Bankruptcy Rules. Now that is an increase of more than 50 per cent upon the Estimate as originally presented. The first Estimate under this head was £3,700, and the Estimate for last year was similarly £3,700; but so far from this being insufficient there was a surplus of £598 last year. How is it there is an increase of more than £50 upon the present year? It is because we are told there are new Bankruptcy Rules, but I certainly cannot understand what the new Rules can be to involve an increase in stationery to this amount.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (Baron HENRY DE WORMS): Mr. Courtney, I admit that the hon. Gentleman is thoroughly acquainted with the working of the Bankruptcy Act. He has taken great interest in it, and he has served upon the Public Accounts Committee, and devoted great attention to the accounts connected with the administration of the Bankruptcy Act. He
    770
    asks me for an explanation of the sum set aside to meet the increased scale of remuneration to Country Receivers paid by fees and commission. The simple answer to the question is that it was found that the scale of remuneration by fees was totally inadequate, and that many who thought they would be able to do all that was required of them, and earn at the same time that to which they were entitled as professional men, found that the remuneration was so bad that they preferred relinquishing their positions to holding them under such disadvantageous circumstances. If the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) will turn to the Report of the Board of Trade presented to Parliament this year, he will find the increased scale which it was found necessary to substitute for the old scale; and he will find on examination that the difference of £12,000 is easily accounted for. He knows, I think, that the Country Receivers are not paid, or have not been paid, by any salary, but have to depend entirely upon commissions and fees; and that, as I have said, the commissions and fees proved so utterly inadequate that it became necessary in the interests of common fairness that they should be increased. Hence the great increase in the Estimate presented to Parliament. I would remind the hon. Gentleman that the enormous work done by the Bankruptcy Department of the Board of Trade is paid for without one single penny charged coming out of the Treasury. It is paid for by fees, and there is no charge whatever upon the Treasury. The hon. Gentleman knows the amount of work that is done; and, therefore, I think he will agree with me that the Department cannot be called a very extravagant one. It is a new Department, comparatively speaking, and we are aware that at the time it was formed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain) that right hon. Gentleman had to obtain the services of many very eminent professional men who were not Members of the Civil Service, and who were, perhaps, more lavish in their expenditure than they might have been had they been accustomed to the severe râgime of the Civil Service. Take all this into consideration, and the amount of work which the Board of Trade does, and I think

    771
    that, although it may appear to hon. Gentlemen at first that these items are very large, it must appear to the Committee that the explanation I have been able to give with regard to the £12,000 increase in the remuneration to Country Receivers is satisfactory; and that we were not extravagant in giving this increased remuneration, but that originally the remuneration of these gentlemen was over-estimated and fell far below that to which they were entitled. Now, with regard to the £1,900 increase in respect of stationery. I have asked for an explanation of the item, and the explanation given to me is that owing to the New Rules and the vast number of forms and circulars which have to be sent about the country, it was absolutely impossible for the Board of Trade to make any approximate estimate of what the expense of the stationery would be. I find that the £1,900 is really rather under than over the mark of that which was required to defray the great expense attendant upon the printing and circulation of the forms and circulars in question. I think I have touched upon all the points which the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) has raised, and I hope I have succeeded in showing him that there is no room to charge the Bankruptcy Department of the Board of Trade with extravagance, and that although these sums seem large they are simply and solely the result of the very heavy work thrown on the Board of Trade.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say in effect that the Bankruptcy Department of the Board of Trade have so successfully plundered bankrupt estates that they are able to pay in fees and commissions to Country Receivers alone almost exactly double the amount that was necessary two years ago.
    BARON HENRY DE WORMS: That is not a proper interpretation of my remarks.
    MR. P. MCDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I object to the increased scale of remuneration paid to Country Receivers, but I do so on very different grounds to my hon. Friend (Mr. Arthur O'Connor). I object as an Irish Representative to Ireland being called upon to bear any share of this expenditure, inasmuch as the advantages arising out of he expenditure do not in the least
    772
    benefit my country. I have raised the question in this House before now, and got a reply from the right hon. Gentleman the then Secretary of the Board of Trade, to the effect that the Government would extend the present English practice to Ireland, but that they were strenuously opposed by six Irish Representatives. But I may point out to the Government that five of these so-called Obstructionists have no longer a seat in the House, and that consequently the position of the Government has grown to the smallest possible minimum.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman is travelling very wide of the Vote. This Vote only relates to the Bankruptcy Law in England.
    MR. P. MCDONALD: I was endeavouring to explain that we have to bear our proportionate share of these increased items of £12,000 for Country Receivers and £1,900 for stationery to meet additional charges under the new Bankruptcy Rules. I for one protest against the increase.
    THE CHAIRMAN: These sums are not raised by taxation in Ireland, but they are raised by fees in England.
    MR. J. E. ELLIS: I think the position taken up by the hon. Member (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) has not been met by the reply of the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Board of Trade. He has confined himself to mere general statements. Anyone who has any knowledge of business transactions will admit that an increase, whether it be in salaries or anything else, of from £33,000 in one year to £45,000 in another, requires some little detailed explanation. This the Secretary of the Board of Trade has not at present given.
    MR. BRADLAUGH: There is another remark which occurs to me in consequence of the explanation given by the Secretary of the Board of Trade. I understood the hon. Gentleman (Baron Henry de Worms) to speak as though there was no cost to the country in respect of the remuneration of these Receivers, because the amount is paid out of fees; but surely he reckons the creditors as having some slight interest in the matter, and whether they pay it to the tax collector or pay it in fees to the Court, it is a matter of very little difference to them how their money is frittered away. What I would suggest

    773
    to the Committee is that we ought to be even more careful in voting an excess of this kind so put to us. It looks as if there was a disposition on the part of the Government to allow larger fees than necessary for the administration of justice because those fees are not paid directly by them. I see that shakes the stern mind of the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Jackson), and I dare say that it was a misapprehension on my part. Since I have been a Member of this House I have received many letters from creditors, who have asked me to take the earliest opportunity of exposing the way in which estates in Bankruptcy are frittered away, and this is the only opportunity I have had.
    BARON HENRY DE WORMS: In answer to the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh), I have to say that the increased fees are the result of the increase of bankruptcy business. We have to deal with a great number of bankrupt estates, and the fees attendant upon the business are very large. Last year the amount of the fees was £155,818, including the interest of money awaiting to be applied. The fees which were paid originally to Country Receivers were quite inadequate, and not only that, but the old system was considered unsatisfactory. That was the opinion of many judges, and the opinion of a large portion of the public, and for that reason the Board of Trade decided that the scale of fees must be increased, and the result is only adequate to the requirements of the Department.
    MR. LANE: I am quite sure that if the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Board of Trade (Baron Henry De Worms) had the misfortune, as I very often, I am sorry to say, have had of looking at this question of fees from a creditor's point of view, he would come to a very different conclusion from that at which he has arrived—namely, that the Receivers are underpaid. If the hon. Gentleman, or any other Member of this House, will ask any traders who have the misfortune to become creditors in connection with bankruptcy cases in the English Courts, he will find that nine out of every ten will tell him that the Receivers are overpaid rather than underpaid. The right hon. Gentleman (Baron Henry de Worms) has just said that £155,818 was received last year, but that this
    774
    sum included interest upon money paid into Court. I would like the hon. Gentleman to state what the amount of that interest is, because one of the greatest hardships which creditors have to complain of in connection with bankruptcy cases is the great difficulty there is in getting the dividends, or any part of them, out of the hands of the Receivers. In fact, so long have creditors to wait in some cases that they actually give them up altogether, and forget all about them; if they do not keep constantly writing to these officers to hurry on the business, there is no chance whatever of despatch being observed in the conduct of bankruptcy proceedings. I never knew before that there was such an item in the bankruptcy accounts of the Board of Trade as interest on balances. That explains, perhaps, to a very large extent the reason why the dividends are not distributed more quickly. Naturally, the Department will not put pressure on the officers to distribute dividends when the dividends lying to the credit of the Board of Trade produce a certain annual revenue. There is one point I should like to press upon the attention of the right hon. Gentleman (Baron Henry de Worms). He said that the great increase of over 50 per cent on the cost of stationery during the past year is owing to the new Rules. Now, Sir, I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has seen the new forms which are being issued this year in connection with bankruptcy cases in English Courts, but, if he has, I think he will agree with me that the large expenditure in this Stationery Department is owing altogether to the immense and unnecessary large size of all forms issued in connection with bankruptcy proceedings. I think it would be worth the hon. Gentleman's while to look into this technical detail in connection with the working of this Department; because I am sure he will find that all the forms used in connection with the Bankruptcy Court could be reduced by one half their size, and, therefore, one half of this expenditure in the Stationery Department could be saved. The first thing that struck me when I saw these large forms coming to my office was that the size of them would necessarily involve a very large increase in connection with the expenditure upon bankruptcy proceedings. Everything connected with this Department is of very I great importance, to the mercantile com-

    775
    munity in the country, and I ask the hon. Gentleman (Baron Henry de Worms) to give his attention to these two matters: firstly, that the sums paid in to bankrupt estates should not be allowed to accumulate too long in the hands of the Receivers, or in the hands of the Department; and, secondly, the unnecessary large size of all the forms that are now issued in connection with bankruptcy affairs.
    BARON HENRY DE WORMS: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lane) for the suggestions he has made. Coming from him, who has great practical experience, they are most valuable. Perhaps he will see his way to confer with me on the matter; but, at any rate, I promise the Committee I will look into the stationery question, and see whether any reduction of the £1,900 can be made. I am sorry to say that I have not got such figures with me as enable me to say what is the interest derived from monies paid into Court. I quite agree with the hon. Gentleman that there should be no delay in paying over the amounts due. The hon. Gentleman knows that the great object of the new Bankruptcy Department, which has worked very well, was to expedite the proceedings in bankruptcy, and I think he will agree with me that to a very large extent bankruptcy proceedings have been expedited.
    MR. LANE: No doubt affairs in bankruptcy have been very largely improved from the trader's point of view since the Board of Trade has taken them in hand; but there is room for still further improvement, and especially in that particular matter which is of most vital importance—namely, prompt payment of dividends.
    Vote agreed to.
    (8) Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £4,595, be granted to Her Majesty, 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 Civil Service Commission."
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: This Vote on account of the Civil Service Commission includes a charge of £2,600 on account of "bonuses and gratuities to temporary copyists under the Treasury Minute of the
    776
    22nd December, 1886." I am afraid there is no one in the House at present who can say whether the Treasury Minute has yet been generally circulated and published, or whether it has been laid before the House; and if it has not been laid before the House, it appears to me a rather strange proceeding to come and ask for a Supplementary Estimate on these terms without the House being made acquainted with what those terms are; although from the wording of the Vote I have read it would appear that the temporary copyists are to be generously treated, yet as a matter of fact the very reverse is the case. The treatment which this item represents is of the meanest and most petty description. I do not know who is responsible for the Treasury Minute itself, or for the Minute which was submitted to the Lords of the Treasury before the Minute itself was issued; but of this I am satisfied, whatever he may be, or whoever he may be, he is a man of mean and sordid mind, utterly unfit to have the consideration of personal claims for justice, perfectly unfit to be allowed to sway the judgment of men in the responsible position of the Lords of the Treasury. Now, these temporary copyists are, perhaps, that portion of the public servants which is most badly and most unfairly treated. The injustice of their case is notorious, so notorious that no man, official or non-official, can be found to any longer contest the proposition. The Treasury themselves have been obliged to admit that their attitude with regard to these copyists is utterly indefensible. It was foreseen long ago that the position would be indefensible, and so far back as the year 1878 a Committee of the House of Commons was appointed to consider the question and report upon it. I venture to ask the indulgence of the Committee while I cite a few words from the Report of the Committee. This Committee was appointed to inquire whether the writers appointed before 1871 had suffered any wrong or injustice by the cessation of the system of progressive rate of payment. They considered the question, took evidence, and made a Report, and they dwelt principally upon the terms of the Order in Council of the 19th August, 1871, under which the writers

    777
    then existing had practically three courses open to them. The first was that they might retain their employment in the same department only so long as their services might be required at the rate of pay they were receiving on the 19th of August, 1871, without any addition thereto on account of services following that day; or, secondly, they might accept a gratuity and retire from the Service; or, thirdly, having accepted the gratuity, to remain in their employment as writers at 10 d. per hour. Many did accept the gratuity, and remained, because they were utterly unable to do anything else, having for years been in the Government Service. As a matter of fact these men were either forced to accept the gratuity and leave the Service, or to accept the gratuity and continue service at the miserable stipend of 10 d. per hour. In the Admiralty they had been receiving 6s. 6d. a-day for six days in the week, with a rise of 3d. a day for each year's service. In the Customs their rate of pay averaged from 5s. 6d. to a maximum of 8s. 6d. In the War Office they went up to 7s. 6d. a-day after 10 years' service, and in other Departments they had rates of pay far exceeding what is now allowed. The Committee goes on—
    "Previous to the Order in Council of August 1871, the heads of Departments had the power, which in every instance they exercised, of recommending their meritorious writers for increase of pay. Since the promulgation of the Order in Council this power no longer exists, so that the heads of Departments are no longer allowed to recommend these writers for more pay. As regards the duties of the writers now, it is in evidence that they are the same as they were before the increments were stopped, the writers being then employed on work of a responsible character, and sometimes in superintending and instructing others in their duty. In many cases it may be said that their work was that of clerks on the establishment."
    I can speak from personal knowledge; I have seen many clerks receiving 10 d. per hour who were worth infinitely more than established clerks receiving £600 or £700 a-year.
    "The pay of 10 d. an hour was fixed on the supposition that the work of the writers was of a mechanical character, such as copying."
    And then the Committee concluded—
    "Having considered all the matters brought before them, your Committee are of opinion that the restoration of the system of progres-
    778
    sive rate of payment will best meet the requirements of justice, give contentment to the writers, and promote the efficiency of the public service."
    From that day to this nothing whatever has been done in that direction for these men. They were reported upon by the Playfair Commission in 1876, and the Playfair Commission reported that the copyists throughout the whole Service would not exceed something like 100. That they were to be a kind of shifting balance, going from office to office as the exigencies of the work demand. What is the fact? So far from finding that 100 writers will do, there are now—and, I believe, have been pretty constantly since that day—no less than from 1,000 to 1,200 writers. What is the work these men do? They are not men exclusively employed as a 10 d. an hour salary would appear to suggest; but they are men who have been continuously employed for five, six, seven, eight, 10, and 15 or more years. Still they are treated as merely temporary copyists, dismissible at a minute's notice, and not eligible for more than 10 d. an hour for six hours a-day—30 s. per week as the utmost they can obtain. Now, the Treasury, or the Civil Service Commission, having got its men into the Public Service, utilizes them in any way in which they can. I perfectly admit that very little blame, if any, can be attached to the heads of rooms or subdivisions in the different Departments. They are obliged to despatch the work for which they are responsible, and in order to do so they must make use of such material as they find at their hand; and, therefore, every head of sub-division or of branch will naturally turn to the despatch of any work whatever men he finds available, altogether irrespective of the status or pay of the men. And the consequence is that, on and off now for 15 years, during the whole time since this Committee of the House of Commons reported, we have had writers employed upon work far different from that for which they were engaged—far different from that which is recognized as proper work to be paid for at 10 d. an hour. The writers do not complain of being put upon superior work. I dare say that, especially to the intelligent men anong them, it is a relief to be put upon superior work. But what they complain of is, that if they do object to

    779
    the injustice of being put on this work at 10 d. an hour they are instantly dismissed. They dare not refuse to take the work. They know that the head of a branch would at once say—"Then we will dispense with your services;" and these men have absolutely nothing before them in the world. They complain of being put to superior work if they are not paid anything like the rate of pay which other men more fortunately situated can command. At last the Treasury has been obliged to admit, as they do in this Minute of which I have got a copy—I have obtained a copy from a private source. The Committee appointed by the Treasury reported that they were forced to the conclusion that copyists had been employed to a greater extent than was contemplated by the Playfair Commission. That alone shows that they are a valuable class of public servants. The Committee further find that though nominally for temporary service, the copyists have in many cases been serving continuously for long periods in the same Departments. They found that there are from 1,000 to 1,200 now in the Service, and they say that probably 300 are employed merely upon copying. They admit that three out of every four men are doing work better than that for which they were nominally engaged. The hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Jackson) shakes his head. I will read the ipsis-sima verba. "Mere copying may employ, according to their estimate, about 300 registered copyists." Three hundred appears to me to bear the same proportion to 1,200 as one does to four.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON): Surely, 300 out of 1,200 can hardly be calculated as three out of four.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: The hon. Gentleman cannot have heard me correctly. The Committee say "mere copying may employ, according to their estimate, about 300 registered copyists." 300 out of 1,200, or 25 per cent. Well, the other men are employed upon something better than mere copying, and these men number 900, and 900 is to to 300 as 3 to 1. It is, therefore, clear that 900 out of the 1,200 are engaged in superior work. Further on, the Committee say that—
    "Of the remaining work about 40 per cent of it is mostly of a mixed character, the duties
    780
    of each copyist being partly mechanical and partly such as requires some special knowledge and experience."
    They say, further—
    "It may, therefore, be accepted that about one-third of the work entrusted to copyists is of a higher order than that for which the pay of 10 d. an hour, fixed by Order in Council in 1878, is intended."
    Now then, mark the spirit by which my Lords are moved. My Lords agree with the conclusion of the Committee, that the conditions of service are not so unfavourable as they are sometimes represented to be, and that the men have a fair chance of obtaining better and more permanent positions in the Civil Service. They do not say a word about the fact that the men are debarred from the permanent Civil Service, and, at present, by the bar of age. But that is not all; my Lords of the Treasury think that the mea have a fair chance of obtaining better and more permanent positions in the Civil Service, or elsewhere, and—
    "That those who have been unable to obtain such positions could not command in the market better terms than they now obtain."
    I should like to know what terms the gentleman who drafted this Minute would be likely to get in the open market for his services? What would any of the permanent superior Staff of your Public Offices be able to obtain in the public market? These men can be obtained, no doubt, as temporary copyists at 10 d. an hour; and why, because there are so many thousands and tens of thousands out of employment; because times are bad; and because a starving man cannot haggle about the rate of remuneration, when, if he refuses what is offered, he must go into the workhouse. It is the workhouse and the distress which is enabling you to treat these men so unfairly; but if it is true that you can obtain a large number of men at 10 d. an hour, it is equally true that you can fill the whole of the Public Departments with men quite as good as you have now in them at one-third of the salary. Why should you apply this test to these men, who have no power to state their case, without personal danger, which you fail to apply to any other portion of the Public Service. Well, this Committee goes on to say—
    "But it is not improbable that such men have only taken copying employment because they, for one reason or another, have failed to secure

    781
    better positions in early life; and the market value of their services, as tested by their success, can hardly be put higher than, that which they earn."
    If that is so, if my Lords believe what they write, they have no business at all to improve the position of these men, as they propose to do; but they have admitted that this is not true. They make as strong a case as they can against these men; they affect to believe that the Treasury case is absolute, and admits of no qualification, and then they affect, out of grace, to concede something. Now, we shall consider what it is they concede. The Committee reported that about one-third of the work now done by copyists is superior to that they were intended to do, and what do my Lords do? They calculate the services of these copyists, and find that one-third of them have had more than eight years' service; and they say that because one-third of the copyists throughout the Service are doing work superior to that they were engaged to do at 10 d. an hour; and because, also, one-third of the copyists have had more than eight years' service, we will, to make up for the anomaly, and to put things straight, give a bonus to those who have had eight years' service. The fact is this, that of the writers in the Civil Service it is not altogether the men of long service who are doing the superior work. There are many men who after a year or two's service have been put upon work of a very responsible character. Therefore, to give to a poor old fellow, who may not be worth more than 10 d. an hour, a gratuity because he has been eight years in the Service is no satisfaction to those copyists who are doing superior work though they have not been eight years in the Service. The man who drafted this Minute was not only a man of mean and sordid soul, but most stupid and incompetent. He does not know how to deal with the business which comes before him, and it is a great pity that the Lords of the Treasury ever consented to listen to his suggestions. Now, what are his suggestions? They are that after copyists have been in the Service for eight years they shall be allowed a gratuity. And I am sure I shall rather startle the Committee by making known to them the extent of the generosity of the Treasury. After a copyist has been doing superior work for eight years he
    782
    is to be allowed a gratuity of 30 s., that is a penny a day, and when he has had nine years' service he is to be allowed a gratuity of two-pence a day. And so does it go on, if he is allowed to continue in the Service, year by year increasing. But so careful is the Treasury of the Public Money when this kind of service is to be paid for that there is a clause specially put in preventing anyone getting a gratuity of more than £50. [Mr. JACKSON: Per annum.] Yes, the maximum gratuity is £50. But one copyist has calculated that he will reach the age of 97 before he ever receives the maximum. That is the way this Treasury, so ready to squander tens of thousands of pounds upon buildings on the Continent, and hundreds of thousands and millions in unjustifiable aggression abroad, treat men who serve them well. The whole story is a disgrace to the Administration, and I doubt very much whether there is a Government in Europe, however poor or new, that would have been capable of so dirty a transaction as this is. The House of Commons has inquired into it already. The Committee of 1873 has said that these men being continually employed for long periods at responsible work ought to receive an increase in their rate of pay. That appears to me to be a most reasonable proposition. It is one which is acted upon in every other branch of the Public Service, whether Civil, Military, or Naval. Why these men should be excluded from it I cannot understand; but this proposal of the Treasury, instead of meeting the grievance, is practically an insult to a body of men who have deserved well of the State, because if they had not they would have been forced to retire long ago. I beg to move the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £2,600, being the amount set down for bonuses and gratuities to temporary copyists under the Treasury Minute of 22nd December, 1886.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £1,995, be granted to Her Majesty for the said Service."—(Mr. Arthur O'Connor.)
    THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON): I am rather in a difficulty to know what it is the hon. Member (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) really desires. He has com-

    783
    plained, and complained in terms that are more forcible than polite, of the action of the Treasury in connection with this matter.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: I hope the hon. Gentleman did not take it to be personal. It was not meant to be so.
    MR. JACKSON: I know the hon. Gentleman too well to imagine that he meant what he said to apply to me personally. But to speak of the action of the Treasury as dirty is not a very polite way of speaking. The hon. Gentleman has quoted from a Minute which has not been circulated to the House, but which has been presented to a Commission of which the hon. Member is a member.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: That is not the way I obtained a copy.
    MR. JACKSON: I desire the Committee to understand—
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: I think I am entitled to the protection of the Chair from the insinuation which is contained in the observation of the Secretary to the Treasury. It is perfectly true that the Minute in question has been furnished to the Civil Service Commission, of which I am a member. It is perfectly true that I have seen it so in print, but the paper from which I read was a manuscript copy, which was made before the Minute was supplied to the Commission at all. If what the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Jackson) says means anything at all, it means this, that I being a member of the Commission, have used documents which came into my power or possession as a member of that Commission in a way in which I had no right to use them, and have quoted them in this House before they could have become available in the ordinary course. If that is so I beg to give the most emphatic contradiction to the statement of the hon. Gentleman.
    MR. JACKSON: I have not the slightest desire or intention to cast upon the hon. Member any reproach for having obtained a copy of this Minute. But what I was about to say was that this Minute, as he knows, has been presented to a Commission of which he is a member, and that that Commission will presently have an opportunity of expressing its opinion upon the action of the Treasury in regard to this particular class of persons. They will also
    784
    have an opportunity, if they choose to avail themselves of it, of having evidence supplied to them by members connected with these services, and therefore it seems to me, perhaps, a little premature to express the very decided opinion which the hon. Member (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) has allowed himself to express. The hon. Member spoke of the Treasury in terms which certainly were not very complimentary, and spoke of them as having taken advantage of the distress in the country for refusing to do to this class of men justice. Now, Sir, surely the hon. Member knows perfectly well that there never has been the smallest difficulty in obtaining men for the position of writers, even during the period which was considered the period of the greatest prosperity in the country. It has nothing whatever to do with the distress in the country that the present wages are paid to the writers. I will go further, and I will tell the hon. Member that I have just as much sympathy with these writers as he has. It became my duty to deal with this, one of the most difficult questions which it would be in the recollection of the House has been before this House for a long time, and with which, apparently, successive Secretaries to the Treasury have refused or neglected to deal. I admit that the position which these writers occupy is not one which is very satisfactory. I admit, also, that the rate of payment is exceedingly low; but I maintain that a man who is in the position of a trustee of public money is bound to see, as far as he can, that the public money is not wasted, and that prices higher than market prices are not paid. [Mr. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: In all cases.] In all cases, I admit. Now, Sir, what are the facts in regard to these copyists? The hon. Gentleman said, and he would apparently lead the House to believe, that there was great difficulty in these men obtaining better employment. He knows perfectly well, if he has read the Minutes, that out of 5,000 copyists who have entered the Service, only 1,468 of them remain in the Service at the present day. Of these 1,027 have retired, most of them avowedly, and the rest presumably to obtain better employment; while permanent employment in the Public Service has been obtained by 2,109. The hon. Member

    785
    knows that there is no bar to these men passing into the higher divisions of the Service except the bar of being unable to pass the examination which is necessary. [Mr. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: Age is a barrier.] But most of them have entered the Service at an age at which they could have passed into the permanent service. [Mr. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: There were no vacancies.] But if they had passed the examination they would have got positions in the permanent service when vacancies occur, and, therefore, so far as that point is concerned, I think it may be taken as absolutely disposed of. Sir, I admit, as I have said, that these men occupy a position which is not satisfactory. The Treasury, recognizing that fact, have taken the only practical step they could take to prevent the continuance of it for any very long period of time; and they have decided, as the hon. Member knows, that the list of writers shall be closed, and, in fact, no further applicants shall be placed on the register. I am not at all sure that the action of the Treasury is not the more cruel of the two, and a great many men are thereby prevented from joining the Service and earning 30 s. a week, which the hon. Member seems to despise, for I believe there are thousands of men in this country who are competent to do this work, and who would be glad to do it at a time like this at 30 s. per week. Sir, the hon. Member spoke of the conclusion at which the Treasury had arrived. The object of the Treasury was as far as possible to do justice within the limits of the line which they had laid down for themselves—namely, that they were not justified in spending the public money lavishly. They endeavoured, as far as they could, to find a reasonable line, so that the men who may continue in the employment may continue to improve their condition, and to receive a higher rate of pay; and although it may seem a long time before these men reach the maximum, you have it in evidence that the Supplementary Vote which is now before the Committee is for £4,595. This is expected to come in course of payment in the course of the coming year. The estimated cost of the small bonuses to which the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) referred, coupled with the gratuities which may become payable to those who voluntarily retire, repre-
    786
    sents at least £6,000 a-year; and I say, Sir, that those who are responsible for the finances of this country owe a duty to the taxpayer, and that the advance under this particular class of £6,000 a-year is not an advance which is to be despised or to be considered small. I know that, whatever was done, it would be impossible to give entire satisfaction. I believe that the closing of the register may have a good effect upon many of these men. The hon. Member must not forget that the position of writer has been sought for by young men partly as a means of subsistence for the time, and partly as a training ground within which to learn the duties which they had to perform to enable them more easily to pass the examination for the higher divisions of the Service. And it has been because it has been so valuable to young men who have used it for this purpose, that there has been such an enormous number of candidates always waiting any vacancies which may occur. I do not deny for one moment that the question is one beset with difficulties. It is beset with difficulties, and any question will be beset with difficulties wherever you have a larger number of candidates than you have places to give to them. I maintain that it is our bounden duty, as far as we can, while doing justice to the Service, to prevent the waste of the public money in paying for services more than their market value.
    MR. PULESTON: I cannot agree with my hon. Friend (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) that we should do right to vote against the appropriation of this sum of £2,600. We should be acting contrary to the interests of the writer class if we refused to take this sum, though we may only consider it an instalment of justice. We have certainly just grounds for hoping that when the case is thoroughly threshed out before the Commission, something better than that now proposed will be obtained. Of course I fully appreciate the motive of my hon. Friend (Mr. Arthur O'Connor); he has taken a very great and intelligent interest in this question from the very beginning, but nevertheless, I cannot go the length of voting with him against the granting of these bonuses and gratuities. It has been said that whilst evidence will be admitted before the Commission it will

    787
    be of a somewhat restricted character. I trust we may receive the assurance from the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Jackson), that the question of the writers will be fully and adequately discussed before the Royal Commission; it certainly is expected that the Commission will afford every opportunity of thoroughly threshing the question out. Now, I want to take issue with my hon. Friend (Mr. Jackson) on one point. The whole tenour of his speech was that we must be careful not to increase unnecessarily the calls upon the taxpayers of the country. My contention is, and always has been, that the reorganization of the Civil Service would, instead of entailing any additional burden upon the taxpayers, really result in a large saving of money. I have on one or two previous occasions illustrated this by quoting the figures of the Return which you, Mr. Courtney, were good enough to grant me when you occupied the position of Secretary to the Treasury. Anyone who will take the trouble to study the figures of that Return will see that all the little reforms wanting in the Civil Service, including the writers, would be fully and adequately met with advantage to the State and with satisfaction to all concerned, not at the expense of the State, but at a very considerable saving of money to the State. We are not prepared to admit that the Civil Service of this country is carried on on the basis of supply and demand. If it is so, let the principle be applied all round—in the highest as well as the lowest grades of the Service. We consider that the most efficient men in the Service are those who have fixity of tenure, those who feel that by entering the Civil Service they are provided for for life, and that it is necessary for them to devote all their zeal and energy to the Public Service. That is the right principle upon which the Civil Service should be carried on, and my hon. Friend (Mr. Jackson) will excuse me for saying that the doctrine he has advanced—the doctrine of supply and demand—is, as applied to the Civil Service, an entirely new and novel one. I do not remember that the doctrine was ever advanced by Her Majesty's Government before the great interest in the case of the Lower Division Clerks and in that of the writers sprung up a couple of years ago. It is said that the writers are not to be increased in
    788
    number. It was supposed by the Play-fair Commission that the writers were a diminishing body; but as a matter of fact they have been an increasing body. By engaging these writers continuously, and by setting them to superior work, we only raise in them false hopes. I believe that by the Treasury Minute to which reference has been made, it is admitted that one-third of the writers are doing work of a superior character. What is this superior work? The superior work that a writer who gets 10 d. an hour does is the work of the clerk, sitting by his side, who gets £300, £400, or £500 a-year. That is admitted by my hon. Friend (Mr. Jackson), and by those who acted with him in the production of this Treasury Minute. This Minute either goes too far or not far enough. It would have been perfectly intelligible to have issued no such Minute. As it has been admitted that one-third of these men earning 10 d. an hour are doing the work of clerks who are on the permanent establishment, and who earn from £300 to £500 a-year, I could have understood a proposal to make them an allowance commensurate with the work they do. The Government refuse to recognize the superior work per se, but offer the men who have been eight years in the Service 6d. a-week extra. I cannot but regret the issuing of a Minute such as this because, as I say, it either goes too far or does not go far enough, and it operates unjustly in regard to a large portion of the men. I regret very much that my hon. Friend has not seen his way to justify another and a better conclusion.
    MR. MOLLOY: I do not know that there is anything more charming than to see the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Jackson) rise in his place, when jobs of an enormous character are being carried out, with no better argument to call to his aid in answer to an appeal on behalf of the poorest paid body of clerks in this or any other Service—the argument about the duty of those who are entrusted with the guardianship of the national purse. Why does he not make use of that argument when dealing with the lavish manner in which money is spent to buy a house at Cairo, and to provide funds for a Special Commissioner to the East. The hon. Gentleman in his open-

    789
    ing remarks said he does not understand what my hon. Friend desires. Well, for my own part, I think the speech of my hon. Friend was perfectly lucid. It was certainly understood by every other Member of the Committee, and when the Secretary to the Treasury says he cannot understand it I am bound to regard the position of the hon. Gentleman as peculiar, seeing that having made that statement he immediately proceeded to answer the arguments of my hon. Friend. The Secretary to the Treasury has passed over one little point with regard to the Minute which has been read here this evening. He asks—"Why discuss this Minute since it will be sent before the Royal Commission?" But for the past 15 years you have put off the claims of these miserably paid Civil servants always on the same ground—that there is a Commission or Committee or some other body examining into the case. Year after year the claims of these people have been brought forward in Committee of Supply. The subject has been brought forward in the House by way of Motion. Year after year the same stereotyped answer is given—"Oh! we cannot give you a definite answer now because the subject is just going to be considered by a Royal Commission." I should have thought that the Government had enough Commissions on their hands without taking one for these subjects. The hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury justifies the small and insufficient pay of these hard working officials on the ground—and the Committee will admit that this is the most astounding of all his arguments—that there is no difficulty in obtaining men for these positions. I should like to ask the hon. Gentleman whether there would be any difficulty to obtain men to fill the position he holds? If the post of Secretary to the Treasury were to come to competition would there not be plenty of Gentlemen come forward on that side of the House to compete for it? And is there any difficulty in obtaining men for the permanent staff of the Civil Service? How many men apply for every situation vacant? Why just as many, if not more, as apply for these minor offices. Do you account for underpaying these clerks by the fact that they are easy to get? If not why do you refer to there being no difficulty
    790
    in obtaining men. The Secretary to the Treasury admits in almost a tone of humiliation that these officials are underpaid. Then what is he going to do with regard to them? He refers to the Commission, and again deals for a few minutes with the duties of a trustee of public money. He states that they have had 34,000 applications for these positions. Why, how many thousands of applications have you had for positions in the higher grades of the Service? You have actually had more. The hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury did not for a moment touch upon this extra pay which my hon. Friend told us these writers are to receive—he made no defence whatever of this paltry 1d. per day which is to be paid to the men who have been so many years in the service of this country. It seems that the men are to get an advance of 1d. a-day one year and another 1d. a-day another year. It was not worth your while holding an inquiry into the matter if you have nothing more generous to offer than 1d. a-day to these hard working servants of the Civil Service. Then, there is another point—this gratuity of £20 which you propose to give to some of these men. What is the object of that? Is the payment of a few paltry pounds supposed to be an inducement to the men to leave the Service? That amount would not support them for more than two or three months, economic as they might be. Then the work they did in the Civil Service would have to be done by someone. Who is to do it if these men leave? The Secretary to the Treasury admitted that these men are not doing the work for which they were originally retained. He admitted, and this Minute admits, and the Report of the Committee admits, that a large number of them are employed on the work of the higher grade—in doing work that the permanent officials would do if there were enough of them. The Secretary to the Treasury shakes his head. Why it is in the Report, and he admitted it in his remarks when he had the dispute as to whether 300 to 1,200 was the same as three to one. He admitted that these writers who do the superior work of permanent officials are to be induced to retire. The money which is to be offered them is simply a bribe to retire. The hon. Gentleman says—"They will have the opportunity of obtaining employ-

    791
    ment in the open market." Why I should have thought that the experience of a gentleman connected with the Government as to the training for the Civil Service in this country would have made it impossible for such a statement as that to come from the Secretary to the Treasury. The Civil Service training in this country, as everyone who has any knowledge of the subject is aware, renders it impossible for an old Civil Service employé to obtain employment in the open market. These men, after leaving the Government Service, hardly ever obtain any other employment, because they are so entirely incapacitated for it. The purely mechanical method of working which prevails amongst the lower orders of the Civil Service renders a man who has been in that Service a few years incapable of being of real assistance in a mercantile office. It is impossible for such a person to compete with the regular employés in the commercial service. So that when you have had these underpaid men in your service for eight or 10 or 15 years, and then tempt them to retire by the offer of a miserable gratuity of a few pounds, you are simply sending them to starvation. ["No, no!"] Someone says "No, no!" but I ask those who have had experience of the Civil Service whether what I say is not the fact? I ask, further, whether, if a man who has been in the Civil Service goes to a mercantile office and asks for employment he is likely to get it? He is not; none of them are likely to obtain employment unless they take to literature, and it is needless to say that only a very small fraction of them can do that. What the Secretary to the Treasury has said, in short, is no answer to the claims of these men, and I trust my hon. Friend (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) will go to a Division to mark our sense of the bad and ungenerous way in which these writers have been treated for so many years.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Sir HENRY HOLLAND): As the Committee is perhaps aware, I feel great sympathy for these Civil Service writers, and having more than once advocated their cause in this House, I should like to say a word now. I would respectfully submit that this discussion is somewhat premature, for this reason that great reliance has been placed on the Treasury Minute,
    792
    but up to now that Minute Las only been seen by two Gentlemen—namely, the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) and my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Jackson). The Committee generally have not had an opportunity of studying it. That Treasury Minute has, as I understand, been brought before the Royal Commission, who will have full power to report upon it. If there is any doubt on that point, I may say I am authorized to state that the question of the position of these Civil Servants is open to the Commission to investigate. I am at a loss to understand why hon. Gentlemen, who support the cause of of these writers, wish to reduce the amount of this Vote by striking off an item which must tend to improve the position of these writers, although it may appear to some not to go far enough and not to deal satisfactorily with the case. I fail to see why Gentlemen who are advocating the cause of these writers should reject a scheme which awards an amount of about £6,000 per annum, and which, to a great extent, admits the difficulties of the question and the goodness of the case of these Civil Service writers. It may be that the £6,000 does not make a sufficient provision; it may be that the remedy that is proposed is not sufficiently sweeping; but that will be a matter which the Commission can investigate. How we, sitting here this evening with no knowledge of the Treasury Minute, can investigate the question thoroughly and satisfactorily I am at a loss to know. I would most respectfully suggest, therefore, that the case of the copyists would be, to a certain extent, prejudiced by a hostile Division on the Treasury Minute. I would suggest that it would be well to stop this debate, which, as I have said, is somewhat premature, and to adopt the offering of the Treasury, reserving to all who are interested in the case, the right of examining into the Treasury Minute, and the case put before the Royal Commission.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: I can quite understand the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down making the suggestion he has offered to the House. It is a very natural suggestion to come from one who does not know the contents of the Treasury Minute. That

    793
    Treasury Minute, if acted upon now, will commit the Committee to a certain line—it will precipitate a line of conduct from which there will be no retreat afterwards. This Vote is not only for bonuses for men of a certain length of service who remain in the Service, but it is also for gratuities to be paid to men who leave the Service under the Treasury Minute. One of the terms of the Minute under which these gratuities are to be given was to the effect that any man accepting a gratuity, if hereafter he could, by examination, prove himself fit for higher service in the Civil Service, would, before he could be appointed to such higher service, have to repay to the public the amount of gratuity which had been paid to him on leaving the lower grade. So that an unfortunate writer who accepts a gratuity of £20, and then, six months afterwards, by the exercise of patience and toil, succeeds in passing through a competition, is not to be allowed to reap the benefit of so passing by entering into the Service he has proved himself fit for, without surrendering the £20 upon which he has had to live during the intermediate six months. It is perfectly impossible for the Committee to pass this Vote, and then to say that the question still remains open for consideration. The situation is irrecoverable once you commit yourselves to this Vote. But I imagine that for the Government to come down here and ask the Committee to vote a sum like this, before the terms upon which it is founded have been laid before us, is a course open to much greater objection than can be raised to any other part of the scheme of the Treasury. If this decision is premature, why do we not postpone the Vote until the discussion can be maintained with advantage? But I would undertake to show to any man of reasonable and fair mind, who will have the patience to listen to the facts of the case—I will convince him by giving 20, or 30, or 80 instances of living men—that the terms of this Treasury Minute are most inequitable. I will use no stronger language than that. With regard to the strong language of which the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Jackson) complained, I am very sorry that he should have thought he had reason to object to the terms I employed. It is not necessary, I am sure,
    794
    for me to disclaim any personal application of those terms. Such a thing never entered into my thoughts. I do not feel now that the hon. Gentleman is responsible for the difficulty; and I am certain it is a Gentleman of a very different class of mind from the hon. Member to whom this Minute is to be traced. But the Committee cannot appreciate the proposals involved in the Vote at the present moment. If the Vote is taken, the line of conduct adopted by the Treasury will have been sanctioned, and there will be no retreat. The status of the men who remain in the Service as writers will be compromised. If I could see my way fairly in discharge of my simple duty, as a Member of the House, knowing the facts of the case, to do so, I should be glad to withdraw all opposition to the Vote, hoping that, on a future occasion, the matter would be dealt with; but the proposal that the matter is now before a Royal Commission, and may be well left to that Commission, is most futile. That Commission will probably not report for a couple of years to come; and, at the most, can only report from time to time on comparatively small sections of the whole question. Probably upon the point we are discussing, its Report will not cover more than the question of the grant provided for in this Vote. It appears to me that there is nothing left for the Committee to do but to protest against the iniquitous way in which these writers are treated by dividing against the Vote.
    Mr. SCLATER-BOOTH: I am surprised to hear the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Colonies (Sir Henry Holland) referring to the Royal Commission on the Civil Establishments as though their proceedings are such as will relieve the Treasury from the difficulty of dealing with the question of the position of these writers. I cannot agree with the view that the grievances of the Civil servants are in any way before the Royal Commission. At all events, I have accepted a post on that Commission on a very different understanding. It was offered to me on totally different grounds; and it was with the greatest surprise that I heard from the right hon. Gentleman that a large portion of the time of the Commission was expected to be employed in listening to the grievances of these clerks. Already a great

    795
    deal has been done to embarrass the prospects of the Commission of arriving at an early decision; and it seems to me that if we are expected to go into these questions, as the right hon. Gentleman indicates, those prospects are likely to be a great deal nore embarrassed.
    MR. PULESTON: It seems to me that we are in a great difficulty, after the speech of my right hon. Friend who has just sat down, and in view of the remarks which fell from the Secretary for the Colonies, who was formerly Financial Secretary to the Treasury. I had hoped to hear some favourable response to the proposal to postpone this Vote to another day. I should not like to reduce the Vote, as it would be taking away from the Civil Service writers an instalment of that advantage which we hope is in store for them in the future. I had hoped, after the statement of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. H. H. Fowler) last year, that the subject of the position of writers would be thoroughly threshed out in the Treasury Minute. The question arose before the Royal Commission was thought of at all, and I came to the conclusion, when the Commission was set on foot, that we should have the case of these clerks, with other cases, thoroughly threshed out. But, in view of the remarks of my right hon. Friend who has just sat down, I do not know where we are at all. I do hope that for the present, at all events, this Vote will not be pressed to a Division. If it is so pressed, it will place those who desire to support the Government in a very difficult position indeed. I trust the proposal for the postponement of the Vote will be accepted.
    MR. HENRY H. FOWLER: As the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Puleston) has referred to me, I may be allowed to point out what was the position of the matter when the late Government left Office. I am speaking under some difficulty, not having heard the whole of the discussion this evening. I would point out, however, that the Minute was not prepared or contemplated when I left Office. The Minute I had occasion to allude to was in reference to Lower Division clerks. I stated to the House, I think, on the last day of last Session, that I had appointed a Departmental Committee to examine into the whole
    796
    question of the writers, believing that they had a very substantial grievance. Pending the Report of the Committee, I was not prepared, however, to express my opinion upon the matter. There was then before the Treasury a Minute dealing with another and totally different branch of the subject—namely, the grievances and claims of the Lower Division clerks who are permanent members of the Civil Service, and who complained of their position as compared with that of the Higher Division clerks. We have also the complaints of the writers who are not permanent members of the Civil Service, but are only casually and temporarily employed. Then a Royal Commission was announced to us with reference to Civil Service expenditure; and after I had accepted a post on that Commission, on the same understanding as the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Sclater-Booth), I was astounded to find, towards the end of the Session, that the whole question of the Lower Division clerks was to be referred to the Commission. If I had contemplated that course, I should have been in favour of that which the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Colonies (Sir Henry Holland) recommended from this Bench last July—namely, that the case of these persons should be heard before a Committee of this House. I do not hesitate to say that nothing has been done which will tend more to neutralize the effect of the inquiry of the Commission in the sense in which the Commission was formed, than the adding to its duties of this question of the position of the Lower Division clerks. The question of the writers is not before the Commission, and does not come within its purview. As a member of the Commission, I am speaking the sense of that body; and I think I am speaking the sense of the right hon. Gentleman opposite when I say that we shall all object to this additional work being cast upon us. We have endeavoured to do the best we can with reference to the Lower Division clerks; but we cannot undertake to deal with the question of writers, seeing that it in no way forms part of the duties we undertook. I am sure I should be happy to do all in my power to assist the Secretary to the Treasury. I know the difficulties which surround him, and the pressure which is brought to bear upon him in connection, with matters of

    797
    this kind; hut, as this is simply a Supplementary Estimate, I would put it to him whether it would not he better to withdraw the Vote at the present time, and leave it to come up again next year. So far as the Royal Commission which is now sitting is concerned, you have heard one of its members from the other side of the House, and now you have heard me—another of its members—repudiate the idea that the body, under the terms of its Reference, can be called upon to consider the case of these writers.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: I am afraid after the declaration of the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, it is incumbent on me to say that this day the Commission did take this point into consideration. I should not be dealing frankly with the House if I did not make that statement. But so far from the Government intending the Commission to deal with this question, and so far from their believing that it would, some time after they had appointed it they issued this Minute without waiting for the Report of the Commission.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON): After what the right hon. Gentleman opposite has said I should like to explain how this matter came before the Commissioners at all. The right hon. Gentleman has said—and I invite the Committee to listen to these remarks—that as he had undertaken, and as the Committee will remember, he appointed a Departmental Committee to thoroughly consider the question of the writers. Sir, that Committee did carefully consider the question of the writers, and this Minute is the embodiment of the unanimous Report of that Committee. Therefore, Sir, so far as the Committee has any weight you have their unanimous opinion that the proposal contained in this Minute is fair and equitable under the circumstances. The Treasury, when the Committee had reported, considered their Report and framed this Estimate. The Treasury considered themselves bound by the fact, which I believe was thoroughly recognized, that the Civil Service Commission was at liberty to inquire into any and every question connected with the Civil Service. One of the first things they did was to lay before the Royal Commission appointed to inquire into the Civil Services
    798
    a copy of this Minute to show what the Treasury's conclusion was. Sir, I think the Government must take their stand upon this Minute. The question has been fully and carefully considered, and this Minute embodies the view of the Government upon the question. They have no desire to prejudice in any way the opinion of the Royal Commission. They have submitted this Minute to the Commission in the hope that the Commissioners will consider it and, if necessary, will make a recommendation upon it. If they make such a recommendation I am sure the Government will be very glad to give it every consideration possible. Sir, it is no use going back upon this question. It has, I assure the Committee, been most carefully considered, and to refer it back again would not be to improve the condition of the writers. My own impression is that little as is the amount in this Vote, to refer it back would involve an additional burden on one branch of the Service, and one branch of the Service, let me remind the Committee, which is not a branch of the established Civil Service of the country. These men take the position of writers in the full and complete knowledge that their occupation and employment is only temporary. That must be clearly borne in mind; therefore I say that when you consider that this is an additional charge of £6,000 a-year to this very limited and temporary employment, hard as the measure is to these men, under all the circumstances justice has been done.
    MR. BRADLAUGH: The hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury has just answered hostilely to himself a previous speech made upon this Vote. Earlier he advised the Committee that the Minute referred to by the hon. Member for East Donegal (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) was not before the Committee, and that we could not deal with it, and now he says that the Government take their stand upon it. If the Government take their stand upon it, I submit that it is most unfair to put the Vote to the Committee without letting the Committee have the Minute on which the Government so take their stand.
    MR. HENRY H. FOWLER: By way of explanation I should like to say that I was not present at the meeting of the Commission to which the Member for East Donegal

    799
    referred, and that, therefore, I was not aware that the Commission had touched this question. I would ask what is the position of the Government, and what is the position of the Commission? The hon. Member opposite says he is going to take a Vote that practically endorses the Minute. Surely then, the Commission is not going to sit as a Court of Appeal against the decision of the hon. Gentleman? I think the Government might themselves decide the question. It is not a matter for the Royal Commission. If we endorse the policy of the Government, are we, who are not Members of the Government, and who, some of us, are not even Members of the House, to sit in judgment at the Commission on the decision of this Committee?
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN) (St. George's,): The answer is that it would seem better that no expression of opinion should be taken against one side or the other. That is precisely the point put by the Secretary to the Treasury.
    MR. BRADLAUGH: Then postpone the Vote.
    MR. GOSCHEN: It would be against the interests of the writers themselves that the Vote should be postponed. The Treasury are of opinion that these bonuses should be given. They will be given; but if, in the future, the Treasury should consider that this Minute is not effective, we shall be able to change it and give higher gratuities. It must be obvious to the Committee that it will be against the interests of the writers themselves to have these sums struck out. As to the Commission itself, I am sorry that there has been a misunderstanding. I should be glad to hear from the Chairman of the Commission and other Members authoritatively what they consider their duty in the matter. Bodies of this kind usually show a stronger inclination to extend than to narrow their authority. However, there is no desire on the part of the Treasury to place any duty upon the Commission which does not legitimately belong to it.
    MR. PULESTON: We are asked to vote on this question by the Secretary of State for the Colonies, on the ground that the Royal Commission will thresh the matter out. The right hon. Gentleman expressed some surprise that we should have any doubt whatever as to this being a subject which will come
    800
    before the Commission. Well, we have very good reason to doubt it. We find here to-night two influential Members of the Royal Commission who altogether repudiate that the Commission has anything whatever to do with this question. May I be allowed to state that I had some conversation with the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, before this Royal Commission was thought of, on the subject of appointing a Parliamentary Committee to inquire into the question of Civil Servants. The noble Lord (Lord Randolph Churchill) expressed himself upon that occasion in favour of carrying out what was practically promised at the end of last Session by the then Secretary to the Treasury, and his Predecessors, in pursuance of the decision of the House of Commons. The Chancellor of the Exchequer came to the conclusion—I hope I am not doing wrong by repeating a private conversation—that a Parliamentary Committee was the best thing. On further considering the question, however, and the other questions coming out of it, the noble Lord decided to enlarge the scope of the inquiry, and to turn it into a Royal Commission. Since then I have heard—as we hear a good many things—what has been stated here tonight, that this question of Civil Service clerks, particularly the writers, is absolutely repudiated by some Members of the Royal Commission. I understand that there are three Members of the Royal Commission in the House. We have had expressions from two to-night. We are asked to go to a Vote on the understanding that this Minute will go to the Royal Commission. It is said that we must look upon this Vote as an instalment, coupled with the very generous remarks we have heard from the Representatives of the Government, that something better might be hoped from the Royal Commission. That, in view of the contradictory statements made, places some of us on this side of the House in a position of considerable difficulty; therefore, I would again appeal to the Secretary to the Treasury to postpone the Vote.
    SIR JULIAN GOLDSMLD: The Committee is certainly placed in a difficulty, if the Government do not consent to postpone the Vote. I took part for several years in an agitation on behalf of the Civil Service

    801
    writers, therefore I may claim to be allowed to say a word in the discussion. We are told that the amount placed in the Supplementary Estimate is based on the Report of the Committee which was appointed to consider this matter and which has been embodied in a Treasury Minute. But that Minute has only been seen by two Members of the House—the hon. Member on this side (Mr. A. O'Connor) and the Secretary to the Treasury. The Committee is asked to endorse the Minute by voting the sum of £6,000. My view of the matter is this. The Vote may be right, but we ought to see the Minute before we agree to it. I am anxious that the Civil Service writers should obtain more liberal payment, and therefore I do not wish to stand in the way of this Vote for more money. It would, consequently, be difficult for me to vote one way or the other. I do not know what reasons the Secretary to the Treasury has to give against the postponement of the Vote, but it certainly appears to me that he should postpone it, and that before he brings it on again he should give hon. Members an opportunity of seeing the Minute upon which his proposal is based. I would urge the hon. Gentleman to postpone the Vote.
    MR. DIXON-HARTLAND: I hope the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury will follow the advice given to him on both sides of the House, and postpone this Vote. I am very much afraid if the Vote is decided to-night that when the writers make their demand in the future they will be told, "Oh! you have received your £6,000 and must rest content. The question is closed; you have got what you expected, and need not ask for anything more." I have taken great interest in this subject for many years. I have asked repeated Questions of various Secretaries to the Treasury with regard to it, and I have always been told that a Committee is sitting or that some other inquiry is proceeding. But we have never seen any Report of any Commission or any Minute of any kind. This, I think, is the first time the Committee has been asked to vote a sum of money without seeing the Minute on which the Treasury based their opinion. I hope after all that Ministers will accede
    802
    to the request of hon. Members, and will consent to postpone the Vote.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN): I would point out to the Committee that we continually vote money without the Minutes on which the Votes are based being placed before I may inform hon. Members that I would gladly undertake this—If the Committee will pass this Vote and give to these writers the boon which they will find in this increase of remuneration, the Minute shall be produced and laid before the House. I will also undertake that the question shall be further examined. I will communicate with the Royal Commission and see whether they care to undertake that examination, and if they do not, I will see that it is further examined by someone else.
    MR. PULESTON: By a Committee of the House?
    MR. GOSCHEN: No, I will not undertake that for this reason, that I do not think that a political body is the best body for dealing with the salaries of Civil servants. There is a constant and not unnatural complaint of the increasing cost of Government, and it must be remembered that a large number of Civil servants, like others, have votes, and if Parliamentary pressure is brought to bear the Estimates will continue to increase. I would make this appeal to the Committee, that they should not insist upon political forces dealing with this question of the writers, but that they should place confidence in a further inquiry and leave me to communicate with the Royal Commission and see whether, notwithstanding the protest made by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. H. H. Fowler), they are willing to undertake this inquiry. If they are not I will undertake that the matter shall be inquired into further, although not by a Committee of this House.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: I am sure the Committee will recognize that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer has shown himself ready to meet the case of the writers in all fairness. I do not myself see that under the circumstances he could have done very much more than he has done. I only desire in asking leave to withdraw my Motion for a re-

    803
    duction of the Vote, to draw attention to one sentence in this Minute which is pregnant with importance. It says that copyists who may be called upon to retire with a view to reducing the number on the Register, or for any other cause than that of misconduct or refusal to serve, shall receive a gratuity calculated in the manner aforesaid. That contemplates the compulsory retirement of some of these men. They are to receive a gratuity, and are to be sent about their business. That is the way I read it, and that is the way the copyists read it. I will ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, in considering this matter, he will take care that those who are threatened with dismissal shall be reinstated. With regard to Parliamentary pressure being put upon Members by Civil Service clerks who are voters, I may say I do not believe that amongst my constituents in East Donegal there is a single Civil Service clerk.
    SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY: lam sorry I was not in my place during the earlier part of the discussion, for I understand that reference has been made to the Commission of which I am Chairman. It is no doubt true that many Members of that Commission have viewed with astonishment, and perhaps even with despair, the fact that they find themselves obliged to face, amongst many other things, this difficult question of the Civil Service writers. In justice to the Commission, I must say that in the absence of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. H. H. Fowler) and my right hon. Friend on this side of the House (Mr. Sclater-Booth), they did to-day consider the question of the writers attached to a particular department. I do not know what we may be able to report to the House as the result of the first part of the inquiry we are making, but undoubtedly we did deal with the writers of one department, which, as one of the clerical departments of the State, we are now examining. It was our duty according to the Reference to us to consider the question of the writers as much as any other portion—I will not say of the clerical establishments, because the writers are not technically a part of the clerical establishments of the country—but of the Civil Service. I do not know whether ultimately the Commission may not
    804
    have to make some application in regard to this question, but, undoubtedly, we have, up to now, had under our consideration certain grievances of clerks connected with one of the public offices. We did think it necessary to summon before us gentlemen representing writers attached to the War Office. We heard from them some evidence in connection with the special grievance they allege they are suffering under. I wish to assure the Government and the Committee that whatever ultimately we may think it our duty to represent as to the magnitude of the inquiry we have begun to conduct, we have at all events so far acted up to the belief that the terms of our Reference do not prevent us from considering the case of the writers.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    Original Question put, and agreed to.
    (9.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £1,800, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payments during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1887, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Local Government Board, including various Grants in Aid of Local Taxation."
    COLONEL NOLAN: I see that this is a charge for medical inspection in cholera districts, and I should like to know how it has arisen?
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr.RITCHIE): In 1884, certain expenses were incurred in connection with the inspection of some of our ports in order to prevent the importation of cholera. In 1885 again it became apparent that there was considerable danger of cholera spreading through the country; and it was proposed by the Local Government Board that the inspection which had been confined to the ports should be extended to inland towns and sanitary areas, where it was believed that the sanitary arrangements were of such a character, that if cholera were introduced it would produce great disaster. We consented to five extra medical inspectors being appointed to go round and inspect the sanitary arrangements of all the sanitary areas throughout the Kingdom. It was found on investigation that no less a number than 500 of these sanitary areas required to be inspected. The Sanitary Authorities gladly welcomed the inspectors from the

    805
    Local Government Board, and were ready to adopt the precautions which the experience of these inspectors enabled them to make. I think that the result has been in every way satisfactory. Well, Sir, these inspectors were appointed for a year. That year expired in February, 1886. By that time the whole number of areas had not been investigated or visited, and a further application was made by the Local Government Board to the Treasury to sanction the employment of the inspectors for a further period of six months. When that period expired it was found that there were still some further districts to be examined, and I made application to the Treasury for a certain extension of time which, I said, should not go beyond the 31st of last December. The Treasury consented, and by the 30th of November the whole of the areas had been visited and everything which it was thought necessary to do was done. The whole matter is now closed. I am satisfied that the visitations, and everything that has been done, has been fraught with advantages, not merely of a temporary, but of a permanently beneficial kind. Many improvements have been adopted in consequence of the advice given by our inspectors to Local Authorities regarding the sanitary condition of the districts.
    COLONEL NOLAN: Did the inspection include Ireland?
    MR. RITCHIE: No; it did not extend to Ireland. The total amount expended in the present year has been £4,400, in 1886 it was over £6,000, and in 1885 £1,000. The amount altogether is over £11,000. It has not been necessary for the Local Government Board to ask the House of Commons for the whole amount of this £4,400 for the present year, for there have been sufficient funds remaining in their hands in connection with other subjects under the Local Government Board's Vote to enable them to meet the expenditure.
    COLONEL NOLAN: Has the inspection been confined to Great Britain, or was Ireland included? Was there a parallel inquiry for Ireland?
    MR. RITCHIE: The area of the jurisdiction of the Local Government Board over which these inspectors were sent is confined entirely to England.
    COLONEL NOLAN: And Scotland?
    MR. RITCHIE: No. The Local Government Board of Ireland, I may say,
    806
    is entirely under the control of the Irish Office.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: The statement made by the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down is extremely interesting; but what I complain of is that this inquiry should have been altogether confined to England, as if England is the only part of the United Kingdom that is ever likely to be attacked with cholera. It is remarkable that you should spend £1,800 on the sanitary arrangements of England out of the Imperial funds whilst leaving the localities in Ireland to bear the expenditure themselves. Why should that be? Why should we in Ireland pay for inspection out of our own pockets? Whenever in England you have cargoes coming into your ports from foreign countries where cholera may exist, you have inspectors and doctors to see that no infectious diseases are imported by means of rags or things of that kind. You have made this an Imperial matter, as one can see from the Estimate. In Ireland, however, we have had to put our hands into our own pockets in order to prevent infection reaching us. The soul or body of an Irishman is no better than that of an Englishman, and we, therefore, cannot understand why it should not be protected in the usual way out of the Imperial funds. In this matter you give us a kind of Home Rule that we cannot understand. The whole question of the prevention of the importation of contagious diseases no doubt is one of considerable interest. No doubt you have in England very extensive ports. No doubt it was necessary to incur great expense at Hull, seeing that that is a port very near Germany, whence it was feared that cholera might come; but in Ireland we also have ports where diseases might be brought in, and why should we have to pay for preventing them from being brought in out of our own pockets? I would like to ask the Irish Secretary as to ports like Derry, Belfast, and Dublin; whether infection might not have been brought in there if it had not been for the precautions taken by local doctors? Seeing that £1,800 has been expended in England, I should say that about £600 has been spent in Ireland, and I would ask whether the local rates of Ireland will be disembarrassed to that extent?
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH): This item in the Estimate is for inspectors who have been appointed to keep out infectious diseases from abroad. The importation of cholera was principally feared from Spain, and I imagine the inspection would mainly take place at those English ports trading with Spain and the South of England. If any Irish port was similarly situated, and had a similar claim, no doubt the cost of inspection there would fall on the Imperial funds. As the hon. Member has called my attention to the subject, I will make a point of inquiring into it, and will do my best to see that the charge is fairly distributed.
    MR. P. McDONALD: As a Dublin trader, I would point out that we have direct trading communication with Spain. Scarcely a day passes that some Spanish vessel does not enter the port of Dublin. I am aware, as a Member of the Dublin Corporation, that we made an order last year, when the introduction of cholera was feared, for the expenditure of a certain sum out of our local means, to meet the danger that threatened us. I cannot understand, therefore, why, when these expenses for inspection in England are paid out of the general fund of the Empire, we in Ireland should be called on to pay them out of our own resources. I consider we have a just and proper claim upon the Government in this matter, and the right hon. Gentleman said that if we could show that we had that he would see that it was satisfied.
    COLONEL NOLAN: The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland was present during a great part of the speech of the President of the Local Government Board. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board stated that the inspection was extended from the ports to the inland areas. The Chief Secretary's promise, however, only covers ports. Will he extend it to inland places? I would point out to him that Ireland is just as susceptible to cholera epidemics as England, and that in 1849, when cholera swept over Europe, Ireland was severely visited.
    MR. P. J. POWER: There is a Question I should like to put to the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant (Sir
    808
    Michael Hicks-Beach) on this subject, and I trust he will afford me a satisfactory answer. In many of the Irish ports we went, owing to the recommendations of the doctors, to considerable expense, such as was never deemed necessary before, in order to prevent the introduction or the spread of cholera. I desire to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, if we are able to lay before him a satisfactory explanation of the expenditure we have thus been put to in Ireland, in the shape of doctors' fees, and also in the erection of a hospital for the purpose of arresting the advance of cholera, he will give the matter his best consideration, in order that we may be reimbursed the amount we have been called upon to pay?
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH): I have only to say, in reply to the hon. Member, that the expense to which he refers is one that is common to both England and Ireland.
    MR. ESSLEMONT: I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that the expenditure which has been referred to was also incurred by us in Scotland. We there took all due precautions against the introduction of disease, by means of the rags brought over from the Continent, for the use of the large paper works; and as a good deal of expense was thrown upon us in that way, I should be glad to hear from the right hon. Gentleman whether, in the event of any allowance being made, such as is asked for by the Irish Members, Scotland will not also have her share conceded?
    MR. O'HEA: It would be a very easy matter to reduce the claim made in respect of the expenditure incurred by Ireland, on account of precautions against the introduction of cholera, to pounds, shillings, and pence. I think it will be generally admitted that it is one of the first cares of every Government to take precautionary measures against the introduction or spread of any epidemic disease like that of cholera; and when one portion of Her Majesty's Dominions is put to a large expenditure on this head, and that expenditure is charged on the Imperial Exchequer, I contend that the other portions of Her Majesty's Dominions have a right to take exception to anything which has even the semblance of

    809
    favouritism. I may inform the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant that last year the Corporation of Cork, to which body I have the honour to belong, had under its careful consideration the precautions necessary to be taken for the purpose of preventing the introduction of cholera. This matter engaged the attention of that body for three or four successive meetings, the point they had to consider being, how they could take the most effective steps not only to prevent the possibility of the appearance of the disease, but also to prevent its spread in the country, should it unfortunately gain admission to our coasts. The Sanitary Authorities of the City of Cork took all the measures they deemed most advisable under the circumstances. I may remind the Committee that the Port of Cork, in the same way as many of the English ports, has a considerable trade not only with all the European ports, but with, all the ports of the civilized world. In the prosecution of this trade, Spanish vessels and vessels from all those countries in which cholera did prevail, came into Cork Harbour, and I may state that I have myself frequently seen the yellow quarantine flag hoisted upon foreign vessels coming into the Port of Cork. My idea was that there might be cases of fever or small-pox or some other infectious disease on board, but the doctors who went on board were charged with the duty of seeing that there were no cases of cholera, and they were paid by the Local Authority. In fact every possible precaution that could be taken was taken by the Cork Sanitary Authorities to prevent the possibility of the outbreak of cholera or any other infectious disease. We paid all the expenses thus incurred out of our own pockets, and yet we are now asked to contribute towards the cost of the precautionary measures taken by England. I think that this is a matter which the Irish Representatives have a right to question and take objection to. This country is a far richer country than Ireland, and ought to pay the expense of whatever measures it may have been called upon to take with the view of preventing the introduction of cholera or any other epidemic disease.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE): I am
    810
    afraid from what has fallen from hon. Members who have just spoken that I have not made myself fully understood in the remarks I have previously offered to the Committee. It would appear from the observations to which we have recently listened, that hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House are of opinion that Her Majesty's Government have undertaken in England to perform certain duties which in Ireland are performed by the Local Authorities. [An hon. MEMBER: And in Scotland.] In England and Scotland there is a duty imposed on the Local Authorities as to the performance of those functions which hon. Members representing Irish constituencies have said are in that country performed by the Local Authorities—that is to say, it is the duty of the Local Authorities to provide hospitals and to take all necessary precautions against the importation of cholera or any other epidemic disease. What has in reality been done is that certain medical inspectors were temporarily engaged by us for the purpose of going over the country and advising with the Local Authorities as to the best means by which the importation and spread of disease might be prevented. This is what we have done and we have not gone beyond it. The Imperial funds at the disposal of Parliament are not in any way called upon to contribute towards the expense of performing duties which properly devolve upon the Local Authorities in England as well as in Scotland and Ireland.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: There is no corresponding Vote for Ireland.
    MR. RITCHIE: There is no corresponding Vote for Ireland. Hon. Members need reminding how this question arose. There was a good deal of cholera in Spain and in the South of Europe in places whose ports were, by means of their shipping, in very direct communication with our British ports; and looking to the fact that great danger was thus created with regard to the importation of that disease, especially in the case of some of our largest English ports, Her Majesty's Government thought it necessary to send inspectors to our different seaports with a view of seeing what course the Local Authorities were about to pursue in order to prevent the importation of disease. In the course of their investi-

    811
    gations it became apparent to those medical inspectors that it was desirable to extend the inspection in which they were engaged to the inland towns, can only assume, as the reason why this inspection was not extended to Ireland that the Irish authorities considered that the sanitary condition of the ports am inland towns of that country was of a satisfactory nature, and that it was therefore, unnecessary to take that course. I may, however, say that there is no longer any necessity for the continuance of the expenditure thus necessitated. The whole of it ceased on the 30th of November, and there is no intention on the part of the Local Government Board to go into further expenditure in connection with that matter.
    COLONEL NOLAN:] wish to point out to the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. Ritchie) that what the Irish Representatives complain of is that we in Ireland have not had the inspection he refers to.? We do not want the Local Government Board to go on with the inspection now; but I think the right hon. Gentleman can hardly say that we are so well off in Ireland that there is no chance of our having any disease imported there. Therefore, I do not think that Ireland ought to have been left out in the cold when measures of inspection were taken with regard to England. Medical advice has its value, and, of course, has to be paid for, and it does not seem to be fair that a distinction should be made between the two countries.
    MR. J. O'CONNOR: I wish to offer a few words with regard to this Vote, in reply to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. Ritchie). I think we perfectly understand the case which he has put before the Committee; but what we complain of is the unequal treatment that has been dealt out to the ports of England and Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) has stated that he will cause inquiries to be made; but I am somewhat astonished to find that the right hon. Gentleman, who has twice occupied the position of Chief Secretary, should stand in need of such an immense amount of inquiry in order to make himself
    812
    acquainted with the state of the facts in regard to the sanitary condition and arrangements of Ireland. Surely, it ought not to be necessary that Irish Members should stand up in their places in this House for the purpose of informing the right hon. Gentleman that there is a trade going on between the ports of Ireland and those of foreign countries by means of which cholera or other diseases of an epidemic character might be imported. It has been stated that this is so with regard to the Ports of Dublin, Cork, and Waterford; and, further, that there is no port in the kingdom which has a more direct connection with the ports of Europe than the Port of Cork. It is also a well-known fact, and ought to be known to the Chief Secretary, that every Poor Law Union in County Cork has had to contribute to the cost of the intercepting hospital established in the Port of Cork. I was serving as a member of the Harbour Board of that port at the time the cholera epidemic broke out on the Continent, and I know that we took all possible precautions to prevent the importation of that disease. The Harbour Commissioners trapped up all the sewers leading from the City of Cork to the river, and took every conceivable measure to prevent the admission or spread of cholera, so far as might be, by any internal arrangements of a sanitary character. They also went to the expense of erecting an intercepting hospital, and they advised the medical inspectors of the port to quarantine all vessels coming from infected ports. What we have to complain of is that we had no advice from the medical inspectors, who, as stated by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board, were appointed in England for Imperial purposes. We never saw the face of one of those men in Ireland, and I say that we have every right to object to this unequal treatment. If we in Cork are to be subject to the same laws, rules, and regulations that are applied for Imperial purposes to ill other large ports with regard to the preservation of health and the prevention of the importation of epidemic disease, we say we are in duty bound to complain of the course pursued by Her Majesty's Government; and that we are acting within our just rights in criticising this Vote, and pointing out that

    813
    in future, whenever it may be deemed necessary to ask for additional grants of money of this nature, the Government should take good care to apply to the ports of Ireland, and its sanitary condition generally, the same principles as are applied to the ports of this country.
    CAPTAIN COLOMB (Tower Hamlets, Bow, &c.): I do not see that there is any unequal treatment. Speaking simply from my own knowledge, I may state that the medical inspectors appointed by the Local Government Board gave every possible assistance and advice to the Boards of Guardians; and, if there was need in England for additional medical advice which was not deemed requisite in Ireland, the fact is one which only shows that the Local Government system in Ireland in this particular respect is better than that of England.
    MR. M. J. KENNY: I think some Members of the Government ought to explain, before we agree to this Vote, how it is that this unequal incidence of charge has been brought about; because, as it now stands, it will be seen that the English Local Government Board take care that in regard to England the Imperial resources should be called upon to pay the local expenditure incurred in this matter, while the Local Government of Ireland have made no effort to secure for that country a similar result. This is a sufficient proof that the Local Government Board of Ireland is not so fully alive to the performance of its duties as that of England. It is to me a surprising fact that a sum so large as £9,867 should be asked for from the Imperial Exchequer for a national object in England, and that the Irish taxpayers, who have had no similar consideration, should be called upon to contribute their quota without any chance of obtaining the slightest relief. We are told by an hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite (Captain Colomb) that there is no unequal treatment here. It is useless to argue with any hon. Gentleman who is so absolutely blind to the facts as to make such an assertion. The case before the Committee is one in which it is clearly shown that the Imperial funds have been resorted to to the extent of nearly £10,000 for the purpose of defraying certain expenses incurred in England; while in Ireland, although expense has had to be incurred for similar objects,
    814
    the amount has to be paid locally, and the Imperial Exchequer is allowed to go scot-free. I should like to be informed by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary why it is that no steps have been taken by the Local Government Board in Ireland on this question?
    MR. BARRY: I think the Irish Representatives have a right to demand of the Government an explanation of the fact that whereas in England, where you have Local Authorities possessing greater powers than similar Bodies in Ireland, it has been deemed necessary to supplement their action by the appointment of special medical inspectors in order to deal with a dangerous question; in Ireland, where exceptional measures have also had to be taken, the whole of the expense has been left to be borne by the Local Authorities. It occurs to me that the matter would be fairly met if the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary would promise the Irish Members that any additional expenditure incurred by the Local Authorities of Ireland with a view of meeting the danger arising from the possible importation of cholera, should be refunded to them from the Imperial Exchequer. In order to bring the matter to a test I will move the reduction of this Vote by the sum of £1,000.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £800, be granted to Her Majesty for the said Service."—[Mr. Barry.)
    MR. ANDERSON: I am somewhat surprised that there has been no answer made to the appeal put forward on behalf of Scotland in regard to this matter by the hon. Member for Aberdeen (Mr. Esslemont). I hardly think it is quite fair to Scotland, that when such a point has been put by one of the Scottish Representatives, the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Scotland (Mr. A. J. Balfour) should treat it with contempt and refuse to say a word. I would point out to the right hon. Gentleman that the question we are now discussing in reference to Ireland has equal force in its application to Scotland, and I hope he will condescend to state to the House the reason why similar precautions to those taken in England were not adopted in regard to the Scotch ports.
    MR. CALDWELL: In Scotland, we have Local Authorities, who deal with these ques-

    815
    tions in their own districts; and we have in Scotland, a Board of Supervision, which supervises the action of all those Authorities. In Scotland, the Local Authorities pay all the local expenses, and the Imperial Government pays the expense of the Board of Supervision for supervising the Local Authorities. In regard to the apprehensions aroused as to the importation of cholera, the Board of Supervision took what steps were necessary with a view to preventing the admission of that disease; and, if additional expense were thereby incurred, it would be borne by the Imperial Exchequer. In England, there are Local Boards which are equally bound to deal with these matters in their different districts. Those Local Boards, again, are supervised by the Local Government Board, and any additional charges it has had to incur in preventing the importation of cholera must be paid out of the Imperial Exchequer. In England, what was done was this—the Local Government Board took special precautions in order to ensure that the Local Authorities were performing their duty in regard to this important matter. It seems that the action thus taken was deemed necessary in England and was not deemed necessary in Scotland or Ireland, so that no extra expense is thrown on the Imperial Exchequer in respect to those latter countries.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): I can assure the hon. Member for Elgin and Nairn (Mr. Anderson), and the hon. Member for Aberdeen (Mr. Esslemont), that I have not intended any discourtesy to Scotland. After all, this question—as I think I shall be able, in a very few words, to show the Committee—is not one that ought to detain us for a single moment longer. The supervision of the Local Authorities in England is performed by the Local Government Board, and in Scotland the corresponding body is the Board of Supervision, while in Ireland there is the Local Government Board for that country. Each of these bodies is responsible to its own country for the manner in which it discharges its functions. It is assumed that in view of the possible advent of cholera, each took proper precautions. I know that the Scotch Board of Supervision took precautions; that the English Local Government Board, when I was in it, like-
    816
    wise took the precautions which my right hon. Friend the present President of that Board (Mr. Ritchie) has described; and also that precautions were taken by the Local Government Board of Ireland. But the whole of the danger from cholera which then existed is now over; it has passed away. Experience has shown that each of the Boards has done its duty admirably and with complete efficiency; and how either Ireland or Scotland can consider itself aggrieved that more money has not been expended in those parts of the kingdom in addition to what was spent in England, I am at a total loss to discover. I hope my Scotch Friends will understand that if a Supplementary Vote is not asked for Scotland, it is not because the Board of Supervision in Scotland has in any respect failed in its duty; and I doubt not a similar statement can be made with regard to the Local Government Board of Ireland.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: I trust that my hon. Friend the Member for South Wexford (Mr. Barry) will not persist in the Amendment he has moved. I have no doubt he is quite right in the complaint that the precautious taken in England were not also taken in Ireland; but I would point out to him that if this Amendment were carried, the implication would be that precautions ought not to have been taken either in England or Ireland. I trust that one of the results of this debate will be that if, in the future, the cholera epidemic should threaten the United Kingdom once more, all necessary precautions will be taken in England, Scotland, and Ireland. At the same time, I do not think we should teach, the lesson that the amount spent—and, I think, legitimately spent—in England should be reduced. I hope, therefore, my hon. Friend will be satisfied with the debate that has taken place, and will be induced to withdraw his Amendment.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. Ritchie) has spoken as if cholera always broke out at the commencement of the financial year; but I think a little reflection will convince him that that epidemic is a visitor that never waits for any particular season. The point, however, before the Committee is this—in England you have incurred the expenses

    817
    necessary to prevent the importation of cholera, and have charged them on the Imperial Revenue; in Ireland we have incurred similar expenses, and have had to meet them ourselves. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) has said he will look into the matter; but what will he do when he has looked into it? We have had to incur these expenses in Ireland; and why? Because circulars were issued by the Local Government Board, of which the right hon. Gentleman is the head, pointing out the necessity of incurring them; and whereas we in Ireland are called on to defray the charge locally, in the case of England the Imperial Exchequer is to be burdened with the expenditure. I trust the right hon. Gentleman will see this distinction, and that he will be prepared to grant, in the case of Ireland, the amount of the charge which in England is made an imperial one.
    MR. P. McDONALD: I hope the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) will be able to make a statement to the Committee such as the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Scotland (Mr. A. J. Balfour) has made—namely, that he believes the Local Government Board in Ireland has done its duty. I should also like to hear from him a reply to my statement as to Dublin being in direct and almost daily communication with the ports of Spain from which the importation of cholera might have been apprehended. I know that in my own case weekly consignments are received from Spain, and one of these is an article which is said to be very likely to be the medium of introducing that epidemic—I allude to the consignment of raisins. I believe it is in the raisin-growing districts that cholera generally prevails. I should like to know from the right hon. Gentleman whether he will do the same justice to the Port of Dublin as he has done to the ports of England?
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH): The point I wished to put before the Committee was the bearing of this matter upon the Vote. I understand the Local Government Board in 1885–6 found it necessary to incur expense in the appointment of additional inspectors to prevent the importation of cholera from abroad. It was not found
    818
    necessary to do that in Ireland. [An hon. MEMBER: Why?] I will tell the hon. Gentleman who asks why. The Irish Local Government Board have sufficient assistance at present to enable them to do this work without appointing additional medical officers. [Cries of "No, no!"] Well, the proof of the pudding, after all, is in the eating—the cholera did not reach the shores of Ireland in 1885–6. All I can say is this—that I will make inquiries at the Irish Government Board, and if it can be shown to me that the Local Authorities in Ireland incurred any expense in this matter of a kind similar to that for which this Vote is asked, I will press upon my hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Jackson) the desirability of proposing a Vote to Recoup them. Further, if there is an insufficiency of medical inspection in connection with the Irish Local Government Board to prevent the importation of cholera or other infectious diseases from the South of Europe, I will see that the evil is rectified before any possible opportunity can arise for such inspection being required.
    MR. BARRY: After the statement we have heard from the Government, I will withdraw my Amendment. In this country the prospect of an epidemic of cholera was greatly feared as a national danger, and the Government took proper steps to meet it; but in Ireland the Local Government Board went on in their usual happy-go-lucky way. If the cholera came, well and good. [Laughter.] Yes, well and good; that was the position they took up. No exceptional precautions were taken by the Irish Local Government Board for dealing with this great danger. However, after the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) I will withdraw my Motion.
    MR. E. R. RUSSELL: I think we Scotch Members ought to have the same promise from the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Scotland (Mr. A. J. Balfour). I do not think the hon. Gentleman above me, who was so ill satisfied with the operations of the Local Government Board in Ireland, has satisfied the Scotch Members that so far as Scotland is concerned he has any reason for envy.

    819
    There appears to be a sort of auction going on between the two Secretaries. After what the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) has said, I think we ought to have an assurance that some inquiry will be made in Scotland; and that if it is found that the Local Authorities have incurred expense in this sanitary inspection for the prevention of cholera, steps will be taken to recoup them from the Imperial Exchequer. The right hon. Gentleman does not seem to have any very distinct notion of what has been done. My own impression is that the system that has been adopted has been too happy-go-lucky—to quote the words of the hon. Member for South Wexford (Mr. Barry). At any rate, if there has been expense incurred in Scotland, there should be a special Vote for that country as well as for England and Ireland.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I shall do my best to make any expenditure which, as he says, ought to fall on the Imperial funds, fall on these funds.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    Original Question again proposed.
    MR. O'DOHERTY:I should like the pledge of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) not to be limited to the question which I think is in his mind—namely, to medical inspection. The Irish Local Government Board have officials living in Dublin—
    THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman is now travelling outside this Vote in discussing the organization of medical inspection in Ireland.
    MR. O'DOHERTY: I did not intend to do that, Sir. All I wished to do was to correct a mistake made by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, who appears to think that the medical inspection in Ireland is sufficient and capable of discharging all the duties that the medical inspection discharges in England. I think that if expense has been incurred through the Local Government Board communicating with the medical practitioners and the Local Authorities asking them to take precautions, that expense should be included in the finance of the right hon. Gentleman.
    Original Question put, and agreed to.
    (10.) £107, Supplementary, Secretary for Scotland's Office.

    CLASS III.—LAW AND JUSTICE.
    (11.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £287, be granted to Her Majesty, 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 the incidental Expenses of the Court of Bankruptcy in Ireland."
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: This is a Vote for the cost of an official assignee. There was a gentleman who was an official assignee to the Court of Bankruptcy in Ireland some years ago whose proceedings appeared to be not very justifiable. I moved for a return showing the position in which we stood in regard to different bankrupt estates which came under the influence of that gentleman. That Return was furnished and is in the library of the House, though it was never printed. A short time after that gentleman had furnished that Return, after he had had time to arrange matters for himself, he disappeared. At any rate, a considerable investigation of the accounts of assignees in bankruptcy has taken place principally by reason of the defalcations of this particular assignee. In examining how matters stood, a certain number of gentlemen were put on the accounts of this official assignee. I find there were no less than four gentlemen drafted from the Paymaster-General's Office in connection with this service. Another gentleman was taken from the Public Works Office, and also employed in the examination of these accounts; and then there are two officials of the Court of Bankruptcy itself, who have received several additions to their salaries in connection with the same work. Now, I notice that this Vote is worded in a very peculiar manner. At the bottom set forth as the details of the charge are two items. The first is "the excess of indemnity ordered by the Court over the amount of the sub-head." I doubt if there is any non-official Member of the House who has the least idea what is meant by these words. What "excess of indemnity" is there, what "indemnity" is it, and why was it "ordered by the Court?" It is an item of £307, and from that is deducted £20, being savings

    821
    under other sub-heads. Though I have a suspicion of what this means, I should be unable to explain my idea of it clearly by means of the materials set forth here. I must, therefore, ask the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Jackson), whom I presume is responsible for this Vote, what is the meaning of this phrase? I should like also to ask what was the nature of the investigation which caused such an upset in connection with the official assignees in Dublin. How many gentlemen were employed to audit the accounts?
    THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON): I think I can explain how this Vote came to be asked for at all. The hon. Gentleman is no doubt aware that by Act of Parliament the Court is empowered to pay official assignees for expenses incurred by them in their official capacity. Sums have accordingly been paid in this way on four occasions—in 1877–78 £144 9s. 3d. was paid; in 1880–81 £60 8s. 3d. was paid; in 1881–82, £89 19 s. 3d.; and in 1884–85, £384 9s. 10 d. The hon. Gentleman Will see that it must be impossible beforehand to make an accurate estimate of what the charge may be. A nominal sum was taken in the General Estimate, the actual sum paid is now asked for.
    MR. P. McDONALD: Following the example of my hon. Friend the Member for East Donegal Mr. A. O'Connor), I also moved for a Return which is not printed yet, but which will be in the hands of hon. Members by the end of the week. I moved for a Return of the Treasury Report on the accounts of the late official assignee—Charles Henry James—who became a defaulter. We have had two assignees connected with our Court of Bankruptcy in Ireland. One of them has, I believe, performed his duties with sufficient carefulness and attention, and the other has acted as a defaulter in the most outrageous manner. His defalcations will appear in the Report which will be issued to the hon. Members of this House in the course of the week, and they will involve revelations of an official nature such as have never before, perhaps, come under the notice of this House and this Committee. The defalcations in a comparatively small office amount to over £10,000.
    THE CHAIRMAN: I do not under stand how this matter is connected with the particular Vote under discussion. The real question that can be discussed under this Vote is the payment of this so-called indemnity to the official trustees.
    MR. P. McDONALD: I understood that under the sub-head B—the second sub-head—official assignees £287, original Estimate £50; total, £337—my remarks were perfectly pertinent.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman will observe in a foot-note to the effect that it is an indemnity ordered by the Court for the payment of official assignees. It is that, and that only, that can be discussed.
    MR. P. McDONALD: Am I to understand, Sir, that this excess of indemnity is not for the purpose of making good the deficiencies arising from the defalcations in question?
    THE CHAIRMAN: It has no reference to defalcations.
    MR. P. McDONALD: Then I am not permitted to refer to this.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: I would ask whether this indemnity is not to cover certain costs—the costs of the official assignees, as shown in large letters opposite sub-head B? Were these costs not incurred on account of non-payment of certain dividends? Whether the non-payment of these dividends is or is not due to defalcations of the assignee in question; will the Secretary to the Treasury commit himself to the statement that there were no costs incurred under sub-head B in either the Supplementary Vote or the Vote to which that is a supplement, which arose by reason of the defalcations of the official assignee?
    MR. JACKSON: I believe I am perfectly justified in answering that these items have not arisen by reason of such defalcations.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: Perhaps this official assignee has been more sinned against than sinning. In my opinion this Vote for official assignees is the cause of all the mistakes that have arisen in the Department. This is an account that is presented annually to Parliament. It should be certified by the Chief Registrar to the Court, and there should be an auditor appointed to facilitate the work. What are the duties of the official assignee? They are not

    823
    stated. The gentleman who is the subject of so much attack at the present time, who is alleged to have run away from his position—and that gentleman, I believe, did so—leaving thousands of pounds behind him in the bank that he might have taken, does not appear to have been actuated by a guilty intent. The fault in regard to what occurred does not rest so much with him as with the system. We should insist that the accounts these gentlemen present to Parliament are of a really satisfactory and searching character. In voting money for these official assignees we have not the assurance we ought to have that everything is regular in the office. I do not think everything is regular in the office at the present time. These gentlemen do not perform the duties they ought to perform. In my judgment this Vote is wholly unsatisfactory, unless we are assured that the accounts presented will be checked by some other competent authority, as they are not at the present time. It is my intention to raise the whole question upon the Irish Judicature Bill, in which the expenses of one Judge are provided for. But here you have an additional Tote of £278 as excess of indemnity. I really do not understand the explanation which has been given by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Jackson) with regard to the indemnity. I maintain that no matter how efficient the official assignee is, it is absolutely necessary that his report should be checked by the Chief Registrar. This official ought to certify that he had gone over the report and ought to vouch for its accuracy. If there had been such a supervision hitherto you would not have had such unfortunate defalcations as in the case of Mr. James. I have inquired into these defalcations, and I consider that it is the system that is at fault. I am certainly wholly at a loss to understand why we should now pay £287 for the cost of the official assignee. My knowledge may be at fault; but the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury is altogether unintelligible to me.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: May I ask why these costs are not paid out of the unpaid dividends in the hands of the Commissioners of the National Debt? Why should this ap-
    824
    pear as a charge against the Exchequer?
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOE IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES): I think I am able to explain that in a few words. Up to the year 1877 the unpaid dividends were under the control of the Bankruptcy Court, subject to charges of this character; but in that year the amount was transferred to the Commissioners of the National Debt, and the Statute on authorising such transfer provided that for the future these charges should be defrayed by monies to be voted by Parliament. This Vote is asked for in pursuance of this provision.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: Am I to understand that this sum which is now to be voted will hereafter be covered by the Commissioners of the National Debt: that it is the intention of Her Majesty's present Administration to bring in a Bill to secure the repayment from the National Debt Commissioners of the sums which are voted either in the ordinary or Supplementary Estimates on this account?
    MR. HOLMES: The country thought the National Debt Commissioners received the benefit of the unclaimed dividends; and this amount cannot be recovered from that Fund.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman state what is the amount thus transferred to the National Debt Commissioners under the head of "Unpaid Dividend Account?"
    MR. HOLMES: I cannot say.
    MR. P. McDONALD: It is curious this indemnity was not hitherto opposed in any Returns. Will this item, or an item similar to it, be continued in future Estimates? Is it a fact that it is not intended to cover the expenses of an inquiry into the so-called defalcations of this official assignee, and also into the manner in which the Bank of Ireland has failed to perform its duty? It is alleged that this official assignee was permitted to transfer to his own banking account the money lodged in the Bank of Ireland for the purpose of paying these dividends. I should like to know from the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Holmes) whether the statements now make are founded upon fact.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: I submit that a proper amount of illumination has not been thrown on this matter by the Members of the Treasury Bench. This is a matter which should be made plain to what is called the meanest intelligence. Does no one understand this Vote? I cannot understand either the Vote itself or the explanation of the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Jackson). Will someone on the Treasury Bench tell us how often in previous years this Vote has been put down, and why it is necessary now? It is not sufficient for the Government to say that because the money is wanted they must have it. The Irish Court of Bankruptcy has been in operation since 1857—for 30 years—and now you put down a Vote of £287 for "excess of indemnity ordered by the Court over amount of the sub-head (costs of official assignees)." This unfortunate Mr. James has been much attacked, but I am not going to attack him, though he is a Tory of the Tories. It is the system under which he served which ought to be attacked. Am I to be told that it is because this unfortunate Mr. James fled that this £287 is required? That is a point which the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury has not explained. You have an annual—a certain—Vote in connection with the Irish Bankruptcy Act; it is, in fact, £10,000 odd. What has occurred in 1886–7 to require this amount? The Irish Bankruptcy Act has been in process of operation for 30 years; why is it that in this particular financial year you want the sum of £287? It is supposed to be wanted on account of the flight of Mr. James. But Mr. James came back with his pockets full of Bank of England notes. He had no dishonest intentions.
    THE CHAIRMAN: I have already said that it is totally irrelevant to discuss the case of Mr. James.
    MR. O'HEA: Undoubtedly there has been much mismanagement with regard to the affairs of the Irish Bankruptcy Court, and it is only by a debate like this that the management can be brought to light. Whatever may be said about Mr. James, there has been, if not great dereliction of duty, at any rate a large amount of supineness in bankruptcy management.
    THE CHAIRMAN: That is not raised in any way under this Vote.
    MR. O'HEA: May I point out that under the Bankruptcy Act of 1857 it is incumbent upon the Court to audit the accounts of the official assignee. Have we anything to show that there was an audit of the accounts of the official assignee?
    THE CHAIRMAN: This Vote has no relation to any defalcations on the part of the official assignee. This is a payment made under statute by way of indemnity for the transfer of unpaid dividends.
    MR. O'HEA: I was coming to that point, Mr. Courtney. With respect to unclaimed dividends, what is the duty of the official assignee? The Act provides that "If he shall refuse to pay dividends the Court may order payment with interest, and may also order payment of the costs of the application." I do not wish to encroach unnecessarily upon the time of the Committee, but I desire to say that when a matter like this does come up for discussion, we are entitled to ask in the felicitous language of my hon. Friend the Member for North Longford (Mr. T. M. Healy), that some illumination should be thrown upon the general bankruptcy management. I certainly shall enter fully into this and other matters when the Irish Judicature Bill is brought up.
    MR. J. F. X. O'BRIEN: It is really the want of an explanation of these accounts that is responsible for the present waste of time. We have been for many hours discussing a Vote—Supplementary Votes—but nine-tenths of the time would have been saved had we had a few words of explicit explanation. We are asked to pass this Vote without knowing anything about it; we are asked to pass it simply upon the unsatisfactory statement of the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury. If the hon. Gentleman would explain the Vote even now he would prevent any further waste of time.
    MR. O'DOHERTY: I should like to know whether these costs are the result of an action taken against the official assignee, or of an action which has failed, taken by the official assignee. It is quite plain that the want of light which has been complained of arises from the centralization of the bankruptcy jurisdiction in Dublin. Successive Governments have expressed themselves strongly upon the necessity

    827
    of Local Courts; and I am sure that if there were Local Courts dividends would not go so much astray.
    MR. HOLMES: I suppose hon. Members are aware that in winding up an estate in bankruptcy, it frequently happens that certain dividends are unpaid. They may not be claimed for a number of years, and then a claim may be made against the official assignee, who may contest it, and be put to costs which he would have to pay. On four occasions since 1877 precisely similar Votes to the present one have been passed by the House.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: It does not follow that the Vote is just because a similar Vote has been passed in previous years. The 193rd section of the Bankruptcy Act of 1857 provides that—
    "No action for any dividend shall be brought against any assignee; but if the assignee shall refuse to pay any such dividend the Court may order payment thereof, with interest for the time it shall have been withheld;"
    and it may also order the payment of the costs of the application; therefore the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Holmes) has gone a little astray if he thinks that these were costs incurred against the official assignee. I am afraid there is not very much more information upon the Treasury Bench in regard to matter than there is upon these Benches. It is clear, at any rate, that there was a considerable sum of money which belonged to nobody except certain bankrupts, which sum of money the Commissioners of the National Debt had paid over to them under Act of Parliament. That is done, and we cannot quarrel with it; but from that fund so transferred have been payable, under the Irish Judicature Act of 1877, certain charges on account of costs. Those payments are no longer made. The charges are thrown—I do not know upon what authority or under what Act—upon Votes submitted from time to time irregularly to this House in Committee of Supply. It it clear the charges are made in connection with some laches on the part of certain official assignees. If they are not, what on earth are they made for. Certain things have been done which ought not to have been done, and certain things have not been done which ought to have been done. These costs have now to be defrayed, and a Vote is submitted ac-
    828
    cordingly. What we want to know, and what I would ask the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury, is what are the shortcomings in respect of which these legal proceedings have been taken—proceedings which have resulted in these legal expenses being payable at the expense of the public taxpayer?
    MR. JACKSON: I can only say, Sir, that I have not been in possession of every detail. I can indeed tell the hon. Gentleman as much as I know, and I have already endeavoured to explain to him how this sum came here for payment. I may further explain that the particular item which is now before the Committee arose upon a particular case of bankruptcy in Ireland, in which the gentleman who was acting as official assignee incurred certain costs.
    COLONEL NOLAN: Who was he?
    MR. JACKSON: I may further say that these costs, before they are sanctioned for payment under this Statute, have to be confirmed and approved and ordered by the Court of Bankruptcy in Ireland. All that process has been gone through. The Court of Bankruptcy in Ireland made an order that this official assignee was entitled to these costs, and that they were to be paid to him under the section of the Act which directs this to be done. I really am extremely sorry that the hon. Member requires to know the particulars and details of what the official assignee did. I can only give him a general reply upon the matter as it was brought before us, and I really cannot say more, because I do not know the details.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: We must all admire the admirable manner in which the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Jackson) has endeavoured to reply to all the questions that have been addressed to him. It is impossible to expect him to bear in mind every detail for the whole of the three countries—England, Ireland, and Scotland—though we admire his manner and his desire to give all the information in his power very much. But we do expect that the Irish officers of the Government, who are paid for the purpose, would be in possession of the facts. I do not consider that the right hon. Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland has given us the explanation

    829
    which we are entitled to. It is an explanation which is inconsistent with that of the Secretary to the Treasury, and until those two gentlemen can arrive at a mutual understanding as to what the proper explanation is to be the best thing we can do is to pospone the Vote. As I understand the explanation of the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury, it is a rational one, if I may say so without disrespect to the Irish Attorney General. The hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury says that this is a Vote ordered for payment in consequence of an order made by the Irish Bankruptcy Judge. But what says the Irish Attorney General? If I understand him aright—far be it from me to say that I am capable of taking in the explanation of any Irish Attorney General—if I understand him aright, his explanation is that there are certain sums payable to certain Commissioners of the National Debt, and that those sums were paid over, and that they, having paid over so much more than they ought to have done, the Commissioners of the National Debt were compelled to cut down this Vote; but that explanation is wholly inconsistent with the explanation of the Secretary to the Treasury; and furthermore, the Irish Attorney General gave an explanation which is totally contrary to the Section of the Irish Bankruptcy Act to which, we are referred by the sub-head at the beginning of the Vote for Explanation. That shows a vicious system of putting down the Votes and relying upon the supineness of the Committee to pass them without due and deliberate inquiry. You, Mr. Courtney, are the only Gentleman in this Committee who professes to understand this matter. You, Mr. Courtney, appear in your ruling, at all events, to have started what I may call a working hypothesis, and, grant your hypothesis, your rulings are most admirable. When I contrast your view with the explanations which have been offered from the Treasury Bench I am struck with admiration of the faculty which enables you to gather up two wholly inconsistent explanations and to make your rulings consistent with them. What says the Act of Parliament? The right hon. Gentleman the Irish Attorney General says this is a charge made because of certain charges which fall on the official assignee in the
    830
    course of his business; but in the Act it says that an action for any dividend shall be brought against any official assignee, and if the Court shall order payment of such dividend the Court may do so. Therefore, you have it upon this that this is not a Vote in consequence of any defalcation by any assignee, and yet, if I may say so without the smallest disrespect, you have the statement made by the Secretary to the Treasury that this is a Vote in consequence of a defalcation.
    MR. JACKSON: No; I did not say so.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: This is a Vote because of the particular conduct of some particular official assignee. I asked for the name and the date, but was quite unable to get either. The official assignee is, in some way, left in nubilus. He was in default; but we are now told it is not a defalcation.
    MR. JACKSON: I never said so.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: Really, as I have said before, I think this Committee—or, at least, the Irish Members of it—should treat the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury with the utmost consideration. He is most anxious to give us information, and he has mustered, in every respect, an enormous mass of details, which is the more remarkable and praiseworthy as he is new to Office. He really compels and extorts our admiration. The Chief Secretary for Dungarvan shakes his head—I really beg the Home Secretary's pardon—I mean the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary (Mr. Matthews). He shakes his head. He seems to know all about it; but he will not get up and say what he thinks. I will give him the explanation of the Irish Attorney General, who says that the default and the costs have to be met. Am I to be told that the Treasury of England has agreed to raise this extraordinary sum, placed upon the Estimates without full explanation? I think that the least we might expect is that the Treasury should give us an explanation which should be consistent; but they have not given us that. They say that this sum has been incurred in consequence of default and in consequence of costs. Who incurred them? What is the date? Let us have some particulars. I am told that Mr. Dening is the official assignee—surely he must have some explanation, to offer. So far

    831
    we are only told that a certain sum arises in consequence of a default. Let us know the date of it, and when the costs were incurred, and who was the official involved?
    MR. J. F. X. O'BRIEN: Notwithstanding the explanation given to us we are still in the dark—indeed, we are more in the dark now than we were before. The right hon. Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland has given us his explanation, and the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury has given us a different one. The Attorney General for Ireland says these costs were incurred in default of the payment of certain dividends. Now, why should costs be incurred in this way? I confess I do not understand that. The Secretary to the Treasury has also given us his explanation. He says the costs arose out of a particular case. He was asked to explain the particular case; but he would not do so, and he leaves the matter in this unintelligible way. We most strongly object to let everything pass here that has been passed by the Judges in Ireland, and we think we are entitled to some explanation.
    MR. O'DOHERTY: It seems to me that an opportunity ought to be taken by the Treasury, when they are going over the accounts of officials in Ireland, to check those accounts. How can we have any confidence in voting money when affairs are managed in this slipshod fashion, and when the sums asked for are increasing year by year, and no attempt is made even to have notice served upon those who are responsible? If the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury would give an undertaking that hereafter these orders should be checked, and the costs and expenses checked, there might be some satisfaction in trying to pass these Votes without dispute.
    MR. JACKSON: I am sure it is my fault for not having made the matter clear; but really this is a matter in which the Treasury have no power whatever. It is settled by an Act of Parliament that certain costs that are charged from time to time may be brought before the Court in Ireland, and approved by the Court, and then they must be paid. The amount which is now before the Committee has been before the Court, has been approved by
    832
    the Court, and has been ordered by the Court to be paid; and, in accordance with the Act of Parliament, we are bound to pass it.
    An hon. MEMBER: Is there no Notice to the Treasury?
    MR. CHANCE: I think this matter may be divided under two heads, so far as the power of the Court is concerned. The first is, that where an estate is open, the Court, no doubt, has considerable power to order payment out of the funds in Court. The second power is under the 77th section of the Act of 1872; and, in that case, the Court is empowered, out of unclaimed dividends, to order payment to the official assignee of certain sums. But the order which is used as a justification for this Vote is no order at all, for no power to make such order exists. The Court orders for payment certain sums out of moneys to be provided by Parliament; but the power to make an order is confined to an entirely different fund—the unclaimed dividends. The explanation which has been given is, therefore, not sufficient.
    MR. HOLMES: If the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken will refer to the 85th section of the Judicature Act of 1877, he will find that it has transferred that liability to the money provided by Parliament, for the 85th section provides that Government securities must be transferred to the National Debt Commissioners, and all charges upon them, including this charge, shall be taken out of moneys provided by Parliament. The section to which the hon. Gentleman has referred is, no doubt, the section under which the charge was originally made; but, by subsequent legislation, it is transferred from the unclaimed dividend account to the money provided by Parliament.
    COLONEL NOLAN: I think, Sir, that it is time we discontinued the discussion; and I, therefore, move that you do report Progress.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Colonel Nolan.)
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH): I really must ask the Committee to finish this Vote. The

    833
    most complete information has been given. I am sure hon. Gentlemen opposite misunderstand the fact that this money is required to be paid—is ordered to be paid—by a Court of Law, which has full power to order it, and there is no alternative. I do not say that the House of Commons is absolutely bound to vote the money; but an Act of Parliament provides that it shall be paid out of money to be voted by Parliament. This has been done with official sanction, and we really have no alternative in the matter.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: For half an-hour we have been asking for some information. We have got various different accounts, and at the last moment we have a totally different explanation given to us, which does throw some little light upon the business. But for half-an-hour we have practically wasted our time, because the Members upon the Treasury Bench cannot agree about the facts. Nobody admits more cheerfully than I do that there has been a complete waste of time, wholly caused by the inability of Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench to agree in their own explanations. They have given a different one every time, and now at the eleventh hour we get an entirely different one from the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Irish Attorney General, wholly different from all which have preceded it.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    Original Question put, and agreed to.
    Resolutions to be reported.
    THE FIRST LORD or THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH): There are some unopposed Votes which I am sure hon. Gentlemen will not object to dispose of. We will not take any Votes which may reasonably occupy any time. I would not propose to take the Constabulary Vote nor the Irish Education Yore if that is objected to; but there are certain other Votes which are not Votes of any great importance, and which it would be of considerable advantage to take in Committee of Supply to-night. As the Committee, though it has lasted a considerable time, has not obtained much money, I trust it will be willing to go forward for a little while longer.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: I have looked through these
    834
    Votes for myself, and I am disposed to think that the Vote for the Science and Art Department is not one that is likely to give rise to discussion, but most of the others are likely to lead to debate. There is certainly one on the Paper—the Vote for Lunatics in Scotland—which, probably, will not involve much discussion; but with the exception of, perhaps, one other, I do not think there is a single Vote remaining as to which it will not be necessary to raise discussions.
    MR. BRADLAUGH: I hope the Diplomatic Vote will not be taken to-night.
    MR. W. H. SMITH: No.
    THE CHAIRMAN: There is no Question before the House.

    CLASS IV.—EDUCATION, SCIENCE, AND ART.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10,560, be granted to Her Majesty, 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 Science and Art Department, and of the Establishments connected therewith."
    MR. PARNELL: In reference to the suggestion just made by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House (Mr. W. H. Smith) that we should take some Votes which may not be objected to, and especially this Science and Art Vote, I would wish to say that I do not think it is fair to other hon. Members of the House, and particularly to absent Members of the House, that we should go on when there is a heavy Vote on the list like the Irish Constabulary Vote, one which, from the nature of the case, is likely to take up a very considerable time, which has been skipped over. I am not complaining of the postponement of that Vote, because it is manifestly too late to take it; but it would not be fair to skip over that Vote, and then proceed to take other Votes when hon. Members who would take an interest in the subsequent Votes would naturally suppose that they would not come on. It was not at all expected that this very Vote for the Science and Art Department would have been reached to-night, and there are circumstances of considerable interest in reference to this Vote which some of my hon. Friends would have liked to have had in hand. We have here a Vote for £10,560 for the

    835
    Science and Art Department, and I think it would have been only proper to have heard some statement from the responsible officials in connection with this matter. If there is a responsible Irish official in connection with this Vote—which I very much doubt—I should have liked to have had some explanation of it, especially at a time when the explanation could be given to the Irish public through the Press. This question of Science and Art in Ireland has been one which has been upon the Parliamentary carpet for a great number of years, and we have never been able to get any satisfaction out of the Government in reference thereto. I understand that the whole of the Vote does not apply to Ireland, and in that case it is additionally unfair to British Members who may have been beguiled away by the probability—the certainty, under all the circumstances of the case—that this Vote could not possibly be reached tonight. I put it to the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. H. Smith) whether it is fair to hon. Members to take a Vote in which they are most interested, and many of them especially in view of the fact that their absence has been procured by skipping over the Constabulary Vote? I know of no practice which is more objectionable than when, after half-past 12 at night—it is now 10 minutes to 1—a Minister gets up and Bays—"I will not take any Votes that are strongly objected to, but I will take any Votes that are not objected to." The consequence is that many hon. Members, who have gone away under the idea that Votes in which they are interested cannot possibly be reached, are punished when they come back and find that they have been beguiled and deceived by the Secretary to the Treasury, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the Leader of the House. In the interests of absent Members, I beg to move, Sir, that you do now report Progress.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Parnell.)
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Some of these Votes, at all events, might be taken. I think that the Science and Art Vote is an important Vote, but there might be others. The right hon. Gen-
    836
    tleman has undertaken not to take the Constabulary Vote or the Education Vote; but there might be others which might be taken, such as those for the Diplomatic Service, for Grants in Aid to certain Colonies, and for Pauper Lunatics in Scotland.
    MR. JAMES STUART: If the Government persist in going on with the Science and Art Department Vote, I shall be obliged to support the Motion for reporting Progress, because it will be in the recollection of the Government that the discussion on the Vote itself in the last Session was taken, I think, about 3 o'clock in the morning, and there was no opportunity given for its discussion by hon. Members interested. I am very deeply interested, and certain other hon. Members I know are also interested, in the question of science schools, and the whole of the questions referred to in this Vote. No opportunity of discussing these questions has been given for a year, and no opportunity is afforded to us now, or is likely to be afforded to us, to bring on a Resolution on the matter. It is a matter of deep importance and interest to many hon. Members; and if the attempt to take the Vote now be persevered in, I shall be obliged to support the Motion for reporting Progress.
    MR. W. H. SMITH: I will not enter into a contest with hon. Gentlemen opposite on repeated Motions for reporting Progress, because it would only involve delay and we should not do any good. But let us get forward with some Business at all events. In acceding to the suggestion of the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell) that the Constabulary Vote should not be taken to-night, I followed precedent in endeavouring, as far as I could, to meet the views of hon. Gentlemen when a question of considerable importance was coming under discussion. I would desire to meet the convenience of the House as far as possible; but the House must be aware that there is very little time for discussing these questions. There should be ample opportunity for the discussion of Votes in Committee of Supply; but circumstances compel us to get on now with as proper and reasonable a despatch as possible. I must remark that no general discussion can be taken on Education tonight on the Vote for Science and Art—it must be confined to the particular

    837
    item. If the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell) will be so good as to withdraw his Motion, I think that by the general consent of the House we may take the unopposed Votes, such, as have been suggested by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt).
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: I share very much in the feeling that must be entertained by the majority of the Committee that it is time to go to bed, and that must also be the view of Members of the Administration, seeing that they have a proposal among their New Rules that we should never sit after half-past 12. The right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury now complains that there is very little time left for the discussion of these Votes. That may be very true; but even he will not say that it is our fault. We are not responsible for these Estimates not being put down before tonight. Had they been set down earlier we should have made by this time considerable progress. And now I would appeal to the practical common sense of the Government, and to our experience of past years. The right hon. Gentleman says there are certain Votes that are practically unopposed, and that will take but a few minutes to pass. Well, if that is so, then they will occupy but a few minutes on another day. I appeal to the past experience of the Government; this kind of thing has happened before, and with this invariable result—that a very great deal more time has been consumed in fighting over whether we should or should not adjourn than has eventually been found necessary to pass the Votes in question. Under these circumstances, I hope that, as a practical man, the right hon. Gentleman, will allow us now to report Progress.
    MR. M. J. KENNY: I would point out to the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. H. Smith) that there really are most important Votes remaining on the Paper. The Government have made miraculous progress; they have obtained 12 Votes, a most unusual number. I have often known a Government thankful at having passed one Vote in a night. There is one Vote remaining that will not give rise to discussion, or, at least, I do not know if Scotch Members may have something to say about Scotch Lunatics; but, so far
    838
    as I know, it is the only Vote not likely to be contested or discussed. I really think the Government might be satisfied. As to time, there is until the end of March to dispose of the few Votes that are left.
    MR. BIGGAR: I venture to corroborate what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell) as to the unfairness to Members not now present of taking Votes at this hour that stand in order after the Police Vote. It was only this evening that application was made to me by an hon. Member, who knew I had experience in such matters, to express an opinion as to how many Votes would be taken, and whether any Business was likely to be taken after half-past 12. I expressed an opinion that we were not likely to get beyond the Police Vote to-night. I may also say that, having listened to the appeal of the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury, when asking the Committee to agree to the Bankruptcy Vote, such Vote then passed without further discussion. I must, however, say his language was very ambiguous as compared with what he afterwards said. He said, or implied, that he would throw no obstacle in the way of reporting Progress; but no sooner did he get that Vote passed than he desired to proceed with other Votes.
    MR. W. H. SMITH: I am sorry that my words should be considered ambiguous, and I must gay now in reply to hon. Members that it is the duty of the Government to take a Division against the Motion for reporting Progress, by way of making a protest against what, in my humble opinion, is a waste of the time of the House, when time is most valuable, and cannot well be spared. I am perfectly prepared to postpone any Votes against which any objection can be urged; but there are Votes against which practically there can be no reasonable objection, and, having in view the limited time at our disposal, we ought to make progress with these Votes. If the Motion is persisted in, we must take a Division against it.
    MR. ILLINGWORTH: The observations just made call for a word of notice. I do not think there has really been any time of the Committee wasted, or if there has been time wasted tonight, it has rather been

    839
    by Members on that side than on this side of the House. I have been in Committee, Mr. Courtney, the whole of the evening, and have not intervened in the proceedings. If the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. H. Smith) had been here continuously, he would have seen that discussion has proceeded as much from that side as from this. One explanation of the time occupied is the want of harmony in the statements of right hon. Gentlemen sitting on the Treasury Bench. I sincerely hope that, at any rate, this evening's proceedings will not be quoted in the future by the right hon. Gentleman as a deliberate attempt to delay Business.
    MR. COX: In the view of the Government, as shown by their new Rule, Business should cease at half-past 12. It is now past 1; but it is a good opportunity for the Government to give us an idea of how the New Rule would work when in future—
    SIR ROBERT FOWLER: I rise to Order, Mr. Courtney, and ask you whether the hon. Gentleman is in Order in proceeding to discuss Rules which are the subject of a Motion before the House?
    THE CHAIRMANcalled on the hon. Member for East Clare to proceed.
    MR. COX: I had no intention of discussing the New Rules at all. I was only making allusion to them as an illustration of what might come to pass. It is a question how we shall like the Rules, and we might as well commence an experiment to see how they will affect us.
    MR. JOHN O'CONNOR: Before this Division is taken, I desire to say, with every respect to the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. H. Smith), that his language was ambiguous; because I certainly understood him to say to the Committee that if he were allowed to get the Bankruptcy Vote it opened the prospect at which, I am sure we all rejoiced, of our going home. That Vote being allowed to pass without Division, in consequence of that statement of the right hon. Gentleman, I cannot but feel that the Committee has been, as I certainly feel I have been, trapped into a concession, into compliance with the wishes of the right hon. Gentleman, on his request, conveyed in ambiguous language, that this Vote should be allowed to pass. It was allowed to pass, and now
    840
    we are called on to proceed with the discussion of other Votes which we consider of a contentious character. I protest against this method of conducting Business, and hope in the future it will not be adopted I feel it my duty to say, before this Division is taken, that I believe the right hon. Gentleman's language has been ambiguous, or studiously deceptive.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is not entitled to make use of such an expression.
    MR. JOHN O'CONNOR: The word I intended to use, Sir, was unwittingly; but if either word is too strong, I have no desire to adhere to it. At the same time, I certainly do say that the language was unwittingly deceptive. We, at all events, were misled into acquiescing in the passing of the Vote, when the discussion was not threshed out; and, at all events, we should have taken a Division upon the Motion for a reduction of the Vote. Under all these circumstances, I do think that the right hon. Gentleman, taking into account the language he used, and the hope he held out that we should be allowed to go home to bed, would do well not to persist in his intention to take a Division now.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. H. Smith) has made a statement that I am rather surprised did not attract the cognizance of the Chair. In my opinion, it was an incentive to Obstruction, or a suggestion to make use of it. "We will now proceed," said the right hon. Gentleman, "to take a Division as a protest," meaning, thereby, that he would use the Forms of the House against us, and that then he would concede the point. He will waste 15 minutes of the time of the Committee under the mere show of making a protest. That is not, in my opinion, language calculated to conduce to the effective conduct of Business. We know it is the ambition of the right hon. Gentleman to be considered the Gladstone of the Tory Party; but it is unfortunate that on this, the first occasion on which Committee is set down, he inveigles us, he induces us, by his suggestion to pass a Vote, and then talks about taking a Division as a protest—[Interruption.]
    MR. COX: I rise to Order. Is it in Order for hon. Members below the Bar to make demonstrations?
    MR. T. M. HEALY: I have no objection to hon. Gentlemen below the Bar giving evidence that they have been at the bar. What I was about to say was, that the right hon. Gentleman, in the first meeting of Committee of Supply, has used an expression and taken a course that will not conduce to the easy management of affairs. It might have been expected that on this, the first occasion, the first night of Supply, he would be very careful to avoid friction; but he has led us to withdraw our opposition to a Vote, and now he is intending, as a protest merely, for factious purposes, to take a Division, and he thinks it reasonable that we should occupy 15 minutes in trotting round the House.
    MR. BIGGAR: I should like to raise my protest against the charge the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. H. Smith) has levelled against us, of wasting the time of the House. I should like to know who has been wasting time for the last half-hour? It seems to me that the right hon. Gentleman himself has done so wilfully and indefensibly, for the purpose of getting up an outcry in the Tory newspapers charging Irish Members with Obstruction.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 93; Noes 212: Majority 119.—(Div. List, No. 31.)
    Original Question again proposed.
    MR. DILLWYN: I very much dislike always the practice of passing over one Vote to take another beyond it on the Paper. I think the principle of adhering to the order of the Votes as they are set down is much to be preferred. I would now make an appeal to the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury (Mr. W. H. Smith) not to press on with Business now, but allow us to separate. I must say—though I am far from charging him with deceiving the Committee—there seems to have been great misunderstanding as to the words he used. I, with many others near me, gathered that he intended, if we passed the last Vote, to report Progress, and it is unfortunate that we should have this wrangle afterwards in connection with what he said. Without charging him with any breach of faith, his words have caused grave misunderstanding. I now beg to move, Mr. Courtney, that you do leave the Chair.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. Dillwyn.)
    MR. W. H. SMITH: Of course it is impossible to assent to that Motion, but I have no wish to prolong discussion on a question of words, or even of facts. I would, however, again draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that we have very little time left to complete our financial work in for the year. I invite the consideration of the Committee to the remaining Votes, and they will be passed, I hope, with all reasonable speed. I will no longer resist the Motion to report Progress, if the present Motion is withdrawn.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.
    Committee also report Progress; to sit again upon Wednesday.

    HYDE PARK CORNER (NEW STREETS) BILL.— [BILL 135.]
    (Mr. David Plunket, Mr. Jackson.)

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. PLUNKET): In asking that this Bill be now read a second time, I need detain the House but a few minutes. It is a very short Bill, and its object is to relieve the taxpayers of the country of the expense of maintaining the new roads at Hyde Park Corner made a few years ago when improvements were undertaken there. That expense is £1,500 or £1,600 a-year, and it has hitherto been paid by Votes of the House; but if this Bill passes, the expense will in future fall upon the local rates—that is to say, as to one moiety, on the parish of St. George's, Hanover Square, and, as to the other moiety, on the Metropolitan Board of Works. This Bill, or one similar to it, has been some years before the House, and has met with one misfortune after another. Last year the Bill passed a second reading in this House, and was referred to a Hybrid Committee, and, after being fully considered, passed through all its stages here. Unfortunately, it was not successful in "another place;" but I hope this year the Bill may have the same good fortune in this House, and meet with a better fate in "another place." The

    843
    reasons for the Bill are briefly set forth in the Preamble, which recites that the new streets at Hyde Park Corner, formerly part of the Green Park, and, therefore, included in the parish of St. Martin, now practically form part of the parish of St. George's, Hanover Square. While everybody agrees that the maintenance of the streets ought not to fall on the taxpayers of the country, the parishes have not been able to agree amongst themselves as to the proportions of expense should be divided, and so we ask Parliament to pass this Bill. If the House should see fit to read the Bill a second time on the present occasion, I shall at once move that it be referred to a Hybrid Committee, where the details may be discussed. At the same time, if I may venture to make an appeal to those interested, I would say that as the Bill was fully considered before a similar Committee in the last Parliament I hope opposition will not be raised again, and that no great expense will be incurred.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. David Plunket.)
    MR. HENRY H. FOWLER: I hardly agree with the right hon. Gentleman with reference to the probability of what may happen this year. I am afraid that, unless the present Government make a decided stand, the fate of the Bill will be the same as in the preceding year. It is perfectly true that all parties are agreed that the cost of the roads should not be thrown upon the Imperial funds; but, unfortunately, all the Metropolitan parties—the Board of Works, St. George's and St. Martin's—act on the principle that so long as they get the money voted by Parliament, so long will they allow it to be done. I should like the House to understand that we are paying £1,500 a-year for the repair of one of the handsomest streets in one of the wealthiest quarters of London. I can tell the House what the position of the late Government was in this matter. We would not ask Parliament to vote another shilling for the roads, and if the parishes would not agree—they could agree in half-an-hour—the roads should go unrepaired so far as the Government are concerned. I am sorry the Bill is again to be sent upstairs to a Committee.
    844
    There is no necessity for such a Committee at all; it was settled last Session, though, unfortunately, in "another place" the arrangement was upset. I would take the Bill through Committee of the House, and send it up to "another place" before the Estimates come on. Whatever may be the fate of the Bill, I hope the Government will not ask Parliament to vote another shilling for these roads.
    MR. PLUNKET: Perhaps I may be allowed to say that I would willingly adopt the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman opposite; but I have been advised by the authorities on such matters that, from its character, it is necessary to refer the Bill to a Hybrid Committee.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill read a second time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be committed to a Select Committee of Five Members, Two to be nominated by the House, and Three by the Committee of Selection."—[Mr. David Plunket.)
    MR. T. M. HEALY: Should there not be Notice given of this?
    MR. SPEAKER: It is not necessary to give Notice.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Ordered, That all Petitions against the Bill, presented not later than three clear days before the sitting of the Committee, be referred to the Committee, and that such of the Petitioners as pray to be heard by themselves, their Counsel, Agents, and Witnesses, be heard on their Petitions, if they think fit, and Counsel heard in favour of the Bill.
    Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.
    Ordered, That Three be the quorum.—(Mr. David Plunket.)

    CRIMINAL LAW (SCOTLAND) PROCEDURE BILL.
    (Mr. Secretary Matthews, Mr. Secretary Balfour The Lord Advocate, Mr. Solicitor General for Scotland.)

    [BILL 131.] SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    MR. CHANCE: I happen to notice that this Bill, though down for Second Reading, has not yet been printed. The subject of Criminal Procedure is one that is interesting to us, and I shall find it necessary to oppose the Motion for Second Reading, unless we hear from the Treasury Bench

    845
    that it is the intention to print and circulate the Bill within the next few days.
    MR. SPEAKER: It is now proposed to postpone the Order to March 14.
    Second Reading deferred till Monday 14th March.

    COUNTY COURTS (EXPENSES) BILL.
    (Mr. Jackson, Mr. Attorney General, Sir Herbert Maxwell.)

    [BILL 177.] SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON): This Bill is a very simple one, and its title explains it. The salaries have varied from time to time, according as the payments exceeded or were less than £6,000. The Bill makes no alteration in principle; it merely gives the Treasury power to fix the salaries from time to time, and, in fact, reduces to order that which was very irregular.
    Bill read a second time, and committed for Monday 14th March.

    SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE (IRELAND) BILL.
    (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach, Mr. Jackson.)

    [BILL 1.] COMMITTEE.
    Order for Committee read.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH): The Notices of opposition to this Bill standing in the names of several hon. Members have been withdrawn; and I, therefore, conclude that there will be no opposition to the formal Motion that you, Sir, do now leave the Chair. It is not intended to take the Bill through Committee to-night, and I will name a day for it, when Questions and Amendments having reference to the subject-matter of the Bill can be raised.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."—[Sir Michael Hicks-Beach.)
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: On a point of Order, Sir. Was it not a ruling of your Predecessor in the Chair that, under the circumstances, a Bill could not be read a second time—could not, in fact, be proceeded with?
    MR. SPEAKER: I do not know to what the hon. Member refers.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: To the Notices of opposition on the Paper.
    MR. SPEAKER: But there are no Notices of opposition on the Paper.
    MR. T. M. HEALYI am really surprised that the right hon Baronet should have received a false impression from the disappearance of Motions that stood in the names of several hon. Members. So far as the Bill proposes to fuse the Divisions of the Irish Law Courts into one there is no objection whatever. But, while making that fusion, the Bill proposes to allow existing Judges to remain, and to create an extra Judge. Now, for the last few months the Court of Common Pleas has consisted of only one Judge, the other being engaged in trying criminal cases in Green Street. For the entire sitting, which terminated on Saturday, Common Pleas was worked by one Judge, and no difficulty was experienced; so that it is clear we can work the Division with one Judge. Now it is proposed to fuse this Division into the Queen's Bench, and to appoint another Judge—that is to say, you will have four Judges where three would be ample. A more corrupt and palpable job was never attempted to be perpetrated. The real method for carrying out the purpose would be to fuse the three Divisions; in that we all agree; but do not fill up existing vacancies, and provide for the extinction of future Judgeships. To appoint the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland as a Judge is one of the grossest jobs ever perpetrated. We do not want him in Ireland. I do not say we want him here; but here, at any rate, he is, to some extent, earning the large salary he gets. But when you have two Judges in Queen's Bench and two in Common Pleas, to go and appoint the Attorney General—that is to say, to make the total number seven—is a good example of the state to which English government in Ireland is reduced. What interest have English Members in continuing this corruption in Ireland? What interest can Members of the Bar who represent English constituencies have in keeping up this system of Bar bribery that exists in Ireland? Why should they assist in the job by which the Irish Attorney General gets £3,500 a-year for political services very badly done? This Bill might be attributed to a desire on the part of the right hon.

    847
    Baronet to get rid of his Attorney General. Is he sick of him? He cannot be more sick of him than we are; but, whether he be or not, to appoint him an additional Judge of Common Pleas is a huge job. There is not work for the existing Judges in Ireland, and why, then, appoint another? Unless we get a guarantee that this is to be a fusion Bill merely, we shall fight it to the death. The Queen's Bench got on for a considerable period without a fourth Judge at all. You appointed a fourth in 1883, under Lord Spencer, needlessly, and for the purpose of giving promotion to a distinguished official in this House, now Mr. Justice Johnson, and now you are going to continue that system of jobbery, because your Attorney General has expressed an unfortunate opinion on the Plan of Campaign, and you wish to shunt him. Have English Members of the Legal Profession any idea of the work to be done by the Judges in Ireland? How many writs are issued, how many causes moved, how many motions, as compared with the work in the English Courts, and then say why you want another Judge? How many actions at Nisi Prius are there, how many motions on appeal, as compared with England? This is simply a system of spoon feeding; it is corrupting members of the Bar by bribing them to fight for Her Majesty's Government for a brief period, that they may afterwards be translated into a higher position. I am not surprised at the appointment of the Attorney General, for we have vivid memories of the appointment of Judge Ormesby, a most inefficient Judge, as he was previously a most incompetent Law Officer. He has now retired, and what I may say is in the air—a mere historical reference. He was admittedly an incompetent man, and I challenge the Chief Secretary to deny it; and he was got rid of by being pitchforked into a Judgeship. Ormesby never held a brief in his life, or a suit more than the one a counsel gets from a friendly solicitor when he is called. For reasons no one but the right hon. Baronet could fully understand it was necessary to get rid of Ormesby, and he was got rid of, as now he is trying to get rid of the Member for Trinity College, because he gave an inconvenient opinion that the Plan of Campaign was a matter the Executive could not interfere with. Beyond that there is no reason why the
    848
    Government should proceed with the Bill. It is a job—a gross job. Contrast it with the course the Liberal Government pursued. You transported Sir Robert Hamilton to Van Diemen's Land—["Question!"] I will show the pertinency of this presently, though to move the adjournment of the debate would be more germane to the circumstances. Sir Robert Hamilton was sent to Van Diemen's Land, because he had incurred the hatred of members of the Bar in his endeavour to prevent jobbery and injustice. He set his face against it; he reduced legal fees; and he was transported to Van Diemen's Land. Sir Robert Hamilton drew a Bill for fusing the three Divisions into one, and he proposed to cut down the number of Judges. True it is, the blocks have been taken off the present Bill; but that is not a sign that we want the Bill to pass in its present form. We want to fuse the two Divisions, but we do not want to appoint an extra Judge. Take the power to fuse the two Divisions; but keep your Attorney General earning his ample salary by doing indifferent work in the House. We think also that some guarantee should be given that if these Divisions are fused, the Chief Justice of Common Pleas should have a seat in the Court of Appeal. But the Bill leaves the question of the Court of Appeal absolutely untouched—leaves it weakened by the loss of one Judge. It is a Court of very good repute; we have no fault to find with any of its decisions; and then you take power to destroy the Court of Exchequer. This is the honest Court in Ireland. Every attorney who desires to get law issues a writ for the Exchequer, for there you have Judges who give the law absolutely, even though you have the Queen against you. This is the Court the late Prime Minister, in his Home Rule Bill, intended should be the means of dealing with certain questions in relation to the scheme. You propose to destroy the Court of Exchequer, practically the only honest Court that exists; a Court all the Judges of which are trusted, so far as the popular Party are concerned, in the belief that they will administer the law impartially to Crown or subject. And you leave the Court of Appeal untouched, with the Lord Chancellor always a partizan—I use the word not in an offensive, but in a Party sense.

    849
    How desirable it is that you should strengthen the Court of Appeal. The Chairman of Committees—I hope I am committing no breach of confidence—advised us that our Amendments were not strictly germane to the Committee stage, and that they should take the form of Instructions to the Committee, though I am at a loss to know why. We should have no objection to your leaving the Chair, if the Chief Secretary would accept the Instructions; or we could move them as Amendments in Committee. The present Attorney General for England, two years ago, promised to consider whether the Petty Sessions Act—granting appeals from magisterial decisions—should be extended to Ireland; and the present Under Secretary of State for the Home Department gave us something less than a positive pledge in the same direction. But we have still only the means of appealing by means of certiorari, and there is no appeal from the Queen's Bench in matters affecting the Crown side. The Queen's Bench is the Government Court, the Government taking care to appoint no Judges there but "true blues." For instance, when Lord Fitzgerald went to the House of Lords, Justice Lawson was appointed to the Queen's Bench; and, in the same way, Judge O'Brien was taken from the Common Pleas to the Queen's Bench. Each Government takes care that the Judges of this Court shall consist of" Stalwarts," and they make it a rule to refuse all Motions for certiorari, so we have no appeal from the Queen's Bench, nor have we, as you have in England, appeals from the Magistrates. Why is it out of the purview of this Bill to move the Amendments we proposed in Committee? I should be glad, if the Chairman of Committees (Mr. Courtney) would take part in the debate and inform us—
    MR. SPEAKER: The hon. and learned Member will see that that is in the nature of an appeal to the Chair from the Chairman of Ways and Means, and is quite out of Order.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: I recognize the force of your objection, Sir, and will not continue the appeal, except to say that perhaps, as a skilled master of the Act, the right hon. Gentleman will at some future time, in the course of the debate, favour us with his views as to the sub-
    850
    ject generally. At this hour of the night I think the right hon. Baronet will recognize that it is not advisable to proceed with such an important measure, and that it contains much for careful digestion. Why, we are now seeking to case the English taxpayer. I see English Members connected with the Bar, and I ask them why will they, because the Government ask them, throw away £3,500 a-year? We will give it you from our bounty, and I guarantee that no Irish interest shall suffer thereby. We offer you this sum in the fulness of our hearts. But the Government will recognize that a matter of this extreme importance cannot be debated at this hour of the night. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Henry H. Fowler) has an important Amendment on the subject. Under all these circumstances, I think the Chief Secretary will not deem it unreasonable to adjourn this debate. We do not desire to block the Bill; we wish to have it discussed, and have given an earnest of our wish in withdrawing our blocks; we are moving with a view to cut down expenditure. I beg, Sir, to move an adjournment of the debate.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. T. M. Healy.)
    MR. HENRY H. FOWLER: I have to say to the hon. and learned Gentleman who has just sat down that the course he is most anxious to pursue in the matter—that is, economy in the judicial power in Ireland—will be best secured by following the course suggested by the right hon. Baronet the Chief Secretary. What we have to deal with now is not what is desirable, but what is practicable. Hon. Members below the Gangway will see it is not practicable for the right hon. Gentleman to go into the whole discussion of the administration of the law in Ireland on a Bill of this description. The hon. and learned Member wants to effect a reduction of the judicial staff in Ireland, and the Bill affords a fair opportunity. The proposition of the Government is to abolish the office of Chief Justice of Common Pleas and Chief Baron of Exchequer; and my Amendment is that no Judges be appointed in their place, a saving of £7,000 a-year. The only way, having due regard to business to secure

    851
    a debate, is now to agree to the Motion that the Speaker leave the Chair, asking the right hon. Gentleman to fix such a time for the next stage as will insure a full discussion. I am sure a great number of English. Members sympathize very strongly in my view, and I am sanguine that if we make out a good case the Government will have to accept it. I would suggest that we now accept the Motion of the Chief Secretary and allow the Speaker to leave the Chair. Let us endeavour, on the lines of this Bill, to effect a real and genuine Irish reform. If we attempt something beyond the scope and purview of this Bill, I am afraid that we may, in grasping at the shadow, lose the substance.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: If the right hon. Baronet will give us his view or consent to the proposal for cutting down the number of Judges I will withdraw my Motion.
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS - BEACH: That I cannot do. What I would undertake to do is to afford a fair opportunity for discussion, when I will express the views of the Government. I cannot undertake to accept proposals that may be made.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: Will the right hon. Gentleman state the Government views on the Motion that the Speaker leave the Chair?
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: No, Sir.
    MR. PARNELL: I do not gather from the Chief Secretary whether he has definitely made up his mind to reject Amendments. I think it might be reasonable for him to say so.
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: I am sorry if I did not convey my meaning clearly. I introduced the Bill without the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Henry H. Fowler), and do not believe it would be right to insert it. When he comes to make his proposals I will meet them.
    MR. PARNELL: Under the circumstances, and as this is the first time we have had the right hon. Gentleman's views on this important matter, the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton, it would be right to agree to an adjournment until to-morrow, in order that we may consider whether we ought to sacrifice the Bill, or accept it and obtain
    852
    the limited gain it undoubtedly gives us.
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: I do not wish to prolong this discussion at this hour. I agree to the adjournment.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Debate adjourned till To-morrow.

MOTIONS.
  EDUCATIONAL ENDOWMENTS (SCOTLAND) COMMISSION.

    MOTION FOR AN ADDRESS.
    MR. FRASER-MACKINTOSHrose to move—
    "That an humble Address he presented to Her Majesty, praying Her Majesty to withhold Her consent to the scheme for the management of the Mackintosh Farr Fund."
    MR. H. F. H. ELLIOT: I rise to a point of Order. The scheme was only laid on the Table tonight, and has not yet been printed and circulated. I wish to ask, under the circumstances, if the House can proceed with the consideration of this scheme?
    THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): On the point of Order, Sir, I may remind you that the scheme was laid on the Table last Session and is re-laid to-night, and that it has, therefore, been printed and circulated.
    MR. FINLAY (Inverness, &c.): Having the scheme hung up in this way is detrimental to educational interests. If it be possible, I hope it may be dealt with to-night. The scheme was in the hands of Members last Session, and I do not think there would be any inconvenience in proceeding with the Motion to-night.
    DR. CLARK: This scheme, Sir, was laid on the Table of the House on August 30 last year. Now, is the period for which it is to lie on the Table to count from that date? If so, this will be the 59th night of Parliament. Should the scheme date back from August 30, or should this be the first of 60 days?
    MR. SPEAKER: I understand it was laid on the Table to-night, and must, therefore, so far as the cognizance of the house is concerned, be regarded as a new scheme, and date from to-day.
    DR. CLARK: A measure exactly similar was discussed here a short time since—I mean the scheme for the parish of Dollar. Would the Rule equally apply there? The scheme was never laid on the Table at all this Session.
    MR. SPEAKER: I cannot give a ruling on a case unless I have all the circumstances before me. My ruling applies to the scheme laid on the Table to-night.
    MR. FRASER-MACKINTOSH: The Motion I intended to bring on, Mr. Speaker, was in regard to the scheme laid on the Table last year; and as it has fallen, by the introduction of the new scheme, I do not proceed at present.

    OWNERS OF DOGS' LIABILITY BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. Addison, Bill to render the Owners of Dogs liable for injuries done to any person by such dogs, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Addison and Mr. Arthur O'Connor.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 181.]

    VEXATIOUS INDICTMENTS (AMENDMENT) BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. Addison, Bill to compel a Prosecutor to find security for costs in cases arising under section two of the thirtieth and thirty-first years of Victoria, chapter thirty-five, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Addison, Mr. Arthur O'Connor, and Mr. Fulton. Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 182.]

    LICENCES (BELFAST) BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. Sexton, Bill to amend the Law relating to the granting and transfer of Licences for the sale of intoxicating liquors within the borough of Belfast, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Sexton, Mr. T. M. Healy, Mr. M'Cartan, Mr. John O'Connor, Mr. Peter M'Donald, and Mr. Reynolds.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 183.]

    MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT (1854) AMENDMENT (NO. 2) BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. King, Bill to amend "The Merchant Shipping Act, 1854," sections three hundred and forty, three hundred and forty-two, and three hundred and fifty-five, ordered to be brought in by Mr. King, Sir Edward Birkbeck, Mr. Lacaita, Mr. White, Mr. Puleston, Lord Claud Hamilton, Admiral Field, and Mr. Bond.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 184.]
    House adjourned at a quarter after Two o'clock.