Commons Sitting of 3 June 1889

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  BANN DRAINAGE BILL.
  Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment proposed to Question [31st May]—
  "That leave be given to bring in a Bill for the improvement of the drainage of lands, and for the prevention of inundations within the catchment area of Lough Neagh, and the Lower Bann; and for other purposes relating thereto."—(Mr. Arthur Balfour)
  And which Amendment was,
  "To leave out from the word That' to end of the Question, in order to add the words inasmuch as the proposed scheme of drainage is essentially local in character, and tends principally to the benefit of the landlords owning the land in the districts affected, this House is of opinion that all such works should be undertaken by, and at the expense of, an Irish Local Administration,'"—(Mr. Conybeare,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  Debate resumed.
  MR. W. REDMOND (Fermanagh, N.)I wish to point out that the opposition to those Bills does not come from the Irish representatives. The hon. Member for Camborne last year, as this year, was, and is, the person who is really responsible for opposing the introduction of these Bills, and while I hope the Amendment oil the Notice Paper of which he has given notice may not be carried, I can quite understand the feeling which has prompted him to oppose the introduction of these Bills, involving as they do hundreds of thousands of pounds of money which will have to be found by the taxpayers of this country, and which money will be expanded in Ireland for drainage purposes, without practically the English having any control over the expenditure. Now, the whole Of the difficulty is how that
  1724
  money is to be expended, and I can fully appreciate the feeling of the hon. Member when, looking back upon the very many blunders committed in Ireland in the past with regard to public works, he thought it inadvisable to allow this cash to pass out of the control of Parliament. I think, however, that the declaration of the Chief Secretary for Ireland to the effect that the Irish Board of Works will not have control over the expenditure of the money granted under these Bills will go far to remove the opposition to their introduction. It was an unfortunate thing that it was proposed that the Board of Works should have something to do with the Shannon Drainage Scheme, and I hope the matter will be removed out of their hands, because everything which that Board undertakes in Ireland turns out to he a failure. Under the circumstances, I trust that the hon. Member for Camborne will not press his Motion to a division, but that the Bills may be allowed to be introduced. I know it is said that last year the progress of these Bills was postponed owing to the action of certain representatives from Ireland, but I wish to say that that statement is absolutely without foundation. We did not oppose the introduction of the measure, and I may add that I am rather disposed to agree with the hon. Member for North Armagh, who spoke on Friday, and said that practically there was a unanimous feeling among the people in all parts of Ireland with regard to the passing of these Bills. At the same time, many of the Irish people are strongly of opinion that such works as these can only be properly carried out under a Home Government in Dublin. We feel that there should be some responsible Central Authority in Dublin to superintend and look after the carrying out of these works, and I do not think it is possible that such undertakings could be carried to a successful issue under the present system of Government, a system which is responsible for results equally unsatisfactory to the Irish people and to the English taxpayer. Still, I again repeat that we, the Irish Members, do not offer any opposition to the introduction of these Bills, although we desire at the same time to give expression to the very strong feeling that we hold that these works cannot be satis-

  1725
  factorily completed under the present system of Government in Ireland.
  SIR C. LEWIS (Antrim, N.)I wish to thank the Government on the part of my constituents for thus pressing forward the Bann Drainage Bill, which so much affects the County Antrim. I wish to refer to the unsubstantial but successful opposition of last year to the Bill, which was the cause of losing a whole year in carrying out this necessary undertaking. The renewal of that objection this year has shown by the result how shadowy and unreal such opposition is, and it only rests with the Government to press this and the kindred measures forward this Session. No real opposition can in such a case be met with, at least from the majority of the Irish Members or of any section. The House is frequently appealed to to bring forward remedial measures for Ireland, of which in truth there have been plenty, but this also is practically a measure which has been brought forward at the instigation of an independent Royal Commission, and I therefore hope that the Government will not fail to insist on these Bills being finally dealt with by the House this year.
  MR. LEA (Londonderry, South)I prefer the old-fashioned practice of discussing details of Bills such as these on the Second Reading, and, therefore, on the present occasion, I only intend to urge upon the Chief Secretary for Ireland the desirability of getting the Second Reading of the Bills over as quickly as possible, and then referring them, not to a Committee of the whole House, but to a Select Committee, which may hear evidence and report to the House. I think it is desirable that questions of engineering and compensation for eel fisheries should be referred to a Select Committee rather than be discussed in this House, and I trust therefore that the Chief Secretary will adopt the course I have intimated.
  MR. STOREYI take the liberty of assuring the Chief Secretary for Ireland and the House, and especially the hon. Member who spoke last, that whatever may be the course taken by the Irish Members as to these Bills, the hon. Member will find himself very much mistaken if he supposes that they will be allowed to pass into law without strong and strenuous oppo-
  1726
  sition on the part of the Radical Members representing English and Scotch constituencies, and that, not because we doubt the inherent advantages of the plan to Ireland, but because we hold that these remedial measures for Ireland ought to be carried out at the expense of Ireland. At the proper time it will be my duty, and the duty of every one of the Radical Members in this House, to oppose these Bills on the ground that it is unjust and improper that the money of the English taxpayer should be taken in order to carry out these works in Ireland. Still for the present I would suggest the desirability of withdrawing the Amendment which has been moved on behalf of the hon. Member for Camborne.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL (Kirkcaldy)I was one of those who took objection to these Bills last year, and although I am quite ready to admit that any expression of opinion on the details is not quite in order in a Second Reading debate, still I may point out that we have seen the measure, and at any rate were fully justified in taking objection to the principle which they involved. The principle of these Bills, so far as we are concerned, is that British money is to be spent in Ireland, and it is avowedly the first step in the direction of attempting to govern Ireland by bribes. You are seeking to govern the country partly by coercion, and partly by the expenditure of British money. In pursuance of that policy you are promoting these Bills, and I think that now is the time for us to speak out what we believe, or else we must hold our peace for ever after. Now, I am unfavourable to these Bills because I think that Irish improvements ought to be carried out at the expense of Ireland. I am unwilling to throw good British money after bad Irish money, and believing that Home Rule must come sooner or later, I think it is very doubtful, if we so spend our money, whether we shall get it back again. The Irish Secretary has not attempted to make out a case for granting the British subvention; he has not attempted to show that the districts in which this money is to be expended are particularly congested or poverty stricken. On the contrary, we know that one of the Bills provides for works in one of the most prosperous parts of

  1727
  Ireland—in Ulster—and I want to know why we should make an Imperial subvention to such a prosperous part of Ireland. I speak feelingly on the subject as a Scotch Member. We see that you are lavish in spending your money on Ireland, but you are not so lavish in spending it on Scotland. There is another thing I want to know. How is the money to be found? Is it to be voted as a special Estimate, or is it to be put in the ordinary Estimates? I hope it is not to be given away in the shape of a loan. I hope it will be asked for at the hands of the British taxpayer by a direct Vote, and unless we get some more satisfactory explanation on this point showing that the districts to which the money is to be paid are really congested and impoverished, and requiring Imperial subvention, and unless, also, we are informed how the money is to be obtained, I for one shall feel it my duty to oppose the introduction of the Bills.
  MR. MOLLOY (King's Co., Birr)We have had large experience of drainage and other public works in Ireland, for many millions have been spent on such schemes, and there is nothing but failure and wreck on every side. Only recently the Land Commissioners have been forced to value as flooded lands lands on which two or three millions had been spent for drainage, so there we have an instance of the inutility of many of these works. Now I look upon these Bills also from another point of view. Their inception is entirely due to the Government, who have excluded from the examination of the scheme everybody Nationalist. No Irish Members on the Nationalist benches have been allowed to have anything to do with the schemes, which are to be carried out by people who have no interest in the country, and who have no experience in these matters. Then, look at the Commissioners who are to be appointed. We find that they do not command the respect of the people of Ireland for such purposes as those. I repeat that the whole of the scheme is to be carried out without any reference to the representatives of Ireland and to the opinions of the Irish people, and we have the fact that similar schemes which have been tried in the past have proved failures, so that we may now judge how the money is
  1728
  likely to be squandered. I look upon the whole of this scheme as a political and Party bribe, and I find that already some of the newspapers are seeking to give the Government credit for the action they are taking in these matters. Looking at this proposed expenditure as a bribe, and bearing in mind how the public money is likely to be wasted, and for the reason that we have no hand in the business, but are absolutely excluded from it, I am sorry to say I shall feel it my duty, as at present advised, to offer strenuous opposition to this waste and squandering of public of money, and to the necessary increase on taxation on the people without any equivalent being forthcoming.
  MR. BIGGAR (Cavan, W.)No doubt it is an exceedingly pleasant thing to spend other people's money. Under this Bill a very large sum belonging to the British taxpayer is to be spent, and while it is being spent, things will go on with the greatest smoothness. But nobody on whom the money is expended will give the smallest thanks to Her Majesty's Government. Until the people are called upon to pay the taxes which will be necessary to recoup the Government, all will go on very pleasantly, and no one will object to the way in which the money is squandered. But as soon as the taxes are wanted, those who are the most complacent now will protest and shout the loudest. Forty years ago there was a scheme for the navigation and drainage of the Bann, and large sums of money were foolishly wasted in mixing up those two objects. I do not see why the present taxpayers should be called upon to pay for the money which was thrown away then. The Government seem to me, in dealing with this question, to have commenced at the wrong end. If we had a Local Government Act in operation in Ireland, there would be somebody with local knowledge who would be able to say what works were desirable, and whether the proposed expenditure is discreet and proper. The Bill proposes that the taxpayers should have power to veto the scheme, but it provides no machinery by which an expression of the opinion of the people can be obtained. For these reasons I regard the measure as objectionable, but there is also another, and that is that the people who reside in the valley of the

  1729
  Bann are not badly off. The valley is an exceedingly wealthy one, and if they are willing, the tenants are perfectly well able to bear the expense of draining the land without coming to this House for assistance. Of course they are backed up on this occasion by certain Members of Parliament, who want to make a little capital by posing as their friends and saying, "See what fine fellows we are, and what a good thing we have got for you out of the British taxpayer." But I do not think that the Government ought to buy support in that manner. When a Local Government Bill has been passed it will be time enough to say whether there shall be a drainage scheme or not, and what parts of the country shall be taxed for the cost of it. I shall certainly support the Amendment of the hon. Member for Camborne.
  MR. W. HARRIS (Galway, E.)I entirely differ from my hon. Friend who has just spoken, and I think that £380,000 is the smallest sum which the Government could propose for drainage works in Ireland. I have given great attention to this question of drainage, and I believe that a sum of —20,000,000 will be required before the necessary works are properly carried out. I am certainly astonished at the opposition which has been given to the expenditure of so small a sum of money, especially when it is known that it will give employment in the neighbourhood, and be beneficial to everybody. I should not have thought that the English Radicals would have been so exceedingly anxious about the expenditure of this small sum. Mr. Giffen told us at the time the Home Rule Bill was introduced, that Ireland was paying £6,000,000 a year more than she ought to pay in the shape of Imperial taxation. If that statement is true, it is absurd to say that the small sum of money involved in this scheme will come out of the pockets of the general taxpayer. I am glad to hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) that the tenants who live on the banks of the Bann are prosperous. At the same time, I am afraid that a good deal of nonsense is talked about the prosperity of the North of Ireland. There are a great number of persons there who are very poor indeed, and I think it would be most undesirable to
  1730
  spend money on the Shannon and the Suck, and leave out the North of Ireland. So far as the prosperity of the North is concerned, the more prosperous it is the better I shall like it. Hitherto there has been a considerable amount of bungling in regard to these drainage questions by the engineers and the Board of Works, and I should be glad if the Government would consent to the appointment of a Committee to ascertain the best way of carrying this scheme into effect. At present we have only reached the first stage of the Bill, and I sincerely hope that no obstruction will be given to its progress on this side of the House. I do not understand why we should hesitate to accept from the Government any measure that is likely to increase the prosperity of the country. I shall certainly vote for the Bill, and I hope that the Party of which I am a member will do the same.
  MR. BLANE (Armagh, S.)As I represent a county which is much affected by this Bill, I desire to say a word or two upon it. No doubt the money formerly granted was entirely thrown away. The works were carried out in such a way that tens of thousands of acres were flooded. Instead of being of service to the people they were disastrous, and the tenants were taxed for having their lands flooded. I should like, therefore, to know what security the Government propose to give that their present performance is not to be a repetition of the former wasteful one. What assurance have we that after the money has been squandered the people of Ireland will not be taxed to repay it? We have certainly no confidence in the machinery by which it is proposed to carry out these works. Are the persons who are to expend the money and to carry out the works elected by the people? Not a bit of it. There is not a man who will not be nominated by some clique at Dublin Castle. For instance, one of the persons who will control the navigation of the Bann is a gentleman who resides 400 miles from its mouth, who knows nothing about it, and is merely a retail draper in the City of Dublin. We do not believe in him, we do not trust him; and I maintain that he is not a man to entrust with the spending of the public money. After a year or two, when failure stares

  1731
  us in the face, and complaints are made that the money has been spent to no purpose, we shall be told that the blame rests upon us, because we had a band in voting it. If anything goes wrong, to whom are we to appeal? Are we to appeal to this House? So far as I can make out, there is not machinery for an appeal in the event of anything going wrong. Not long ago I was in a place where the Board of Works, who will probably have a good deal to do with the spending of this money, had built a breakwater within a reef at a point which the water very rarely reached. As a rule, the money which has been granted for the improvement of Ireland has been spent by an irresponsible body, whom neither the ratepayers nor the Irish would trust. For these reasons I cannot fall in with the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Galway (Mr. Harris) that it is desirable to vote this money, and I think that no public money ought to he expended without very careful supervision. For my part, I would not sanction the expenditure of one farthing of the public money unless I felt assured that satisfactory results would accrue.
  MR. CLANCY (Dublin Co., N.)I agree, in a large measure, with some of the criticisms which have been passed upon this scheme by my hon. Friends on those Benches. There can be no doubt that many thousands of pounds have been spent in Ireland upon such works as are proposed to be provided by this Bill, and that the money has been absolutely wasted. Indeed, the country is studded all over with monuments to the disgrace of the Governments which planned the works, and of the Boards of public bodies which carried them out. Moreover, a certain amount of demoralization has been produced among the people by the expenditure. I entirely agree with the view of my hon. Friend the Member for King's County (Mr. Molloy) that this is a political bribe. It is only right that the people should understand that the £380,000 to be expended under this Bill is part of the price which Great Britain has to pay for the Union. There is no doubt that Ireland ought to make provision for its own public works as England and Scotland should do for theirs, but so long as you insist on retaining the management
  1732
  of Irish affairs in your own hands, so long, at all events, will my voice never be raised to stop the expenditure in Ireland of these hundreds of thousands of pounds. It is the same with all other expenditure. The Estimates presented every year are perfectly disgraceful. Enormous salaries are provided, and a large staff of civil servants employed, and it is well understood that the system is part of the price which this country has to pay for maintaining the present system of Government. It is said that Ireland ought to provide for its own wants, but it ought not to be forgotten that, although that is a good general principle, yet Great Britain owes a considerable debt to Ireland. Even the Chief Secretary has told us that England owes a large debt to Ireland for the destruction it has caused in past centuries of the Irish industries. That fact ought not to be forgotten, and, therefore, it does not affect my conscience that these large sums of money should be voted for Irish purposes which, under other circumstances, would be provided for by Ireland herself. I rose, however, for the purpose of making a suggestion. I think it will be a great misfortune if, in carrying out these works, precautions are not taken by the Government to prevent a wasteful expenditure, and, therefore, I would suggest that the Bill should be sent to a Select Committee not composed in the usual way, but composed wholly or mainly of Irish Members. I believe that this is a matter in which the Ulster Members will sympathize with us, and there are certainly hon. Members on that side of the House who understand the circumstances of the river district of the Bann much better than any English, Scotch, or Welsh Member in this House. I think it would be almost an insult to the Irish people to have a scheme of this kind thrust upon the House without consulting a single Irish Member as to its provisions. I am afraid that no suggestion which comes from this side of the House will have much effect upon the Government; but, at all events, I would suggest that this is a matter which should be sent to a Select Committee composed principally of Irish Members.
  MR. PARNELL (Cork)Before the Motion is put, I desire to say a few

  1733
  words. I am afraid they must be words of a general character. Of course, I applaud the action of the Government in bringing forward a measure dealing with what undoubtedly are the very pressing wants and necessities of Ireland. But at the same time I am bound to confess, having regard to the experience of the past, that I do not entertain any great degree of hope. If this Rouse is going to undertake seriously the task of improving the industrial resources of Ireland, we should require to have a separate Minister responsible to Parliament, upon whom the eye of public opinion could fall, and who could be especially charged with the work. There is no country in the world of the same area where there is greater scope for industrial improvement than Ireland. It cannot be said that the Chief Secretary, so far as I have ever heard, whatever his capacity and qualifications may be, has specially devoted himself to the technical questions involved in the Bill under discussion and the larger Bill relating to industrial improvement; hence it will happen that we, or those who desire to follow the progress of these Bills, will be obliged to take hold of the right hon. Gentleman and to ask him to devote a small portion of his leisure to this particular branch of Irish work. I very much fear that the result of this legislation will be disappointment to the right hon. Gentleman and his Party, to the Irish tenants, who hope to benefit, and to the British taxpayers, who, to some extent, are bound to be the losers, and not the gainers, by the transaction. I should like also to say that before you can hope to deal with this question of the industrial improvement of Ireland, it will be necessary to alter the entire system of Local Government in that country, and especially to replace the present Board of Works either by a Minister or an elected body, which would be responsible to public opinion. It is a mere putting of the cart before the horse for the right hon. Gentleman to suppose that ho can construct any offhand system of representative opinion in the localities affected, which would supply the want of a complete system of Local Government. But if I go further afield, and beyond the fringe of industrial improvement, and come to any real development of the resources
  1734
  of that country, I see that you want a great deal more than Local Government—that you want a Parliament, before you can ever hope to develop the superabundant resources which wait for development in Ireland. However, I do not propose to go further into the question of either local self-government or national self-government, except to say that I, for one, desire that the investment of British credit in Ireland may be a remunerative one, or, if it cannot be a remunerative one, that it may, at all events, be a satisfactory one in the sense of being an investment which will result in some good for Ireland, if it does not bring back to the pocket of the British taxpayer interest on the money expended. I fear in the very crude measures under consideration we shall only tread the oft-trodden path of repeated failure under the Local Government Board of Ireland. Our Irish coasts are strewn with monuments of the absurd incapacity of the so called Irish Board of Works in matters of engineering. They seem incapable of dealing with the simplest engineering problem. Whether it is that they desire to make money go a long way, or whether it is that they are removed from observation, the result is the same. Whether the works are fishing piers, the deepening of rivers, or larger operations, the complaint always is that the money has been wasted, and that the works provided are insufficient and useless for the purpose for which they were originally designed. I am glad the Government are spending money in Ireland, however, and glad that they represent a rich nation which is able to afford the expense, and that when the money has been thrown into the rivers or seas, as the case may be, it will not prove an irremediable misfortune for the constituency of the right hon. Gentleman or this great and wealthy nation. No doubt, if the safeguards adopted in other countries where a normal state of public affairs exists could be adopted, expenditure of this kind would be most prudent, but under the present circumstances I can only say—and we desire to deal with the right hon. Gentleman candidly—we do not wish the Government to walk into this expenditure with their eyes shut. Whatever they do let them do it with fore-

  1735
  sight, with a knowledge of the danger and almost certainty of failure. Before I sit down I desire to ask one question. The right hon. Gentleman has told us that in those cases where the tenants are taxed it will not be left to the landlords to charge them any increase of tax in the form of rent on their improvements. I want to ask on what principle that safeguard to the tenants is to be calculated? Is it to be calculated on the principle contained in the Land Act of 1881? An almost identical clause occurs there to the effect that no rent is to be made payable in respect of improvements made by the tenant on his predecessors in title. I wish to know if the same principle is to be carried out in this Bill, because, if it is, it will be a useless one. In the case of the Land Act of 1881, the Supreme Appellate Court discovered a principle called "the improvable capability of the land." The Court held that a tenant was only to be shielded from increased rent, for as far as the amount of money expended on making the improvements went, but that the increased value to the land resulting from the improvable capacity of the land should go to the landlord. Where, at a cost of £20 the letting value of the land is increased from £20 a year to £100, the tenant, according to the decision in the case of Adams and Dunseath, is only entitled to so much of the increment as is represented by the amount expended—that is to say, £20—and the remaining £60 gives to the landlord. In other words, the landlord is entitled to raise the tenant's rent from £20 to £80. It would be absurd under this Bill to confine the tenant's interest in the proposed improvements to the amount of the loan granted for the purpose of effecting the improvements; and if the right hon. Gentleman says this Bill contains a real provision to protect the tenants, then he is on the horns of a dilemma, for he ought at once to remedy the defect in the Act of 1881.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURI do not know whether the hon. Member expects me to deal with the various matters he has referred to. He has brought in the problem of Home Rule and our old friend "Adams v. Dunseath." I do not at all admit that the framers of the Bill are on the horns of a
  1736
  dilemma. These works will be carried out largely by Government gift and by Government loan. With regard to the part of the cost for which the tenants are made responsible, the landlord is entirely excluded from the benefits which will accrue to the tenants. There is no parity of reasoning between the case of the tenants under the present Bill and that of the tenants under the Act of 1881. The provisions of this Bill will make the tenants absolutely secure.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Arthur Balfour, Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland, and Mr. Jackson.
  Bill presented and read first time. [Bill 257.]

  BARROW DRAINAGE BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Arthur Balfour, Bill for the improvement of the drainage of land, and for the prevention of inundations within the catchment area of the River Barrow; and for other purposes relating thereto, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Arthur Balfour, Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland, and Mr. Jackson.
  Bill presented and read first time. [Bill 258.]

  SHANNON DRAINAGE BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Arthur Balfour, Bill for the improvement of the drainage lands, and for the prevention of inundations within the catchment area of the River Shannon; and for other purposes relating thereto, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Arthur Balfour, Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland, and Mr. Jackson.
  Bill presented and read first time. [Bill 259.]

  SUCK DRAINAGE BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Arthur Balfour, Bill for extending the time for the completion of the works under certain Acts authorized to be executed within the River Suck Drainage District; for providing money for defraying costs, charges, and expenses incurred by the Drainage Board for such district; and for other purposes, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Arthur Balfour, Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland, and Mr. Jackson.
  Bill presented and read first time. [Bill 260.]

  LIGHT RAILWAYS (IRELAND).
  MR. A. J. BALFOURSir, I now beg to move for leave to introduce the fifth of the measures which I have placed upon the Paper, embodying the scheme of the Government for improving the industrial resources of Ireland. It will be in the recollection and knowledge of the House that in 1883 an Act, which was known as the Tramways (Ireland) Act, was passed by the Government of the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. Gladstone), and, I think, under the auspices of the right hon. Member for Bridgeton (Sir G.Trevelyan). It is upon the basis of that Act, though largely differing from it in some of its main provisions, that the chief part of the scheme I have the honour to introduce is ultimately founded. Under that Act a capital sum corresponding to an annual outlay of £40,000 was authorized to be expended upon the construction of tramways and light railways. I suppose that such an annual outlay would represent a capital sum of about £1,333,000. Under the Act of 1883 seven railways have actually been completed and are in operation at an expenditure corresponding to an annual outlay of £10,290. Seven more railways have practically gone through all their preliminary stages, and the Treasury are pledged to provide money for them. There will then be left a capital sum still to be disposed of under the old Tramways Act corresponding to an annual outlay of £18,000. Therefore, rather more than half the money provided by the Act of 1883 has already been expended. Now, Sir, the Act of 1883 has been fruitful in good results and may yet be fruitful in further good results, but experience has shown that in many respects it is defective, and that there are in it many provisions which may with advantage be amended. The Government are of opinion that, besides amending the Act of 1883, we ought to bring in at the same time some plan, framed in some respects on essentially different lines, for dealing with the poorer and more congested districts of Ireland. The scheme of the Government divides itself naturally into two parts, the first being Amendments in matters of detail of the Act of 1883, and the other being the new scheme that the Government desire to bring into
  1738
  operation for extending railways through the congested districts in the West of Ireland. I propose to deal with these two parts in the order in which I have named them. The first matter of detail in which, I think, the provisions of the Act of 1883 ought to be altered relates to the time at which the Treasury guarantee is repaid to the Local Authority. Under the Act of 1883, when the locality has paid its guarantee of, say, 5 per cent to the promoters, it is allowed to come to the Treasury and ask for repayment of a portion of that sum, which I may roughly put at 2 per cent. In the first half-year the Treasury has got half a year behind in the payment of that 2 per cent, and has remained so. I do not see any reason why that should be continued. The Treasury, I think it was in 1884, expressed its perfect willingness to get over the difficulty, and they were only prevented from doing so because the terms of the statute of 1883 would have rendered it illegal. We propose now to put that right. The second point is, in some respects, of more importance. Under the old Act it is possible, I believe, to have no less than three or four persons, who are sometimes called auditors and sometimes arbitrators, charged with the investigation of the accounts. All those practically acquainted with the working of the Act are of opinion that this arrangement led to unnecessary expense and difficulty, and I therefore propose to substitute for the auditors and arbitrators a single auditor who will be appointed by the Board of Trade. The third Amendment I propose to make in the Act of 1883 is to confer somewhat greater elasticity upon the definition of the word "capital," as used in that Act. I believe it is not in the power of the Privy Council to allow capital to be used for the purpose of paying interest during the construction of a tramway. I think that is an unduly rigid application of the word "capital," which does not really lead to economy in the construction of the line, and which renders it more difficult to obtain promoters and companies which will successfully carry out the undertaking. The fourth matter of detail on which I propose to amend the Act relates to the Standing Orders, if I may so describe them, which were laid down by the Act of 1860, which wa

  1739
  the original Act dealing with tramways in Ireland. Under the provisions of that Act, as modified by the Act of 1883, all undertakings in regard to tramways in Ireland have to be carried into effect. There is no discretion left to the bodies before whom those schemes are discussed to alter any matters of detail. We propose to give power to amend any errors that may be committed, and to give to the bodies before whom the schemes are discussed power to suspend the Standing Rules. We further propose to grant powers to raise new capital under substantially the same guarantees as were placed by statute on the raising of the original capital. It sometimes happens that the original capital proves insufficient for the undertaking, and that additional capital becomes necessary. I do not think it ought to be made too easy to raise fresh capital; otherwise we shall lend ourselves to extravagant administration, but, under the guarantee the Government propose to impose, I do not think any danger will be incurred. The sixth main alteration we suggest is that facilities should be given to promote working arrangements between one tramway company and another, between tramway and light railway and between light railway and other railway companies. There are no powers under existing Acts of Parliament for carrying out such arrangements, and that state of facts results in great inconvenience. We also proposed that all tramways under the Act of 1883 should be placed for certain purposes under the jurisdiction of the Railway Commission. Now. Sir, I have enumerated the main points in which we think we may amend the details of the Act of 1883. There is one question connected with both the first part and the second part of the Bill upon which the House will expect me to say a few words—namely, the much-vexed question of the comparative merits of the broad and the narrow gauge. Not only theorists but practical men have differed on this point. I believe promoters of tramways and light railways were not allowed under Lord Spencer's Government to have the narrow gauge. The Commission appointed in 1887 reported strongly in favour of the broad gauge. Undoubtedly strong arguments have been urged in favour of the broad gauge. The advocates of the
  1740
  broad gauge say perfectly truly that it affords the necessity of transshipment at the point of junction between the narrow and the broad gauge, with the consequent reduction of cost and inconvenience, and also the avoidance of risk of damage to the more perishable kinds of goods. It is also said that the broad gauge is far more convenient because it is necessary to keep on a light railway as large a quantity of rolling stock as will meet every possible emergency, it being impossible to supplement the stock from any other source; and, further, it is alleged that the broad gauge is not really much more expensive. Oil the other hand, I have received strong representations on the other side from persons who are practically acquainted with the actual working of some of the lines already constructed. They say that the cost of transshipment does not amount to more than 3d. per ton, and sometimes to only 2½d., and that it is an illusion to suppose that fresh fish are materially injured by such transshipment. They add that transshipment must occur between the light railway and the main trunk line even if both are on the same gauge, and they deny the allegation that the narrow gauges are not much cheaper. Upon these and various other auguments they put in a strong plea why the Government should insert in the Bill some provision in contradiction to the recommendations of the Royal Commission and in favour of the narrow gauge. The Government have, perhaps, taken a somewhat cowardly course in this matter. Feeling the arguments differ so widely, they have left it open in the Bill as to what kind of gauge should be adopted. Next I come to the important provisions which deal with the suggestions as to promoting railways in the poorer parts of Ireland. Under the Act of 1883, the Treasury never came into direct contact with the promoters, nor are they responsible to them. Though the Treasury give a guarantee, it is not a direct guarantee to the promoters, but a guarantee behind the barony guarantee and dependent on it. I did not think he should be justified in asking the Treasury to relax that principle with regard to the northern parts of Ireland, but I think I may ask the Treasury to relax it when dealing with the poorer and congested districts, because the result of that prin-

  1741
  ciple is that the locality has to pay much more in order that the necessary capital may be raised than it would if the Treasury gathered directly. Broadly speaking, the credit of the localities in Ireland does not enable them to go into the money market and get better terms than 5 per cent, even though the Treasury guarantee is behind them. In the present Bill the Government propose, in dealing with the congested districts, to make the guarantee direct, and therefore enable the money to be raised practically at 3 per cent. A proposal which brings the Treasury directly into contact with the promoters of the line no doubt requires justification, and I find that justification really and solely in the poverty of the districts with which we have to deal. The population over a large part of the West of Ireland, as the House well knows, is crowded along the seashore, where they can obtain seaweed for manure; they till land of poor quality, often much over-crowded, and always remote from means of communication. I believe that if Parliament could give them the advantage of these railways, we should not only increase the actual value of their holdings by bringing their agricultural produce into some proximity with the market, but we should do a great deal to foster that industry whose prosperity is so near the heart of every man interested in the welfare of Ireland—the fishing industry. I have lately been told that a 31b. haddock caught off the coast of Donegal actually sells for a halfpenny, simply because the district is 20 or 30 miles from a railway. That, then, is my justification for the proposal with regard to the Treasury. I have even larger hopes, because I cannot help thinking that if by means of this plan we can bring these people into closer contact with the outer world and raise the standard of being amongst them, we shall by natural means promote that emigration from local districts which I am certain every impartial observer, whatever his views, cannot but regard in his heart as the greatest blessing. With regard to financial machinery, the Royal Commission reported strongly in favour of encouraging in every way the existing railways to be promoters, and the Government strongly concur in that recommendation; and we go a good
  1742
  deal further in some respects. We should desire, without going to the locality for anything, that the Treasury should be able to induce existing railway companies to construct, to maintain, and to work lines through these congested districts, and, in order to effect that object, we propose that the Treasury should have power to negotiate with the railway companies for this purpose, giving the Treasury the very widest latitude with regard to the terms which they may offer. They may give to the railway companies the whole or any part of the money which may be thought necessary in order to induce them to carry out this object. Of course in any contract of that kind it will be absolutely necessary for the railway company on their side to engage to maintain and work the line. Be it observed that the lines through the districts in question are not likely to be lucrative. Where they are likely to be remunerative assistance is not wanted but where they are not remunerative, and where they may not even for some years pay working expenses, it is specially necessary for the Treasury to come forward with the money [An hon. MEMBER: As a gift?] As a gift. But it is perfectly possible the railway company may prove unreasonable, and that the Treasury may not be able to come to terms with them. We, therefore, propose to have two strings to our bow. We propose to retain the power of granting to promoters other than railway companies the amount of money which they require to construct a line. If that is done, the line, of course, will be constructed on cash principles, and those who construct it will get 3 per cent certain. But what is to happen under these circumstances if the working expenses of the line exceed the receipts? If the railway company construct the line that point will not arise. But in the other case it is absolutely necessary to have a baronial, or rather a local, guarantee. In it 1883, the local guarantee was used for two purposes. It was used to pay the interest promised to the promoters of the line; and it was also used to supplement any deficiency that might arise in the working expenses of the line. The Government do not propose to ask these poor localities to pay anything in respect of the first of these

  1743
  bjects, the baronial guarantee in other words, will not go to pay any part of the cost of the original construction of the line, but we do propose to ask for the baronial guarantee up to a certain fixed amount, which shall in no case exceed 6d. in the pound, in order to enable them to meet any deficiency on the working expenses of the line. I stated just now that, although the guarantee under our scheme was a local one, it was not a baronial. Under the Act of 1883, the taxation for the purpose of constructing the line cannot be spread over a smaller area than a barony, and the result has been, and very likely will be in the future, that parts of the barony are taxed that benefit either not at all, or in an insignificant measure. We do not think that a good plan; and we propose, therefore, with regard to these railways constructed in congested districts, to tax for the limited purpose I have described only the area which is benefited by the railway. It is further proposed that the amount of the tax shall be limited to a sum to be fixed beforehand, and that it shall not in any single instance exceed 6d. We further propose the, before the locality is asked even to accept this limited liability for this limited purpose, the popular opinion of the ratepayers shall be taken and they shall have the right, if they please, to reject the scheme. Of course it is impossible to ask the Treasury to give money on these terms without limiting the amount so given. We propose, therefore, that the capital which may he used under this Act shall be a capital sum representing £20,000 a year, and in no case is it to exceed £600,000.
  COLONEL NOLANNot enough.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURThe hon. and gallant Gentleman says it is not enough. When it is expended Parliament may if it thinks fit give more. The sum of £600,000 in addition to the amount given under the Act of 1883 is not an ungenerous gift, and the terms under which it is given are certainly not niggardly. Of course, vnder a plan which provides that the Government is practically to supply the whole cost of construction of the line, it is necessary to give the Government powers to determine between what points and through what country the line is to be constructed.
  1744
  Under the Act of 1883, there is no power to select between the different schemes advanced in different parts of the country; but in this case we have retained the right to decide which scheme is to be taken first. I do not know that I need go more into the details at this stage of the Bill. I may say, however, that the congested districts will have to be scheduled, and this work will probably be done by the Local Government Board. Under the five schemes which the Government have thus brought forward with regard to public works, the sum of £385,000 is given to drainage, and £600,000 to railways in congested districts. The total sum given as a free gift, wholly irrespective of loan, is practically a million sterling. I think it would be admitted that the Government have approached this problem in no narrow or niggardly spirit. I venture to hope, in spite of the criticisms which have been poured upon me from below the Gangway opposite this evening, that it will also be felt that we have taken some pains to secure that the money which we are asking the Treasury to give with no stinted hand, shall be expended in a manner profitable to the community for whose benefit we intend it. After the reception which the Drainage Bills have met—a reception which, except in one case, I have no reason to complain of—I hope I may appeal to the House not to approach the Railway Bill in any Party spirit. We live in an embittered atmosphere of controversy with regard to the Irish question. I suppose that is inevitable, and being inevitable it will, and must, extend itself, to a certain extent, to any proposal which this or any Government may make with regard to public works in Ireland. But one statement has been advanced upon which I should like to make an observation. We have been told that the Government desire by these measures to buy support. [Mr. BIGGAR: Hear, hear.] That may be the view of the hon. Member for Cavan and the other hon. Gentleman who cheered —the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir G. Campbell)—but I, on behalf of my colleagues, beg absolutely to repudiate the suggestion. If it had been the intention of the Government to buy support by measures of this kind, we could not have made a more idiotic proposal. [Mr. BIGGAR: Hear, hear.] The hon.

  1745
  Member for Cavan is perfectly right. I listened with great interest to his speech. He told us that probably when these works were completed, the amount of gratitude the Government would receive for them would be comparatively small. I believe it will; and this million sterling is not intended by the Government as a means of purchasing gratitude. What we hope for is that we will be able to do something to solve the most difficult part of the Irish question. Some parts of the Irish question hon. Gentlemen opposite think they can solve by changing the method of Government in Ireland. I will not argue that point. But do not let any man in his senses attempt to tell me that a modification of the machinery by which Ireland is governed is going to help solve the question of the congested districts in Ireland. After the reception which the less popular scheme dealing with drainage has met with from hon. Gentlemen opposite, I am not without hope that they may do the Government the justice to believe that in bringing these schemes forward, and in asking the taxpayers to make a sacrifice, which I admit to be a large one in amount and one of a very novel kind, they are animated by as sincere a desire for the welfare of Ireland as hon. Gentlemen are who profess specially to have the interests of that country committed to their keeping.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to facilitate the construction of Light Railways in Ireland." —(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)
  SIR G. TREVELYANI certainly am quite as much adverse to attempting to make any Party capital out of this question as I am to making a speech on the First Reading of a Bill. The Secretary for Ireland has in no way exceeded his rights on this occasion, and I am sure that every one who has listened to the right hon. Gentleman will agree that he has given a clear exposition of the matter before us. I wish, however, to ask one or two questions. I gathered that the right hon. Gentleman proposes to make a guarantee of 2 per cent for the whole of Ireland.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURI do not propose to touch the relations between the locality and the promoters as they
  1746
  exist under the Act of 1883 with regard to Ireland generally, but entirely to modify them with regard to the congested districts.
  SIR G. TREVELYANI thought the right hon. Gentleman proposed to make a 2 per cent guarantee. [Mr. A. J. BALFOUR signified dissent.] Then I was mistaken. With regard to the Amendments of the Act, which I took some share in passing in 1883, I may say that they are all extremely carefully considered and extremely practical. It appears to me that we are giving the money, for this is a gift. It is not like the guarantee of the Indian railways, for although the money might be in some cases a gift, yet in no case did it profess to he a gift, because the State looks forward to the time when even the Madras railways may pay. But if the State is to give money, I would very much rather give it in the shape of rail ways than in the shape of drainage. Considering the certainty that this £600,000 will be used for the benefit of the country, the more than uncertainty that the £383,000 will be used for the benefit of Ireland, and the still greater Uncertainty that this will be the last public money to be sunk in the drainage of the Suck and the other Irish rivers, I must say that the hopes I entertain from this Bill will render me much more unwilling to accept the Drainage Bills until something more is known about their past and their future than is known at present. I hope the House will agree to this Bill. If it does so, however, it will have to find some arguments to distinguish between the West of Ireland and the West of Scotland, and those arguments will not be easily found, and I am glad of it. What interests me about the measure so much is that it is a carefully drawn Bill, and the sum is a limited one. I hope the money will be doled out in such a manner that we shall be able to discover what amount of money is required to give this great advantage to a district like the West of Ireland. If the West of Ireland can be provided with these light railways for anything like £600,000, then I think we should be induced to apply the same remedy to districts which are almost in every respect— economically, socially, and in some serious aspects politically—in the same position as the West of

  1747
  Ireland. I think that the Crofter Members would do well to watch the debates with very great care, and to watch with still greater care in order to see what practical advantage the West of Ireland gets from a scheme which, I believe, is one of the very best that has been brought forward for its benefit.
  COLONEL NOLAN (Galway, N.)This Bill is not unlike the Bill which I had the honour to introduce some time ago—the Light Tramways Bill. I trust, however, that it will meet with a better fate, seeing that my hon. Friend the Member for Cavan was most effectual in blocking the Bill which I brought in. The chief point in this Bill is the direct nature of the guarantee; the weak point of the old Bill was the indirect nature of the guarantee. The Government guaranteed 2 per cent and surrounded it with all sorts of contingencies. I think the Chief Secretary will only be half doing his work if he does not extend the direct guarantee to the other districts of Ireland—not only to the congested districts, but to the other portions of the scheduled districts in the West of Ireland, so that money may be raised upon a much lower rate of interest. So far as the general result goes, I think it is an extremely good scheme for those districts which will be lucky enough to get the advantage of it. I do not represent Connemara, but I gather from the remarks of the Chief Secretary that the Bill will apply specially to the districts that lead to the sea coast. The right hon. Gentleman has not said whether he is going to endorse the whole of the engineer's scheme or simply to adopt the narrow-gauge plan, which, although it involves a break of gauge, will certainly enable the money to go much further. It is quite clear that if we are going to have a railway from Galway to Clifton, one in Kerry, another in Donegal, and another in Mayo, the money will not go round. On the whole, I think the guarantee is a fair one, and it provides that no district shall pay more than 6d. in the pound. I believe, myself, that these railways will pay the working expenses and recoup the Government for the money they propose to advance, if they are made economically. The Chief Secretary's sketch of the Bill is satisfactory, but I do not think that it ought to be discussed upon the question
  1748
  of gratitude. When it is remembered that Ireland pays £8,000,000 a year in taxation, and only gets back £1,000,000 in the course of five or six years, there is no necessity to talk of gratitude. Large sums of money, measured by tens. and hundreds of millions, are spent at Woolwich and Portsmouth, and there is nothing on a corresponding scale to be found in connection with Ireland. This. Bill simply gives back to Ireland a little of her own money, and very little too.
  SIR J. M'KENNA (Monaghan, S.)I hope that the right hon. Gentleman if he accepts the railway companies as promoters of the new undertaking, will not hold out to them that they are to get a guarantee from the baronies for the working expenses.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURI expressly excluded that.
  SIR J. M'KENNAI give the right hon. Gentleman the greatest credit for his scheme, and I believe that the proper persons to guarantee the construction of these railways are the existing companies with whose lines the railways now proposed will be brought into connection, and who will be benefited by the traffic. It would be a great mistake to suppose that the profit on railway extensions is confined to earnings on the new mileage. The chief profit is derived from increased traffic on the old lines. There is another point which I wish to remark upon, namely, that in regard to a Government grant of this kind, I think it should not be spoken of as a gift; it is nothing of the kind. The Irish people are entitled to just and generous treatment in return for the disproportionate amount of taxes they have had to pay, as I shall very briefly point out. In the first 50 years after the Union, Ireland contributed £200,000,000 to the Imperial Revenue, that is to say, at the rate of £4,000,000 a year. There they came what I designate a period of transition—five years during which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian made a new departure, placing fresh burdens on Ireland. In the following 25 years (1856 80, both inclusive), she contributed: £7,000,000 a year in fact three millions a year more than. she had to pay under the obligations imposed upon her by the infamous Act of Union. I am nut, however, denouncing the Union at present; I use

  1749
  the phrase rhetorically to point out how much worse we have been dealt with since 1853 than for the first 50 years of the Union, no matter how bad it was. Ireland paid £60,000,000 more than her legitimate share in the 25 years, and the injustice continues. The result is that if you measure all the taxation of Ireland, the annual Imperial taxation of that country will be found to be at the rate of 5s. 4d. in the pound on the whole incomes of Ireland, whereas the entire Imperial taxation of England would not equal an income tax of 2s. 6d. in the pound on the total of English incomes Having said this, however, I must add, I wish the Government every success in their new scheme.
  SIR G. CAMPBELLAs I ventured to cheer a remark of the right hon. Gentleman I desire to explain why I did so. I have not the same objection to the Bill before the House as I had to the Drainage Bills. I have an objection to give money to improve one of the richest districts of Ireland as we are told the Valley of the Bann is, but where you are dealing with congested districts I do not see the same objection, and therefore I do not intend to oppose the introduction of the present Bill. I trust that my right hon. Friend the Member for the Bridgeton Division is right in his idea that there is to be nothing in the nature of a guarantee such as has been given in the case of the Indian Railways. To relieve the congested districts of Scotland or Ireland at the public expense is quite a different thing from benefiting one of the richest districts in Ireland at the public expense.
  MR. BIGGARIn my view the Government are merely introducing the Bill to distract attention from the state of things in Ireland, and to provoke Irish discussions of a different kind from those to which we have been accustomed. Under these circumstances the House would do well to scrutinize the projects of the Government narrowly. The Chief Secretary has made the peculiar admission that by the Act of 1883 great injustice was done to a considerable proportion of the ratepayers, and if this is so, ought any extension of the system which came in under that Act to be granted? I believe that not more than one or two of the schemes in operation
  1750
  pay their working expenses. We have heard a good deal in regard to the Irish fisheries. There is a fishing town which for a long time has had direct communication with Galway, but nevertheless it is far from prosperous, in spite of the good railway communication which it possesses, and it cannot be worked profitably. The fishing population are exceedingly badly off, and the Government refuse to put a stop to trawling. There is a railway from the town of Ennis to Miltown Malbay, and yet in the course of from six to twelve months only three tons of fish have been carried over it. Experience has proved that the new light railways are really of no service in the carrying of fish; the only real occupation for them is found in what is done on fair and market days. I hope the Government will allow nothing but the broad gauge lines to be built. The fallacy of the schemes is, to my mind, the paying of interest out of capital during the progress of the works. The old fashion was to pay dividends out of profits, but the new system is to pay dividends out of capital, and to put a tax upon those who have to find the guarantee. The only real occupation for the now railway will be with the traffic on fair and market days, and the rolling stock required for this purpose will be idle for 28 days out of the 31, and if rolling stock is to be borrowed from some distant places then nothing but a broad gauge line should be sanctioned. I am glad the Bill is introduced. It will afford us the opportunity of amending the Act of 1883. When that Act was passed it was originally projected that the Government should give 2 per cent and the local ratepayers 2 per cent, but through the pressure of a swindling syndicate I believe, and at the instance of a then hon. Member of this House, Captain. O'Shea, the guarantee was raised to. 5 per cent, the extra 1 per cent coming out of the pockets of credulous and unfortunate ratepayers. But I do not oppose the introduction of the Bill. I do not see that any substantial injury will be done except to the British taxpayers, who will be simply plundered a little more.
  MR. LEA (Londonderry, S.)Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the Bill will be distributed?
  MR. A. J. BALFOURI cannot say, but I will undertake that no time shall be lost.
  Question put, and agreed to.

  LIGHT RAILWAYS (IRELAND.)
  On Motion of Mr. Arthur Balfour Bill to facilitate the construction of Light Railway in Ireland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Arthur Balfour, Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland, and Mr. Jackson. [Bill 261.]
  Bill presented and read first time.

  SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES SUPPLY—considered in Committee. (In the Committee). CLASS II.
  £5,000, Mercantile Marino Fund (grant in aid).
  MR. HANBURY (Preston)I have given notice of a Motion to reduce the amount of the grant by £5,000. I think the time has fully arrived when inquiry should be made into the peculiar administration of this very peculiar fund. I do not know whether the Committee really understand the nature of the Mercantile Marine Fund. Up to 1842 all the lighthouses around our coasts were wholly under the administration of private corporations and private individuals. There were no fewer than some 50 private rights which had been granted by different Sovereigns and different Parliaments, and dues were levied under those grants out of which those private individuals made large fortunes. In 1842 those private rights were bought up by the Trinity Board, with the result that in future all the lighthouses around the coast were in the hands of the Trinity Board, the Scotch Commissioners, and the Irish Commissioners of Lights. Up to 1853 practically no control was exercised over their administration. Dues were levied at their will and pleasure, and the accumulations went into what was practically a private purse. But in 1852 Mr. Disraeli in his Budget statement called attention to the administration of these Light Dues and the complaints made by the shipping interest as to the way in which they were administered. Thereupon in the next year Mr. Cardwell, the President of the Board of Trade, allowing Trinity House to retain all its accumulations, invented what is now called the Mercantile Marine Fund, requiring that all Light Dues should be paid into this particular
  1752
  fund and that they should be used for particular and special purposes. But even then, as the money was not voted by Parliament, Parliament had not sufficient and direct control over the administration, and it was not until 1882 that the control of Parliament was actually brought into play. In 1882 Parliamentary control arose in the following manner. Certain new claims were thrown on the Mercantile Marine Fund in connection with shipping and the relief of distressed seamen, and it was calculated the extra charge on the fund would be about £40,000 a year. This being so, it was arranged that a Parliamentary grant in aid of £40,000 should be given for five years to inset the new charges thrown on the Mercantile Marine Fund, and if the £40,000 was not sufficient for that purpose the old Mercantile Marine Fund was to make up the deficiency. It must be remembered in regard to this fund that although the £40,000 was based on the fact that certain extra duties, which entailed extra expense to the amount of £40,000, would be thrown on the fund, this particular sum of £40,000 was in no way ear-marked. The voted and non-voted money was put into one purse. If the £40,000 was not sufficient to meet the new charges, then the old Mercantile Marine Fund had to make up the deficiency, and if it was more than sufficient then the Mercantile Marine Fund would get the advantage; but the moneys that were voted and those that were non-voted were all thrown into one purse and were under one management; they were not under the control of the Auditor General and not brought before the Public Accounts Committee. Therefore it depends on the general administration of the Mercantile Marine Fund. whether the House should go on voting this £40,000. There are many good reasons why at any rate this year we should carefully review the position. In the first place the five years, the term for which the grant in aid was arranged to be paid, expired in March, 1888, and yet we have twice had the same sum put on the Estimates. Not only have the grants been exhausted, but it looks as if the fund altogether will become exhausted, because not only were the grants of £40,000 not sufficient by £13,000 to meet the new charges thrown on the Mercantile Marine Fund,

  1753
  but that fund itself has run largely into debt in the last three years, to the extent of nearly £150,000. Therefore I think that before we agree to continue these grants we ought to have a clear idea of the way in which this Mercantile Marine Fund is administered, especially having regard to the important duties of the Commissioners in connection with the management of lighthouses all round our coasts. The administration of the fund I will venture to say shows almost every possible defect. It is in the hands of four large Boards, amongst whom responsibility is entirely frittered away. At the head of them is the Board of Trade, itself a very respectable Department, no doubt, but it has very little of this money to spend, and very little control over the other three Boards, who spend nearly the whole of it. The other Boards are Trinity House, with 31 Members, the Irish Commissioners, and the Commissioners of Northern Lights, each with 22 Members, and these three Boards are in no sense responsible to this House, and they conduct their expenditure in a manner that sends a shiver through the Auditor General and his precise staff of assistants. The two latter Boards more especially have not the most rudimentary responsibility, and freely indulge in dinners and yachting excursions at the public expense. I have had some difficulty in finding out who the Members of the Boards are, but this we do know, that the charges for superannuation for these three Boards is £15,000, although the annual salaries of the Boards are only £27,000. The Scotch Board consists of the Lord Advocate, the Solicitor General for Scotland, 5 Provosts, and 16 Sheriffs. Now I would ask the House to consider what amount of technical knowledge in relation to the important duties under the control of the Board can be possessed by these Gentlemen. The Irish Board consists of merchants and members of the corporation of Dublin, and it is only by accident that a single seaman is on the Board with anything like knowledge of lighthouses. There is another point about these Boards which increases their irresponsibility, and that is, that they receive no pay. I am one of those who think that if there are responsible duties to be performed, they should be paid for; if they are onerous they should be paid for in proportion. There can
  1754
  be no doubt that if payment is not made directly it is received indirectly in the shape of patronage for a large staff, and various pickings and perquisites of which the Boards know well how to avail themselves. The members of the Trinity House Board pay £7,000 a year in salaries. The Scotch Board can only get perquisites, and is quite willing to render accounts. The Irish Board likewise has its perquisites, but it does not care to render accounts. The Trinity House Board consists of 31 members, and 20 of these are considered practical men who do the work, but then these 20 make too large a Board, and, what is most objectionable, they are self-elected. Ten members of the Board are simply ornamental—Princes, Cabinet Ministers, and other persons. Now I strongly object to ornamental Members upon any Board of the kind; I object to it in connection with the Patriotic Fund, with the Queen Anne's Bounty Fund,or anything else of the kind. The Treasury it has admitted has no control what ever, absolutely no guarantee against wasteful expenditure. The Controller and Auditor General has shown how in many instances the Board have acted without any authority whatever, and that was clearly shown in the evidence of Mr. Stoneham before the Public Accounts Committee. The Board of Trade has no control over the accounts.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir MICHAEL HICKS BEACH, Bristol, W.)Not the general account.
  MR HANBURYBut it is in the general account and in the establishment charges that extravagances occur. For instance, had there been any control, the Commissioner would never have obtained permission to buy land in Ayrshire at £685 an acre. The Auditor General in his evidence complained of the unsatisfactory manner in which the accounts were made up. Up to last year items wore given is gross, and the Treasury backed up the Commissioners in refusing to give information. Four years ago the accounts were subjected to audit, and then strange revelations were made. In 1884 the funds in hand amounted to £ 429,000. When the Auditor General reported in 1886, the securities had decreased by £300,000, and the cash by nearly £20,000; in March of the following year, 1887, the Mercantile Marine Fund had already

  1755
  borrowed £150,000 from Greenwich Hospital, and the balance was reduced by £7,000, making a total loss of £157,000. By March 1888, £50,000 more had been borrowed and spent, leaving only £50,000 more to be borrowed on the Light Dues,and the cash balance had sank from £100,000 to £60,000. Nor do I feel sure that this can really be called the amount of assets, because there is a large amount of the money which consists of unclaimed wages belonging to deceased seamen, and this, I think, can scarcely be called assets. Nor do I understand why this is not advertized in the papers read by the working classes instead of in the official Gazette. While £200,000 had been borrowed and spent, and accounts were not rendered, lighthouses were neglected and necessary expenditure upon them not incurred because funds were lacking for the purpose. This appears from Mr. Stoneham's evidence. The Controller and Auditor General complains of the form in which accounts were presented last year, and he says that it does not bring receipts and expenditure under the notice of Parliament in a clear and satisfactory manner; totals are given without clear explanation of how they are made up. Although the Trinity Board and the Commissioners of Irish Lights do not furnish us with any details of this strange expenditure I find that the Commissioners of Northern Lights—the Scotch Board—are a little more frank in the matter, and the light they throw on the way the money is spent is not encouraging to the other Commissioners. I find this account rendered—they gave a dinner at the Waterloo Hotel, Edinburgh, in January, 1886. There were 47 people sat down to dinner, and the cost was £179, or nearly £1 a head. The dinner itself cost 30s. a head, but there was not a single bottle of wine drunk which cost less than 21s. 6d. a bottle, and, as more than two bottles a head were consumed, the cost of this item was more than £2 each person. In addition, 124 glasses of brandy were drunk. Next year the dinner bill was reduced to £142. In that year we have something to show us that if a strung hand were kept on these Commissioners and they were forced to render accounts a great saving might be effected in these personal
  1756
  expenses. Take the Trinity House. Attention having been called to this extravagance, in 1877 a diminution was made from £4,900 to £2,614 in one head of expenditure, and in another from £ 2,327 to £800. And in the case of this £800 they declared that if they were left alone they would still further reduce the expenditure, and the Treasury, I believe, came to terms with them on that condition. The management of these three Boards still costs £66,000 a year, or a great deal more than 20 per cent on the total expenditure. There is a deficit altogether of £155,000 a year; but of this, £72,000 is attributable to the remission of certain dues by the right hon. Member for West Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain), when he was in office; and £12,000 is attributable to the £40,000 granted by Parliament for certain extra charges being deficient by that amount. There still remains a deficit of £70,000. Whatever the explanation may be, the facts which Parliament has to deal with at the present moment are, that there has been a loss of nearly £160,000 a year for nearly 4 years; that £200,000 has been borrowed; that there remain only borrowing powers to the extent of £50,000; and that, as I have shown, the work on the lighthouses is largely in arrear. That being the case, it is clear that the lighthouses cannot continue to be administered by these Boards as at present constituted. We must have some new arrangement in the future, to ensure not only that the necessary work is done and nothing is left undone, but that the whole system of this Mercantile Marine Fund shall be simplified and improved. Now, although these Commissioners and the Mercantile Marine Fund are bankrupt for all public purposes—and I should like to have information from the Board of Trade in regard to this—they are rich in private funds derived from public money. In 1820 the interest on the stock they had invested in the public funds was newly £7,000 a year, and I gather that they had £230,000 invested. Their receipts from estates amounted in the year to £2,316, and they had a total income of £65,568, only £38,000 of which was spent on lighting and repairs. I cannot find what was done as to this money during the next 12 years, but we get some in-

  1757
  formation by a side-wind in regard to the enormous profits made out the lights in the hands of private individuals. The right to levy Light Dues had been given to Court favourites and others as a source of income. In 1832 these private persons collected £79,690, and spent on the lights only £19,000; and a proof of the enormous funds at the disposal of the Trinity Board is to be found in the fact that in the year 1842 they bought up all the private lights for £1,250,000, and paid off the whole amount out of their surplus Light Dues in 12 years at the rate of £100,000 a year. In 1853 these Light Dues were paid into the Mercantile Marine Fund. The Trinity Board seemed to be aware of the fate coming on them. They thought they should set their house in order, and during the four years previous to 1853, through putting by a surplus of £100,000 a year to pay for private lights, they were able to reduce the Light Dues to the extent of £118,000, showing what an enormous surplus they must have had in preceding years. In 1853, Mr. Cardwell, then President of the Board of Trade, was able still further to reduce the Light Dues by the sum of £100,000 a year. The question is how far the accumulations, which it is evident they possess, should be drawn on to meet the deficiencies of bad years. I think a good case can be made out for asking, what are the funds of the Trinity House at the present moment? In 1824 a Committee, of which Mr. Hume was chairman, went carefully into the question. They denied the right of the Crown to grant any of these dues, and declared that the whole of the money should be appropriated to the maintenance of the lights, and that the Trinity Board had not even the right to devote any of it to charitable purposes. The Trinity House, however, went on devoting £30,000 or £40,000 a year to charities, and so gross did the scandal become, that another Committee sat and condemned the practice. Coming to the question of how these funds should be administered in future, there are two ways of meeting the existing difficulty. One is by increasing the receipts, and the other is by reducing the expenditure. I do not think it would be a good principle to try and increase the receipts, and even if it were good it would be insufficient.
  1758
  They were increased last year by 16 per cent, which only brought in £62,000, and in that increase, according to the best authorities, they have reached almost the full limit of their tether. Instead of increasing the receipts, what ought to be done is to decrease the expenditure, and bring about better administration. We ought also to decide whether this is to be in future a tax on our shipping, or a tax leviable on the whole of the people of the country. I am inclined to think that the latter principle is the correct one. I do not think the tax should be levied on the whole of our trade—
  THE CHAIRMANOrder, order! The hon. Member has taken a very wide latitude. It is going altogether outside the limits of the discussion to argue whether or not the dues shall be levied on the commerce of the country.
  MR. HANBURYVery well, Sir; all I will say is that the present system of levying the dues partly by taxes on the shipowning interest and partly by grant in aid is a system which should be brought to an end. I think the grant in aid should be largely increased, and that the whole of the funds should be paid to one body, the members of which should be fewer than at present. There should be no ornamental members, and the body should be a responsible one. Perquisites ought to cease, and we ought to have a statement of accounts in future showing how the money is expended. The Controller and Auditor General ought to make a more exhaustive audit of these accounts than he is able to do now. The matter is an important one, involving as it does the safety of our Royal and Mercantile Marine and the lives of our sailors; and I trust it will have the serious attention of the Government. I beg to move the reduction of the Vote by £5,000.
  MAJOR RASCH (Essex, S.E.)As representing a mercantile constituency, I beg to support my hon. Friend in his observations upon this somewhat remarkable Department, which appears to me to unite the eccentricities of the Metropolitan Board of Works with the peculiar finance of the Pension List. In 1882, as my hon. Friend has said, this Department came under the observation of the Controller and Auditor General, and for reasons best known to

  1759
  himself it was four years before he took notice of the accounts brought under his supervision. When he did notice them his Report was of a startling character. He pointed out that the Department has gone to the bad to the extent of £300,000, and that an enormous sum was being spent on uniforms, travelling expenses, and dinners. At one of the dinners to which my hon. Friend has referred, while £100 was spent on wine, only 6s. was spent on mineral waters. If the taxpayers are to pay £40,000 a year, this Department ought to be put under strict control; and if there are to be no more pensions, no more dinners, no more uniforms, it is possible the country may get more value for its money.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACHThe hon. Members who have spoken on this subject have somewhat wandered from the precise object of the Vote before the Committee. The Vote is for £40,000 in aid of some expenditure thrown by Parliament many years ago on the Mercantile Marine Fund. Not one penny of the money is given to the Trinity House, the Commissioners of Northern Lights, or the Commissioners of Irish Lights. The purposes for which this £40,000 is voted by the House are for the survey staff employed in surveying ships, for the expense of casualty returns, and for the relief of distressed seamen, and all the expenditure is under the Board of Trade. My hon. Friend went into the general questions of the Mercantile Marine Fund, the Light Dues, and the circumstances antecedent to the Act of 1854, by which the Mercantile Marine Fund was placed under the Board of Trade. With respect to the Trinity House, that is a very ancient Corporation, something like 600 years old, and acting under different charters. The whole matter was investigated by various Select Committees before the passing of the Mercantile Marine Act of 1854. What the private property of the Trinity House has to do with the Vote before the Committee I cannot imagine. That property was obtained from Light Dues, and from other sources under ancient charters and patents. These charters and patents were examined into by Parliament, and it was found that the property of the Trinity House belonged to them just as much as property belongs to any other
  1760
  Corporation. I, as President of the Board of Trade, have no knowledge of the property; I have no control over it in any way, and no authority to make any inquiry into it. If my hon. Friends wish to attack the property of the Trinity House they ought to do so by definite motion in the House, and not by speeches on this Vote, with which it has nothing to do whatever. My hon. Friend has spoken of the Mercantile Marine Fund and stated that the financial control of the Board of Trade is of no use. But in the course of his speech my hon. Friend showed what the Board of Trade has done to reduce the expenditure of the three Lighthouse Boards and what I did last year in order to clear the Mercantile Marine Fund from that bankrupt state in which it was a year ago. My hon. Friend charges the three Boards with extravagance in entertainments and matters of that kind; but he admits that much has been done to diminish that expenditure, and I think he ought to have read the paragraph in the Report of the Controller and Auditor General, in which he deals with the subject of diminished expenditure, and states that the charge on the Mercantile Marine Fund for the maintenance of the Trinity House appears to be satisfactory. I do not think it is fair after that conclusion of the Auditor General to charge the Trinity House with extravagance in this matter.
  MR. HANBURYNo accounts have been rendered.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACHBecause a fixed sum of £ 800 a year is now allotted to the Trinity House for this purpose, a large reduction as compared with former years. Well, then, my hon. Friend goes on to object to the constitution of these three Boards. No doubt their constitution is somewhat old-fashioned, but I believe I speak the opinions of those who have preceded me in office, and who have had more experience of the matter than I have had, when I say that the administration of those Boards, however they may be constituted, is satisfactory and valuable to the public service. If the lights were placed under the Board of Trade or some other Department of the Government, I do not believe they wonld be as efficiently nor as cheaply administered as they are now. But if my hon. Friend desires to

  1761
  make so radical a change as that, I do contend that it ought to be the subject of a Motion in this House, rather than mere criticism upon the Vote of £40,000 in aid of the Mercantile Marine Fund. The Controller and Auditor General, in the 10th paragraph of his last Report, says, "I think it desirable to call attentiion to the form in which this account is presented "—that means the whole of the accounts.
  "It does not, in my judgment, bring all the receipts and expenditure of the Mercantile Marine Fund under the notice of Parliament in as clear and as satisfactory a manner as it might."
  Well, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and myself paid some attention to this matter last autumn, and we appointed a strong Departmental Committee, composed of Sir Reginald Welby, Mr. Godley, of the India Office, and Mr. Calcraft, of the Board of Trade, with the following reference:—
  "To inquire and report upon—First, the present condition of the Mercantile Marine Fund; second, the system by which votes in aid are granted to that Fund, and into the administration and expenditure of the Fund; and third, whether, on the part of the Departments spending money out of that Fund, due economy is exercised, and whether any, and if so what, alteration seems advisable in any part of the work of the administration of the Fund."
  The Committee will see that the terms of the reference will secure complete investigation of the accounts of the Fund and its administration. Although the gentlemen I have named are full of work, they have devoted much time to this subject, but have not yet completed their Report. I have no doubt whatever, from what I have already heard, that as one result of their investigations there will be placed before Parliament a much better statement of the accounts of the Fund than has hitherto been presented. As to the condition of the Mercantile Marine Fund, my hon. Friend spoke of it as it existed last year, as in a bankrupt condition. No doubt it is true that the Fund borrowed £200,000, and was expending at the rate of £90,000 or £100,000 more than it received; but by the increase of Light Dues which came into effect a year ago there has been such a change that in the year ending 31st March, 1889, the Fund will balance itself within £5,000. And I have no doubt in my own mind that by the same
  1762
  time next year there will be a surplus, with part of which the Lighthouse Authorities may be able to undertake some of those works which I am quite ready to admit with my hon. Friend have been deferred longer than advisable. Some of them are already ordered; others will be undertaken as opportunity permits. I think my hon. Friend has rather exaggerated the necessity of these works. The existing service has been completely maintained, and I can assure my hon. Friend he is mistaken in supposing that it is not being well and efficiently administered. I admit that some fresh lights and some improvements may be required, and I have no doubt that without extravagance and with due regard to economy we shall be able to make those improvements by the improved state of the Fund.
  DR. CLARK (Caithness)I want to ask whether something cannot be done to make these Light Dues fall fairly on the various ports in the three Kingdoms? Glasgow is very heavily handicapped.
  THE CHAIRMANI have, in former years, laid down that the administration of the lights could not be entered into in connection with this Vote. This is a special subsidy of £40,000 under Act of Parliament given to the Mercantile Marine Fund, and afterwards such a sum of money as may be necessary to equal the receipts and charges of the Fund. Therefore, the subject matter of this Vote relates to the receipts and charges of the Fund to which this £40,000 is given.
  MR. CRAIGSir, the question was raised in 1887 by myself, and I find in Hansard that you said the discussion was "quite relevant to the subject matter of the Vote before the Committee." Last year you allowed the discussion on this same Vote, which is the only Vote which comes before the House.
  THE CHAIRMANIf I gave that decision—I am not aware of it—I was in error in so doing.
  DR. CLARKI wanted to point out that by the charges imposed Glasgow is very heavily handicapped, and the Scotch trade very much depressed, the dues charged upon Glasgow being twice and three times as heavy as the dues of London, but it seems that I would

  1763
  be out of order in so doing. I take it that the whole discussion has been out of order from the very beginning.
  MR. L. LYELLI think we are very much indebted to the hon. Member for bringing this question up, but the speech of the President of the Board of Trade was not altogether satisfactory. The point I wish to become acquainted with is the management of this Fund.
  THE CHAIRMANI told the hon. Member for Caithness that he was out of order.
  MR. S. STOREYI rise for the purpose of expressing the pleasure with which I heard the statement of the President of the Board of Trade, and the fact that the Departmental Committee which has been appointed may be instrumental in bringing the accounts of the Fund under the purview of this House. I want to direct the attention of the Committee to a point which has not been raised, and on which I, for one, would be glad to obtain considerably more information. In the Civil Service Appropriation Account for 1887–88, p. 188, there is Account C, giving details of the dues received, salaries and other expenses of administration in various ports of the Kingdom under the Merchant Shipping Act. In this account I find the net fees received from various sources, which appear as a credit of the Estimate for the £40,000, which Parliament grants to the Board of Trade. At the bottom of this account I find the net fees received by the Registrar of Seamen for inspection of the registers, stated at £348 8s. 7d. If the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Hanbury) wants the House to get at any real information on these matters, he should urge upon the Committee to take care that in any future account the two sides shall be fully set out; because it is telling us very little to say that the net fees received for the registration of seamen were £348 8s. 7d. What I am concerned to find out is, how much did it cost to produce that sum? A similar remark applies to the next item, which is for net fees received by the Registrar General of Seamen for copies of documents and certificates. I say nothing of the incredible meanness of the arrangement under which fees are exacted at all in such matters, but
  1764
  I do say that if they are exacted from the poor seamen, we ought to have an account showing how the money is expended. Then we have £1,862 8s. 3d. as the net amount received by the Receiver of Wrecks, and I am curious to know what was the gross sum received, and what was expended under that head. Still more curious am I to discover what was the gross amount under the next head, where we are told that the net fees received for the engagement and discharge of crews was £2,084 9s. 10d. Then there is an item of £1,965 net as fees received for the examination of engineers, and here again, I should like to know what was the gross amount. In fact, instead of merely having this account telling us that there have been net receipts of £5,500, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will take care that in the next account put before us, the two sides are set out, so that on the one side we may have the gross receipts, and on the other the expenditure to the officials in fees or other emoluments. I draw attention to these items because they make a total which goes to the credit of Parliament and diminishes our grant in aid by some £5,000 or £6,000. As far as I can judge, this represents about half the sum which the Trinity House and the various Boards waste deliberately every year. It seems to me incredibly mean —for there is not another adjective in the English language that will express it—that under this fund it should be possible for gentlemen to spend thousands of pounds unnecessarily in eating and drinking and amusing themselves, and that at the same time, in order to balance their accounts, they should exact these fees and other allowances from poor seamen and others, under exceptionally painful and difficult circumstances. I think it would be more to their credit to cease this extra expenditure, so as to render it unnecessary to exact these petty fees. At any rate, if the fees are to be exacted, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will take care that Parliament shall see the whole of the accounts. I have not bestowed the industry on this matter that has been expended by the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Hanbury), but connected as I am with a shipping port, I feel great interest in it, and I think that if the whole of these things could only be

  1765
  brought under the attention of Parliament and examined, year by year, with a critical eye to all their details, a very different and much more satisfactory state of things would be produced.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACHIf the hon. Gentleman will turn to the Estimates he will see that they state the actual receipts from survey fees, engineer's examination fees, unpaid wages,salvage, and so on, in the years 1885, 1886, 1887 and 1888. If any alteration can be made in the account, of the nature to which the hon. Gentleman has referred, in order to make it more clear, I will have it done. The hon. Gentleman is quite mistaken in supposing that these fees are levied by the Trinity House; they are levied by the Board of Trade under the Act of Parliament, and have no relation to the expenditure by the Trinity House to which he has referred. I am sorry that my hon. Friend (Mr. Hanbury) so much overstated the expenditure. It is not fair to blame the Trinity House for expenditure in going about in vessels engaged in their service. The Trinity House authorities are obliged to visit the various lighthouses, light ships and beacons from time to time, to see whether they are in proper order and also to arrange for supplying them periodically with the necessary requisites for maintaining the service; and my hon. Friend has mixed up the necessary expenditure for this purpose with what ho terms their personal expenditure on themselves.
  MR. STOREYMay I ask is it not the fact that the grant in aid depends in part on the rate of these fees? If these rates are greater or loss, that would affect the decision as to the amount of the grant in aid. If the grant in aid were less, Trinity House would have less money to guzzle with. Trinity House is not able to balance the account without the grant.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACHThat has nothing to do with it.
  MR. STOREYI wish to put my point. I am talking of Trinity House as a whole. Their business is to administer public works, and they have to provide the funds for this.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACHThat is not the point.
  MR. STOREYI do not suppose I am putting the point as the right hon. Gentleman would wish; but I desire to
  1766
  put it in my own way. Trinity House is provided by Parliament with £40,000 on account of certain duties it has to perform, and this sum may be increased if the Treasury thinks fit. If the grant in aid were less than it is, it seems to me that Trinity House would have less money to spend in the way referred to. Of course I cannot convince the right hon. Gentleman, and I will not try to do so any further; but I should say that if I had money to administer and did not spend it in one direction, I should have more to expend in another.
  COLONEL HILLIt seems to me that the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Storey) is under a misapprehension in thinking that the £40,000 has to do with Trinity House. The Mercantile Marine Fund is applicable to many purposes which Trinity House has nothing to do with. I think it would be a great pity if it should go forth that the lighthouses in this country are in a bad condition, owing to want of funds. I venture to assert that there is no country in the world whose lighthouses and light-ships and beacons are better managed and attended to than those of Great Britain.
  THE CHAIRMANThe hon. Gentleman is scarcely in order in the remarks he is now making.
  COLONEL HILLI must apologise for being out of order, but I thought it might be supposed that we left our sailors in danger by not having efficient lights.
  MR. CRAIGMay I point out that by Clause 5 of the Act the annual sum of £40,000 expired in the year 1888, and after that there was no obligation on the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury to pay the amount, although they were empowered with the concurrence of the Board of Trade having regard to the receipts and expenditure of the Mercantile Marine Fund under Sections 3 and 4 of the Act to continue the contribution or make it less. Now I wish to know whether, if this account has not been adjusted we are at liberty to discuss it? Why do not you adjust it right out? Is there a deficit? If so, why? These are questions of some importance, and we require light to be thrown on them by those who are the only persons responsible. Nearly seven months ago I complained of the scanty information given in this

  1767
  Estimate, and I am glad the President of the Board of Trade has given us an assurance that we shall have fuller details in the future. If, however, these details are not certified by the Board of Trade—
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS BEACHThey are.
  MR. CRAIGIf you have no control over the details, on what ground do you ask us for a grant in aid? Further, why do not you ask for sufficient to prevent there being a deficit? I really think these questions ought to be answered.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS BEACHOne of the objects of the reference to the Committee which I read to the House was to inquire into the amount of the grant in aid, and the Committee will say what sum they would recommend should be voted in the future. It was at first supposed that £40,000 would prove sufficient, but it did not; and I hope that as a result of the inquiry by the Committee we shall be able to make a proposal to Parliament which will place the contributions to the Mercantile Marine Fund on a fairer basis than at present.
  DR. CLARK (Caithness)Am I to understand that before the Estimates come before us the question will be considered by the Committee?
  SIR M. HICKS BEACHYes, Sir.
  Vote agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £23,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1890, for Her Majesty's Foreign and other Secret Services."
  Whereupon Motion, made and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again,"—(Mr. Jackson,)—put, and agreed to.
  Resolution to be reported to-morrow, at Two of the clock; Committee also report Progress, to sit again to-morrow, at Two of the clock.

  BOARD OF Agricultural Bill.
  (No. 221.)
  BOARD OF Agricultural Bill.

    SECOND READING
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY(Mr. W. H. SMITH, Strand, Westminster)In rising to move the Second Reading of this Bill, I must
    1768
    refer for a few moments to the history of the case so far as a Department of Agriculture is concerned. There has been a very strong expression both in and out of Parliament of a desire for a Department primarily responsible for the interests of agriculture, and from time to time during the last ten or 12 years there has been an expression of feeling on the part of those representing the agricultural interest in this House which successive Governments have found it impossible and, indeed, have not desired to resist. This feeling has been increased and deepened by the depression which has undoubtedly existed during the last few years in agricultural industry. It has been admitted on both sides of the House that the depression has caused an amount of suffering not confined to the propertied classes but extending also to those who live by their labour. This is a matter which no Government can overlook. I do not mean to state that past Governments have been indifferent to the interests of the agricultural classes of this country. Much has been done with the view to meet the demands which have been made from time to time. In 1883 the Committee of Agriculture of the Privy Council was constituted, and I think it will be admitted by all who have paid a due regard to the work that has been done that the Committee of the Privy Council has carefully endeavoured to safeguard the interests of agriculture. The Government of 1887 and 1888 admitted that it was necessary to reconstitute the Department which had the care of agriculture, and I cannot but regard that obligation as one which is pressing upon the House and upon the present Government. Having regard to the present condition of affairs, the competition which exists in agricultural districts, the reduction of prices during the last few years, resulting, perhaps, in a greater dislocation of employment in the agricultural industry than in any other industry, and having regard also to the fact that in many parts of the country land has been allowed to go out of cultivation and that those who had been dependent upon it as owners and cultivators and employers have suffered most severely, we cannot but admit that there exists very considerable ground for the demand made on behalf of the agricultural classes for

    1769
    the constitution of a Department which shall make the interests of agriculture its special and peculiar charge. We admit, Sir, that this is not a personal, individual, or sectional question. It is not confined to the interests of the landowner or the farmer or even the agricultural labourer, but is an Imperial question. It is clearly to the interests of the country that the land should be made productive to its utmost capacity, and should be made to contribute to the prosperity of the country as far as possible. This Bill provides for the constitution of a Board of Agriculture on the principle of the Local Government Board and the Board of Trade and as a part of the Government of the country. The Board will consist of a President, who will be the Minister in special charge of the Department, and he will be assisted by members of the Cabinet and by such other persons, if any, as Her Majesty may from time to time deem fit to appoint. I am aware that some hon. Members are of opinion that a Board is not a proper constitution for a Ministry of this character. But I venture to think it is desirable that there should be Members of the Board who, for consultative purposes, might be called in to assist the Minister; and there are occasions when the ordinary Members of the Board might prove exceedingly useful to the Minister. That is a matter, no doubt, of opinion; but I believe it has been found in the past that the Members of the Committee of the Privy Council on Agriculture who are not Members of the Government have given most useful Assistance to the Lord President, who is practically at present the Minister in charge of the Department. The Bill provides that the salary to be appropriated to the President of the Board of Agriculture shall be the same as that of the President of the Board of Trade and the President of the Local Government Board. It also provides that in the event of any one of the great officers of State who are named in the Bill being appointed to the position of President of the Board, he shall not receive the salary named in the Bill. It is therefore distinctly contemplated that some one of these officers may be charged with the duties of President. The Bill proposes to take over the existing officers of the Privy Council Committee and of the Land Commission. I desire to refer to
    1770
    the excellent services which have been rendered by the Members of the Land Commission and by its officers. I believe there is no Department of the public service which has done better work in every respect than the Members and officers of the Land Commission. The Government are of opinion that the staff of the Commission may be very usefully taken over by the Ministry of Agriculture, and that their experience and knowledge will prove exceedingly useful to the Minister for Agriculture, while by the transfer a considerable economy will be effected. It is further provided in the Bill that it shall be in the power of Her Majesty in Council to transfer to the Board such powers and duties of any Government Department as are conferred by statute, provided always that the Orders in Council shall be laid before Parliament for a period of 30 days during the sitting of the House, so as to give an opportunity to either House of Parliament to express its opinion upon the transfer. Our object in making that provision is that when the Board has been established and has got to work and has proved its capacity for the discharge of the duties intrusted to it—the care of a population exceeding that engaged in any other industry—it may fitly have transferred to it duties which bear upon the interests of agriculture, so that it may from time to time accumulate to itself, with the sanction of Parliament, the responsibilities which properly belong to a great Department. The Bill is an effort to establish a Department which will, I hope, be exceedingly useful to the agricultural community. No doubt a great strain has been put upon those who are interested in land during the last few years. Prices have fallen; there has been an absence of profit in almost every important portion of the farmer's industry, and now we have to endeavour by all the means in our power to bring back prosperity to that portion of Her Majesty's subjects, not by any action of Parliament, not by the fostering care of a Department, but by bringing home to them that knowledge and power by which they themselves may work out their own deliverance.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."—(Mr. W. H. Smith.)
    MR. H. H. FOWLER (Wolverhampton)There will be no difference of opinion as to the necessity of a Minister being set apart for the purpose of superintending the interests of agriculture. That is a position which the House accepted unanimously in 1881, when my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Lothian was Prime Minister. That principle has been carried out in a manner to which I will allude directly. If the time has arrived when dissatisfaction is felt with the mode which has been in force for sometime, and it is thought desirable to alter the mode, the principle remains intact, namely, that the House approves of a Minister to preside over this most important branch of our national industry and manufacture. I do not know whether the First Lord of the Treasury did not hold out rather too rosy a prospect as to the result which may follow from the appointment of this Minister. I am not disposed to undervalue the great power and beneficial effect of Ministers, but I am afraid the evils under which our agricultural friends suffer are not evils which Government or laws can cure. Any prospect which would hold out to the agricultural community that either prices will be affected or that the present conditions will he altered by anything this House can do in the way of altering the present machinery for conducting agricultural affairs, is very likely to prove an illusory one. The First Lord of the Treasury omitted to inform the House that there is at present a responsible Minister of Agriculture distinct from the Lord President of the Council. There was in 1883 constituted a separate Committee of the Privy Council for Agriculture, presided over by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. I do not say that this is the best plan, but at the present moment we have a responsible Minister of Agriculture, the Duke of Rutland. The Government have come to the conclusion that it is desirable to terminate this state of things, but the right hon. Gentleman has not told the House what functions he proposes to confer on the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in lieu of those he at present discharges, or whether that office is now to be relegated to the position of a sinecure. I think the First Lord of the
    1772
    Treasury will agree that it is most desirable that the House should watch with the most jealous care any proposal to add to the paid Ministers of the Crown having seats in either House of Parliament. Our forefathers were very careful on this point, and unless the case is absolutely proved as a clear necessity which could not be met in any other way, we ought not to add to the number of Members of the House holding offices under the Crown. I do not know whether hon. Members are aware that in this and the other House of Parliament there are about 50 Members holding office and receiving public remuneration. Including those Members who are not in the Cabinet, and those who are attached to the Household, there are 31 Members of this House who receive pay. They are a body of great ability and force, but they should not be added to save in a clear case of public necessity. I admit that the Minister of Agriculture should be a Member of either House of Parliament, but the point I desire to lay stress upon is this—is there no mode of reconstructing and redistributing the present offices of the Government so that a due supervision can be obtained of agriculture without adding to the present paid body? There are seven Members of this House representing the Treasury. I do not think that a case now exists for three Lords of the Treasury in the House of Common. For a long succession of years one of the Lords of the Treasury attended to Scottish business; but recently a Secretary for Scotland has been created. Therefore you have a surplus Lord of the Treasury. Then there is the Chancellorship of the Duchy of Lancaster, which happens to be held by a Member of the House of Lords. There are four Members of the Household have seats in this House—the Treasurer, the Controller, the Chamberlain, and the Groom. I do not know that there is any public necessity why all those Gentlemen should have seats in Parliament. Then there are the various offices of the Secretaries of State. I do not say that the Home, Colonial, and. India Offices are over-represented. The War Office has been subjected under the present Minister for War to a great improvement. When he took office there were four representatives of the War Office in this House, but now there

    1773
    are only two. There is room for reduction in the Admiralty. [Admiral FIELD: "No."] My hon. Friend is a great authority on Naval matters, and I should be sorry to express an opinion against him in the Naval Department of the Admiralty, but looking at the matter from the Parliamentary point of view, I think the present First Lord and the present Secretary are quite capable of representing the interests of the Admiralty in this House, and the office of the Civil Lord is a surplusage. Admitting, therefore, the necessity for a change in the present mode of administration, I think the Government might so re-arrange the present Members of the Government having seats in the House, as to provide a Minister of Agriculture without adding to the Members of the Government with seats in Parliament. As to the proposed remuneration, it could very easily be obtained if some of the sinecure offices were suppressed. I wish the First Lord of the Treasury had given us a little more information as to the staff and the establishment. It is not the salary of £2,000 a year which constitutes the danger of cost; it lies in the fourth clause. The danger is that the Board of Agriculture will appoint secretaries and officers and an expensive staff. The view I wish to submit to the Government is that there is not the slightest necessity to add to the present civil expenditure in reference to this Department. What the country and the agricultural Members desire is a responsible Minister in this House who can represent their views. We do not wish to create another highly-paid staff of officials in addition to that at present existing. The Agricultural Department of the Privy Council cost in salaries last year £30,486. If we take education and agriculture away from the control of this Department, what can it have to do except work of a purely ceremonial character? The cost of the Education Department, exclusive of inspection, non-effective services, and all grants amounts to £60,000. The Privy Council itself cost £21,000, and the fees received were under £2,000. There are those who think the better way would have been to have separated the Education Department from the Council altogether, and to have an independent Minister of Education, and I believe the country will never rest until it has an indepen-
    1774
    dent Minister of Education. There is already an expenditure for staff and management in the Agricultural Department of the Privy Council which ought to be amply sufficient for this new Department which is to be created. It is proposed to transfer to the Board of Agriculture the work of the Land Commission. I think that is a very great improvement. What does the Land Office cost? Last year it cost something like £23,000—£22,934. Three Land Commissioners receive £1,500 a year, then there are two Assistant Commissioners and one chief clerk with £800 a year, and one clerk with £550 a year. My point is that these highly paid officials, whose work is to be transferred, ought themselves to be transferred to the new Department. I am glad to find that the First Lord of the Treasury cheers that statement, but I contend that we must give no discretion to anyone to do otherwise. We must make this clear; because there is a clause in the Bill which says that these gentlemen are not to be placed in any worse position as respects their tenure of office, salary, or superannuation, than at present—a provision which is so worded as to be just the very thing to raise controversies with the Treasury which will practically end in these gentlemen being pensioned off, and another large staff put upon the country. We had this in the bankruptcy readjustment. I remember that I tried very bard to get the House to pass a clause making it compulsory on the Lord Chancellor to transfer all the occupants of the old offices to the new; but we had the usual Treasury Bench objections that you must not control a great personage like the Lord Chancellor, and must leave him to exercise his own discretion. Of course the House accepted that view and did not insist on taking away the discretion of the Lord Chancellor—who, equally of course, did not exercise that discretion in the way the House desired, and never will. If, in abolishing one office and substituting another, the House means that the old officers are to do the work of the new Department, it must say so in explicit terms that cannot be explained away; and I, for one, shall most earnestly object to and resist as far as I can in Committee any attempt to create a new Department for secretaries

    1775
    and officers and servants, and pensioning off the existing staff of secretaries and officers and servants, for I contend that with an expenditure of £30,000 a year on the Privy Council Office, and £22,000 a year on the office of the Land Commission, we are paying a particular class of men quite sufficient, both as to number and remuneration, to discharge the whole of the duties which are proposed by this Bill to be placed on the new Department. These are the only remarks I have to make at present. I have no opposition to urge against the principle of the Bill, although there are many questions that will arise in Committee. I am sure there is a desire on this side of the House to facilitate the progress of the measure into Committee, and it is in no spirit of hostility, but simply with a wish to help the Government in carrying out an administrative reform, that I have endeavoured to point out the various difficulties which present themselves to my mind as matters that will have to be dealt with in the next stage, and which, I hope, will be fairly and frankly considered.
    MR. JEFFREYSIn congratulating the Government on the step they have taken in introducing this measure, I would remind the House of the long period of distress and bad harvests which the farmers of this country have of late years had to undergo. Under these circumstances there is no doubt that the care of agricultural interests ought to be committed to a special Department of the State such as is now proposed, and I can only express a hope that the new Board of Agriculture will be composed of men who will be practical agriculturalists, and not mere officials. I do not feel equal to the discussion of whether there should be an entirely new official created, or whether the new Minister of Agriculture should be taken from the official body in this House; but I hope that, whoever he may be, he will be a practical man, and will have under him men who are also practical agriculturalists. I am glad to see that it is proposed to take over that part of the Land Commissioners' duty which relates to the tithes, which at the present moment is a burning question amongst agriculturalists. I hope the new Board will see its way to the introduction of a Bill for the redemption of tithes,
    1776
    which I regard as the only way in which this vexed question can be settled. It is not clear, however, whether the Board will have under its control the Corn Inspectors, whose duty it is to go to different markets and calculate the prices of the corn—wheat, barley, oats, &c. —sold in this country, so as to fix for the year the averages upon which the tithes are based. The farmers complain that the Inspectors do not properly and efficiently carry out their duties, inasmuch as they only deal with the prices where large quantities are concerned and the highest rates are reached, leaving out of their calculation all the corn sold at the lower prices, whereby, the recorded average being higher than it should be, the tithes are also fixed at too high a rate. At present the Inspectors are under the control of the Board of Trade, and I think it would be well to transfer them to the new Board, who should see that the average prices are fairly recorded, and thereby confer a great benefit on the farming community.
    MR. HENEAGEI have to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the Bill he has introduced in compliance with a demand which has been made by agriculturalists more universally than any they have put forward during the last 20 years; and, I may add that while they have demanded a separate Department primarily responsible for agriculture, they have also demanded, with no uncertain voice, that there should be a Minister who must be responsible for that Department. But, while I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the clauses dealing with agriculture and the transfer of the Land Commissioners to, the new Department, I cannot congratulate him on the administrative machinery of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman appeared to think the Committee of Agriculture set up by the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian has been a great success. For three years, however, I believe it never met, and, according to my own experience, when it was called together the Cabinet Ministers always found they had something else to do, and it was only the other Ministers who came. But even this Committee had an advantage over the Board now proposed, because those Ministers who were upon it were selected

    1777
    as having given great attention to the question of agriculture; whereas the right hon. Gentleman now proposes to set up a Board of ex officio Cabinet Ministers. There are eight Cabinet Ministers, all of them with a great deal to do, and these are the Gentlemen who are to be brought together to give the benefit of their intelligence to an unskilled Departmental Minister. What we want is a Minister who will know what he is about and who will not have to ask advice from the Home Secretary or any other official of the Government. But what will be the result of bringing together these eight Cabinet Ministers and others? They will meet, not as a Sub-committee of the Council, though they are of them, because they would not be a Committee of the Council; not as a body of experts, because they are to be chosen, not in consequence of any knowledge of agriculture, but from the position they hold in the administration; in point of fact the proposed Board will be "neither fish, flesh, fowl, nor good red-herring," and, consequently, for agricultural purposes, they will be practically useless. But there is another objection. If there has been a demand for a separate Minister of Agriculture there has also been a cry for a separate Minister of Education, and if we constitute a Minister of Agriculture I fear we shall be putting off for a long time to come the appointment of a responsible Minister of Education. My right hon. Friend has said there was a Minister who was primarily responsible in the shape of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. So far so good; but he was only primarily responsible, for when he found ho had to deal with large questions the President of the Committee of the Privy Council would have his say in the matter, and the Chancellor of the Duchy had not even the last word. I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that the other day he distinctly said the President of the Committee of Privy Council was the responsible Minister, and not the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. Therefore we come back to the state of things we all objected to in 1881, when Sir Massey Lopes brought forward his Motion, and when the Privy Council reigned supreme over both Agriculture and Education. I want to see this altered, and when in Committee I shall
    1778
    move to omit Clause 1, and to insert instead a clause framed on the lines of the Secretary for Scotland Bill, declaring that the Minister should hold office during Her Majesty's pleasure, with a salary of £2,000 a year. Either the board is to be a real Board, or it will be a sham, and I think it is a little too late in the nineteenth century to come to this House and ask it to enact a sham. As to the economical part of the question—the question of ways and means—we are told that there will be some saving through the abolition of the Land Commissioners, but if they are not to be retained, some one else will be required to do their work in their stead. I hope we shall have a Department fully equipped with all the officials necessary to carry it on by means of transfers of officials from other Departments. I think it would be very easy to save money in this way. My right hon. Friend (Mr. H. H. Fowler) has referred to a great number of offices that might be abolished, and I will not deal with those. But this I may observe in connection with the office of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, that it will remain practically a sinecure when you have taken the duties which now appertain to the Department under this Bill. And so also with the President of the Privy Council. He will have nothing to do, unless he deals with the Education Department, which we should all deplore. Therefore, I say that if you want £2,000, you have nothing to do but to put two offices together, and so you save a salary. The salary of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is not paid out of the Imperial revenues, but you can give the work or the office of Lord President to the Chancellor of the Duchy, as well as the office of President of the Board of Works. So it is possible to provide £6,000 a year, and fully equip your Department of Agriculture, without setting up new offices of profit. These are the only remarks I desire to make now. I am cordially in favour of the Bill, but I wish to make it a popular measure by removing those objections on economical grounds to which I have alluded, and I hope, in an improved shape, we shall pass it this Session.
    MR. H. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN (Kent, Faversham)I do not wish to follow the right hon. Gentleman into

    1779
    a discussion which is rather more relevant to a Committee than to a Second Reading, but I wish to express, on the part of my constituents, the great satisfaction we feel at the introduction of this Bill. I am sure that none of us expect that the question of agricultural depression is at all involved in the passage of the measure. I do not think any Bill can deal with the real cause of agricultural depression, which is foreign competition, I certainly do not anticipate any such result. It has always been a matter of great surprise to me that the agricultural interest in this country, which we are all never tired of declaring is the greatest industry of the country, should so long have remained without a Department to represent it, or a Minister responsible in this House. In that respect we are far behind other countries—far behind France and America, both of which are provided with Agricultural Departments and with a means of giving effect to any measure for the interest of the country. They are provided with ample means of obtaining information, and that is a great need in this country. It is difficult for any one interested in an agricultural question to know where to obtain authorized information in this country. For instance, only recently a case was brought to my knowledge in which a gentleman had special interest in getting correct information about the law of markets, and it was in relation to the Weighing Machines Bill. He went to the Board of Trade, and they sent him to the Privy Council. From there he was referred to the Local Government Board, and then he was sent up to the Home Office; and still he was unable to get the information he desired. If the Bill removes only this deficiency it will do much for the interest of agriculture, too long neglected.
    MR. BARCLAYSo far as the Bill proposes to create a Board of Agriculture, I have grave reason to fear that it will prove a miserable failure. We have had unfortunate experience of the administration by Boards. I might refer to the Board of Trade, which, so far as it exercises any influence over the business of the country, consists of the President. I really am unable to see what work this
    1780
    Board will have to do. It is evidently a consultative Board from its composition, and the only question that will come before it for decision it seems to me will be the expediency of passing some Order under the Contagious Diseases Animals Act. If we are to derive any benefit from the Department, it must be headed by a responsible Minister, who will take the initiative and interest himself in collecting information that may benefit farmers, and in circulating this information through the country. Unless this can be done, I have no expectation that the new Board will be any better than the present one. The great difficulty is to appoint a Minister with practical knowledge of the requirements of agriculture, and who will take sufficient interest in the subject. Many advantages might be derived from a Board of Agriculture under such control by procuring information from foreign countries—information as to growing of crops and rearing of cattle, and various other matters. But unless the Board is represented in the House we shall have no opportunity of stirring up the Minister on various questions of interest that arise. The difficulty is to find the Minister. That that can be done when there is the right man at the head of the Department, is exemplified by what is done in the United States, where the Department not only collects all available information, and is ready with information as to the particular crops and kinds of seeds suitable for every part of the country, but even supplies farmers with corn samples wherewith experiments may be made. I do not think there is the slightest hope of anything of the kind for this proposed Board, and without something of the same means of obtaining and distributing information, I do not see that the Department will be of more value to farmers generally than the Committee of the Privy Council that now busies itself about cattle diseases. I hope some step may be taken in the direction suggested by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Heneage)—having a responsible Minister in this House. Should the Bill go into Committee I will support the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman and join in so shaping the measure that it may really be of some advantage to farmers.
    MR. BEADELIt is rarely I intrude my opinion on the House, but as this Bill deals with a subject in which I and my constituents are specially interested, I may express my thanks that the Bill has been introduced and received with general support from both sides. The only objections that have been raised are but objections to clauses—matters for Committee, not objections to principle. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton most be fully cognizant from professional knowledge of the difficulties under which agriculture has been carried on. He must know that the possessors of landed estates are, some of them, in a hopeless condition, and that there is an absolute necessity that some investigation should take place as to what their difficulties are, and whether some remedy may not be found for them. I am sure the hon. Member for Forfar cannot be a practical agriculturist, or he would not expect that under the condition of things existing farmers can produce crops at a profit, or landlords receive their rents. For myself, I shall be grateful to the First Lord of the Treasury if by means of this Bill we can arrive at some solution that will give even a modicum of comfort to those who own land and those who occupy it, arid who both combined are not in a position to employ and afford the means of support to the labouring classes as they desire to do. If, by bringing intelligence to bear, anything can be done to ameliorate the existing condition of things, the Government by introducing the Bill will have rendered a great service to the country.
    VISCOUNT GRIMSTONI am pleased—and I share the feeling which is I think general — that the First Lord of the Treasury has thought it right to introduce this Bill. There is one point with respect to which an alteration in the Bill would be welcome, an alteration making the Minister at the head of the Department responsible for everything connected with it. I am
    1782
    sure that is quite the feeling in the country, and I trust the Government will find themselves able to give effect to this desire. The duties that will devolve on this new Department will be of the utmost importance. Only yesterday I was talking to a lady, whose name has long been honourably known in connection with agriculture, Miss Ormerod. This lady has carried out most extensive experiments having for their object the protection of our crops from the ravages of vermin. The Department will have an important duty to discharge in spreading knowledge derived from these experiments as to the means of defending our cereals from those ravages that now only allow a third of them to arrive at maturity. It will also diffuse information as to the valuable experiments of Sir J. B. Lawes, in Hertfordshire, which are too little known, and the knowledge of which ought to be spread throughout the length and breadth of the land by such a Department as is now proposed to be created. Agriculturalists do not expect to be made rich by Act of Parliament, and we do not expect that the great depression that has so long affected agriculture can be removed by a stroke of the legislative pen, but we do feel that with somebody in a responsible position at the head of a Department having the interests of agriculture at heart, we should acquire knowledge we at present are without, but which would prove of the highest value, that we shall have better instruction in our agricultural schools and colleges, and in fact I look upon this Bill as the beginning of a movement from which great benefit must accrue to England's greatest industry.
    SIR LYON PLAYFAIR (Leeds, S.)I am sorry the Bill begins by trying to perpetuate a sham. A Ministry of Agriculture I thoroughly approve of, but a Board of Agriculture will be a repetition of the sham Committees now existing in reference to several Departments. I have had the honour to be Vice-President of the Committee of Council; but I never once saw this Committee; and I suspect the President of the Board of Trade has seen very little of his Board. A Committee or Board is but a buffer

    1783
    between a responsible Minister and the public; and if you are establishing a new Ministry, you had far better have a Minister responsible for executing the duties of the office than a number of names to which no meaning at all is attached. To proper and productive expenditure in connection with the Department no one will object. The expenditure may be large, but it must be made useful and productive. The United States have a Commission of Agriculture which is economical and yet costly. It has a head Commissioner corresponding to the proposed President; a secretary, a statistician, an entomologist, a botanist, a chemist, a microscopist, a chief of the Forestry Division, a Superintendent of Gardens and Grounds. All of these have laboratories and the means of conducting experiments, with results that are most advantageous to the agriculture of the United States. For instance, the Commission, having studied the cultivation of sugar and proved the best plants for cultivation in the various parts of the States, have so increased cultivation of sugar in the United States that from a large sugar-importing nation, it will in time become a large sugar-producing nation. There is one part of the Bill—Sub-section 2 of Clause 2 —to which I cannot but take exception. It is there proposed not only to supersede the control of the Science and Art Department over technical schools in which agriculture is taught, but Inspectors are to be appointed by the Minister of Agriculture. This, I think, is a mistake and there is no more reason why agricultural schools should be under the Board of Agriculture than commercial schools should be under the authority of the Board of Trade, or schools whore navigation is taught under the Admiralty. I do not think this proposal is likely to increase the efficieny of the schools. But on the whole I give the Bill my hearty support, and I shall be glad to give what assistance I can in Committee to remedy its defects.
    MR. CHAPLINWhatever may be the differences of opinion as to the ultimate effect of the Bill, at all events there is a unanimous concensus of opinion that
    1784
    the introduction of the Bill is an earnest of the interest the Government take in the position of agriculture, and for which I venture to say the agricultural interest will be grateful. For my own part I rather join with the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Fowler) in warning Members for agricultural constituencies, and those interested in agriculture, not to expect too much from the passing of the Bill. No Bill can be a specific against agricultural depression, the causes of which lie too deep to be reached by any measure of this character. Still the intention of the Bill is a right one; it is undoubtedly a step in the right direction, and is likely to put us more on an equality with other agricultural nations from whom, in some respects, we have dropped far behind. The right hon. Gentleman, the First Lord, fell into a slight mistake when he said we have a responsible Minister for agriculture at present in the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. I doubt very much if that is an accurate description of his position. I do not think he can be held to be a responsible Minister, because he is not an independent Minister; it is not in his power to take any step of importance which the interests of agriculture may require without the consent and the signature of the Lord President. If there is a responsible Minister now, it is the Lord President of the Council and not the Chancellor of the Duchy. The Bill appears to me to be so drawn as to meet some of the objections urged against it on the ground that it will make unnecessary additions to the staff required for an Agricultural Department. The greater part of the staff is in existence already, and the Bill will merely have the effect of consolidating a number of existing Departments under one responsible head. I am not sure that there is not something in the objection to the constitution of a Board. Is a Board really necessary? I understand it is to be in the nature of a consultative body, for the purpose of instructing a Minister who may not be sufficiently informed in matters of agriculture himself. And it is to consist of

    1785
    certain officials specified in the Bill, many of whom must be Cabinet Ministers themselves, and also of other persons whom the Board may think it necessary to include. The first class of men it is obvious need not necessarily, and probably would not, be acquainted with agriculture. In that case I do not see the use of their appointment. If certain differences arose between the Minister and his colleagues in the Government as to the measures which the Minister might think necessary to take, they would be settled, of course, in the Cabinet itself. As to those which come in the other category, it is quite true they might be experts in agriculture, but what is to be their position supposing a difference of opinion arose between them and the responsible Minister, and what would be their resources supposing they differed altogether with the Minister, and he insisted on pursuing one policy while they very strongly advocated another? Then, again, I think there was something worthy of consideration in the observations of the right hon. Gentleman opposite in regard to the clause of the Bill which relates to education. It seems to me, however, that these questions are one and all matters purely for discussion in Committee. I hope the Bill will be read a second time to-night, and I hope Her Majesty's Government between now and the Committee stage will consider the various suggestions that have been made.
    MR. C. W. GRAYAs I have had something to do with one or two deputations in reference to the question of an Agricultural Department, I should like to thank the Government for having acceded to our wishes by bringing this Bill before the House. But if I faithfully report to the House what I think is the opinion of many farmers on this question, I shall be obliged to say that up to the present the farmers, generally speaking, do not quite understand why an Agricultural Board should consist of Her Majesty's Secretary of State and those other Gentlemen whose names appear in Clause 1. At the same time, if there is
    1786
    any necessity for the forming of the Board in that way, we will not look a gift-horse in the mouth. I join with hon. Members who have already spoken in not only thanking the Government for having introduced this Bill, but in thanking Gentlemen opposite for having expressed their approval, without of course committing themselves to all the details of the measure. The hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. Barclay) seems to think that this scheme will provide the means of teaching farmers their business, and of showing them how to conduct their business under present circumstances with profit. Now, I have no hope whatever in that direction myself. I do not believe that all the Boards that could be devised could teach English farmers how to make the cultivation of English land profitable under present circumstances. At the same time, other countries have well equipped Boards, and if agriculture is of importance to any country in the world, it is of importance to England. We know how we depend on foreign sources for our supply of food, and I think the Government should do everything they can to remove the difficulties of the English and Irish farmers. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Leeds (Sir L. Playfair) seemed to think that the Bill would do mischief to the teaching of agriculture at South Kensington. Without wishing to throw cold water on the endeavours of South Kensington, I may just mention a little fact that came out before the Commission of which I had the honour of being a member. We were examining some schoolmasters as to what was done in the way of teaching agriculture, and we were told by one gentleman that he got a certain amount per head for those pupils who passed in the agriculture branches. He was asked what practical benefit followed the teaching of agriculture in this way, and whether the farmers became peasant proprietors, market gardeners, or what? He replied, "Well, for the greater part we pick for this agricultural instruction the boys we think are the sharpest, and who will be the easiest to pass, and we must admit that those boys, as a rule, have no connection afterwards with

    1787
    agriculture." I expect that if we attempt to teach agriculture in a technical way we must have some change in this respect, and I think that if we have a representative head of this Board or Department in the House of Commons who understands agriculture practically, we shall obtain a better state of things in connection with agricultural education than that which I have just described. I am sure the farmers have no wish that the Department should cause any great increase in expenditure. We believe that a practical Department might be created without calling on the taxpayers of England for any great increase in taxation, but we do think it of the greatest importance that we should have a responsible head of the Department in the House of Commons, because we have an idea, which my experience in the House thoroughly corroborates, that very little is done here in the way of legislation on agricultural subjects, and what is done is generally done as the result of a good deal of worrying of Ministers by private Members. If we have a responsible representative of this Department on the Front Bench we shall feel we have someone to go to with our grievances, and we shall hope that agricultural questions will make more progress in this House than they have done in the past. I think, also, it is necessary to have practical men taken into consultation with the authorities on this subject., whoever these authorities may be. I think it is further of great importance that when a Department is formed some practical man should be selected with knowledge of farmers throughout the country to be sent down to meet farmers on their own ground. This is done to a certain extent in connection with the Board of Trade and also with the Local Government Board, and I think it of great importance that farmers should be able to come into contact with the Department here in London, because through the very nature of their business they are unable to meet together and to discuss matters as other business men can. Farmers are not so behindhand in practical knowledge as some hon. Members seem to think. Farmers know as well how to conduct the practical part of their business as any of the industrial classes do theirs. But we are so scattered
    1788
    that we have not the means of getting directly in communication with responsible heads of Departments, as other industries have. I hope the Bill will be allowed to pass without any alteration in its main principles. I trust that whatever is done economy will be considered, and that some attention will be given to the consultation of practical men. Then at any rate I think the farmers of England will have the satisfaction of feeling that at last a Government has come into power which has shown sympathy with the British farmers and which is anxious to do all a Government can do for them.
    MR. CHANNING (Northampton, E.)I do not think this debate should come to an end without one county Member on this side of the House saying a word of welcome to this measure, which in its main principle I am sure commends itself to county Members on this side of the House just as much as on the other. The only point I wish to express a decided opinion upon is as to the consolidation of authorities which is the principle of the Bill. The proposal to hand over ultimately the powers of the Land Commissioners to the new Board was of the greatest importance, but I think that consolidation should be prompter than is proposed. As to the constitution of the Board, that has been so unanimously condemned I suppose that defect will be got rid of. I listened with interest to the remarks which fell from the hon. Member for Forfarshire with regard to seed distribution and information as to seeds in America. He omitted to say, however, that there are now no less than 20 different phases of the activity of the Department of which he spoke; and in this context I would point out to the hon. Member for Leeds that the reports circulated in America—which reports are of a most suggestive and practical character for agriculturalists—number 400,000 or 500,000 a year. We all know that the admirable Reports issued by the Privy Council, such as those by Miss Ormerod as to destructive insects, and those of Professor Brown as to swine fever, are of great value to farmers, but can the re-

    1789
    ports which have reached our farmers compare in number to the figures I have referred to? On the general principle of the Bill, with the exception of the constitution of the Board, I believe the House is practically agreed.
    SIR W. BARTTELOT (Sussex, N W.)I desire to call attention to the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for the Chelmsford division of Essex (Mr. Beadel) as to the present condition of agriculture. Many people do not recognize the extent of the sufferings which the agriculturalists have been going through for a considerable time. But there is one thing which they do recognize—namely, the influx of agricultural labourers into the towns to see if they can find more profitable employment than is to be had in the country. I would remind the House that that nation is the most prosperous which grows a considerable quantity of food for its own people. I thank my right hon. Friend for giving us hope that some consideration will now be paid to the agricultural interest. Not that a Board of Agriculture or a Minister of Agriculture can do everything, but it is right that agriculturalists should have an opportunity of coming to someone who thoroughly understands the business, and of inquiring what quantities of corn are produced abroad, and what quantities are likely to come into this country, whether the Inspectors in the various corn markets have done their duty, and whether a fair average price of corn has been given. They will also want to know that all disease is kept out of the country, and that there will be a clean bill of health before any foreign cattle are allowed to come in. I believe that a Minister who will be solely responsible is infinitely preferable to a Board.
    MR. THOMAS ELLISAs a Member for an agricultural county, I beg to thank the Government for introducing the Bill, but having taken the work is hand, I do hope they will do it thoroughly and will consent to redraft the first Clause. What the House and the agricultural
    1790
    interest desire is that there should be a Minister responsible to the House, and that he should have the aid of men who are thoroughly and practically acquainted with agriculture. I trust, therefore, that the Cabinet Ministers who are named, and who will constitute more or less a phantom Board, will be cleared away. I trust that another result of the measure will be the abolition or reorganization of the Woods and Forests Department. The interesting Report of the Select Committee which sat on the question brought out the fact that England, one of the wealthiest of countries, is behind the nations of the Continent in forestry, and that there are vast tracts of England which can be planted to the great benefit of agriculture, and the beauty of the country, and also to great economic advantage. I think also that if this work of forestry is taken in hand seriously by the Board of Agriculture, they will be able in a few years to establish schools of forestry in England, Scotland, and Wales, and be able to set up examples for private owners and create demesnes of great good to agriculture and of beauty to our hills and mountains which will become in the end of great financial advantage.
    MR. W. H. SMITHI trust I may now ask the House to give the Bill a Second Reading. I have no complaint to make against hon. Gentlemen as to the way in which they have received the measure. It is natural that there should be differences of opinion as to the provisions of the measure, and that some hon. Member should desire to have a Board and others a Minister without a Board. One hon. Gentleman desires that the Board should be responsible to Parliament and should not be a sham. But if it is responsible to Parliament it will not be a sham. The Local Government Board has a responsible Minister and is not a sham.
    MR. SPEAKERI must remind the right hon. Gentleman that he is only speaking with the indulgence of the House, as he has no right of reply.
    MR. W. H. SMITHI only desired very briefly to answer some of the points that have been put by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite. One hon. Gentleman desired that the Board should be responsible to Parliament and should not be a sham. But if it were responsible to Parliament it would not be a sham. I hope the Government will be able to obtain the assistance of gentlemen who are well acquainted with all subjects connected with agriculture. It is expressly provided that there should be transferred to the new Department such officers as are employed in any other Department which would be merged in the new Department. No option is to be given to those Gentlemen, except that they should not be transferred to positions inferior to those which they have previously filled. It may be possible to transfer to the new Department an existing Minister, although it is not expressly so provided. But I do not think there will be any additional cost incurred. The Government have shown that they are not insensible to the necessity of reduction in the number of officials. The Surveyor General of the Ordnance, for example, and the Judge Advocate General have ceased to be officials in the receipt of salary. One of the Land Commissioners is also extinct. The right hon. Member for Leeds has referred to the subject of technical education. I am, however, inclined to agree with the hon. Member for Essex that the instruction given in the present schools is of a somewhat perfunctory character, and unless this training is made of a more practical and beneficial character it will become doubtful whether it is worth while to incur the expense which these schools occasion. The broad lines of the measure have been sufficiently indicated, and the Government are prepared to consider the details in Committee. What the Government desire is to constitute a Department the principal duty of which would be to watch over the great industry of agriculture. I am afraid we can not hope to teach far-mere their business or to improve prices or production, but we might do good by organization and direction. I hope the
    1792
    House will now read the Bill a second time, as there is another measure to follow.
    MAJOR RASCHAs representing a large agricultural district, I wish to thank the Government for having introduced this Bill, which will establish a Department that will be the recipient of valuable agricultural information, with, I hope, a Minister to represent it whose place will be in the House of Commons. I am thankful that Her Majesty's present Government is the first that has stepped out of its way for the last 20 years to help the agricultural community, who, I think, will accept this Bill as a set-off against the superfluous proposals of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which were not received with more enthusiasm than they deserved in the part of the country which I have the honour to represent. I hope I may say without presumption that I trust the right hon. Gentleman will take care to man the new Department with practical men of the stamp of the late Member for South Leicestershire (Mr. Pell), instead of merely ornamental individuals, or what we in Essex call mere platform farmers, who have no sound practical knowledge of agriculture.
    SIR E. LECHMEREI only wish to say that, as a Member of the Forestry Committee, I trust that the very important question with which they are associated will receive attention at the hands of the Government in the Bill now before the House.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill read a Second Time, and committed for Monday, 17th June.

  LUNACY ACTS AMENDMENT BILL [Lords]. (No. 199.)

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENTIn moving the Second Reading of this Bill, I do not propose to take up more than a

    1793
    few minutes of the time of the House. It is practically the same measure as has been thrice passed through the other House of Parliament. It was introduced by Lord Selborne in 1883, and it was passed on the Motion of Lord Herschell in 1886, and again on the Motion of the present Lord Chancellor in 1887 and 1888. It consists mainly of improvements in the existing law, suggested either by the Select Committee of the House of Commons that investigated the subject, or by the Lunacy Commissioners themselves. It is proposed that those improvements should be included in the Consolidation Bill prepared by the Lord Chancellor. The Government intend that the Bill should be referred to one of the Standing Committees. The main object of the measure is to provide additional securities against the improper confinement and treatment of lunatics. A new feature has been introduced—namely, that there should be an inquiry before a permanent judicial tribunal. In order to obviate the evils of vexatious actions against medical men,and also to provide a security against any possible abuse of the anomalous privilege which medical men have so long enjoyed, it is provided that a judicial inquiry shall be held and a judicial decision obtained before a person can be permanently confined as a lunatic. The Bill also aims at the gradual extinction of private asylums. It so happens that there has been a great fluctuation of opinion on this matter. In the discussions which took place on the subject in 1884 and 1885, the weight of opinion was against the continuance of private asylums; but since then there has been a revulsion of feeling. Of course the keepers of these asylums are necessarily largely interested in their retention, and it is proposed that no new asylum shall be licensed after the passing of the Bill, the largest protection being given to existing rights. There are not fewer than 3,000 patients in private asylums of this sort, and it is quite obvious that it would be impossible to deal with them in any piecemeal manner. I really do not think I need say more. I do not think there
    1794
    are any matters of consequence in this Bill, except those to which I have alluded. There are a great number of minor provisions in the Bill which will be of very great use in dealing with this afflicted class, whose treatment has been so much ameliorated of late years, but with regard to whom some additional measures of precaution and prevention are necessary.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
    DR. D. FARQUHARSONI am really glad that this Bill has passed in another place, because there is need of a Bill of this sort, which I am bound to say contains a great many useful provisions. This Bill was introduced to this House formerly under the charge of Lord Herschell, but there are many points in the present Bill which to my mind do not improve it. The College of Physicians have petitioned against at least four of its main provisions, and representations coming from such a responsible body as that require the earnest consideration of this House. The reasons for the action they have taken are twofold. The Bill protects the doctors, who at the present moment are so much in dread of legal proceedings that they dare hardly venture to certify lunacy at all, and the result of that is that many acute cases, which ought to be brought under immediate treatment, are allowed to drift into hopeless and incurable insanity. And the Bill further puts real responsibility on the Justice or Judge, and protects the medical profession from irritating prosecutions. Another point is the protection of the patients. At present, so much time is occupied in bringing an acute case under medical treatment that very often it reaches the incurable stage or the chronic stage before a chance of proper treatment has been brought about. We have heard a great deal about private lunatic asylums,, and it has been suggested that interest

    1795
    might lead the proprietor of a private asylum to do that which is not right. That is only theoretical. I am bound to say, after very careful consideration of the evidence, and more especially the evidence before the Select Committee which sat some years ago, that however good those arguments may be theoretically, they are entirely overdone. I think a more honourable class of men than those who own private lunatic asylums are not to be found. A great drawback to this Bill is that it introduces a monopoly of private lunatic asylums which probably would become very narrow, and eventually restrictive, and possibly injurious. I think it is far better to allow this branch of the profession to be ventilated by the free air of competition than to subject it to restrictions, however carefully administered. Another point to which the medical profession attach great importance in the treatment of insanity, is that the patients may be treated in small places, where, say, two patients would get far more benefit than in a larger establishment. The Bill places great restrictions upon that sort of treatment, and I think that some alteration might be effected in that direction. The Bill, it is said, practically follows the Scotch procedure. I venture to take entire exception to that. It is a travesty rather than an imitation of the Scotch procedure. One objection is the legal element on the Lunacy Board. I hope when the Bill comes down from Grand Committee I shall have an opportunity of carrying an Amendment, to eliminate as far as possible tile legal element from the inspectorship of lunacy. I must say that I have some distrust of the tribunal—the Standing Committee on Law—to which this Bill is to he referred. The lawyers have already too much to do with this Bill, and it seems to me that the chance of getting any alteration in it when it is before the Grand Committee on Law will be very small indeed. Therefore, I hope that when the Bill comes down from upstairs we shall have an opportunity of discussing its provisions on the Third Reading and on Report. With these criticisms, which at this stage I venture to make, I hail this Bill
    1796
    with satisfaction, and I think on the whole it will be a most useful measure and likely to give satisfaction to the medical profession.
    MR. H. H. FOWLERI am sure we wish to respond to the invitation of the First Lord of the Treasury, and I think he will admit that the course of business during the evening is rather better than he expected. I hope we may make better progress to-morrow, and that it will have a practical result. But I rose to appeal to the House to let the Second Reading go at once, and upon this ground. This Bill was prepared by Lord Selborne, with the concurrence of the then Home Secretary, Sir William Harcourt. It was afterwards approved by Lord Herschell, and my right hon. Friend the Member for South Edinburgh. It has been subsequently approved by Lord Halsbury and the present Home Secretary. Three Lord Chancellors and three Home Secretaries have approved of the principle of this Bill as a great improvement in the Lunacy Laws.
    MR. MOLLOY (Birr, King's County)As to the general character of the Bill, I am bound to say I am in accord with it. I think that our present method of dealing with lunatics is a very great improvement indeed upon the old system. The one point I do not like is the continuation of private lunatic asylums, to which I have always objected. At all events their number will not be increased, which, so far, is very good.
    MR. MATTHEWSNor the number of patients.
    MR. MOLLOYYou are putting an enormous value upon these private lunatic asylums, and you are giving them a property which they do not possess at the present time. I think if there was some termination to the existence of these private asylums it would be a very great boon indeed. I

    1797
    am bound to say, however, that after a long conversation with my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General on this subject my view has been modified with regard to private lunatic asylums; still on the whole I should be glad to see them done away with. When we get into Committee I want to get the system of private lunatic asylums attached to the public system, so as to have each private establishment attached to a public asylum, so that you would have equal care taken of the patients and get rid of the dangers which there are in the system of private lunatic asylums. We shall have ample opportunity to discuss the details in Committee, and I shall say nothing more now, save that I am very glad the Bill has been introduced, and I am only sorry that it has been so long coming to this House.
    Question put, and agreed to Bill read a Second Time and referred to the Standing Committee on Law, &c.
    DR. FARQUHARSON (Aberdeenshire, W.)In relation to this Bill, may I ask if any Member who does not happen to be on the Standing Committee can send up an Amendment to it?
    MR. W. H. SMITHCertainly, Sir.

  SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND BILL [Lords.] (No. 249.)
  Read a second time, and committed for Monday, 17th June.

  MERCHANT SHIPPING (COLOURS) BILL. (No. 238).
  Order lead, for resuming adjourned debate on Question [27th May], "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for Monday, 17th June.

  OFFICIAL SECRETS [RE-COMMITTED] BILL. (No. 97).
  Considered in Committee.
  Amendment to Clause 2.—(Mr. Attorney General).
  SIR R. WEBSTERThe object of this Amendment is to limit the applica
  1798
  tion of the clause with regard to the disclosure of official information to cases where the publication is contrary to the interests of the State or of any Department of the Government or otherwise contrary to the public interest.
  Amendment agreed to.
  SIR R. WEBSTERI have to move a further Amendment to the same clause, applying its provisions to persons holding a contract with the Government and to the employés of such persons.
  Amendment agreed to.
  SIR R. WEBSTERI have to move a new clause, applying the provisions of the Act to persons inciting to the commission of an offence against it.
  Clause agreed to.
  Some further Amendments were also agreed to.
  Bill reported as amended, to be considered to-morrow at two of the clock.

  AUGMENTATION OF BENEFICES BILL. (No. 231).
  Order for Second Reading read.
  SIR R. WEBSTERThis is a Bill simply for the purpose of enabling the Lord Chancellor to apply certain funds already in his hands for the purpose of augmenting the revenues of certain livings and to enable the Lord Chancellor to contribute to the improvement of parsonage houses, providing the incumbent provides a similar sum to that proposed to be contributed.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  MR. DILLWYN: Last Session the Second Reading of this Bill was moved by the Attorney General without explanation. Now he has brought it on again, and I regret that he has not given us a longer description of it. He assumes it is a harmless Bill, but it seems to me that there is a good deal in it which is objectionable.
  SIR R. WEBSTERIt only enables the Lord Chancellor to deal with the proceeds of certain small livings in order that he may out of the proceeds thereof augment the incomes of other livings.
  MR. DILLWYNI object altogether to the principle which is embodied in this Bill. I object to the proposal which renders it necessary that before the Lord Chancellor contributes towards any particular object defined in this Bill, the incumbent must take the hat round in order to get a sum equal to that proposed to be contributed. I do not think the Bill can properly be discussed now. There are a great many Members interested in the measure who are now absent, and did not expect it would come on, and I therefore beg to move the adjournment of the debate.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Dillwyn).
  SIR R. WEBSTERIf it is desired to have further discussion, I will not oppose the Motion. I should have thought, however, that it would have been possible to discuss the matter in Committee.
  Debate adjourned till Monday, 17th June.

  SUPPLY.
  Resolution [31st May] reported.
  CIVIL SERVICES.

    CLASS II.
    "That a sum, not exceeding £35,250, 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 salaries and expenses of the Office of the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Works and Public Buildings."
    MR. G. A. CAVENDISH BENTINCK (Whitehaven)I desire to take this opportunity of referring to some observations made by the First Commissioner of Works a few days ago on the subject of the heraldic sculptures recently erected in Westminster Hall.
    1800
    The right hon. Gentleman, in defending these heraldic sculptures, said that these figures were of the same character as others already in the House. Well, Sir, that seems to me to be no defence, for there is a very great deal of bad sculpture about the House. Every one who is acquainted with the circumstances knows that Sir Charles Barry had forced upon him a particular style of architecture which involved elaborate sculptures; and if from the quantity of work forced on him he consequently produced many inferior works, that was no reason why the vicious system should still be pursued. This House is full of bad sculpture, and recently two grotesque figures have been set up in the Central Hall, intending to represent Earl Russell and the Earl of Iddesleigh; and it appears to me, in my humble judgment, that if any new sculptures are to be set up, pains should be taken not to imitate the bad example of past times, but to produce works which would be worthy of the nation. Now, Sir, my right hon. Friend, after having been interrogated several times, said that a Mr. Higgs had been employed to execute these heraldic sculptures in Westminster Hall. I do not object to heraldic sculptures, provided that they are good works of art; but if figures of this character are to be erected they ought to have been entrusted to some artist of well-established and known reputation, and not to an inferior person. The right hon. Gentleman says he would not have been justified in interfering with the architect, who was "the highest authority in this particular kind of architecture." This last expression is nothing less than nonsense. For what was this particular kind of architecture? It is to ignore Sir Chas. Barry, and to make the east side of the interior of,Westminster Hall now an absolute contradiction to the west side. It was altogether erroneous to describe Mr. Pearson as a high authority in these matters. Mr. Pearson is an architect of a peculiar cast of mind, who abandons altogether the traditions of his predecessors. He imagines that he has found out something which nobody knew before. Well, Sir,

    1801
    my right hon. Friend went on to say that the duty of the First Commissioner of Works was to select the best man as architect, and then leave him to do the best he could. But that is a proposition which I altogether deny. It is the duty of the First Commissioner of Works to look after him. Now, this brings me to the real question involved in this matter, and that is—what is the position of the right hon. Gentleman himself? The First Commissioner of Works, we are told, has control over WestminsterHall,but has no control over the House of Lords or Westminster Abbey, which—to use the words of the Lord Chief Justice—is in charge of a few irresponsible English clergymen. I suggest that the First Commissioner of Works should have greater powers conferred upon him; that he should have authority over all the great historical monuments in this country; and that a Committee of experts should be appointed to advise him. I would suggest that at an early period the Government should appoint a Commission or Committee to assist the right hon. Gentleman. His predecessors have had the assistance of exports on similar occasions; no one wants it more than my right hon. Friend. At one time that able architect, Mr. Pennthorne, was constantly consulted by the First Commissioner of Works, and in his days few mistakes were committed. Later on, Mr. James Fergusson acted as adviser to the First Commissioner, and although he was not equal to Mr. Pennthorne, still he gave very valuable assistance. I want some such course pursued in the future. I do not intend to move reduction of the Vote; but, having had an opportunity of placing this matter before the right hon. Gentleman, I hope it will receive the careful attention of the Government.
    SIR JULIAN GOLDSMID (St. Pancras, S.)I do not intend to follow the right hon. Gentleman in his vagaries. He proposed in one sentence that there should be a Committee of Monuments. I suppose that he meant a Committee to consider the question of ancient monuments.
    MR. G. A. CAVENDISH BENTINCKNo.
    SIR JULIAN GOLDSMIDThe real point at which the observations of the right hon. Gentleman were aimed was whether the decorative animals put up in Westminster Hall are suitable or not. Whilst objecting to them, he suggested at the same time that the Chief Commissioner of Works ought to have greater authority over all public buildings and monuments. Now, these two things are inconsistent, and I venture to say that we had much better make the First Commissioner of Works responsible for his Department without any Committee to advise him. If there is one Minister more than another who is popular inside and outside this House, it is the First Commissioner of Works.
    Resolution agreed to.

  OFFICIAL SECRETS [EXPENSES].
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Resolved—
  "That it is expedient to authorize the payment out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of the expenses of the Prosecution in Scotland or Ireland of a misdemeanour under any Act of the present Session to prevent the disclosure of official documents and information."
  Resolution to be reported to-morrow at Two of the clock.

  WEIGHTS AND MEASURES BILL. (No. 230.)
  Order for the consideration of the Bill as amended by the Standing Committee, read.
  MR. BIGGARI object.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACHI hope the hon. Gentleman will not persist in his objections. All my Amendments are of a verbal character, and none of the other Amendments are opposed.
  Question, "That the Bill be now considered," put, and agreed to.
  MR. RAIKESmoved in page 5, after Clause 12, to insert the following Clause:—

  "An Inspector of weights and measures for any district shall, if required by the Postmaster General, verify and stamp, and from time to time inspect, the weights and measures and weighing instruments used in the Post Office.

  1803

  The Board of Trade may from time to time, on the application and with the approval of the Postmaster General, make, vary, and revoke general regulations with respect to the procedure to be observed in the verification and stamping of the said weights and measures and weighing instruments, and the inspection thereof.

  No fee shall be payable by the Postmaster General, or by any person in his employ, for or in respect of any such verification, stamping, or inspection."

  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this clause be added to the Bill."
  MR. W. H. LAWSON (St. Pancras)Are we to understand that the 3rd Sub-section provides that the London Authorities will have to stamp all the weights and measures used by the Post Office throughout the Metropolis without payment of any fee?
  SIR M. HICKS BEACHIt is obviously to the interest of the public that the Post Office weights and measures should be stamped. There is no law now providing that they shall be stamped, and being the property of the State, and being used for the public within the district, it is thought proper they should be stamped without payment of fee.
  MR. W. H. LAWSONThe Metropolis suffer already, because the fines in London will be paid to the National Exchequer, and not to the local account. I think fees should be paid to London, considering the vast amount of business transacted in connection with the Post Office for the whole country.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Clause added.
  MR. POWELL WILLIAMS (Birmingham, S.)I beg to move the new Clause, "Explanation of Law as to Bakers, 6 and 7 Will. 4, c. 37, s. 7," standing in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain).
  MR. SPEAKERThe hon. Gentleman cannot move an Amendment standing in the name of another hon. Member.
  Other Amendments made.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACHMay I ask the House to read the Bill a third time?
  MR. POWELL WILLIAMSI object.
  MR. CRAIG (Newcastle-on-Tyne)I beg to move that the Bill be recom-
  1804
  mitted in order to move the insertion of the following new clause. In page 9, after clause 28, insert the following clause:—

  BREAD.
  "Nothing in the enactments referred to in the 4th Schedule to this Act shall render any baker or seller of bread, or the journeyman, servant, or other person employed by such baker or seller of bread, liable to any forfeiture or penalty for refusing to weigh in the presence of the purchaser any bread conveyed or carried out in any cart or other carriage, unless he is requested so to do by or on behalf of the purchaser."
  SIR M. HICKS BEACHPerhaps I may explain that I will undertake that that Amendment which has been placed on the Paper by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham shall be moved in another place if the Third Reading is agreed to now.
  MR. POWELL WILLIAMSI objected to the Third Reading being taken now in order that I might move the clause standing in the name of my right hon. Friend; but after the undertaking the President of the Board of Trade has given, I withdraw my objection.
  Motion made, and Question, "That the Bill be now read a third time," put and agreed to.
  Bill read the third time and passed.

  INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION (WALES) BILL. (No. 4.)
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Wednesday, 19th June.

  REGISTRATION OF COUNTY ELECTORS (EXTENSION OF TIME) BILL. (No. 210.)
  Order for the consideration of the Bill, as amended, read.
  MR. HOBHOUSE (Somerset, E.)I will not move the Amendment I have placed on the Paper, but would be glad if the Attorney General will say whether the Bill alters the time for the completion of the registration?
  SIR R. WEBSTERThere will not be the slightest interference with the preparation or the revision or completion of the Burgess List.
  Bill, as amended, considered; read the third time, and passed.
  House adjourned at twenty minutes after Twelve o'clock.