Commons Sitting of 2 April 1889

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  SUCK DRAINAGE BILL (by Order).

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    MR. HARRIS: I beg to move the Second Reading of this Bill. I may say that both the landlords and the tenant farmers and all persons interested in the district are entirely agreed as to the desirableness of this measure; and I hope that the Government will support it in passing.
    Question, "That the Bill be now read a second time," put, and agreed to.
    Bill read a second time, and committed.

  QUESTIONS.

    ENLARGEMENT OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS.
    MR. HENRY PEASEasked the First Commissioner
    1378
    of Works when he would be prepared to make some proposal for enlarging the House of Commons, so as to provide a seat for every Member?
    *THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. PLUNKET,): Any scheme for enlarging the House of Commons so as to provide a seat for every Member would necessarily involve large structural changes and considerable expense, and I venture to think that no such scheme should be proposed except in obedience to the wish of the House, definitely and deliberately expressed after careful inquiry.

    TRAWLING IN THE CLYDE.
    MR. JOHN SINCLAIRasked the Lord Advocate if it was the intention of the Fishery Board to issue a bye-law prohibiting beam trawling in the Firth of Clyde within a line drawn from the Mull of Kintyre across by Pladda and Ailsa Craig to Corsewall Point; when such bye-law was likely to be passed and put in force; whether the Government now saw their way to sanction such restriction of trawling in the estuary of the Clyde; and whether it was the case that the Secretary for Scotland has declared that a Bill was in course of preparation to effect the same or similar ends?
    *A LORD OF THE TREASURY (Sir HERBERT MAXWELL,) in the absence of the Lord Advocate, said: As regards the first three paragraphs of the question, the Fishery Board have no power to pass a bye-law prohibiting trawling within the points mentioned, and as regards the fourth question, I am informed that the Secretary for Scotland has no recollection of making any such declaration. I may call the hon. Member's attention to an Amendment on the Herring Fishery Bill which has been put on the paper by the hon. Member for South Ayrshire, which will put the question of prohibiting trawling within this area before the House for its decision.

    THE ARDEE BOARD OF GUARDIANS.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELLasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he was aware that the Ardee Board of Guardians

    1379
    recently gave the contract for the erection of a number of labourers' cottages to a person named Cooke, son of an evicted tenant on Lord Massereene's estate, who is wholly unskilled, being only accustomed to farm work, and that several skilled masons, including tenants on Lord Massereene's estate who had paid their rent, also tendered for the work, but their tenders were rejected; whether the two sureties accepted by the Guardians for the due carrying out of the work were two persons named Lawless and Finnegan, both of whom have been evicted from their holdings on Lord Massereene's estate for non-payment of rent; and if the Local Government Board intended to take any steps to protect the interests of the ratepayers?
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN,): The clerk of the Ardee Union reports that it is the case that the Guardians accepted the tender of Bernard Cooke for the erection of 11 labourers' cottages. Cooke is the son of an evicted tenant on Lord Massereene's estate, and, so far as the clerk is aware, has no skilled knowledge as a builder, he having been accustomed to farm work only. Of the three other persons who tendered, two were masons, and the clerk believes they are tenants of Lord Massereene, but he has no information as to their having paid their rents. The Guardians are represented to have accepted Cooke's tender on the ground that it was the lowest. The clerk states that the sureties are not the persons mentioned in the question, but two solvent farmers named Denis M'Cullough and Thomas M'Donnell. The works will be, in accordance with the usual practice, inspected and reported upon by one of the Local Government Board Engineering Inspectors prior to the issue of the instalments of the loan sanctioned.
    MR. SEXTON: Has the hon. and learned Gentleman ascertained whether the Guardians did more than accept the lowest tender? Would the auditor have passed the contract if they had done otherwise, and would not the Guardians have been surcharged?
    MR. MADDEN: I do not think it is the duty of the auditor to surcharge the Guardians merely because they did not accept the lowest tender. I do not think
    1380
    they are bound to accept the lowest tender.
    MR. SEXTON: If they accepted any but the lowest tender, would not the auditor call on them to explain why they had done so?
    MR. MADDEN: If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to have information I will endeavour to obtain it for him, but I do not think that this is a matter which arises out of the question.

    INDIA—STATISTICAL ABSTRACT—IMPORT OF PETROLEUM FROM THE UNITED STATES.
    SIR EDWARD WATKINasked the Under Secretary of State for India whether his attention had been called to the fact that the "Statistical Abstract relating to British India," last published, shows (pp. 142, 143) that the imports into India from the United States of America, had increased from a value of £297,717 in 1878, to £1,887,396 in 1887; whether the larger item in these figures was petroleum; why petroleum was not to be found in the classification of articles of import; and if he could state the value of petroleum from the United States imported into India in 1887, and the probable value in the year about to end?
    *THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Sir J. GORST,): The answer to the first and second paragraph is "Yes." In future volumes of the Statistical Abstracts, petroleum will be shown separately. For the year ending March, 1887, the value of petroleum from the United States imported into India was Rx1,136,000; for the year ending March, 1888, Rx981,000; and for ten months to the 31st of January, 1889, Rx802,000.

    AUSTRALIAN POSTAL RATES.
    MR. HENNIKER HEATONasked whether the Postmaster General would take into consideration the advisability of altering the title "long sea route" to "cheap sea route" in all advertisements and official notifications of the new fourpenny service to Australia direct?
    *SIR H. MAXWELL: My right hon. Friend does not consider that it would be desirable to make the change suggested. He prefers the term "All

    1381
    sea route," and intends to adopt it in all official notices issued by the Post Office in future in relation to mails for Australia embarked on board the Imperial contract packets in the Thames or at Plymouth.

    POST OFFICE WORK FOR OTHER DEPARTMENTS.
    MR. HENNIKER HEATONasked the Postmaster General whether the total value of Post Office work done for other Departments, stated in the Estimates at about £400,000, includes the cost of free money orders issued for Inland Revenue purposes, and the services rendered in recovering revenue; and what is the estimated value of the postal services performed for the Inland Revenue Department for the current year, including the free money orders, which for the nine months ending 31st December last exceeded a quarter of a million?
    *SIR H. MAXWELL: In the absence of my right hon. Friend the Postmaster General, I will answer the question. It is presumed my hon. Friend refers to the sum of £366,000 on page 113 of the Estimates for the current year, which is the Estimate of the cost of the conveyance of letters and parcels only. If he will refer to the page quoted he will see that £171,700 is the estimated cost of the correspondence of the Post Office. If that be deducted from the total, it will be seen that the value of conveyance for other Departments is not £400,000, but about £195,000. This does not include the cost of money orders issued for Inland Revenue purposes, or of any other service than the conveyance of official correspondence and parcels. The estimated value of the postal services performed for the Inland Revenue Department, including the cost of official money orders, is £115,000.

    ADMIRALTY CONTRACTS.
    MR. HOWARD VINCENTasked the Secretary to the Admiralty why the Contract Department, in the years 1886–7 and 1887–8, placed orders for preserved butter and salt pork, amounting to £24,910, outside the United Kingdom; and if, having regard to the importance of encouraging Home industries and to
    1382
    the agricultural depression in Great Britain and Ireland, directions can be given that in future no article required for the Public Service produced at Home is to be ordered from abroad?
    THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. FORWOOD,): Tenders for pork were invited by public advertisement in 1886 and 1887, and those for butter from a selected list of firms connected with the Irish as well as the foreign butter trade. In 1886 the tenders from Cork packers of pork for delivery at Haulbowline were accepted to a value of about £5,000 at a slightly higher price than that paid for the pork offered for delivery at Deptford by Danish packers. The Irish tenders for delivery at Deptford were 8 per cent higher. In 1887 orders for £7,600 in value were given to Irish firms for delivery at Haulbowline at higher prices than for Danish-packed, delivered at Deptford. The value of butter purchased was only £1,500 in the two years. It is used chiefly by officers in troopships, and samples of Irish and Danish manufacture were submitted to a Committee of Officers, who chose the Danish as preferable for the Service. It is the practice of the Department to give a preference in all cases to Home produce, and, as will be seen from the Parliamentary Returns, the proportion of purchases of foreign-made stores compared to those of British origin are exceedingly small, being only £48,000 out of a total of some millions.

    INLAND REVENUE.
    MR. MACDONALD CAMERONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it was true that in the proposed scheme to abolish the Collector at Great Winchester Street, City, the Receiver General is to undertake merely the receipt of cash, and to leave the really important duties of collector to be done elsewhere; that the Receiver General was to require the taxes collected in the City to be paid to him at Somerset House, instead of as heretofore to the Collector of Inland Revenue within the City; was the majority of the Committee engaged in considering the question of breaking the collection and reorganizing the Receiver General's post in favour of the proposal; and had the proposal the approval of the Chairman

    1383
    of the Board and of the practical officers who advise the Board?
    *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN,): I must respectfully decline to give information as to proceedings of Departmental Committees, at least until I have myself been able to form a judgment on them. I cannot accept the questions of the hon. Member as indicating correct facts, as I do not see how he could have had any intimation of the confidential proceedings of the Committee without a breach of confidence, which I am reluctant to think possible in so well-regulated and discreet a Department of the Civil Service as the Inland Revenue.

    INDIA—FINANCIAL STATEMENT, 1889—POSITION OF SILVER—THE CURRENCY QUESTION.
    MR. HOYLEasked the Under Secretary of State for India if his attention has been called to the following remarks made by the Finance Minister for India in his Annual Financial Statement for 1889–90, in reference to the position of silver, that "the present condition is not one of permanent equilibrium," and that the action of the United States of America and the Continental Nations of Europe may bring on a crisis at any moment, and that no solution of the currency question is possible without international agreement; if so, when may a full report of his speech be expected in this country; and will copies of it be placed in the Library for the use of Members?
    SIR J. GORST: The full Report should arrive in this country on April 22. I will see that a copy of it is placed in the Library.
    SIR E. LETHBRIDGEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the attention of Her Majesty's Government had been directed to the declaration of the Government of India in this year's Budget statement, that "no solution of the currency question is possible without international agreement"; and whether Her Majesty's Government would take any steps to obtain such an international agreement?
    *MR. GOSCHEN: If the hon. Member by the "currency question" means the question of bimetallism, then it is true that no solution is possible without international agreement. But the point
    1384
    is whether it would be possible even with international agreement. That is a question upon which the Royal Commission is hopelessly divided; but the House will have an opportunity of discussing the matter on the Motion of the hon. Member for Lincolnshire.

    THE HURRICANE AT SAMOA.
    SIR GEORGE BADEN-POWELLasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he could give the House any information as to the acts of seamanship by which-Her Majesty's Ship Calliope escaped disaster during the hurricane which visited the Samoa Islands last month; and whether orders had been given for any of Her Majesty's ships to visit those islands for the protection or aid of those who may have suffered by the hurricane?
    MR. FORWOOD: No detailed Report has yet been received as to the circumstances under which the Calliope effected her escape from Samoa; but so far as can be gathered she must have returned thereafter the hurricane was over and conveyed the news to Auckland, from which place it was sent to England by cable. Full details will, no doubt, be reported by the Commander-in-Chief in the next mail. The Commander-in-Chief on the Australian Station has ordered Her Majesty's ship Rapid to leave Auckland to-morrow for Samoa, calling at Fiji.

    LO BENGULA'S CONCESSIONS.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether it is a fact that Lo Bengula denies having knowingly signed a concession such as that held by Messrs. Rudd, and asserts that the Missionary, who acted as interpreter between him and Mr. Rudd, erroneously interpreted the document to him; whether he will lay the concession upon the Table; whether, in view of the fact that Lo Bengula's territory is within the area of British influence, he would be allowed to grant such a concession to a person who is not a British subject; and, if not, whether Her Majesty's Government deem that he is entitled to grant a concession which excludes all but three British subjects and their agents from mining operations in his territory; whether, if the agents of the company (being British subjects)

    1385
    put themselves at the head of an armed force of Lo Bengula's subjects, and hinder, by force, British subjects from carrying on mining operations in the territory, they are acting in violation of the Foreign Enlistment Act; whether he has observed the following announcement in the Bechuanaland News:—
    "I hear it is published in the newspapers that I have granted a concession of the minerals in all my country to Charles Dunell Rudd, Rochford Maguire, and Francis Robert Thompson. As there is a great misunderstanding about this, all action in respect of said concession is hereby suspended pending an investigation to be made by me in my country. (Signed) Lo Bengula, Royal Kraal, Matabeleland. Jan. 18, 1889."
    Whether he is aware that, on 17th November, 1887, Lo Bengula signed a concession to Joseph Wood, Edward Chapman, and William Francis, granting the exclusive right to mine, to erect mills and smelting works, and to use all water, in the land between the Rivers Shasha and Maklutei, in consideration of a payment of a rental of £100 per annum; and whether he can see his way to put an end to all exclusive concessions granted to British subjects within the South African territory which is under British influence?
    *THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Baron H. DE WORMS,): Her Majesty's Government have no official information on the subject referred to in the first paragraph of the hon. Member's question. The concession is among Papers which are being prepared for early presentation to Parliament. The answer to the third paragraph is in the affirmative; the declaration of British influence does not enable Her Majesty's Government to control the grant of concessions by the chiefs. In reply to the fourth paragraph, the Foreign Enlistment Act cannot, it is conceived, have any bearing on these questions. Her Majesty's Government have seen the announcement quoted in the fifth paragraph, but have no means of judging whether it is authentic. It would seem to have been obtained, if genuine, by some parties competing with Messrs. Rudd and Company. The persons in the sixth paragraph mentioned allege that they have obtained a concession of the nature described on the date mentioned; but the land in question is in dispute, being claimed by Khama, who
    1386
    is under British protection, and all parties purporting to hold concessions have been warned not to enter the disputed area. We have learnt that the concession mentioned in the first question has already been largely shared with other Companies and persons, and it appears to Her Majesty's Government that the best mode of putting an end to all exclusive and competing concessions in that part of South Africa which is under British influence may be by uniting all valid concessions under one control, subject to important modifications, as for example the supply of arms, and also to such restrictions as may fully secure the interests of the natives and all other legitimate claims.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to carry out that policy of not interfering with the rights of the chiefs to make concessions, with a view to put an end to the difficulty?
    *BARON H. DE WORMS: I can only give the same answer that I gave the other day, that within the sphere of British influence we are able to advise, but we cannot do more, in a country which is not under our protection, and we cannot prevent the Ruler of that country from making a concession.
    MR. CONYBEARE: Is there any authority from which we can gather information as to what "the sphere of British influence" means?
    MR. BRADLAUGH: On the 8th of May last did not Lord Knutsford express a strong opinion as to these concessions in regard to territory under the protection of the British Government?
    BARON H. DE WORMS: Perhaps the hon. Member will kindly give notice of that question.

    THE CASE OF JOHN WITHEY.
    MR. LEWIS FRYasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he had had under consideration the case of John Withey, now under sentence of death in Horfield Gaol, Bristol, for the murder of his wife on the 11th of February last; whether he was aware that the jury stated in giving their verdict that there was no premeditation on the part of the prisoner, and recommended him to mercy on that ground, and on that

    1387
    of previous good character; whether ten of the jury had since forwarded to the Home Office a memorial stating that there was no direct or positive evidence that Withey killed his wife, nor any evidence of premeditation, and strongly repeating their recommendation to mercy; and whether, under the circumstances of the case, the finding of the jury was equivalent in law to a verdict of manslaughter only, and not of wilful murder?
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS,): My answer to the first three paragraphs of the question of the hon. Member is in the affirmative; and to the last in the negative. The matter is engaging my most earnest attention, and I am in communication with the learned Judge with regard to it.

    COST OF THE POLICE.
    MR. FELLOWESasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether all payments by Government towards the cost of the police (beyond those which may be due for the year ended 29th September last, and were unpaid on 31st March, 1889) are henceforth to be discontinued; and, if so, whether the County Councils are to be responsible for these debts contracted before they came into existence?
    MR. MATTHEWS: My answer to both questions is in the affirmative. The Government contribution in respect of all police expenditure accrued up to the 29th of September last was paid before the 31st of March, and no further direct contribution in aid of police expenditure will be made. I am advised that under the Local Government Act contribution to police expenditure during the police year, from the 30th of September last to the 29th of September next, becomes a charge against the County Councils, and has to be met by them out of the revenues which will be handed over to them by the Government in respect of the financial year from the 31st of March, 1889, to the 1st of April, 1890.

    CHARGE OF ASSAULT AGAINST A METROPOLITAN POLICEMAN.
    MR. CONYBEAREasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department
    1388
    whether, on Tuesday last, application was made by the legal representative of the Home Office (Mr. Wontner), at the Thames Police Court, for the adjournment of a summons for assault taken out by the steward of the International Workmen's Club against Detective Frost, until after the charges preferred by the police against members of the club have been tried at the County of London Sessions; whether this application was to be renewed on Wednesday next; whether it was the fact that Mr. W. M. Thompson, counsel for the complainant, stated that the case of his client would be prejudiced if such application were granted; and, whether, in the interests of justice, he would instruct Mr. Wontner not to press for such further adjournment?
    MR. MATTHEWS: The answer to the first paragraph is in the affirmative. I must decline to interfere with the course pursued by the solicitor in this case. His application will be dealt with by the Magistrate in the exercise of his discretion, and he will, no doubt, carefully consider any objection that the counsel for the complainant may raise.

    IRELAND—TREATMENT OF MR. WILLIAM O'BRIEN.
    MR. SEXTONasked the Solicitor General for Ireland whether the inquiry into the prison treatment of Mr. William O'Brien had concluded; what witnesses were examined; and how soon a Copy of the Evidence would be laid upon the Table?
    MR. MADDEN: So far as the Chief Secretary is aware, the inquiry into the prison treatment of Mr. William O'Brien has been concluded. The doctor, the Governor, the head warder, three other warders concerned, and the acting chaplain of Clonmel Prison, also Alderman Hackett and Mr. William O'Brien, have been examined. The evidence is now being printed, and will be laid on the Table as soon as it is ready.

    TREATMENT OF PRISONERS.
    MR. SEXTONasked the Solicitor General for Ireland who were to act on the Commission, or Committee, to inquire into the treatment of prisoners; what were the terms of the directions upon which they were to act; and whether, pending the inquiry and report,

    1389
    prisoners sentenced under the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act, who refuse to wear the criminal garb would be forcibly stripped?
    MR. MADDEN: The constitution of the Committee is not finally determined upon. Unexpected delays have occurred with regard to persons requested to serve. As soon as the Committee is appointed, the terms and directions on which they are to act will be laid on the Table of the House. In answer to the last paragraph, I have to say that rules embodying the opinions which the Chief Secretary has expressed in this House upon the subject of prison dress have been provisionally passed and put in force. They will, however, of course not apply specially to persons imprisoned under the Criminal Law Act, 1887, but will be of general application to persons confined in local prisons in Ireland.

    INDISPOSITION OF THE CHIEF SECRETARY.
    MR. SEXTON, who had on the Paper several questions to the Chief Secretary for Ireland, said, he would not put them to the Solicitor General, but preferred to hold them over until the right hon. Gentleman was in his place.
    MR. MADDEN: Unfortunately my right hon. Friend is suffering from indisposition, which I hope is slight; but he will not be in his place in the House to-day.

    GOVERNOR OF CEYLON.
    SIR EDWARD WATKINasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether information has reached the Colonial Office that a Memorial is now being circulated for signature in Ceylon, praying for an extension of the term of office as Governor of Sir Arthur Gordon; whether that Memorial was circulated with the knowledge of Sir Arthur Gordon and under the influence of his confidential native aide-de-camp, the Maha Mudliyar; whether the Memorial has been forwarded to the native headmen, officers of Government, with the request that they will cause it to be signed by the people of the districts under their control; and, whether the Secretary of State will cause Sir A. Gordon to take steps to recall the Memorial from circulation, as having been issued by an
    1390
    officer under his immediate control to Native officers of his Government?
    BARON H. DE WORMS: The Secretary of State has seen a statement in a Ceylon newspaper that such a Memorial was being circulated by "anonymous individuals calling themselves a Committee to the Mudliyars of the different districts to obtain the signatures of the natives under their influence." It was also stated by an anonymous correspondent that the author of the Memorial was the Maha Mudliyar; but the Secretary of State has no reason for believing that the Governor has any knowledge of the matter, and does not propose to issue any instructions to him on the subject.

    IRELAND—TREATMENT OF MR. E. HARRINGTON.
    MR. JOHN MORLEY: I beg to ask the Solicitor General for Ireland whether the wife of Mr. E. Harrington, M.P., accompanied by Mr. T. Harrington, M.P., on visiting Tullamore Prison on Monday, April 1st, were not allowed to see Mr. E. Harrington, though more than three months of his term have expired; whether Mr. E. Harrington has been allowed to receive a single letter or a single visit during these three months; and, whether the reason assigned for this refusal to permit letters or visits is that he gets no marks as a consequence of being engaged in preparing his defence before the Special Commission?
    *MR. MADDEN: In reference to this question and another which appears in the name of the hon. Member for West Belfast, I have not yet been able to obtain the information to enable me to give an answer. I have no doubt that the Prisons Board will consider the special circumstances of the case, even if they have not done so already.
    MR. SEXTON: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that after Mr. Harrington had been imprisoned for three months his wife and brother, who had travelled a long distance to see him, were compelled, owing to the refusal of the governor, to leave without seeing him?
    *MR. MADDEN: That is one of the particular matters of fact upon which I have not yet been able to obtain information.

    GOVERNMENT DOCKYARDS—DISCHARGE OF WORKMEN.
    MR. CONYBEAREasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether it was the fact that certificates were given in the following form to the workmen who have been recently discharged from the Devonport Dockyard—
    "H. M. Dockyard, Devonport.
    This is to certify that—has been employed—years and—months in this dockyard as a hired (joiner, or as the case may be), and during that period his character and conduct have been very good, and he is a very good workman. He has been discharged in consequence of reduction of hands.
    (Signed) J. M. Huddy,
    Chief Constructor.
    Approved,
    Admiral Superintendent."
    whether he can state how many of the total number of men recently discharged had been employed for a longer period than one year, either consecutively, or at different times; what steps are taken to ascertain which of the men should first be discharged, whether on account of efficiency or duration of service; and, whether, in effecting such discharges, any consideration is paid to character and good conduct?
    MR. FORWOOD: Eleven of the men recently discharged from Devonport Dockyard had been longer than a year in consecutive employ, but I cannot say how many had been previously employed from time to time, or for what total period they had been so employed. Efficiency and duration of service are the principles that guide the Dockyard officers when selecting men for discharge.

    GRANTS IN AID OF LOCAL RATES.
    COLONEL NOLANasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he could state in what month the money in aid of local rates will be paid to the authorities in Ireland; and, when the anomaly of £1,000,000 having been paid in England against £5,000 in Ireland will be brought to a close?
    *MR. GOSCHEN: I am informed that it is expected that the proportion of the probate duty grant payable to the Boards of Guardians in Ireland will be distributed during the present month; but the similar distribution to the road authorities cannot be made till they have
    1392
    furnished certain necessary information, and will, therefore, probably have to be deferred till next month.
    COLONEL NOLAN: What is the approximate date when the money is to get into the hands of the local authority? Will it be in a week or a fortnight?
    *MR. GOSCHEN: I have no control over the matter, but I will inquire.
    COLONEL NOLAN: Will Thursday be a convenient day to repeat the question?
    *MR. GOSCHEN: Yes.

    THE COUNTY COUNCIL ELECTIONS FOR CORNWALL.
    MR. LABOUCHEREasked the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to the fact that at the recent County Council Elections for Cornwall the Saltash ballot boxes were improperly opened and their seals broken at the private house of the legal adviser to the deputy returning officer on the evening of the polling day, and that they remained open until the official counting of the votes at nine o'clock on the following morning; whether he would cause inquiries to be made with a view to punishing the offenders and preventing the recurrence of the offence against the Act; and, if not, what course he was prepared to take or to recommend in the matter?
    *THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE,): The Local Government Board have no jurisdiction in this matter; but I learn from the Under Sheriff for Cornwall that what is said to have taken place at the recent County Election is as follows:—The presiding officers handed to the legal adviser of the Deputy Returning Officer for the electoral divisions in the St. Germans Union with their ballot boxes their ballot paper account, which stated the number of ballot papers which had been used. This gentleman considered that he could not receipt the account and give the presiding officers their discharge unless they counted the papers in the several boxes. He, therefore, in the presence of each presiding officer and of his own son, all of whom had taken the declaration of secrecy, opened the boxes, and without looking at any of the papers counted them, and

    1393
    saw that they corresponded with the numbers in the ballot paper account. He then again locked each box and kept the key. It is stated that no voting paper was opened further than was necessary to count it, and that the boxes remained in his custody until the next morning, when they were re-opened for the purpose of counting in the usual way. I find that the Returning Officer believed this explanation to be true, and took no further notice of the matter. Section 3 of the Ballot Act imposes penalties on every person who, without due authority, opens any ballot box in use for the purposes of an election; but whether the gentleman referred to has rendered himself liable to penalties under this section is a question upon which I do not think I ought to express any opinion. If those locally interested consider that he has, they can institute proceedings against him if they think proper to do so, or they can bring the matter under the notice of the Director of Public Prosecutions.
    MR. CONYBEARE: Apart from the question of penalties or otherwise, is there any question about the invalidity of the election?
    *MR. RITCHIE: I do not think that any question of that kind can arise; but I have told the hon. Gentleman that I have no authority in the matter. Those who feel that they ought to take steps have a remedy.

    GOVERNMENT DOCKYARDS—DISCHARGE OF WORKMEN.
    MR. CONYBEAREasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, with regard to his letter of the 21 st instant to the hon. the senior Member for Devonport, in reference to the present Dockyard discharges, in which he said—
    "This and other work was given to the Dockyard, and a large number of extra men were temporarily taken on for that purpose. Every one so taken on signed, before being employed, the form of which I enclose a copy. The work is now approaching completion, and the men engaged on it are not required, and therefore, in accordance with the terms of their engagement, their employment lapses. The total number so affected is about 450."
    Whether it is the fact that, in addition to the above-mentioned 450 men, some 150 to 200 other men were noticed to be discharged on Saturday last; whether
    1394
    those notices have been withdrawn, and on what grounds; and, if not, whether they are to be carried into effect, and at what date; whether he could state the exact number of those so discharged, or noticed to be discharged, who were employed under the written agreement mentioned in his letter; and, how he explained the fact that a considerable number of men have been discharged, who, having been continuously employed in the yards and factory for periods ranging from three to 14 years, could not possibly have come under the terms of the signed agreement as to service referred to in his letter?
    MR. FORWOOD: 419 men were discharged on the 23rd March, and 10 men received notice of discharge; but their notice has since been withdrawn, as sufficient work for their employment has been found. All the men discharged had been engaged for short service, except 11, and these men were discharged, as they were not so efficient in the performance of their duties as other men who had been in the service for a shorter period of time and who were retained.

    THE COLLEGE OF SURGEONS.
    SIR GUYER HUNTERasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether it was the case that certain formulæ for new bye-laws had been put forward by the Governing Body of the Royal College of Surgeons of England for his approval without their having been duly confirmed; whether he was aware that the said formulæ included a repetition of the demand that every member of the Council of the College to be elected in future shall declare his acceptance of the existing bye-laws of the College, including bye-law xvii., which the general body of the members have formally declared to be in contravention of their ancient rights, and are now contesting at law; and whether he would withhold his assent to the formulæ until the provisions referred to were withdrawn, or until they had been submitted to a meeting of the members of the College?
    *MR. MATTHEWS: The matters referred to in the question are now under my consideration, and I will consult the Law Officers of the Crown before taking any action.

    THE TRUCK ACT.
    MR. BRADLAUGHasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the District Inspector of Factories and the Home Office had received complaints of repeated breaches of the Truck Act at Barrowford, near Burnley; and, if so, on what dates; and, whether any, or what, action had been taken on such complaints?
    *MR. MATTHEWS: There has been a complaint to the Home Office from one person alleging breaches of the Truck Act at Barrowford. The letter containing the complaint was not sufficiently clear as to the facts to justify an action; and I have directed further inquiries.
    MR. BRADLAUGH: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that previous complaints have been made to the District Inspector of Factories, and that the time for imposing fines—namely, three months—has nearly elapsed?
    *MR. MATTHEWS: I was not aware of the lapse of time.

    SIGNALLING AT SEA—THE FATAL COLLISION OFF OSTEND.
    MR. CHANNINGasked the President of the Board of Trade whether inquiry will be held into the circumstances attending the fatal collision between the Princess Henrietta and the Comtesse de Flandre; whether the Committee of Experts, appointed about 18 months ago by the Board of Trade to consider the whole question of signalling at sea, especially in foggy weather, have sent in their Report; and, if not, whether the Board of Trade will urge them to carry out their inquiry as promptly as possible; and whether, having regard to the increased frequency of collisions, the Board of Trade will take steps, in conjunction with the Foreign Office, to bring together, at the earliest date, the International Conference as to Signalling at Sea, originally suggested by the United States Government?
    *THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,): The steamers referred to are ships belonging to a Foreign Government, and the collision between them happened on the high seas. Of course, the Board of Trade have no authority to order any inquiry. The Committee appointed to revise the Inter-
    1396
    national Code of Signal Book have made an interim Report which will be submitted to Foreign Governments as soon as the revised book is received from the printers. They are now considering the question of signalling in fogs, and are in communication with owners and masters of steamships thereupon. No time is being lost. The date on which the Maritime Conference at Washington will commence its labours rests with the Government of the United States, and has not yet been fixed.

    IRELAND—FATHER M'FADDEN.
    MR. JAMES STUARTasked the Solicitor General for Ireland whether his attention had been called to the following statement in the report given in the Daily News of the magisterial examination of the charge of murder against Father M'Fadden and others at Letterkenny—
    "The evidence being concluded, Dr. Houston, endeavoured in vain to get a statement from Dr. Ross, Crown counsel, as to whether he was proceeding against all the defendants on the charge of murder. He then said that, in the default of the statement he wanted from the Crown, he could not address the magistrates;"
    and whether it was the case that the Crown counsel refused to state whether he was proceeding against all the defendants on the charge of murder; and, if not, what was the charge stated to be?
    MR. MADDEN: All the defendants were charged with murder. The Crown counsel, in opening the case, stated the charge and the law bearing on it. He then placed before the magistrates evidence in support of this charge. Having done this, he was not called on, in response to the defendants' counsel, to do more than refer to his opening statement, which he did. The place of trial has not yet been fixed. The depositions in the case will in due course be laid before the Attorney General for Ireland, who will then exercise his discretion in the matter. As regards the time of trial, it will, in ordinary course, be had at next Assizes.
    MR. MAC NEILL: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that it is possible under the Crimes Act to change the venue and to secure a more honest trial than at Belfast?
    *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order
    MR. MAC NEILL: I must ask for a reply to the question.
    *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

    COLLECTION OF TITHES IN WALES.
    MR. THOMAS ELLISasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether any application had been made for the use of the military for the collection of tithes in Cardiganshire and Pembrokeshire; and, if so, whether the application would be granted?
    MR. MATTHEWS: I was informed by the War Office on the 23rd of March that troops in aid of the civil power had been demanded by the magistrates at Cardigan. Troops were accordingly held in readiness, but on the 25th of March the Chief Constable reported that troops were not now required, I am not aware that the Pembrokeshire magistrates have made any application for military aid. The law enables the magistrates, if they believe the civil force is inadequate to keep the peace, to apply directly to the military authorities for aid. The application does not usually come to me, nor does it rest with me to refuse or grant it.
    MR. T. ELLIS: Will the right hon. Gentleman use his influence to prevent the troops from being employed until the recommendation of the Chief Constable of Cardiganshire has been acted upon?
    MR. MATTHEWS: I have done all that I properly can do in the direction indicated. The local magistrates are responsible for the maintenance of the public peace; they are best acquainted with the facts in detail; and it would be most improper in me to interfere with their discretion.
    MR. A. WILLIAMS: With whom does the responsibility of granting the assistance of the forces of the Crown rest? Is it with the War Office?
    MR. MATTHEWS: I apprehend that the War Office ought not to decline the application of the magistrates. The magistrates are responsible for the preservation of the public peace, and they are entitled to call upon all citizens to assist them. If the War Office are applied to they ought not to refuse.
    MR. A. WILLIAMS: If they apply to the War Office would the War Office assist them without inquiry?
    MR. MATTHEWS: Yes; the magistrates are responsible for the preservation of peace.
    MR. A. WILLIAMS: Have they the sole responsibility?
    MR. MATTHEWS: I have given my answer.

    EMIGRATION TO THE ARGENTINE REPUBLIC.
    MR. JOHN O'CONNOR: I wish to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the following warning issued by the Préfet of Avignon to the people of that district:—
    "The Government is informed that those who emigrated from Avignon to foreign countries, and especially to Buenos Ayres, found themselves on their arrival in the most miserable position. The Préfet of Avignon, therefore, feels it his duty to warn the people to be on their guard against the offers and promises, generally false or exaggerated, that maybe made to them by journals or agents who have an interest in tempting them to emigrate,"
    and to a statement in the Univers of 28th March—
    that those who have succeeded in making their way back to France declare that thousands of French emigrants are dying of hunger in the streets of Buenos Ayres;"
    and whether, if, on inquiry, he finds these statements to be true, he will issue a similar warning to the people in these countries who may be likely to emigrate to Buenos Ayres, particularly to poor emigrants from Ireland?
    *THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON,): Her Majesty's Government have no information about the particular warning referred to in the question. After the inquiry on the subject addressed to me some days ago, Her Majesty's Representatives were directed to inquire whether any complaints had been received of the ill-treatment or disappointment of emigrants to the Argentine Republic. Lord Lytton replies that, although no official Report to that effect has been received from Buenos Ayres, the newspapers have mentioned that the Prefects of several Departments have complained lately of the return of such emigrants owing to the non-fulfilment on their arrival of promises made by a person calling himself an agent of the Argentine Government. Lord Vivian reports from Brussels that the Belgian Government

    1399
    has had no cause to complain of breach of faith or ill-treatment on the part of the Argentine Government towards Belgian immigrants, but that many have been grossly deceived as to the prospects of obtaining employment by persons who assume without authority to act as Emigration Agents, and who are said to receive a bonus from the Steamer Companies for every person sent out. The Emigrants Information Office in Broadway, Westminster, and the Irish Government are being furnished with all the information received by the Foreign Office on this subject, so that trustworthy intelligence may be afforded. The suggestion of giving a warning against unauthorized agents will be considered.
    MR. BRADLAUGH: Has it come to the knowledge of the Government that complaints have been made that emigrants have had to put up with almost starvation diet on board ship, as well as hardships when they arrived?
    *SIR J. FERGUSSON: A returned emigrant has told me that he had been stinted in diet and had suffered seriously in consequence; but, as I have explained to the House, the Argentine Government undertook no responsibility whatever about the passage of emigrants; and therefore their treatment on board ship was only a matter of contract between them and the shipping company who took them out.
    MR. BRADLAUGH: Would it be possible to appoint anyone in the Argentine Republic to receive money sent from this country for the relief of the immigrants; because, if it were entrusted to the agents whose conduct was complained of, it would probably not reach those for whom it was intended.
    *SIR J. FERGUSSON: Her Majesty's Government have authorized our Minister at Buenos Ayres to employ an officer for the special purpose of looking after the interests of immigrants.
    MR. J. O'CONNOR: How soon will the House be told the result of the consideration that has been promised as to the practicability of steps being taken by the Foreign Office, in connection with the Irish authorities, for warning poor Irish emigrants of the risks of this emigration?
    *SIR J. FERGUSSON: The hon. Member only put down his question last night, and therefore it is manifestly
    1400
    impossible that it could have been considered before the meeting of the House to-day.
    MR. J. O'CONNOR: I may explain that I spoke to the right hon. Gentleman some time ago upon the subject, and I was under the impression that he was in a position to give the information to-day. That was the reason of the short notice given to him.

    GOVERNMENT DOCKYARDS—DISCHARGE OF WORKMEN.
    MR. JOHN O'CONNOR: As I do not see the First Lord of the Admiralty in his place, may I ask the Civil Lord why over 400 men have been discharged from Haulbowline Docks; and whether, if the docks are completed, it is the intention of the Government to get any naval constructive or repairing work done there?
    THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT,): No considerable number of men have been discharged from Haulbowline this year. Within the past two years most of the men on the Haulbowline extension works have been by degrees discharged, because the works were practically finished. The Government hope to utilize the docks from time to time as the Service may require; but there is no immediate intention of having work done there.
    MR. J. O'CONNOR: May I ask the hon. Member if he can inform me what the machinery is that was paid for in the Estimates last year? Has it been put up; and, if put up, has it been kept in order so as to be useful for the exigencies of the State and of the Navy?
    MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I believe the only machinery was a pumping-engine. That was the only machinery included in the Estimates last year. The pumping is nearly finished, but there are some minor works.

    GAS UNDERTAKINGS (OTHER THAN THOSE OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES).
    Return ordered, "relating to all authorized Gas Undertakings in the United Kingdom other than those of Local Authorities for the year ended the 31st of December, 1888."—(Sir Michael Hicks Beach.)
    Return presented accordingly; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 97.]

    GAS UNDERTAKINGS (LOCAL AUTHORITIES).
    Return ordered, "relating to all authorized Gas Undertakings in the United Kingdom belonging to Local Authorities for the year ended the 25th day of March, 1882.—(Sir Michael Hicks Beach.)
    Return presented accordingly; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 98.]

  MOTION.

    TOWN COUNCILLORS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. Esslemont, Bill to amend the Laws for the Laws for the Election of Town Councillors of Royal and Parliamentary Burghs in Scotland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Esslemont, Mr. Edmund Robertson, Mr. Munro Ferguson, and Mr. Baird.
    Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 177.]

  ORDERS OF THE DAY.

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

    CLASS I.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £36,379, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1890, for the Buildings of the Houses of Parliament."
    *MR. J. E. ELLIS: In the present Estimates there is a sum of £7,854 asked for in connection with the restoration of Westminster Hall. I see, on referring to Class 1, that the sum of £31,899 has been spent up to the end of last year; and a further sum of £3,447 up to the 31st of March, 1889, making a total of £35,346, or, together with the sum now asked for, a total of £43,200. As no provision is made for railings, or for laying down the in closure around the new building, I presume that we shall be asked for a further sum on that account. Therefore, I think I am correct in saying that, before the work is completed, we shall have expended a sum more nearly approaching £50,000 than £40,000. Now, it appears to me that the Committee may approach the Vote to-day with a perfectly free and open mind. It is quite true that a Committee was appointed to consider the question in 1884; that it presented a Report; and that in July, 1885, a discussion took
    1402
    place in this House upon that Report. But, in the first place, the Committee was appointed under very different circumstances from those which now exist. I wish to disclaim most emphatically that this Vote has any connection with the side of the House on which I now sit; and if I were sitting on the other side of the House, supporting Her Majesty's Government, I should object to it in precisely the same way. Indeed, I believe that the Amendment I propose to move will have the support of many Members on the other side of the House. There is no Party feeling whatever in the matter, but the simple question is, whether we approve of the works which are now being carried out, and particularly to one portion of them, to which I shall allude before I sit down. I would like the Committee to look a little closer to this Select Committee and its Report. It was appointed in 1884, and consisted of 13 Members, most of them of high position. The terms of the reference were "to examine and report upon plans for the restoration of the exterior of Westminster Hall." I lay considerable stress upon the word "exterior." There was laid before the Committee a scheme which, it was suggested, would cost £35,300; but that included the addition of two corner towers at the north end of the Hall, which proposal was apparently even too strong for the stomach of the Committee. It was therefore, ruthlessly cut out, and left a sum of £26,500 as the estimated cost of the works which the Committee approved of. As the works are likely to cost £50,000, it is not too much to say that they will exceed the Estimate by nearly 100 per cent. The expenditure up to Saturday last was £35,336; we are to-day asked to vote £7,854 or £43,190 against £26,500, without the sum that will be necessary to complete the in closures and railings. The proceedings of the Committee were very interesting, and occupy a considerable volume. The Committee wound up their Report with the observation that "this is a most difficult subject." I can only wish that the Committee and the right hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. Shaw Lefevre), who was mainly responsible for it, had proceeded a little more judiciously in what they admitted to be a difficult subject. The Vote came on

    1403
    for discussion in this House on the 15th of July, 1885, and it underwent considerable criticism. It was pointed out that the money obtained in August, 1884, was asked for under a certain plea, and that it had not been applied to the purpose for which it was asked—namely, strengthening and preserving from the weather the flying buttresses. In the course of the discussion the right hon. Member for Bradford made use of one or two curious expressions. He said that he had found it not easy to act as Chairman of the Committee and as First Commissioner of Works at the same time, and that, on the whole, he had felt bound to stand by the Architect. Therefore we may take it that as Chairman of the Committee he acted as counsellor, guide, and friend of the principal witness, and that he did not possess that impartial mind, as Chairman of the Committee, which was to have been expected. To a certain extent he acted as Mr. Pearson's advocate before the Committee. Delay was pleaded for. It was pointed out that it was a moribund House of Commons, that a General Election was imminent, and that it was not desirable to do more than keep the flying buttresses from damage—that there was no necessity for hurrying the scheme through the House of Commons. These arguments did not prevail, and what occurred then may occur again this afternoon. Hon. Members who had not heard the discussion came into the House when the division bell was rung, and gave their votes without being cognizant of the merits of the case. The Vote was carried, and I should like to ask what the public have got for this expenditure—something like £40,000. I will not criticize the outside architectural features of the scheme; but inside we have got a few rooms ill-lighted, badly approached, and too far off—altogether a most inconvenient arrangement for those who are engaged in the business of this House. So far as the upper rooms are concerned, they are worth little or nothing, and upon the basement there are only three or four cellars. I cannot conceive an arrangement more exposed to ridicule. There is a covered space for horses, but it is approached by a declivity, which it is dangerous to drive a horse down. But, leaving the cost of the building and the want of arrangement, my specific ground
    1404
    of objection is the work inside Westminster Hall. The Committee were appointed to examine and report upon plans for the restoration of the exterior of Westminster Hall. If it could have been foreseen that such a structure would have been erected in the middle of Westminster Hall, I do not think the money would have been granted in July, 1885, so readily. It is quite evident that the matter of these steps was present in the minds of the Select Committee, and to show this I will read some of the questions put by the Chairman of the Committee to Mr. Pearson, together with Mr. Pearson's answers. Mr. Pearson was asked—
    (Question 157.)—"How do you propose to give access to these rooms?—By staircases from the Hall. (Question 158)—Is that following the original plan?—The original plan at this end (pointing to it), and a second flight of steps leading up from the south of the Hall; and then an additional flight of steps towards the centre, somewhat similar to the steps which existed before in the Hall, as may he seen in one of the old views.
    "159. Would those steps he any detriment to the Hall itself?—None whatever.
    "160. Supposing exception were taken to those steps, would it be possible to give access to those rooms in the ante-rooms shown in the plan of the lower story?—Certainly; it would sacrifice some portion of the upper floor. The Conference Room here (pointing to it) would have to be diminished in size.
    "161. It would necessitate some little rearrangement of the upper floor?—Yes.
    "162. But if it were thought objectionable to let the staircases be steps in the Hall, access could easily be obtained in the manner I have suggested?—Yes; steps existed as shown in No 22. A flight of steps is shown here."
    Certainly "steps," but not anything like what Mr. Pearson has put in Westminster Hall. Mr. Pearson admitted that there would be no difficulty in avoiding these steps in Westminster Hall, and the effect of his examination was that they were not necessary in order to give access to these rooms. But a good deal more occurred in reference to the steps than that. When the matter came on for discussion in this House on the 15th of July, 1885, the Chairman of the Committee said (Hansard, Vol. 299, page 826)—
    "It has been objected by the hon. Member that the access to these rooms would partly be by stone staircases in the corners of Westminster Hall, 10 feet in height. That is undoubtedly how access was given to them in former times. It was my intention, if I had remained in charge of the Office of Works, to try by a model how these would look, and whether they

    1405
    would interfere with the appearance of Westminster Hall. In the opinion of Mr. Pearson, they would not detract from the appearance of the Hall. If, however, it should turn out that that was not so, and that the effect was had, it would he quite possible to place the steps in the lower part of the Gallery by sacrificing a part of the space there, and in this way, I think, the objections of the hon. Gentleman would be completely met."
    That I regard as one of the suggestions which we often see thrown out from the Treasury Bench to soothe the mind of the objectors to a particular Vote, and I have no doubt that this was a suggestion made with that object. The effect of it was that the objection to the steps was allowed to sleep; the Vote was obtained, and hoardings put up, so that it was impossible to see what was taking place behind them. Now that the hoardings have been taken down, we see the structure exposed, in all its hideous deformity, entirely destroying the vista down the Hall. I believe it is quite impossible to show that there was anything like it in bygone days. I have been to the British Museum, and although the representations of the Hall do not go back very far, there is nothing like these steps to be found in any old print. This is a matter for which I hold no Party responsible, but it is a matter for the Committee to take into their own hands and deal with as they think fit. The historic glories of this old Hall are or ought to be dear to every Member of this House. I say unhesitatingly that these erections mar the grand and severe lines of one of the noblest halls in this country. I ask the Committee to support the Motion I now make, that this Vote be reduced by the sum of £500 as a protest against what I cannot help characterizing as a ruthless act of Vandalism.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Item B, £7,854, for the Restoration of Westminster Hall, be reduced by £500."—(Mr. John Ellis.)
    *MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: I was First Commissioner of Works at the time Mr. Pearson was employed in the work of restoring Westminster Hall, and as I acted as Chairman of the Committee which my hon. Friend has frequently adverted to, I think the Committee will not be surprised if I take up at once the challenge of my hon.
    1406
    Friend. My hon. Friend has alluded to the Report of the Committee, and to my action as Chairman of it. I do not propose to detain the Committee at any length upon this somewhat stale subject, but I am quite prepared to defend my conduct. As First Commissioner of Works, I found it necessary to defend Mr. Pearson from what I considered at the time to be an unfair attack from a small clique of professional men, who had determined to destroy his scheme if they could. It is not necessary to go into all the matters which were brought before the Committee, but simply to ascertain whether on the whole the results of our action were satisfactory. The hon. Member for the Rushcliffe Division (Mr. J. Ellis) says that the upper rooms of the new building are ill-lighted, badly approached, and too far off. I take issue with him on all of those points. I say that they are not ill lighted nor badly approached. Each has a separate approach, and it is not the fact that they only communicate with one another. Each has a separate communication with the Hall. They are not ill lighted, and the building at right angles with the Hall is one of the most noble rooms to be found in London. My hon. Friend says they are worth very little; but it appears to me that they are extremely valuable rooms. I have no doubt that great use will be found for them, and that they will free other rooms in this House which may be dedicated to hon. Members in other respects. My hon. Friend went on to refer to the staircases, and I presume that they form the main object which has induced him to move the reduction of the Vote to-day. He has truly said that the question of the staircases was a subject of long discussion both in the Committee and in this House. Mr. Pearson's idea was that he was restoring the building on the west front of Westminster Hall as nearly as possible to the condition which he believed to exist from the time of Richard II. to a comparatively recent period. Unquestionably, rooms similar to those now re-built existed in former times, and were approached by staircases from the Hall. The hon. Member has thrown some doubt upon the fact, and says that in his opinion they never had any direct communication with Westminster Hall itself. But in

    1407
    the north staircase an old archway can be pointed out which shows that all the rooms communicated with the Hall in the manner they do now. My hon. Friend has referred to the statement which I made when the Report of the Select Committee was discussed in this House that I had intended, had I remained First Commissioner, to put up models of the proposed staircases, so that the public might judge of the effect of them. That was undoubtedly the fact. Now, I never set up to be a great authority on matters of taste, and I have always been anxious on such matters to take the opinion of the public outside as far as I can, and, probably, hon. Members will recollect that when the plans for the restoration of Westminster Hall were originally made, I had a model made of the exterior of the new building, so that Members might be able to judge the effect for themselves. So far as the staircases are concerned, notwithstanding all that the hon. Member has said, I maintain that they are no detriment whatever to the existing Hall. On matters of taste it is advisable that the House should be guided by the best authority of the day, and I can give authorities, which will be recognized as very high authorities, for the statement I have just made. I do not wish to force my judgment on the House, I prefer rather to quote the opinions of four men who will be recognized by hon. Members to be the highest authorities on this subject, Mr. Waterhouse, Mr. Christian, Mr. Blomfield and Professor Brooks. I have had communications from all four gentlemen on the subject of the final design of the new buildings on the side of Westminster Hall, and especially on the point of the staircases. The first of the four opinions to which I shall refer is, I think, the most important. It is that of a gentleman who had very grave doubts indeed on the subject of the staircases before they were erected. Mr. Christian had told me that now he is able to judge the general effect of the staircases; his opinion is entirely different to what it was before. He says—
    "As regards the interior of the Hall and the new staircases, I am thankful to say that the dread with which I at one time looked forward to their introduction has been entirely dissipated by what I have seen to-day. The north and south staircases are admirably managed, and the views of the roof of the Hall from the landing
    1408
    of the former, and of St. Stephen's Hall from a similar position on the latter would alone compensate for any obstruction if there were any such to defend. They are really to an architect's eye quite charming. The central staircase and the arch beneath it giving access to the lower series of rooms are designed in the true spirit of a mediaeval mason. The outside parapets and the pedestals may be, and I think are, open to criticism in respect of details, but the main feature are really admirable….. You are, I presume, aware that the northern staircase gives access to the upper series of rooms by an ancient doorway admirably restored, and completed by Pearson, without disturbing the inner ring of the arch which gives clear and strong evidence to the truthfulness of his theory of restoration."
    Mr. Waterhouse writes—
    "The staircases leading from the Hall are very well contrived, not taking up much room, and yet by their variety adding interest and scale to that side of the Hall. The only doubt I have is as regards the central staircase, and that is with reference to the four pedestals terminating the side walls of the court flights. They appear to me too high and unnecessarily interfere with the view of the beautiful arch supporting the upper flights. The staircases would, in my opinion, have been well worth building if only for the new and unexpected views they afford of the Hall itself. The northern one has utilized the freshly discovered-Early English doorway, and enables the spectator to see the Hall from probably the most favourable point of view, The central one allows of the examination of the details of the roof in a way impossible from below; while the southern staircase carries one into a corner of the Hall from whence is a fascinating view of the entrance to St. Stephen's Hall.
    Professor Brooks said—
    "Never before have I seen the Great Hall look so well. For some cause it looked much larger; this I consider arises from the staircases, which project into the Hall and thereby break up the large surface of the west wall and give a scale to the building it so much required. So successfully have these staircases been designed they form good approaches to rooms, they give scale to the building, and they do not intrude too much into or obstruct the circulation in the Hall. From the landing of these staircases most charming views can be obtained of the Hall itself and of the finest timber roof in England. Such views were never obtainable before."
    Mr. Blomfield said—
    "The interior of the Hall has certainly been materially improved by the change. The west wall was formerly disfigured by six enormous doorways, which detracted very much from the scale and proportions of the building, and had altogether a most disagreeable effect. The new doorways and staircases have quite remedied this defect, and to my mind form very interesting and pleasing features on that side of the Hall."
    I said I did not intend to put myself

    1409
    forward as an authority on these matters, but haying got such judges as I could, and having looked at the whole work effected by Mr. Pearson, I can but conclude that it has been carried out with very great success. I can see no defect whatever, and I would ask hon. Members who entertain any doubts to reserve their final judgment until the work is completed, and they can judge of it as a whole, which is the only way to arrive at a fair judgment. It is not quite fair to the architect that it should be judged in its incomplete state.
    *MR. J. E. ELLIS: Will the right hon. Gentleman pardon me for interrupting him? Is there any more work to be done in Westminster Hall?
    *MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: No, I think not.
    *MR. J. E. ELLIS: Then we can judge the effect of the alterations there.
    *MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: It is hardly fair to condemn Mr. Pearson on a single piece of his work before the whole results of his building can be seen. I do not think it would be quite fair to the architect to come to a final judgment on the subject, yet I wish I might venture to detain the House with an opinion on the general effect of the restoration. All the Reports I have quoted speak in enthusiastic terms of the way in which the work has been carried out, and of the building as a whole, and Mr. Christian especially says—
    "I cannot but think that the throwing open of the Great Hall, and the clothing of its base with massive buildings, thoroughly harmonious with the old work, but greatly adding to its strength and power as a grand architectural feature, is one of the most successful works of modern times. It is to me a very real satisfaction to look upon it, and I trust most sincerely that in the enclosure of the ground outside nothing will be done that can in any way mar the grand simplicity of a picture which, when completed, ought to be one of the very finest to be seen in London."
    Mr. Waterhouse also refers in the same terms to the general result of the work. I have only again to ask the House not to come to a final judgment on this question: it is only fair to the architect that time should be given for the completion of it as a whole. I may venture to express my regret that no money has been taken in the Estimates for the present year for completing the approaches, laying out the ground, and
    1410
    putting railings in front of the enclosure. It is hardly fair to the architect, when the work is practically complete, that it should still be surrounded by hoarding for twelve months, and that no opportunity should be afforded to the public of viewing the building. I can only conclude by saying that, in my judgment, Mr. Pearson has carried out a work of the greatest difficulty in a most satisfactory manner, and I believe the verdict of the architectural world is decisively in favour of what he has done. I regard it as a worthy completion of Westminster Hall, and a work which will be an honour and dignity to this part of London.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: The right hon. Gentleman has said a great deal about the feelings of the architect, but surely there is something to be said for the feelings of the British taxpayer, and for the way in which he is tyrannized over by artists and architects. I think, indeed, the greatest tyranny, and the most injurious tyranny, that we have to put up with is that which comes from the architect. He makes buildings which we not only have to pay for, but which we have to live in, and which affect the comfort of our lives for all time to come. It seems to me that it is a terrible misfortune to the country that architects look, as a rule, not to the convenience of the public, but seek to gain their artistic end, and in 99 cases out of 100 design buildings which are not suitable for the purposes for which they are intended. We have only to look for an instance of that to the new Law Courts, for which we paid so large a sum of money, and which have turned out to be so singularly ill-adapted to the purposes for which they are intended. Not only is the architecture bad, bat the work was ill-done. The roofs have shrunk and are in danger. I think we have been grossly led astray by the architect, with regard to the work he has done to the exterior of Westminster Hall. Indeed, I fear the thing is now past praying for. I think a great deal of money has been spent uselessly, for the only result, so far as I can see, is that a number of wretched rooms have been erected, and those rooms are good for no practical purpose whatever. There might have been built a really magnificent room, if only the architect had gone the right way to work. We

    1411
    were prevented from having any knowledge of what was going on by the erection of hoardings around the works, and I believe that if the House had had an opportunity of judging what was proposed, the architect would not have been allowed under the cover of the hoarding to erect a hideous staircase. I am a modest man, but if I pride myself on anything it is that I have a sober mind, and am not carried away by passion. I am not architecturally or morally drunk. I have, I repeat, a sober mind in matters relating to art, and the result of what I have seen has been to convince me that matters of high art are all bosh and humbug. I do admire the interior of Westminster Hall; I believe it is the finest Hall in Europe, or at least it was before those awful stairs were put in. I also believe that the exterior of Westminster Hall was never meant to be otherwise than simple, for the reason that it was surrounded by the kitchens of Royal Palaces, and could not be seen to advantage. I join with my hon. Friend in being shocked and disgusted with the way in which the Hall has been treated. The steps which have been put in are not only ridiculously out of harmony with the rest of the building, but they are altogether out of proportion, and we find they are intended for no possible use whatever but to give access to those wretched, little, miserable rooms, for which even the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford can find no use whatever. I hope the Members of this House will exercise their common sense, will put a stop to these proceedings, and will have the stairs removed, and, I therefore heartily support my hon. Friend, and certainly decline for myself to be tyrannized over by architects.
    MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK: I had hoped, Sir, that the First Commissioner of Works would have followed the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford in this debate, and have given the Committee his views in regard to this matter. Since he has not done so, I desire now, Sir, to state the reasons which induce me to support the Amendment. I am afraid the House is now committed to this expenditure, and that it is of no use trying to overthrow it. But when I was a Member of the Committee dealing with this question I expressed an
    1412
    opinion that if the First Commissioner of Works employed Mr. Pearson he would be pretty sure to find himself in a mess, because Mr. Pearson and his school did not follow the ideas of the old masters. We have now seen the result of Mr. Pearson's work. These are, no doubt, all questions of taste; but my doctrine has always been to follow the old masters, because they were right. Mr. Pearson and his school, of course, thought that the ideas which they adopted were better than those of the old masters, and they acted accordingly. My opinion was that either the magnificent designs of Sir Charles Barry should be completed or the matter should be let alone until a future time. Instead of that the right hon. Gentleman decided to employ Mr. Pearson. With regard to the outside of Westminster Hall, we are committed to the works there. We protested against them in 1885, but we were overruled, and now we must make the best we can of the buildings. But the inside of the Hall is an entirely new question. I do not believe that the designs for the steps were ever submitted to the Committee, and there is no evidence to show that they were. The plan is nothing but a mere ground plan, and there is nothing in it to show this large erection, which, so far as I can see, is a copy of the pulpit used by Mr. Spurgeon. Then there is another great defect about the alterations in Westminster Hall, and that is their want of symmetry. I should like to know why the doorway was not made exactly opposite to the entrance to St. Stephen's cloister. Then again there is the roughness of the western wall; I think it is most unsightly and that it destroys the whole harmony of the southern end of Westminster Hall. There is another defect in this new arrangement. One idea of the class of architects to which Mr. Pearson belongs seems to be that you must not have anything smooth and sightly to the eye, but that you must go back to some barbarous period, and that you must make everything rough and unsightly.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: Does the right hon. Gentleman refer to the interior or the exterior wall?
    MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK: I refer to the exterior wall between these famous staircases. The new architect

    1413
    has roughened the whole face of the western wall, and it presents a very unsightly appearance. No doubt the architects have been filled with the idea that they were going to put something there which was there originally, but there is nothing to show that Mr. Pearson's restoration is anything but the creation of his own mind. I do not think that the authorities who have been quoted in support of this work are such as the Committee ought to follow. No one who can put two and two together will fail to see that the staircases will interfere with the whole idea of the Hall. The Champions of England were accustomed in former days to ride into the Hall; if the Champions of England rode into it now I think it would be difficult for them to get out on the other side. The staircases are nothing but obstructions, and are not necessary even for the purpose of obtaining access to the small door at the end. Then there is a parapet at the end which I hope will be removed. My reason for voting for the Amendment is that these particular staircases, and the alterations, on the whole, have never been sanctioned by the Committee, and are, therefore, open to the decision of the House upon them, and we shall be quite justified in reducing the Vote to show our sense of the wrong that has been done to Westminster Hall.
    *MR. CAUSTON: I cordially support the Motion of my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. J. E. Ellis). I think we can very freely express our deep regret that the present Chief Commissioner (Mr. Plunket) did not in 1885 accept the advice given to him in this House not to hastily adopt Mr. Pearson's proposals. The grumbling we hear to-day would not, I think have been heard if the right hon. Gentleman had not been too anxious, I think, through courtesy, to adopt the plans of his right hon. Predecessor in office (Mr. Shaw Lefevre). I think, Mr. Courtney, you yourself stated pretty clearly what would happen if this new building was erected. You said the outer rooms would be nothing but cellars, to which people would have to descend from Westminster Hall by means of a flight of steps, that the inner portion of the Hall would be more or less disfigured, and that the outside building would serve no possible purpose but
    1414
    that of darkening the interior of the Hall. The right hon. Gentleman Mr. Shaw Lefevre has talked a good deal about style and about architects, but what I said in 1885 I say now, namely, that he has thought more about style than utility. What we need is to have some useful building erected in order that the business of Parliament may be more conveniently conducted. The right hon. Gentleman appears to have given no instructions at all to Mr. Pearson as to the requirements of the House. He merely instructed him to prepare plans which he approved, and got the Government of the day to approve, and then had them referred to a Select Committee with an altogether insufficient reference. Even to-day the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) has no idea as to what use the rooms are to be applied. The Select Committee state in their Report that when they commenced their inquiry the only plans before them were those of Mr. Pearson. I hope even to-day that we shall have some declaration from the First Commissioner that the very ugly steps which everybody disapproves of will be removed, and I think we must also ask him to state for what purpose the rooms are going to be used. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) says that there is a separate entrance to every room, but in order to get to the separate entrance you have to pass through other rooms.
    *MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: I venture to say, without fear of contradiction, that you can approach every room through Westminster Hall without passing through other rooms.
    MR. CAUSTON: Well, I went there to-day with an hon. Friend, and I have been there before, and I certainly think that you cannot do so. I have protested before against these plans, and I protest again. I only hope that the First Commissioner of Works will be able to say something that will cheer us up on the subject.
    *MR. DE LISLE: I hope the Committee will allow me to give my reasons why I cannot support this Amendment. I take very great interest in Westminster Hall, and if it were possible to have reconsidered the whole question and to have carried rat Sir Chas. Barry's plan, I think it would have been wise to do so. That

    1415
    is an impossibility as things now are, and I think it is a great misfortune that when something is being done with the authority of this House, and is approaching completion, an attempt should be made to undo what has been done. I have no doubt that if any mediaeval architect had had to put these steps into the Hall, he would have placed them symmetrically opposite the entrance to this House. The modern idea that eccentricity is a great feature of mediaeval architecture is an ill-founded one. Whenever symmetry is departed from in such architecture, it is done from necessity and not from choice. I think that the general effect of Westminster Hall has not been damaged by the additions which have been made to it. With regard to the roughening of the wall, I hold that the treating of the wall in that manner gives a pretty variation of light and shade and is much superior to leaving it smooth. I cannot vote for this Amendment because I earnestly desire to see Westminster Hall completed. When it is completed it will then, I think, be time to consider whether any alterations should be made in it. I think the great window on the north side, which looks as bare and cold as possible, ought to be filled with stained glass. My right hon. Friend the First Commissioner of Works has informed me that the cost of filling it with stained glass would not exceed £1,200, and I do hope that next year, if the right hon. Gentleman has the courage to put this down in the Estimates, he will ask Parliament to grant that sum. It might be made a window commemorative of Her Majesty's Jubilee, and I would suggest that the arms of Her Majesty and of all the Sovereigns who came to take part in the Jubilee Service should figure in it. There are other windows also which need a little colour so as to brighten up the Hall. The shields also running round the Hall were at one time resplendent with gold and colour, as were also the shields borne by the carved angels in the roof. It would not cost much to repaint and re-gild them so as to give a bright line of colour round the Hall I think also the glass panels in the north door of the Hall might be filled in so as to make the door all solid wood work You would then have the grand effect of a dark dado running round the Hall,
    1416
    and the splendour and dignity of the building would be much increased. If I might make a few remarks about the great Central Lobby, it seems to me it would be a good thing if the statues of Lord Iddesleigh and Lord John Russell were moved into Westminster Hall. At present they are completely out of place, because a different standard of symmetry is given by the statuary in the mouldings leading up to the groinings, which gives a scale of elegance and dignity to the Central Hall unequalled by any other hall in Europe. They might, at present, stand at the top of the first flight of steps. I am sure that the public are anxious to see this building, which is essentially the people's palace, completed, and I hope that the Representatives of the people will endeavour to bring about this result. I hope the task will not be approached in a niggardly manner, and that this palaee which is the glory of our nation, will be properly completed.
    MR. HERBERT GARDNER: I cannot say I agree with the criticism of my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir G. Campbell) that the high art of this century is all bosh and humbug, but I must say that, if the present interior of Westminster Hall is an example of the high art of this 19th century, I should be very much of the opinion of my hon. Friend as to the value of that art. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bradford (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) urged that we should reserve our opinions on this subject, but my right hon. Friend subsequently admitted that the interior of the Hall was practically completed, and it is to the interior of the Hall that we specially object. What we chiefly complain of is, this staircase, which I regard as nothing less than hideous, and also the blank space on the south-west of the Hall which balances so ill the iron screen on the opposite side, and is altogether a perfect eyesore. I do not set myself up as a judge of taste, but I know what I think is ugly and I know what I think is pretty; I am not going to be guided, therefore, in a matter of this kind by any number of architects or any amount of architects' opinions. I am certain that if hon. Gentlemen had been able to see how hideous the present interior of Westminster Hall was going to be, they would have done everything they

    1417
    could when the plans were under discussion to prevent their adoption. I shall certainly support the Amendment.
    *DR. FARQUHARSON: I quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. Shaw-Lefevre) that the Committee which sat on this subject was a good one, and certainly one member of it had a kind of prophetic insight into what was to happen. The only Gentleman who really understood the plans, namely, Mr. Dick Peddie, predicted very accurately a great many of the grave defects which would be found in this building. I think a study of the report of the Committee throws a lurid light upon what was stated by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford, namely, that we should subordinate our own tastes and feelings entirely to the tastes and opinions of architects. When we invite the opinion of experts we find them hopelessly at variance; some will be one side, and as many on the other side; and so we find in this instance first-rate architects on one side and on the other. But what struck me in regard to the opinions of those Gentlemen quoted by the right hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. ShawLefevre) was—if I may use an expression, which I hope is not un-Parliamentary—that they damned the work with very faint praise. Everyone had some amount of qualification of his commendation; the steps were good, but—something else was wrong. This only bears out my view that you may find experts on both sides of any question of this kind. I should like to know whether an attempt has been made to get the opinion of any other architects, for I feel sure that we should not want the support of professional opinion to our view that these steps are an outrage to one of the finest old halls in the world. I am not going to take the sweeping line taken by some I hon. Members who have spoken, for I am of opinion that the outside work on, Westminster Hall is good in design and thoroughly in harmony with the rest of the building. So far as my judgment goes, Mr. Pearson has there been quite successful, but, when we get inside, my favourable opinion ceases. Any commonsense man familiar with the appearance of the Hall will agree that the stairs are not beautiful in themselves, and
    1418
    placed as they are, they break up the fine majestic sweep of that side of the Hall and spoil the grand simplicity of the whole. I confess I have been unable to find the separate entrances for the rooms, and I wish the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) would organize a personally conducted tour and explain this to us. I was there to-day, and I could find no trace of such things. As Mr. Dick-Peddie said long ago, the arrangement is inconvenient if there should be anything like a crowd entering these rooms, and the rooms will be subject to unpleasant odours from below. I do not know what the rooms are meant for, but I suppose for the use of Members of Parliament. If that is so, if Members are likely to be there at all, you must have some machinery by which they may have an intimation of a division in the House, and it is hardly possible to get from those rooms in time to take part in a division without running, an exercise for which the habits and physical conformation of many Members are ill-adapted. Even now, it is difficult to get from the Committee Rooms upstairs to this House in time when a division is called. We sometimes hear of fatal consequences to elderly gentlemen from running to catch trains, and I suppose if something of the kind happens to some of us, something will be done to obviate the necessity of proceeding at a headlong pace. It strikes me, looking at the new rooms, that the old Law Courts might as well have been saved. I remember, too, the staircases were unobtrusive and something like the staircases of old times, no more obtrusive and no more interfered with the architectural appearance of the Hall than the old orange woman who kept her stall in the corner. To compare these clumsy stairs to the light flight of stairs that led up to those picturesque doorways, as I remember they were, is an outrage on common sense. It is a great pity, I think, the old Law Courts were not kept; they were quite as convenient as rooms, the architecture was not much worse, and preserving them would have saved a large sum of money. I shall give my support to the Motion of my hon. Friend.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: We adopted the usual course in regard to our public buildings. We left the

    1419
    matter to the Chief Commissioner and a professional architect, and they have made a thorough mess of it. There was an idea, I believe, when at considerable expense a number of rooms were provided, that they would be so many extra Committee rooms. Now, we have to come to the conclusion that they will not be used for Committee rooms, nor do I see how they could be, seeing that they open one into the other. ["No!"]
    *MR. CAUSTON: Will the hon. Member allow me to correct the statement I made just now, that to go to one room you must pass through another? That would be so if you went up the centre staircase, but I find this can be avoided by descending the centre staircase, and ascending others at each end of the Hall; and as regards the basement, I find that there is a hole on the ground floor, that, if not filled up, can be made the means of access from outside the building to the corner room.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: The real facts are, there is no present intention to use these as Committee Rooms, for you cannot pass from one to the other without coming down one staircase into Westminster Hall and ascending another, a most inconvenient arrangement, more especially when witnesses and counsel and agents are required to attend to matters in more than one room. The only possible use to which I can see the rooms can be put is to use them as a sort of prison for those Members who happen to offend the House, and who, if mow imprisoned by way of punishment, are sent to the Clock Tower, to the great injury to their health from the noise of the clock. We have built the rooms at considerable expenditure of money, but I do not suppose we are prepared to pull them down again, but with these staircases it is a different thing. They are a great eyesore. So far as I know, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford and the architects he has mentioned are the only people who admire them. There is a consensus of opinion that these staircases ought to come away, and the simple course is to take them away; we can get into the rooms without them by putting a staircase in the little room leading up to these Committee Rooms It is too late to argue about the rooms but at least these objectionable stair might be taken away.
    *THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. PLUNKET,): I must ask the Committee to bear with me while I endeavour to deal with the many arguments addressed to me on this matter of the restoration of Westminster Hall by Mr. Pearson. I notice, in the first place, that whereas the criticisms a few years ago were very loud and very uncompromising as regards the effect which would be produced by proposed additions to the exterior of the Hall, on the present occasion those criticisms have hardly been heard at all. I think I may say, having been in communication with many people on the subject inside and outside the House of Commons, that, at last, there is an almost universal consensus of opinion as to the excellence of Mr. Pearson's work, on the outside at all events, and as to his having made a substantial and handsome addition to the general appearance of the old Hall. The Committee are, no doubt, aware there was a necessity for some such work being done in order to preserve the walls, the roof, and the flying buttresses, which were in a state which caused considerable anxiety, and I may say at once that the main reason why it became necessary to make a considerable addition to the Estimate formerly before the House was that, when the matter came to be examined, it was found that the flying buttresses were in a much more advanced stage of decay than had been supposed, and it was found essential to renew the old work to a greater extent than had been anticipated. That, I think, further shows the urgent necessity there was for taking the work in hand if the old Hall was to be preserved at all. Another reason for increasing the Estimate is that a very elaborate and complete system of ventilation has been provided under the directions of our distinguished adviser, Dr. Percy, for the new buildings, and it was found necessary, in order to meet the requirements in this respect to give further support to the walls and flying buttresses. This accounts for the greater part of the increase in the Estimate. And now let me say a word or two about the staircases. Of course, after all, it is a matter of taste, but so far as I have been able to judge there is nothing like such a universal consensus of opinion as the hon. Member for

    1421
    Northampton says against these staircases. There are some people who say they do not make much difference, and others, notably the distinguished architects to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred to-day—and many others speak to the same effect—declare that they add greatly to the beauty of the Hall. One thing is certain, that any person who walks up the centre staircase and looks around will get a much better view of the Hall than he can get from any other part of the building, except, perhaps, from the wide flight of steps at the end of the Hall. However, this is a matter of taste, and I am not anxious, dogmatically, to press my own opinion, but I think that any Member of the Committee who is not an architect will probably agree with me that he has seldom seen a change made in any old building which did not at first produce on him the effect of a surprise, if not of a shock, but that having got over the surprise of the change, he will some times come to the opinion that the result did, after all, justify the change. But I do not press that view too far. It is, I repeat, a matter of taste. And let me say in passing that when one has to stand the criticisms differing so widely as those of my right hon. Friend the Member for White haven, who has devoted much study to the old masters, and is always ready with a particular affirmative, and the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy, whose judgment on art results is a universal negative, and who would study utility alone, it must be admitted that any Chief Commissioner will always have a considerable number of assailants in reference to the carrying out of any architect's plan. I have myself little doubt that if the steps were removed and other steps were put in their place, or if no steps at all were erected, there would be another cloud of witnesses to raise objections to the new arrangement. I had best, I think, under these circumstances, fall back upon the strong Committee which reported in 1885 on these plans after going fully into the subject. That Committee had before them the architect and his plans, and its members had every opportunity of cross-examining him and ventilating their own views. I must remind hon. Members that the Committee of 1885, after going into the matter most carefully,
    1422
    and occupying sitting after sitting during several months, ultimately carried the report upon which the architectural work has been based by majorities of seven or eight to two or three in every important division. Then it is said these plans were never before the Committee at all, but there I say hon. Members are entirely mistaken. Not only had they these plans, 5A and 6A, in which the three staircases are plainly shown, but they had No. 8, which gives a section of the staircase at the northern end of the Hall.
    MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK: Only a sectional elevation.
    *MR. PLUNKET: I am speaking of that. It is shown as a sectional elevation of the northern end of the Hall. I admit that the double staircase in the middle of the Hall is not shown.
    MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK: Hear, hear!
    *MR. PLUNKET: But that is merely a duplication of the staircase at the north end of the Hall. All its characteristics will be found in the elevation given, and there was, as I have already stated, before the Committee a ground plan of what was to be done, in which the three staircases were plainly shown. It is not, therefore, a true representation to say that these staircases were not before the Committee, and they are necessary for access to the upper rooms. The hon. Member for the Rushcliffe Division asks why I did not disclose to the House of Commons and the public the deed of darkness which was being done behind the wooden screen. I was not very long First Commissioner of Works after the debate on this subject in 1885, but when I returned to the office I was asked a question on the 20th of September, 1886, about two of these flights of stairs, and my answer was certainly no suppressio veri. I stated that—
    The scheme which has been sanctioned by the House includes the erection of two open flights of steps, having projections, not of 23 feet and 15 feet respectively (as stated in the question), but of 20 feet 6 inches and 9 feet 6 inches respectively. Plights of steps fulfilling the same object as those now proposed, and occupying very similar positions, have existed in Westminster Hall very nearly throughout its whole history."
    And then I went on to explain that Mr. Pearson's plan was a modern reproduction of what existed in ancient times.

    1423
    I spoke of two staircases, the question addressed to me having reference to two staircases only, and I only cite this answer to show that I fully explained to the House what was going on behind the mysterious screen. What the House is really interested, I think, to know, however, is what use is to be made of the rooms we have thus acquired. Some such buildings were necessary for preserving the old Hall from ruin; but I think they might be made extremely useful. I entirely differ from the estimate which has been formed of the rooms by some hon. Members. They have more light than the rooms in which many of the officers of this House have to sit every day. One is a very large and handsome room, and, even if not large enough for a Grand Committee, it would do for a Committee of very considerable size. The other rooms, I venture to think, could be turned to better account than as Committee Rooms. My idea is, in the first place, to transfer into those rooms, which are certainly at an inconvenient distance from the House for Members wishing to attend Divisions, the Private Bill Office, at present running along the side of St. Stephen's Hall. The clerks of that office would not complain of the difficulty of access to the rooms, for, instead of having only one access, as they have to their present rooms, they would have five. I would also suggest that it would be well to transfer the officers of the Journal Office, who have rooms facing on to the terrace, to these new rooms, which are quite as large and as well ventilated and lighted as those they now occupy. There is no doubt that the accommodation at present in the House for interviewing strangers and deputations is extremely small, and my idea is that the room along the side of St. Stephen's Hall would be a very convenient place for Members to meet deputations and to see strangers or their private secretaries. With respect to the rooms facing on the terrace, it has often been represented to me that more smoking accommodation is desirable, and I propose, therefore, to convert one of these rooms into a second smoking room. I do not bring forward these ideas dogmatically, and I would be glad of suggestions from hon. Members as to the disposal of the rooms. But it is, I
    1424
    believe, a sound principle to utilize the new rooms for the officers of the House, whose immediate closeness to the House itself is not essential, and to take advantage of the rooms which they now occupy for the greater comfort and convenience of Members themselves. On the whole, I can see no reason for taking a step so strong as that of abolishing the staircases. Let hon. Members give them a fair trial, and see what the general opinion will be. I am in favour of opening Westminster Hall to the public if the Home Secretary comes to the conclusion, as I have reason to hope he will, that it is possible again to do so.
    *MR. J. E. ELLIS: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his explanation. I am sure we shall all be glad to know that these new rooms will be put to a reasonable, practical use. The object with which I move this reduction is to protest against the steps in Westminster Hall—I ask the judgment of the Committee simply and solely in regard to the work done inside the Hall.
    *MR. STORY-MASKELYNE: One objection that has been made to the steps is that they destroy the symmetry of the Hall, and that Gothic architects always studied symmetry. The hon. Gentleman opposite who stated this half-truth forgot that the Gothic architect first considered what was wanted, and in carrying out what was necessary, studied symmetry if it was convenient, but, if not, defied it, and still built what was beautiful. No building could more aptly illustrate this than this historic Hall. The "central" doorway is not in the centre. Six windows flank it on one side, five on the other, and the buttresses and arches on the West side are unsymmetrical with the windows and with each other. No, Mr. Courtney, the thing is done, and the staircases are built, though not yet finished. They may look better then, and to alter them will cost a great deal more money, and probably at the further cost of convenience. I do not admire them, but I cannot say they are ugly. They are necessary, and as in Gothic architecture regard is always paid to the practical necessities of the case at as little sacrifice of beauty as possible, and as the steps are paid for, I think we had better keep them awhile and see how they chime in with

    1425
    the old building when they are finished. I shall certainly vote against the Amendment.
    *MR. G. HOWELL: With regard to that part of the criticism which has been hurled at the head of Mr. Pearson, the architect, as to the stone used in the new work not having a smooth face, I would point out that if it had a smooth face it would be altogether out of character in the building. The stone referred to has what is technically called a tooled surface, and accords with the face of the stone used throughout the building.
    *MR. DE LISLE: I wish to urge upon the Government the desirability of removing the closed up dormer windows on the eastern slope of the roof of Westminster Hall, and of completing the timbers of the roof in uniformity with the western slope. The alteration, I am informed, would not cost more than £750, and it is surely a disgrace to the nation that we cannot afford to retain and restore both slopes of the roof which is renowned throughout the world as the finest specimen of ancient timber work, the effect of which is completely destroyed at night when the hall is lighted up by these ugly holes in the eastern slope. I do hope the Government will next year ask for sufficient money to complete the roof at least, for the Plantagenet kings or ancient Abbots of Westminster would never have tolerated for six months such a miserable exhibition of national penury.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 129; Noes 230.—(Div. List, No. 59.)
    Original Question again proposed.
    SIR G. CAMPBELL: The first notice of Amendment I have on the Paper is rendered unnecessary by that we have just disposed of; but I will move my second Amendment as a protest against the excess asked for over the Estimate for the restoration of Westminster Hall, and as a protest against the lofty manner in which the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works replied to criticisms upon that excess. There is nothing more objectionable than this constant practice on the part of architects and engineers of giving us an estimate in the first instance, and then leading us into enormous excesses. There seems to me no
    1426
    excuse for excess in this case, the question having been for years before the House, and the architect having had every facility for perfecting his plans and completing his estimate on a reasonable basis. Whereas the original estimate for this work was some £26,000, the actual cost has been £43,000, and before the railings are finished the amount will probably rise to £50,000. If the architect is as capable and efficient a man as he is said to be, why did he not prepare a capable and honest estimate, and let us know at once the amount to be expended? I move to reduce the vote by £7,000.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Item B, £7,854, for the Restoration of Westminster Hall, be reduced by £7,000."—(Sir George Campbell.)
    MR. W. G. CAVENDISH BENTINCK: I wish to ask my right hon. Friend the First Commissioner of Works whether any steps have been or are being taken to put the contract of this building under one authority? We have been told that the building is under the Lord Great Chamberlain, and that it is owing to that functionary that the Statue to the late Lord Iddesleigh has been put up in the central hall.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The subject the right hon. Gentleman is going into is relative neither to the item under discussion nor to the reduction which has been moved.
    *MR. ISAACS: I was informed that the Vote last taken was on a Motion to reduce the salary of the architect by £200, to which I am opposed, and I wish most emphatically and decidedly to say that I went into the wrong Lobby. I cannot support the reduction of the Vote now proposed, for the work has been done, and as honest men we must pay for it; but I must say that I think the staircases very objectionable, and that the architect appears to have utterly failed to catch the spirit of the design of the Hall.
    THE CHAIRMAN: That question has already been discussed.
    Question put, and negatived.
    Original Question again proposed.
    *MR. CREMER: I beg to move the reduction of

    1427
    the Vote under Item "C" by the sum of £500, and in doing so, if what I have to say is not new, the fault is not mine, but that of the First Commissioner of Works. For the last three years I have brought this question before the House, and I hope that the House will not this year turn a deaf ear to the prayer of the workmen, whose case I represent. I am sure that the First Commissioner of Works is not desirous of continuing to do them an injustice, and I hope that he has given to the subject the attention he promised me last year, as I think we are now entitled to a distinct promise that the system of which I complain, and under which the workmen are subjected to severe hardships, should be speedily terminated. The right hon. Gentleman promised to inquire. I want to know what is the result of his inquiry, and what is going to be done? I do not complain that new works or extensive alterations in connection with the Houses of Parliament should be executed by ordinary contract, but what I do protest against is the extraordinary system of contracting for human labour, and allowing some one to deduct from the wages of the men a considerable portion of the sum which we vote in this House year by year. I am told that this system has prevailed for some years, and that nobody knows how it came about. The present contractors are Messrs. Brass. Some of the workmen are contracted for at the rate of 5½d. per hour and others at the rate of 6½d.—very small sums; a great deal too small. But out of these sums, small as they are, the contractor is allowed to deduct 1d. per hour, so that the workmen only receive 4½d. and 5½d. The work itself is often of a dangerous character, as the men have frequently to mount ladders to clean and paint parts of the building 60 and 70 feet above the ground. That men so employed should be paid at so low a rate is little short of a public scandal. These men are also deprived of many advantages which the employés of the Board of Works enjoy. They work longer hours, they have no holidays except Easter, Whit Monday, and Christmas Day, and they are not allowed even a day's wages if, owing to indisposition, they are unable to work. Another evil is the confusion which arises from the dual control. One body of men are
    1428
    engaged by the Board of Works, and receive every farthing of the sum voted by this House, whereas the men whose cause I represent are not Government servants, but are under the control of the contractor. As the Government have a Clerk of Works here, I think it is most desirable that the whole of the employés should be under his control. The Clerk of the Works receives a salary of £250 or £300 a-year. I do not complain of that as an extravagant sum, but I do think that he ought to superintend the work of all the men who are employed about this building. No one seems to have troubled himself about the grievances of these poor workmen, or their troubles would have been ended long ago. Personally, I have a very deep sympathy for a class to which I have had the pleasure of belonging all my life. The present arrangement is that the contractor is supposed to supply certain plant and materials—such as steps, trestles, and ladders, and for that he is allowed to make these deductions. Surely the nation is wealthy enough to purchase its own plant and materials, so that the workmen shall receive the full rate of wages voted to them by this House? It is said that this is an economical arrangement; but, if so, why is it only applied to the poorer class of employés and not to the upper class officials who receive high salaries? Her Majesty's Government not long ago appointed a Committee to inquire into the Sweating System, but that system they themselves are guilty of encouraging by allowing work to be done at the Houses of Parliament and other public buildings in the manner I have indicated. Unless a satisfactory assurance is given that the system of which I complain shall be ended when the present contract expires, I shall be under the necessity of taking a Division, and I shall go on pegging away until the evil complained of is remedied. I move the reduction of the Vote by £500.
    Motion made, and Question proposed "That Item C, £5,555, for Maintenance and Repairs, be reduced by £500."—(Mr. Cremer.)
    MR. LABOUCHERE: The matter may be a small one to Members of the House, but it is a very important one to the men concerned.

    1429
    There might be something to be said for the system if it applied to all the workmen employed about these buildings, but the House has a Clerk of the Works and other officials who could be charged with the duty of employing sweepers. The system adopted comes very near to sweating The Government pay 5½d. an hour, but the workmen only receive 4½d. The contractor's profit of 1d. an hour has not to meet any expenses for tools or materials, because all these are provided at the expense of the House. It is computed that the contractor nets a profit of £250 a-year on the sweeping of the Houses of Parliament alone; and he has other contracts of a similar kind for the sweeping of public offices which cannot be discussed under this Vote. I do think that under our very noses we ought not to allow this system to prevail. When the Government pay 5½d. an hour it ought to see that the money goes into the pockets of the men who do the work. Then, again, we talk of long hours, yet here we have men employed from 6 in the morning until half past 5 in the evening—11 and a-half hours, or, deducting the dinner hour, ten hours. It is quite evident that the work is excessive, and the pay too low. I can quite understand that the contract already entered into must run out; but it may fairly be asked that such contracts shall not be entered into again, and that officials of the House should employ the labour required.
    MR. J. ROWLANDS: I wish to endorse the strong opinion which has been expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Haggerston (Mr. Cremer), and also his appeal to the First Commissioner to accede to his request. I confess that I was astounded when I first heard of the system under which the cleaning of this House is provided for. I could not believe it possible that while the majority of the officials connected with this House are engaged directly through the Office of Works or some other Government Department, a system of contracting for the cleaning at a low price should be tolerated, together with the principle of making deductions from the wages of the workmen. The contractor's profit on the labour of each man amounts to something like 4s. 6d. a week—a very large sum indeed—and it is most discreditable that such large
    1430
    deductions should be made from the wages of the unfortunate workmen. I do not think that the First Commissioner can possibly, for any length of time, refuse to listen to the appeal which my hon. Friend makes to him. I do hope that this House, at least, will set an example against anything which can be considered in the nature of sweating. We are not asking that a large sum of money shall be squandered, or that any extra charge whatever shall be incurred. If it is necessary to effect economy, it can be done by cutting down some of the higher salaries by a few hundreds. Let the doctrine of supply and demand be applied to all grades of the public service, and then something like real economy may be effected. No doubt these men stand in a different position from the workmen employed in other departments, and they will not compare favourably with men employed to do work of a similar character elsewhere. I do not think any hon. Member can give a reason why these men should be left in this condition, and why they should not be brought in direct contact with the Chief Commissioner.
    MR. MOLLOY: I think the First Commissioner is entitled to some sympathy and commiseration at the hands of the House, because he has succeeded to a system over which he has no initial control. This system of contracts existed long before the right hon. Gentleman entered into office, and I presume that he has felt himself bound to continue matters as he found them. Therefore there is no blame to be attached to the right hon. Gentleman himself for the state of affairs which now exists, but on the other hand we have to look at the matter as a question of principle. By appointing a Royal Commission, Parliament has set its face against the putting of an unjust tax on the earnings of the working classes; and, therefore, the First Commissioner may fairly be asked to look into the matter and see what can be done in the future. The deductions made in this case amount to 20 per cent of the earnings, and that is nearly the maximum of the cases that have been brought before the Committee on Sweating. It is surely work in which the intervention of a contactor is quite unnecessary. We have our own Clerk of the Works, who is

    1431
    quite capable of seeing that the cleaning is done without the intervention of a contractor. Therefore, by employing a contractor, we are guilty of robbery of the earnings of the workmen to the extent of 20 per cent. Surely the right hon. Gentleman will tell us that the question is worth looking into, and will provide, when the present contracts are terminated, that these intermediaries shall be got rid of.
    MR. J. STUART: I think that we ought to have a more definite assurance from the right hon. Gentleman than that which has been suggested, and unless we receive it we ought to go to a Division. The system ought to be definitely put a stop to as soon as the existing contracts come to an end. That is what we should press for, and unless a distinct understanding is come to I hope my hon. Friend will press the Motion to a Division.
    *MR. PLUNKET: This question was raised in Committee on a former occasion, and also by a Memorial which has been sent to me. I have considered it as carefully as I could, and I should be glad if I were able to remove the inequality complained of. The general system of getting our work done through contractors has always been regarded as successful hitherto; and the only exception to that system are the gasmen and furniture men employed in this House. These particular employés are not employed in any other public building. Then, of course, we had to consider the most economical way of doing the work, but I am perfectly willing on the termination of the contract to give the subject further consideration, and no doubt by that time we shall have the result of investigations which are being made into the whole question of the employment of middlemen in such cases. I believe it would be impossible to give the distinct pledge I am asked for.
    *MR. BRADLAUGH: There is no doubt a difficulty about giving the specific pledge asked for by the Mover of the Amendment. But I should have liked to have heard, besides a promise to consider this subject, some condemnation of what does seem to me a system which requires an explicit condemnation in this House. The wage of these poor men is very low, and you can
    1432
    easily get enough of starving men to compete for employment. But that is not a reason, it seems to me, from what has been alleged by the right hon. Gentleman, for continuing this system of contracts. I could understand if there was a difficulty in these men receiving their wages direct from the Office of Works, but it seems possible that they could do so. Although it is perfectly true that while the existing contract, including this House and other public buildings, continues, it may be impossible for the Commissioner of Works to deal with these men. I do think that the Chief Commissioner would be well advised if he would allow the good nature of his own character to influence him, and say that he would rather look at it from the point of view of these poor men than from the point of view of middlemen, who in this case are unnecessary. I would suggest to my hon. Friend not to press the Amendment to a Division, and would urge the Chief Commissioner to put more of the good nature personal to himself and less of his office into the investigation of this matter.
    MR. MOLLOY: I do not ask the right hon. Gentleman merely to look into this matter and do nothing; I ask him to investigate it with the view to making an alteration. The reason given by him for maintaining this system of intermediaries or contractors is that the work is done cheaply. I go to this extent, and say that even though the work cost more than it does now, we, who are condemning sweating in every other department of life, are bound to put an end to it in our own case. There is a margin of £825 under maintenance and repairs. Now, 20 per cent is deducted from the earnings of these men, amounting to about £1,700. Well, you have this £1,700, and you have £800 to employ a superior Clerk of the Works to carry out repairs and maintenance, without going into a system of sweating as you are now. I would point out that in voting for the Government in this matter you are voting for the system of sweating. ["No!"] It is of no use saying "No." The right hon. Gentleman has admitted that it is the sweating system. [Mr. PLUNKET: No!] Will the right hon. Gentleman say that deducting 20 per cent out of a man's wages is not sweating? Twenty per

    1433
    cent is the maximum in a number of accusations of sweating brought before the Royal Commissioners, and I am entitled to say that in voting for the Government you are voting for the system of sweating. I think the statement of the Chief Commissioner unsatisfactory, though I quite admit the difficulty of his position. Those who refuse to vote for the Motion of my hon. Friend will have to answer for doing so in another place.
    *MR. PLUNKET: All I have undertaken to do is simply this, that when the contract concludes I will look carefully into the matter. If the House of Commons is of opinion that these men should no longer be employed under the present system of contract, I shall gladly endeavour to give the decision effect, but it must be done distinctly as the act of the House of Commons. In my position as a custodian of the public purse, so far as my office is concerned, it is my duty to endeavour to get the work done as cheaply as possible consistently with efficiency. I have given an undertaking to go carefully into the matter, and I cannot go further.
    MR. WARMINGTON: Mr. Courtney, the explanations of the right hon. Gentleman are unsatisfactory. This is not the first time this question has been ventilated in the House of Commons. The right hon. Gentleman himself has been considering it for months, and what we want from him is a distinct statement of what is his own judgment of the grievances of these men. We do not ask him to point out the remedy now, but we ask him whether he thinks a wage of 5½d. and 4½d. per hour, subject to 25 per cent and 20 per cent reduction is satisfactory? If it is unhandsome and unfair payment, then this House, and not the contractors, ought to do its own dirty work by paying these men the low wages instead of paying the contractor the full wage. We should like to know the right hon. Gentleman's own judgment in this matter, and whether he thinks the grievance established.
    MR. ISAACS: I can amplify the remarks of the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken by stating that the reduction of the wages of these men is just double what is ordinarily allowed. The ordinary profit of a private
    1434
    builder or contractor is 10 per cent. and I fail to see, when we come to these poor men, that they should be subjected to just double the reduction. I venture to make this observation to the right hon. Gentleman, because I am sure he will give the whole matter his earnest consideration. If the contract system is continued there ought to be a stipulation that the reduction of the men's wages should not be greater than 10 per cent. But the right hon. Gentleman would do well to notice the feeling of the House that the whole system should be changed, and that these men should come under the actual control of the Office of Works.
    *MR. WEBSTER: Hon. Gentlemen opposite appear to contend that all work done by contract or by sub-contract must inevitably be done under what is known as the sweating system. Such a contention is, to my mind, ridiculous. A great deal of work in this country is done in all industries by contract, and, in nearly every instance, the workmen receive a fair day's wage for a fair day's work, not invariably, however, and that is what we want to remedy as a consequence of this inquiry into the sweating system. But does the workman always give a fair day's work for a fair day's wage? Not always, I think. To give an instance, Westminster Hall is included in this Vote. A few months ago I passed by Westminster Hall with a friend, and we noticed the proverbial man and a boy on the roof, nominally at work slating the roof, but practically idling their time away; we passed again in four hours, and they were still engaged in laboriously doing nothing. I very much doubt if one slate had been affixed during the time. Now, if we do away with the contracting system, and the work is done under the control of a Clerk of the Works appointed by the First Commissioner of Works, it will be needful to see that the country gets its fair day's work for a fair day's wage. For the interest of the taxpayer that ought to be seen to. If that is satisfactorily seen to, I do not see that it makes much difference whether the work is done by contract or not.
    MR. J. ROWLANDS: The right hon. Gentleman opposite has been talking of the outside of the building, when he might have said something

    1435
    more appropriate with regard to the interior. I do not see that the right hon. Gentleman has improved the case which has been put from this side of the House. He has not denied the fact that 20 per cent. is deducted from the men's wages, which is what I call sweating pure and simple. Let us have no mincing of terms with regard to this question; it is one on which we ought to express a clear and definite opinion. We have to thank the hon. Member for Walworth (Mr. Isaacs) for what he has said with regard to the contract as it exists, but we ought to ask for a distinct expression of opinion on the part of the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works that the principle on which that contract is being carried out should cease to be observed when the contract is at an end. What is asked is that those who are employed in the work you are contracting for should be put in the position of getting for themselves the 5½d. per hour you are paying.
    *MR. PLUNKET: I think the time has come when a decision may fairly be arrived at. I have already stated that at the termination of the present contract I will undertake that this whole matter shall be most carefully considered. It is for the House of Commons to say how its work should be done, and whatever decision the House of Commons arrives at, I will, of course, endeavour to carry out. Beyond this it is impossible for me to offer any pledge.
    *MR. CREMER: The right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Plunket) twelve months ago made a promise that was quite as clear and definite as that which he has made to-day; therefore, we know what is meant by the consideration he proposes to give to the matter. The fact is, that we are left in the same state of indefiniteness as that in which we were placed a year since, and unless the right hon. Gentleman will give us a distinct promise not only that he will seriously consider the matter, but that, as far as he is concerned—for he cannot bind his successors—he will pledge himself not to renew any contracts such as that which is now objected to, I shall insist on going to a Division, so that it may be clearly understood that our action on this Vote is an earnest protest against the sweating system.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: I should like to avoid a Division if it be possible to do so. The right hon. Gentleman has said that of his own motion he cannot alter the present system, but that it is necessary, if any alteration is to be made, that it should be by a Resolution of this House. He is merely an executive officer, and has to carry out the contract system which he finds laid down for him. It seems to me, however, that the matter we are now discussing is one in regard to which the right hon. Gentleman might well make the alteration we ask for. If he does not want to compromise the position of the men by what might be an unfortunate Division, he might offer some sort of assurance setting forth not only that he has the right to make an alteration at the end of the contract, but that he will do so if he finds that the general feeling of the House is in favour of that course.
    *MR. PLUNKET: I have already said that if it be the wish of a majority of the House that an alteration should be made in the system under which the work is now carried on, I will, at the termination of the contract, give effect to that view.
    MR. STUART: This is a good opportunity for enforcing the view of the House in regard to the sweating system, and I trust that that view will be clearly and unmistakably expressed.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 149; Noes 226.—(Div. List, No. 60.)
    Original Question again proposed.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: I rise to a question of order, Mr. Courtney. Before the hon. Member for Queen's County proceeds with his Amendment, I wish to ask a question upon item C. Shall I be precluded from doing so if the hon. Member now proceeds to move to reduce Item D?
    THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member for Northampton must raise his point now.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: I have already spoken to the right hon. Gentleman on the subject, but I wish to point out that a very fine picture in this House is being gradually destroyed, owing to the state of ventilation, and I wish to ask if the right hon. Gentleman will consider the best means of preserving it from absolute destruction? I do not want to move any reduction of the Vote; all I

    1437
    want is an assurance that the matter shall have attention.
    *MR. PLUNKET: I am considering the best steps to be taken to gain the end desired by not only the hon. Member, but by all of us.
    DR. FARQUHARSON: I think some of the frescoes upstairs are in a very bad and deplorable state. Those in the House of Lords are gradually becoming obscured, but I hope the right hon. Gentleman will consider the best means of utilizing decorative art to fill up these panels.
    *MR. PLUNKET: I have looked into the matter, and have caused the pictures and frescoes in the House to be carefully examined. I am afraid that some of the frescoes upstairs are past praying for; I will, however, again consider the matter. Now, Mr. Courtney, I must make an appeal to the Committee to come to a decision on this Vote. We have been discussing it nearly four hours, and I would point out that if all the Votes are to be discussed at this length, we shall take not weeks but years to get through these Estimates. I hope the Committee will now agree to this Vote.
    MR. MUNDELLA: I am very sorry to intervene in this debate. The right hon. Gentleman has told us that many of the frescoes are past praying for, but in the particular frescoes of Herbert's—
    MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK: It is not a fresco.
    MR. MUNDELLA: I wish to point out that it is not in such a bad condition as is generally supposed, and it is really worth while spending a minute or two of the House in discussing it. I think it is one of the best frescoes we have in England. If the right hon. Gentleman opposite wishes it, I will, to satisfy him, call it a picture. I do trust the First Commissioner of Works will think it worth his while to do what he can while the artist yet lives, to save this valuable picture.
    *MR. W. A. MACDONALD: In moving to reduce Item E by £500, Sir, I feel that I am about to discuss a question which involves not only the convenience but the health and even the lives of Members of this House, and not of the Members only, but of the officials, from the Clerk at the Table down to the humblest
    1438
    policeman. I consider that the ventilation of this House is simply shocking, and that our healths must suffer if some improvement be not effected in this matter. I know that a great deal of money and thought has been expended on the ventilation of the chamber in which we are seated, and I am aware that the great difficulty which besets any one who has to deal with this subject arises from the fact that the House is too small to accommodate all its Members. I have not sufficient special scientific knowledge to say whether the ventilation of this House is as good as human science can make it; but of one thing I am quite convinced, and that is, that the ventilation of the other portions of this building—of the Members' lobby, of the passages and corridors, and of the rooms allotted to the Press—is simply disgraceful. Now the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works is always courteous, and he will, I am sure, tell me what is the exact duty of the officer who has charge of the ventilation of this House, and whether it is simply his duty to take care of this Chamber, or does he have to look after other portions of the building? If he looks after the whole of the building, he has surely something more to do through himself and his agents than to see that the thermometers always register an equable temperature. Why, Sir, should not some attempt be made to introduce pure air into the entire building? I remember the state of things during the Autumn Session, when the atmosphere here was most unhealthy. Why are not the windows opened at times when it would not inconvenience Members? Then, again, I consider the state of things upstairs most objectionable. The air which has to be breathed by reporters and others concerned in writing for the Press is dreadful, and if hon. Members do not believe it, I wish they would go upstairs and see for themselves. Something has been done, I am aware, in the shape of substituting the electric light for gas, but I want to know why electricity is not to be carried through all parts of the building? I understand you intend to put it in the Members' Lobby. Why should it not go into other rooms, where we now burn gas? There seems to be a fallacy with regard to this matter of thermometers.
    It being ten minutes to Seven of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his report to the House.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

    JUDICIAL FACTORS (SCOTLAND) [SALARY, &c.].
    Resolution reported: "That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of a Salary to the Accountant of Court, who may be appointed under any Act of the present Session to amend and extend the law relating to Judicial Factors and others in Scotland, and to unite the office of the Accountant of the Court of Session and the Accountant in Bankruptcy in Scotland, and of Salaries to the clerks who may be appointed by him, also the payment of compensation to the holder of the office of Accountant of the Court of Session for abolition of his office, and of remuneration to such persons as may be employed to audit accounts under the provisions of the said Act."
    Resolution agreed to.
    The House resumed.
    Attention was drawn to the fact that forty Members were not present.
    The House was counted, and forty Members were found to be present.

  MOTION.

    POOR IN LARGE TOWNS.
    *MR. BROADHURST: Mr. Speaker, in moving the Resolution which stands in my name, I confess I have an exceedingly difficult task before me. I claim no more power of solving this problem than others possess, and my desire is to submit this Resolution to the House rather in the hope of eliciting from all parts of the House contributions to the discussion of the subject than with the intention of making a speech which shall contain antidotes for the evils to which I shall allude. Now, as to the number of poor in the country at the present time in proportion to the number in the past, it is difficult for anyone to make anything like an approximate estimate that will be of material importance or very reliable, simply from the fact that there are no means of obtaining the information. The Poor Law Returns, to which one would naturally turn for information of this kind, seem to prove, if they prove anything, a diminution in the number of persons
    1440
    falling upon the rates for assistance. I find that in 1873 the number of persons receiving Poor Law relief was 1,083,101, or about 3¼ per cent of the population; and the latest Return gives the number at 1,035,992, or about 2½ per cent of the population. I do not think, however, that the Poor Law Returns are to be relied upon absolutely as giving a true indication of the amount of poverty which exists in the country, or as indicating an increase or decrease in the number of poor. There is a growing dislike to the stigma of Poor Law relief, and many of the poorest people would rather suffer the greatest privation than allow themselves to be brought under this stigma. Then there is now a tendency to make the existence of poverty more widely known; and a determination on the part of those who suffer not to suffer in silence in the future as they have done in the past. This may induce a belief that the number of the very poor is on the increase. Another fact which may make it appear that poverty is on the increase, is that the poor are now more concentrated than they used to be. People scattered in a thousand different parishes in various parts of the United Kingdom cannot possibly give such effect to their complaints as people gathered together in large centres such as London, Manchester, Liverpool, and Glasgow. This may account, to a great extent, for the persistency with which the existence of poverty is brought under our notice. Certainly it proves that, whether the proportion of the very poor be larger or smaller, it is not as safe in these days as in the past, to say nothing of the right and wrong of the matter, to ignore the existence of the suffering of the people. If there is a great wrong which requires redress, if there is great and widespread poverty which requires relief, it is right and proper, and better for the country, that we should know of it, and, if possible, attempt some relief of it, rather than it should go on indefinitely accumulating till it becomes a great national danger. I shall mainly refer to the class that suffers probably more than any other—namely, the unskilled labour part of the community. Mechanics and artizans possess the means, if they choose to avail themselves of them, of assisting themselves in times of trouble and in times of scarcity of

    1441
    employment. There are few skilled industries but what has a trades' union, and a trades' union provides for its members in case of want of employment. Taking 26 trades' unions, I find that, in periods varying from 10 to 50 years, they have distributed relief in various forms to the extent of more than eight millions sterling. No one can tell the amount of poverty that this expenditure has prevented, and no one can tell the calamity to the country it has warded off. But the unskilled labourers are the greatest sufferers. They suffer more because of the uncertainty of employment and the difficulty of combining in order to provide against want of occupation. It is to the unskilled class that we ought to have special regard when we deal with such a question as this. It would be quite safe to say there is scarcely a branch of employment of unskilled labour that is not terribly overcrowded. I refer particularly to the warehouse labourers, the general labourers, the men who assist mechanics in the unskilled portion of their work, and the seamstresses among the female portion of the community, who are all engaged in branches of industry so overcrowded as to make it almost impossible to gain anything like a living. Then there is the chain and nail industry. The condition of the people engaged in this industry is deplorable beyond description. The hon. Member for Camborne (Mr. Conybeare) and the hon. Member for Lanarkshire (Mr. Cuninghame Graham) discussed the condition of these people the other day as though it had never previously been before the House. I remember bringing the question under the notice of the House four or five years ago.
    *MR. CUNINGHAME GRAHAM: I specially referred to the fact that the condition of the nail and chain makers had been repeatedly under the attention of Parliament in past years.
    *MR. BROADHURST: I accept the hon. Gentleman's correction with much pleasure. What I wanted to point out was that I had brought the question before the House, although I am bound to say the miserable support I obtained on the occasion was not very encouraging to me to pursue other efforts in the same direction. Then some fearful revelations were made in the Report of Mr. Burnett, of the Labour Department
    1442
    of the Board of Trade; and it was that Report, I have no doubt, which mainly led to the appointment of what is called the Sweating Committee. The House will remember the description of the condition of the workers in the tailoring trades of the East End—they will remember that it was shown that men, women, and young persons were employed in the most unhealthy rooms for wages not sufficient to keep body and soul together. We hope that the inquiry now proceeding will have some effect in bringing redress to these wretched people. Now, Sir, I have no doubt the introduction of machinery accounts, to a great extent, for the existence of a vast amount of suffering among the unskilled labourers. As an illustration of this, let me say that I witnessed at Sheffield a few weeks ago the forging of a piece of steel weighing about 35 tons. The metal was being forged with the aid of eight or ten men, who were simply employed in certain subordinate duties connected with the movement of the forging; and it struck, me at the time that this enormous mass of steel, which was to form the driving shaft of a ship, was being treated by the almost human machinery as if it were a penholder in the hand of a strong man. My right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds (Sir L. Playfair), in an article in the March number of the Contemporary Review," stated that he had witnessed a machine which displaced the labour of 999 workers by hand. In the cotton and wool trades, also, machines have been invented which will accomplish more in a given time than 500 pairs of human hands did previously. Inventions are improving upon inventions every day we live, motive power is increasing in force and in efficiency, and unless the labourers can secure a share of the increased productive power by a decrease in the hours of labour, I do not see what is to be the end, so far as the labourers are concerned, in this enormous ever daily and hourly increase of machinery. The prospect is one which we must look upon with some anxiety, if not alarm. I do not think it is possible to ask the House to give the displaced hands compensation from the State by way of finding them employment at the cost of the State, though I am not sure that some of my hon. Friends are not prepared

    1443
    to ask the House to do so. But what I think we may reasonably do is, to ask the House to see that the children of the victims to the increase of machinery, to the inventive genius of the nation, shall not, at any rate, suffer either in food requirements or educational necessities. The children are our future men and women, and much of our prosperity or otherwise will depend upon the amount of succour we give them in their childhood; and I ask the House to declare, in the first place, that so grave is the condition of large numbers of the poor of our great centres of population, that we should, without undue delay, press such measures as shall secure to their children a national education tree from direct contribution by the parents. This is a definite proposal; it is germane to the Motion, and I believe its adoption would be fraught with the happiest and best results to the children themselves, and certainly to the country of which they are to be citizens. Then, I ask that it should be the duty of the country to see that such children as are of school age should not be required to receive their elementary education on empty stomachs. A more hopeless, heartless, cruel task than to endeavour to drive grammar and arithmetic into the brains of a child that is almost starving for the necessaries of life it is impossible to imagine. This may appear an extreme proposal. I make it entirely on my own responsibility, and it pledges the adherence of no other Member. It was once my sad lot to visit a Board School in the poorest part of Southwark, and I think I shall be within the truth when I say that of the 200 or 300 scholars in the school scarcely a dozen had sufficient garments on them to cover their nakedness, scarcely any of them had shoes, and each had want stamped upon his features. No more pitiful, heartbreaking sight could be contemplated by human being than to see the teachers doing their best to prepare these poor young brains for their future contest in life, knowing at the same time that they had not sufficient food for the physical and mental effort necessary to receive the instruction. This may be called Socialism or any other ism. I am not prepared to contest the point, but I do contend that it is unwise, that it is neglectful, that it is
    1444
    cruel for the nation to allow thousands of its children to grow up under such conditions, their mental and physical growth dwarfed, and their capacity for being of service to their country in afterlife lessened by such a commencement in their career. I have no hesitation in saying that we should provide free education for the poor children of the community; and that it should be so free, that there should be no pauper taint attaching to it as there is to those educated free under the present conditions, and it should be the duty of the country to see that these children have one solid, wholesome, healthy hot meal on each of their school days. This is not an extreme proposal, and I think many hon. Members will be inclined to support it. I believe that the supply of food could be so arranged that a vast number of the children whose parents are not of the very poor, yet who have a keen struggle for existence with the difficulty of finding employment—could have meals composed of good wholesome food supplied to them at the lowest possible price; and I feel sure vast numbers would appreciate the blessing of such an arrangement. There would be an addition to the present school work. You could not provide 300 or 400 children with a daily meal without arrangements for buying and cooking, but that could be easily done. Many works in this country at the present time do, on co-operative principles, provide meals for the workpeople engaged on the premises. I know one instance where any adult employed can have a good hot meal for fivepence, and any young person can have a dinner in the middle of the day for twopence halfpenny. And this plan pays its way—there is no charity about it, not the least in the world. Now, if this can be done on a liberal scale of diet, as it is in a comparatively small way, there can be little doubt that, if adopted on a large scale, the cost might be reduced one-half. In cases where it is necessary these meals should be absolutely free I do not think there is anything unreasonable in the proposition, and I feel convinced that the work of education would be easier if the children were not in a half-starved condition. Make these arrangements for the supply of food in districts where the necessity may reasonably

    1445
    be expected to exist, and you may utilize them further by the supply of cheap food to adults in the evening. Such establishments would, no doubt, attract a great amount of charitable assistance and voluntary labour. Such a plan would, in my opinion, bring untold blessings upon those we all desire to assist, and render a great service to the nation. There are many features of the suggestion I am compelled to pass over for time presses, and I now come to the question of the housing of the poor, a still more difficult question. Those who have paid any attention to the Report of the Committee on the subject will know the difficulties. I will not detain the House by going over all the references I had intended to make. The Report will show the desperate condition existing in the Metropolis and throughout the country among our fellow-countrymen in regard to this question. In some districts there is scarcely a house but what has each room occupied by a separate family, and in many cases there are two families in one room, persons of all ages and both sexes, and in rooms, too, not affording sufficient space for healthy occupation by two persons. The death-rate in these districts is 60 or 70 per thousand. A back cellar, in some instances, as you will see by reference to the evidence on page 8, fetches from 3s. to 4s. 6d. a week. We have a long account from Mr. Marchant Williams, an Officer of the London School Board, and it will be seen he shows that from a fifth to a fourth of the weekly earnings of the poor is consumed in their rent-charge. It is certain that people so crowded and huddled together cannot grow up into healthy, desirable citizens. But my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dumfries will deal at greater length with these evils and the proposed remedy. In regard to the lodgings of the very poor, there are no places in England provided but the common lodging-houses and the casual ward, neither of them very desirable places. The common lodging-house is, of course, better than the street, but it is under no effective supervision. There are provisions in an Act of Parliament about area and cubic spaces, and so on; but there is no visiting
    1446
    authority to see that the entire space is not occupied by twice the number of persons that should occupy it. They are under police supervision, which is periodical and effective so far as whitewashing is concerned, but for no other practical purposes. They are not the places to tend to the improvement of the health or nature of those who are forced to avail themselves of this shelter. The casual ward is an addition to the workhouse even more repulsive than the workhouse itself; it is often difficult to find; there is much uncertainty as to admission; and the most degrading conditions are imposed on those who are compelled to take refuge in the ward. With regard to shelter for the very poor, let me mention what has been done in Glasgow. The municipal authorities have provided six large lodging houses, five for males and one for females. These houses are under municipal control, and the person seeking shelter there does so under the best condition possible at the price paid. He has a bunk to himself, privacy, and more comfort than at first sight would seem possible. There are arrangements by which he may cook his own food, or he may buy it on the premises. Strict discipline and a good moral tone is maintained throughout, and habits of cleanliness are insisted upon, unaccompanied, however, with any of the degrading conditions of the casual ward. The average number of persons housed is 2,000 each night; and what is surprising and satisfactory to the ratepayers of Glasgow, 4½ per cent is paid on the capital invested. This is, perhaps, the most pleasing feature of the whole proceeding, and I do not see why the example of Glasgow should not be followed by every municipal or county authority in the United Kingdom. I would certainly suggest to the Local Government Board that they should encourage the County Councils to follow this example.
    MR. BARTLEY: Can the hon. Member say what rent is paid?
    *MR. BROADHURST: Unfortunately, I did not provide myself with the figures. I went over one of these houses from top to bottom, and I can speak of the wonderful efficiency and cleanliness of everything. If I remember rightly, three pence per night was the charge for lodging. I cannot go into the whole

    1447
    question of housing the very poor—it involves heavy questions of the first importance; the leaseholders' question, the question of ground rents, and the whole question of Land Law Reform is connected with it. [A laugh.] The question does affect the housing of the poor, and cannot be laughed away. You have a great and distinguished man in England at the present moment who takes an extreme view of the Land Question as it affects towns and rural districts, and whose doctrines are making enormous progress. [Several hon. MEMBERS: Who?] Mr. Henry George. [Laughter.] Yes; you laugh, and that is the fallacy that afflicted people in times gone by; but, depend upon it, this matter will not be laughed out of existence—it is too serious, too great, it has taken too deep root in the country to be lightly disposed of. Whether you consent to consider it or not, the question remains that your population is growing in extent most alarming, and politically dangerous. If you do not take this question in hand, and consider how you should limit the monopoly of land in our great centres, then the question will force itself to the front, and solve itself in a manner none of us now desire and some of us cannot imagine. The increase of population in London since 1831 has been 2,500,000, and in the same period Glasgow has increased by 500,000 souls. You cannot ignore these facts and the growing danger with them. I am not proposing the removal of people from the congested populations of towns and agricultural districts. I do not see much value in that. The habits of the people in the towns and their enfeebled constitutions unfit them for agricultural pursuits. But something should be done to lessen the tendency of population to draw towards the great towns. It is difficult to speak exactly about the increase or decrease of population in our rural districts. Some people say there is no decrease, whilst others say that a large decrease is constantly going on. A paper read at the Statistical Society a year or two ago showed that from 1851 to 1881 the population living by agricultural pursuits had decreased by 418,000, and that from 1871 to 1881 it had decreased by 162,000. I believe these figures rather under-estimate than over-estimate the decrease. Our Census
    1448
    Returns are not made up in the manner best calculated to afford information on these points. I understand the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. Ritchie) to assent to that proposition, and I hope he will do something to rectify it in the next Census Return. I say that the facts are very alarming. While the rural population is decreasing our imports of food are increasing very rapidly.
    An hon. MEMBER: Free Trade.
    *MR. BROADHURST: I do not think we should argue the question of Free Trade now, and the temptation to take a line of that sort is so great that I hope I shall not be further invited to it. We are importing food to the value of £100,000,000 a year which we could equally well produce in this country if the land were free for the people to cultivate. Nearly the whole of these imports might be produced in our own country if the land were free to cultivate. It is perfectly well known that your large holding system has nearly ruined many people. I have some figures here which I will read to the House. They have been supplied by a former Member of this House. In the parish of Lavington, which is situate in a county with which the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Local Government Board (Mr. Long) is associated, there is a farm of 2,344 acres rented at under 10s. 3d. per acre, whose occupier failed in 1887 with liabilities amounting to £36,000, including £14,000 for rent. There are 500 acres in the same parish rented at from 15s. to 16s. per acre in the hands of 64 small occupiers who punctually pay their rent. These figures speak volumes in favour of a direct reform in our system of land owning and land hiring. A holding of 250 acres would probably employ only two men and a couple of boys, except at harvest time, but if the 250 acres were divided into 50 portions they would employ 60 men. It is perfectly well known that the smaller a holding the larger amount of labour employed per acre. If these are facts, and no one can deny their substantial truthfulness, how necessary is it that the House should bring its mind to the solution of the Land Question, and see whether it cannot prevent the continual increase of population in big centres by encouraging

    1449
    our rural population to stay at home by offering them opportunities of bettering themselves? Had it not been for the cheap food which we have imported from abroad, we should have had a revolution in this country before today. Nothing has saved this country from disaster during the last ten years so much as the cheap and plentiful supply of food which we have been compelled to obtain from foreign countries instead of growing it at our own doors. It is a scandal, a disgrace, and a danger to this or any other country to have such a large accumulation of wealth on the one hand, and such widespread and deep-seated poverty on the other, without some efforts being made to equalize the two conditions of life thus set forth. The House of Commons is overburdened and overworked, and we hope to relieve it before long of some of its functions. After the House has been relieved of those functions which my hon. Friends have specially in their minds, there are other directions in which it may be relieved of some of its labours in order that it may devote part of its time to the improvement of the condition of the people whom it is supposed to represent. Civilized government fails unless it attends to the wants of the least influential of our fellow-creatures. I hope there will be some practical outcome from the proceedings of to-night. If nothing is done to remedy the evils which I have described, the fault will lie at the door of those who, having been warned, have refused to listen to the warning. It is nine years to-day since I was first elected a Member of this honourable House, and I can truly say that I have never occupied the attention of the House on a subject in which I take so deep an interest, and the solution of which I so heartily desire. I apologize to the House for having taken up so much of its time, and I thank hon. Members for the patience with which they have listened to me. I beg to move the Motion which stands in my name.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That, in the opinion of this House, the chronic poverty of great numbers of the people living in the large cities and towns of Great Britain is a danger to the well-being of the State, and calls for the instant attention of the Government to remedial measures by which the depopulation of the agricultural districts may
    1450
    be checked, and the congestion of the great centres of population relieved."—(Mr. Broadhurst.)
    MR. R. T. REID: I rise, Sir, to second the Motion. My hon. Friend has, in opening the discussion, traversed a very large area, and it is impossible for me to cover all the ground which he has travelled over. I will endeavour to condense my remarks as much as possible. The Motion is one of supreme importance; it deals with the condition of the poor in town and country, not with that poverty which is the result of misconduct—the retribution which follows upon imtemperance or indolence—but with that preventible poverty which I and those who agree with me say bad laws have made and good laws can repair. The position, as I understand it, is this—there is a constant flow from the country districts into the towns of persons unable to find occupation in the country. The agricultural labourer works for scanty wages, and when he can work no longer, unless his children support him, he must go into the workhouse. He cannot get a cottage or a piece of land, and there is no career open to him unless he moves into a town or emigrates. Accordingly he comes into a town, where he finds himself at the tender mercies of the employer of labour, and falls under the sweating system. Hon. Gentlemen know that the evidence before the Royal Commission revealed as horrible a state of things as could be conceived. You have these described to you—the one-room system, the one-bed system, the extreme infantile mortality, the exhaustion of men in full maturity. All I can say is that, if that Report does not convince hon. Gentlemen of the horrors of the system, nothing I can say has any chance of convincing them. I do not, however, desire to describe the situation, but to suggest remedies. In the first place, however, I will say a word or two in regard to remedies I do not recommend. I think I never saw so many Fair Traders together as I see sitting opposite to me now. It is gratifying; but I am not going to treat Fair Trade as a serious question, because hon. Gentlemen opposite do not treat it as a serious question. If they were in earnest, they could put pressure on the Treasury Bench, and raise the question by discussions and divisions in the

    1451
    House. When I see a body of Gentlemen using a question as an election cry, but not prepared to press it in the House, or to submit to the test of a General Election, I say to myself, "Those Gentlemen are not in earnest." I will pass to what has been said by my hon. Friend about restricting the hours of labour. I know that is a very difficult question. I am somewhat sympathetic with the argument, because I think that women especially are exceedingly overworked and unable to protect themselves; and I would rather err on the side of over-protection than on the other side with regard to them. With regard to men, the case is different, though there may be some employments in which it may be necessary to interfere. To interfere by restricting the hours of labour, however, would not work a solution of the difficulty. One word as to emigration. If there is no better method of dealing with the very poor than to send them out of their own country—the richest in the world—at a time when there are millions of acres uncultivated, we had better renounce the attempt of improving the condition of the population. My hon. Friend did not refer to the question of co-operation, and I must say a word on the subject. Co-operation may hereafter play a very great part in benefiting the poor, but it cannot possibly have any practical success until we deal with the one thing which is at the root of the mischief, and which goes down to the very bottom of our social evils—namely, the land system. What is the land system? What do the Land Laws allow the landlord to do? They allow him to use or to abuse the land at his caprice, to let it lie waste and uncultivated, and to convert it into deer forests. In my own country out of 19,000,000 acres there are 2,000,000 acres of deer forests, a great part of which might be available for maintaining the people. Landlords can prevent the growth and expansion of villages and small towns, they can prevent cottages from being built, and thereby cause poor people to leave the country. They can prevent any factory from being erected in the country. [A laugh.] The hon. Gentleman opposite need not smile. My hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester (Mr. Winterbotham) has decided the question satisfactorily, for he has a large factory in a
    1452
    purely rural district. In my own constituency quite recently a great attempt was made to have a factory erected, the capital was forthcoming, and it would, have been a great boon, but the landlord refused the land on any possible terms. Landlords cannot be compelled to sell except by Act of Parliament, or to allow any other person to use the land. Acts of Parliament are passed only for public undertakings, and private enterprizes are absolutely at the mercy of the landlords. Will hon. Gentlemen realize what it is to leave the prosperity of rural England to the caprices of a comparatively small and rather short-sighted body of men? Who can doubt that small shopkeepers and labourers would, by the practice of self-denial and thrift, obtain some small portion of the land if it were possible to do so on fair terms? There is no one who loves a piece of land on which to found a home more than an Englishman. If what I suggest were possible, villages would expand, agricultural labourers would gain their independence, and would gradually rise in the social scale, from cottage to allotment, from allotment to small holding, and, perhaps, from small holding to small farm. I do not say they would all rise, but there would be a career open to all of them. That is all perfectly impossible now. I would ask those landlords who are present how many agricultural labourers they know who have raised themselves to the position of small farmers? If any hon. Member can quote many, his experience is very exceptional. I am perfectly satisfied that if it happens in even a small degree it must be through the kindness and wisdom of landlords in different parts of the country; but it is common knowledge that landlords who encourage that kind of thing are comparatively few. ["No, no!"] Hon. Gentlemen deny that proposition, but they had better do so in debate. I speak from experience when I say that only in a very few instances does it happen. I know of 80 holdings of three acres and upwards which were started in 1848 by that most admirable landlord in Dumfriesshire, Mr. Hope Johnstone. The holdings were taken by hedgemen, ploughmen, small shopkeepers, foresters, and men of that stamp. They were only granted on leases of 21 years; but the leases have been renewed by the landlord. What has

    1453
    been the result? Anyone who was able to get one of these pendicles—as the holdings are called—was only too glad to get it; and now the pendicles stand as monuments of the success which attends such efforts. But, in the whole county of Dumfries, that is a unique instance. I will now ask the House to allow me to suggest what I think the remedies must be. If this state is to be changed, it is of no use dealing with the old Whig reforms of primogeniture, the simplification of title and registration things which any competent lawyer, if he had his heart in his work, could put into an Act of Parliament to-morrow and pass with the greatest ease. It is necessary to do more; and I maintain that, in order to prevent the involuntary depopulation of the rural districts, it is necessary to give public bodies in the country full powers not merely to take land for public purposes strictly so-called, but on honest terms—that is, a fair price—to take land, subject, if you will, to the supervision of the Local Government Board, for the legitimate use of all persons who toil in the particular district in order to establish allotments or small holdings. If such a form were adopted for the rural parts, in my opinion the towns would cease to be so congested: but that is not at all sufficient. We have to deal with the condition of things in London and other large towns which is a disgrace to the country itself. The London landlords have neglected every duty of their position. They have let their land to middlemen, who sub-let it at enormous rent. The London landlords do not even take the trouble to enforce the covenants of their leases. They omit every sanitary precaution, and they rack-rent the poor people of London to a degree that is even unknown to the peasantry of some of the worst rack-rented parts of Ireland. The Report of the Royal Commission, which, by the way, I regard as a rather halting document, states, in referring to the generally lamentable condition of the homes of the labouring classes, that the first thing which demands attention is the poverty of the inhabitants of the poorest quarters of the towns, or, in other words, the relation borne by the wages the people receive to the rents they have to pay. To such an extent has the evil of excessive rents gone that
    1454
    even in the parishes which have large charities in London the charities are appropriated for the purpose of raising rent. It was proved before the Royal Commission that in the rich London parishes the very fact that there are large charities for distribution raised the rents of the wretched people who live there. I remember a clergyman of the Church of England, who worked hard in one of the parishes of London, at one time telling me that, after all the labour and money which he and his charitable friends expended, the result was enough to break his heart, because their poor were so looked after that even the charity bestowed upon them was the means of raising their rents. I maintain that the London landlords have neglected every duty, and that they stand condemned on the face of the Report of the Royal Commission. If that is so, a public effort ought to be made to remedy the state of things. Private efforts will be of no use, and I am well aware that the public efforts of the Metropolitan Board of Works have been very costly. If there were a better system of legal expenditure in regard to ascertaining the cost of property, and if the American system were, under equitable conditions, introduced, it would be easy to make it cheaper than it is. But, whatever the cost, we cannot allow the work to remain undone. The present state of things is a source of danger to us; it is a source of disgrace to us, and I should be very sorry to believe there was anyone who did not desire to see this hideous evil removed. Now we have the County Council, we ought to give the County Council power to buy and to let buildings, and deal with the question subject to two principles—first, that every honest and industrious man is entitled, as an inhabitant of London, to have a decent dwelling at a fair rent; and, secondly, that the expense of making towns habitable for the toilers must be thrown on the land which their toil makes valuable, and that without any effort on the part of the owner. If the House will deal thoroughly with this question, I am persuaded we shall hear less of the unemployed and of agricultural depression; and, above all, we shall not have those miserable dens which are responsible for half the crime of the country. Hon. Members live in the

    1455
    midst of a city of immeasurable wealth, filled with splendid houses and overflowing with luxury, and yet within a few hundred yards of this House there is a degree of misery which is hardly to be paralleled in the Queen's Dominions. I wonder at the patience with which men endure this misery. It cannot be supposed they will continue indefinitely to submit to a system which condemns them, their wives, and families, to a precarious existence in a wretched lodging, without much of decency or hope of improvement. I appeal to the sense of justice and generosity of the House. It may be that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen now in power may not be prepared to deal with this matter in the spirit which I think necessary—I am afraid the drift of their policy lies in a different direction; but I trust the Liberal Leaders, at all events, will recognize that attention to these social questions in the most important and pressing of their duties, for, if they decline so to deal with them, they will not retain, and in my opinion will not deserve to retain, the confidence of the country.
    *MR. SETON-KARR: Mr. Speaker, I think we, on this side of the House, may fairly congratulate the Mover and Seconder of the Motion on the moderate tone they have displayed in their speeches so far as Party feeling is concerned. But I am not so sure we can go as far as to do that in regard to the remedies they propose. Before referring to the Amendment which I have placed on the Paper. I should like to notice one or two remarks which fell from the hon. Gentlemen who have preceded me. It is not possible in the four hours' debate to consider all the remedies mentioned by the hon. Gentlemen; it is not possible to discuss the question of free education, free food, and free lodging for the people, neither is it possible to discuss the question of the wholesale revision of the land tenure in this country; but some of the remarks of the hon. Gentlemen very well deserve a passing notice. It seems to me that the objection which will be raised against free food and free lodging is that they would demoralize the working classes of the country. The hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. E. T. Reid) indulged freely in the abuse of landlords, and he has proposed as a remedy a system of compulsory purchase.
    1456
    I know many hon. Members opposite look upon landlords as a demoralized and degraded set of men. Granting that they are, I take it we must imagine they are in the possession of ordinary faculties, and therefore is it possible to conceive that landlords as a general class would allow land to remain in pasture if it would pay them better to cultivate it? The hon. Member for Nottingham (Mr. Broadhurst) said that the population of the great cities and towns of this country is congested to a dangerous degree; and in that I heartily agree with him. The hon. Gentleman also pointed out that the agricultural districts are becoming gradually depopulated, because the people are migrating to the towns. In that I also agree with him, but I wish the House to remember what it is that gives rise to this state of things. I ask the House to bear in mind how dense the population is, and to reflect upon the alarming manner in which the population is increasing. The remedies suggested by the Mover and Seconder of the resolution, will do nothing to reduce the density of the population. The population now numbers 37,000,000. Let hon. Gentlemen put all their remedies into operation, and the population will still be 37,000,000. [Hon. MEMBERS: More.] Yes; it seems to me that if we indulge the people with free food and free education we shall put a premium upon an increase of the population. The population is now increasing at the rate of about 1,000 a day, or about 370,000 a year. In another 20 years 8,000,000 will have been added to the population of the United Kingdom, and any remedy for this state of things must take this increase into consideration. If there is no doubt as to the industrial and agricultural industries not being able to support the existing population, can there be any doubt as to their not being able to support the population 20 years hence? We have no Yellow River in this country like the Chinese have in their country, to carry off millions of people at a time, and, therefore, we must look upon it as an absolute certainty that the population in future will constitute a tremendous change to the social condition of the country unless something is done. The hon. Member for Nottingham has attributed a certain amount of the depopulation of the rural

    1457
    districts to the present land system; and my remedy will touch the agricultural labourers before they arrive at the towns. Let me direct attention to the state of things in Ireland. Since the great famine Ireland has gradually been turned from an arable into a pastoral country, because the cultivation of the land was not found to pay. The population has been reduced from 9,000,000 to 4,500,000, and that fact alone is a strong argument in support of colonization. This reduction of the population is exactly founded on the principle of my Motion. I desire the House to distinguish between colonization and emigration. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Dumfries (Mr. E. T. Reid) sneered somewhat at emigration; but there is a great misconception about emigration and colonization. Emigration is simply the transportation of the labourers of this country to the Colonies, often without the approval of our Colonial Governments; but, on the other hand, colonization is not only transportation across the sea, but it is the placing our unemployed labourers and artizans in groups of families on the unoccupied and fertile lands of our Colonies, at a cost probably of £120 a family. Colonization does not mean the pauperizing of the working classes, but a good and sound profitable investment. In 12 or 20 years, too, the people so transferred will very probably become the owners of the land they till. Sir, the State Colonization which we advocate would be more or less based on the lines of the Crofter Emigration Scheme which has been started by the Government. Perhaps the House will allow me for one moment to place before it the scheme which the Colonization Committee spent two Sessions in elaborating, but which we have never yet had an opportunity of debating in this House. The first point in our scheme is that there shall be a Board composed of Colonial Representatives, as the controlling authority; secondly, that a fund shall be raised under Imperial guarantee, unless, indeed, the House suggests a better scheme by way of grants from the Exchequer; and, thirdly, that the Colonization Board shall have a veto on the families selected. Finally, the system under which colonists would become freeholders would be that the property would be mortgaged to the
    1458
    Government at a rent-charge of 4 per cent. extending over a number of years, at the end of which the colonist would become the freeholder of his plot of about 160 acres. I omitted to mention that the Colony which we should advoate as the field for colonization would, in the first place, be Canada, because the Government of the Dominion is favourably disposed and would give free grants of land. The sum required for an average family of five persons for transportation, settlement, and maintenance is from £120 to £150. There are no reasons on the face of that scheme why it should not succeed. It is said colonization would do too much because it would remove the backbone of the country. Now I take it that the backbone of the country are working men in honest employment earning wages. But those are men we do not want to colonize and who do not want to be colonized. On the other band, there are thousands of unemployed crofters and artizans who at the present moment constitute a source of weakness rather than of strength to this country, and they therefore cannot be described as the back bone of the country. But they would be a source of strength to the empire if they and their families were transferred to the Colonies, where they would have elbow room, and where on fertile, virgin soil, in a healthy climate, they would have opened up to them a career of prosperity. Again, we are told that colonization would do too little, and that even if the mere bagatelle of one or two thousand families a-year were transported beyond the seas, it would make no sensible impression on the population at home. But does any other scheme which has been mooted give an opening for anything like one or two thousand families a year? Sir, this is a work which can only be done by the State. It has been asked, why not leave it to private enterprize? Four well managed colonization experiments have been tried since 1883, but in the last five years they have only succeeded in transporting 100 families. I believe the emigration of children has been conducted on a large scale, and I am glad that that has been the case, but of what use are these comparatively miserable results when thousands have to be dealt with? We have to deal with thousands of starving crofters and thousands of working men in the large

    1459
    centres of population who are unable to obtain employment. We have also to deal, on the other hand, with a vast stretch of Colonial property of something like 1000 million acres available for colonization; and how in such conditions can private enterprize do more than touch the fringe of the subject? Sir, it is not for me to go into the wider advantages which I claim for this scheme of colonization; but I should like for one moment to compare it with the scheme of migration or compulsory purchase. I know that the hon. Gentlemen who represent crofter interests have preferred migration to emigration to the Colonies; but where, I ask, are you going to get the land to which you can migrate the congested population of the Highlands? Why, before a generation has passed, every acre will be occupied. I can assure you that for every acre you have at home you can find hundreds of acres of fresh virgin soil in Canada and British Columbia and North Western Australia, which offer far greater advantages to the settler. It seems to me that the quantity of land which can be obtained, and the terms on which it may be secured, offer advantages far above any system of compulsory purchase at home. The two cannot be mentioned in the same breath. Moreover, where are you going to get the money for your migration scheme? Why, you will be taking the ratepayers' money, and using it in a most unprofitable experiment. By sending families to the Colonies you will be increasing the market for home-manufactured goods. Let me call the attention of the House to a few figures. The Germans buy English goods to the extent of about 8s. worth per head, the French 9s. worth, and Americans 10s. But the Canadian colonist buys £2 worth, South African £3, and Australian £8. In other words the successful colonist is worth from four to 16 times as much to the home producer as the foreigner. Therefore, the scheme of colonization which I advocate will be to the advantage of our home trade. From 1882 to 1885 a sum of £44,000 was spent in emigrating 9,500 persons from Ireland; but, unfortunately, 75 per cent of those have been sent to the United States, where they are lost to the Mother Country. As an instance of the value of colonization, I may mention
    1460
    hat one family, sent out many years since, now numbers in its descendants over 500 people, and spends £1,500 or £1,600 annually on the purchase of British goods; thus, by sending people to our own Colonies, we increase our powers of employment at home. I think, Sir, I have shown that colonization is a direct practical remedy, and one worthy the consideration of the House. It will not only relieve density of population, but it will find an outlet for the unemployed labourers on the land who would otherwise migrate to the large centres of population. I quite agree with the hon. Gentleman opposite as to the deplorable contrasts of our social condition at present. On the one hand, we have a small minority who have more money than they know what to do with; on the other, we have a large majority engaged in a struggle for bare existence. If this state of things is allowed to continue, there may be a very rude awakening ere another generation has passed away. Colonization affords a direct and practical remedy for the overcrowded population; but time is of very great importance. We have in Canada a magnificent stretch of country, opened up by railway. If Great Britain does not utilize the vast tracts in her Colonies, alien nations will utilize them, and their place can never be supplied. Even now we find that Germans, Swedes, and Russians are settling on these lands, and we know from the fact that they send home more money than is sent out, that they are prosperous, and are inducing their friends to join them. At one time it was said that our Colonies were an in cumbrance, and some political wise acres committed themselves to a policy of disintegration. But the sound policy is to people our Colonies with our own flesh and blood. I am glad, therefore, that the Government have set on foot, in a small way, a scheme of colonization for the crofters. I do not say this is the only remedy, but it is certainly one of the principal remedies for the great social evils to which the hon. Member who moved the resolution alluded. I should be glad to hear what the Government have to say on a subject which is well worthy of their serious consideration, and how far they purpose to extend their present scheme of Crofter Colonization. I believe we have here a really solid remedy, which will do a

    1461
    great deal to meet the difficulties with which we have to deal in this country, and one which I believe the Colonies will co-operate with us in bringing out; and, therefore, I urge the Government to give it their most careful consideration. I beg to move the Amendment which stands in my name.
    Amendment proposed,
    To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "this House fully recognizes the danger to the well-being of the State caused by the chronic poverty and overcrowding of great numbers of the people living in London and the larger cities and towns of Great Britain, and is of opinion that, in the consideration and development by the Government of some well-devised scheme of State Colonization, an effective and practical remedy for this state of things can be found, whereby an outlet for our unemployed agricultural class now migrating annually to our large cities and towns, and increasing the want and poverty there, will be provided, the large tracts of fertile and unoccupied lands in our Colonies will be profitably utilized, and the evils arising from over-population and agricultural depression at home will be relieved."—(Mr. Seton-Karr.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    *MR. S. GEDGE: I rise to second the Amendment. Of course, all of us will thoroughly agree with the hon. Gentleman who moved the original Resolution and with the hon. Member who seconded it, so far as they confined themselves to dilating upon evils which we all desire to alleviate. But it is an old oratorical trick to talk very much about the evils, and then assume that all who deplore those evils must agree in the value of the remedy which is proposed for them. It seems to me, after listening carefully to the speech made by the hon. Member for Nottingham, that the remedies which he proposed would tend to aggravate the evils rather than to prevent or diminish them. The particular evils which he pointed out in his Resolution were the depletion of the agricultural population and the congestion of our large towns, and his desire is to check the first and to relieve the second. But I find the remedies which are suggested in the Resolution are not such as might have been expected from the hon. Member. We find he suggests that because of the depopulation of the agricultural districts and of the congestion of the town populations,
    1462
    we ought to begin by giving free education and free meals. But we have seen that this can only be done economically when the meals are given in large quantities, and I think the hon. Member who seconded the Resolution has pretty well answered the suggestions of the hon. Member who proposed it, for he showed us most distinctly that wherever you give much charity there rents increase. Rents, like the prices of goods, depend upon the laws of supply and demand, and they can only be increased by the landlord, because a larger number of people go into the towns where the houses are situated. This increase is likely to occur in towns where, as has been suggested, charity is more freely distributed. These are the causes which lead to the rise of rents, and I maintain that if in any place you give charity, either in the form of free education and free dinners for the children or money gifts, there will come an increase of population in that place which will enable the landlords to raise rents. Therefore, the result of giving free education and free meals will be not to diminish or to relieve, but to gradually increase the congestion of the town populations. Well, we are told that a great deal of this evil has resulted from the introduction of machinery. I remember that many years ago I stood on the same platform as a fine old Tory of the good old school, who told us all the evils of the present day resulted from the introduction of machinery and the employment of capital. I have never heard that argument since until to-night I heard it from the lips of the hon. Member for Nottingham, and I did not expect to hear such an argument from him. He certainly is the last man I should have expected to attribute these evils to the introduction of machinery. He seems to have forgotten that at least as much labour must have been employed in the manufacture of machinery as is employed in the growth of corn. He told us it was a very bad thing that the agricultural labourers should leave their farms and go to the towns, because they might have grown corn which now had to be imported from abroad. But I should like to ask him, as a Free Trader, with what he supposes we pay for the corn which we obtain from abroad. Surely we pay

    1463
    for it with the things manufactured by these men. I should have supposed that the reason why these men came to the towns to work there instead of staying in their country villages producing corn was simply this—that they find they can earn more money by working in the towns than they are able to earn by growing corn, and therefore they can in this way obtain for the same labour more of the corn more cheaply in foreign countries. How, then, such a contention could have come from the lips of a Free Trader passes my comprehension. It seems to me that so long as we can make more cheaply machines, and buy more cheaply corn which is produced elsewhere, that is the most economical use we can make of our labour. Then we are told that the large landed estates must be got rid of in order to secure a more equable distribution of wealth. But as we were told last year by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, at the present time there is a general tendency to diminish large accumulations of property and wealth, and to more equally distribute them; and, therefore, what is going on under the operation of natural laws should not be interfered with; it is better to allow it to proceed, rather than to interfere with it by artificial laws. The evidence before the Committee on Town Holdings shows clearly that the large estates are by far the best managed. The houses are the best on the large estates; there is less poverty on those estates, and if you want to find broken-down, wretched, ruinous, and disgraceful houses, you must look, not at the property of the large landlord, but at property belonging to very small holders. Another suggestion is that we should enfranchise the leaseholds. But if you do this, and houses are thereby made cheaper, which the hon. Member expects, but I do not, to be the result, you will gradually increase the populations in the large towns and you will intensify the evils which you now complain of. The only desirable way of removing the population of agricultural districts is to give them better places to go to. Why are the agricultural districts depopulated? Because it is found that you can raise the products of the country by machinery with far less labour than before. Therefore, the
    1464
    people of the agricultural districts, wanting employment, will come to the towns unless you provide them better places to go to. It is said that if you lave small holdings you will have larger crops, and more labour will be employed. I venture to submit that almost universal experience is against that. True, a small holding which comes as an addition to the man's wages is a desirable thing to have. But the hon. Member opposite seems altogether to ignore that last year we passed an Allotments Act. [Laughter.] You laugh, but it is the experience of landlords all over the country that there are more sellers of land in the market than there are purchasers; it is the unwilling purchasers who are scarce, not the unwilling sellers. Landowners are only too ready to sell. But on this question of small holdings, I would point out that large capital produces large returns, and small holdings, comparatively, do not pay. Common sense and experience are against them. The system has been tried in France, where the women become prematurely old from hard work in the fields; and I hope it will to long before we come to that state of things. It is said—"Why should we expatriate these poor people?" If the Irish Channel were filled up and became fertile land, should we not gladly send people to occupy it? Why not, then, send them across the water? How small is the world now, through the introduction of steam and electricity! A man may leave his home and go to the most distant parts with more ease and comfort than in former days he could perform the journey to the North of Scotland or to Ireland. And a man is not expatriated who goes to any of our Colonies and continues to live there as a subject of Her Majesty.
    MR. A. ACLAND: Mr. Speaker, I shall occupy the time of the House very shortly, and I would only say that if the Irish Channel were filled up, and people wanted to occupy it, they would go without any State loan to help them. Now, the question before us is based really on the relations between town and country, and I want to say one word or two on that subject—what is the influence upon our great towns of an influx from the country to the towns, and what is the

    1465
    influence upon the country districts of what is called depopulation? There have been some very interesting figures upon this question, and some are going to be published in a series of essays or articles upon the life of the poor, especially in the East of London. I believe the President of the Local Government Board has already seen, or has had an opportunity of seeing on this subject, the work of Mr. Henry Smith; and I have also seen published an interesting collection of statistics by Mr. Charles Booth, a most able statistician, who has done valuable work in connection with this subject. There are one or two points I should like to draw attention to in connection with this matter. If we take London, we find that there is a larger proportion of country-born people in London than there is of London-born people in the country. There are 37 per cent of country-born people in London, and only 28 per cent of London-born people in the country. But we have a constant movement to and fro. People talk much—too much—as if there was merely a flow from the country into the towns, and as if there was no back current. That is not the case. On the other hand some people imagine that the influx is much larger than it really is. If you take London as a whole, and look at the Census of 1871 and the Census of 1881, and if you simply take the births and deaths in London, and the natural increase of population which will come from that, and if you ask how large is the population in addition—namely, the men coming from the country, you will find that it is only about 100,000 in 10 years, or about 10,000 a year. I fancy many people thought the surplusage was very much larger than that. If you take East London, it will be found, if you calculate the births and deaths, that even a less number of people have come to it from the country in that interval of ten years. It is very important that we should have the facts of the case before us. It is perfectly clear that there has been a large influx from the country districts into various town districts, but not necessarily into London, and still less necessarily into East London. There has been great crowding into places like East Ham and districts of that sort. No doubt, enormous numbers of people have gone from villages to
    1466
    towns, but not necessarily to London, or even East London. They have been filling up all sorts of new, populous, quasi town districts; but, so far as we know, the agricultural population which has left during that 10 years is not large; at any rate, there has not been an actual decrease of the agricultural population of more than 1 per cent. Now I want to go to what the result of this has been upon London; and I take it that this is very much misconceived; in fact there are words in the Amendment just moved which I believe to be entirely incorrect, stating that the agricultural class now emigrating into the large cities and towns are increasing the want and poverty. I believe that is an entire mistake. I believe that if the country people did not come into the towns it would be a very serious and grave disaster to the towns and to the whole country itself. Now, there have been some very interesting figures on this matter. I will just take one or two of them. It has been shown that if you take the criminal class, the working class, and the poor dockyard labourers, you will find among them a larger number of people born in London, or of people who have been 10 or 20 years in London, than of country born people. And if you take the stronger people, those who make the better wages, policemen, men employed in the building trade, or by contractors, or engaged on heavy jobs for big contractors, statistics show, and a very great deal of probable calculation shows also, that there is a very much larger proportion of country-bred people in those employments than of town-bred people. What Mr. Ogle said in his interesting Paper on this subject the other day is probably true. He says—
    "There is a constant migration into the towns of the pick of the agricultural populations, and there must result from this—as there is a higher mortality in the towns than there is in the country—a general deterioration of the whole, inasmuch as the more energetic and vigorous members of the community are consumed more rapidly than the rest of the population. The system is one that leads to the survival of the unfittest."
    The best of our country people leave the country districts, leaving the weaker ones behind. They go into the town and they become London-bred people in time; and they bear children, who in their turn bear children, and become

    1467
    London-bred people, and they begin gradually, more or less, to sink lower down. Well, if that is true, it is a very serious state of things; and it is from that point of view, the quality of the people in our towns, that I wish to treat the question. Now, Mr. Charles Booth has made a most interesting analysis of the condition of the people in the East End of London. Basing his inquiry on the work of the School Board visitors and other careful calculations, he has come to this conclusion. He divides the population into three portions, and he finds in the centre, about 40 per cent of fairly to do working men, with regular standard earnings, and, above that 40 per cent. 25 per cent of a higher class of labour—an upper and lower middle-class. We have nothing to do with that 25 per cent. nor have we anything to do with the 40 per cent middle-class standard, wage-earning labourers. But we are concerned with the 35 per cent which are below the 40 per cent. These are the poor, some very poor—all of them more or less poor. Mr. Ogle takes these 35 per cent. and he subdivides them. He takes the lowest class, which is called the dangerous class, and he says about them that their proportion is very small indeed—not more than 1 or 2 per cent. Above that there come the shiftless people—people who are very often not fit to work if they could get it to do, and who have got into the habit of leaving work even when they get it. This class is about 12 per cent. Then there comes the intermittent earning people, who suffer from every kind of depression. These are 8 per cent. Then comes the small wage-earning people, whose wages are very small. Well, Sir, I think it is a serious thing, although, for my part, I take no pessimist view of the matter, although we are making such slow progress, that there should be 35 per cent of the population of East London who may be called poor, or very poor. There are at least 100,000 of that class who are constantly verging on want and deep distress, and probably the number is something like 300,000 in London, taking them as a whole. What we have to consider is the best way in which we can lessen the number of these people. First of all, we have to bear in mind that they are not the lowest in the scale, but that there is a drift which works down from
    1468
    the other classes in all sorts of ways. It is the popular idea that a great many of the country people who come into large towns, and are in a miserable and wretched condition, at once join the lowest class. I believe that that notion is untrue, although there is no doubt that some of them get into the lowest class at once; but the bulk of them have this advantage, that however poor may have been their food, they have lived in the fresh air and are men of stronger build, with more power and muscle than the town men with whom they come to compete. It is sad to think that many of the modern inventions and rapid developments of industry on which we pride ourselves have only tended to add to the class which goes drifting downwards. One of the rising American economists, General Walker, has said—
    "If we consider the population of the most squalid section of any city we can only conclude that, contrary to the assumption of the economists, the more miserable men are, the less, and not the more, likely they are to seek and find a better place in society."
    The rapid changes of fashion and the innovations made in modern improvements, have a tendency to weaken the industrial worker through no fault of his own. I have nothing in the shape of a complete remedy to offer for these things. Our society is so complex, and its evils are so difficult to deal with, that I always suspect the man who has a panacea to offer. But I think that in our country districts more might be done than has yet been done to retain some of those men whom we do not want to go into the towns, and to improve the quality of some of those who stay. With regard to the reform of the system of land tenure, I am glad to hear the hon. and learned Member for Dumfries say it is so simple a matter. Some years ago the present Premier, speaking of the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, said that Mr. Goschen wished to make the transfer of land as easy as the transfer of Consols, which showed that Mr. Goschen knew more about Consols than he knew about land. Even, however, if we had free land we should not have got to the bottom of this question. I hope that more will be done in the villages to encourage the people to live there. There is a Committee now sitting on the question of small holdings. Any artificial attempt to create them would be

    1469
    an attempt that is not very likely to succeed, but if that same Committee could encourage tenants to purchase where it is desirable to purchase, and encouraged a few independent artizans and labourers living in the villages to buy cottages for themselves if opportunity were offered, I think they would be doing a better thing. Having had considerable practical experience myself, I would say that many of our model villages, though they bear evidence of the philanthropy and good-will of many of our landlords, are by no means the villages which are producing the vigour and the force and the independence in our country people that is wanted, and I do not hesitate to say that I prefer to the model village the open village which is not under the kindly and benevolent despotism of one big man. I look to the time when local authorities will have power to see whether there are men who wish to buy and own their cottages, and that is the reason why I urge the question of village government. On the subject of State loans, I think we had much better try all we can to help the poor people by private moneys before we attempt to run the risk of failure from the State. State workshops have not yet succeeded anywhere. It is of no use to invite the chainmakers to form a large local Industrial Board and then fancy they are going to succeed. They must begin on a small scale. Some hon. Members and others are making an effort in that direction, and I have enough faith in hon. Members and others to believe that they will find the few thousand pounds necessary to make a small co-operative beginning. If a co-operative factory can succeed on good business lines, I have no fear of more money not being forthcoming. On the question of the hours of labour we must be sure that we have the working men on our side, and I should like to see an inquiry into what the great mass of actively employed working men think on the subject. In this House we may do much not so much by legislation as by showing the people that the eyes of the House of Commons are open to many evils that can be removed. On that point I confess I am cordially, heartily, with those who are working with the hon. Member. But should not the House have done something during the
    1470
    last few years to lift these people who have sunk up to the level again; to encourage those more capable workmen who are banded together in unions; and encourage and make their lives more hopeful, more helpful, to those below? Closely connected with these evils, the source of much of the evil is the question of drink. I say, without hesitation, that for this Government to go out of power without having attempted to deal with this question of drink will be to commit a very serious breach of duty. You had an opportunity last year; and if you thought your proposal right, and that it was approved by the country, why did you not put it through? For some reason the Government ascertained that the country did not think it right, and so they dropped their proposal. But they lost a great opportunity; they might have settled the question of compensation and everything else. I know that some extreme temperance men think we can get rid of that altogether, but I am not one of those. Sooner or later there must be compromise; and the time having been settled over which compensation should extend might have been running out; but now the question that lies at the root of this difficulty may remain untouched for four, five, or six years. The present Chancellor of the Exchequer, in a speech at Edinburgh in 1885, said that if Sir Wilfrid Lawson's scheme was capable of being carried to an end it would do more to empty our workhouses than all the schemes of Mr. Jesse Collings. Upon that precise point I will not express any opinion, but I do agree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to the great importance of temperance and education in regard to this social problem. In proportion as we strengthen the fibre and increase the intelligence of our population, we shall certainly increase the wealth of the country. Doing that, we do the best thing we can to remedy one great source of evil. I think we are all agreed. I do not think the Government need fear the country, but what is their position? The new Code does not, so far as we can see, alter the curriculum, there is no proposition for evening schools, and the Technical Education Bill twice mentioned in the Queen's Speech is now dropped. It is disappointing to find so little has been

    1471
    done, but I only hope something will be done before the Government go out of power. It is our duty, with our advantages derived from the rapid industrial development of the last 50 years, to lessen the grievances of the poor who have suffered so much. That is the duty lying before us. To remedy the evils of drink and to increase the means of education may seem but small remedies to apply to all these troubles, but at least these things are something tangible we can do, and, I say, let us put our hands to the work as quickly as possible.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. W. LONG,): The hon. Member for Nottingham at the commencement of his remarks introducing this Resolution, expressed a hope that he had not called the attention of the House to matters unworthy its careful consideration. I will venture to say, apart altogether from the value and the importance of the question raised, the hon. Member's Motion would have been more than justified if it had produced nothing besides the speech to which we have just listened. The hon. Member who has just spoken has succeeded in raising this discussion to a higher level, and has brought to the consideration of this question an amount of practical knowledge, combined with careful, intelligent research, couched in such language that the House has listened with interest, and our thanks are due to him. In that speech the hon. Member made more than one useful suggestion; and, if I do not refer to them in detail, I hope he will understand it is not because I do not give them the importance they deserve, but because the time at our disposal does not allow me to do so. With regard to his references to the Land Question and to the conditions existing in rural districts, I do not feel called upon to defend those conditions, but I do feel bound to express my belief that the great majority of landlords are most desirous so to alter the conditions of rural cottage tenants as to give them a feeling of greater security and independence, and that they have the same rights, and privileges with other citizens of this great country. The hon. and learned Member for Dumfries, who seconded the Resolution,
    1472
    did not, I think, approach the subject with the same amount of knowledge as the hon. Member for Rotherham, and he introduced in his references to landlords as a class an amount of acrimony hardly necessary in a debate of this kind. I can hardly think my hon. Friend was really serious in some of his statements. First of all, my hon. Friend said there was a constant flow of labourers from the country to the towns, and he followed that by a statement that the labourers could not get cottages. If, however, agricultural labourers were constantly going to the towns, and if fresh labourers were not taking their places, there must be vacant cottages, or else the cottages in which labourers formerly lived must have been pulled down. The statement that labourers could not procure cottages is not, I believe, borne out by evidence, and, in my opinion, the hon. Member for Nottingham's contention that there is a constant flow of agricultural labourers going to the towns cannot be maintained. No doubt some few years ago, when the depression in the agricultural interest was heavily felt, there was a considerable flow of agricultural labourers into our towns, and that did for a certain time affect the rate of wages in those towns. But I have been unable to discover that there is going on at this moment anything that can be accurately described as a flow of labour from the agricultural districts into the towns. Having this debate in view, I addressed questions to the general inspectors of the Local Government Board whose business it is to make themselves acquainted with the circumstances of the people in their respective districts, and from all parts of the country the same answers have come to the questions addressed to them. The contention that there is at this moment a large flow of labour going into the towns is not one that can be altogether maintained. Now, let me turn to the speech of the hon. Member for Nottingham (Mr. Broadhurst). The hon. Member expressed the hope that this great subject would be considered in no Party spirit, and that there would be a general desire to discuss it so as to arrive at a remedy. I hope the desire of the hon. Member has been fulfilled. I think it has, and that everybody has tried to avoid

    1473
    partizan spirit. But I confess that, though I listened very carefully to the speech of the hon. Member for Nottingham, I did not find during the whole hour and a quarter he was speaking—and I am amazed when I consider this—that he advanced a single argument in support of the main part of his proposal, or made any suggestion as to remedy. The only suggestions he made had reference to free education and free breakfasts, and that the other towns of England, Scotland, and Wales should follow the example of Glasgow in providing adequate accommodation for the housing of the working classes. So far as his observations upon free education go, I do not propose to reply to them, for they do not come within my purview, nor do I think they can reasonably be considered a cure for the evils he referred to. But in regard to the housing of the working classes, and the praise bestowed upon Glasgow for what has been done in this respect, coupled with a recommendation to other towns to do likewise, I may say that in a great number of our cities and towns there has been going on for a considerable time a continuous effort to increase and improve the accommodation for the working classes. Then the hon. Member told us that the introduction of machinery had caused much suffering; and if there is any argument or deduction in his statement, it means that he regards the introduction of machinery as a great misfortune; but I suppose he is not prepared to advocate a return to the hand loom and hand labour. When I turn to the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Dumfries, I find that he devoted a considerable part of his speech to the power of landlords to deal with the land in their possession. The hon. Member stated that there was a large amount of land going out of cultivation in consequence of the caprice of owners. It would be extremely foolish on the part of the landowners if that were the case with land for which they could get any rent. I am aware of the fact that large tracts of land are out of cultivation, for small parts of which offers have been made, but not accepted, But it would be impossible in such cases, if the small lots were let, to let the remainder. If an owner had 1,000 acres, he could hardly be expected to let 50 acres of the
    1474
    best land, and thereby make it impossible to obtain a Return for the remaining 950. The hon. Member challenged me to say how many labourers had grown into small farmers. Well, I cannot give him the number, but this I will undertake to do, if he or any other hon. Member will accompany me to that part of the West of England with which I am best acquainted. I will undertake to introduce him to a considerable number of farmers who have been labourers, and who occupy buildings, some small, some larger. I could give him many names that occur to me at the moment, but of course that would convey no information to him. I can assure him, from absolute personal knowledge, that the movement has been steadily going on, converting labourers into small occupiers. The hon. Member for Nottingham has stated that he cannot accept the statistics of pauperism as an adequate test. I admit that the House is not invited to consider the question of actual pauperism, but rather the state of those who are struggling on the verge of pauperism. I would not have it imagined that I and those who sit on these Benches are wanting in sympathy for this large class of per sons. At the same time, in speaking of this subject, it is desirable to avoid exaggeration, and I cannot agree that the statistics of pauperism are without value in considering this question. The careful study of these statistics, when the growth of population is borne in mind, will furnish abundant sources of satisfaction. Take the case of some of our large towns. In Manchester, for example, in 1870–71 the proportion of paupers to the population was 56·2 per 1,000; in Bristol it was 70·1. Now, in 1889, in Manchester the proportion has fallen to 27·2, and in Bristol to 53·7. In Liverpool, in the same period, there has been a decrease from 57·3 to 30, and in Birmingham from 36 to 20·3. In Hull the fall has been from 30 to 26, and in Plymouth from 60 to 36. No doubt part of this improvement is attributable to the administration of the relief laws, but this is not the only cause, and it is extremely satisfactory to note that this diminution has gone on side by side with a large increase of population. If the condition of other countries is examined, it will be found that the same process which has

    1475
    gone on in this country with respect to our urban and our rural population is also to be found in action there. It certainly is so with respect to France and Germany. I do not believe that there is any cause at work in this country tending to the increase of pauperism. Then the hon. Member urges that the Government should take some action, though he did not precisely indicate what the Government could do. If it could be shown that any temporary cause is at work, such as existed during the Cotton Famine in Lancashire, when for a time large masses of the population were on the verge of starvation, there might be cause for Governmental intervention to avert the distress that threatened the population of that part of the Kingdom. The causes which lead to this depletion and the causes which lead to this overcrowding of our cities are parallel. Every argument addressed to me to-night goes to show that where the agricultural labourer goes into the town, it is because he can get a better livelihood there than in the country. Does anyone conversant with the land contend that the holding out the hope of a small allotment or a small farm in the country will induce the agricultural labourer to stay at his own village if he has ambition, and feels that he is fit for something better? [Cries of "Yes."] I am perfectly certain that anyone acquainted with our agricultural labourers must know that neither the promise of land nor anything else will keep the strong and active young fellow in his village when he is sensible that he has in him the capacity of doing better. Young men go into towns because they know that in the towns there will be wider scope for their energies. This so-called depletion of the agricultural districts is talked of as something new; but the fact is that it has been going on ever since railways have afforded young men the means of going into the towns, and since the spread of civilization has opened up to them the prospect of doing better than they can in country districts, and we have no right to stop them. I hope the House will not think that I desire to see agricultural wages run down, or the country deprived of its bone and sinew. Not at all. I desire to keep a sufficient number of the young men in the agricultural districts. The hon. Member opposite has not endeavoured to establish the
    1476
    truth of the proposition that the influx of agriculturists is driving labour out of the towns. The Resolution refers to the depletion of the agricultural districts, and the contention I have endeavoured to establish is, that while there is undoubtedly a steady flow of a certain number of young men from the country into the towns, where they get better wages, there is nothing which can be regarded as depletion in the agricultural districts, or which calls for the interference of Parliament. No doubt, in the towns, we are confronted with a great difficulty, and some cure, if possible, ought to be found for it. But the House has not had recommended to it to-night any cure which it can wisely adopt. The hon. Member for St. Helen's (Mr. Seton-Karr) has represented that there ought to be a scheme of emigration undertaken. Well, I had an opportunity of seeing in the course of last year some of the Scotch crofters who were sent out to Manitoba, and nobody can visit those men in their homes without being struck by the fact that emigration or colonization, if properly carried out—if the people are properly selected and properly placed—must commend itself to those who wish to see the condition of part of the community improved. But the House is aware that a Committee has been sanctioned to inquire into a scheme of emigration. At first, it was intended that the Committee should inquire only into the question of emigration of the crofters, but a great deal has been said as to the emigration of others, and the Government see no reason why the scope of the inquiry should not be extended so as to embrace other parts of the country. It is the intention of the Government to appoint a Select Committee at once for this purpose, and then abundant opportunities will be afforded to my hon. Friends to bring forward all the arguments they can in favour of colonization. But whether it is colonization or any other cure for the sufferings of those who are crowded out and unable to get employment, the Government wish well to those who will aid them in sifting to the bottom any proposals which may afford hope of a satisfactory result. I regret that I have been obliged, following the example of others who have addressed the House to-night, to omit reference to many points in the wide

    1477
    area of subjects travelled over. I should have been glad to have touched on many of the points referred to to-night by hon. Members, for the purpose of emphasizing some and controverting others, but I am conscious of the fact that the period allowed for this debate is rapidly coming to a conclusion, and I do not desire much longer to trespass upon the time of the House. I venture to express an earnest hope that the House will not, by the adoption of a Resolution or by any other means, either give an opinion or offer advice which, instead of assisting the classes whose interest has been under discussion, will have a different result altogether. The working classes of this country are justified in looking to this House for advice, guidance, and help when they want it. Those who suffer, whatever the cause may be, are justified in demanding that this House shall pay attention to their sufferings, and, if possible, alleviate them. The responsibility resting on the House is a great one, and I entreat the House to be cautious before they embark in a policy which instead of doing permanent good to the working classes might do them harm, by raising in their breasts hopes which would probably never be realized, and by creating anticipations which would only prove to be false. I believe that if this Resolution in its present form were adopted it would do much more harm than good for the classes in whose interest it is proposed; and, therefore—while having the deepest smpathy with the sufferings of the people whose case has been brought under review—because, in the first place, the hon. Member has failed to establish his proposition, and because, in the second place, while calling on the Government to do something he has failed to tell them what they ought to do, I ask the House to reject it.
    MR. H. H. FOWLER: If we wanted an illustration of the extraordinary way in which this House wastes its time, it could be found in our proceedings this afternoon. Something like five hours were frittered away at the commencement of the Sitting on a discussion as to the stairs in Westminster Hall, and we have been limited to only four hours for the discussion of this, one of the most
    1478
    important questions that ever engaged he attention of the House of Commons, I answer to the hon. Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary to the Local Government Board, who says the hon. Member for Nottingham has failed to make out his ease, I challenge anyone to dispute that there is chronic poverty and congested and overcrowded population in the towns, and that this state of things constitutes a grave danger. The hon. Gentleman has submitted an array of figures to the House, but there are a few figures which he will find it hard to get over. For instance, the population of England and Wales has increased luring Her Majesty's reign 42 per cent; the population of London has increased 108 per cent; Liverpool, 105 per cent; Birmingham, 138 per cent; and Sheffield, 180 per cent. Where has that population come from? It came from the rural districts into the towns. I should not, however, like the House to take a pessimistic view on this question. While there has been a great Increase in the extreme poverty in our large towns, there has been a great improvement in the position and well- being of the working classes as a whole. I attach great importance to the statistics which have been given with regard to pauperism; and I am within the mark when I say that during the past 50 years pauperism has decreased 50 per cent. I will not go into the question of the decrease of crime; but I say this—that, as a rule, the wages of the artizan class have increased, the hours of labour have decreased, and the purchasing power of wages has increased; and the artizan class, as a whole, are in a better position to-day than they were 50 years ago. I think that we are bound to admit that. Well, side by side with that—owing, perhaps, to our prosperity and the enormous development in manufactures of all branches—there are collected in our large towns a large number of people who are almost worst than paupers, living in a condition in which human beings ought not to live. It is, I admit, impossible for legislation to regulate wages or create a demand for labour; but legislation can deal with the conditions under which these people earn their wretched living and the conditions under which they live. In the first place, legislation can alleviate the

    1479
    conditions under which they earn their living by a wise and firm and liberal extension of the principles of the Factory and Workshops Acts, bringing not only factories, but private houses in which industry is carried on, under its operation. We may also deal with the question of the labour of children and women. I am prepared for drastic measures in reference to the labour of children. By depriving the house of the labour of a child we should, no doubt, be inflicting a temporary evil, but we should at the same time be producing a future great good. A man and his wife have no right to live on the earnings of little children. Then, I should like to know whether the President of the Local Government Board believes that the existing sanitary legislation with reference to the houses of the people, even in London, is being carried out? Why should we allow large landlords and others to draw gigantic rents from miserable hovels? I do not say that Parliament should fix a rent, but it has a right to say that a landlord shall not put a human being into a house which is not fit for human habitation. It is a public nuisance as well as a private wrong, especially in London, where exorbitant rents are demanded. There is no legislation strong and wide enough at present to deal with poverty, but much may be done in the direction of improving the dwellings of the poor, and I am sure that the House, without distinction of Party, will support the Government in bringing such legislation forward. Many of the evils complained of to-night may be removed by legislation, and I deplore the fact that the Government have decided to negative the Resolution, which merely states undoubted truths. I appeal to the House and the Government to avail themselves of this opportunity of publicly endorsing a fact as to which there is no dispute, and of recognizing a duty which devolves on us, and also of averting what I believe to be a national danger as well as a national disgrace.
    *THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE,): Because the Government are not prepared to accept all the language of the Resolution, it must not be supposed that they are not in sympathy with the object which the hon. Member has in view. I
    1480
    agree with much which has been stated by the right hon. Gentleman, but I do not believe it is so much a want of legislation in connection with the housing of the poor which is felt as it is a defect of administration, connected with the melancholy condition under which the poorer classes dwell in our large cities. So far as London is concerned, I am satisfied that there lie in the hands of the County Council powers of a very large character, which, if properly exercised, will do much to diminish the evils of which the poor have so much reason to complain. The Government are anxious as hon. Gentlemen can be to see the condition of the poor in our larger towns elevated, and to add to their happiness and comfort; but they believe that by accepting the Resolution on the Paper they would be assenting to a proposition recognizing that the depopulation of the agricultural districts is going on at a large and rapid pace, which they do not admit. It is proposed to appoint a Select Committee to inquire into the subject of emigration.
    MR. H. H. FOWLER: What are the terms of the reference?
    *MR. RITCHIE: It will be in the following terms:—
    "That a Select Committee he appointed to inquire into various Schemes which have been proposed to Her Majesty's Government to facilitate Emigration from the congested districts of the United Kingdom to the British Colonies or elsewhere; to examine into the results of any Schemes which have received practical trial in recent years, and to report generally whether in their opinion it is desirable that further facilities should be given to promote Emigration; and, if so, upon the means by and the conditions under which such Emigration can best be carried out, and the quarters to which it can most advantageously be directed."
    MR. J. MORLEY: Are we to understand from the reference that this Committee is to inquire, for example, into the congested districts in Ireland?
    *MR. RITCHIE: The United Kingdom.
    It being One of the clock a.m., the Debate stood adjourned, and Mr. Speaker adjourned the House without Question put.