Commons Sitting of 13 August 1890

QUESTIONS.

  SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: I wish to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, considering the strain upon the officers of the House, he will consider whether it is not desirable that, for the remainder of the Session, the House should meet at 12 o'clock, so as to obviate the necessity for its sitting till 3 or 4 o'clock in the morning, as in the last two sittings?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH,: I fear that the strain both on Members and upon the Officers of the House would prove much greater if they were brought down to the House at 12 o'clock, and perhaps still had to sit to late hours.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: I meant that the House, if it met at 12, should rise earlier, so that the strain should not be so great.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman will not consider it desirable to bring some pressure to bear on his own supporters, who occupied a large portion of the time at the Last stitting?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I am aware that Members on the Ministerial side of the House occupied a considerable amount of the time at the last sitting, and I greatly regret it. The hon. Member, however, is a ware of the licence to which Members on his own side of the House feel themselves entitled in discussing questions which they deem of great importance, and Members opposite will, therefore, no doubt, have some compassion for others.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: What I was referring to was the time occupied by Members opposite about 3 o'clock in the morning.

  METROPOLIS MANAGEMENT AMEND MENT ACT (1862) AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 357.)
  Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.

  MARRIAGES IN BRITISH EMBASSIES, &c. BILL.—(No. 359.)
  Lords Amendments considered; several agreed to; one disagreed to; and a Consequential Amendment made to the Bill.
  Committee appointed, "to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to one of the Amendments;"—To withdraw immediately.
  Ordered, That Three be the quorum.

  ELECTIONS (SCOTLAND) (CORRUPT AND ILLEGAL PRACTICES) BILL. (No. 243.)
  Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.

  MARRIAGES IN BRITISH EMBASSIES, &c. BILL.—(No. 359.)
  Reason for disagreeing to one of the Amendments made by the Lords to which this House hath disagreed, reported, and agreed to.
  To be communicated to the Lords.

  ALLOTMENTS ACT (1887) AMEND MENT BILL.—(No. 318.)
  Lords Amendments to be considered to-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 418.]
  METROPOLIS MANAGEMENT ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 356.)
  Lords Amendments to be considered to-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 419.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

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

  CLASS II.
  1. £28,083, to complete the sum for the Charity Commission.
  MR. J. COLLINGS: I had intended to bring forward the policy adopted by the Charity Commissioners, but at a moment when everybody wants to get away from London, I shall briefly confine myself to one point, and it is with

  823
  great reluctance that I do that. I only do so in the fulfilment of a pledge to persons who are greatly interested in a scheme of the Charity Commissioners which is now hanging over their heads, and which they desire to see delayed or got rid of altogether. I allude to the ancient borough of Sutton Coldfield, which is now a very poor agricultural parish, with 8,000 or 9,000 inhabitants, and which possesses large charitable endowments. The bequest dates from the time of Henry VIII., and the words run "for the exoneration of the poor, and for other secular and pious uses." Whatever construction may be put upon these words, it cannot be doubted that the endowment was intended for the benefit of the poor, and under an order of the Court of Chancery in 1825, the purposes to which the fund should be devoted were set forth, including medical assistance, loans of clothing, assistance to poor women in confinement, loans of blankets, and also free education. This free education was provided for the poor of the parish up to 10 years ago, and as it was of a character acknowledged by all, including the Educational Department, to be of an effective character, it gained the highest amount of Government grant. With regard to the general administration of the fund, there is no allegation that anything wrong had been done. About 10 years ago, the Commissioners cast their eyes on this endowment, or they had their attention called to it. In pursuance of their policy of encouraging higher schools, which influenced them even more strongly at that time than now, they brought in a scheme to divert part of the fund to the support of an ancient grammar school which had existed for some hundreds of years at Sutton Coldfield. The scheme being sanctioned, the benefit which this charity conferred upon the poor of Sutton Coldfield was curtailed to the extent of £15,000, and from that time free education ceased and fees were charged. Indeed, so far as it affected the grammar school, it worked badly for the education of the poor, seeing that the fees were largely increased from the sum of 10s. a quarter; and when the Corporation had the right to pay £60, and send 10 or 20 scholars, fees were charged. Of course, there were a certain number of scholarships founded,
  824
  but these did not affect the poorer classes. It might be supposed that this spoliation of the poor of Sutton Cold-field had come to an end. But that is not so. There is now another scheme hanging over them, and with reference to that scheme I wish to be assured that there is no further danger of the spoliation of the money of the poorer classes. The scheme to which I refer is universally opposed in the parish. Under that scheme it is proposed to take from the Endowment Fund a further income of £350 a year, and a further capital of £5,000, being equal to an entire capital sum of £17,000, which, in addition to the £15,000 taken away ten years ago, will amount to £32,000 taken from the Endowment Fund in order to create high schools for boys and girls mainly of the better classes. I am in favour of high schools of all kinds, but I object to their being created in that particular way. I am aware that the system is in accordance with the traditional policy of the Charity Commissioners, and that hundreds of localities have suffered by it. I think it is time that that policy should be put an end to. All classes in the parish have taken up the cause of the poor, both Conservatives and Liberals, and, with the exception of the few persons who constitute the old Board, not a single communication has been received in favour of the scheme. There is a solicitor there who has given his services for the protection of the poorer classes, and there is a very prominent Conservative member of the new Corporation who has devoted his time, his money, and his attention to the Commissioners' scheme. Two or three years ago the Corporation was changed into a Municipal Corporation under the Corporations Act, and the elections turned on this scheme, but there was not a candidate who was in favour of it who got returned to the Council. I suppose we shall be told that there are scholarships and exhibitions, and that they are for the benefit of the poor. I do not agree with that, and I hope the House will not agree with it. The House will remember that if any gentleman founds a scholarship, he provides the money for it, but in this case the money is taken away from the less fortunate classes, and therefore it is a mistake to say that you give them

  825
  scholarships. What is actually done is this—you take the money first, and then you create the scholarships out of the money you have taken. That is not at all just, and the poorer classes do not benefit by these scholarships. Why, I would ask, in au elementary school, should we take away the privileges of 95 pupils in order that we may give them to the remaining five, so that they may take advantage of higher education? I maintain that these scholarships are not in any way compensation for the benefits that have been taken away. It has been said that giving such things as free education, medical relief, &c., to the poor has a demoralising effect. It is somewhat curious how it is always in the case of the poor that the demoralisation comes in. It may be said that you do not offer other people medical relief, but you do offer them free education, and in the form in which it is accepted it is as much in the nature of doles as anything else. I want the people of Sutton Coldfield to be assured that the scheme now hanging over them will be withdrawn. A few years hence it might have had a chance of being passed by this House, but I do not think in the present condition of things it has any chance whatever. I have studied the question of this policy from the first moment that I entered the House, knowing as I did many cases where the poor have suffered, I shall continue to raise it until the policy is altered. I achieved no success, I am bound to say, with the late Government. On a previous occasion when I brought that matter forward my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield (Mr. Mundella) accused me of wasting the time of the House, and in private he added, "You are an old Tory for going into these matters." Well, if "old Toryism" means the preserving of the rights and privileges of the poor, then I glory in the name, and I will tell the right hon. Member for Sheffield that his policy was a wrong one. I have some reason to believe that some attempt will be made to make out that this endowment does not belong to the poor. The evidence of Mr. Richmond before the Committee was no doubt very ingenious, and it was given with the object of showing that this endowment was not the property of the poor. Mr. Richmond is,
  826
  I believe, a very able man, but he was only carrying out what had been the traditions of his office—traditions which I hope this House will let the Charity Commissioners know are not in accordance with modern requirements, as far as the poorer classes are concerned. If Acts of Parliament in connection with these endowments are to be strained at all, they should be strained in favour of the poorer classes, but instead of that I am afraid there is a disposition—I am, in fact, sure there is—to divert these endowments to other purposes, purposes for which they were never intended. In conclusion, I wish to say that I have confined my remarks to one point instead of going into a great number of points as I had originally intended, and I hope, before the Debate on the Vote is closed, that the House will receive an assurance from the proper quarter that this second scheme to which I have referred will no longer be allowed to hang over the poor of Sutton Cold-field.
  SIR WALTER FOSTER: I wish to express my approval of the observations made by the hon. Member for the Bordesley Division (Mr. Collings) in reference to this endowment, and I hope the Charity Commissioners will be induced to give heed to the representations of my hon. Friend. I am afraid that of late years there has been at work an academic influence in the direction of taking the charities intended for the poorer classes of the community and using them for the development of higher education, though I am willing to admit that of late years that tendency has been lessened a good deal by what has taken place both inside and outside the House. I think there is great danger of producing a considerable amount of angry feeling in the rural districts if the rights of the poor are not more tenderly dealt with by the Charity Commissioners than they have been hitherto; and I, therefore, have much pleasure in re-inforcing the appeal which has been made by the hon. Member for the Bordesley Division to the hon. Member for Penrith (Mr. J. W. Lowther), to check the tendency of the Charity Commissioners in the direction of taking away money from the poorer classes and devoting it to the education of the higher classes. The poorer classes

  827
  feel that they are not adequately represented on the bodies charged with the administration of these charities. This feeling strongly prevails in rural districts, and it is injurious not only to the Charity Commissioners themselves but to that loyal contentment which every public office should encourage. I trust, too, that the Charity Commissioners will take care that no charities are lost to the people. There are, for instance, many rent-charges which are uncollected, and therefore lost. It is the duty of the Commissioners to protect the property of the poor, and steps ought to be taken to see that rent-charges are recovered. I hope that in all cases brought under their notice the Charity Commissioners will exercise care in the operation of the Allotments Act. I am glad to say there has been a great improvement in this respect in the last two years. The Charity Commissioners have shown a desire to get the poor lands for the benefit of the poor, and I hope the generosity shown during the last two years will be still further extended. With reference to the general administration of the Department, I congratulate the hon. Member for Penrith on having to defend a Department which has been doing exceedingly good work during the last few years.
  MR. COBB: I have only a few questions to put to the hon. Member for Penrith. I am glad to see that in the case of several schemes in which I am personally interested the Commissioners have provided that certain Trustees shall be elected by vestries. I wish to know whether the Commissioners are going in future schemes to extend the policy of providing that the Trustees shall be elected by the vestries? I suggest it would be desirable generally to provide a larger number of elective Trustees than at present. In one case which I have in mind there are 12 Trustees, and only three have been chosen by the vestry. Again, there are many cases in which charities have failed to return accounts regularly to the Commissioners, and I should like to know whether the hon. Member can see his way to obtain more regular returns than are now obtained.
  MR. J. W. LOWTHER: I think that the hon. Member for the Bordesley Division will
  828
  hardly expect me to go into all the details of the Sutton Coldfield case. The hon. Member himself did not elaborate the case at any great length; he has done that on former occasions. He, of course, remembered perfectly that he brought the matter before the Endowed Schools Acts Committee, which sat for two years upstairs. He gave evidence on four or five occasions with regard to the Endowed Schools Act, and on several occasions with regard to the Sutton Coldfield scheme. Mr. Richmond, the Charity Commissioner in charge of the case, was heard on the other side, and the Committee, a very strong Committee, who considered the matter very carefully, reported that in regard to the large endowment given by Henry VIII. to the borough of Sutton Coldfield, it was shown that the original gift contemplated the benefit of all classes of the inhabitants, the hon. Member contends that it was only for the poor, but the Committee found it contemplated the benefit of all classes, and reported that while the scheme of the Charity Commissioners proposes to devote a limited share to the endowment and promotion of higher education, it appropriates the larger part for the support of elementary schools and otherwise for the express benefit of the poor. I do not wish to go behind that, because it is the deliberate finding of the Committee, who considered the matter very carefully. The exact state of the scheme at present is that it rests with the Education Department, and it is not in the power of the Charity Commissioners either to withdraw it, or to press it on. The hon. Member is a ware that schemes are submitted to the Education Department, and that it rests with that Department either to approve or reject them or to send them back to the Charity Commissioners for alteration. I am perfectly certain that everything which has fallen from the hon. Member for the Bordesley Division will be carefully considered by the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council [Sir W. HART DYKE: Hear, hear!] before he either approves or rejects the scheme which is now under consideration. I have no doubt the right hon. Gentleman is constantly receiving recommendations from those interested in the scheme, and therefore

  829
  the hon. Member may rest assured that his objections will be fully considered before the scheme becomes law. With regard to the remarks made by the hon. Member for Ilkeston (Sir W. Foster) and the hon. Member for the Rugby Division (Mr. Cobb), the Charity Commissioners have given a considerable proportion to the representative element in the appointment of Governors, and that policy is being continued and extended. In the case of very small charities it was very difficult to arrange for the election of Trustees ad hoc; it is an expensive thing besides, and accordingly, in those cases, the Commissioners take representative bodies, such as Local Boards, Vestries, or School Boards, and give them power to nominate Trustees on the Boards of Governors. In regard to the recovery of rent-charges, the Commissioners have certified to the Attorney General several cases in which they think there is sufficient evidence to enable him to recover. The point to be considered in each case, however, is whether the game is worth the candle. With regard to the accounts of charities, the hon. Member for Rugby is aware that the duty of returning the accounts rests with the Trustees of charities. The number of returns vary from time to time, but I think they are gradually increasing. It is the practice of the Commissioners to call for accounts as they may be wanted, to enable them to consider the circumstances of any particular charity, but there is no doubt that the action of County Councils will waken up Trustees of charities, and such pressure will be brought to bear upon them that they will be more regular in future in sending in their accounts to the office.
  CAPTAIN VERNEY: I should like the hon. Gentleman (Mr. J. W. Lowther) to tell the Committee whether he considers that in his Department there is a sufficient staff to perform the duties imposed upon them. It is my belief they have nothing approaching the staff that is necessary, and if that is so, the hon. Gentleman ought not to be afraid to tell the Committee so. In the first instance, the Charity Commissioners were appointed to protect the small charities for the benefit of the poor. From time to time we bring before the House cases of charities misapplied and misappropriated, but it is not our duty
  830
  to do this: it is the duty of the Charity Commissioners to find out these cases of misappropriation. Take the case of a charity at Edmonton. Two or three years ago it was discovered that some of the money was going to the payment of a curate and organist, and even the washing of surplices. It was the duty of the Charity Commissioners to have found that out. I could give a number of such instances, and I should like the hon. Gentleman to tell us if it is true that the Commissioners have not got a staff large enough to enable them to perform all the duties for which they were primarily appointed. In the matter of accounts, too, I know of charities in my own county the accounts of which have not been sent in for years. It is the duty of the Commissioners, if not to audit the accounts, at least to insist upon them being sent in.
  MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK: Allow me to mention a matter which has been brought under my notice by a clergyman in the City of London, the Rev. Canon MacColl, of St. George's, Botolph Lane. He informs me that property which is applicable to the repair of that church has been appropriated by the Charity Commissioners, and that that being so there are no funds whatever that can be spent in maintaining the fabric. I should like to know from the hon. Member for Penrith if there is any rule which guides the Charity Commissioners in cases where funds applicable to the repair of churches have been appropriated.
  MR. COBB: Can the hon. Member give us any idea of the proportion of cases in which accounts of charities have not been sent in?
  MR. J. W. LOWTHER: I am afraid I cannot offhand answer the question of the hon. Member for Rugby. We do not know exactly how many charities there are. The number of charities is added to day by day, and as fast as we discover charities we add them to our books. We can tell how many accounts are sent in every year, and we state the number in our Report. I think there is some misconception as to the exact state of the law with regard to accounts. The Act of Parliament says that the Trustees of charities shall send in their accounts

  831
  to the Charity Commissioners every year. The Act does not say that we must require them every year, but that if we want them we are entitled to get them. If the duties suggested by the hon. and gallant Member for North Bucks (Captain Verney) fall on the Commissioners, we would require a very large staff of clerks and inspectors. At present there is no staff to carry out the suggestions of the hon. and gallant Member. If my right hon. Friend (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) will look at the 7th Schedule of the scheme now laid on the Table of the House, dealing with the City Parochial Charities, he will find that the money appropriated for the annual maintenance, cleaning, and repair of the fabric, St. George's, Botolph Lane, is £41 a year, and the sum proposed to be allotted to the parish under the Scheme is £ 117 a year.
  THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Sir W. HART: I promise the hon. Member for the Bordesley Division that I will look into the Sutton Coldfield Scheme.
  Vote agreed to.
  2. £5,087, to complete the sum for the Friendly Societies Registry.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: If this Vote had been reached at anything like a reasonable period of the Session, it would have been my duty to have occupied the attention of the Committee for a very considerable time. Of course, that is now out of the question. Under the circumstances, I will confine myself to so much of the matter affecting the Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies as comes within Section 30 of the Friendly Societies Act, 1875. These include 3,000,000 of members, of whom half are adults. I regret that as the Committee sat for two years no kind of legislative action was taken either to amend the law or to inquire into some of the matters we found ourselves unable to examine into. I do trust that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who I have reason to believe takes exceedingly great interest in this matter, will not allow the vacation again to pass without determining upon some action when next Session commences. As a Departmental Committee has been sitting and examining into the office of the Registrar of Friendly Societies, I also have to express my
  832
  regret that no communication has been made by the Government which might have rendered it unnecessary for me to make some of the comments I feel it my duty to make. As to the Registrar of Friendly Societies, I quite agree that in past times he has done much service to the Friendly Societies. I do not want in any way to detract from the great services he certainly rendered in old times, but I am afraid that since 1875, from what I believe to be a mistaken view of the sections of the Act, he has made some of its provisions utterly useless to the people whom Parliament intended to benefit; and in consequence of the line he has thought it his duty to pursue, large frauds have been perpetrated which might have been stopped at a very early period. Section 10, Sub-section 5 of the Act, gives the Central Office power to collect and circulate, either generally or in any particular district, such information respecting life statistics and the bearings thereof on the business of Friendly Societies, and other information extracted from or founded on the balance sheets and returns useful to members of Friendly Societies as the Chief Registrar shall from time to time think fit. I submit that if it came to the knowledge of the Chief Registrar that a society was utterly insolvent and that its conductors were carrying it on fraudulently, it was his duty to circulate among the members and amongst the persons living in the district, by advertisement or otherwise, such information as should prevent members going on blindly paying. In 1888, in answer to a question put by myself, the Registrar told me he thought the construction of the Act was doubtful. In answer to Question 934 the Chief Registrar admitted that in 1875 there was a society which showed in its accounts a deficiency of £55,520. This was brought to the knowledge of the Registrar, and yet he did not communicate with any of the members of the society in any fashion, and the society went on for another eight years collecting the money of the poorest of the people, until in the end these people lost all their contributions. It was a very grave case, indeed, and investigation showed that, besides fraud upon the contributors, there had been absolute theft of securities.

  833
  The facts were submitted to Mr. Mead, an eminent counsel, who advised a prosecution, and although the initiative rested with the Registrar, nothing was done. The people were defrauded, the scoundrels who defrauded them escaped, and all through the mistaken view of this gentleman, who did nothing to give effect to the intention of the Legislature. I am bound to say I cannot see the use of a Chief Registrar, who site in his office merely to receive his salary, and to ignore reports brought before him of serious frauds. If it were earlier in the Session I should feel it to be my duty to take a vote in the Committee on the subject. It was the duty of the Chief Registrar to consult the Treasury; they did not know, but he was constituted to receive information. I cannot help saying it is a disgrace to our administration that there should be an official entrusted with the duty of communicating his knowledge to these poor ignorant people, but who does not fulfil that duty because the gravity of it does not come home to him. This case, there is every reason to suppose, does not stand alone, but looking at the fact that we are at the close of the Session, and that the House is literally empty, I now content myself with asking for an assurance from the Government that the Registrar shall not be allowed to neglect his duties for 12 months longer. If that assurance is not given I shall feel it my duty to call the attention of the House to the matter in a most serious manner. I appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who, I know, takes an interest in matters affecting the promotion of habits of thrift among the people, to consider the advisabilty of providing a statutory inquiry in order that we may know how matters stand with other societies. I do not make the suggestion that many of them are fraudulent, but I do say that there is a class of these collecting societies whose procedure lends itself to fraud more than others—societies not conducted for the benefit of the members, but for the benefit of the few who make large incomes, often most unfairly. I know the difficulty when I ask the Government to introduce legislation, but remember this is a matter directly and indirectly affecting the interests of 14,000,000 of weekly payments
  834
  averaging 1½ made by the poorest classes among our people.
  A LORD OF THE TREASURY (Sir HERBERT MAXWELL,: I am glad the hon. Member began his speech with an acknowledgment of the services performed by that public servant against whom the latter part of his speech was directed. No one who knows the history of the Registry of Friendly Societies, of its origin, and the many ambiguities which had to be interpreted before the Act of 1875 could be administered, but must endorse what was said by the hon. Member for Northampton in the earlier part of his speech. The hon. Member went on to express his regret that there has been no legislative result to the Report of the Committee of last year. But the Committee did not report until the end of a very late Session. That Report has been carefully considered, and a Bill has been drafted involving more difficulties in the framing than was perhaps present to the minds of Members of the Select Committee when they made their recommendations. Owing to the pressure of business that Bill never left the limbo of good intentions. But it is not lost sight of, and I trust another Session will not pass without legislative action being taken. The hon. Member has referred to the fact of the Report of the Departmental Committee not having been presented to the House, but it was never intended that it should be presented. The object of that Committee was to enable the Department to carry out such of the recommendations of the Select Committee as referred to the internal re-organisation of the Registry of Friendly Societies. Action has been taken on that portion of the recommendations. Considerable reforms have taken place within the Department. It is now organised in three branches, one under the immediate attention of the Assistant Registrar, another under the Actuary, and the third under the Chief Clerk. These changes involved various alterations, including structural additions to the building, with which I need not trouble the Committee now. I can assure the hon. Member that, although the Report of the Departmental Committee is confidential in character, it has been the means of carrying out some of the suggestions of

  835
  the Select Committee. The latter part of the hon. Member's speech included an attack upon Mr. Ludlow, and the hon. Member intended it as a very formidable indictment. But it resolves itself into this, that the interpretation put by the Registrar on a Sub-section of a Section of the Act of 1875 (an important Sub-section, I admit), differs from the interpretation put upon it by the hon. Member, and by a majority of the Members of the Select Committee. I agree that in my view, which is not worth much, for I am not a lawyer, the expressions in the Sub-section would bear, and seem to imply, the construction put upon the Sub-section by the hon. Member for Northampton. But that is not the view taken by every one. I have consulted Legal Authorities, and they are of opinion that the view of the Chief Registrar is perfectly consistent with the terms of statute. I admit that there exists in the public mind an impression that the Registry of Friendly Societies exists for the purpose of performing more paternal functions than has hitherto been the case, but I ask the Committee to remember this, that there is danger in assuming too much in a Department of this kind. If you teach the public to rely solely on warnings issued from time to time from the office of the Chief Registrar you teach them a dangerous lesson indeed. The vast amount of returns that have to be collected and gone over annually involves considerable delay before any warning can be issued, and during that delay are not members of Friendly Societies to be taught to think and act for themselves? Every Friendly Society has self-government more or less efficient.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: If the hon. Gentleman will permit me, I think the Committee were aware that the element of self-government does not exist in collecting societies, or there are such huge difficulties in the way of it being exercised that practically it is non-existent.
  SIR H. MAXWELL: Yes; but the Chief Registrar encourages members of Societies to improve their supervision. I admit at once the very serious nature of the case the hon. Member has cited. But 10 years ago the majority of the Friendly Societies in the country might have been returned as in an insolvent condition,
  836
  but owing partly to the conduct of the Chief Registrar, and partly to the action of the Societies themselves, this financial condition has been greatly improved. The Chief Registrar, in consequence of the re-organisation of his office, is now better able than, in the past to afford assistance to the members of these Societies, and he is certainly not a man to neglect to perform his duty.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: I quite feel the difficulty of the Government. But let me say at once the interpretation of the words of the Act (which permit the Chief Registrar, if they do no more, to circulate information from time to time) the interpretation which prevented the Chief Registrar from circulating the information led to the people continuing for eight years to subscribe to a society which showed a deficiency of £55,000. Although I quite agree that it is far better for the members of a society to be taught to be self-reliant, here is the difficulty that an Act of Parliament passed in 1875 has done exactly the opposite, and has taught the people to rely on information to be communicated to them, and there is nothing here that restricts the Chief Registrar except the approval of the Treasury. I regret very much that a question affecting the interests of many millions of poor arouses so little interest in the Committee that only a few Members think fit to be present. I ask the First Lord of the Treasury to consider during the Recess whether it may not be possible to issue a small Statutory Commission—a Royal Commission is of no use—next year to inquire into the circumstances of several Societies into whose affairs the Committee that was appointed did not think itself entitled to inquire, but in connection with which there were grave allegations of fraud.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH,: I will take care that this is very carefully considered.
  Vote agreed to.
  3. £109,747, to complete the sum for the Local Government Board.
  4. £10,507, to complete the sum for the Lunacy Commission, England.
  5. £25,000, to complete the sum for the Mercantile Marine Fund (Grant in Aid).
  6. Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £45,711, 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 1891, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Mint, including the Expenses of Coinage.
  MR. MONTAGU: I do not like to pass from this Vote without taking the opportunity of making an appeal to the Government in favour of the adoption of a system of decimal coinage. I want an undertaking from the Government that a Select Committee or Royal Commission shall be appointed next Session to inquire whether the time has not at last arrived for establishing a decimal system of money, weights, and measures. I have spoken to the Chancellor of the Exchequer privately upon the subject, but the right hon. Gentleman did not see his way to grant this reasonable request; and I now wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, since the interview, he has consulted his colleagues as to whether he can grant a Royal Commission to inquire into the subject?
  THE CHAIRMAN: I must remind the hon. Member that I told him a year ago that the policy of decimal coinage is regulated by Statute.
  MR. MONTAGU: I desire to point out that I have spoken of decimal coinage upon this Vote: I only ask the Government to issue certain coins from the Mint to complete the decimal system initiated by the florin, and I think, with all due submission, as I seldom trouble the House or the Committee, that I am in order in discussing the question; and if I am allowed to do so, I shall deal with the question very briefly.
  THE CHAIRMAN indicated his assent.
  MR. MONTAGU: I wish, in the first place, to remind the Committee that all foreign countries and several of our colonies have adopted this system of decimal coinage, and in no case has any one of these countries retraced its steps or regretted its change, while this country remains high and dry attached to the old system. I wish to ask why we should continue to enforce upon children in Board schools a complex arithmetical system which can be rendered
  838
  unnecessary by the introduction of a decimal system? When we waited upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer to press upon the right hon. Gentleman the advisability of adopting this system, or of giving it a trial, his answer was, he wanted a "popular cry." Well, there is a popular cry, and universal wherever the subject of decimal coinage is discussed. In fact, there is practical unanimity upon the subject. We have recently re-established a Decimal Association, and meetings have been held in England and Scotland with great success, there being no opposition to the system. On April the 9th, I would remind the Committee, the National Union of Teachers' Conference discussed the question, and they passed the following resolution:-—
  "Mr. Wright moved that the time had arrived when the interests of commerce and education demanded that a decimal system of money weights and measures should be introduced into this country. Mr. Wild seconded, and the matter was carried nem. Con."
  I scarcely know what the right hon. Gentleman calls a popular cry. The system has been adopted in Europe, Asia, Africa, and America, because it was found that the decimal system was an improvement, and in Ceylon, where the "public cry " was against the proposal, the system of decimal coinage was introduced notwithstanding, and after a little experience it was found to be a satisfactory change. Will the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer please say what kind of a "cry" he wants? Does not the right hon. Gentleman's own conscience cry out and tell him that it is a grievous wrong to inflict this complex system of calculation upon young minds when it could be so easily changed and so adequately remedied? I would remind the Committee that the Chambers of Commerce were to be found in favour of the change; that School Boards will, I think, approve of the proposal, and I believe that the majority of Members in this House would vote in favour of its adoption. I would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make an experiment and issue tenths and twentieths of a florin, and I believe the result would be found to be satisfactory, and the bankers, with other associations, would voluntarily adopt the decimal system. At all events, I believe a case has been made out

  839
  of an inquiry into the matter; and considering that compulsory education has advanced to such a degree, and the duty we owe to the working classes, I think that the matter deserves the serious attention of the Government. I would also wish to ask if the Chancellor of the Exchequer has inquired from Foreign Mints as to the greater durability of their gold coin? Our experiments were made some six or seven years ago, but the test applied was not a good one, as the friction applied in revolving boxes has not the same effect as regular circulation. It is necessary for us to have as durable a metal as any other country in the world. The experiments prove that Germany, France, and the United States have a far more durable coinage than ours. I have had a letter from a former Treasurer of State in the United States, in which he said upon this subject—
  "If you will take, Say, 20,000 pieces, selected by years, you will, in my opinion, find that the English silver loses very much more through abrasion than the American silver coin, or, in fact, than any other silver coin 900 fine. Silver coin 900 fine seems to be of the exact fineness best adapted for their use as coin, and I think the French and German experiences will bear me out in this assertion. Your silver is too fine and too soft. It makes a more beautiful piece, but it certainly does not wear as well as the coin 900 fine. I believe you can prove this statement fully by an examination of 20,000, because I found in the course of my experiments that the 20,000 pieces furnished with greater exactness the same average as a larger number.''The Report of the French Mint last year upon this subject was far more reliable, as the experiments were conducted on a rectangular table making nine oscillations in a minute, the table being covered with sheet brass, zinc, sheet iron, marble, sprinkled with sand, and powdered pumice stone, &c. Some interesting and important facts relating to the wear of gold coin were ascertained by these experiments. One result was that they did not establish the fact that the half sovereign is, as the noble Lord the Member for Paddington called it, a costly and extravagant coin. The latter criticism was founded on the insufficient ground that working men were more easily tempted to change a half sovereign in a public house, as if they could not change it with equal ease at the baker's, the butcher's, or the grocer's. Yet another ground of objection is the costliness
  840
  of the coin; and if that could be disproved, then I think that the whole substantial objection falls to the ground. I notice from the Report of the Mint hat no half sovereigns have been coined for several years. I ask the Government not to run short of this very useful coin. I should also like to say a word or two about the silver coins. The Chancellor of the Exchequer told us that last year we made £700,000 or £800,000 by coining silver. He has been very lucky in obtaining a very large quantity of silver below the present market prices. I think he has now an abundant and even an excessive supply. I do not think, however, we ought to make a profit on our gold and silver coinage. The coins should be honest coins, and should only bear the exact cost of the mintage. I believe that in November next the Chancellor of the Exchequer contemplates renewing a considerable portion of the gold coinage, and I think this will afford us an excellent opportunity of considering the advisability of adopting decimal coinage, and also of seeing whether our coins cannot be made more durable. From the Report of the French Mint this year I gather that the cost of rehabilitating the French gold in circulation is estimated at from 1,300,000 frs. to 1,400,000 frs. per milliard, or from £52,000 to £56,000 per £40,000,000. That is about 1⅜ per mille, whereas the cost of restoring our gold circulation to a good condition is estimated at over 1 per cent., or about eight times the proportionate cost of restoring to a good condition the French gold circulation. This means a difference of over £500,000, and that outlay would not occur but for the faulty type and composition of our coins. I am afraid that our coins are badly made, and that the milled edges cause greater friction than is desirable. I have made these remarks in no hostile spirit. I trust the Government will grant an inquiry into this matter, and that it does not intend to perpetuate a system which entails the waste of hundreds of thousands of pounds.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON,: I am sorry my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is detained elsewhere by pressing business, for I am sure he would have been glad

  841
  to listen to the hon. Member's interesting speech—a speech in the course of which he has touched upon several questions which it will not be necessary for me to reply to in detail. Of course, I will convey what he has said to the right hon. Gentleman. I am not sure that the French estimates of which the hon. Member has spoken, as to the cost of renewing their gold coin, may not prove to be inaccurate. The hon. Member spoke about foreign coin being more durable than ours. I know that this question has been constantly before the Mint Authorities; I have had myself several conversations with them upon the subject. They have been making experiments, and they have come to the conclusion that our coin is as durable as the coin of foreign countries. I think we should be guided by those who are competent to make these tests. The hon. Gentleman has spoken of the supply of silver. Well, there was a large circulation of silver last year, and this year, too, a considerable amount has been circulated; while that is the case, of course the Mint must meet the demand so far as they can. In reference to the decimal coinage, I do not think I should be justified in entering upon the subject, and I hope the hon. Member will be satisfied with having drawn attention to the matter, and rest assured that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be informed of his remarks.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: In regard to the remarks of the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets upon decimal coinage, if it had not been for the action of the invincible Chinaman in taking the existing multiple we should not have had all this trouble. But while I do not wish to deal with that portion of the subject, I desire to call the attention of the House to the practice of putting the English emblem of St. George and the Dragon upon sovereigns. In regard to this matter, I have already called attention to it; but the Chancellor of the Exchequer will give me no satisfaction at all. This emblem does not represent an English tradition; it is not a Scotch tradition; nor is it an Irish tradition. At all events, whatever may be the tradition, the coins are common to the three countries, and should not bear such a device. As long as the memory of man goes back, there has
  842
  been no such emblem upon gold coins; at any rate not for the last 50 years, nor, I believe, for the last 150 years. In the days of George III. there was something like it, but not exactly the same. I hold it to be fictitious, unnecessary, and uncalled for. I also want to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what he is going to put upon the half sovereign. I understand that the half sovereign is not now being coined, so we have no opportunity of seeing what it is going to be like. I notice that the Secretary to the Treasury shakes his head, but I assure the Committee that the stoppage of the half sovereign would be a great grievance to Scotland; I very much prefer that coin; indeed, Scotchmen do like half sovereigns very much. I wish to know from the First Lord of the Treasury if the Government are going to put this insulting emblem of St. George and the Dragon upon the half sovereign as well as upon the sovereign? I beg to move the reduction of the Vote by £100.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That £45,611 be granted for the said Service."—(Sir George Campbell. )
  MR. W. H. SMITH: The hon. Gentleman has got his remedy. It is a very serious indictment which he has brought against the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Let him exhibit the articles of impeachment against my right hon. Friend in order that Parliament may fully consider the serious gravity of the charge which the hon. Member has made.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: I will not press the matter about the sovereign if I can get an answer about the half sovereign.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: The hon. Gentleman has been informed that the coinage of half sovereigns will be continued. I cannot tell him whether St. George and the Dragon is to be put on the gold coins.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: I hope my suggestion will be favourably considered by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Why not put the value on the coin, instead of this insulting emblem?
  SIR W. LAWSON: May I suggest as a compromise that, instead of St. George and the Dragon, we should put on "Sir George and the Dragon."
  SIR R. FOWLER: I give the hon. Member for Whitechapel notice that if he raises the question of decimal coinage next year I shall vote against him.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: As the question of what shall appear on the half sovereign is not finally decided, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion for a reduction.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  7. £9,231, to complete the sum for the National Debt Office.
  8. £6,494, to complete the sum for the Public Works Loan Commission.
  9. £14,636, to complete the sum for the Record Office.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I just want to call attention to one or two points. First, as to the historical records. We are told that the first volume is now out of print. Surely it is absurd, seeing that these works have cost so much money, that one should be now unable to buy the complete set of eight volumes. I hope this matter will be looked into. Another point to which I wish to call attention is that of the Venetian archives, which have been prepared under the editorship of the late Mr. Rawdon Brown. I understand that it has been arranged that another Mr. Brown shall continue this work at Venice. But I believe that Mr. Rawdon Brown has handed over a large number of transcripts, and that many of the archives are in the hands of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Whitehaven. I think that there should be some understanding with Mr. Brown that a list should be furnished to him of the copies which are in this country, so that he may not waste time in sending over duplicates.
  MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK: I know nothing about the appointment of any new editor at Venice to carry out the work of my lamented friend Mr. Rawdon Brown. I have only heard the report with regard to the question of transcripts. Mr. Rawdon Brown during the many years that he held the office of editor of the Venetian archives received annually a sum of money for purchasing transcripts for the Record
  844
  Office. A very large number of these have not yet been calendared, and still remain in the hands of the authorities. But besides those documents which have been paid for out of public money, Mr. Brown, who has made me his literary executor, left me a large number of transcripts which do not belong to the State. The volume of which I have been requested by the Master of the Rolls to take charge brings the archives down to the year 1580, and the next volume will go down, perhaps, 20 years later. I really do not know what policy the Master of the Rolls and his assistants have determined to carry out with regard to future volumes of the work, but I would suggest that there is no necessity whatever for going to any large expenditure in employing an editor in Venice to make abstracts of those transcripts which are now in England. I shall be glad, on conditions, to hand over the transcripts which belong to me personally to the Record Office, and all that it will be necessary to do at Venice will be to see that the transcribers have made no omission. I may point out what I consider to be a great disadvantage in this particular work, namely, that the abstracts are far too voluminous, and I will suggest that a new system may be adopted by which they may be shortened. The transcripts will appear in the original language, and at a much less cost the abstracts might briefly point out to any inquirer where the particular information can be obtained. If that system is adopted the public will be able to obtain much more accurate information in the original language than under the present system.
  MR. HOWELL: I hope that Members of Parliament will not be deprived of the opportunity of having copies of the records which they require in the ordinary way.
  MR. JACKSON: My attention has not been called to that point, but I will make inquiries. With reference to the question of the hon. Member for Northampton, I will make inquiries at the Record Office as to the volumes of the historical manuscripts. As to the transcripts, I understand that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Whitehaven is quite willing to facilitate the future work, and that, I

  845
  think, answers the question of the hon. Member.
  Vote agreed to.
  10. £34,118, to complete the sum for the Registrar General's Office, England.
  11. £355,182, to complete the sum for Stationery and Printing.
  12. £17,875, to complete the sum for the Woods, Forests, and Land Revenues, &c. Office.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: I have to protest against the action of Mr. Culley, the Commissioner of this office, with regard to the way in which he has made away with the rights of the Crown in Scotland in respect to salmon fishing, to the detriment of the public and the advantage of landed proprietors. I think that an exhaustive inquiry should always be made in connection with these matters. The Commission did not go North to inquire into cases affecting fisheries on the North-East Coast.
  SIR HERBERT MAXWELL: Yes; evidence was taken.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: Well, no evidence was taken on the spot. Formerly, if a man fishing off the coast happened to catch a salmon, he esteemed it a good piece of luck; but now all sorts of claims are made upon him. I do not think the answers given by Mr. Culley to the Commission on the points on which I had made complaints against him were at all satisfactory; indeed, they seemed to imply that he would do the same thing again. Mr. Culley has endeavoured to justify his action, and there is every reason to suppose that if he had the chance he would repeat it. This is what I complain of. I say that the Crown rights and the foreshores should not be made away with without consulting the interests of the local and general public, and I say that those rights and the way in which they are to be administered was not sufficiently considered by the Commission. Again, the Committee of this House undoubtedly made an excellent Report as to the management of farms and so forth; but the main question is, as to whether the rights of the Crown should be administered as public rights in the interests of the community or whether they should be
  846
  administered as if they were the interests of private property. The question of foreshore is a very important one. Up to the time the Commissioners had control of the Scotch foreshores, namely, 1886, I find that they made away wholesale with the public rights in the interests of the landlords. But within the last few years the rights have been conferred on the Board of Trade. Mr. Culley is, I believe, still impenitent, and I trust that means will be taken to prevent these rights being made away with in the future. I shall now content myself with the protest I have made.
  MR. PRITCHARD MORGAN: I desire to call attention to the gold mining industry in Wales, with which I am particularly connected. It is within the know ledge of the House that for two or three years endeavours have been made to promote what promised to be an exceedingly important mining industry, the facts regarding which I will endeavour briefly to put before the Committee. It was not until a large sum of money had been expended in this industry that the Commissioners of Woods and Forests took any action in the matter. It was then that they made a claim which has since been established in the Court of Chancery, whose decision was in favour of the rights of the Crown to a percentage of the products of the mines which are being worked on the freehold lands of Her Majesty's subjects. Those lands have been so held for generations, and no claim to enter upon or work them has been made by the Crown, and were it not that this claim on the part of the Crown is one which absolutely stifles the industry, I should not trouble the Committee. It is well known that the precious metals are difficult to obtain; indeed, were this not so, they would no longer be precious. As it is, £1 out of every £5 which is expended in working the mines is lost; but of late years the advance of science has enabled a class of low grade ores to be worked at a profit, provided miners are not hampered by unjust claims. Take the case of the Australian Colonies, where gold is produced in large quantities. We find there that the Governments of the respective colonies foster and encourage the gold mining industry in every way, the great wealth

  847
  of these colonies being almost solely dependent on their mineral productions. In Victoria, where gold is obtained in large quantities, an attempt was made some years ago on the part of the Government to impose a royalty of 1s. 6d. per oz. The effect of that claim was to shut up one-half of the mines, and serious disturbances were occasioned as between the Authorities and the mining community, which resulted, I am sorry to say, in the loss of a great number of lives. The consequence was that the tax imposed by the Crown was abandoned. We now find that the colony of New South Wales regularly subscribes £20,000 per annum to assist prospectors in the discovery of the precious metals, and when they are found the prospectors are allowed to dig for them to their own profit, but, of course, at their own expense, no royalty whatever being charged. In Victoria £80,000 a year is allowed for prospecting purposes in exactly the same way. In none of the colonies is there any claim for royalty, because it is felt that any such claim would stifle the industry. If we were to take any business carried on in the United Kingdom, the result of any claim for a portion of the product would be to shut up one-half of those industries. What has been the result of the claim of 3frac13; per cent. insisted on by the Crown on the products of the Welsh mines? Why, that whereas five or six years ago 600 men were employed in this industry now not a single man is so employed. The Crown right was exercised as far back as the time of Elizabeth with similar results, and, indeed, the industry has always been stopped whenever the royalty has been insisted upon. Never has that industry had the same chance of success as it has now. Large sums have been expended on the erection of machinery and the purchase of plant, and we say that any charge made by the Government should be made on the profits and not on the products of the mines. I have endeavoured to induce the Commissioners of Woods and Forests to make this change, but they refuse. If you take £100 as a basis you will find it will employ 100 men for a week, at the end of which £103 worth of gold is produced, leaving a profit of 3 per cent. on the weekly turnover, but if 3frac13; per cent. is taken by the Government
  848
  the product is necessarily obtained at a loss, without reckoning the capital employed in plant and machinery. It is sufficient to have to pay heavy rents to the landlords, and even then we are heavily handicapped as compared with other industries. The Government know that I take great interest in this matter, and have been compelled to go into the Court of Chancery to obtain a decision on this subject. I appeal to the Government to consider this matter in the interest of the country generally, remembering that the establishment of the gold mining industry would give employment and fair wages to a considerable number of working men. In the colony of Queensland alone we have the means of producing £1,500,000 per annum from the Crown lands, and though the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General may think that we ought not to take a lesson from those young countries, I contend that our gold-producing colonies afford an example we should follow if we are desirous of developing the industry of gold mining in this country. In New South Wales we have the same state of things in regard to silver. There is a mine there which has paid £1,250,000 dividend on the silver obtained. In this country we find that for many years no less than £50,000 or £60,000 has been obtained on the silver produced, but no claim whatever has been made by the Commissioners of Woods and Forests to royalty upon that production. Silver, however, is as much a royalty-bearing mineral as gold, and I cannot understand the reason why it should escape when royalty is charged on the other metal. The Government need not be afraid that we shall make enormous profits out of the concessions we ask for. For many years we have not made 2frac12; per cent. on our outlay, and therefore the industry is not one that ought to be specially taxed. I would ask the Committee to bear in mind that some of us have embarked every shilling we have in the world in developing the gold-mining industry in Wales, and all we now ask is that the Government should consider this matter in a fair and liberal spirit, and abandon the royalty charged on products and transfer it to profits. I do not wish to dictate what proportion of profits they should take, but I do ask

  849
  them to make the change I have suggested. Under the circumstances that would be a graceful act on the part of the Government, and would be taken as an acknowledgment of their desire to assist in developing an industry that would give the means of employment to a considerable number of people.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir R. WEBSTER,: I think it will be well if I rise at once to say what I have to state in answer to the hon. Member for Merthyr. The question he has raised is one of great importance, namely, as to whether it is possible to alter the basis on which royalties are charged on the products of the gold-mining industry. There is a good deal of misunderstanding on the question of royalties upon gold and silver. It is sometimes assumed that those royalties belong to Her Majesty in her own right; but that is not the case. The right has long been surrendered, and it is now a taxpayers' question, and not one as to the prerogative rights of the Queen herself. No doubt if some satisfactory basis could be arrived at for collecting the royalty on profits, that might be a solution of the question, but that involves other very large questions. For instance, it involves the necessity of a somewhat careful inquiry into the way in which the undertakings are carried on, and a kind of criticism and examination of the accounts of the promoters of these industries. That, of course, the promoters would be very unwilling to submit to. Consequently the question is by no means an easy and a simple one. It is only during the last few days that the hon. Member has communicated with me on the subject. I cannot give a pledge at the present time, but I understand that the hon. Member is willing to prepare a Memorandum stating his views upon this subject; and I can assure the hon. Member that any such Memorandum shall be most carefully considered by the Woods and Forests Department and also by myself. It is impossible, however, for the Government to go further at the present time. Their experience is that the system is not open to the objections to which the hon. Member has called attention. It may be owing to the peculiarities of the undertaking in which the hon. Member
  850
  is engaged that the result to him and to those associated with him has been unfortunate; but it seems to me that any such change as is suggested could only be brought about after an examination of all the circumstances, and after a conclusion has been arrived at that the taxpayers would not sustain any loss.
  MR. PRITCHARD MORGAN: I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for what he has just stated; but I would remind him that whereas only £17 2s. 11d. was taken as royalty from this industry during 22 years prior to my taking it up, it has since paid something like £2,000—a circumstance which in itself is deserving of careful consideration. There are 26,000 acres of Crown lands surrounding my works, and if I am successful I shall add immensely to the value of that property, so that the Crown will derive enormous benefit from the development of this industry. I have not given the hon. and learned Gentleman the Memorandum to which he has referred. If the hon. and learned Gentleman will grant me an interview I will lay before him all the facts of the case; and I think there need be no difficulty whatever in shifting the royalty from products to profits. At present royalties, in the shape of Income Tax, are charged on the profits of every industry in the country, and it is hardly likely that anyone would waste the profits to which he is entitled simply for the purpose of robbing the Government of their proportion.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I wish to put a question in reference to the Gwylwyn Sett Quarry at Pistyll, in Carnarvonshire, as to which I have asked several questions already, and with regard to which I have placed on the Paper a notice of my intention to call attention to the way in which it is administered. If the Secretary to the Treasury can now make some statement on the subject, which will be of a satisfactory nature, I shall rest satisfied with having now mentioned the subject. I should like to know what is the present state of the negotiations with reference to that quarry?
  MR. JACKSON: The hon. Member was good enough to give me notice that he would ask this question, and I have made inquiry on the subject at the Office

  851
  of the Commissioners of Woods and Forests. I am informed that the negotiations have not yet been brought to an end, and therefore it is not possible for me to give him a complete answer on the present occasion. I understand that the object of the hon. Member is to secure, if possible, that that quarry shall not be let to somebody who will not work it, and I regard that as a perfectly reasonable object. The usual course is to insert a clause in the lease insisting that the quarry shall be worked. I understand that if the present negotiations are successful the quarry will be worked. I am obliged to the hon. Member for the information he has afforded me by letter.
  MR. J. O'CONNOR: The fact that I have been down in the district alluded to by the hon. Member for Merthyr (Mr. Pritchard Morgan) must be my excuse for saying to the Attorney General that I do not think his reply has been altogether satisfactory. I am not surprised that the hon. and learned Gentlemen should look at the matter from a different point of view from that of the hon. Member himself, but I cannot see how, if the hon. Member's proposal were adopted, the taxpayer would be involved in any speculation or any wastefulness. Nor can I see how there would be any greater difficulty in collecting a tax on produce in respect of mines than there is in collecting a tax on spirits or beer.
  SIR R. WEBSTER: That tax is not on profits.
  MR. J. O'CONNOR: Well, it is practically on profits. It appears that a tax on the product is a tax on labour. That has been proved to be practically the case, because since a tax on the product has been insisted on by the Crown the labour has ceased. It is undoubtedly a fact that this money has been invested, and the money remains sunk in the property. I am sure there is a desire in the minds of Members of this House that some way should be found out of the present difficulty. I have no doubt that if the Attorney General, acting on behalf of the taxpayer and the public, would meet the hon. Member, they would find a way out of it.
  Vote agreed to.
  13. £33,540, to complete the sum for the Works and Public Buildings Office.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: The Office of Works have succeeded in forming the outside of Westminster Hall into the semblance of a church sunk in a hole. The other day a reply was given which attributed the defects in the building not to the present Board of Works, but to a Board of Works of the time of William Rufus.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Any examination of the buildings undertaken or constructed by this Office must be confined to the Vote in Class I. This is a question of the personnel and organisation of the Office.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: My desire is to move a reduction of the salary of the First Commissioner on account of his not sufficiently looking after the work, and allowing bad work to be done. The outside of Westminster Hall is of the nature of a kind of confused backgammon board, with good stones and bad stones alternating.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The order must be preserved. This question can only be raised on Class I.
  Vote agreed to.
  14. £20,000, to complete the sum for Secret Service.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: This Vote is an instance of the great objection there is to taking Votes at the end of the Session, when it is impossible to discuss them. A considerable number of Members on this side of the House are opposed to any money being employed in this manner, but it is farcical to attempt to discuss the Estimates properly at this period of the Session. This is the only reason why I shall not go into the matter and ask the Committee to divide. But I think I ought to enter a protest, and to say that a considerable number of Members on this side of the House decidedly object to the Vote. The right hon. Gentleman will remember that in the case of Mr. Anderson it came out that he was an employé in one of the public Departments, that his salary was voted by the House, and that year after year a considerable sum out of the Secret Service money was given to him to augment his annual income. I thought there had been a full understanding

  853
  that whenever anyone whose salary was on the Estimates received anything in excess of that salary it should be stated in a foot-note. I may, therefore, legitimately ask whether there are any other gentlemen whose salaries are on the Estimates at present, and who receive a permanent increase of their incomes out of the Secret Service Fund?
  MR. JACKSON: I can give the hon. Member an assurance that, as far as I know and believe, there is absolutely nothing of the kind.
  Vote agreed to.
  15. £124, Supplementary, for the Charitable Donations and Bequests Office, Ireland.

  CLASS III.
  16. £47,500, to complete the sum for Law Charges.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: I beg to move to reduce the Vote by £500, the salary of the Public Prosecutor. What I have to say is in regard to the nonintervention of the Public Prosecutor in the matter of the great public frauds and scandals which are taking place every day in connection with the promotion of bogus companies and matters of that kind. It is a very pressing matter. You cannot take up a newspaper without seeing numerous trials and other reports in which these proceedings are dealt with. Only the other day I saw an account of a company having been got up with a capital of something like £290,000, £190,000 of which was spent in promotion money. The grossest frauds have been perpetrated, and I cannot see why, in cases of this kind, the Public Prosecutor should not intervene, as he would do in other countries. I do not refer to this matter in order to bring a charge against the Public Prosecutor himself. He is an acquaintance of mine, and has always treated me very civilly. I am glad the Attorney General is here, because the rules bearing upon the Public Prosecutor were prepared by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, and what I have to complain of is these rules. No doubt the Public Prosecutor is a very useful institution. No doubt his action is beneficial in regard to thieves and wife murderers, and so on, but useful as he may be his action is not so essential
  854
  in such matters as it is in regard to the subject with which I am dealing, because it is obvious that the police can deal with cases of that sort without the advice of the heads of a Parliamentary Department. You do not provide prosecutions for the frauds to which I have alluded, although I think the law is strong enough to touch those frauds, but it is a question of initiating a prosecution. That which is everybody's business is nobody's business. You do not find members of the public very ready to throw good money after bad, and, therefore, I say that it is in cases of this nature, when the public have been defrauded by the promoters of bogus companies, that you want the action of the Public Prosecutor. By the existing system you establish a Public Prosecutor, who is told that he is not to prosecute when there is reasonable probability that private persons will undertake the work. You say he is only to act in cases where private persons fail to prosecute. When one looks at the proceedings in Courts of Justice, it is palpable that there are numerous cases in which private prosecutions fail, because it strikes most people as a monstrous folly to throw thousands of good pounds after hundreds of bad. Even when in cases of this kind private individuals do prosecute, in 99 cases out of 100 you do not find the fraudulent promoters of companies brought to justice. There may be some objection to introducing a personal matter, but there is a particular matter in which I have had some personal experience, and I would refer to it as an illustration of my case. It touches somewhat on the privileges of this House. In the case to which I refer, a compulsory winding-up order has already been obtained against a company, and, therefore, the case is not sub judice. I am one of those cautious people who never in my life, until the other day, took a share in any one of these companies. But at the beginning of last year I fell into a trap, in common with a large number of other Members in this House, and of Members in the other House of Parliament, and in company, I may say, with a great many respectable people. This was one of the newest form of companies purporting to act on co-operative lines. The old Co-operative Associations having proved successful, a form of fraud has been

  855
  adopted on the lines of Co-operative Associations. People get up bogus companies under the name of Co-operative Societies. Well, at the beginning of last year we did not know what we do now, and hon. Members were pestered—as we all are from day to day—by a circular issued on behalf of persons who wanted to sell coals. As the world cannot get on without coals, and as every householder has, to some extent, to deal in them, I thought it would not be a bad thing to be relieved of all difficulty in the matter of my coal supply. A Coal Consumers' Supply Association's Circular was sent to me, and, as I say, I, in common with a large number of other people, fell into the trap. I paid £54 into the company, and I may here remark that I have no interest in this matter, because my £54 is gone. I took the shares, because I saw that the concern was to be administered on co-operative principles, and because I saw that the Council of Administration numbered many Members of this House, many Members of the other House, and a number of retired Indian civil servants. I thought it would be a good thing, and I did not for a moment dream that it would not be otherwise than honestly managed. [Cries of "Divide!"] After I had paid my money, I found every one of these gentlemen repudiated the use of his name, saying that he had given no authority for it to be used. I maintain that it was almost a breach of privilege of the House to use the name of Members of the House in this fraudulent way. [Cries of "Divide!"] We formed an association of shareholders, and applied to the Court. The Court decided in our favour, and I hold, therefore, that the case ought to be looked upon as a criminal matter, and the Public Prosecutor ought to take up the subject and inquire into it. As a matter of fact, I went to the Public Prosecutor, who received me very kindly, but told me nothing could be done. He said that we must prove our case first and prosecute afterwards. We did our best to prove our case. We went into Court, and Mr. Justice Kay decided in our favour. He decided that our names ought to be removed from the list of shareholders, because we had been misled by the fraudulent use of those names. We tried to bring these men to justice. We spent £2,000 or
  856
  £3,000, and obtained an order for the compulsory winding up of the company. It is now being wound up—[Cries of "Divide!"]—but I do not see that the Public Prosecutor is taking action in order to bring these men to justice. It seems that the promoters of the company are claiming a right to appeal, as the case has been decided in favour of the shareholders. That appeal has not yet come on, and Heaven only knows when it will. [Cries of "Question!" and "Divide!"] It is not likely that the shareholders will bring a criminal prosecution against these promoters, as they will not care to throw good money after bad. My point is that, in a case of this kind, the Public Prosecutor ought to move in the matter. [Cries of "Divide!"]
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: I should be sorry to see public money expended in protecting Members of this House from unfortunate investments, and I must say I think the present Secretary to the Treasury is too strong a guardian of the public purse to allow the public to spend those thousands which private shareholders will not spend. I must accentuate the protest made a short time ago by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Northampton. This is a Vote on which I should have liked to raise a discussion on a question of public policy as to the position of the Law Officers of the Crown, and the desirability, or otherwise, of their devoting their full time to the Public Service. I should like to raise this question of public policy, but it would be a waste of the time of the House and an abuse of the Forms of the House to go into such a question at the present period of the Session, and looking at the present attenuated state of the House. When next Session comes, however, we must claim, and I hope we shall succeed in obtaining, an early consideration of some of these important Estimates. This question may then be properly raised. At present I pass this Vote, as I shall pass them all, sub silentio. I rose for the purpose of reserving the point I had in my mind to a more proper occasion.
  SIR R. WEBSTER: In my opinion it would be the worst possible step in connection with the office of Public Prosecutor if it were to be thought that it was the duty of this official to

  857
  undertake the vindication of the rights of private individuals in civil matters, and the grievances of the many individuals who feel as sore as the hon. Gentleman opposite does at the loss of his £54. The rules sanctioned by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Childers) and Lord Herschell, and drafted by myself, have now been in force four years, and, I think, have been found to work admirably. If you wish to make the Public Prosecutor take up such matters in order to redress civil wrongs which assume the aspect of criminal fraud, you would have to add four or five times the present amount in this Vote. The time of the Public Prosecutor would be taken up almost wholly with these cases, and you would require a staff two or three times as large as the existing staff. Speaking from my own experience, I must say that I shall be bound to resist as strongly as I can any attempt to put the burden of applying remedies which ought to be undertaken by the people aggrieved on the shoulders of the public. If I may say so, without intending to refer to anybody in this House who may have been entrapped by fraudulent companies, anyone who has been fool enough to invest his money in bogus companies should vindicate his own rights, and not expect it to be done at the expense of the public. With regard to the point which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton opposite desires to raise, no one can feel more strongly than I do the importance of it. There have, however, been two Debates upon it in this Session and last. Still, I thoroughly understand that the right hon. Gentleman wishes to reserve his position and not to commit himself by allowing the Vote to pass unchallenged.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: The two gentlemen who have spoken are two lawyers saturated with English law, and it would require a surgical operation to get into their heads the notion that the Criminal Law ought not to be put in force by private individuals, but ought to be put in force by the Public Prosecutor. I do not suggest that the Public Prosecutor ought to operate so as to uphold civil rights; but I maintain that in such a case as that I have mentioned, we ought to have the same remedy against persons who make us the victims of their fraudulent
  858
  transactions as we should have against anyone who picked our pocket. No doubt, if cases of this kind were dealt with by the Public Prosecutor, we should require a more extensive Department, but that, I maintain, we ought to have. [Cries of "Divide!"]
  Vote agreed to.
  17. £43,133, to complete the sum for Miscellaneous Legal Expenses.
  18. £263,900, to complete the sum for the Supreme Court of Judicature and Land Registry.
  19. £396,886, to complete the sum for County Courts.
  20. £12,594, to complete the sum for Police Courts, London and Sheerness.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I have frequently divided the House on the subject of this Vote, because I consider that the country outside London is being robbed by it. I will not discuss the matter now, because such a discussion as is now possible would not be consistent with the dignity of the House.
  Vote agreed to.
  21. £456,701, to complete the sum for Prisons, England and the Colonies.
  MR. J. O'CONNOR: I am sorry I cannot enter into the spirit of the arrangement which has been referred to from the Front Opposition Bench, but I cannot allow the Vote to pass sub silentio. In bringing under the notice of the Committee the treatment of certain prisoners in Chatham Prison, I shall be obliged to call attention to a Report issued by the Visitors to the prison last year. I wish to dissociate the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary from many of the animadversions I shall have to make on the treatment of the prisoners except in one respect. The charge I have to make is that the prisoners whose case I intend to bring under the notice of the Committee have been treated with special severity. The truth of the statements made during the past few years concerning the treatment of these prisoners was denied by the Home Secretary, but they were so persisted in that the right hon. Gentleman gave instructions for a Special Committee of Visitors to investigate them and make a Report to him. That Report states that no special feeling

  859
  existed in the minds of the officials with regard to these men, but the Report is founded only on the evidence of the accused parties. No account is taken of the statements of the prisoners themselves; but if their statements are only to be set aside as worthless, why were they asked to make statements at all? That there was special feeling on the part of the officials of the prison towards the prisoners I will show from the statements of some of the prisoners themselves. There is, first, the statement made by Henry H. Wilson. He complains that the line of treatment to which he and others have been subjected has been decidedly harsh and unjust; that it differs from that to which the ordinary class of prisoners have been subjected, and that the difference is due to the political nature of the offence. He says—
  ''The bitter hatred of the average Chatham officer to the Irish Fenian makes itself felt in a thousand ways."
  And he complains of the fostering of this spirit of hatred by the authorities. In Millbank Prison he says he never experienced a single annoyance, being treated like an ordinary prisoner. Another prisoner, Egan, says—
  "The officers employed another prisoner to give me a piece of newspaper so as to get me punishment."
  He says—
  "Prisoner afterwards told me he was put on me by an officer."
  Daly, another prisoner, says in his evidence that one of the officers said to him—
  "The great trouble with you fellows is that some of the officers here cannot get out of their heads the crime you are charged with."
  These statements show that these men were specially selected by the warders for petty persecution because of the crime they were charged with and because of the sentences they received. When sent to Chatham Prison, the prisoners were determined to behave themselves properly. I believe they were a class of men who would feel it to be to their interest to conform to the rules of the prison, and endeavour to get their sentences mitigated if possible. One of them—a man named James M'Grath—was studying Spanish in prison with the view of getting
  860
  employment on his release as a sailor on the Spanish main. He expressed a wish to be supplied with an epitome of navigation in the Spanish language similar to Norie's Epitome of Navigation. He wished to improve his mind in order to take up an important position on his release. It is also found in the body of the evidence that Daly asked for Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, and we also find that Dr. Gallagher asked for a Latin grammar, and, when that was denied him, for a French grammar and dictionary. I direct attention to these facts to show that the men of whom I am speaking were of such a turn of mind that they were not necessarily disposed to wilfully break the rules of the prison, that they were men who had hopes for the future, and that, having hopes of liberation, they were likely to conduct themselves in such a manner as would commend them to the authorities. My statement from this Report is corroborated by the statement made to me by Daly two years ago, when I advised him. during a visit 1 paid him to be amenable to the Prison Rules, to be respectful to the officers, and to conform to the discipline, as it would be undoubtedly the best for his peace of mind and happiness, if happiness I can call it, to adopt such a course of conduct. He informed me that he came to the prison fully determined to make the best of his unfortunate position, but that he was driven from that decision by the persecution of the officers. I have said there was a conspiracy to cause these prisoners to break the rules. On page 84 of the appendix, paragraph 11, Egan says that the officers employed another prisoner, to give him a piece of newspaper so as to get him punished, and on page 183, paragraph 59, Daly says a prisoner put a small bit of newspaper in his hand, and it was cut so neat and square that it could hardly have been cut by a prisoner. He had only a glimpse at it; but he noticed that the type was nonpareil, and that it contained the names of Sir Henry James and of Parnell and Davitt. He destroyed it immediately after it was given to him, as it was suggested it was a trap. On the following Tuesday, the 25th of February, the same prisoner put another piece of newspaper in his hand, saying, "Be very careful of it, and

  861
  give it me back after dinner." At 181, paragraph 27, Daly says his mind was filled with the horrible thought that some of the officers were trying to cause him to break the peace, and that he would be flogged.
  "O, God! the thought was more than I could endure. I said to myself a hundred thousand times during the long, weary nights at this time, death at your hands is better than life and being flogged."
  On page 186 Wilson says that from time to time they were brought up on false charges and punished. One instance he gave was that on one occasion a man named Saunders was sweeping down the steps in the passage leading to the Roman Catholic Chapel. Wilson and others were at the head of the steps, and an officer who was at the bottom of the steps picked up out of the dust what Wilson afterwards learned was a piece of newspaper. Ten minutes afterwards Wilson was searched, put under report, and the next day brought before the Governor and charged with having the newspaper in his possession. "The Governor" was indignant, says Wilson, "when I declared the thing a pure fabrication." The Governor replied that it was suspicious, and upon mere suspicion ordered Wilson to solitary confinement on bread and water for 23 days. Wilson afterwards complained to the Director, who simply said, "Don't do it again." Under all the circumstances, I cannot help thinking there was, on the part of some persons in the prison, a conspiracy to drive these men from an attitude of conformity to prison discipline. The charges that I have to make against the prison officials are, perhaps, not very grave. The unfortunate prisoners themselves do not say they are. Wilson said to the Visiting Justices—
  "In drawing your attention to my treatment, I may remark that what may be considered a small or trivial matter at first sight becomes, when repeated and continued for a year, a very serious matter for one placed in my present position."
  That is what the prisoners have to complain of—that they are being subjected in a thousand little ways to a system of petty persecution and annoyance that is driving them from the attitude of being well-conducted prisoners into careless, and, if you like, incorrigible ones. The officers are accused of driving Daly into what the Visitors have declared
  862
  to be an assumption of illness, and of drawing Gallagher into a shamming of madness. I am not surprised they have assumed these things, and it is a deplorable state of things that in a prison, where men should be treated, at all events, with some humanity, these prisoners have been subjected to such petty annoyance, that one man is accused of pretending to be insane and another pretending physical infirmity. The shamming of illness is likely to bring on illness, and the shamming of madness invariably brings on madness, a fact which Dr. Gallagher must himself know. Let me again turn to the statements of the prisoners—
  "Some time about the month of November 84 A. W. Durgan came to my cell between 6 & 7 A.M., and said 'you're making a lot of noise with that tin ware of yours.' I said I was not making any more than I could help in cleaning it. He said if he heard me making any more noise he' d put me on report. He put me on report next day & said he heard me telegraphing to the man in the next cell.
  This was absolutely untrue. I got two days bread & water. On the 2nd January 86 Warder Bass came to my cell before prayers in the morning, looked in through the trap and said, 'you look rather excited' he then charged me with telegraphing. I answered and said, 'I have not been telegraphing,' he said 'Your a bloody stinking bare-faced liar,' he put me on report, I got two days bread & water.
  About this time I complained to the two officers in charge, of not being allowed either salt or a spoon to season or eat the gruel I got, and said it was unchristian like, whereupon one of the officers Parker No. 2 said, 'do you call yourself a Christian?' I did not answer the question. He then said, 'I'll eat my bloody head sooner than admit you to be a Christian.' Sometime in January85 (I think) A. W. Benny came to my cell to tell me to stop humming. I told him I would do so, that I did not think he could have heard me, I then closed my door, he open'd it again and said 'What did you mean by shuting the door, did you mean an indignity to me.' I assured him nothing could be further from my mind & that I was very sorry he should think so. He then said, 'if he thought I did he'd put me on report.' He then went away, and after an hour or more he came back and had me put on report, I asked him what for, he said, 'little said is soon mended.' He charged me next day with insolently banging the door in his face and singing in my cell. 2 days bread and water."
  Daly explains that what he was humming was the air of a hymn he had heard in the chapel, and he was humming low so that he thought nobody could hear him outside the cell. He was humming to himself, he says, for his own recreation.

  863
  "In March 85 the officer one day gave me needle & thread to stitch a lot of buttons on my clothes, which caused me to be one oz. short in the quantity of oakum I picked that day, for which I got 2 days bread & water without any bed and very strang this was a day or two after my complaining to the Doctor about not getting exercise. Doctor gave me one 1b. to pick.
  "All through this time & for years after, but about this time especially our lives were made very miserable indeed, through the conduct of the officers on night duty, who seemed to amuse themselves more than anything else, night after night, month after month, banging the trap doors of the cells which made a horrible noise at night, so much so that it was utterly impossible to get sleep, only when quite exausted, and then it was broken every hour."
  And now I turn to Egan's statements, and I will show that these men have the same complaint to make, although they could not have been acting in concert. I turn to paragraph 8, on page 184, where Egan speaks of the language used by the officers. I cannot quote the language, decency will not allow me, and I will not offend the ears of the Committee with it. This language was used every day by the warders, remonstrances only brought about Reports, and Reports brought punishment. For declining to work in order to see the doctor they were reported and punished; for refusing to take medicines when ordered they were reported and punished. With regard to the bad language, Egan says we have been poor, but we were never used to such language as this. I turn to his evidence. He complains to the visitor of the language of a warder named Parker, and the visitor asks—
  2103. "You complain of his language specially?—I complain of his language specially; at one time I told the Governor about it, and he said, 'Why do you not put it on your slate?' I said, 'Unfortunately my slate has been taken from me for a cause which I do not know.' He said, 'Well, I will allow you a slate for a time,' but I said, 'I am perfectly well aware that it would be useless for me to make a complaint; therefore I decline the slate.'"
  Now I turn to Question 2076, in which he refers to the annoyance to which he was persistently subjected of slamming of the trapdoors during the night.
  "You say it was done, you think, for their amusement?—Yes, because I spoke to Mr. Ruffell about it; I spoke to the officer on duty, and he said, 'I cannot have it altered.' Then I spoke to Mr. Ruffell, and from speaking to Mr. Ruffell, that night the officer did it worse, came at night to my cell door, slammed down the trap and banged his lantern on it, banged it up again, rushed down stairs, came up again
  864
  to me, banged it down, banged the lantern again, and then slammed the trap up again, rushed down again and let me alone for about half an hour; that is three or four times in the space of three-quarters of an hour. This officer kept that on the whole night every hour continually."
  2084. "Do you think they try to wake you by throwing the light in your eyes?—Yes, some of the officers will keep the light upon you for a length of time, right upon you eyes. I do not say that all the officers do that. I have known an officer take a stool and throw it down all the steps, for the purpose of waking us up at night."
  2085. "For the purpose?—Yes, taking up a stool or something of the kind and throwing it downstairs."
  2086. "You may have heard it fall downstairs, but what reason have you to suppose it was thrown down?—I do not know what object they would have for taking anything of that sort upstairs. You would be astonished if you knew what little tricks they get up to for the purpose of annoying."
  These are some of the petty persecutions to which I have referred, and go to justify the statement of the prisoners. Now, the rules were not read to these men when they arrived at Chatham Prison. I know the Governor says they could have had them read if they had asked for them, but the men knew nothing of the rules, and so for a very long time they lost their exercise and were compelled to walk in the yard. This is Egan's evidence on the point—
  2062. "Then as regards your exercise, you say you did not have an hour's exercise, and you say' I was kept at ramming and lowering the yard by beating it with what is called a ram until the flesh was torn from my hands. I wish particularly to be questioned on this matter and give further information.' Every morning the rams which are wooden affairs that you pound the ground with were put out ready for Daly and myself to take out, and there were five yards, and we had to keep beating those yards in this way (indicating by gesture); it is not an ordinary ramming. I was shown how to do it, that is to beat it with all my might as hard as I could. My hands were strange to the work. First they became a mass of blisters; the next morning I was taken out again, and, of course, the blisters broke by the ramming; the next morning out again in the same way; the blisters were partly healed up in the night, and during the day they would come on again and break again until, on one occasion, Daly showed the officer the state of his hands. They did not actually know how my hands were at the time till I showed the officer, and he was quite astonished."
  That was the effect of ramming. He complains that he was not made acquainted with the rules, and did not know to what he was entitled. Well,

  865
  these are some of the means employed at Chatham Prison to improve prisoners morally and physically, and I think it would require an army of chaplains to counteract the effect of the language and conduct of the warders. In paragraph 59 of their Report the Visitors say—
  "Great complaints are made by the prisoners as to the coarse and insulting language used by the officers in their presence, or addressed directly to them. We do not propose to go into this matter at any length, as we find that the officers chiefly complained of have left the prison, and that in all cases in which definite complaints have been made, the officers have been cautioned. From answers given by officers still in the prison to our questions as to the others who have left, we think that the prisoners have had cause to complain in this respect; but we are satisfied that care is taken to prevent the use of bad language, and that, to use the graphic expression of Warder Beel, if the language of the warders 'is not all Parliamentary talk, still it is passable talk;" and, by the admission of the prisoners, matters have now improved in this respect. Speaking generally on this subject, we think that it cannot be expected that the subordinate officers will keep such constant control over their language as to avoid, at all times, the use of expressions calculated to give offence."
  Now, it is alleged by the prisoners that the visits of friends on the days allowed were in a manner that appears systematically prevented by the prisoners being put under punishment. Here is Egan's evidence on this point:—
  "2212. Then you say, 'When I am entitled to a visit my wife has always to write for order, and sometimes after she receives it and is prepared to visit me, receives a countermand '; that would be only, I suppose, on account of your getting into trouble?—Nothing was more easy than to stop a man's visit by saying he was talking, and then write an account of it to the man's wife.
  2213. But do the warders know about your visitors; how could they stop them?—If I were to come here and make a complaint to-day, at dinner-time it would be known all over the prison in the course of half an hour.
  2214. Do you suggest that you are falsely punished in order that your visits may be countermanded?—Certainly, I say that.
  2215. By which of the officers?—I do not know when those countermands arrived; but if my wife were to give the date of the countermands you would find the punishments were inflicted at the same time."
  This is corroborated by the evidence of other prisoners. Now, I put it to the Committee, is it not the very refinement of cruelty to deprive a man who is sentenced to a life-long imprisonment of
  866
  the hope of seeing a relative as the many months go round? I may say I have myself on many occasions had the intention of going to see these prisoners, knowing, through various means, that these men were ill-treated, and being anxious to hear their story from themselves. My hon. Friend the Member for West Limerick and I applied to the Governor for orders to visit the prisoners, and invariably we were told they could not see visitors because they were under punishment. On the few occasions when we did visit them it was by the courtesy of the Home Secretary, who gave us special orders. One other instance of petty persecution, and then I pass to other matters. In winter time the prisoners, in taking exercise, are compelled to walk slowly; in the heat of summer weather they are compelled to walk fast. Now, the Report has much to say about penal cells, and the Visitors say the prisoners are better off in these cells. The cells are larger, and they are more secure; but in not a few of the differences of treatment the difference is to the disadvantage of the penal cell prisoners. When in these cells a man is ill he is treated for illness which other men would be sent to the infirmary for. There was a fatal result to this in the case of a man named Deasy, who, being ill, was treated in his cell, and was obliged to get out of his bed, go to the trap-door for his medicine, and totter back again to his bed. So he was treated until at death's door, and then he was removed to the infirmary to die. In these cells there are no stools; the prisoner is compelled to sit on a portion of a cut-down mast, chained to the wall, and so arranged that at the time when the prisoner is entitled to read a book he is unable to see from the light of the gas. It is cruel to deprive an educated man the solace of reading a little, and the rules allow it when work is over, but these rules are mockery and delusion. The penal cell prisoners are compelled to walk from their cells to the bath almost nude, and the warders even used to bring in strangers to see these prisoners take their bath. If a garment had to be mended, this class of prisoners must go without that garment until it is returned from the tailors' shop. They are always obliged to stand at attention, while other

  867
  prisoners can sometimes stand at ease. Egan says—
  "Major Clayton came and told them on several occasions, 'These men must be always kept with their hands by their sides.'"
  I admit that some of the things of which I am complaining have been remedied. But I want to point out that the harm has already been done, and the fact that the Visitors ordered these changes proved that the treatment of these prisoners had been exceptional. The Report states that the treatment complained of was not fostered by the superior officers of the prison. I reply that it was, for Egan in his statement says that on one occasion, when he complained of the conduct of the warder, the Governor told him if he made further complaints he would come to grief. Gallagher, James Donelly, and John Daly also made assertions to a similar effect. Now I come to the case of Wilson, who says—
  "4. I found it almost impossible to see the Doctor when I felt unwell. The officers would'nt take my name, or rather they used to ignore my request. I complained to the Director about the matter, but that did'nt mend matters. Some time after seeing the Director, I got an opportunity of speaking to the Medical Officer while inspecting us. He told me he'd attend to the matter. In the course of the day I was brought to the Infirmary and examined—on the way over I was stopped by Mr. Bass the Warder who had then charge of the separate cells. 'What are these lies you have been telling the Doctor' he asked, I tried to explain but he stopped me with 'Well at all events you'll do three days bread and water for it."
  Now, here is a man who finds it necessary to make a statement of what?—he finds it necessary to make a statement to the doctor, and he is prevented from seeing the doctor, after which he complains to the doctor that he is hampered by warders, and the warders take umbrage of the statement. They report him to the Governor, and the Governor gives him three days' bread and water, I think, for making this complaint. Well, then, Daly, at page 179, paragraph 7, makes a similar complaint, as follows:—
  "An officer Mr. Memory came to my cell with a dose of physic (casteroil) and ordered me to take it. I thanked him, told him I was alright didn't want any physic, He said I'd have to take it anyhow, I reminded him that I did not complain to the Doctor, nor did he order me any physic, He then shouted to Warder
  868
  Bass that I wasn't going to have it, Warder Bass shouted back Make him take it you—Whereupon Memory assured me I'd have to take the physic or his cosh, I took the physic, and soon after vomited up again and escaped the purging. The next day I mentioned the matter to the then assistant surgeon who laughed and seemed to think it a good joke. I subsequently brought the matter under the notice of the Director, with the result that the man who did not give me the physic was punished, and the two who did got scot free. The Director said to me then, the less complaints I have to make about the officers, the better for myself."
  How is it possible, as Mr. Egan says, at Question 2112, that he could not complain to the Governor but he gave him bread and water? How can Visitors come to the conclusion that these petty persecutions were not fostered by the principal officers of the prison? When they complain, as I have shown—and these things have not been contradicted because they were recorded on the prison books—yet this whitewashing Commission of Visitors finds that the Directors did not foster these petty persecutions. I say that they did, and of this there is ample proof in the Report, if anyone wishes to go through it. Now I come to another and a very serious part of the charge which I make against the officers of the prison. The Report of the Visitors says that—
  "The medical treatment of the prisoners has been careful and judicious."
  Well, Sir, I need only allude to the death of Deasy, as one instance of the careful and judicious medical treatment in the prison. But I think I will find better proof of the careful and judicious medical treatment in the evidence of John Daly, at page 180, paragraph 13—
  "On the morning of Sunday,"
  —which, according to William Walker, would be the 14th of September—
  "I applied for Medical treatment. I was taken to the infirmary but did not see any of the Doctors. Assistant Warder Durbin who was then Medical Compounder gave me a dose of physic, which done me no good. The diarrhœa was most violent all that night, packed up & went to the infirmary on Monday, diarrhœa still violent, saw Dr. Walker at 11-30 A.M., told him I was sick almost to death. He laughed & said I'd have to go back to my work, yet I was kept in an infirmary cell all that day without receiving any Medicine whatsoever until about 5-45 P.M. one of the Nurses gave me a dose, I was then taken back to my cell. Monday night diarrhœa if possible worse than ever. Tuesday Morning whilst geting off my knees from

  869
  prayers My bowels relaxed, and my clothes became a mass of filth, I was taken to the infirmary but the officer in charge (Warder White) would not admit me though he was told the state I was in, until I went to the penal cells and changed my working boots for shoes get my books etc, then and only then was I admitted. The officer then ordered me into a bath to wash myself and the clothes, this bath was composed of cold, absolutely cold water. The infirmary door was open most of the time I was in the bath, I became chilled. The next day, Wednesday, I was pronounced dangerously ill inflamation of the bowels."
  Is it to be wondered at? A man suffering for days from diarrhœa—most seriously suffering—so much that he has to be ordered into a bath to wash himself and the clothes he was wearing. He was sent into a cold bath until inflammation of the bowels set in, and this is the treatment that the Visitors declare to be careful and judicious. Now, on page 182, paragraph 7, we come to more of this careful and judicious treatment. I come to this very serious part of the indictment against the prison officials which is known as the belladonna poisoning, and here, I think, we will have considerable evidence as to the careful and judicious treatment of the prisoners. On the 18th of November, Dr. Voisey saw Daly and told him—
  "To continue the powder, and I will also put you on Medicine, this was at 12.30 p.m., at 1 o'clock I got the first dose. The effect of that was to cause my face to flush (I thought) then great thirst, with slight pain in the stomach, I drank a large quantity of water. At or about 5 P.M. Compounder Durbin came, opened the trap-door and said, Daly, have you got enough of the powder; I said yes, thank you, I then said, Mr. Durbin, will you please mention to the Doctor that this medicine has a very strange effect on me; I said it has caused me most violent thirst, it is almost impossible to hear: the answer to this was, When you speak to an officer, you should do so in a proper manner.' I said, 'what do you call a proper manner?' He said 'You should say, sir.' He then banged the trap, and went to the two officers who were bathing prisoners, and told them what he said. I had spoken to Mr. Durbin manys the time and oft always the same, never more or less respectful than on that night. He never before found any fault with my manner of addressing him, his knowledge of drugs ought to have told him there must be something wrong with the medicine, from what I said to him, if he had been ignorant of the fact before, besides the prisoner who gave me the medicine is a Doctor or was. Anyhow for reasons best known to Mr. Durbin himself, he did not convey my message to the Doctor. I took it for granted that notwithstanding his indignation, he would not dare to suppress my message, and therefore notwithstanding all I
  870
  suffered that night, I took the third dose next day. The symptoms were as I have already described, burning of the face, thirst, the intensity of which no language can convey, loss of sith (sight) stoppage of water, something like electricity shooting through my blood, biting in, punching me now here, now there, with pain in the stomach. The third dose intensified all the symptoms, and left me quite unable to walk. I also lost the use of my speech. I had to be taken by two men upstairs in the Infirmary. While downstairs in the infirmary, Mr. Durbin came (in the absence of the Doctor) and opened my eye, looked into it, said pshaw, and that was the last I saw of Mr. Durbin."
  He then states he was placed in the bed, and at paragraph 48—I cannot help quoting a statement of Daly's as to his feelings on this occasion—he says—
  "I cannot keep my mind from going back to that terrible night, shot as it were, full of strength and in possession of all my faculty, into the presence, almost, of the great unknown God, looking as it were in to that great long awful uncertain eternity all alone, no kind loving voice to give me hope—,what could compensate a man for that? and yet I think Dr. Walker will say that I did not act like unto one whose conscience had been stained with crime."
  Now, I shall have to refer the Committee and the Home Secretary to the evidence of the Medical Inspectors themselves. I refer to page 191 and 193 of the statement of Dr. Walker, one of the prison doctors. Dr. Walker says that Daly's symptoms were as follows:—
  "Vertigo, dimness of vision, pupils widely dilated, dryness of the tongue, difficulty in speaking, great thirst, intense itching of the skin, and difficulty in passing water"
  —mind, these are the many symptoms that Daly himself described; clearly showing that Daly did not exaggerate his case, as some medical officers sought to make out.
  "His symptoms were such as would be produced by an overdose of belladonna, and on making inquiries I found that he had been taking a mixture containing 10 minim doses of tincture of belladonna. As his condition was rather alarming I at once sent for the assistant surgeon to see him, who arrived at the same conclusion as myself, namely, that he was suffering from atropism. We therefore immediately injected morphia subcutaneously, and administered an emetic of sulphate of copper, and sent him to bed. About 10 minutes afterwards, as the emetic had not acted, it was decided to use stomach pump. The tube was only partially introduced, however, as it produced vomiting, and it was therefore withdrawn. The amount vomited was not great, and a second attempt was therefore made to introduce the tube, which instantly produced the desired effect, copious vomiting being set up thereby. I saw

  871
  him frequently during the afternoon, and at 8 o'clock in the evening all urgent symptoms had passed off."
  Now, that is the statement of George E. Walker, the medical officer, made to the Governor. These symptoms are corroborated by the assistant surgeon, and it is unnecessary for me to read them to the Committee, because they only confirm Dr. Walker's evidence; but I shall have to refer to these doses of belladonna. Now, with regard to the administration of this belladonna, it is a curious thing that Durbin, the compounder of the medicines, was, upon the Report of the two medical officers of the prison, degraded in his position and removed from the prison. That was at a time after the investigation of the circumstance had taken place—after the analysis of the belladonna had been made by competent chemical and special authority in London, and the strange fact is that, after the visitors go down, and make an investigation of the prison, they have before them the same Report on which the doctors acted with regard to Durbin, and what is the result of their deliberation? They ordered Durbin to be reinstated in his former position: they find that Durbin is not to blame, and that the doctors were not wrong. How is that? Somebody must be wrong, and yet they reinstate Durbin, and find that no wrong is done to the doctors in reinstating him. This Commission of Visitors seems to have been specially organised for the purpose of white washing everybody down in Chatham Prison who had been in charge of the prisoner. Now, I shall not base my case on whether Durbin was well disposed to the prisoner or not. At all events Daly was poisoned. There can be no doubt about that. Either it was due to neglect, or to deliberate ill-treatment on the part of the compounder. But whether it be one or the other, what I claim is that Daly is entitled to compensation, either for the neglect or for the deliberate ill-treatment of the warders in charge, but to say that this prisoner was medically treated with care and judiciousness, under these circumstances, is something too much to ask us to believe. Now, the Report itself, at paragraph 148, says—
  "We have treated this portion of the case very fully on account of its importance, and we find—
  872

  1. That the prescription of belladonna was proper in itself;

  2. That the prescription was properly made up;

  3. That the effect of the mixture on Daly was caused, not by any error on the part of the compounder, but by the fact that the tincture of belladonna used was considerably above the average strength;

  4. That the Prison Authorities are not responsible for this extra strength;

  5. That the effect of the medicine on the prisoner was entirely due to misadventure; and

  6. That the compounder was not in fault for not reporting to the doctor after his interview with Daly when the second dose was administered, as nothing was then said which made it his duty to do so."

  Those are the findings in respect to belladonna of the Visitors, and I will now ask the Home Secretary and the Committee to turn to the evidence of Mr. Risdon Bennett, page 195—
  "The result of Dr. Stevenson's analysis to my mind sufficiently explains the symptoms presented by Daly, after taking three doses of the mixture, without assuming that he was the subject of any special idiosyncrasy as to the action of belladonna."
  Because, will the Committee believe it?—the Visitors, trying to whitewash the officers, endeavoured to show in their Report that the effect of the belladonna on Daly was due to idiosyncrasy on his part. But the doctor himself says that it was not idiosyncrasy. What was the result of the analysis? The result of the analysis made by Dr. Walker showed that the mixture contained from two and a half to four times the amount of belladonna prescribed by the assistant surgeon, and it proves that Daly's symptoms were due to an over dose of that drug, and not to idiosyncrasy on his part. That is a statement made by Dr. Walker, the medical officer, based on a Report of the chemical analyst. It is corroborated by Dr. Voisey, and it is unnecessary for me to quote for the information of the Committee the highly technical analysis made by Mr. Stephenson. But although that is the analysis, the statement of the two doctors in the prison responsible for Daly's health, and the statement of the special doctor sent by the Home Secretary, all agree that Daly had from two and a half to four times the belladonna he was ordered. This whitewashing Commission, at paragraph 148, say—

  873
  "That the prescription of belladonna was proper in itself, and that the prescription was properly made up."
  After that, who can attach any importance whatever to the Report of this Commission? Well, Sir, I think that it will be very difficult for the Home Secretary to justify this action of the authorities towards Daly in respect of their method of treatment. I shall leave it to the Committee to judge whether, from the medical point of view, these prisoners have been treated as prisoners ought to be treated—and as the Visitors declared they had been treated—with care, medically and judiciously. My assertion with regard to the prisoners is that Daly has been, beyond dispute, poisoned in the prison, that much suffering was entailed upon him, not only by the overdose of belladonna, but also by the inflammation that was brought on by the administration of the cold bath, and that, on account of the suffering that was inflicted upon him, with carelessness and neglect, he is entitled to compensation at the hands of the Government. Before I pass from this ill-treatment, I desire to read in corroboration of the statement a letter of a convict who has served his time in Chatham Prison. I know very well that the Home Secretary will quote very largely from the Report of the Visitors. What I charge is that, these Visitors being the ordinary Visitors of the prison, some of them had already investigated these cases and reported on them.
  MR. MATTHEWS: No.
  MR. J. O'CONNOR:Yes. Mr. Selfe did so.
  MR. MATTHEWS: No; Sir John Lennard.
  MR. J. O'CONNOR: Every one of the prisoners in his evidence alludes to the fact that he had been visited, and therefore we find that these Visitors were asked to sit in judgment on themselves. I know very well that the right hon. Gentleman associated with the ordinary visitors two working men—Mr. Shipton and Mr. Drummond. There is historical evidence of the fact that when men of that class are associated with others of high position, of great learning, they very often lose their interest, very often are overshadowed by the position and by the attainments of those of a different
  874
  class with whom they are asked to act. I need not quote the historical evidence to the right hon. Gentleman. But I will ask the attention of the Committee to a letter which I received from a man who has served his time in this prison, and was there at the time of the other prisoners. I will not give the address nor the name of the writer, but I will hand it to the right hon. Gentleman, so that he may judge of its bona fides. This letter is addressed to an hon. Member of this House, and the writer says he wishes to speak of the grievances of James Egan, who was discharged from Chatham on the 21st July last—
  "Kindly allow me to say a few words respecting the treatment of the Irish dynamite men, for that is how they are known in prison."
  The statement of the Visitors is that these prisoners are not known by a special name, and that they are not subjected to special treatment. But here you have the very prisoners aware that they are known by the special name of dynamiters. The writer says—
  "I was working in the same party with Egan, Featherstone, and Gallagher. The latter prisoner has been so cruelly treated as to make him unfit to behold. He was in the Infirmary when I left. I believe he is suffering from mental aberration, induced and consequent upon long continued and bitter persecution. … I do regard such treatment as tantamount to murder, screened and delicately nurtured by the law. Apropos of complaints, it is my experience that they are not attended to, and a prisoner fares worse after complaining. During my time they sent an Irish prisoner, named O'Donnell, to be punished in the cold cells, and a few weeks after his punishment he died, suffering pulmonary consumption. I saw a prisoner who was nearly poisoned by belladonna. They put it down as an accident, but——"
  And here follows a long stroke.
  "I have no hesitation in stating that the general treatment of the prisoners in Chatham Prison is an indelible disgrace to the whole prison."
  Now, I wish to pass from the subject of ill-treatment to the only other branch of the subject to which I will refer, and that is the manner in which Daly was allowed to be approached in prison by Piggot and other people connected with the Times newspaper. I will read only a very small portion of Daly's evidence in connection with this matter. There is some difference of opinion between Daly and the Visitors, but I think Daly's

  875
  explanation of the visits is the correct one. On page 51 of the Report, Daly said he was visited. He said he wished to call attention to the fact that he was being brought in contact with a gentleman from the Times newspaper, who had proposed terms which he had rejected. He protested that it was unfair that he should be subjected to such an ordeal. He said that he had been told that any person who gave evidence would receive a certificate of protection. Now, it would be perfect nonsense to say that a certificate of protection was at all necessary. The Visitor said to Daly:—
  "The certificate of indemnity would be an indemnity against any proceedings upon matters upon which you gave evidence. Now, in the case of a man sentenced for life that might not mean much, but being sentenced for life does not necessarily mean that you are to spend the whole of your life here.
  Daly answered—
  "That is one of the constructions you may put upon it. But place yourself in my position, and then put a construction upon it that would be 'the natural one.'"
  Daly knew very well what it meant, and it was useless for the Visitor to attempt any other construction. The only construction that could be put upon it was that, "if you become an informer, you will get a certificate of protection to save you from the vengeance of the dynamiters and Land Leaguers, and you will be able to walk a free man about the country with a Government certificate of indemnity in your pocket." That is the construction Daly put upon it, and no reasonable man will say that it is a false or exaggerated construction. This is where I conceive the House has behaved badly, in allowing this poor, persecuted, poisoned prisoner to be tempted by the offer of freedom into, perhaps, committing perjury, if he was capable of doing it. The Home Secretary, who should have stood between this poor prisoner and the temptation dangled before him, allowed him to be visited once, twice, aye, a third time, by persons who had this disgraceful object in view, of tempting the poor man, under these distressful circumstances, to, perhaps, invent stories, and to buy his freedom by giving false evidence before the Commission. But they were dealing with a man. Daly's answer to his tempter was an answer which, I think, ought to go far to conciliate many of those who sit opposite.
  876
  "If one word of mine in support of what you state would let me march a free man out of that gate, I refuse to speak that one word, and I will remain here till I rot."
  That is the answer of a man, and it ought to go far to attach to him the sympathy of many who had hitherto been his opponents. The Protestant chaplain of the prison states that these prisoners were well-conducted men, and that they were treated to unnecessary violence. It has been said that one feigned madness, and another illness. I believe the men are too intelligent to endanger their health, or to assume madness. I hope I have proved that they have been subjected to this special treatment, because of the political nature of their offence. What crime have they been guilty of? Murder? No, they committed no murder. There were no lives lost in the transactions which took place, and with which they were connected. Have they been tried for robbery, or any other heinous offence? Nothing of the kind. They have been tried and sentenced for a political offence. The very wording of the charge made against them was "treason-felony." That proves the political nature of the offence. And it is because of that political offence that they have been subjected to this special treatment all along. Now, there is a great doubt as to whether Daly was connected with this dynamite scare. In the inquiry that took place, the Head Constable of Birmingham, who made the arrest, and found the dynamite on the premises of Kelly, Daly, and Egan, declared that the whole thing was a "put-up job" by the Irish police. That idea is deeply rooted in the Irish mind; the Irish people firmly believe that these men are innocent of the charge. You will never eradicate from the Irish mind the belief that John Daly and Egan are entirely innocent. I knew Daly in the past, and he was a man utterly incapable of engaging in the dynamite transactions. Daly was a Fenian, and he remained a Fenian up to the date of his arrest. He was one of those men who believed in redeeming his country by establishing her national independence by force of arms. I believe he was a man whose conscience revolted against a system of warfare which involved in common slaughter innocent people. I do not know the other prisoner at all, but the belief

  877
  deeply rooted in the Irish mind is that these men are suffering innocently. I appeal for their discharge on the ground of the special treatment, the indignities, and the careless medical treatment to which they have been subjected. I believe on these grounds I am entitled to demand for them compensation. Had it been an ordinary prisoner who was poisoned by a treble dose of belladonna, I believe that the Home Secretary would have come to his relief long ago, and would have given him freedom. These men have been imprisoned since 1884, and allow me to point out that the causes for which they were imprisoned have passed away. We hear no more of explosions in Glasgow and London, or elsewhere. I am glad that a policy with which I never agreed—and I am sure I speak the mind of nearly the whole Irish nation—has been abandoned as a policy which is futile and wicked. There can be no object except the object of revenge in keeping these men in prison any longer. I would point out that England, and England alone, has been exceptional in the treatment of her prisoners. In France the communists have been liberated, and many of them now fill public places with advantage to their country. In this House we have amongst us an hon. Member who was sentenced to be hanged, drawn, and quartered by Her Majesty's Government. That sentence was commuted to penal servitude for life. He was exiled, but was afterwards allowed to come home. Under the softening influence of native land and family, this gentleman, once sentenced to be hanged, drawn, and quartered, is now to be found sitting on these Benches, aiding Her Majesty's Government to make better laws for the government of the people. I merely make these remarks, in passing, to strengthen my case. But I put my demand more forcibly and more specially upon the injuries which have been inflicted on these men, and also upon the fact that the case is one for the exercise of grace. I trust that, in making this request for justice and mercy, I have, at all events, based my case on evidence which appears conclusive, and that those who wield the power of this realm will not consider that that power will be diminished by the exercise of the attribute of mercy, or endangered by
  878
  the release of these men for the remainder of their lives—lives which must be spent in undoing the evils brought on them by the unjust, harsh, and barbarous treatment to which they have been subjected.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS,: If I follow the hon. Member, who has addressed us with considerable warmth on behalf of these prisoners, with brevity, I trust he will not consider me wanting in respect. Of course, the Government are entitled to see to the safe custody of these men, and that chances of escape shall not be given them. I presume the hon. Member will also concede that these prisoners, like any others convicted of crime, shall be subject to the ordinary penal discipline, while, on the other hand, no exception ought to be made against them. I am sure, from the manly tone of his address, he will admit that these prisoners ought to be subjected to the same rules as other prisoners. But if the prisoners suffered anything like the petty persecutions which he has described, if there be the slightest proof of the allegation that traps were laid for these prisoners in order to induce them to commit actions for which they might afterwards be punished; if it can be proved that false charges were brought against them, for the purpose of depriving them of one of the comforts of prison life—the visits of their friends—if there was any solid foundation for charges of that sort, I believe no punishment would be too severe for the punishment of prison officials guilty of conduct so dastardly and so wicked. I am bound to ask whether the statements made by these prisoners are reliable. Without making any imputation on the veracity of the prisoners, I may say it is not unnatural that a prisoner's mind should get into a morbid condition of doubt and dissatisfaction with all that surrounds him, and that this should lead to exaggerated impressions of what took place. Prisoners in all prisons are apt to make fanciful complaints about the hostility and illwill which they imagine the officials feel towards them. I would appeal to the common sense of the hon. Member whether such complaints as those upon which he has dwelt are likely to be true. Let him remember what is

  879
  the organisation of such a prison as Chatham, where there are something like 1,000 prisoners. There is no reason why these particular prisoners should be subject to illwill, ill-treatment and animosity, rather than, perhaps, much worse prisoners in the same prison.Primâ facie, therefore, it is improbable that in a prison of this sort, subject to strict rules laid down by Parliament, anything like exceptional malevolence could be exhibited to a particular class of prisoners. If the hon. Member looks at the past career of the Governor of the prison, I think he will agree that his experience and his character entitle him to respect. There is also a Roman Catholic chaplain, who seems to be a man of kindly heart, and disposed to sympathise with these men.
  MR. J. O'CONNOR: And he has recommended their removal.
  MR. MATTHEWS: Yes; he has suggested their removal on grounds which I have not now time to discuss. Although it may probably be that some of the subordinate warders may be somewhat harsh; that they may be coarse in their language and harsh in their manner, yet anything like systematic persecution is in the highest degree unlikely, while the warders are under the superintendence of a staff of men of the highest character, and where there are medical men and chaplains whose relations with the prisoners are relations of mutual kindness and friendship. The chief warder is spoken of by one and all the prisoners as a humane and kindly man, who is always ready to interfere on their behalf, and to punish the subordinate warders if they are guilty of any excess of duty. In consequence of the complaints made by hon. Members of the House who saw the prisoners, I directed a special inquiry. The hon. Gentleman has spoken of the Committee who held that inquiry as a "whitewashing Committee," but that observation is entirely unfounded and entirely unfair. The inquiry was conducted by the ordinary Visitors of Chatham Prison. Sir J. Lennard, the Chairman of the Committee, might be considered to be not in sympathy with the prisoners; but anyone who knows him knows him to be a kind-hearted gentleman and a man of perfect
  880
  rigidness of character. Sir J. Lennard has for years been one of the Visitors of the prison. The other two men, Mr. Shipton and Mr. Drummond, whom the hon. Member described as working men, were appointed by my predecessor in office, and they are, I believe, men whose political views are opposed to mine. I have never seen them. They owe me nothing, and I have not the slightest influence over them. They are persons who are absolutely independent. I left those gentlemen perfectly free to conduct the inquiry as they thought fit, and I added to the Committee Mr. Selfe, the County Court Judge of the district, as a man specially skilled in the investigation of truth. To speak of these gentlemen as a "whitewashing Committee," who set about the inquiry with the deliberate purpose of disguising the truth, seems to me to be gravely unjust. There is not the slightest ground for imputing partiality or want of independence to this body of Visitors. The reason why Visitors are appointed is that they may see for themselves at the prison whether things are rightly done or wrongly done. I have listened with the most anxious patience to everything that has fallen from the hon. Member, and I have not heard anything to cause me in the slightest degree to doubt the strict impartiality of the action of these men. The hon. Member will admit that this Report of the Visitors does exculpate the prison officials from anything like wilful maltreatment of prisoners. Nothing can be more distinct than the finding of the Visitors on the various points the hon. Member has gone through; and as the Report is in the hands of hon. Members below the Gangway opposite, I am certain none of them will challenge the description I have given. The hon. Member has alluded to the most unfortunate incident of the overdose of belladonna which was administered to Daly, and has adopted the opinion which Daly put before the Visitors that he was purposely poisoned. I do not think the hon. Member has done justice to the evidence. The whole story is now as clear as the light of noonday. Daly, after taking three doses of a prescription, which was admitted to be a proper prescription, containing 10 minims only of belladonna, exhibited some of the symptoms of belladonna

  881
  poisoning, upon which he was sent to the hospital; and by the application of the stomach pump—the emetic not having acted—he was, in the course of 24 hours, relieved of those symptoms. I instituted an immediate inquiry to ascertain who was at fault, and the first analysis of the mixture showed that it contained more belladonna than had been prescribed. The inference I drew was that that was due to the carelessness of the compounder, but then came the inquiry by the Visitors, who called in Sir Risdon Bennett. The compounder said the error was not his, and it was discovered that the compounder had taken the tincture from the bottle of tincture of belladonna in the prison store. Upon the contents of that bottle being analysed, it was found that the tincture was far beyond the ordinary strength of the British Pharmacopœia, and that consequently, although the compounder had taken only 10 minims, he had compounded an excessive quantity of belladonna. Who is to blame for that?
  MR. J. O'CONNOR: Certainly; who is to blame?
  MR. MATTHEWS: The Visitors found that the tincture of belladonna had been bought by contract from the best wholesale houses, and that consequently the prison officials were not to blame in relying upon it.
  MR. J. O'CONNOR: My version of the matter is that it was proved on investigation that evaporation had taken place, and that therefore the belladonna had become from two and a half to four times the ordinary strength. Who was responsible for this mistake if Durbin was not?
  MR. MATTHEWS: The hon. Member is not accurate; it could not be proved that evaporation had taken place, and the conjecture came from Durbin himself. He said—
  "You blame me for putting in too much tincture, but I am not sure that the tincture had not become too strong by evaporation."
  There is no proof that evaporation had taken place, so that the only theory is that it was supplied of, too great strength, and that the wholesale house is to blame. At all events, Durbin was acquitted, and all those immediately concerned in making up the prescription for Daly were acquitted from blame, and
  882
  yet the hon. Member suggests that something like an attempt to murder Daly by too much belladonna was made. This, think, appears a very extravagant charge, and I confess that I can understand the temper in which the Visitors have declared it to be utterly unfounded. But I do not want to press this point unduly. I can assure the hon. Member that I shall continue to be as vigilant in the future as I have been in the past to check anything like harshness in the treatment of any prisoner, and I think that the inquiry which I directed into the whole case shows that at least I was actuated by no feeling of hostility to these prisoners. With regard to the statements of Daly referred to in the speech of the hon. Member in connection with the visit of Mr. Soames, Major Clayton, the Deputy Governor, who was present at the interview, denies those statements. I would appeal to the common sense of the hon. Member whether it is conceivable that a man in Mr. Soames's position, with his professional reputation at stake, would in the presence of the Deputy Governor of the prison have made offers which would have laid him open to an indictment if brought home to him. The story in itself is so improbable that one would require very strong evidence before believing it; and when Major Clayton entirely denies all those statements which go to suggest that Mr. Soames offered the slightest improper inducement to Daly to give evidence, or, still more, to give false evidence, I think that the conclusion at which the Visitors arrived—namely, that there was no truth whatever in the story—appears to be the only possible one.
  MR. J. O'CONNOR: Did Mr. Soames say that he would use force if necessary?
  MR. MATTHEWS: No; Major Clayton, when a part of Daly's statement was read to him, and he was asked whether Mr. Soames said he would be forced to take Daly to London to give evidence, said "nothing occurred whatever of this character." I do not ask the hon. Member to accept anything but the ordinary canons of evidence, but I think it is one of the ordinary canons of evidence that, when a person who has many reasons for exaggerating a particular question makes a statement which is capable of being contradicted by a

  883
  person who is perfectly disinterested, and that disinterested person absolutely denies the statement made by the interested person, and when that statement is in itself of the highest degree of improbability, namely, imputing that a person has made a statement in the presence of a witness which would make him liable to be sent to Chatham himself as a prisoner, we should accept the contradiction given to the statement. I do not propose to follow the hon. Member into the very eloquent and feeling appeal he made for mercy for these prisoners. I do not think this is either the time or the place to discuss that matter. My only object was to answer the hon. Member who seemed to me to do injustice to the prison officials, and, having done that, I will say no more.
  MR. SEXTON: What I have to say on this matter can very soon be said. I feel it my duty to declare that the inquiry has not been satisfactory in the constitution of the tribunal, in the mode of its proceeding, or in its results. One unanswerable complaint is that whereas the inquiry was granted on the demand of Irish Members of Parliament, and the prisoners concerned were nearly all Irishmen, nobody connected with Ireland took part in the inquiry. The case would have been very different if there had been on the Commission any one Irishman, but we found no such man, and the fact is one upon which we are entitled to lay stress in reply to such eulogies as we have heard to-day. But I complain not only of the constitution of the inquiry, but also of its proceedings. If the prominent interest had been the elucidation of the truth, the prisoners and the officials, one would think, would have been brought face to face, and opportunity would have been afforded for cross-examination by counsel or otherwise. Nothing of the kind, however, took place here. The prisoners were examined in the absence of the officials, and the officials in the absence of the prisoners, and there was no cross-examination such as is allowed in the ordinary Courts of the country. I submit that any impartial man who goes carefully through the documents will come to the conclusion that these Irish prisoners have not received that equal treatment which is their right. There
  884
  is at least one common ground between the Irish Members and the Home Secretary, and it is that prisoners subjected to like sentences are entitled to like treatment. He has admitted as much himself. I am sensible that the Home Secretary has refrained from any references to the acts charged against these men, and of the acts of which they were convicted, which might tend to obscure the sense of justice in the minds of the House and the country. It will not be denied that these acts were not devoid of a political element. The acts of these prisoners had an element of a political character about them. They did not lead to any loss of life or to any great destruction of property, and the presumption is that they were not intended to lead to loss of life or to a great destruction of property. I speak with the utmost frankness when I say I believe that these acts were intended to produce apprehension, which apprehension might lead to certain political results. The common ground between the Home Secretary and myself is that equal sentences ought to be equally treated. But are these prisoners treated equally with other prisoners? It may be difficult, even impossible, for even the best Administration to clear the minds of minor officials of prejudice in regard to certain prisoners, but I think the present Administration might have done a great deal more than they did in this direction. It is pretty clear that so far as the minor officials are concerned these unfortunate ill-fated men were made the victims of a system of sleepless malice. Do we not find it all through the Report, do we not find it suggested in the contradictions of the officials themselves, do we not find it established in the very recommendations of the Commission? Is it not most clear that these men were made to feel their nationality and the nature of their crime in every detail of their physical existence, and even in every phase of their mental lives? They were meant to feel these things in their clothing, in the manner of taking their bath, in the mode of their exercise, in the labour which left them with lacerated and bleeding hands, in the night time, when even the most infamous prisoner might be left for a eertain period of repose. It is also clear that these men were men of education,

  885
  men of some sense of self respect, men not at all of an uncontrollable type, men who had intelligence enough to know from the beginning that their best course was to subordinate themselves to the discipline of the prison, and who were disposed to do so. I think it is abundantly clear that these men were goaded by small and incessant irritations into breaches of discipline in order that they might be cut off from human sympathy. Language of the most obscene and filthy description was habitually used to these prisoners by the minor officials of the prison. No doubt it is difficult to make the conduct of the minor officials all it ought to be, but, on the other hand, the Government might do more than they have done, because I believe of the minor officials in English prisons, just as I believe about the minor officials who baton the people in Irish market places, that they do what they think the Government wish them to do, what they think the Government will regard with favour, or, if not with favour, with some sympathy. I am inclined to think that if the Government had emphatically and in good faith condemned these odious proceedings as they deserve, these unfortunate Irishmen would have been saved from the indignity and torture of having such language continually applied to them. I have said their offences were not quite devoid of a political aspect, and I think that mercy is a plea that may be well considered at any time. Whilst I should not be justified in pressing for a decision at this moment, it must be remembered that the main function of criminal law is deterrent. Considering that these men have been subjected to particularly heavy punishment, because of the feeling of the prison officials, I think the time has come when it would not be amiss if the Home Secretary held out some hope of abbreviation of the term of imprisonment. I believe that to hold out such a hope would not be repugnant to the ends of justice. One man is beyond all help, because he lost his life on account of purely wanton treatment. Daly was subjected to great suffering and danger. It is easy to get rid of the case by pointing to a store bottle, but it is a strange thing that the respectable firm which supplies the
  886
  prison with drugs has not sent them any more store bottles of that kind. There has been no belladonna poisoning amongst the public; no one else in Chatham Prison but Daly was poisoned. I am not satisfied with the theory of the store bottle, and, even if the theory were made good, I maintain that the medical system which allowed the substance in that bottle to be used without examination, is a system which, so far from deserving to be described as careful and judicious, as it was described by the Commission, is the negation of a system, and deserves the severest condemnation. If the Government judged it to be possible to shorten the sentence of some of these prisoners, or to hold out the hope that absolutely good conduct would lead to an abridgment of the term of imprisonment, I am confident it would be helpful to the true interest of society in these countries, which true interest is harmony and good feeling between the different classes and nationalities, subjects of the Queen. I also trust the right hon. Gentleman will, in a manner that will lead to no mistake as to his intention, make it clear that he does not favour, but condemns, especial cruelty or especial coarseness of language, and, in regard to these Irish prisoners, I urge this point because, unfortunately, the right hon. Gentleman did, not long ago, allow various persons to enter prisons and make offers of liberty and fortune to Irish prisoners if only they would give certain evidence. There seemed to be no particular anxiety, either on the part of the Government or their friends, that the evidence should be true. The right hon. Gentleman, who was, so very recently, so lax as to allow these proceedings to take place, is now so stringent that he will not allow communications to take place between these unfortunate prisoners and the Representatives of the people in this House. The knowledge of what the right hon. Gentleman has said with regard to the agent of the Times, the knowledge of what he is doing now with regard to the wish of the prisoners to hold consultation with Members of Parliament, naturally suggests to the officials of the prison that he is not really desirous that these Irish prisoners should receive fair treatment. One other suggestion I have to make. Has the right

  887
  hon. Gentleman observed that some of these prisoners, who were in other prisons before they went to Chatham, have not made the same complaint against their former place of confinement that they have made against the management of the prison within the walls of which they are now immured? Does that not suggest that these complaints are not wanton, are not dishonest? The prisoner Wilson contrasted his treatment in the previous prison to his treatment in Chatham. Is there not something like a suspicion of honesty in that distinction? It appears to me that there is some specially cruel system at Chatham, or else that the warders at Chatham as a class are not so well qualified to deal with cases in which natural prejudices are brought into play. Suppose these prisoners' complaints of their treatment are excessive, will not the right hon. Gentleman admit that the fact of these complaints having been made, of this inquiry having been forced upon you by our demands in this House, renders it almost visionary to hope that equal treatment will be given to these men in future? I respectfully press upon the Home Secretary to consider, during the recess, the advisability, in the first place, of shortening the term of imprisonment of these men, and, in the second place, of removing these prisoners from a prison where they cannot receive fair treatment to some prison where they may receive it.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: As one of those who generally sympathise with the Home Secretary, as, for instance, when he was attacked last night, will he allow me to say that the tests he has asked us to apply to this case tell against himself. Take the case of Mr. Soames. The right hon. Gentle-man said it was most unlikely that Mr. Soames would threaten that force would be used, because Mr. Soames would have laid himself open to an indictment. Let me apply that test. Mr. Soames says he would have laid himself open to an indictment. So would Shannon. Shannon admitted having administered an oath in prison. Shannon was the solicitor to the Times as well as Soames, and he administered to
  888
  Delaney an oath of an illegal character. He was not indicted. He is walking about the streets, and he remains the faithful servant of the Times. His brother was promoted in the Registry because of his zeal and diligence. Major Clayton, on page 144, question 553, admits in substance Soames's threat, that if Daly refused to give evidence force would be used. He says that when Daly declined to give evidence Mr. Soames said, "Well, perhaps we shall find some means of making you." Mr. Soames was admitted into the prison for the purpose of bullying and tempting this unfortunate man, placed in the terrible position he was in. I think Major Clayton might have spared us the statement he made, that Daly was very declamatory. Here is an unfortunate convict with no ray of light left in his life, and with no friend to cheer him. He is approached by the agent of the greatest journal in the world—a journal backed up by Her Majesty's Ministers—a journal with untold power, and if not with untold wealth, at least with untold promises at its command. What prospect did Mr. Soames dangle before this prisoner's eyes? He could not punish, because Daly's cup of punishment was already full. He could only tempt. He goes to Daly loaded with bribes. Is the temptation offered to Daly that of appearing for 24 hours in the witness-box before Mr. Justice Hannen, and having a day's excursion to the Probate Court? Will any man under the rank of Home Secretary believe the suggestion? How did Soames wind up? Having exhausted what I suggest was temptation, he used threats. Major Clayton, instead of finding language of some denunciation to condemn the words and conduct of Mr. Soames, makes use of a sneer at the expense of the unhappy convict. He says that Mr. Soames's attitude was uncalled for, but that Daly's attitude was declamatory. This is one of the officials in whom we are asked to repose confidence. A statement of that kind gives us the measure of the man. It is under a man of this kind that this unfortunate convict has to serve his days. Under the Governor, as the Home Secretary admits, there is an army of brutal warders. Of course, we do not expect to have gentlemen for warders.

  889
  But out of a brothel no man would soil his lips by using the language which is quoted in the Report as having been used by these warders. To whom does an appeal from these warders lie? To Major Clayton, who thinks it is a matter to be sneered at that Daly had escaped from the wiles and spurned the bribes of the agent of the Times. These things being so, our claim is that Major Clayton has written himself down as a man unfitted by his prejudices to remain in charge of these men. The Home Secretary forgets, when he speaks of the impossibility of these things happening in a large prison like Chatham, that these prisoners are not mixed up and down among the other prisoners, but are kept in a separate ward and apart from other prisoners in a sort of "Lock" Hospital. When we come to consider the statement of the poisoning of Daly, remember that the man was not sentenced to be poisoned; but the man was poisoned, not once, but three times. Now, remember there is a belief among convict prisoners that there is a practice among prison doctors of administering drugs in order to reduce prisoners to a state of subjection. It may be totally unfounded, but it is a common tradition. We know that this practice is officially accepted in Russia. Of course, if I were "Stepniak" or the poet "Swinburne," and my remarks directed to the encouragement of assassination, they might be hailed with delight; but, being only an Irish Member pleading for justice to a convict, the case is wholly different. There is a traditional belief among prisoners that refractory prisoners are in English prisons treated as prisoners admittedly are in Russian prisons. We have it in evidence that castor oil was administered to Daly when. it was not ordered by the doctor. Of course, it is unpleasant to go into these details; but remember that upon this administering of castor oil follows the overdosing with belladonna. Warders are brutal, says the right hon. Gentleman, and it is perhaps an accompaniment of their employment; but then remember that the compounder of drugs is of the same class as the warders. When we turn to another case, that of Flanagan, is it not palpable from the ravings of this unfortunate man that there is nothing to
  890
  justify the imputation of shamming? He is not a member of a Society for promoting Nihilism or recommending the assassination of a friendly Sovereign. This man says, in answer to a question, "I have not the slightest complaint to make." How, then, can you suppose this man is shamming when such an answer would defeat his own object? Observe his replies—
  "179. (Mr. Shipton.) I see, you claim to have certain supernatural powers over all the known nations of the earth, including Christians, Turks, Jews, and Gentiles?—I am under the impression that you are aware of my meaning. I trust that you will excuse me, and I will give you a definite answer to that. T have power to show great signs and wonders by shutting the organs of my body, that is quite beyond your comprehension; but I leave it to others to prove that I have power to show great signs and wonders in the earth by shutting the organs of my body.
  180. But you claim to have supernatural powers over the known nations of the earth?—No; I say that I believe other people are invested with that power, not myself. I do not claim to have power over the nations of the earth.
  181. (Chairman.) You say that this prevents you from giving a full account of yourself?—Yes.
  182. Why?—Because I cannot make it publicly known that I have power to show great signs and wonders in the earth by shutting up the organs of my body. I did it last time the dockyard clock was changed, at the hour of 8 o'clock; there were certain changes made in the dockyard clock through it.
  183. Have you been in the infirmary at all? Yes, I have been there on two occasions.
  184. What were you treated for?—I had an accident in 1885; and in 1886, upon which occasion I had a boil on my arm.
  185. (Mr. Shipton.) What was the nature of your first accident?—It was simply through some metal dropping on my legs. I was carrying some metal to the furnace, and some metal dropped on my legs and I got burned slightly.
  186. What was the next?—A boil oil my right arm.
  187. (Chairman.) All you wish, as I understand, to complain of, is that you have not had any visitor, and that you did not get an answer from Mr. Poole; is there anything else?—No; I do not wish to make any complaint of anything else at the present time, except that I wish to be brought into communication. I am perfectly certain, from the changes which have occurred in the dockyard clock, that some events have taken place. Last Wednesday, at the hour of 8 o'clock, during the time the dockyard clock was chiming, certain" changes were occurring. That is a point which I could not make public; if I did, the public would laugh and scoff at me.

  891
  188. Could you make it known to us?—I could, at the proper time; but I have not the slightest complaint to make to either of you gentlemen."
  Now, is it not absurd to suppose such a man is in his right mind? In truth, the man is mad as a March hare, and you persist in believing he is shamming. Why do not his answers supply an answer to that? Would he, if shamming, say he had no complaint to make? By no phantasm of political violence do we suggest that the Home Secretary has any wish or belief that these prisoners should be or are treated harshly. But do we not know that denials of ill-treatment were made in reference to Fenian prisoners years ago, and did we not find, when inquiry was ordered, that O'Donovan Rossa was chained for 40 days and compelled to lap his food like a dog; that he was bound, and, during the hot months of July and August, confined in a dark cell at the mercy of the meanest insect of God's creation? Do you wonder that he should lose his mental balance and indulge in dynamite ravings? Do we not know that Mr. Davitt was yoked to a cart and compelled to drag stones about? We do not doubt, however, that then, as now, the Home Secretary of the time was actuated by the desire simply that the law should be properly administered. This man Daly has been a determined opponent of ours and of our Parliamentary action. I remember in Loath he carried his opposition to a deadly extreme, and flung bombs into the house of a Member of our Party. His view was that we were the enemies of the Irish cause, and that the only way to free Ireland was by the sword. To this man Pigott, Mr. Soames, and Mr. Littlechild were allowed to pay visits, and my application was refused. I do not know that Daly would have consented to see me, for he is a man of determined political views; but, at least, I think that an Irish Member has as good a claim to have his application granted as Mr. Soames. There is another man in Chatham Prison whom every man in Ireland, I may say, believes to be innocent of the crime for which he was convicted. Daly stayed at the house of Egan at Birmingham, and in that house the bombs were discovered. It was strong evidence against Egan, and
  892
  I cannot blame the English jury that found him guilty. However, Daly has throughout declared that Egan was not in his confidence and had no part in his designs, and in the most solemn manner asseverated this at the trial. That is the view entertained in Ireland now. This is what Daly says:—
  "I wished to see Mr. Egan because as a dying man I wished to ask his forgiveness for the great wrong I had done him. I wished to say with my dying breath almost in the presence of the unknown God, and in the presence of witnesses, that during the time I lived in his house at Birmingham he never at any time had my confidence, he had no share in my political sentiments no more than the child unborn."
  Now, Daly believes himself dying but this request of his was refused. Really I do not think that the discipline of convict prisons should be carried to the pitch of the abandonment and abnegation of every trace of humanity. I think a little of English generosity might be extended in such circumstances. Imagine the indignation of the sentimental English people, some of whom were ready to rend the Home Secretary because he hanged a scoundrel who murdered his father; imagine the storm that would have been raised had Mrs. Maybrick prayed for the consolation of asking the forgiveness of an accomplice and had been refused! Surely a little common sense, not to say justice, should have allowed my lion. Friend the Member for Wexford the opportunity of talking freely with Egan during his visit. These men have borne their sad and miserable position in gaol with great dignity. Dr. Gallagher, one of the prisoners, is, I am told, being fast tortured to death, and this I have on the authority of a letter written by an English convict. I think we are entitled to some consideration at the hands of the Government. The House knows of the shadow of prejudice resting on the case of these men, and that makes it all the more necessary for some of their countrymen to stand up for them and endeavour to get applied to them the law of England as understood by and practised upon Englishmen. It is our duty to see that these Irishmen, sad and mistaken as has been their career, get the same measure of just treatment as Englishmen,

  893
  Russians, and Chinese have within the walls of English prisons.
  MR. CHANNING: Before the Vote is taken, I wish to ask a question on a subject which is deeply interesting to some of my constituents, namely, with regard to the treatment of prisoners under the Vaccination Acts. I have repeatedly drawn attention to cases of this kind, and not infrequently hard labour has been imposed on prisoners, and that is contrary to the Act. Prisoners under these Acts are subjected to exactly the same indignities as prisoners convicted for more serious offences. I contend that a distinction ought to be drawn between offences of a grossly immoral and heinous character and offences under such Acts as these, where prisoners go to gaol for conscience sake. I have had brought under my notice many cases of cruel hardship suffered by persons on whom it is clear, from their sympathetic speeches of last year, neither the Chief Secretary for Ireland nor the President of the Local Government Board have any desire to inflict unnecessary indignity, or personal suffering or a sense of degradation, and I hope the Home Secretary will be of the same opinion. It is quite sufficient that these people suffer some restraint in their liberty. The Committee which sat last year and was presided over by Lord Aberdare reported more or less in favour of drawing a distinction between prisoners of this kind and those guilty of gross and of horrible offences. I think it is time for the Government to take this question in hand, and I hope they will succeed in solving this problem in the course of next Session. I have, in conclusion, to ask two specific questions, namely, what are the powers of Magistrates at the present time as to ordering prisoners under these Acts to be treated as first-class misdemeanants, and whether the right hon. Gentleman will issue a Circular to the Clerks of the Peace informing them as to such powers, and making it more widely known to the Benches of Magistrates that hard labour cannot be inflicted in these cases?
  MR. SEXTON: It will probably economise time and save the Committee trouble if the right hon.
  Gentleman will now say what lie intends
  894
  to do with regard to the representations made to him this afternoon.
  MR. MATTHEWS: I cannot, of course, pledge myself to take any particular action, but I assure hon. Members opposite that I will apply my mind to the whole of the suggestions made. With reference to the questions just asked by the hon. Member for East Northamptonshire, I can only say that it is quite within the power of Magistrates to direct that a prisoner under the Vaccination Acts shall be treated as a first-class misdemeanant. What is more, it is the Court alone that inflicts the sentence that can so order. I have no power, when a man has been sentenced to simple imprisonment without a stipulation that he shall be treated as a first-class misdemeanant, to transfer him from the ordinary class to the first class. It is equally clear that hard labour cannot be inflicted for offences of this nature, and I believe that fact is thoroughly well known to Magisterial Benches throughout the country. In the one case which the hon. Member brought under my notice of hard labour being imposed, the mistake was purely accidental.
  MR. CHANNING: I am well aware that in the case which occurred in my own constituency the mistake was purely accidental, but I am also aware that in other cases elsewhere similar mistakes have been made through the ignorance of the Magistrates as to the law on the subject.
  MR. MATTHEWS: Well, so far as I can judge, it was a case of pure inadvertence. The hon. Member has raised one of the most knotty and difficult points in the Criminal Law. It is suggested that although a law is right, and although a penalty is properly imposed, yet, because amiable, good, honest people disagree with the law, a different punishment should be meted to them to that meted out to ordinary offenders. If the law is right and the man who breaks it is rightly visited with a penalty, is it not idle to talk about his high conscientious motives? Ought his high purposes to save him from the ordinary punishment of the law? I confess the hon. Member in advocating that is embarking on a very dangerous path. I have given consideration to the matter, and

  895
  I find myself quite unable to make any logical classification of these offences which the hon. Member desires to see punished with special leniency.
  MR. J. O'CONNOR: I had intended to move the Motion which stands in my name on the Paper, but I will forego my right, for I desire to accept the statement of the Home Secretary that the grievances of which the prisoners at Chatham complain will have his prompt and impartial consideration. I shall not, therefore, put the Committee to the trouble of a Division. I hope that as a result of the consideration which the right hon. Gentleman has promised the matter there will be no necessity for us again to trouble the House with the case of these unfortunate men. I think if the right hon. Gentleman will carefully look into the evidence of the Roman Catholic chaplain he will come to the conclusion that some mitigation of the sufferings of these men is most desirable. I might refer him to the case of Wilson, to which attention was drawn the other day by my hon. Friend the Member for Wexford, who declared that intervention in this matter was absolutely necessary as it was a question of life or death. We have reason to believe that the inquiry instituted a short time ago into the case of these convicts has made matters worse for them.
  MR. A. O'CONNOR: Will the right hon. Gentleman make any statement with regard to the result of the investigation into the case of Egan?
  MR. MATTHEWS: One of the Directors of the prison had a special interview with Egan, and inquired of him what he had to complain of. He complained, as a matter of fact, of the language of the warders towards him, and also of the nature of the food, exhibiting a mouldy piece of bread in carroboration of his statement. The Director investigated the matter of the food, and found that, as a rule, the bread distributed was excellent. There was no opportunity of inquiring whether on any particular occasion the bread was faulty.
  MR. J. O'CONNOR: The right hon. Gentleman is aware that the complaint
  896
  as to the language of the warders is an old one.
  MR. MATTHEWS: Yes; he constantly complains of bad language being used by the warders
  MR. J. O'CONNOR: And has he not frequently complained of the quality of the bread?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I am not aware of that.
  Vote agreed to.
  22. £132,419, to complete the sum for Reformatory and Industrial Schools Great Britain.
  MR. CHANNING: I wish to ask whether the Government propose to introduce their Reformatory Bill in the early part of next Session?
  MR. MATTHEWS: Yes; we hope to lay it before the House early in the Session.
  Vote agreed to.
  (23.) £22,033, to complete the sum for Broadmoor Criminal Lunatic Asylum.

  CLASS IV.
  (24.) £354,896, to complete the sum for the Science and Art Department.
  (25.) £93,145, to complete the sum for the British Museum.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: I wish to ask a question with regard to the lighting of the Natural History part of the British Museum at South Kensington. It was proposed to light the rooms by electricity. I understand it has been done on the occasion of some private parties, but that the electric light is not used when the rooms are open to the public. Is it not intended to give the general public the benefit of the light at night in the same way as in the Museum at Bloomsbury?
  MR. JACKSON: It was, of course, necessary, before finally lighting the rooms with electricity, to experiment and see if the system would answer.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: But there have been repeated private entertainments given there, at which the electric light has been used. I know people who have attended these gatherings, and have assured me that the light has been used.
  MR. JACKSON: Yes; experimentally.
  MR. SEXTON: I wish to know whether the experts of the British Museum are still allowed to employ their leisure time in tracing forged letters?
  MR. JACKSON: I do not know how they employ their spare time.
  Vote agreed to.
  (26.) £33,594 (including a Supplementary sum of £25,000), to complete the sum for the National Gallery.
  MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK: I feel it my duty to make a few observations on this Vote, and those will be in the form of a protest. I shall not even delay the Committee by giving reasons at length, but I wish to protest against the practice which I am sorry to see is still continued, according to which the Director of the National Gallery goes to Italy and other places and purchases pictures on behalf of the country, at a price a great deal higher than that which would be paid by private individuals. I was informed by a gentleman well skilled in such matters that not very long ago he offered 400 francs for the picture attributed to Ghirlandajo, which had been sold to the National Gallery for £1,000. I wish also to protest against the practice of purchasing pictures under one name and having them placed in the National Gallery under another. About a fortnight ago a picture sold as by Carlo Dolce has since been re-baptised as by Giovanni Bellini. I am told by the Secretary to the Treasury that this change has been made on the sole responsibility of the Director of the National Gallery, but all the experts whom I have consulted disagree with the opinion of the Director. It is not desirable that doubtful pictures should be bought for the National Gallery. It would be better that the money should be saved for the purchase of some well-known work of a great master. But the principal object with which I have risen is to protest against the extravagant sum to be paid to Lord Radnor for three pictures. There are few pictures in the world which would fetch more than £25,000, and to suppose that the Holbein is
  898
  worth more than £25,000 is absurd. As for the Velasquez, I do not think there was ever one which would bring more than £4,000 or £5,000, and I am sure that any Member of this House who possesses a Morone would be glad to get £1,000. for it. I must protest against giving £40,000 or £45,000 for a Holbein. Then we have looming in the distance another purchase, as to which the Chancellor of the Exchequer told me that the charge would not come into the Supplementary Estimates this Session, but we are to hear of it in the course of next year. The right hon. Gentleman, however, does not mention the price to be paid to Lord Darnley.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: I am glad to find myself in sympathy with the right hon. Gentleman opposite, and I hope the Committee will disallow the extravagant sums it is proposed to pay for certain pictures. I object to this, not only because of its extravagance, but because it is a breach of an agreement made between the National Gallery Directors and the taxpayers. I further object on the ground of the bad precedent thus set. A few years ago extravagant purchases of this kind were made, but only on condition that the enormous sum then paid would be recouped from the annual allowance. I do not know anything about the value of these pictures, but I do know the course taken when it is desired to force pictures to an extravagant price. A clique is got up, and the newspapers are induced to protest against the idea that certain valuable pictures shall be allowed to go to Germany or to America, the result being that extravagant prices are given to retain them here. I have not heard anything said as to these pictures being of a popular character such as would gratify the masses of the people. I went to the National Gallery in order to ascertain what sort of opinion was formed by the public as to the Madonna for which £60,000 was paid, and I certainly saw no evidence of public appreciation.
  MR. CONYBEARE: I hope my hon. Friends will no longer lend themselves to the farce of discussing these matters. It is compromising to the dignity of this House to maintain a discussion as to the

  899
  expenditure on these pictures, as to which nobody cares 2½. whether they are in the National Gallery or not. I simply rise to say that this sort of expenditure is incurred, not to gratify the picture fanciers, but to enrich a few noble Lords who want to marry their eldest sons and get as much money from the taxpayers as possible. This is what it all comes to, and I hope the public will understand that at the fag-end of a long Session it is sought to force this kind of thing upon the taxpayers. It is a scandal and a disgrace to the country, and, for my part, I will have nothing to do with it.
  Vote agreed to.
  27. £1,209, to complete the sum for the National Portrait Gallery.
  28. £14,453 (including a Supplementary sum of £1,200) to complete the sum for the Learned Societies and Scientific Investigation, United Kingdom.
  29. £41,000, to complete the sum for the Universities and Colleges, Great Britain.
  30. £9,874, to complete the sum for the London University.

  Class V.
  31. £114,920 (including an additional sum of £30,000) to complete the sum for Colonial Services, including South Africa.
  DR. CLARK: I have to ask the reason why we do not get complete information with regard to the South African expenditure? Until this year we have been able to see how and for what the money has been spent. We are now asked for £16,000, as to which we have no information. With regard to Bechuanaland, the money is thrown away to a large extent on a Police Force which is totally unnecessary, when at the same time the people need money for education purposes and hospitals. I trust that this dog-in-the-manger policy will cease, and that you will no longer allow nine-tenths of the income to be expended on a police chiefly used by Colonel Carington instead of dogs when he is out shooting.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: Having been unable to enter into the fragmentary discussion on South African matters last
  900
  night on the Vote for the Colonial Secretary I come fresh to the subject to-day. If, however, I am informed that I shall have an opportunity of speaking on the subject to-morrow, I will not continue my remarks this evening.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH,: I hope the hon. Member will not think it necessary to prolong the Debate this evening, but will have some regard to the convenience of hon. Members. We sat until 4 o'clock this morning, and re-assembled at 12 o'clock to-day, and some regard should be paid to the convenience not only of Members generally, but also of the officers of the House. I may state that the Report of Supply will be taken as the first Order to-morrow.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: That being so, I will postpone my remarks.
  Vote agreed to.
  32. £35,000, for Cyprus, Grant in Aid.
  MR. A. O'CONNOR: I think this Vote ought not to pass without some discussion, although I admit that adequate discussion is hopeless in the present state of the House. But I must enter my protest against this Vote from a taxpayers' point of view. I say that, from that point of view, this money would not be required if the island were properly administered. The ordinary expenditure has been steadily going up since 1883, while the actual revenue has decreased from £194,000 in 1883–4 to £172,000 in 1885–6, and £145,000 in 1887–8. Beyond this, the deficit,' which was £10,000 at the beginning, rose to £31,000 in 1885–6, and £65,000 in 1887–8. The expenditure on the island is perfectly indefensible, and the mode in which the money is raised is ruinous and inhuman. If any stable reform were introduced it would not be necessary to harass the people as they now are, by having their property sold to secure payment of miserably small sums, but as it is, and under existing circumstances, I suppose we must wait until an additional charge is made next Session, when we may probably have a better chance of protesting.
  Vote agreed to.
  33. £28,375, to complete the sum for Subsidies to Telegraph Companies.

  CLASS VI.
  34. £259,989, to complete the sum for Superannuations and Retired Allowances.
  35. £7,280, to complete the sum for Merchant Seamen's Fund Pensions, &c.
  36. £12,848, for Friendly Societies Deficiency.
  37. £928, to complete the sum for Miscellaneous Charitable and other Allowances, Great Britain.

  CLASS VII.
  38. £15,374, to complete the sum for Temporary Commissions.
  MR. CONYBEARE: I do not propose to discuss this Vote, but I wish to ask a simple question with regard to the Mining Royalties Commission. A day or two ago I stated that one of my constituents in Camborne had informed me that the Royal Commissioners were empowered to report on such matters as came under their consideration. I want to know whether the Commissioners have not power to offer recommendations as well as to report their opinions?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I cannot pretend to give a proper interpretation of the Reference to the Royal Commission, seeing that I have not had notice of the question, and, therefore, have been unable to obtain information. But the matter is one upon which I do not think I could offer an opinion under any circumstances. The Reference was issued to the Commission, and it is for the Commissioners themselves to say what meaning or construction is to be put upon it. It is for them to submit their Report as they may think fit, and it would be impertinent on my part to interpret for them what the Reference means.
  DR. CLARK: As to the Highlands Commission I should like to ask whether they have reported, or whether they intend to go back again to Sutherlandshire, to Cape Wrath and Caithness,
  902
  where owing to the late unfortunate storm many people lost their lives. The Commission has reported, and having done so is it possible for it to go back to those places?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: The Report of the Commission will remain on the Table.
  DR. CLARK: Yes; but can the Commissioners go back?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: No.
  MR. ANGUS SUTHERLAND: I am informed that the Secretary for Scotland promised that the Commission should go back.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I have heard nothing about it.
  Vote agreed to.
  39. Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £6,738, 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, 1891, for certain Miscellaneous Expenses."
  MR. LABOUCHERE: This is the last Vote of the normal Estimates, and I beg to say before we dispose of it that I have sat still to-day, listening to this preposterous farce that has been going on, and watching the way in which the Public Accounts are being treated. They say the last straw breaks the camel's back, and I must confess that this last straw breaks my back. I see here an item for the cost of robes and insignia for persons upon whom various orders are conferred, and also a periodical allowance of £270 for trumpeters, and such like persons. I have always divided the House against any expenditure I have come across on Knights of the Garter, or of the Thistle, or of St. Patrick, because these orders are confined to Royal personages and noblemen—Dukes and such like. I cannot for the life of me understand how anybody can give a straw for these wretched honours. If they were conferred for merit, I could understand it.

  903
  I can understand charges being made in respect of the Orders of the Bath, or of St. Michael and St. George. Some of this insignia has been given in respect of these orders; but a sum of over £1,000 goes to the Knights of the Garter and the Thistle, and I therefore beg to move that the Vote be reduced by the sum of £1,270.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £5,468, be granted for the said Service."—(Mr. Labouchere.)
  SIR HERBERT MAXWELL: I do not know whether the hon. Member will insist upon going to a Division when I tell him the result of a careful inquiry as to this account. There are two classes of these honours—hereditary and personal. The hereditary honours entail charges upon those who receive them, and the result does not appear in the Vote, although the money goes into the Exchequer. In respect of the other class of honours, items appear on the Votes, and the country is put to some expense; but when the one class is set off againt the other, the result is that during five years, from 1882 to 1887, £25,700 was paid out of the Exchequer and £29,300 into it. There has, therefore, been a gain to the Exchequer.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I do not call it a gain to the taxpayer, but I call the amount which these people have to pay a tax. I consider that if people wish to be made Dukes and Marquesses they should pay something for the article—if the article is worth anything in the market I think we ought to get the highest price. But the hon. Gentleman's argument, that because we receive money in respect of some of these honours therefore we should pay for insignia in other cases, is worth nothing. The hon. Member tells us that one class of these personages costs us nothing. Why, Sir, they cost us millions, owing to their obstructive tactics in the other House.
  MR. ATKINSON: I do not agree at all with the remark of the hon. Member for Northampton
  904
  with regard to the House of Lords, as I am one of those who are inclined to thank God that we have a House of Lords, but with his other remarks I perfectly agree. Seeing that when in the provinces we, as Mayors, have to pay for our own robes, it is only right that the recipients of honours such as he has referred to should pay for their insignia. I shall, therefore, divide with the hon. Member, and I think that the more we get the common sense element introduced into our Legislature the more we shall find these items disappear from the Estimates.
  (8.12.) The Committee divided:— Ayes 26; Noes 49.— (Div. List, No. 247.)
  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  40. Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £5,305, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1891, for the Re-payment to the Civil Contingencies Fund of certain Miscellaneous Advances."
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I beg to move to reduce the Vote by £3,588 8s. (being £439 3s. 4d. Fees paid on the Installation of His Royal Highness Prince Henry of Prussia as a Knight of the Garter; £2,769 4s. 8d. Equipage Money on appointment of the Earl of Zetland Lord Lieutenant of Ireland; £200, Special Steamers for Conveyance of Lords. Lieutenant of Ireland; and £180, Expenses in connection with the Funeral of Her Royal Highness the Duchess of Cambridge.) I do not propose to inflict a long speech upon the Committee, as I think it would be unjustifiable at this period of the Session; but I object to this Vote, not on account of the amount, but on account of the principle involved. I will refer to the payments categorically. With regard to the first payment, namely, £439 3s. 4d., Fees paid on the Installation of His Royal Highness

  905
  Prince Henry of Prussia as a Knight of the Garter, I wish to point out that that dignity is, as a general rule, granted for some signal service rendered to the country; but what service has Prince Henry of Prussia ever rendered to this country? He has not yet rendered any service to his own country, to say nothing of service to Great Britain. When this honour is conferred upon people here they have to pay their own installation fees; but that is not so in the case of a foreign Prince. Although it may be argued that diplomatic considerations should weigh in these cases, I hold that that argument should only be valid in cases where these honours are bestowed upon persons of distinction. But when they are conferred upon people who have never done anything to deserve attention, these interchanges of courtesies become empty expressions of diplomacy without any real meaning in them. With regard to the second item, £2,769 4s. 8d. Equipage Money on appointment of the Earl of Zetland Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, I think it is generally admitted that this office is a sinecure. ["No, no."] Well, there is nothing which the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland is supposed to do which is not better done already by his subordinates. We have been frequently reminded by the Chief Secretary that he is the real Governor of Ireland. The Lord Lieutenant is simply a man in buttons, who wears silk stockings and has a coat of arms on his carriage. [Cries of "Order!"]
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! The salary of the Lord Lieutenant is placed upon the Consolidated Fund, in order that he may not be criticised in this style. The only question into which the hon. Gentleman can enter is that of the adequacy of this expenditure.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I only wish to point out to the House that this sum of £3,000 is thrown away upon a sinecure. I find that a sum of about £3,000 appears in the Estimates under the head of Dublin Metropolitan Police, a Force which is as necessary to the present system of Government in Ireland as the Lord Lieutenant is unnecessary. Well,
  906
  then comes a sum of £180 in respect to the funeral of the Duchess of Cambridge. Such items are not calculated to promote sentiments of loyalty; on the contrary, they cause irritation and provoke an amount of criticism and inquiry which otherwise would be absent. The result of the inquiry promoted by this item is to show that the family of the Duke of Cambridge has from first to last received something like £3,000,000 out of the Exchequer. I think it positively monstrous that we should be paying these sums for what is absolutely worthless to this country, when there is so much suffering, so much absolute penury and want among our working classes. Shortly before this Supplementary Estimate was issued, the Report of the Sweating Committee appeared, and what a ghastly comment are the main features of that Report upon this expenditure. The Report shows that thousands of hard-working, thrifty men are living a life of hopeless, ceaseless toil, and yet we are asked to spend hundreds in decorating a foreign Prince, and thousands in adorning a mere supernumerary. These items represent principles of expenditure which do a vast amount of harm in this country. Others are induced by this extravagance to spend a vast amount of money on what is perfectly superfluous, and the result is this monstrous sweating system that is a blot on our civilisation. I do not believe that all this gorgeousness, and this ostentation of wealth, is necessary in order to maintain the Constitution. On the contrary, I think it does far more to repress than to promote sentiments of loyalty.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £1,717, be granted for the said Services."—(Mr. Lloyd-George.)
  MR. ATKINSON: I wish to dissociate myself from the remarks made by the Mover of this Amendment, as far as the greater part of the reduction is concerned. But if I can vote only against the £180 for funeral expenses I shall do so. I believe no man is a greater enemy of royalty, and of the

  907
  prospects of royalty in this country, than the man who allowed this £180 to come on the Estimates. Personally, I have done my best to prevent this coming before the House, even to the extent of offering a cheque for the amount. To justify myself allow me to say that last year, when it was a question between £40,000 and £36,000 a year for the family of the Prince of Wales, I opposed the reduction of the amount to the latter sum, although the Government had been so weak-kneed as to give way to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. Gladstone) on the subject. That justifies my opposition as a royalist and a loyalist. I shall vote against this £180 with the greatest pleasure, and I hope we shall never again see such a shabby item brought up on the Estimates.
  DR. CAMERON: I would suggest a compromise. Let my hon. Friend withdraw his Amendment, and let the Leader of the House accept the cheque of the hon. Gentleman opposite. I see from the gestures of the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Atkinson) that it would be a relief to his conscience, as well as to the burdens of the country, if the Government were to accept his generous, patriotic, and sporting offer.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: The hon. Gentleman's offer to hand over a cheque reminds me of a story told of a noble Lord now dead, who, when he was asked for a contribution towards the burial of a lawyer, offered a cheque for a guinea, saying, "Here, go and bury 21 of them."
  MR. CONYBEAR: Owing to having paired with an hon. Gentleman on this side of the House I am prevented from voting upon this question, but I feel bound to explain the absence of my name from the Division which is about to be taken. But, while I am obliged to make that explanation, I want to ask the Government for an explanation of two or three items of this Vote. In the first place, I want to know how it is that the seal of the Governor of British New
  908
  Guinea costs so much as £98 1s. 6d.? I am sure there are Members of this House who could provide an amply sufficient article for a less sum. I want to know, in the second place, what has been the result of the inquiries as to Mrs. Giles, of Barbadoes, alleged to have been abducted? We should like to know who she is, and who abducted her, and for what purpose she was abducted, whether she has been returned, and if her friends know of her whereabouts? All these questions ought to be answered, and I think we ought to divide against the payment of £21 16s. 10d. for the inquiries as to this Mrs. Giles, unless we get a satisfactory answer from the Government. I have got a suggestion to make which I think will meet with the approval of the Committee with regard to the item of £180. Great as is my loyalty and respect for the Royal Family generally, which I think all hon. Members know burns with great fervour in my breast as a staunch Republican, I cannot but feel the most profound regret that a paltry sum of this kind should be placed upon the Estimates, not that it is paltry in the size of it. I should have thought £10 would have been enough to bury anybody. [Mr. BROOKFIELD: Disgraceful. The only persons in this country outside royalty who come upon the country for the expenses of their burial expenses are paupers. I think it is, as an hon. Member explained, a slur upon Royalty that a sum of this kind should be placed on the Estimates, and what I suggest is that this sum be remitted for payment to the Poor Law Guardians of the parish in which the deceased lady died.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order !
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: I think we ought to be told whether Her Majesty's Government intend to accept the liberal offer of the hon. Member for Boston (Mr. Atkinson) or not. I observed that the Secretary to the Treasury retired behind the Chair to consult about the matter.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I think we have a claim to some answer from the Government. Here is an item

  909
  of £430 for fees paid on the installation of His Royal Highness Prince Henry of Prussia. [Mr. ASHMEAD BARTLETT: "Oh!"] The hon. Member says "Oh"; but he himself gets a salary. If he likes to pay this £430 himself I shall have no objection. This question of fees paid upon the installation of Knights of the Garter is a very old one. Prince Henry of Prussia may be a very estimable person, but it is not to be supposed that this Garter was given to him for any service he has rendered to this country. It is one of the honorary distinctions that are exchanged between the Royal Family of this country and the Royal Families abroad. I have not the slightest objection to this gentleman, or to hundreds of princes or tinkers getting Garters; all I object to is to our having to pay £430 as fees. Who gets these fees? Is it a fact that this interchange of orders is not to be made between Members of the Royal Family here and the Royal Families abroad without some harpies in this country getting hold of the money? We have a right to complain that we have received no explanation of this item. We have allowed the Estimates to go through in the most reckless fashion, not because we approve of the mode, but because we declined to take part in this ignoble farce which has taken place to-day. As there are only one or two Votes remaining to be taken, Ministers seem to think they can cease to be civil. [Cries of "No !"] Yes; it would have been very different if there had been 20 or 30 Votes, because in that case we would have taken it out of you. I am a very old stager at this business; and I know that as the Estimates get on the friendly feeling of Ministers decreases. I ask again that we shall receive some explanation, first of all, as to the ground upon which this Garter was given to Prince Henry of Prussia, and, secondly, as to the ground on which this expenditure has been incurred by the public, and, thirdly, as to who receives the fees.
  SIR H. MAXWELL: The latter part of the hon. Member's interrogation has been already answered. As I have already explained, this is, practically, a mere matter of book-keeping, and in the end nothing is paid by the public. On the contrary, the result is a small income to the Exchequer. As to the policy which guides the distribution of these honours I hardly think this is the place to discuss it.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: It seems to me the hon. Baronet has defended these honours on the most unhappy basis, namely, that the country makes a profit out of them. If that is to be the basis of the distribution of honours, I would suggest that we put down a Dukedom, say at £500,000, a Lordship at £100,000, and a Baronetcy at something like £1,000. The suggestion that the nobility of this country has to pay for these honours is somewhat unusual: we tax the home manufactured article in order to enable the foreigner to escape scot free, and, in my opinion, this is contrary to the principles of the Merchandise Marks Act. As to the funeral expenses of Her Royal Highness the Duchess of Cambridge, the hon. Member for Boston (Mr. Atkinson) has given a practical turn to the discussion. Why is his offer not accepted? He has offered to write out a cheque for £180, and his offer was made with that bonâ fide security which distinguishes his Protestantism. We may assume he is able to afford it, and we may also assume that the Treasury will be glad to get it. I think that when an offer of this kind has been made it would be unbecoming of us as representatives of the ratepayers to reject it. I suggest that the hon. Member should withdraw temporarily, and then appear at the Bar waving his cheque. We should be witnesses of the Secretary to the Treasury accepting cash down, and we should all go away with the knowledge that we have done a good night's work.
  (8.45.) The Committee divided:— Ayes 27; Noes 49.—(Div. List, No. 248.)
  Original Question again proposed,
  MR. LABOUCHERE: Sir John Gorst, on a question of privilege, I desire to draw your attention to the fact that the hon. and gallant Member for Rye (Mr. Brookfield) used the word "disgraceful" as applied to some observations of my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne (Mr.Conybeare). I consider it altogether wrong for a Member of the House to make use of such an expression, especially when it is uttered in such a tone as not to reach the ear of the Chair while it reaches the ear of the Member for whom it is intended.
  THE CHAIRMAN (Sir J. GORST): I understand that the words complained of by the hon. Member occurred before the Division. If so, it is too late to take notice of them now.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: They were uttered during the Division, or when the Division was called. I said to the hon. Member, "Get up and say that if you think it"; and then I used the word "cowardly." And I do say now it is a cowardly thing to make an observation of that sort unless the gentleman gets up and says it openly in the House. The hon. Member for Rye came up to me after the Division had been called and said, "I hope you will see fit to withdraw what you said to me." I said, "I shall not do anything of the sort, because I do not think any hon. Member ought to withdraw, out of the House or privately, what he has said in the House." Upon this, the hon. Member for Rye said, "You are a man of the world, and you will understand the consequences of refusing." I am not aware what are the terrible consequences that the hon. Member threatens, but I think it is quite contrary to order and quite contrary to all rules and regulations in this House—and I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury will agree with me—that any Member should induce another Member of this House to withdraw an observation he has made by threats made to him privately.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! It seems to me that the conduct
  912
  of both the hon. Members is out of order. In the first place, neither hon. Member had at the time any right to address anyone unless he was covered; and, in the second place, he had no right to address anyone except the Chair. The word "disgraceful" is undoubtedly out of order under any circumstances, and it seems to me that the word "cowardly" is equally disorderly, and therefore I would suggest that either this matter should drop altogether, or that each of the hon. Members should withdraw and apologise.
  MR. BROOKFIELD: I am sure, Sir, no one wishes to prolong this incident, whatever it may be worth, but I may as well justify my own conduct in the matter. The hon. Member for Camborne did us the honour to come and sit on this side of the House from which he expressed certain views regarding the Royal Family, upon which I feel very strongly. He made use of the expression that £10 was enough to bury anyone, upon which I used the word disgraceful," and I am bound to say I consider the expression of such an opinion was disgraceful. Upon this, the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Labouchere) called out the word "coward." I thought I could not overlook the matter altogether, and I suggested to him that he should withdraw it. He has given, as he is so well able to do, a humorous turn to the affair by saying that I threatened him with vague consequences. I hope the hon. Member does not think I should make myself so ridiculous as to threaten to fight a duel with him in the present day. If I were driven to any course of that kind I should take much more summary measures. I express my great regret if I have done anything wrong, but that I will leave to the Committee to judge.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I understand the hon. Gentleman to admit that he did say that something unpleasant would happen. He now explains what that unpleasantness would be, namely, that he would make a personal assault upon me. But I entirely

  913
  accept your view, Sir John Gorst. I, of course, should not have used the expression "cowardly" unless the hon. Member had said what I considered was improper to my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne. If the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the word "disgraceful," I shall be most happy to withdraw the expression I used also.
  MR. CONYBEARE: I have been most unfortunately dragged into this controversy. I wish to ask you, Sir, whether the opinion I expressed, that a certain sum of money would be sufficient to bury any person, was in any sense a disgraceful or disorderly expression?
  THE CHAIRMAN: I have ruled that words used before the Division ought to have been taken notice of at the time. The controversy has been going on some time, and the incident is now closed.
  MR. CONYBEARE: May I make a personal explanation? I cannot but express a hope that the hon. Member opposite will not in future attack me as he has done.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! The hon. Member is not making a personal explanation. The hon. Member is in order in making any remarks necessary to explain his own conduct. He is not in order in commenting on the conduct of any other Member.
  MR. CONYBEARE: Well, Sir, I will not put it in that way. The hon. Member took umbrage at my sitting in a vacant place on the other side of the House on a former occasion, and, referring to me, he said to another hon. Member, "There is that damned fool."
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to move that the words lately spoken by the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite be taken down.
  THE CHAIRMAN: It is too late to take that step. The words should have been taken down at the time.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: The hon. Member for Rye has said that he would take a much more summary method, which I understand to mean personal chastisement
  914
  of the hon. Member for Northampton, and I think these words should be taken down.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The words can only be taken down if exception is taken to them at the moment they are uttered.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: The hon. Members for Northampton and Camborne were both entitled to speak, and I rose at the earliest moment I could to call attention to the matter. I submit that when a threat of personal chastisement is made the words ought to be taken down.
  THE CHAIRMAN: It has always been the rule that the words should be taken down at the time, if at all.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  41. Motion made, and Question put,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £922, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1891, as a Grant in Aid to make good certain amounts required to be written off from the assets of the Local Loans Fund."
  (8.59.) The Committee divided:—Ayes 51; Noes 27.—(Div. List, No. 249.)
  42. £160,000, for Pleuro-Pneumonia.
  43. £1,000, for Jamaica Exhibition, 1891.
  44. £1,153, for West Donegal Railway Deposit.
  45. £200, for Grant to Munster School of the Society of Friends.
  46. £40,000, for Labourers' Cottages, Ireland.

  REVENUE DEPARTMENTS.
  47. £714,027, to complete the sum for Customs.
  MR. A. O'CONNOR: I wish to ask whether the principal officers whose salaries are charged in this Vote really exist—whether there are such persons as the Chairman, Deputy Chairman, and Secretary? Also whether there is such a person as the Commissioner? I also wish to know whether the salary of £1,200 charged for the Secretary is paid while the duties are discharged by a

  915
  gentleman whose pay is also drawn as Surveyor General? There are many persons here charged for who, I believe, do not really exist. This matter involves an important principle, which relates to the amalgamation of the Customs and Inland Revenue Services. We are to maintain these two expensive Services because the Government do not see their way to their amalgamation, in consequence of the personal injury that would accrue to the heads of these Departments. We know that Sir Algernon West is at the head of the Inland Revenue, and must, on the amalgamation of the Departments, be at the top of the tree. In that case the question arises, what is to become of the gentleman who is now Chairman of the Customs Department? Thus the great reform we ask for is stopped by this personal question. I trust the Secretary to the Treasury will answer the question I have put.
  MR. JACKSON: Yes, Sir; I will answer the question. The officers to whom the hon. Member refers do all exist. There are a Chairman, Deputy Chairman, Commissioner, and Secretary, but the hon. Member is wrong in saying that the Secretary is the Surveyor General. Having been appointed Secretary he no longer holds the post of Surveyor General. With regard to the question of amalgamation, I can assure the hon. Member that it has been most fully and carefully considered by the Government, who have come to the conclusion that the evidence is decidedly against the wisdom or expediency of such a charge, and that, on the whole, it is not desirable to amalgamate.
  MR. A. O'CONNOR: I contend that there are not individuals to fill all the posts for which pay is drawn. There are not three Surveyors General, though three are paid for.
  MR. JACKSON: The question has been considered whether it is possible or desirable to reduce the number of Surveyors General to two. I have carefully gone into the question, and I have
  916
  come to the conclusion that it is not desirable.
  Vote agreed to.
  48. £1,553,926, to complete the sum for Inland Revenue.
  Resolutions to be reported to-morrow.

RAILWAYS (IRELAND) BILL.—(No. 417.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BILFOUR,: In moving the Second Reading of this Bill, I have to say that it is a measure simply carrying out the policy of last Session. It is intended to make more rapid the works connected with light railways in the West and North-West of Ireland, in view of the possibility of a serious failure of the potato crop in that part of the country. The Government propose, by having a special Grand Jury as soon as the list can be got through, to enable the works to be commenced in time to deal with any distress that may occur. Clause 5 enables a Railway Company as promoter to construct a railway which does not exactly satisfy the requirements of the Light Railways Act.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)
  SIR W. LAWSON: We have been told that this Bill simply carries out the policy of last Session, but I object to the policy of last Session.
  MR. MURPHY: The question whether or not this will promote urgency in the objects which the Government have in view depends upon the mode in which the Act is worked. I have some special knowledge on this subject, and I should like to have some explanation as to the position of the lines which are not under the Act in relation to the Government scheme. There are five railways scheduled in the Act; but outside these five railways there are three or four others which are

  917
  not scheduled at all in the Act, but are scheduled in an Order in Council. I should like to have some information as to whether the lines not in the Act are part of the present Government scheme. I may mention, for the information of the Committee, that there are two railways outside the Act of 1889 altogether, having been promoted under the Act of 1883, and to which this Bill has no reference, which will probably be commenced in the present year, and will then give a certain amount of employment in districts which are congested. The lines to which I refer are the line along the coast of County Clare to Kilrush and Kilkee, known as the South Clare Railway, and the Tuam and Claremorris line. The County Clare line has already been passed by the House of Lords and this House, and will shortly be an Act. With regard to the Galway Railway, there has been a certain amount of difficulty, and it is very desirable that the powers sought for should by some arrangement be confirmed. I respectfully contend that the provisions in the Bill will in no way meet the apprehended distress during the autumn and winter, because, supposing the Grand Jury are called together in November, it will be at least six months afterwards before anything can practically be done. It should be known that all the lines which are scheduled were already passed by the Grand Juries as long ago as last March, and if the Treasury really desire that the light railway projects already approved of shall be executed speedily, they had better give the promoters an opportunity of going before the Privy Council to have the Orders in Council made out, and that will end the matter. That can be done without any Bill.
  MR. JACKSON: In reply to the first question put by the hon. Member, I must say that the lines which are not included in the Schedule will be in precisely the same position as before, and will be in no way retarded.
  MR. MURPHY: Will the operation of the Act in reference to the other lines be suspended until those scheduled under this Bill have been dealt with?
  MR. JACKSON: No; this Bill has a double object. It is intended to remedy the defects in certain presentments, and also to enable the Treasury to negotiate in reference to railways that are not light railways. But that is owing to the inherent difficulty of the case, and not to the fault of the Government. The Treasury and the Board of Works will take every possible pains to expedite these works.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: The right hon. Gentleman asked us to consent to the introduction of this Bill on the ground that it would do something to avert the distress which was threatened on the Western and South-Western Coast of Ireland, and we thought that if we could, by accepting it, help in the troubles which were then threatened, it was our duty to do so. But I am inclined to think that it will not do anything to meet the apprehended distress during the forthcoming winter, and I warn the Government against laying that flattering unction to their souls. My hon. Friend the Member for Dublin (Mr. Murphy), who has had much experience in the construction of these railways, has declared that even after the passage of this Bill not a single pick can be put into the ground with reference to any of these railways before the potato crop, not of 1890 but of 1891, is dug up. I ask the House to realise what that means. This Bill is really a Bill to give the Midland and the Great Western Railway Companies a large sum of money to construct a line in the West of Ireland. That can be done in a clause of a few lines. The usual notices might be dispensed with, for I can assure the Government the landowners of Galway are only too anxious to sell their land on any terms, and without any notice whatever. If the Government wish to hasten the time when these lines may be constructed, they should take the word "November" out of the Bill and put in the month of September or October, and they could easily call the Grand Juries together in time to cover that procedure.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I should like to ask why November is the date which has been fixed upon for the meeting of Grand Juries, because, if this is an urgent case and the Government intend to proceed with their Bills, they must know that it would be easy to call the Grand Juries together next month instead of several months later.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It is necessary to fix a date in November, because of the notices that have to be served under the Act of Parliament.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Why not abolish the notices altogether?
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: Exactly.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not think that would be possible. It is only reasonable that a landlord should wish to have notice before his land is taken from him.
  MR. SEXTON: I think that the general project of the Bill is excellent, but after the speeches of my hon. Friend the Member for Dublin (Mr. Murphy) and the hon. and learned Member for North Longford, I gravely doubt whether it will in any way meet the distress which, unfortunately, is apprehended in Ireland during the coming winter. Why not, as my hon. Friends suggest, dispense with the notices altogether and call the Grand Juries together at once?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: There are certain limits fixed under the Statutes, and we have allowed the minimum amount of time which can be taken before the Grand Juries are called together.
  Mr. SEXTON: Well, I can only urge the Government to strain a point in this case, and dispense with these notices altogether. I am sorry to observe that the Bill does not include Belmullet, a district requiring assistance, perhaps, more than any other part of Ireland, and I would suggest as strongly as I can to the Government whether it is not desirable to include that district in the Schedule.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN,: We have done our best to
  920
  facilitate the progress of the scheme. The notice to owners of land, however, is not the only thing to be considered. A substantial guarantee for a portion of the capital is required; and before going to the Grand Jury for sanction to such a scheme many proceedings must be taken involving a certain amount of delay. As a consequence of the efforts of the Government, the scheme will come on for hearing by the Grand Jury in November, instead of at the ordinary time, March, thus saving four months.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for to-morrow.

  SUPPLY—REPORT.
  Resolutions [12th August] reported, and agreed to. (see page 729.)

  CENSUS (IRELAND) BILL.—(No. 386.)
  As amended, considered.
  A Clause (Certificate of population,)—(Mr. T. M. Healy,)—brought up, and read the first and second time.
  MR. COURTNEY: Is there not a little difficulty arising from the fact that there will be many areas in relation to which the census will not be taken, and as to the population of which there will be no evidence? Should there not be an Amendment of the words "any area?"
  MR. T. M. HEALY: As a matter of technique, the right hon. Gentleman may be right, but in practice the difficulty will not arise. Obviously, there can be no certificate where there is nothing to base it upon.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,: I would suggest the addition of the words "if possible" after the word "bound."
  Amendment proposed, after the word "bound" to insert the words "if possible."— (Mr. A. J. Balfour.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. T. M. HEALY: If we subjected English Bills to such criticism, progress would not be rapid. May I observe that

  921
  the absence of such a clause as this in the Census Act of 1881 cost the Dublin Corporation £10,000? The Corporation brought an action to recover for the supply of water to the Kingstown Corporation; but in the absence of any legal proof of the population in support of the claim for the 1d. rate under the Dublin Corporation Act, the Corporation were non suited. So the absence of such a provision as this cost the Dublin Corporation £10,000.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, added.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The question was raised as to the time at which enumerators should make their visits. The actual hours are not, I believe, inserted.
  MR. SEXTON: Yes, they are in the Bill.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: Between 10 and 4.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Well, the point is this: Of course, on this matter we are bouud to consult the opinion of experts founded on experience. This I have done, and they represent two objections to the hours from 10 to 4, first, that this will include an interval of time during which the head of the household is usually absent; and, secondly, that it will necessitate an augmentation of the staff that must inevitably lead to delay and increased expense. I trust the House will agree to substitute the hours 8 to 7, which will effect the object desired, namely, that the visit of the enumerators shall be made in daylight.
  Amendment proposed, in Clause 2, to leave out the word "ten" and insert the word "eight."—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'ten' stand part of the Clause."
  MR. SEXTON: With the very adequate force available as numerators, I would suggest that every necessity of the case would be met by inserting the hours 9 to 6. For the inhabitants of towns 8 is an unreasonably early hour.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It is undesirable to impose a limit against the opinion
  922
  of those whose experience we have to rely on; but rather than provoke controversy, let me suggest from 8.30 to 6.30.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: If the Census Paper is left, the head of the family would get it on his return to tea.
  MR. COURTNEY: As the enumerators will have to cover, in some instances, large areas, it would be well to leave sufficient time for the second visit if necessary.
  MR. SEXTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept the hours 8.30 to 6?
  MR. A. J. BALFOURassented.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Question, "That the words 'half-past eight' be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
  Amendment proposed, to omit "four" and insert "six."
  Agreed to.
  Amendment proposed, in Clause 3, page 2, line 14, at end, add—
  "But the initial letters only of the Christian names and surnames of such inmates shall be stated in any such Return."—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)
  Agreed to.
  MR. SEXTON: In relation to Returns of certain diseases and infirmities there are subsequent inquiries to be answered, and I would suggest that the enumerator should be provided with these additional papers, so that there may not be the necessity for an additional visit.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: That is a matter to be provided for in the Instructions, and I think it can be done.
  Bill read the third time, and passed.

  STATUTE LAW REVISION (No. 2) (RE-COMMITTED) BILL [LORDS]. (No. 405.)
  Considered in Committee, and reported, with Amendments; as amended, to be considered to-morrow.

  CUSTODY OF CHILDREN BILL [LORDS]. (No.)
  Order for Second Reading read.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir R. WEBSTER,: In moving

  923
  that the Order for the Second Reading of this Bill be read and discharged, I regret that, owing to the opposition of certain hon. Members from Ireland, this Bill cannot now be proceeded with. But Her Majesty's Government regard it as a very valuable measure, and would have been willing to consent to the exclusion of Ireland from it. I hope hon. Gentlemen from Ireland will consider the matter as early as possible, as the Bill is so desirable in the interests of children.
  MR. SEXTON: I may say that I have received communications from Ireland which render it necessary for me to oppose the Bill, but during the Recess I will communicate with the right hon. Gentleman more definitely on the subject.
  Order discharged.
  Bill withdrawn.

  WAYS AND MEANS.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Resolved, "That, towards making good the Supply granted to Her Majesty for the Service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1891, the sum of £31,057,732 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom."
  Resolution to be reported to-morrow.

  FINANCIAL RELATIONS (ENGLAND, SCOTLAND, AND IRELAND).
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a Select Committee be appointed to consider the present financial relations between England, Scotland, and Ireland, and to report—

  (1.) The amount and proportion of revenue contributed to the Exchequer by the people of England, Scotland, and Ireland respectively;

  (2.) The amount and proportion of revenue which under recent legislation is paid to local authorities in England, Scotland, and Ireland respectively;

  (3.) The amount and proportion of moneys expended out of the Exchequer; (a) upon civil and local government services for the special use of; and (b) upon collection of revenue in England, Scotland, and Ireland respectively;

  (4.) The amount and proportion of State Loans outstanding, and of State Liabilities incurred for local purposes in
  924
  England, Scotland, and Ireland respectively;

  (5.) How far the financial relations established by the sums so contributed, paid, advanced, or promised, or by any other existing conditions, are equitable, having regard to the resources and population of England, Scotland, and Ireland respectively."—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exch qver).

  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I beg to move the Amendment which stands in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Glamorgan, to insert after "England" the words "Wales (including Monmouthshire)." I hope the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer will accept the Amendment.
  Amendment proposed, in line 3, after the word "England," to insert the words "Wales (including Monmouthshire)."— (Mr. Lloyd-George.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN,: It would not be possible for the Government to accept this Amendment. We cannot treat Wales as a separate financial entity, nor would it be to the advantage of Wales to be so treated; and I would point out that only a short time ago it became necessary to make a separate arrangement, financially, with Scotland and Ireland, but that Wales was not considered in the matter. I see no reason why Wales should be treated separately, and even if the Amendment were carried it could not have the effect the hon. Member probably desires, as we could not undertake to establish separate relations as between England and Wales.
  MR. RANDALL: I trust, notwithstanding what has fallen from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he will see his way clear to extend the terms of the Reference, so as to include Wales specifically. There is an impression abroad in the Principality that as regards our financial relations in comparison with Ireland and Scotland,

  925
  Wales suffers. There can be no harm whatever in including Wales, so that we know exactly where we stand, and although the Chancellor of the Exchequer is of opinion that Wales might suffer if we investigated this matter, I think it would be satisfactory to the Principality to know the real state of the facts.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Perhaps the hon. Member will receive a suggestion. If he cannot obtain what he desires by this Amendment, the information he seeks may be obtained by having an interchange of Welsh Members on the Committee. I see there is a very distinguished Welsh Member on the Committee, but perhaps another, a Liberal Member, might be exchanged for a Conservative Member, and vice versa.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I am afraid I must press the Amendment.
  (10.35.) The House divided:—Ayes 22; Noes 50.—(Div. List, No. 250.)
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: I have put an Amendment on the Paper in order to elicit some sympathetic statement from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I put a question to him in the House asking if he would consent to give us the figures promised by the Revenue Department, distinguishing the Metropolis from other parts of the kingdom in these matters. I thought that he would consent to do this, as a matter of course, but much to my surprise he gave me a point blank refusal. It seems to me that what I propose is the merest justice, and the crux of the whole question as regards Ireland and Scotland. The Metropolis is the common centre. An enormous number of payments are made in London on account of foreign investments, Indian pensions, and so on. Enormous sums are received by Scotchmen, London being in many respects the capital of Scotland. There is more Scotch money in London than in Edinburgh, and, under the circumstances, I think we should be allowed to have the information for which I ask. The sympathies of the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not appear to be at all with Scotland.
  Amendment proposed, in line 5, after the word "respectively," to insert the
  926
  words "regard being had to the payments made in the Metropolis as a common centre."—(Sir George Campbell.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. GOSCHEN: I have done more for finance in Scotland than any of my predecessors, and I am prepared to take the responsibility the hon. Member suggests of refusing his Amendment. Any figures representing the Metropolis as a separate financial unit would be misleading.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Main Question again proposed.
  MR. SEXTON: I think the terms of the Reference are unduly restricted. I suppose we may expect to have the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the chair, and I have no doubt the terms of the Reference will be strictly construed by him. The main object of the Committee I take to be the fixing and adjusting from time to time of fair proportions of the contributions of Ireland and Scotland to Imperial purposes. I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer will agree that even after the contribution has been fixed it may be deranged by the increase of certain taxes, by the diminution of certain taxes, or by the distribution of the Budget surplus. That being so it will be necessary for the Committee to make, to some extent, a retrospective inquiry on these three points. If the present Reference will allow of such an inquiry I should be satisfied, but if the Reference is to be strictly construed I fear it will greatly embarrass the Committee. Then I think the first clause of sub-head 3, and the whole of sub-head 4 are irrelevant. I say, however much you expend on Civil and Military Service in Ireland, you are not able to raise from Ireland a greater Revenue than she is able to afford. I object to the inclusion of population as a factor. The conditions of Ireland on the one hand, and Great Britain on the other, are so different that the introduction of population as a factor is entirely misleading. At the time of the famine, Ireland had double the population she has now; but her contribution to Imperial taxation was much smaller

  927
  than it is now. The Reference, therefore, to my mind, is in part irrelevant, in part too restricted, and in part misleading.
  MR. GOSCHEN: From the beginning; I have held that the object of this inquiry is not to be retrospective, that is to say, to see whether Scotland or Ireland has paid too much or too little in the past, but that the object is to see whether Scotland or Ireland should be relieved of any portion of the taxation they now pay. Should I occupy the chair on the Committee, I should endeavour to be as equitable as possible, bat I cannot hold out any hope that the inquiry will have an historical retrospect.
  MR. SEXTON: I do not desire that we should inquire as to whether Ireland has at any time paid too much, but that the general course of policy as to the imposition and distribution of taxation should be examined.
  MR. GOSCHEN: That would mean what I describe as an historical retrospect. My object is more practical, namely, to see if there should be any alteration of existing burdens. The power of a country to pay taxation must to a large extent depend on numbers. I trust all these matters will be threshed out in Committee, and I hope I shall be able to show the hon. Member that the Reference is neither unfair, irrelevant, or misleading.
  MR. A. O'CONNOR: It affords great satisfaction to the Irish Members to see the willingness of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer to agree to the appointment of this Committee, but, as my hon. Friend has shown, in two respects the terms of the Reference to the Committee are very misleading. I would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Committee will not have such power of casting a glance backward as will enable them to properly appreciate and understand existing circumstances. If you take the circumstances of to-day only, without reference to the circumstances which have induced them, it is possible that you may have a very erroneous and one-sided view of the relations between the two countries. I submit that to inquire merely into—
  928
  ''The amount and proportion of moneys expended out of the Exchequer; (a) upon civil and Local Government services for the special use of; and (b) upon collection of Revenue in England, Scotland, and Ireland, respectively"
  is to limit the matter too much, and to leave out of consideration a very material element, namely, the Army and Navy Services. It is with regard especially to the Navy that the inequality of taxation between England and Ireland is most marked. If you are to inquire only into expenditure in regard to Civil and Local Government, you will be evidently taking a very partial view, and I would suggest that in this matter the terms of the Reference should be extended, in order that we may take into view the whole of the National expenses.
  DR. CLARK: We must take into view that certain monies in England are derived from the Imperial Exchequer, whereas in Scotland they come from local sources.
  MR. GOSCHEN: Account will be taken of that.
  DR. CLARK: Under the circumstances, although I was formerly opposed to the Motion, I think we might very well agree to it.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Committee appointed.
  Ordered, That the Committee do consist of Twenty-one Members.
  Committee nominated of,—Mr. John Morley. Mr. Arthur Balfour, Mr. Childers, Lord Randolph Churchill, Mr. Henry H. Fowler, Mr. Baring, Mr. Campbell-Bannerman, Mr. Solicitor General for Scotland, Mr. Sexton, Sir Richard Temple, Mr. Sinclair, Dr. Cameron, Sir Matthew Ridley, Mr. T. W. Russell, Mr. Dillon, Mr. Bristowe, Mr. James William Lowther, Mr. Stuart Rendel, Mr. Arthur O'Connor, Mr. Jackson, and Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.
  Ordered, That Five be the quorum.—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
  It being after Six of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put.
  House adjourned at Eleven o'clock.