Commons Sitting of 15 August 1890

CUSTOMS DEPARTMENT (CASES OF MESSRS. HEATH AND E. SMITH)
Return ordered—
"Correspondence between the Treasury and the Board of Customs relating to the cases of Messrs. Heath and E. Smith, two officers of the Customs Department."—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
Return presented accordingly; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 408.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (DAYS OCCUPIED BY GOVERNMENT AND BY PRIVATE MEMBERS).
Return ordered—
"Showing, with reference to Session 1889 (1) the number of Sittings on Tuesdays, Wednesdays, and Fridays at which Government Business had precedence; (2) the number of Sittings on Tuesdays, Wednesdays, and Fridays at which Private Members had precedence: (3) the number of other Sittings at which, in accordance with the Standing Orders of the House, Government Business had precedence; (4) the number of Sittings at which Government Business had precedence under a Special Order of the House; (5) the number of Saturday Sittings; (6) the total number of Sittings at which Government Business had precedence; (7) the total number of days at which the House sat; (8) the total number of Motions for Adjournment of the House on a matter of urgent public importance; and (9) the number of Days in Supply.
"And similar Return for Session 1890."—(Mr. Jackson.)
Return presented accordingly; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 409.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  TENANTS' COMPENSATION BILL. (No. 259.)
  Lords Amendments to be considered forthwith; considered, and agreed to.
  CUSTOMS CONSOLIDATION ACT (1876) AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 247.)
  Lords Amendment to be considered forthwith; considered, and agreed to.
  PUBLIC HEALTH ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 290.)
  Lords Amendments to be considered forthwith; considered, and agreed to.
  PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION EXPENSES (IRELAND) BILL.—(No. 401.)
  Lords Amendment to be considered orthwith; considered, and agreed to.
QUESTIONS.

  IRELAND—LICENCES.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Lord Lieutenant made any inquiry, and, if so, of whom, to satisfy himself that Charles Mitchell, of Shantonagh, County Monaghan, was a person of good character, before he caused the Board of Inland Revenue to grant Mitchell a temporary licence; whether it was represented to the Lord Lieutenant that any convictions were recorded against Mitchell in the Petty Sessions or Quarter Sessions Courts of County Monaghan; and, if so, what were the offences; and whether these convictions, if any, were before the Lord Lieutenant when he recommended Mitchell as a proper person to conduct a licensed house?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,: The Lord Lieutenant had before him a Report from the Local Constabulary officer that Mr. Mitchell's character was good and his premises suitable. No mention was made of convictions having been recorded against the applicant, nor can it be found, as the result of inquiries now made, that any such convictions exist with the exception of one which occurred nine years ago. The conviction was for poaching. A single conviction of the nature mentioned, and occurring so many years ago, would not, in the opinion of the Lord Lieutenant, disqualify a person from holding licensed premises.

  INSTRUCTION IN AGRICULTURE.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will cause the principles of agriculture to be placed on the same footing as other
  1126
  science subjects in Irish National Schools in which classes are taught in connection with the Science and Art Department?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Commissioners of National Education report that the existing system in no respect whatever interferes with the giving of efficient agricultural instruction to pupils of national schools. It has been adopted as the only effectual means of preventing duplicate payments for agriculture. It was fully considered at the time, as pointed out in reply to a question put by the hon. Member on June 3, 1889, and the Commissioners are clearly of opinion that no alteration should be made.

  THE CROSSMAGLEN CONSPIRACY, 1881
  MR. BLANE:I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if the Government would consider the case of the six men in penal servitude for an alleged conspiracy at Crossmaglen, County Armagh, in 1881; and if the Government would have regard to the fact that no person or property was injured by those prisoners, and consent to their release after eight and a half years' imprisonment?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR:The cases of the convicts referred to have been before the Viceroys of successive Governments on Memorials submitted in their behalf, and the decisions come to have been that the law must take its course. There is no ground to reverse those decisions.
  MR. BLANE:Are not the Government satisfied with eight and a half years' imprisonment?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It is not a question for the Government, but for the Courts of Law. I am not acquainted with the circumstances which attended the trial.
  MR. BLANE:Will the Government review the case?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR:The case has been reviewed over and over again.
  MR. BLANE:When was the last occasion?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR:If the hon. Member desires I will inquire.

  PRIMARY TRAINING COLLEGES.
  MR. SEXTON:I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in equalising the position of the Irish primary training

  1127
  colleges, account will be taken, in the case of the non-official colleges, of the special annual charges arising against their credit funds, owing to the disadvantage resulting from inequality of treatment up to the present time?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR:As the hon. Gentleman is aware, I have been long anxious to put all the training colleges on an equality, but I have always been reluctant to adopt any scheme for carrying out this object which would, as one of its incidental results, produce injustice. I think I may say that I have now hit upon a plan by which absolute equality of treatment will be obtained for all the training colleges, including the college in Marlborough Street, Dublin. In that scheme the only loss will fall upon the Exchequer, and to this my right hon. Friend has consented. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has given me permission to state this as his broad policy.
  MR. SEXTON:Will the right hon. Gentleman say how soon the decision of the Government will be made public?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Probably in the course of the autumn or in the early part of the year. It will be laid before Parliament, but it will be found that the result is as I have stated.

  ROMAN CATHOLIC RECRUITS.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether there is any military rule to exclude Roman Catholic recruits from service in the Royal Irish Rifles; whether Captain Tobin, while acting as Recruiting Officer of the 83rd Regimental District, Belfast, from 1886 to the present year, introduced and carried out a system, not previously provided for in the printed headings of the recruiting books, of asking the religion of the recruits; whether it was the custom of Captain Tobin to reject Catholics if they wished to join their territorial regiment, the Royal Irish Rifles; whether he will cause an examination to be made by an independent person of Army Recruiting Book, No. 46, in use during the period from 1886 to 1890, while Captain Tobin was in command, and state the number of Catholic recruits accepted for the Royal Irish Rifles during that period, and also the number rejected; and whether he will instruct the officer now in charge of this department
  1128
  in Belfast to discontinue the practice if it is found to exist.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. E. STANHOPE,:Every recruit has to state his religious denomination for insertion in his attestation paper. The recruiting officer at Belfast, Captain Tobin, made no alteration in the recruiting books; nor did he reject any recruit on account of his religion. While he was recruiting officer for the Royal Irish Rifles he enlisted for that regiment 206 Roman Catholic recruits, and rejected three. Recruits are now, and have been in the past, received irrespective of their religion; but some are refused if they cannot produce good evidence of character.

  LAND COMMISSION—BANTRY.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether in the case of "Bennett v. Beamish," No. 10, in Chief Land Commission Bantry List, 29th July, the tenant was informed, in reply to his application of 24th June, that a Court Valuer would be directed to report as to the appeal rent; did the High Chief Commission confirm the Sub-Commission rent on the next day after the hearing; was the Valuer's Report before them; and, if not, can he explain why; and, if it was not obtained, has Mr. Bennett any remedy during the next 15 years?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Land Commissioners report that the case referred to was a cross-appeal. The tenant was informed that a Court Valuer would be sent to inspect the holding and report thereon; but owing to the illness of the gentleman who was inspecting in the district it was not possible to have the inspection made before the sitting of the Appeal Court. At the hearing of the case the Court, after hearing the witnesses for both sides, confirmed the order of the Sub-Commission, which had reduced the rent of the holding from £145 to £75. There is no appeal from a decision of the Appeal Court upon a question of value.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Is it reasonable that, as a promise was made to the tenant that a Court Valuer would be sent, the rent should be fixed without waiting for the Valuer's Report?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not gather that a promise was given to the tenant, nor is the Court bound to base its determination on the Report of the Valuer.

  LAND COMMISSION—KERRY.
  MR. EDWARD HARRINGTON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland when the next sittings of the Sub-Commission of the Land Court will be held in Kerry; when will a sitting be held in Kenmare; and how long is it since the Sub-Commissioners have held a sitting in Kenmare?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Land Commissioners inform me that the hearing of two lists of cases from the County of Kerry will be commenced on the 7th of October next—one at Tralee and the other at Kenmare. A Sub-Commission last sat to dispose of cases from Kenmare Union at the end of the year 1888.

  THE DRAINAGE OF THE UPPER I NNY
  MR. TUITE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that the extensive drainage works carried out on the Upper Inny, County Westmeath, about 17 years ago, at a cost of over £55,000, are to a great extent useless, owing to the silting up of the Lower Inny, causing back water to inundate the eastern end of the Upper Inny District for a considerable portion of the year, and that from the want of a proper outfall through the Lower Inny the area of land flooded yearly has largely increased since the completion of the works; have any representations on the subject been made to the Board of Works by the Upper Inny Drainage Board, with the view of having the obstructions on the Lower Inny removed; and, if not, is it in the power of the Board of Works to take independent action in the matter; whether, in the meantime, he will take any steps to relieve the occupiers in the inundated districts from the Drainage Tax, from which they derive no benefit whatever, but who, on the contrary, suffer heavily by the overflow of the river at that point; and can he state what proportion of the cess levied for the said works is paid by the occupier?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON,: I am informed by the Board of Works that no complaint has been made to them by the Upper Inny Drainage Board. It is not in the power of the Board of Works to take independent action in the matter, but if the works are not properly maintained they have power to interfere. They have no power to relieve the occupiers from the Drainage Tax. No part of the cess levied for the works is paid by the occupiers, it being all paid by the owners, but the Board are unable to say what amount of increased rent, if any, the occupiers pay to the owners for the benefit their lands derive from the works.

  COLONEL GUINNESS.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that Colonel C. W. R. Guinness, now commanding the 83rd Regimental District, was in receipt of money allowance, and, if so, how much, in lieu of lodgings from February to October 1889, while at the same time living in the Field Officers' Quarters, Fairfield House, Belfast; and whether Colonel Guinness's conduct has been sanctioned by him; and, if not, will he take any, and what, action in the matter?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: I believe that there were no public quarters available, and, therefore, Colonel Guinness drew lodging allowance, but by private arrangement he occupied quarters assigned to another officer, and handed over to him the lodging allowance. This exchange had not been sanctioned. An explanation has, therefore, been called for.

  THE DUBLIN POST OFFICE.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether a Circular was issued on the 13th of July last, fixing the scale of pay for telegraph learners in the General Post Office, Dublin, who had passed successful examinations since July, 1889, at 12s., 14s., and 18s. per week, with annual increment of 2s. per week; whether, during the present month, and since the passing of the Post Office Estimates, a fresh notice has been issued which states that the initial salaries are to be

  1131
  hereafter annual, thus, first year 12s., second year 14s., and third year 18s. per week respectively; whether the effect of this scale will be to alter the pay of learners under the old scale from 13s., 16s., and 17s. 6d. per week respectively for first, second, and third year's service to 12s., 14s., and 18s.; and whether he will consider the advisability of granting to the telegraph learners who entered the Service since July, 1889, the more favourable terms of the scheme of 13th July, 1890?
  A LORD OF THE TREASURY (Sir H. MAXWELL,: The scale introduced on July 11 last fixed the wages of second-class telegraphists at 12s. a week for the first year, at 14s. a week for the second year, and at 18s. a week for the third year, thereafter rising by 2s. annually to 40s. a week. This scale is, on the whole, better, far better, than the one it superseded. In connection with the old scale, however, there was an arrangement under which a learner, if fully qualified, could receive 16s. on appointment, and it is being considered whether a similar advantage should not be given to those learners whose employment began before the new scale was introduced.
  MR. SEXTON: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the new scale is considered to be much worse than the old one?
  SIR H. MAXWELL: I believe it is considered to be very much better.

  CASE OF JAMES DEVITT.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been directed to the case of James Devitt, who served as a non-commissioned officer 15½ years, mostly in the East Indies, in the 50th Regiment, from which he was discharged for debility, with good conduct certificates; whether he is aware that the only pension given Devitt was 6d. per day for three years, now expired; and whether, considering his long service and good conduct, and the fact that he lost his health in the Service, and is now 80 years of age, he will grant him a pension sufficient to enable him to live without becoming chargeable on the poor rates of the Clones Union, County Monaghan?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: Inquiry is being made as to the circumstances of Devitt's discharge, but his conduct has been such
  1132
  as to render it doubtful whether anything can be done in the case.
  In answer to a further question by Mr. P. O'BRIEN,
  MR. E. STANHOPE said: I think it would be unfair to an old soldier to tell the public what the circumstances are connected with his conduct.

  GUN LICENCE.
  MR. COX: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, at the recent Petty Sessions at Tulla, County Clare, a farmer named Quinlivan applied for a licence to carry a gun; whether the presiding Magistrate, Captain Keogh, R.M., stated that he felt certain Quinlivan did not want the gun for illegal purposes, but, at the same time, he would not grant the licence to Mr. Quinlivan, nor would he grant a similar licence in future to any applicant who was not willing to take an oath of allegiance to Her Majesty the Queen; and, if so, whether a Magistrate has any legal right to impose such a test?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Magistrate in course of conversation, intending to satisfy himself as to Quinlivan's fitness to hold a licence, asked him if he was willing to take the oath. He laid down no principle such as that suggested in the question.
  MR. COX: Was it from Captain Keogh that the right hon. Gentleman got his information?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes.

  THE POTATO BLIGHT.
  MR. DALTON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the potato blight has destroyed nearly all the potato crops in the western part of Donegal; and whether, in view of the certain famine that must ensue during the coming winter, he will make provision in the Railway Bill he has introduced into the House for the employment of the people on the making of railways?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Reports so far received do not bear out the suggestion that the blight has destroyed nearly all the potato crop in the western part of Donegal.
  MR. A. O'CONNOR: Have not similar representations been made in reference to the existence of the blight at Gweedore for the last nine months?
  DR. TANNER: And also in reference to the south-west of Cork.
  MR. E. HARRINGTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman also extend his inquiries to the coast of Kerry?
  MR. SEXTON: May I ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Government propose to take any special action upon the numerous resolutions of the Boards of Guardians in the South and West of Ireland, declaring that there is danger of famine, owing to the almost total failure of the potato crop in many extensive districts; what precautionary measures are being adopted by the Irish Local Government Board; what steps are to be taken in case of special need arising during the Parliamentary Recess; and whether, in this event, the Government will be ready with such proposals as may be needful at the opening of next Session?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR:I am still of opinion that the House would be well advised in taking precautions against a possible calamity, but what I object to is the assumption that what may happen will necessarily happen. It is impossible, as yet, to form any conclusion. Some hours' sunshine may produce an improvement, and some hours' additional rain may be very injurious. There is very serious danger in some places and less serious danger in others. There is no ground for believing that the resources of the Poor Law will be insufficient to meet any calls that may be made upon them.
  MR. SEXTON: Statements have been made that in several districts in the South of Ireland the crop is a total failure.
  MR. E. HARRINGTON: It is now the 15th of August. May I ask whether, at this date, it cannot be decided whether the crop will be a failure or the reverse?
  MR. LEA: May I ask whether, at the time of the famine 10 years ago, it was not predicted that in 10 years' time there would be a serious potato famine, in consequence of the use
  1134
  of the same seed over and over again; and whether the right hon. Gentleman cannot take some steps to provide for a fresh supply of seed potatoes?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am very much alive to the fact that constant use of the same seed does tend to produce failure of the crop, and, as hon. Gentlemen are aware, I have brought in a measure dealing with the matter in the congested districts. I am very glad that I have tried an experiment very nearly similar in certain portions of the coast of Donegal. I supplied seed potatoes at cost price, but I am sorry to say that so many purchasers did not come forward as I had hoped, and the Treasury suffered a loss.
  MR. A. O'CONNOR: In regard to Gweedore and other parts of Donegal, will the right hon. Gentleman, in the event of the usual means of sustenance totally disappearing, take steps to relax the administration of the Poor Law, so that the people may be relieved without being compelled to break up their homes and go into the workhouse?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have before told the House that, in my judgment, a relaxation of the Poor Law would be one of the most serious steps that could be taken.
  In answer to Mr. SEXTON,
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR said: The Local Government Board, with which I am in constant communication on this subject, are clearly of opinion that there is no reason to apprehend that the resources of the ordinary Poor Law will be found insufficient to meet any exceptional distress which may possibly arise from a deficient potato crop. I need not say that I shall carefully watch the progress of events, but I do not the least anticipate that any exceptional proposals will be necessary next Session.

  DISTRICT INSPECTOR DAGG.
  MR. HENRY CAMPBELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether District Inspector Dagg, of the Royal Irish Constabulary, Lisnaskea, County Fermanagh, in January of this year, being in a state of madness resulting from severe drinking, forced his way into the Ulster Bank in that town, in the absence of the manager, and at-

  1135
  tempted a criminal assault upon the housekeeper, who only succeeded in escaping from him after a severe struggle; that the Inspector thereupon ordered two policemen to "arrest the Bank;" and that they remained in charge of the Bank with closed doors for over two hours, and refused to allow the manager of the Bank or his servant to enter; whether any Report was received from him on this matter; and whether, if the facts are as stated, he will order the removal of this officer from the district of Lisnaskea, or what action will he take?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Inspector General informs me that no Report of these alleged occurrences have, up to the present time, been received by him. The Divisional Commissioner and the County Inspector of Fermanagh have been directed to proceed to Lisnaskea to investigate the charge.

  THE OLPHERT ESTATE.
  MR. DALTON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a licence for a pound at Ballyconnell, on the Olphert Estate, has recently been granted in a place which has none of the qualifications necessary for a pound, and is actually a part of the farmyard of Ballyconnell House, to which there is no access except through Mr. Olphert's private grounds; what necessity there is for a pound in this place, and whether the licence will be withdrawn if it should be found on inquiry that no necessity exists for this pound? I have also to ask the right hon. Gentleman, whether his attention has been drawn to a Circular addressed to the Magistrates of the County of Donegal, giving notice that a special Sessions of the Justices of the Peace of the said county, to be held at Lifford on the 11th August instant, for the purpose of considering the necessity of applying to the Lord Lieutenant for an extra force of constabulary, to replace the same number of men of the reserve force at the Royal Constabulary Depôt, which, for some time past, has been serving in this county; can he state what is the necessity for taxing this district with extra police, and if he can state how many police stations are now on the Olphert Estate, how many policemen are
  1136
  stationed there, how are they paid, and what does Mr. Olphert receive for barracks and stations? May I further ask the right hon Gentleman if he can state how many licensed pounds are now on the Olphert Estate, who granted the licences, who are the pound keepers, and have they entered into recognisances; and, if so, who are the sureties; whether these places have any of the qualifications necessary for a pound; whether he can state the charges made by the bailiffs for the sheep that are on their way to the pound, or in the pound; how much money has been collected off the district for trespass within the past six months, and to whom does this money go; whether the police are authorised in assisting to drive cattle and sheep to these pounds; and whether he is aware that, on the 11th August, six bailiffs and three policemen made a raid on the waste lands of Glashercoo, and took away 47 sheep from a vacant house in which they were penned, and which were not grazing on the land, or doing any damage whatever, and on their way to the pound also took along some sheep grazing by the roadside?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I must ask the hon. Gentleman to postpone these questions.

  CAPTAIN RYE.
  DR. TANNER: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether Captain Richard Tonson Rye, of Ryecourt, lately a prisoner in Cork Gaol, while undergoing a sentence of hard labour in Cork Gaol, wore the prison clothes; and, if not, what were the grounds of exemption, and if all hard labour prisoners now in Ireland are exempted from wearing prison dress; has Mr. John Kelly, in Clonmel Gaol, been obliged to wear prison dress; and how many prisoners in Ireland, confined under the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act, are at present obliged to wear prison clothes?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The General Prisons Board report that both the prisoners named availed themselves of the privilege of wearing their own clothes. Rule 28, which confers this privilege, applies to both hard labour and non-hard labour prisoners. The Board cannot afford a reply to the point in the last paragraph without making

  1137
  inquiries, but they state that on the 31 at of March last there were only two prisoners in custody in the whole of Ireland who availed themselves of the privilege of wearing their own clothes.

  CASE OF ANDREW REID.
  DR. CAMERON: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether the attention of the Secretary for Scotland has been called to the case of Andrew Reid, of Glasgow, sentenced in February, 1887, to be confined during Her Majesty's pleasure for shooting a policeman whilst labouring under a fit of insanity, and at present confined in Perth Criminal Lunatic Asylum; and whether he will cause inquiry to be instituted as to Reid's present mental condition; and if it be found that for many months past he has been free from any symptom of unsoundness of mind, he will take steps to procure his release?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. P. B. ROBERTSON,: The Secretary for Scotland has had this case more than once under consideration. In the meantime, he does not feel justified in ordering the prisoner's release.

  THE AMERICAN MAILS.
  MR. STAVELEY HILL: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether the United States Postal Authorities have abandoned the practice under which the Homeward mails were entrusted to the most speedy vessels leaving the port of New York; and whether the effect of the non-adherence to this rule has been that the transfer of the mails from the White Star Line steamship Majestic to the Inman Line City of Chicago has caused delays in the arrival of the mails of three days, and the transfer from the Britannic to the City of Berlin of one day in the transit?
  SIR H. MAXWELL: There is no reason to suppose that the United States Post Office has abandoned the principle of sending the mails to this country by the quickest ships from New York. It is true that on her two earliest voyages the Majestic brought only specially addressed correspondence; and on these occasions the City of Chicago likewise only brought a portion of the mails, the bulk being brought in
  1138
  both instances by the German Packet Aller. But since the Majestic has established her superiority, she has brought the whole of the mails whenever she has left New York. In the case of the Britannic also, it was a German steamer, the Lahn, that was preferred for the conveyance of the bulk mails; and the correspondence for England was thereby expedited. But the Irish mails sent by the City of Berlin would, as it turned out, have gained by being sent by the Britannic.

  TELEGRAPH SERVICE AT ABERAMAN.
  MR. DAVID THOMAS: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he is aware that the Telegraph Service at Aberaman has been discontinued, and that much inconvenience has been caused in the district thereby; and when the service will be resumed?
  SIR H. MAXWELL: Owing to the sudden resignation of the Letter Receiver it has been necessary to suspend the telegraph business at Aberaman. No time will be lost in making a new appointment, and the business will then be resumed. Meanwhile, I may say that the head Telegraph Office at Aberdare is not more than about a mile distant.

  MAJOR ROSS AND SIR LINTORN SIMMONS.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if Major Ross, of Bladensburg, is on active service; what regiment does he serve in; and what business was he conducting in Rome with Sir Lintorn Simmons?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: Major Ross, of Bladensburg, is serving on full pay in the Coldstream Guards. He received leave to go abroad in November, 1889, and, while on leave, served as secretary to Sir Lintorn Simmons's Special Mission to the Vatican.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Under what circumstances did Major Ross get leave, and for how long was the leave? How did it happen that while on leave he managed to get promoted from Captain to Major? Was it for his services at the Vatican?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: It happened that during the time he was on leave his, turn came for promotion.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: How long was the leave granted for, and is this the second or the third time that this gentleman, an officer of the Coldstream Guards, has obtained leave and been employed in other matters?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: If the hon. and learned Gentleman wants to have information of that detailed character, he had better put a question upon the Paper. This is the second occasion, I believe, on which Major Ross has been publicly employed.
  In answer to a question by Mr. T. W. RUSSELL (Tyrone, S.),
  MR. E. STANHOPE said: It does not appear to me remarkable that Sir Lintorn Simmons, who is himself a General in the Army, should select as his private secretary a military officer.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Is there any idea under heaven why Major Ross was selected?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: Because Sir Lintorn Simmons desired to have his services.

  POSTAGE BETWEEN ENGLAND AND INDIA.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether arrangements have been completed with the Treasury and British Post Office for the reduction in postage between England and India; and whether he can state what date has been fixed for the said new postage rates to come into operation?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Sir J. GORST,: I am sorry to say that the arrangements are not yet complete, and the Secretary of State, therefore, is not yet able to announce the date when the new rates will come into operation.

  THE LONDON WATER SUPPLY.
  MR. BAUMANN: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the evidence of Sir Robert Rawlinson, given before the Committee which is at present inquiring into the water supply of London, to the effect that the drainage of house-boats into the Thames is prejudicial to the water supply of the Metropolis; and whether, in the interests of public health, he will direct the official representative
  1140
  of the Board of Trade on the Thames Conservancy Board to urge upon the Conservators the necessity of taking some steps to prevent this nuisance?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,: No, Sir; my attention has not been called to the evidence referred to, but I will direct a communication to be made to the Thames Conservancy Board upon the subject. I observe, however, that in the last Report of the Conservators, they state that "their officers continue to watch house-boats and steam launches, with a view to the detection of any pollution from those vessels."

  KOSI BAY.
  SIR GEORGE BADEN-POWELL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Colonial Office has had brought to its notice any concessions, covering the right to make a railway and harbour at Kosi Bay, other than the concession claimed by the Amatonga Company?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Baron H. de WORMS,: Two such alleged concessions, prior in date to that claimed by the Amatongaland Exploration Company, have been brought to the notice of the Colonial Office.

  NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERIES.
  SIR GEORGE BADEN-POWELL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Newfoundland modus vivendi will lapse at the end of the present fishing season; whether, in view of this, Her Majesty's Government have entered upon negotiations, or have taken other steps, to secure an amicable settlement of the point in dispute; and whether any detailed reply has yet been given to the explanations of the Representatives of the Newfoundland Government now in this country?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir J. FERGUSSON,: The modus vivendi will lapse at the end of the season. Her Majesty's Government are doing their best to find a solution of the points in dispute. No detailed reply has yet been given, but the views of Her Majesty's Government have been explained to the Delegates.

  THE PRESIDENCY OF ST. KITTS NEVIS.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Secretary of State has received a Petition from the proprietors, merchants, and planters of the Presidency of St. Kitts-Nevis, praying him to disallow the grant of £2,000 for the purchase of a steam launch, which it is alleged is not required; whether he is aware that a grant of £7,000 has been voted by the Council of the Presidency to build hotels; that these two grants were carried the Council by the votes of the paid official nominees of the Crown, and against the wishes of the inhabitants of the island; that the taxation has lately greatly increased; and that it is money raised by heavy Import Duties on food and on the necessaries of life; and whether, in view of the above circumstances, he will disallow the said grants?
  BARON H. DE WORMS: The answer to the first paragraph of the hon. Member's question is in the affirmative. The Petition was sent to the Secretary of State direct, and has been returned for transmission through the Governor in accordance with the Colonial Regulations, as the Secretary of State cannot deal with it without that officer's Report. The Secretary of State is aware that £1,000 a year for seven years has been voted as a subsidy to encourage the erection of hotels. He has no knowledge of these two grants being passed by the official votes against the wishes of the inhabitants, not having yet received a Report from the Governor, which will doubtless arrive in due course when he deals with the Memorial. If not, a Report will be called for. There has been no recent increase of Import Duties, or of any form of taxation of food or other necessaries of life. The Secretary of State cannot, in these circumstances, pledge himself as to any particular course of action.

  PENSIONS TO TEACHERS.
  MR. TALBOT: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether the case of a teacher who has held his present school since 1847, who is now 61 years of age, and who has not
  1142
  yet received the pension for which he has applied, has been brought under his notice; whether this is one instance of a class not inconsiderable in numbers; and whether the Education Department could now see their way to grant pensions to all those who entered the profession between 1846 and 1851, under the impression that they would be entitled, upon fulfilling the necessary conditions, to receive such pensions?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Sir W. HART DYKE,: I cannot trace any such case as that referred to in the first part of my hon. Friend's question. It is the practice of the Department, upon the fulfilment of the necessary conditions, to grant a pension to every applicant who entered the profession before August, 1851.

  ANGLO-PORTUGUESE AGREEMENT.
  DR. CAMERON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is true, as stated in a Times telegram of the 13th instant, that the terms of a Convention between Great Britain and Portugal had been definitely agreed on, and that it was to be signed in London on the following day; and, if so, whether he is in a position to communicate to the House the substance of the Convention?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: An Agreement is under consideration, but has not yet been signed, and I am not able to communicate the terms of it to the House.
  DR. CAMERON: Will the right hon. Gentleman be in a position to communicate the Agreement before the House rises?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: I cannot say, but I hope and trust that we are on the eve of a satisfactory and honourable settlement,

  THE DENBY LOCAL BOARD.
  MR. HENRY J. WILSON (York, W.R.,: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Local Government Board whether he is aware that a letter from the Denby Local Board, dated 2nd July, was not answered or even acknowledged till 24th July; and whether he will give directions that letters shall beacknowledged more promptly if they cannot be immediately answered?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. LONG,: It is the case that a letter which was received by the Local Government Board from the Denby Local Board on the 3rd of July was not answered until the 24th of July. The letter asked the Board to direct a local inquiry into a scheme for water supply, and into certain statutory objections with regard to the works proposed. The letter enclosed a copy of an agreement made with the owner of the property on which the works were to be constructed, the indenture being a lengthy document of 10 brief pages; a statutory declaration as to certain notices which had been given by the Local Board under Sections 32, 53, and 54 of the Public Health Act with regard to the execution of works outside their district, and the construction of a reservoir to contain 2,000,000 gallons of water; a statutory objection served on the Local Board with reference to the proposed works; testings of the flow of water from various sources which were proposed to be made available by the Local Board; and seven other documents. Three days later the Board received a further communication, enclosing a copy of an agreement of five brief pages with reference to certain rights of way. These communications involved the consideration of questions of law and engineering, and it was necessary for the Board to consult their legal adviser and their Chief Engineering Inspector. The Board, after consideration of the several questions, determined to direct a local inquiry, and on the 25th of July the Local Board were informed accordingly. It is not the usual practice of the Board to send mere acknowledgments of the letters received from a Local Authority in the ordinary course of correspondence when there is reason to expect that a reply can shortly be sent.

  THE SCOTCH MAILS.
  DR. CLARK: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he is aware that the mail train from Edinburgh to the North very frequently misses the through mail at Perth, and that letters and newspapers for the northern counties are, in consequence, 24 hours late in being delivered; and whether he has made arrangements for despatching the mails by the Forth
  1144
  Bridge route, and so preventing this unnecessary delay?
  SIR H. MAXWELL: The Postmaster General is aware of the unfortunate delays to which the hon. Member refers, and I am glad to say that arrangements have been made for preventing them for the future.
  DR. CLARK: When will they begin?
  SIR H. MAXWELL: I cannot say, but arrangements have been agreed upon.

  CASE OF MR. H. WYNDHAM CARTER.
  MR. CONYBEARE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether Harry Wyndham Carter, esquire, is now suffering imprisonment in Her Majesty's Convict Prison at Chatham, under a sentence passed at the Maidstone Assizes, in 1887, of five years' penal servitude; whether at his trial he was found guilty by the jury of unlawfully wounding only, under 14 & 15 Vict., c. 19, s. 5, the jury acting upon the direction of the Judge, Mr. Justice Denman, that they could either find the prisoner guilty of unlawfully, maliciously, and feloniously shooting with intent to maim, or of unlawfully shooting only, and refusing to find him guilty of unlawfully and maliciously shooting; whether an indictment preferred against him at the same Assizes for felonious shooting was, in fact, abandoned; whether, under the above circumstances, the prisoner could be lawfully sentenced under the provisions of Statutes 14 & 15 Vict., c. 19, and 24 & 25 Vict., c. 100, for anything more than a misdemeanour, punishable under Section 20 of the last-named Statute with, at most, a term of three years' penal servitude; and whether, inasmuch as the prisoner has already suffered three years and seven months of penal servitude, he will now advise Her Majesty to exercise the Royal Prerogative of mercy in favour of the prisoner's immediate release?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. STUART WORTLEY,: The answer to the first two paragraphs is in the affirmative. The limit of three years' penal servitude authorised by the Act 24 & 25 Vict., c. 100, s. 20, was raised by 27 & 28 Vict, c. 47, s. 2, to a minimum of five years. I am authorised by the Secretary of State to say that he

  1145
  considers that the offence was an extremely bad one, and that he would not feel justified in advising any remission of the sentence.

  EASTERN TELEGRAPH COMPANY.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the Australian Government have contributed a sum of £32,000 a year for the past 11 years to the Eastern Telegraph Company, for maintaining and cheapening telegraph communication between Australia and Europe; whether the British Government contributed any portion of this subsidy; whether an application was made this year by the Agents General of the New South Wales, the Victorian, and the South Australian Governments, to the British Government, to join in a guarantee against loss, on condition that the Telegraph Companies reduced the rates to and from Australia from 9s. 4d. to 4s. per word for ordinary messages, and from 7s. 5d. to 2s. 6d. per word for Government messages; and what answer, if any, was given to the Australian Governments?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN, St. George's,: Yes, Sir; I think the contribution was the amount mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. I understand that the subsidy in question was granted mainly with a view to the duplication of the cables between Java and Australia. The British Government did not contribute to the subsidy. An application to the effect indicated in the third paragraph of the hon. Member's question was made, but Her Majesty's Government was unable to accede to it.

  CHURCH OF ENGLAND PROPERTY.
  MR. CHANNING: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can state to the House why the first part of the Return of the property of the Church of England vested in the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, which was promised by 1st June, has not yet been delivered to Members; and when the Return will be issued?
  MR. STUART WORTLEY: The Return will be issued to-day.

  SEVERE SENTENCES.
  MR. CHANNING: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the sentence passed, on July 31st, at Elford Petty Sessions, in Staffordshire, on Sarah Ann Maycock, a girl 14 years of age, a fine of £5 and costs, and in default a month's hard labour, for having pulled sticks from a fence, the damage being assessed at one shilling; and whether he will advise the remission of this sentence?
  MR. STUART WORTLEY: The Secretary of State is informed by the Magistrates that the prisoner is 20 years of age, not 14. She has been twice previously convicted of stealing, and once, in April of this year, of vagrancy. The Secretary of State is not able to advise any remission of her sentence.

  VACCINATION.
  DR. TANNER: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether it has been reported to him that many parents, who are not opposed to vaccination, object to the use of human lymph with their children, as being attended with risks special to itself, and desire, therefore, to have their children vaccinated with calf lymph, declaring that on no other condition will they submit them to the operation; whether the Medical Officer of the Local Government Board has declined to admit the right of parents to require at the hands of public vaccinators the use of calf lymph, and has declared that the responsibility for the lymph employed rests not with the parents, but solely with the vaccinator; whether Mr. T. M. Watt, public vaccinator of the Hovingham district of the Malton Union, Yorkshire, has repeatedly applied to the National Vaccine Establishment for calf lymph, and been definitely refused it; whether Mr. Watt has reported that for three months he has thus been prevented from performing his duties as public vaccinator; and whether the President of the Local Government Board will direct that the National Vaccine Establishment furnish public vaccinators with calf lymph when they prefer and require it for performance of their official duties?
  MR. LONG: Representations have from time to time been made to the

  1147
  Local Government Board as to the cases of parents who desire to have their children vaccinated with calf lymph, on the ground of their objection to the use of human lymph, but such representations have been very exceptional. It is the case that the Medical Officer of the Board, in a letter which he addressed to Mr. Watt, pointed out that the responsibility for the lymph must rest with the public vaccinator and not with the parents. An application which was made by Mr. Watt for calf lymph on April 2 last was complied with, but on subsequent application for additional lymph he was referred to a letter addressed to him on the 26th of April, in which it was explained that the organisation of the National Vaccine Establishment did not admit of its undertaking to supply either human or calf lymph for the ordinary vaccination of individual children, of whom from half to three-quarters of a million required vaccination every year. It has been more than once explained to Mr. Watt that the principle on which the National Vaccine Establishment proceeds in its distribution of lymph, whether to public or private vaccinators, is to furnish each applicant with enough for the performance of a few first vaccinations, and the establishment expects that the recipient will exert himself to vaccinate in series from the beginning which he is thus enabled to make. Mr. Watt's duties as public vaccinator require him to vaccinate half-yearly, namely, in April and October. The Board assume that he is complying with the terms of his contract in not vaccinating in the interval. I do not propose, pending the sitting of the Royal Commission on Vaccination, to make any change in the administration of public vaccination in England and Wales.

  SUPPLY.
  MR. BUCHANAN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in view of the fact that 48 Votes in Supply were taken, for the most part without discussion, at a single Sitting on 13th August, the Government will arrange next Session that Supply shall be taken frequently and at fixed times throughout the Session, and that Members of the House may have an opportunity of discharging
  1148
  their Parliamentary duty of discussing grievances in Supply?
  MR. JACKSON: My right hon. Friend desires me to say that it is, of course, the wish of the Government to proceed with Supply as early in the Session as is possible; but I am not in a position to give the pledge suggested by the hon. Member, and I would wish to remind him that though eight days were devoted to Supply up to the Easter Recess, and 12 days in all up to the Whitsuntide Recess, the progress made was not at all commensurate with the time expended.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Chairman of Committees stated at Easter time, in addressing his constituents, that the progress made was very great?
  MR. JACKSON: I am giving to hon. Members the views of my right hon. Friend the leader of the House.

  A POINT OF ORDER.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSON: I wish to ask you, Sir, as to a point of order. In view of what took place at an early hour this morning, I wish to know whether a Bill printed and read a second time on one day can be passed through Committee and also read a third time at one Sitting on the next day, when a sixth part of the Members present are opposed to it, and registered their opposition by their votes?
  MR. SPEAKER: I can give no opinion on what took place last night. I have not the slightest doubt that the right hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Committees, acting as the Deputy Speaker, did what was right and proper; but on the abstract question I shall be glad to reply to the hon. Baronet, It frequently happens, especially late in the Session, when urgency is in the nature of the case, that two or more stages of one Bill are taken at the same Sitting. My predecessor in the Chair was asked the very same question as late as the 13th of November, 1882, and he stated then very strongly, more strongly than I have ever put it, that it was not a question of leave of the House, but of a vote of the House; and, acting on that opinion, and in accordance with other precedents, I have myself on two occasions—the only occasions I can recollect—done so. These occasions were as late as September in

  1149
  1887—one on the Superannuation Acts Amendment Bill, and another on the Bankruptcy (Discharge and Closure)Bill; and I took the vote of the House on the question whether the Bill which had then been considered as amended should forthwith be read a third time. The Divisions took place, and the numbers on those two occasions were respectively 81 in the majority and 16 in the minority, 80 in the majority and 14 in the minority; thus proving that it is competent to take the sense of the House on that question, the sense of the House being sufficiently expressed by the numbers I have given.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSON: Thanking you, Sir, for your ruling, might I ask whether there is any certain number or fixed proportion of Members required before a Bill can be taken in that way?
  MR. SPEAKER: There is no fixed number required.

  TIPPERARY CRIMES COURT.
  MR. SEXTON: I wish to call the Chief Secretary's attention to a case which occurred in Tipperary yesterday, in which a local professional man named Gill was charged with assaulting a constable by merely brushing against him at a street corner? He was tried before two Resident Magistrates (Messrs. Shannon and Irwin) at a Crimes Court, and was sentenced to 14 days' imprisonment with hard labour, and was then called upon to find bail for 12 months in accordance with the Statute of Edward III., and in default to suffer another term of one month's imprisonment. Does the right hon. Gentleman approve that sentence?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I cannot, of course, express an opinion upon it at this moment, but I will inquire into the facts of the case in order to satisfy myself.
  MR. J. O'CONNOR: Will the right hon. Gentleman also inquire whether the Magistrates refused to increase the sentence so that Mr. Gill might have a right of appeal? Mr. Gill is the brother of the hon. Member for Louth, and I think it will be found that the police have on more than one occasion endeavoured to obstruct him in the performance of his professional duties?
  DR. TANNER: Will the right hon. Gentleman also inquire as to the character of Mr. Shannon, one of the Magistrates, in order to ascertain whether the reports of alleged immorality on his part are correct?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
  MR. J. O'CONNOR: I will put a further question on the Paper to-night, and I shall expect an answer definitely to-morrow.

  NEXT SESSION.
  MR. COBB: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will be able before the Prorogation to state definitely, for the convenience of Members, that there will be no meeting of Parliament so early as November?
  MR. GOSCHEN: Certainly not, Sir. It is absolutely fixed that the House will meet in the course of November.
  MR. CHANNING: It would be greatly to the convenience of Members going abroad if the Chancellor of the Exchequer will state that the House will not meet before the 20th November, which, I think, is the phrase used by the First Lord of the Treasury.
  MR. GOSCHEN: I do not think that was the phrase of my right hon. Friend. I think he said we should not meet until after the middle of November. That is not far from the date mentioned by the hon. Member.
  MR. A. O'CONNOR: What notice shall we get?
  MR. GOSCHEN: I will inquire, Sir, and let the hon. Member know to-morrow.

  INTOXICATING LIQUORS (IRELAND) BILL.—(No. 7.)
  Order for Committee read, and discharged.
  Bill withdrawn.

  BILLS OF SALE BILL [LORDS.] (No. 384.)
  Lords Reason for disagreeing to one of the Commons Amendments, and Lords Amendments to Commons Amendments to be considered forthwith.
  Lords Reason and Amendments considered.
  Resolved, That this House doth not insist on the Amendment to which

  1151
  the Lords have disagreed; and doth agree to the Lords Amendments to the Commons Amendments.

  RATING OF MACHINERY BILL. (No. 6.)
  Order for Committee read, and discharged.
  Bill withdrawn.

  LICENSING (IRELAND) BILL.—(No. 415.)
  Order for Committee read, and discharged.
  Bill withdrawn.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIA TION) BILL.

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
    MR. JENNINGS: I wish to call the attention of the House to the method which is now adopted of managing the business of Supply. It is quite evident that we cannot look upon the arrangement this year as a mere accident. It is part of a system which is now becoming fixed and established in Parliamentary procedure, the system of thrusting Supply into the background and of hindering and discouraging any discussion upon it. The plan of action is, put off Supply and endeavour by any means whatever to baffle anyone who presumes to criticise it. The latest development of this plan is to get it deferred till the very last days of the Session, and to take care to suspend the Standing Orders before it is brought on. After that is done, we are treated to a performance with which we are becoming familiar. One of the leaders of the Opposition looks in casually and asks the First Lord of the Treasury at what date Supply must be closed to enable the House to adjourn in, say, a week. The First Lord is very much shocked at the bare suggestion; but he braces himself up to meet it, and announces that he can allow about 24 hours for the remaining Votes. This liberal offer is received with effusion by the representative of the
    1152
    Opposition; both sides have a stage embrace, and the entertainment concludes with a grand dissolving view, in which the whole of the Estimates disappear. The part of the unsophisticated countryman, who drops into the show accidentally, was this year taken by the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler), and it is needless to say that the First Lord of the Treasury received him with even more than his usual benevolence. The ins and the outs stand together on these matters. There is not a pin to choose between them. The great thing is to keep off impertinent outsiders. But an object much more important than this is accomplished. The House of Commons is deprived of that efficient control over public expenditure which it used to guard so jealously. It is compelled by insidious means to relinquish that control into other hands. What we have left to us now is the form without the substance. One of the most ancient functions of this House, and that which practically brought it into existence, is for the present in abeyance. What are the facts about the present Session? Only seven Sittings were devoted to Supply prior to Whitsuntide. Thus, during the most valuable part of the Session, this vital business—the only business which absolutely must be done before we can separate—was deliberately shelved. But the day before the House separated for the Recess, a Vote on Account was taken for nearly £4,000,000. That is the favourite and approved method of managing the expenditure of this country nowadays—by means of Votes on Account. When they are once smuggled through, no Government cares a brass farthing how long regular grants of Supply are deferred. If the House will give them money without discussion, why should they have the discussion? It is often inconvenient; it sometimes brings to notice many unpleasant facts, and it lets the daylight into dark corners. Therefore, it is the Votes on Account which Secretaries to the Treasury delight in, and which they are scheming to put upon a permanent footing. But it is not the constitutional system. Votes on Account are a modern innovation. In former days they were not asked for unless to meet some emergency, or in anticipation of a Dissolution. Now they

    1153
    form part of the routine of the Session, The year before last three were taken; last year the same number; this year two, besides a shower of Supplementary Estimates. I think the time will come when the House of Commons will not be juggled with in this manner. Warned by its experiences in the past, it will refuse to grant Votes on Account—at any rate, after the first Vote—without adequate discussion. If we cannot get at the Estimates in any other way, we must get at them through the Votes on Account. Then we have been treated to another discovery in the art of manipulating public expenditure and of gagging the House of Commons. Votes are fished out here and there to suit the convenience of heads of Departments. No one now is allowed to know when any Vote is coming on, or when it will be finished, or what Report of a Royal Commission will be tacked on to it so as to divert attention from the Vote itself. All these are new practices. It used to be the rule to take each class in its proper order; but now, if any opposition is threatened to a particular Vote, that Vote is purposely kept in the background. For three years I have been trying to bring the expenditure on the Admiralty Office before the notice of the House of Commons. That Office is an epitome of all that is extravagant, foolish, and bad in the Public Service. Last year and the year before I was obliged to withdraw my opposition to the Vote because it was put brick to the last hours of the Session. This year I began very early to try to guard against a similar result. On the 14th of February—soon enough, in all conscience—I asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he would not take this Vote early in the year. His reply was that he would "make a note of the request," as he remembered that I had "twice postponed the observations I wished to make on this Vote to facilitate public business." I put similar questions afterwards, and always received similar replies—the Vote shall be brought on in good season. It was actually presented to us on the 8th of August, when about 90 other Votes had to be taken in a few days, and even then a discussion on the Report of the Hartington Commission was adroitly fastened upon it. It would have been ridiculous to raise a long discussion on
    1154
    the expenses of the Office. Before one has been many years in this House, one finds out that the promise of a Minister does not always mean quite the same thing as the promise of a private gentleman made out of doors. But the answer to all such complaints as these is that Debates in Supply never save the public money, and merely result in a waste of time. This is a theory which the "two Front Benches" industriously spread abroad. When they are not themselves holding forth, which they are doing at least three parts of the Session, everything that goes on here is a waste of time. The noble Lord the Member for Rossendale (Lord Hartington) complained the other day of long speeches and bores. Does he suppose that there are no bores in the House except those who sit on the back Benches? We who are the helpless victims could tell the public a very different tale. Let an account be taken of the number of hours occupied every Session by the two Front Benches, with their futile controversies and their interminable harangues, and it will soon be seen who wastes the time of the House. Last year the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler) came down and stated (April 20, 1889) that during the preceding 20 years all discussions in Committee of Supply had only resulted in a saving of £50,000. We can imagine with what delight the Secretary to the Treasury received this announcement from the ex-Secretary to the Treasury. Once more the curtain descended amid applause on Box and Cox. But the statement, and all the data upon which it is founded, are utterly delusive. The figures in question are obtained by carefully excluding from consideration everything but the immediate result of a Motion for the reduction of a Vote. Yet it is manifestly impossible to form a fair judgment on the question by confining inquiry to this narrow field. The reduction moved is often merely nominal in amount, and it is, perhaps, withdrawn upon a promise that the subject shall receive proper attention before the next Estimates are submitted. In any case, a reduction is rarely carried against the whole force of the Government. That year, consequently, there is no saving shown. But if the point raised has been a strong one, and if it has been

    1155
    well pressed home, the Government take the hint, and the Vote is reduced in a future year. Numerous examples of this could be given, and, therefore, to form a judgment merely on the immediate effect of the discussion is to follow an utterly misleading test. The statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton is obviously based on a Return laid before the Select Committee of 1888 by one of the clerks of the House, Mr. Milman. But in handing in this Return Mr. Milman endeavoured to guard against the very misuse of which complaint has been made. He was careful to state (Q. 435)—
    "The effective reductions made by the Committee are few; but the great influence of the Committee is the impression that its Debates make upon the Government. The actual reduction may perhaps only be £300; but, of course, if the Government see that the House is unfavourable to a particular line of expenditure, without bringing about a reduction in the Vote of that year, the Debates very much influence the policy of the Government upon particular Votes to which material objection is taken."
    And, again, he plainly said that his Return was not to be taken as an index to the effect of discussions in Committee of Supply. (Q. 549). The truth is, that discussions in Supply often result in most material reductions of expenditure, and most important changes of policy. They keep down the tendency to extravagance which runs through all Departments, and prevent the perpetration of many a job. But officials are always craving to acquire the absolute control of this business, and they never cease to do all that they can to bring these discussions into derision. Again, we are told that time is occupied with haggling over petty details of expenditure. That, no doubt, does happen occasionally, and the utmost advantage is always taken of it. The incident is described at full length in all the Papers, and officials make it part of their stock-in-trade all through the Recess. They take good care never to mention their own errors and follies, their abortive schemes, their programmes of legislation which are utterly unmanageable, and their scoldings, quarrellings, and recriminations, of which everybody but themselves is sick and tired. Over all that, a discreet veil is drawn. As a general rule, a surprisingly
    1156
    short space of time is devoted to the discussion of actual expenditure. Everything runs off upon questions of policy. Take the Foreign Office. What happens is this: a kind of party is made up to go round the globe, followed by the Under Secretary, who contrives to give as little information as he can at the various points of interest. In the course of this journey, almost everything will have a chance of being discussed except the enormous cost of carrying on the Department. The range of discussion on these Votes grows wider and wider every year, and why is that? It is because the opportunities afforded to private Members to bring up outside subjects are being steadily and persistently curtailed. Many a subject which used to be disposed of with Mr. Speaker in the Chair is now brought up in Committee of Supply, where Members can speak as often as they choose. Consequently, there has been a great loss instead of a saving of time. And now, as a remedy, it is proposed to send all the Estimates to be dealt with in a smaller Committee. Sir Erskine May, before the Select Committee of 1871, Q. 98, declared that he would not recommend this change in our procedure.
    "I think," he said, "a Committee of Supply should certainly be a Committee of the whole House, and nothing short of that."
    But suppose we took this rash step, how could it possibly save much time? The questions of policy which are involved in the Votes would still be discussed in the House. The Committee upstairs would go through the figures, and report to the House, and then Members interested in various topics would insist upon discussing them as usual. The very thing which consumes the time now would consume it then. The only difference would be, that Members could only speak once on Report, but that change could be made by an alteration in the rules limiting Members to one speech on each Vote in Committee of Supply, and even restricting them to a limited time. Those would be far less serious changes than removing Supply from a Committee of the whole House. The money itself is voted away in a helter-skelter fashion. I have taken notes from time to time of feats which have been accomplished in this direction, and I find that even early in the Session large amounts are voted without discussion.

    1157
    On Thursday, May 9,1889, seven Votes were got in Class II., although the House did not go into Committee till past 7. The following day, at a Morning Sitting, nine other Votes were taken. On the 18th of June, 27 Votes were obtained at one Sitting, representing an expenditure of £17,143,300 (Army and Navy). Eight of these Votes were passed in 20 minutes. The day before the Easter holidays this year, all Class 1. of the Civil Service Estimates was got without much trouble, the amount voted being £1,595,000. On the 17th of March, nearly the whole of the Navy Estimates were obtained at a single Sitting; that is to say, from Votes 1 to 15, including Works, Buildings, Repairs, Wages, and almost everything of importance connected with the Navy. The amount voted was £7,822,600. August, however, is the harvest month of the Treasury. Then the Secretary to the Treasury puts in his sickle and mows the whole crop, while everybody else is asleep. I find from my notes that on Saturday, August 17, 1889, 8 Votes were obtained in Class VI., 6 in Class VII., 2 in Revenue Departments, 5 in Class IV.—altogether 21 Votes. This was eclipsed on the same day two years previously (1887), when 45 Votes were got in one night. On 22nd August, 8 Votes were taken in Class II., 12 in Class III., 2 in Revenue Departments, 2 Army, and 8 in Class V.; the next day 18 Votes were got—or 50 Votes in two days. A machine could not do it much faster. On the 9th of this month, August 1890, we voted away £6,950,126; on the 13th we got through 48 Votes at a single Sitting. This is how the present system works—badly, as I think, for the House and the country alike. Every year finds the House of Commons growing weaker and weaker in this matter, and the Government of the day succeeds in forcing it to perform merely mechanical functions. If nothing can be done to check this, the House will have received another heavy blow, levelled not by obstructionists, but by those who were bound in honour to defend it from attack. Rather than continue to be parties to the present mockery, it would be far better for us to go back to our constituents and inform them that they need not look to us for any attempt to exercise supervision over the public expenditure; that all such
    1158
    business is now managed in secret by the Government of the day, and that the House of Commons has renounced a right for the vindication of which it once carried out a revolution. Either in the form of an Amendment to the Address, or in some other way, I will endeavour next Session to force the Government to bring on the Estimates at a period when they can be discussed in a rational manner.
    MR. BUCHANAN: I wish to say a few words in support of the speech of the hon. Member who has just sat down. The result of the Sittings of the Select Committee referred to was not quite that which was expected. It did not recommend that Supply should be referred to a Grand Committee. I cannot help thinking that the action of the Government since that time has been rather in the direction of trying to starve out opposition in this House, in order that it may induce the House to refer Supply to an outside Committee. I wish to say a word about the utility of Supply in enabling hon. Members to ventilate new schemes of policy. Probably independent Members on both sides value Committee of Supply very much more from that point of view than from the point of view of control over expenditure. Certainly Committee of Supply affords practically the only opportunity we Scottish Members get for bringing up matters relating to Scottish administration with a view to legislation in the future. Last Session it was pointed out that, as we had occupied a good deal of time on the Local Government Bill, we might let Supply go through practically without discussion. This Session the principal Scotch Votes were taken practically on one night. Not only did the Scotch Votes receive inadequate discussion, but the Science and Art Votes, and others of exceptional interest, were taken without any discussion whatever. The object of the discussion a few days ago on the Home Office Vote was not to criticise the expenditure of the Home Office, but to urge on the right hon. Gentleman, who is mainly responsible for mines regulation, the necessity for some alteration in the law. Until we have some opportunity of bringing forward our grievances otherwise than on the Estimates, we are not

    1159
    going to forego this, which is the sole opportunity we have. It seems to me very desirable that next Session there should be a strong movement in favour of having fixed times for the discussion of Supply. Let the Government set apart definitely time for the Estimates, and Members will understand their position. As it is, we have few opportunities of bringing up subjects in which we are interested. I am perfectly certain that if the Government were to set apart, say, one day a week, it would be found that hon. Members would be able to make arrangements with each other, would be able to show consideration for each other, and the time would be occupied with much more effective discussion. What the Secretary to the Treasury aims at is the saving of time in the voting of money. By the method I suggest he would get his money very much more quickly, and we ourselves would be satisfied with obtaining definite opportunities of stating our grievances. I earnestly trust that the Government will, during the Recess, give their most serious attention to this grievance. It has never reached the height it has this Session, when the whole of the Votes are brought on nearly at its close, because the greater part of the Session has been mis-spent. I hope that the Estimates will be brought on earlier next Session, when the Government will not attempt the unsuccessful programme of this Session.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: I am very glad that the hon. Member opposite has spirited himself up to criticise the conduct of Ministers of this House. I will point out the real reason why Ministers are independent of this House, why they may do whatever they like, and violate the principle, although they keep the letter, of the Rules of this House. It is the absolute want of independence of Members on the other side of the House. If we protest against the action of the Government, the suggestion is that we are actuated by Party feeling. When Ministers are kept in proper order, it is when there is a sufficient number of independent Members on their own side who do not allow them to do precisely what they like. For instance, ,the Chief Secretary for Ireland was an excellent independent Mem-1160
    ber. I remember he and several others sitting in this very place, and they kept in pretty good and reasonable order the Conservative Party for a considerable time. They did their best. But who are their successors? They have got their places on the Treasury Bench. They have no successors. This has never occurred before. And I do urge Gentlemen opposite to have some regard for the decencies of this House by aiding us to induce Ministers not to do more than their predecessors have always done in these matters. Hon. Gentlemen have complained of the waste of time on the part of the two Front Benches. It is a most deplorable feature of this House, this deplorable pot-and-kettle dispute between the two Front Benches. Ministers and ex-Ministers seem to spend the best part of their time in reading the old speeches of each other. Someone gets up on the Front Opposition Bench and says that years ago some Minister had taken a perfectly opposite view. At first the Minister denies it; then he says, "If I am guilty look what my opponent has done. Ten years ago he entertained an entirely opposite opinion." Neither this House nor the country cares one sixpence about Ministers' consistency; in fact, I will go so far as to say that the best Minister is the most inconsistent Minister. I want a man to ripen. He may entertain foolish opinions occasionally; but as he goes on, and is more acquainted with public affairs, he becomes wiser. It is complained that Scotch Members have not sufficient time to discuss Scotch Estimates. That may be so, and I am bound to say that they use to the best advantage the opportunities given them. It is used as an argument by both Scotch and Irish Members in favour of their having preference over English Members that they live such a long way off. I could never understand the force of that argument, because a Member, whether he live in Scotland or Northamptonshire, cannot be in two places at once. He cannot be at his home and in this House at the same time; and, being here, I cannot see why the fact of his living at a distance should give him preference over an English Member. I think it would be infinitely better to take the Estimates as they are set down, whether Scotch, English, or Irish. My

    1161
    own belief really is that Ministers would gain rather by doing that than by making arrangements with particular Members to give them opportunities to air their grievances. Nobody can deny for a moment that the proceedings of last Wednesday were a gross scandal. Fortyeight Votes were hurried through in six or seven hours. There were very few Members in the House, and we thought it more dignified to protest by our silence against this gross abuse. We intend during the Recess to have a good deal to say about the mode in which the Estimates are conducted. What is the meaning of the Estimates? It is that Parliament should have control over the public expenditure. It is very obvious that if this control is to be a reality, they must be submitted at a time when they can be fully and legitimately discussed. Remember that only a few years ago, on the Motion to go into Committee on the Estimates, we were allowed to say anything we liked. We have been deprived of that. Then we have been deprived of one of the days of the week, and now, after the first week of the Session, we have not any opportunity, excepting on the Estimates, to raise the grievances which we think, rightly or wrongly, ought to be submitted to the House. The normal business of the Government is to submit the Estimates, and the normal business of the House is to discuss them. Nobody can say that the Government have fulfilled their normal duty this Session. But the action of the Government has been all the worse, because there was a specific and definite pledge last year from the First Lord of the Treasury that the Estimates should be submitted at a reasonable time. A few days were spent at the commencement of the Session on the Estimates, and then we heard no more of them until nearly the end of the Session. Why is this? Because the Government have adopted an entirely false view of how the business of this House should be conducted. The Government think that their first duty is to bring forward Party Bills, and that they should be carried with as little discussion as possible; but that if there is large and extensive discussion, then that the Estimates must be put back. Now, I say that the Estimates ought, at least, to run parallel with the
    1162
    Bills; they should be spread over the Session. What do the Government say? That there has grown up in the present Parliament a horrible and pernicious system of obstruction. I and others, I imagine, consider it a duty to use all the Forms of the House to hinder being passed into law Bills which involve great expenditure without the country being asked to express an opinion upon them. Take, for instance, the Irish Land Bill. At the last General Election most hon. Gentlemen opposite obtained their seats on pledging themselves to vote against any Imperial guarantee for the purchase of Irish land. To support he Irish Land Purchase Bill is not merely going beyond their mandate, but is going contrary to their mandate and the pledges they have given: Surely, therefore, if the Government use the Forms of the House to force their Bill through, we have the right to use those same Forms to resist its passage. Our duty in regard to what is called obstruction is more manifest than at first sight appears. The Conservative Party when they are out of Office have the House of Lords to fall back upon. If the Liberals bring in a Bill which does not meet with the approval of the Conservatives the House of Lords can throw it out, and so provoke a General Election. We are not able to do that. It is on that ground that I try in this House to perform the part of a Radical Peer by doing my best to do away with the House of Lords, which has no mandate. I am particularly amused at the complaints of the noble Lord the Member for Rossendale about obstruction. Why, the noble Lord and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham and the Liberal Unionists declared over and over again that one reason why it was useless for the country to declare itself in favour of Home Rule was that the measure could not be carried for several years. They have declared again and again that they will use all the Forms not only of this, but the other, House to prevent the measure being passed. I think the Government has certainly exceeded its general mandate. For my part, I am a Triennial Parliament man, but, at any rate, I think, under the present system, four years is quite

    1163
    enough for any Parliament. After four years it is the business of any Member of this House to do his best to force a General Election, because it is not certain that the Government represent the views of the country, though they may have done so four years before. Now, this Session obstruction has not been necessary, simply because the Ministers have been good enough to obstruct each other. We have complained that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has ceased to be a Liberal; but I believe we are making a mistake. I believe the right hon. Gentleman is a thorough-going Liberal, and I believe he is doing his very best to upset the Government. I tender to the right, hon. Gentleman my most grateful thanks for what he has done this Session, which has proved an abortive and a barren one. I trust that every Session, while the present Government are in power, will prove abortive and barren. The hon. Gentleman said that next Session he intended to move an Amendment to the Address, in order to call attention to the necessity of bringing the Estimates forward at the proper time. I shall put down an Amendment in case the hon. Gentleman does not turn up to press his. I hope the hon. Gentleman will. At the same time, I know perfectly well that my Amendment will be lost; still, we will have made our protest. I think the second plan suggested by the hon. Gentleman is the better. It is that when the Vote on Account is brought on it should be discussed in all its details. I apprehend that is entirely in conformity with the Rules of the House. It is usual, though not absolute law, to pass a Vote on Account early in the Session for a month or six weeks. When the second Vote is taken, there should be furnished a Paper showing how much is to be allocated to each Department, and on that Paper we can discuss the Estimates. We have only to carry out that which is our right, to put an end to this attempt of the Government to slip their Estimates through at the fag-end of the Session without any species of discussion. Still, there is a more drastic mode of meeting this question. It is that this House, which is becoming very flabby, should be roused by what I may term an electoral bark. Let us appeal to our constituents. If hon. Gentlemen come back with a majority in favour of any
    1164
    particular Bill, I certainly shall not feel it my duty obstructively to interfere with, the passage of that Bill. Lord Salisbury the other day at the Mansion House said the country wants and will have legislation. The best proof that the country, does not want Conservative legislation at the present time is that it does not get it. If there were any leverage behind Ministers, Conservative or Liberal, they would be able to crush out any species of obstruction. Hon. Gentlemen opposite say the country is indignant at our course. I cannot find the proof. Without attaching to them too much importance, the bye-elections do not show it. Certainly those elections have not been very much in favour of the Government. On the contrary, I believe that the indignation is with those who continue in office that they and their friends may raid upon the funds of the country. I believe that if we had an election at the present moment we would gain a majority, and I think it is because hon. Gentlemen opposite are aware that we would have a majority that we have not had a General Election.
    MR. BARTLEY: We remember that the hon. Member opposite announced that he would do everything he possibly could to prevent legislation.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: I never made any such announcement. I said if the Government brought in a good Bill I would warmly support it. They do not bring it in.
    MR. BARTLEY: I may be dense, and perhaps other Members of Parliament are equally dense, but I think the impression conveyed to hon. Members was that the hon. Member for Northampton said he would feel it his duty to prevent legislation in every conceivable way. I fully acknowledge that it is unfortunate the Estimates have been brought on at the end of the Session. But we must look at the matter in a straightforward way. How in the world could the Government have acted in any other way? We know very well that, whether brought on at the beginning, middle, or end of the Session, hon. Members opposite would render it impossible for any legislation to be carried out if they could. Look at the exact facts of the case. The Government have got two days a week for

    1165
    their public business. There are over 200 Votes to take, and, at one hour a Vote, the whole time of the Government would be absorbed. But the Government have an immense deal of other business which they must get through. The hon. Member for Northampton says "that there is to be a full discussion on the details of each Vote on Account, if more than one is taken, to last over six weeks. The Government would find it absolutely impossible to get Supply through in 12 days, which represents six weeks of the Session. Therefore, a second Vote on Account is necessary. The real crux is that unless hon. Members behave reasonably, it will be impossible to get through the business of the House. We must look at this matter from a commonsense point of view. Irish and Scotch Members say that they do not get enough time; indeed, every section of the House would like the whole time of the Session. The Irish Members get an enormous deal too much time. When we see such discussions as took place last night, or rather this morning; when we see the reckless and absolute obstruction which takes place on a Bill brought in principally at the request of Irish Members, then I think the country ought to understand the cause of this delay of Parliamentary business. The hon. Member for Northampton, no doubt, does not care to see Party Bills discussed when this Party is in Office, though no doubt he would not object to seeing a Home Rule Bill discussed were his Party in power. In 1886, most of the Session was occupied in considering the Home Rule Bill. There was no mandate from the country to consider that. I think it is rather hard that the Government should be attacked by my hon. Friend in this way. The Government have had a phalanx of the most reckless obstructionists to meet. These men are doing their best to render the transaction of business impossible, and it is a great pity that some Members on the Ministerial side of the House should encourage them. We ought to alter the Rules of the House in order to put a stop to obstruction. The only way to accomplish that is to silence altogether for the Session the Members who render the transaction of business almost impossible .Let them vote by all means, but let
    1166
    them not speak. Until the House adopts some such method of silencing and stopping these perpetual talkers and obstructors we shall never be able to devote our attention properly to legislation or the granting of Supply.
    DR. CLARK: The true moral is, that the work undertaken by the House is more than it can possibly accomplish. It is not the fault of the Government or of Members below the Gangway; the defect is in the system, and the only solution is to devolve the work upon people who can do it. I am glad that the Liberal Party has adopted the principle of Home Rule, which will devolve a great deal of work on Local Authorities, and will leave this House to do its Imperial work thoroughly and well. Referring to the question of perpetual pensions, I wish to point out to the Secretary to the Treasury that the policy of the Government is to redeem them by making them perpetual at our cost. That is a very unfair way of putting an end to them. Some of these pensions were voted in perpetuity by previous Parliaments, and the Treasury method of terminating them is to buy them out at 27 years' purchase. That is really making those pensions perpetual in another form at the cost of the country. The hon. Members for Stockport and Northampton have been fighting the Treasury on the question whether the rate of purchase should be 22 years or 27 years; and it appears to me it is a case of the difference between tweedledum and tweedledee. I think that the only way to meet these claims fairly and generously would be to give the money to the present pensioners and their living heirs. As to the other class of perpetual pensions, where no service has been rendered, I think due notice should be given that in five years they will cease. Hon. Members on this side intended to use all the Forms of the House in order to raise this question under such circumstances as will compel hon. Gentlemen opposite to give us a fair hearing. I do not see what use it is for the junior Member for Northampton to pretend he wants to get rid of this evil; all he is fighting for is whether the rate of purchase shall be 22 years or 25 years.
    MR. JENNINGS: If it had not been for the efforts of the hon. Member for

    1167
    Northampton in making public the facts there would have been no Committee on Perpetual Pensions.
    DR. CLARK: Long before the junior Member for Northampton entered this House all the facts on which he has since based his speeches were made public in the Financial Reform Almanack.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON,: I will endeavour to reply to the various speeches made. I have no fault to find with my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport for bringing forward this question. It is a subject in which every Member of the House may very properly take a deep interest. I think, however, that a good case can be made out for the course which has been taken during the last two years. It is absolutely necessary, and the necessity cannot be avoided, to take a Vote on Account for each of the Civil Service Votes. As regards the Army and Navy, there is a power of transfer between one Vote and another, but there is no such power of transfer as regards the Civil Service Votes. No doubt in some cases it would be convenient that there should be such a power of transfer, and, if so, it would be possible by taking one or two Votes for large sums to avoid taking Votes on Account. This year, fortunately, the Government have been able to do with only two Votes on Account; but in most years it has been necessary to take three Votes on Account, because, until the whole of the Votes are taken, of course it may happen that a particular Department is short of money, and a Vote on Account becomes necessary. In recent years it has been customary to restrict Votes on Account to two months' grant; and if the House sits for six months, it becomes almost necessary to take a third Vote on Account. There are two difficulties in the way: One is, that the Government have only a limited number of days at their disposal; and the other is, that there has grown up a habit of speaking at much greater length and discussing matters of detail to a much greater extent than was formerly the case; and as long as that goes on, I look almost hopelessly for any means to remedy what is justly complained of by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport and
    1168
    the other Members who have spoken, namely, that a great many Votes have to be taken in a hurried manner at the close of the Session. That certainly is not the fault of the Government. This year and last year the Government have devoted more time to Supply than in any similar period during the last 20 years. No plan is so simple and so desirable as to begin with the Votes in the order in which they appear on the Estimates and to go straight through with them. The Government began this year with the intention of pursuing that course. Some important question may arise, and the leader of the Opposition will request the Government to afford facilities in Committee of Supply for discussing a particular subject. The Government, to meet the convenience of hon. Members, concede the request, and thus the order is broken. My hon. Friend seems to think that the Government have postponed important Votes, and have not given as much time to Supply in the earlier part of the Session as ought to have been given. I have caused a statement to be drawn up showing the total number of days devoted to Supply in each Session since 1872. The Return, was made up to the end of May, the end of June, and the end of July, and last year was excluded altogether, because an exceptionally large number of days were then devoted to Supply in the earlier part of the Session. Up to the end of May in the present year five days were devoted to Supply, which, with the exception of 1878, is the largest number since 1872. Up to the end of June this year nine days were given to Supply, which again is the highest number, with the exception of 1878. Up to the end of July 20 days were given to Supply, which is a number considerably greater than in any preceding year since 1881, for there is no record concerning the years from 1872 to 1881. There is yet another way of testing the comparative periods given to the discussion of Supply. From 1875 to 1879 the average number of days devoted to Supply in each year was 23; from 1880 to 1885 the average was 26; and from 1887 to 1890 the average was 40. This shows that in recent years much more discussion in Supply has occurred than formerly. I make no complaint, because I

    1169
    am strongly of opinion that legitimate discussion in Committee of Supply is not only valuable for calling attention to grievances, but also for giving backbone to the Government in resisting the financial demands made upon them. The hon. Member for Northampton has spoken of what he calls obstruction. The description is not mine, but the hon. Member's. Speaking in Devonshire, the hon. Member for Northampton said, "I have obstructed; I do obstruct; and I regret that I have not obstructed more." The Government have given a larger amount of time for discussion in Supply than any of their predecessors. But there is a constantly increasing quantity of business to be transacted, and hon. Members ought to endeavour to avoid the discussion of petty details, not in themselves effecting any great economies, and devote themselves to discussing matters which will secure economy and efficiency in the administration of the various Departments. Speaking as a Member of the Government, I should welcome any assistance which the House would give in this direction.
    MR. CREMER: I listened, in common with other Members of the House, with great interest to the speech delivered by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Stock-port. The hon. Member always interests deeply the Members of this House when he speaks on any subject whatever, but I cannot help hoping that next Session he will be found not merely speaking, but voting in favour of the views he so admirably expresses from time to time in this House. Up to the present the hon. Member has talked, but not acted. I hope that state of things will be reversed next Session, and that we shall have him joining us in our efforts to effect the very useful reforms to which he has referred. I quite agree with him that it would be dangerous to relegate the question of Supply to a Grand Committee. I have had two or three years' experience on the Grand Committee on Law, and the experience I have gathered there does not warrant me in thinking it would be safe to entrust such an important function to a Committee of that kind. We had this year—only a few weeks ago—one of the
    1170
    most important Bills submitted to that Grand Committee which has ever been brought under our notice. I refer to the Bill for the consolidation of the various Acts affecting the housing of the working classes. The form in. which the Bill was presented to the Committee, the President of the Poor Law Board admitted, rendered it almost impossible for anyone to fully understand it. There were interpolations here and excisions there, and it was one of the most extraordinary Bills we have ever had, and yet it was rushed through the Grand Committee in three hours and a half. Why was that? It was quite clear to me and to other members of the Committee, who did not take an official view of it, that the Government were anxious to go to the country and make capital out of the fact that they had passed the Bill, an excellent measure as they will probably describe it, but one which is, I think, full of defects that will have to be remedied at an early date. I can just imagine that the Members of the Government and their supporters behind them will, at the various meetings they will address during the Recess, make as much capital out of the fact as they possibly can. But they will fail to tell the audiences how this Bill was rushed through the Grand Committee on Law, or of the defects which it contains, and which will have at no distant day to be remedied. When the Bill was brought into this House for the Third Reading, that stage was carried through in an extraordinary manner. I was anxious to propose Amendments, but it was impossible to do so in the Grand Committee, and I therefore hoped to be able to move to re-commit the Bill when it was sent back to this House. But again I was disappointed in that hope; I was pretty watchful, but somehow, I scarcely know how, I failed to ascertain, the particular moment at which the Bill was to be taken, and, as a result, the Bill was almost smuggled through its last stages. If the House will bear with me for a few moments, I should like to point out two or three defects which the Bill contains, for, to my mind, if it had only been passed in a complete and perfect form, it would have been one of the most valuable measures that has ever been adopted by this House. I dare-

    1171
    say my hon. Friend the Member for Finsbury will draw attention to what is occurring in his own constituency, which proves that power ought to be given to the Treasury or some other Governmental Office to prevent Local Authorities from forcing working people from a locality without having provided homes for them elsewhere. Not long ago, in Chelsea, hundreds of working men, women, and children were driven away by the ground landlord that he might clear the site for other dwellings. I was anxious to propose a clause in the Bill on this subject with the view to preventing this sudden displacement of sections of the population, but I had no opportunity of doing s). There is another very important defect in the Bill to which I refer——
    MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman is not in order in discussing the provisions of another Bill on the Appropriation Bill.
    MR. CREMER: I will not go into a discussion of that Bill, though I think greater facilities ought to have been given for a discussion of a measure of the kind, and that it ought not to have been rushed through Grand Committee in three hours and a half, and then got through this House in a still more speedy and mysterious manner. I venture to predict that this Bill, which was to consolidate the Statutes, will have to be amended at no distant date. The Chief Commissioner of Works, in conjunction with the Secretary to the Treasury, has been considering for three or four years how to get rid of the evils of contracting for workmen in Government establishments. Some Members are content with an answer of the kind which has been given to me; but if you want to get anything in this House, you have to keep pegging away; and I shall keep pegging away at this question. I believe the contract under which workmen are employed in this House and various Government Offices expires on the 31st March, and I want to know whether that contract will be renewed. It seems to me abominable that poor men, who ought to have every penny they earn, should be subjected to shameful deductions by the contractor, in some cases to the extent of 20, 30, and 40 per cent. If I am correctly informed, in one Department of the British Museum the contractor deducts from the scanty earn- 1172
    ings of his men between 7s. and 9s. per week. I believe the Secretary to the Treasury is really anxious to do something to get rid of or to modify this system. But what I contend is that it is not modification we want,' but total abolition of this system. I will take care next Session to watch my opportunity to ventilate the whole question. With regard to the discontent which exists in the Post Office, anyone who has watched the proceedings of the last few months must have come to the conclusion that the Department is honeycombed with discontent, from some cause or other, whether the fault of the Postmaster General or the permanent officials. The right hon. Gentleman said he had "stamped out rebellion." That was the phrase he used. I admit that the Post Office employés' attempt was one of the most foolish ever made by a body of men. We hear many taunts and sneers levelled at agitators, but it is a fact that representatives of the Post Office employés sought an interview with hon. Members of this House, who are supposed to be more directly representative of labour than others. We gave those representatives our advice, which was to seek remedy of their grievances in a constitutional way. Unfortunately, they listened to other and more pernicious counsels, and we know what the result has been. Still, the Post Office is rife with discontent. The other night, however, the Postmaster General graciously informed me that he intended to raise the salaries of the countermen of the Post Office, by 40 per cent. in some instances, and 20 in others. I went away glad that the right hon. Gentleman was going to do that hard worked and badly paid class of servants justice. But when I spoke with the Postmaster of a certain district he informed me that the promise of the right hon. Gentleman would not affect those who had petitioned the Postmaster for five years. I will not discuss the point now, but it is a fact that these countermen, who petitioned two or three years ago, will have to wait five years before the prayer of their Petition is acceded to. There is only one other point to which I wish to call attention, that is the salaries and expenses of the Office of Registrar of Friendly Societies. I, for one, am pre-

    1173
    pared to get rid of the institution altogether, at least in the form in which it exists. So far as I can gather among the officers of Friendly Societies it is looked upon as perfectly useless, and unless it is re modelled and new chief officers appointed, and the whole institution re-cast, I think I shall undertake to move the rejection of the Vote next year. I think the Secretary to the Treasury will agree with me, when he has given further consideration to the subject, that the Office of the Registrar of Friendly Societies is an institution which requires to be re-modelled.
    MR. STAVELEY HILL: I hope I shall not be considered as unduly taking up the time of the House in calling the attention of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to the present condition of the negotiations between the United States and this country on the subject of the Behring Sea Fishery. When a question has come to the point at which two nations so closely allied and having so much in common are brought to a condition in which they have said very nearly the last word to one another, it becomes of the greatest importance that we should consider in what position the matter stands. I regret that the Foreign Office has not at an earlier period given the Papers on the subject. The correspondence has been published in Canada and in the States, but though a promise was made early in April that the Papers would be produced, it is only just as I am rising to speak that my right hon. Friend has presented me with this large Blue Book. It is a great pity that upon such an important question the Government have not been able to produce the correspondence at an earlier date. The locus in quo, the Behring Sea, has been claimed by the United States as a mare clausum, as a place for which they have a right to pass and in which they have a right to enforce their own municipal law, and in which other nations have no rights. The claim is altogether monstrous. They represent as an inland sea a tract of ocean comparable in extent to the North Atlantic or the Gulf of Mexico. Reaching up in the North to the Arctic Ocean, and on the South to the Archipelago, of the Aleutian Islands, is a large tract of water 1,000 miles in extent from North
    1174
    to South, and over many degrees of longitude from East to West, with openings between the islands from double the width of the Channel between England and France to about 120 miles between the most westerly American and the most easterly Russian island. This part of the case was fully discussed during the early part of the correspondence, and Lord Salisbury, in August, 1887, said that the Government of the United States would admit that the seizure and condemnation of British vessels and the imprisonment of masters and crew were not warranted by the circumstances, and hoped that compensation would be afforded, and steps taken to prevent a recurrence of those incidents. In 1889, after further correspondence, I learn from the Papers laid before Congress that Lord Salisbury protested against the renewal of the seizures, pointing out that they were wholly unjustified by International Law. I need not now dwell upon the habits of these animals which form the subject of dispute, and in which the United States are setting up a sort of proprietary right. In the centre of the Behring Sea are two islands, St. Paul's and St. George's, formerly belonging to Russia, and sold by her as part of Alaska to the United States. The seals appear to go down as far as San Francisco in each year, and return for the purpose of breeding to these two islands. Those islands are leased to and carefully guarded by the Alaskan Company, and an enormous revenue accrues to the United States from the seals killed on them. The animals that are not breeding remain on the sea, where they consume enormous quantities of fish, and then lie basking in the sun, to fall a prey to the spear of the Indian, or the rifle of the white hunter. The United States has legislated for the territory of Alaska, and penalties have been provided in the case of persons killing a fur-bearing seal in the Alaskan territory or the waters thereof. If "the waters there of" are to be construed as merely the territorial waters, then this legislation is, of course, within their constitutional rights; but if it is intended to bring within their jurisdiction the whole of the waters to the north of the chain of the Aleutians, then they are legislating on a matter as to which they have no

    1175
    right at all. British Columbian schooners, for example, start on their errand from British Columbia to catch seals in the open sea. If they go within the territorial waters they are liable to the territorial laws of Alaska, but so long as they keep to the open sea they are not amenable. Seizures, professedly under this Act, took place in 1886 and 1887. In 1888, in consequence of strong remonstrances from Lord Iddesleigh and Lord Salisbury, a proclamation was issued by the United States under which the sealers were left alone. The proclamation, however, was withdrawn in 1889, and the schooners were again attacked. I will read to the House the only passage with which I will trouble it, the account of the seizure of the Black Diamond, Mr. Owen master. He says—
    "On the 11th day of July, 1889, whilst I was on board and in command of the said schooner, and she being then on a sealing expedition, and being in latitude 56° 22' north, and longitude 170° 25' west, and at a distance of about 35 miles from land, the United States Revenue cutter Richard Rush overhauled the said schooner, and having hailed her by shouting a command which I could not distinctly hear, steamed across the bows of the said schooner, compelling her to come to. A boat was then lowered from the said cutter, and Lieutenant Tuttle and five other men from the United States vessel came aboard the said schooner. I asked the lieutenant what he wanted; and on his stating he wished to see the ship's papers, I took him down to my cabin and showed them to him. He then commanded me to hand the papers over to him; this I refused to do, and locked them up in my locker. At this time there were 131 seal skins aboard the schooner, 76 of which had been salted, and 55 of which were unsalted, and Lieutenant Tuttle ordered his men to bring up the skins and to take the salted ones on board the Richard Bush. The cutter's men accordingly transferred all of the salted skins from my schooner to the Richard Rush, and also took aboard the cutter two sacks of salt and a rifle belonging to the schooner. Lieutenant Tuttle then again demanded me to give up the ship's papers, and told me that if I would not give them up he would take them by force. As I still declined to part with them, he signalled to the cutter, and a boat came off with the master-at-arms, who came on board the schooner. Lieutenant Tuttle asked me for the keys of the looker, so that he might get the papers; and upon my refusing to give them to him, he ordered the master-at-arms to force open the locker. The master-at-arms then unscrewed the hinges of the locker, took out the ship's papers, and handed them to Lieutenant Tuttle. Lieutenant Tuttle then returned to the Richard Rush and came back to the schooner again, bringing on board with
    1176
    him one whose name I have since heard to be John Hawkinson, and who I believe to be a quartermaster of the Richard Rush. Lieutenant Tuttle then told me to take the schooner to Sitka. I told him that I would not go unless he put a crew on board to take the schooner there. He gave Hawkinson directions to take the ship to Sitka, and gave him letters to give to the United States Authorities on arrival. Lieutenant Tuttle, before leaving my schooner, ordered 20 Indian spears which were aboard for sealing purposes to be taken on to the Richard Rush. I asked the lieutenant to give me a receipt for the papers, skins, &c., he had taken; this he refused to do, and he then returned to the Richard Rush, taking the said spears with him, and leaving the man Hawkinson in charge of the schooner; shortly afterwards the cutter steamed away without returning the ship's papers, seal skins, and other goods before mentioned. After the departure of the United States vessel, I directed my course to Ounalaska, hoping there to meet with an English man-of-war. We arrived there on the 15th of July. My crew at this time consisted of a mate (Alexander Gault), two white seamen, deck hands, and a white cook and 20 Indians. The Indians, thinking we were going to Sitka, became mutinous, and told me the best thing I could do to avoid trouble was to take the schooner home; they also warned the other white men on board that if they thought I meant to take the schooner to Sitka they would throw us all overboard. There being no man-of-war at Ounalaska, I left there and directed my course to Victoria, and arrived at that port at about 7 p.m. on Saturday, the 3rd of August last, having on board the said John Hawkinson, who, during the cruise to Victoria, had not tried to give me any directions or made any suggestions as to the course to be taken by the schooner. On arrival at Victoria Hawkinson was put on shore by one of my baots."
    Here we have every rule of seizure at sea violated, the cargo taken out of the ship, no sufficient prize crew placed on board, nor any steps taken to obtain an adjudication in due form, and this was the manner in which the United States dealt with some 17 vessels sailing under the flag of a friendly Power. The case of the Black Diamond is typical of 17 or 20 other cases in 1886-7-9: Cutters have been sent to attack schooners, for what reason? "Because," says Mr. Secretary Blaine, speaking of this vast ocean—
    "Into this secluded and peaceful field of labour whose benefits were so equitably shared? by the native Aleuts of the Ribyloff Islands, by the United States, and by England, certain Canadian vessels in 1886 asserted their right to-enter, and by their ruthless course to destroy the fisheries."
    I venture to say that the House, on

    1177
    reading the Despatches of Lord Salisbury, will find that the whole case has been put plainly and forcibly, and that it is unanswered and unanswerable. Mr. Blaine says that our action has been contra bonos mores; that is to say, that killing seals on the high seas is equivalent to piracy. I will not trouble the House with the Despatches, inasmuch as I only received the Blue Book at half past 2 o'clock this afternoon.
    THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir J. FERGUSSON,: The hon. and learned Gentleman is under a mistake. The Papers were obtainable at the Vote Office this morning.
    MR. STAVELEY HILL: I went to the Library this afternoon, and was informed that it had been presented there only in dummy. It is said that there is a great waste of seal life, and that the female seals are killed as well as the males. I thought it right to inquire into this charge myself, and I saw at Vancouver the masters and many of the sealers. I examined and cross-examined them; I went on board their ships, and went into the whole matter as fully as I could, and I came to the conclusion that in the way in which sealing is conducted there is no waste of life and no undue killing of the female seals. There is one important point to bear in mind. Sealskin, I own, is a very valuable article of commerce. There is, however, another side to the question; the seals live in a sea which washes a coast where, in the course of a few years, there will be as large a British population as you will find anywhere—I mean that of British Columbia. The Behring Sea is not merely valuable for its seals. It has probably the greatest fishery for cod and other useful fish. If the United States be once allowed to consider Behring Sea as a mare clausum, they will be able not only to protect the seals, to the destruction of the fish, but also to forbid the taking of the codfish, and the result will be that, while there will be in that territory a large British population, they will not be able to catch the fish which they will require for their own sustenance. In many matters in this part of the world England has not looked sufficiently far ahead. Let us look ahead in the present instance. It is com-
    1178
    puted that there are at present in the Behring Sea fully 6,000,000 seals. Every one of these seals, it is calculated, consumes 10 lbs. of fish a day, so that there, is a total consumption of 60,000,000 lbs. of fish per day; the loss of this must be taken into the account as against the value of the seals. There is another question to which I will draw the attention of my right hon. Friend, and that is the seizure made by the Russian Government in 1888. An Alaskan Company's vessel started out in a fog, and when the fog lifted, found itself close to a schooner called the Araunah, which was lowering her boats out for sealing. The Russians contended that the Araunah was within three miles of the shore. They took possession of her, sold her boats, destroyed her, and turned her crew adrift. I was fortunate enough to come across the man who was at the wheel of the Araunah at the time of the seizure, and he proved to me that he was at least five miles distant from the coast. I would ask my right hon. Friend to let me lay these and other facts before him for future consideration, because if these facts are true the crew of the vessel seized have been very badly treated. With regard to close time, in a letter I wrote to the Times in November last I advocated on the part of the sealers that there should be a close time during nine months of the year—in other words, that there should be hunting only during July, August, and September. That is the one thing required; but Mr. Secretary Blaine rests his whole case on this: that Lord Salisbury consented in the earlier part of the discussion that there should be a close time from April to November. If the Prime Minister did say so it was entirely per incuriam , and without knowing the facts of the case and the habits of the seal. Lord Salisbury, however, refused finally to arrange this matter until "Canada is heard from;" and in taking that line Lord Salisbury acted most properly. I think Canada should be consulted; and what was most calculated to make the pulses of the Canadian people beat warmly and in accord with the Mother Country was Lord Salisbury's declaration that Canada must be consulted. Sir Julian Pauncefote, our most excellent Ambassador at Washington, has put forward a scheme which, at present, the United States will not listen to, but it is one

    1179
    which must eventually be accepted. He proposes a seal limit line, a close time during nine months of the year, the appointment of a Committee of experts to inquire into what is necessary for the sufficient protection of the seal, and that differences between the United States and the British or any other Government upon the Report of this Committee shall be left to the arbitrament of a friendly Power. We have no fear with regard to arbitration; we know that our case is absolutely a good one. In the hands of Sir Julian Pauncafote and the Foreign Office the matter, I am confident, will be well attended to. The only persons who have not shown themselves very strong in this matter have been those at the head of the Colonial Office. The Colonial Office ought to have prevented Lord Salisbury from making the important mistake, if mistake it were, in regard to the close time; but, with our experience of the present head of the Colonial Office, one does not expect great things.
    SIR W. PLOWDEN: I wish to refer to the manner in which the affairs of our Indian Empire are administered. As the Rules of the House are at present arranged it is utterly impossible to obtain any satisfactory discussion of any great questions involving matters of interest in India, except those which are concerned with the Indian Accounts. An hon. Member did, at some earlier time in the Session, obtain by ballot a day for the discussion of a matter somewhat akin to that which I am now bringing forward; but his day was taken from him by the Government, and the consequence is that the question has never been brought forward. When the hon. Member to whom I refer (the Member for North Kensington, Sir Roper Lethbridge) complained on the subject, I understand the Government agreed to consider the matter. The position is simply this: By Standing Order 51, whenever an Order is read for the House to resolve itself into Committee, not being Committee of Supply or Ways and Means, you, Sir, are to leave the Chair without Question put. Therefore, on these occasions we are prevented altogether from bringing forward questions of the greatest interest to this country and to many Members of this House. I cannot fancy that any-
    1180
    thing could be more calculated to produce feeling on the part of our fellow subjects in India than the methods we employ in dealing with their affairs in this House. We do not allow them to take a large share in the administration of their own country, and we profess to be the guardians of their interests in this House; but we do not exercise any powers in regard to the guardianship of such interests. A notice which was put down in the early part of this year would have had the effect of amending the Standing Order so as to give those desirous of discussing Indian affairs at any length, or on any appropriate occasion, power to do so. I want to state to the Government that, in the coming Session, it will be my business to endeavour to get that notice placed again on the Paper, and also to secure a day for its discussion. The notice was to the effect that Standing Order No. 51 be amended by inserting after the words "Ways and Means," the words, "the Committee on the Indian Financial Statement." I believe there are many Members who will support me if I am able to take that step. I believe the Government themselves are desirous that the present state of things should no longer continue, and I do appeal to the House to assist in providing some means of relieving the House from what is a grave and serious scandal. If this be done. I am certain the occasions will be few when advantage will be taken of such a modification of the Order, and that discussions will only be raised on matters of deep and serious interest to the Government themselves.
    SIR R. N. FOWLER: I quite agree with all the hon. Member has said, and I hope the Government will favourably consider his contention. I wish to draw attention to a question in regard to which, in conjunction with my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcudbright (Mr. M. Stewart), I had the honour to introduce a deputation to Lord Cross, namely, the sale of opium in India. Formerly the East India Company and the Indian Government did all that lay in their power to restrain the selling of opium amongst their own subjects, the people of India. I am afraid the Government of India is not so careful as it used to be, and I trust attention will be given to the subject.
    MR. G. HOWELL: I have to complain of the way in which the Government have dealt with several matters that have been put before the House. Especially do I think that the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to have persevered with the Savings Banks Bill. It was withdrawn at a late period of the Session because, forsooth, the Government declared they had not an opportunity of giving it adequate discussion. And yet after that the Government consented to bring in a Bill which occupied this House during the whole of last night. I think the conduct of the Government amounts to a breach of faith. They were not justified in throwing overboard, at the last moment, so important a measure, affecting, as it does, 1,500,000 depositors, having £46,000,000 in the savings banks of the country. From the Savings Banks Association I learn that the representatives of the savings banks of the country, having deposits to the amount of £40,000,000 out of £46,000,000, approved the general principle of the Bill of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Under these circumstances, I think we have the right to feel aggrieved that the Government have thrown overboard so important a measure. It is not as if there were not sufficient evidence. Evidence has accumulated in this House since 1886, and we have before us this notorious fact, that the depositors of the Cardiff Savings Bank, having £40,000 of their money unpaid to them, are still waiting for a settlement of their claims. Early next Session I shall certainly bring the matter before the House again, and endeavour to insure that the depositors in savings banks shall have their deposits secured to them by Act of Parliament. I have also another complaint to make against the Treasury. For 26 years the Trade Unions of this country have enjoyed the privilege of depositing their funds in the Post Office Savings Bank or Trustee Savings Banks without limit as to amount. They have exercised this privilege without any detriment whatever to the public, without any inconvenience to the Treasury, and without any inconvenience to the Post Office. Now, this privilege has been suddenly withdrawn, and it is not known upon what ground. The
    1182
    Chancellor of the Exchequer, it is true, says it is a dangerous thing to have large sums belonging to Trade Societies in the savings banks, for they might be withdrawn suddenly in times of emergency, and the right hon. Gentleman also doubts whether these societies come within the definition of Friendly and Provident Societies. I have made inquiries, and find that six societies alone, in the period during which 'the privilege to which I refer has been enjoyed, have paid to their members for benefit purposes £5,758,414. These six societies in the same period have only paid £278,132 in respect of strikes. This hardly bears out the right hon. Gentleman's view that the money is likely to be withdrawn suddenly for strike purposes. The Government are not only boycotting these great benevolent institutions, they are actually backing up the attempt which has been made to take from these societies their benevolent objects, and to make them exist for strike purposes alone. I had a letter this morning from the Secretary to one of these societies, and I find that the amount of money his society has spent on disputes and strikes of all kinds has been some £70,255, whereas it, has spent something like £730,580 for benevolent objects. The most singular thing is that, only a year ago, at my instance, the Government, as a concession to these societies, agreed to transmit money from, one branch to another, or from the executive to a branch, without going through the ordinary form of making two trustees and the secretary go to the Post Office to pay in the money, and causing two trustees and the secretary to attend at the Post Office at the other end for the purpose of drawing it out again. I speak in the name of 16 societies, having branches all over the-country, which have now been boycotted, and also in the name of the London Trades Council, and I say that the question shall not continue to depend on the decision of the National Debt Commissioners. We shall insist in this House upon the passing of a measure which shall give to these societies the same privilege as is accorded to other benevolent societies. The ban of the law has been removed, and now these institutions are perfectly lawful. Why, the Government should endeavour to

    1183
    boycott the funds of these unions I am at a loss to understand. I hope that, during the recess, the Treasury will consider the whole question, and in the ensuing Session bring in a measure to give to these societies the rights and privileges that other Provident Societies enjoy, and have enjoyed, for a considerable number of years.
    MR. CHANGING: The point to which I wish to address myself relates to the work of the Foreign Office; but before I touch upon it I should like, as the hon. Member representing the Post Office in the absence of the Postmaster General is present, to support the appeal made by the hon. Member for Haggerston in favour of the consideration of the case of the postmen who, through accepting bad advice, have been guilty of insubordination. I trust the Department will look favourably upon the case of these men, who have, I believe, in almost every instance, acted admirably in other matters. We owe a great debt to the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Jennings) for having brought up the question of Supply. I wish to offer Her Majesty's Government one suggestion, which I hope they may adopt. The hon. Member made an exceedingly conciliatory and dignified defence of the course of the Government with regard to Supply, but he did not touch the kernel of the matter, and that is the arrangement of the time given to Supply. The suggestion I wish to offer is, that Supply should not only be taken consecutively, but after adequate notice. It is important that the discussion of the Estimates should be systematised, and the Government will have the warm support of many Members like myself in a free application of the Closure in Supply, if they only give adequate notice with regard to Supply beforehand, and if they insist that only those subjects shall be discussed of which adequate notice has been given. We have heard a great deal of obstruction being practised by hon. Members on this side of the House, and I think the Secretary to the Treasury was a little unjust to my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) in quoting a speech of his in Devonshire. I believe the quotation the right hon. Gentleman made from that speech had reference especially to the
    1184
    Local Taxation Bill. Let me draw attention to the time actually given to Supply by English and Welsh Members from the beginning of the Session to the end of July. I have not been able to carry my investigations further, but I think the figures which I have obtained up to that time justify me in saying that hon. Members on this side have not taken up an undue proportion of the time of the House. I find that, in the various discussions, leaving out of the calculation the Irish Estimates and the Education and Police Votes, which were specially arranged for, English and Welsh Liberal Members have delivered 175 speeches, occupying a little over 15 hours. The speeches delivered by Ministers and their supporters numbered 241, and occupied 23 hours and 48 minutes. But I chiefly rose because of the reply I received from the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to a question I put to him as to representations made by the Ecclesiastical Assembly of the Armenians to the Patriarch at Constantinople, requesting him to lay before the Sublime Porte the grievances of the Armenians in respect to their religious privileges and rights, particularly in the matter of marriage and inheritance, and the collection of money and its application to the building of schools and churches. I drew attention to the fact that the Memorial of the Armenians had been communicated to Lord Salisbury in the month of February or March last, and that, in the acknowledgment from the Foreign Office, the intimation was made that the Memorial was sent to Sir William White with the object of obtaining his opinion upon it. The reply of the right hon. Gentleman was to the effect that Her Majesty's Ambassador, to whom a copy of the Memorial was sent, had advised that no advantage would be gained by his supporting the demands of the memorialists, and that Her Majesty's Government, therefore, did not propose to take any steps in the matter. I wish to enter my protest against the action of Sir William White and Her Majesty's Ministers in this matter. The Memorial states, in the most moderate way, certain grievances of the Armenian people. It draws attention to the fact that successive Sultans have guaranteed in the most solemn way the maintenance of the special privileges of the Armenian

    1185
    clergy, especially in regard to the management of their Church affairs. Treaties, and the relations which have been maintained with regard to this matter by the Government of the Porte, constitute a moral obligation, if not a constitutional International obligation, on the part of the Administration of this country, to exercise supervision as to the protection and maintenance of these privileges for the Armenians. If the answer of the right hon. Gentleman really represents their policy in regard to the Armenians, the Government are evidently shutting their eyes to the facts. If they shut their eyes to the withdrawal of these privileges and the stamping out of Christianity, if they are going to turn a deaf ear to the prayer of such a reasonable Memorial as that laid before the Porte, at the instance of the clergy of the Armenians, they are assuming a very dangerous responsibility. Their policy will be challenged by those of strong religious feeling, who will not tolerate in any Government the betrayal of the best and mildest forms of religion in the struggle against tyranny and oppression, especially when there are Treaty obligations on the part of this country to give such protection as we can to these poor and miserable people.
    SIR J. FERGUSSON: I am sorry if my reply the other day to the hon. Member for East Northamptonshire as to the Memorial presented to the Porte led him to think that Her Majesty's Ambassador does not concern himself in the welfare of the Christian population, and specially of the Armenians, when opportunity offers for useful representation. In the last Despatch in the Blue Book presented on this subject there is one from Lord Salisbury instructing Sir W. White to use his influence whenever he sees opportunity to do so. There are matters referred to in the Memorial with regard to which I have shown Her Majesty's Ambassador has exerted himself not altogether without success; but I must remind the House that we are not alone in this matter. We are only one of the Powers which are parties to the Treaty of Berlin, and if in season and out of season we are perpetually interfering in the internal affairs of the country it will diminish, instead of increase, the influence we now possess. I gratefully acknowledge the tone and
    1186
    temper of the hon. and learned Member for Staffordshire (Mr. S. Hill), who possesses special knowledge on the subject of the Behring Sea Fisheries, and who has visited the locality in question. I am glad to think that with his knowledge of the subject the hon. and learned Member considers that the representations made by the Prime Minister to the Government of the United States have been adequate, and such as those injured have a right to expect. I hope the Despatch of Lord Salisbury to Mr. Blaine will be studied elsewhere than in this House, seeing that the time of the Session precludes its consideration here. The Papers show that Her Majesty's Government have not been slow to meet the United States on fair and conciliatory terms. As long ago as April, 1888, Lord Salisbury was willing to refer the matters in question td arbitration. With regard to the close time then proposed, from the 15th of April to the 1st of November, it was distinctly stated that it was open to discussion, and further investigation has shown that it would not be the most convenient time. At the same time, Her Majesty's Government have protested against any more captures of British vessels on the high seas on the pretence that they are on a mare clausum where the United States have exclusive jurisdiction. They have also recognised the necessity which exists for the protection of this species, which is particularly liable to extinction by unlimited and reckless fishing. The Canadian Government, who object to being altogether shut out, recognise that some restrictions ought to be imposed to prevent the extermination of the species. I hope that nothing will occur to cause anything like a collision between the two nations. Caution has been used to avoid such a collision, but it will be impossible to tolerate that more of our vessels should be seized in a manner which we cannot for a moment permit.
    MR. J. ROWLANDS: There is one matter to which. I desire to call the attention of the President of the Local Government Board. My hon. Friend the Member for Haggerston has criticised the Housing of the Working Classes Acts that have been passed this year. I do not intend to enter into the merits or demerits of the question, because I was one of those who wel-

    1187
    comed the Consolidation Act as a great step in advance. What I am particularly anxious to know is, whether the Government will be prepared next Session to bring in a Bill dealing with the question of the clearance of large areas by private individuals? At present, no Bill can pass which gives a Railway Company or a Corporation power to make clearance unless they provide dwellings for the people whom they are about to displace. But a private individual can displace any number of people without providing other dwellings for them, and I and others are anxious to know whether it is the intention of the Government to effect a change of the law in this respect? There are other matters upon which, if it were earlier, I should like to have spoken, but the importance of these I have mentioned justifies me in making at the end of the Debate these few remarks. I endorse the whole of the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green (Mr. Howell) as to the action of the Treasury in regard to Trades Union banking accounts, and unless some alteration is made in this regulation much more will be heard of the matter next Session.
    MR. MORTON: I am sorry to detain the House, and I will not do so at any length. There is a question I should like to put to the Under Secretary of State for India, a question we could not put last night, because we were restricted to the financial side of Indian questions. Why, I ask, do the Government refuse to allow the people of India to have some elected Representatives upon the Indian Councils? It is an important question we have not had the opportunity of discussing during this Session. I was amazed to hear the remarks by Lord Salisbury in relation to Canadian opinion, and it struck me as strange that he did not see the advantage of applying the principle he supported to the Irish people. If we had treated the Irish people as we treat the Canadian people, we should have no more trouble with Ireland than we have with Canada. With regard to Supply, which is almost the only matter that I, as a new Member, have hitherto concerned myself and troubled the House about, it appears to me that to the most important function of the
    1188
    House of Commons (the control of the National expenditure) we have this Session devoted very little attention. I am glad to hear that next year we are to have the support of the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Jennings) on this subject, and I hope we shall have his vote on our side as well as his speech. I noticed that on one occasion this Session the hon. Member made a long and useful speech on a Motion for a reduction of expenditure, of which he had given notice, but he did not actually move the reduction, so that we had no opportunity of backing him, nor did he take the opportunity of backing his speech by his vote. It is of little use making a speech on matters of this kind unless you take a Division. The Government laugh at this, but they do not like a Division which shows to the country the opinions of Members. I shall heartily join with the hon. Gentleman next Session in criticising Votes on Account. It is the only way to teach this, or any other, Government, that the nation's money must be expended economically as well as efficiently. Except on rare occasions there is no Party question involved in this, and we can all join in preventing extravagant Departmental expenditure, and if we change places in the House next year, as I hope we may, I shall still be glad to co-operate with the hon. Gentleman to this end. I am afraid, however, that we shall never get these matters properly considered until we have a system by which we can relegate local business to Local Legislatures of each nationality. We have been told to-day by the Secretary to the Treasury that he desires a free discussion of the Estimates, and now that the franchise is extended and people are better educated, they will insist upon more attention being given to these matters upon which they are so deeply concerned. In future, more time must be given to Supply, and this time can only be found by a devolution of local affairs, leaving this House free to deal with Imperial matters. Charges of obstruction have been freely made against us, but I do not believe there has been any such thing as obstruction. I have no doubt that those who have made those charges will, after the next General Election, regret that they have made these complaints. That which is fair criticism, looked at from the other side

    1189
    may seem to be obstruction, but I deny that the charge of obstruction can be supported this Session. Our opposition has been asked by the country, and it has been successful, for the Government have had to withdraw their Bills. The waste of time during this Session is due to the action of the Government and not of the Opposition.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE,: In reply to the hon. Member for Finsbury, I acknowledge that the question of the housing of the working classes is of great and growing importance. He complains that there is a grievance in the fact that private individuals are not, by legislation, compelled to find accommodation for those people they displace when they clear their land.
    MR. J. ROWLANDS: Or give due time.
    MR. RITCHIE: The tendency of modern legislation is whenever a public body or company comes to Parliament to take power to clear away dwellings, that the promoters shall provide accommodation for the people they displace, but the position is very different when private individuals deal with their own property. Legislation then does not control private action, though public opinion would not regard with anything like favour the peremptory action of a proprietor who might act without the slightest regard to his tenants. It is a matter of very great importance, but it would be a novel feature in legislation to deal with it in the manner desired by the hon. Member. There are difficulties in the way, but the subject shall have the attention its importance deserves. With regard to the remarks of the hon. Member for Haggerston (Mr. Cremer), on the Housing of the Working Classes Bill, I may say that during the recess I will have Circulars issued so that Local Authorities may be made thoroughly acquainted with the new duties and powers that devolve upon them, and so that the objects of the measure may be carried out.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill read a second time, and committed for tomorrow.

    EAST INDIA (REVENUE ACCOUNTS).
    Resolution reported—
    "That it appears, by the Accounts laid before this House, that the Total Revenue of India for the year ending 31st day of March, 1889, was Rx.81,696,678; that the Total Expenditure in India and in England charged to the Revenue was Rx.81,659,660; that there, was a Surplus of Revenue over Expenditure of Rx.37,018; and that the Capital Outlay on Railways and Irrigation Works was Rx.1,638,001, besides a Capital Charge of Rx. 10,336,049 involved in the Redemption of Liabilities."
    Resolution agreed to.

    DIRECTORS' LIABILITY BILL. (No. 413.)
    Lords Amendments agreed to, with Amendments.

    METROPOLIS MANAGEMENT ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 356.)
    Order read for consideration of Lords Amendments.
    MR. PICKERSGILL: The London County Council have, I understand, accepted these Amendments rather than lose the Bill, but, under other circumstances, I should have felt it my duty to take a Division upon one of the points involved. As the Bill left this House it provided that where a Vestry or District Board required a portion of a house or premises in order to effect a public improvement it should be able to purchase the part, and not be compelled, as at present, to purchase the whole of the premises. The point was fully considered by a Committee of this House—a Committee which took a large amount of evidence on the question, and was assisted by a considerable number of learned counsel, and I believe the Committee was unanimous in accepting Clause 6, which has been thrown out in another place. The London County Council, however, accept the Amendment, as it is compelled to do at this period of the Session, and, therefore, I shall not now dispute it.
    Lords Amendments agreed to, with Amendments.
    House adjourned at five minutes before Eight o'clock.