Commons Sitting of 25 February 1890

QUESTIONS.

  IRELAND—THE CORK UNION.
  DR. TANNER: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been directed to the refusal of the Vice Guardians of the Cork Union to the request of Mr. William D'Esterre Parker, who has been an elected Guardian for the past 30 years, as expressed in the following letter:—
  "Sir,—In consequence of the numerous complaints which have been made to me by the poor people in receipt of outdoor relief in the Monkstown Division whose weekly stipends have been reduced, I will thank the Vice Guardians to allow the relieving officer to let me see the application and outdoor relief book on Saturday for the purpose of ascertaining the correctness of their complaints, with the view of bringing the question under the consideration of the Vice Guardians, in the hope that, when the individual cases are fully inquired into by them, they will be good enough, at this particularly inclement season, to discontinue the reduced scale, and allow the poor what they were in the habit of getting, except in any cases where the circumstances had since altered. — Faithfully yours, W. D'Esterre Parker;"
  1150
  and why this request was refused this gentleman?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOOR,): The Vice Guardians of Cork Union did not see any reason to direct the relieving officer to produce his books for the examination proposed. To permit such a practice on the part of individuals would tend not only to an unnecessary waste of time of relieving officers, but also to an undue interference with the discharge of their duties; but the Vice Guardians informed Mr. Parker that they would carefully consider any case he might bring before them. It is the case that Mr. Parker has been a Guardian for many years.
  MR. LANE: May I ask whether, in the present extraordinary administration of the Poor Law in Cork, any facilities will be given to the ratepayers or their representatives to supervise or ascertain how outdoor relief is granted?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not believe that anything contrary to law is going on in Cork.
  MR. FLYNN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what is the amount of the expenditure per head in Cork Workhouse, including establishment charges?
  MR. A. J BALFOUR: I have no information.

  POSTAL ARRANGEMENTS IN BRADFORD.
  MR. BYRON REED: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether his attention has been called to a memorial from inhabitants of Bradford, praying for the re-opening of the postal receiving office in Market Street, Bradford, which was closed some months ago by official orders; whether he is aware that great local inconvenience has resulted from this closing of a post office in an important thoroughfare; and whether he will now be prepared to give instructions for the re-opening of the office?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES,): In reply to the hon. Member, I have to state that the postal receiving office in Market Street, Bradford, was closed after the branch office in the next street, Tyrrel Street, had been opened for postal busi-

  1151
  ness, it being considered bettor to distribute the Post Office accommodation more equally by opening another receiving office in Thornton Road, a little further from the branch office than Market Street; especially as there are already two letter boxes in this street, one at each end of the Town Hall. This has accordingly been done; and, as I informed the hon. Member by letter on the 23rd ultimo, I should prefer to wait and see how far the result is satisfactory before making a further change. But I shall be anxious, above all things, to meet the convenience of the locality.

  POLICE SUPERANNUATION.
  MR. HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been directed to the Report of the Select Committee to whom the City of London Police Bill, 1889, was referred, urging the desirability of dealing with the whole question of police superannuation throughout England, including the Metropolis; and if he now sees his way to introduce a Superannuation Bill for the Metropolitan Police, and one for the Constabulary Forces, upon the lines of the Acts obtained by Lincolnshire and the West Riding of Yorkshire, or otherwise to redeem the promises held out to the Constabulary by many of his predecessors for some 20 years, or otherwise to take action upon the recommendations of the Police Superannuation Committee which reported in 1877?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS,): Yes, Sir; I have had my attention called to the Report and the Statutes referred to in the question. The subject of police superannuation is now under the consideration of Her Majesty's Government, and I hope before long to be able to inform my hon. Friend what course the Government will take with regard to it.

  NATIONAL SCHOOLS AND POLITICAL SPEECHES.
  MR. FRANCIS STEVENSON: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he is aware that, on the 13th of February, at the National School at Aldeburgh, Suffolk, which is in receipt of a Government grant, the
  1152
  schoolmaster, who acts as secretary to the local branch of the Primrose League, distributed a number of copies of political speeches of a highly controversial character, printed under the auspices of the Woodbridge Division Conservative Association, among the boys of his own standard, and among the monitors of the other standards, for circulation, expressing at the same time the wish that the parents should read the publications in question; whether practices of that kind meet with the sanction of the Education Department; and whether any steps will be taken to prevent their recurrence?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Sir W. HART DYKE,): It would, of course, be very wrong for teachers to utilise their position in school for Party objects; but I am informed that the schoolmaster in question is not secretary of the local branch of the Primrose League, and that he handed the speeches to the boys after school hours upon his own responsibility.

  THE ALLOTMENTS ACT.
  SIR WALTER FOSTER: I beg to ask the hon. Member for Penrith (Mr. J. W. Lowther) whether application was made two years ago by the labourers of Dinder, in Somerset, to have the poor's land of that parish let as allotments under "The Allotments Extension Act, 1882"; and whether the Trustees have taken any steps to carry out the above Act; and, if not, what action the Charity Commissioners propose to take to enforce the law?
  MR. J. W. LOWTHER: The Commissioners are without information as to the application mentioned in the first paragraph. They have repeatedly urged the Trustees to give the notices required by the Act, and, in the result, notice of letting a portion of the land amounting to 11 acres was given on December 25th last, directing applications to be sent in before February 15 instant. The Commissioners are informed by the Trustees that up to that date no applications have been received.
  SIR W. FOSTER: I should like to ask whether the land belonging to the

  1153
  Trustees offered for allotments is not at a considerable distance from the village?
  MR. J. W. LOWTHER: I believe that 21 acres out of 24 are at a considerable distance from the village. The Commissioners have been pressing upon the Trustees, and will continue to press upon them, the desirability of effecting an exchange of the land.

  DISTRIBUTION OF PAMPHLETS BY RURAL POSTMEN.
  MR. COBB: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether complaints have reached him that John Henry Gregory, a rural postman, attached to the Deddington Post Office, in or since October last, at a time when he was delivering post letters, and was in uniform, distributed in North Aston prints of letters addressed to the Banbury Guardian, and signed "Lion," and "Justice," which had not come by post, nor bore any postal address, and which reflected on the conduct of Mr. William Churchill, of Deddington, and defended the conduct of Police-Constable England, with regard to a charge against Mr. Churchill, which was heard before the Deddington Bench on 27th September last; whether the distribution of such prints by a postman on duty is permitted by the Regulations of the Post Office; and whether such distribution was with, the knowledge or approval of the Postmaster of Deddington?
  MR. RAIKES: Complaints to the effect mentioned by the hon. Member have reached the Post Office. The postman Gregory gives his assurance that he was not on duty when he distributed the prints or leaflets in question; but, be that as it may, their distribution by a postman at any time, or under any circumstances, constituted a clear breach of Regulations, and he has been seriously admonished and cautioned as to his future behaviour. The distribution of the leaflets was without the knowledge or approval of the Postmaster of Deddington.

  THE BERLIN LABOUR CONFERENCE.
  MR. BROADHURST: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is now in a position to give the House any information as to what course the Government is likely to adopt with regard to the
  1154
  proposed International Conference on the condition of Labour in Foreign Countries?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON,): Her Majesty's Government have expressed their willingness to take part in a Conference proposed by the German Emperor to examine into grave questions with respect to the welfare of the working classes, the solution of which may be facilitated by international co-operation, in accordance with the principles of legislation accepted in this country.

  THE PRIMROSE LEAGUE.
  MR. BROADHURST: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he is aware that the national schools at Baston, Lincolnshire, were closed on Friday afternoon the 14th inst. to allow of preparations being made for a Primrose League entertainment in the school-room that evening; and, if so, whether it is within the right of managers of national schools to close such institutions to facilitate the holding of political meetings?
  SIR W. HART DYKE: I know nothing of the circumstances to which the hon. Member refers. Every public elementary school must be open 400 times in the course of the year in order to obtain a grant; but if that requirement is observed, there is nothing, so far as I am aware, to limit the discretion of the managers in granting an occasional holiday.

  IRELAND—RAILWAY AT ARDGLASS.
  MR. JOHNSTON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Government have received the Report of the inquiry, held on the 24th January, in Ardglass, by Mr. John G. Barton, C.E., into the desirability of constructing a Railway from Ardglass, viâ Killough, to Downpatriok, there to join the Belfast and County Down Railway; whether he is aware that last season herrings were often sold in the morning, when they could be carted to Downpatrick, as high as £1 per mease of 635, and in the evening of the same day as low as 2s. 6d. per mease, from want of facilities for their carriage, while they have even

  1155
  sometimes been left to rot on the shore, and that as much as £68,000 worth of herrings have been taken in a season at Ardglass by English, Scotch, Irish, and Manx boats; whether his attention has been called to the recommendation contained in the Report of the Royal Commission on Irish Railways, 1888, that
  "A line should be constructed from Downpatrick to the important fishing harbour of Ardglass;"
  and whether, considering the very great value of this short proposed Railway for the development of the fishing industry of Ireland, the Government will grant the assistance required for its construction?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think it would be premature for Her Majesty's Government to make any statement at present in regard to light railways.

  THE LONDONDERRY POLICE.
  MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if his attention has been called to a report in the Derry Journal of a case before the Derry Magistrates, on the 5th of last December, in which two boys were charged with throwing stones at the police, and in which one boy, named M'Daid, was sentenced to 14 days' imprisonment, and the other, named Clifford, to 14 days' imprisonment, and also to five years' confinement in a reformatory: whether the charge against Clifford was merely that he had aided and abetted M'Daid; whether the police constable who made the charges said that he saw Clifford among the other boys, but he did not see him throwing any stone; and whether, under the circumstances, he will take steps to have that part of the sentence on Clifford which relates to confinement in the reformatory remitted?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Having regard to the previous convictions of Clifford, one of which also involved detention in a reformatory in 1886, remitted subsequently on memorial, it would not appear to be for the young offender's benefit that he should now be discharged.

  LE CARON.
  MR. COBB: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Depart-
  1156
  ment whether Mr. Anderson handed to Le Caron a considerable number of documents, in addition to those which were produced before the Special Commission; whether, with regard to his answer to a question on the 15th of March last, that he knew nothing of any documents other than those which were used by Le Caron in Court, he can state whether he now knows if Mr. Anderson kept any list of the documents handed by him to Le Caron; whether all the documents, whether used in Court or not, have been returned to Mr. Anderson; and whether the Home Office will allow Mr. Anderson to have the custody in the future of these and other confidential documents?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I have given to the House from time to time all the information which I consider that I ought to give consistently with my public duty with regard to the documents in question. In obedience to what has been the tradition of this House with respect to the secret service, I must respectfully decline to answer the question of the hon. Member.
  MR. COBB: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman has any more knowledge on this subject now than he had on the 15th of March last?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I informed the House a short time ago—I forget the date—that all the documents had been returned. That is the only answer I can give to the hon. Gentleman.

  THE ROYAL YACHTS.
  MR. GOURLEY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will be good enough to inform the House of the result of the recent surveys held upon the Royal yachts Osborne and Alberta; whether it is correct that the hulls of both vessels are in a large measure unsound; and if he can state the amounts necessary to be expended upon the hulls, outfits, engines, and boilers of each vessel for the purpose of making them seaworthy?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Lord G. HAMILTON,): Some of the timber and inner planking of the Alberta amidships above the turn of bilge are decayed. The stern and some of the timber and planking at the bow, and some of the timber and planking right aft, are also more or less

  1157
  decayed. These are the principal defects. The Osborne has not been found unsound. A little of the outside woodwork at the bow is rotten. It is proposed to expend £9,000 on the Alberta, including cost of annual outfit, and about £5,000 similarly upon the Osborne.
  MR. GOURLEY: Does that include the cost of the machinery?
  LORD G. HAMILTON: Yes —the repairs.

  NORTH AMERICAN FISHERIES.
  MR. GOURLEY: I beg to ask the Under Secretary for State for Foreign Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government have recommended, or intend recommending, the Government of Canada to extend the modus vivendi of the Chamberlain Treaty of Washington relative to the North Atlantic Anglo-American fishery disputes; whether they will recommend that the modus vivendi arrangement shall continue, pending a final interpretation and adjustment of the Treaty of 1818; and, when he expects to be able to place upon the Table of the House all correspondence relative to this and the Behring Sea fisheries?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: The modus vivendi in regard to the Canadian fisheries can only be renewed by an enactment of the Parliament of the Dominion, which is now sitting, and which it is understood will consider the question during the present Session. Negotiations are proceeding in regard to the Behring Sea fisheries. Under the circumstances, no pledge can be given as to the date of the presentation of Papers.

  SCOTLAND—THE DEATH DUTIES.
  MR. CALDWELL: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is the case that, in the case of transference of property from the dead to the living, personalty in Scotland pays a Probate Duty of 3 per cent on the capital sum bequeathed, whilst Feu Duties and Ground Annuals pay only a Succession Duty of 1½ per cent on the capital sum, and that based on a life interest of the party succeeding; whether Feu Duties and Ground Annuals pay any local taxes; and whether any good reason exists for this difference of Government duty on the two classes of property?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN, St. George's. Hanover Square): Personalty in Scotland, as in the rest of the United Kingdom, pays 1½ per cent Probate Duty to Imperial Taxation, while Feu Duties and Ground Annuals also pay 1½per cent irrespective of rates of consanguinity. There is no direct charge for local rates in respect of Feu Duties and Ground Annuals; the Feu Duties and Ground Annuals being included in the valuation of the property, upon which valuation local taxes are paid. I may remind the hon. Member that I explained the reasons for the difference of the duty on real and personal property in the Budget Debates of 1888 and 1889.
  MR. CALDWELL: Is it not the fact that personalty pays to the Exchequer 3 per cent, in whatever way the amount is ultimately divided, whilst realty pays only 1½ per cent?
  MR. GOSCHEN: Yes; but I do not think the hon. Member has studied the history of the question. Only 1½per cent is paid to the Exchequer, and the other 1½ to local funds.
  MR. CALDWELL: But Feu Duties and Ground Annuals contribute nothing to local funds.
  MR. GOSCHEN: I must refer the hon. Member to other Members of the Government, who are far better versed in these matters than I am.

  ALLEGED HARSH SENTENCE—CASE OF C. J. GAY.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State of the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the fact that, on Friday, Mr. Cooke, Metropolitan Police Magistrate, sitting at Marylebone, sentenced Charles John Gay to one month's imprisonment with hard labour for stealing two oranges; whether Gay had 14 years' good character; whether it was his first offence; whether his employer declined to prosecute; and whether, in this case, any portion of the sentence can be remitted?
  MR. PICKERSGILL: I would also ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, having regard to the fact that this was Gay's first offence, and that he had 14 years' good character, he will advise that the remainder of the sentence be remitted?
  MR. MATTHEWS: My attention has been called to this case. Gay had been five weeks in the service of the employers whose goods were under his charge. He had 14 years' good character from former employers. It was his first offence. He was prosecuted by a detective in the employment of the London and North-Western Railway Company. I am informed by the learned magistrate that he was satisfied that Gay had broken open two boxes, from one of which he took oranges and from the other sweets, and that for this reason the learned magistrate thought it necessary to pass a sentence of imprisonment. Having regard to all the circumstances I have determined to recommend the remission of half the sentence.

  INDIAN SUBJECTS CLASSED AS "ALIENS" BY THE TRANSVAAL GOVERNMENT.
  MR. W. F. LAWRENCE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether it is the case, as reported in August last, the Transvaal Government has classed Her Majesty's Indian subjects as "Aliens," and forbidden them to reside within the Transvaal; and, if so, what steps Her Majesty's Government have taken to redress this grievance?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Baron H. de WORMS,): At the request of my right hon. Friend the Under Secretary for India I will answer the question. It is the case that the Government of the South African Republic decided that traders from British India should be subject to the laws and regulations of the Republic affecting Chinese, Arabs, and other Oriental aliens. These Indians have not been forbidden to reside within the South African Republic; but are at present subject to serious restrictions under a law which was passed in 1886, for the removal or mitigation of which Her Majesty's High Commissioner is now in communication with the Government of the Republic.

  TRUSTEE SAVINGS BANKS.
  MR. BARTLEY: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the Bill to improve the working
  1160
  of the Trustee Savings Banks will be introduced?
  MR. GOSCHEN: The introduction of this Bill, which I hope to introduce at an early date, has been deferred, pending the settlement of an important action which may tend to define the liabilities of Trustees.

  ADMIRALTY CONTRACTS—THE ASBESTOS COMPANY.
  MR. BURT: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether his attention has been called to the recent case of Bell's Asbestos Company v. Davis and Selfe, and to the report which appeared in the Financial News of the 21st instant of the meeting of the Company; and whether, considering that the practice of bribing subordinates in the employment of users of asbestos was defended by the Chairman of the Company, and that an amendment directed against the practice was defeated by a large majority of the shareholders present, the Admiralty will give directions that no person connected with this firm shall be admitted into Her Majesty's Dockyards, and that no more orders shall be given to the Company?
  LORD G. HAMILTON: My attention has been directed to the report of the meeting of this company, and to the defence by the chairman of the company of the practice of obtaining the goodwill of the employés of users of asbestos by the payment of moneys, the vouchers for which were excluded from the auditors' scrutiny. A practice so reprehensible and demoralising requires prompt repudiation on the part of those; dealing with the company. The Admiralty contracts with this company terminate on the 30th of June. I have directed a, letter to be written to the company informing them that after that date they will not be on the list of Admiralty contractors.

  LABOURERS' ALLOTMENTS—TWY FORD.
  CAPTAIN VERNEY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Local Government Board whether he is aware that, on the 5th January, 1889, the Buckingham Rural Sanitary Authority passed a Resolution to put into force the compulsory clauses of "The Allotments

  1161
  Act, 1887," in order to provide allotments for labourers of the Parish of Twyford; that, on the 31st of August last, this Resolution was rescinded; and that the labourers of the Parish of Twyford were by published placard, on the 10th of October last, the day before the polling day in North Bucks, answered that the required land was granted for the purpose; and whether the Twyford labourers have now got the allotments demanded under the Act of 1887; and, if not, whether there is any reasonable prospect of their obtaining them under that Act?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. LONG,): From the correspondence which has passed between the Rural Sanitary Authority of the Buckingham Union and the Board it appears that on the 5th of January, 1889, the Authority passed a Resolution to the effect that the compulsory clauses of the Allotments Act, 1887, should be put in force in order to provide allotments for labourers in the Parish of Twyford, and that on the 31st of August last, this Resolution was rescinded. I have no information as to the placard which is stated to have been published on the 10th of October last. The Board have been informed that the Sanitary Authority have been in communication with the rector of Lincoln College with a view to acquiring suitable land for the purpose of allotments. The sum asked for the land (£850, free from any tenants' compensation) is said, and certainly appears to be, a prohibitive price, and on the 21st of this month the Authority informed the Board that there is no other suitable land in the parish that would be convenient for the purpose of allotments. The Board regret this result, and that no allotments have as yet been provided. The Bill, however, which has been introduced providing for an appeal to the County Council will, if passed by the House, afford those interested an opportunity of obtaining further consideration of the matter.

  TRIVIAL OFFENCES—CASE OF THOS. BARNES.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether it has come to his notice that Thomas Barnes
  1162
  was committed by the magistrates of Cirencester, for stealing an almond cake on the 1st January, to take his trial at the Quarter Sessions which will be held some time in April, whilst the Gaol Delivery and Assizes will be held by Mr. Justice Hawkins on Monday next; and whether, as the youth in question has been already in prison for nearly two months for what is a trivial offence, if committed, and as lie cannot be indicted at the Assizes, he will consider if he might now be released, and a nolle prosequi be entered?
  MR. MATTHEWS: My attention has not been called to the case of Thomas Barnes except by the hon. Member's question. The Assizes Relief Act, 1889, enables Justices to commit to Quarter Sessions, even though Assizes intervene, prisoners whose offences are fit for trial at Quarter Sessions, but the Justices still retain discretionary power to commit prisoners for special reasons for trial at the Assizes, and it has been generally understood that Justices may regard as a special reason the fact that committal to Quarter Sessions would involve long detention in prison. I cannot adopt the course suggested by the hon. Member, but I will communicate with the committing Justices, with a view to the prisoner being let out on bail, should the circumstances prove to be as stated.

  THE WHEEL AND VAN TAX.
  MR. BRYN ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the County Councils have replied to his circular inquiring their views as to the Wheel and Van Tax; whether the large majority of the Councils that have replied have declared in favour of the tax; and whether he has discovered a substitute for the tax; and, if not, will he re-introduce the measure?
  MR. GOSCHEN: The hon. Member's question has revived the memory of a most equitable and much reviled tax. I have issued no circular to the County Councils. I have received a large number of memorials certainly expressing strong views in favour of the tax, but those memorials generally deal only with the Van and Wheel Tax, and do not deal with the larger question, namely, as to the licensing in regard to pleasure

  1163
  horses. On that point I have received no memorials. The hon. Gentleman asks whether I have discovered a substitute for the tax, and, if not, whether I will re-introduce the measure. I would remind him that the relations between the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the ratepayers have now been closed, that it is for my right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board to discover local taxes, and that he will be the hero or the victim of the next tax which is proposed.

  PERJURY IN ENGLISH COUNTY COURTS.
  MR. BRYN ROBERTS (Carnarvonshire,): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his honour Judge Chalmers, in his reply affirming the prevalence of perjury in English County Courts, suggested any remedies; and, if so, will he state to the House the purport of such suggestion?
  MR. MATTHEWS: Judge Chalmers expressed his opinion that it was difficult to know what remedy to suggest. He did, however, suggest that some good might be done if a small and summary punishment were provided for County Court perjury.

  SUPPLY OF COAL TO BARRACKS.
  SIR ALBERT ROLLIT: I beg to ask the Secretary to the War Office if he is aware that a clause proposed to be added to the conditions of contract for the supply of coals to various barracks does not give any relief to the contractor in the event of a strike entirely beyond his control; and has the omission of such a strike clause received his sanction?
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK,): By a circular issued on the 19th inst. a clause was added to all coal contracts to the effect that if the contractor were precluded from completing his contract by combination of workmen or strikes, the circumstances of each case would be specially considered by the Secretary of State for War.

  IMPORTATION OF FROZEN MEAT.
  MR. BROOKFIELD: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether it is the case that "The
  1164
  Merchandise Marks Act, 1887," does not in, any way affect the importation into this country of frozen meat, which may afterwards be passed off as being of home production; and whether Her Majesty's Government is disposed to consent to an inquiry into the question of how far the main principle and operation of "The Merchandise Marks Act, 1887," may be usefully amplified or extended?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,): As I stated on a former occasion, I am not in a position to give an authoritative opinion upon the construction of an Act of Parliament, but it appears to me that if a butcher knowingly sold imported frozen meat as English meat he might make himself liable to a prosecution under the Merchandise Marks Act, and probably would under Section 6 of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1875. I am not prepared to acquiesce in an inquiry of wider scope than is contemplated by the Motion in reference to the Merchandise Marks Act, of which notice has been given by the hon. Member for Central Sheffield.

  TREASURY CLERKS.
  MR. JOHN KELLY: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, with a view to obviating the anomalies likely to be created by the conversion, after the method indicated in the Treasury Minute of February 4th, 1890, of the triennial increments of the clerks of the lower division into annual increments, he would be prepared to adopt one by which such clerk would, on April 1st, 1890, be credited with so much (omitting any fraction of a pound sterling) as might then have accrued due to him, and be allowed on such date to draw his first annual increment of £7 10s., or £10, as the case might be?
  MR. GOSCHEN: It is almost impossible to avoid some anomalies in applying new rules to existing establishments. We have admitted the existing lower division clerks without any conditions to the benefits of the new scale. Under the Minute every lower division clerk in the year ending 31st March next will have had his triennial increment converted into an annual increment, with immediate benefit, and I do not think that any further

  1165
  change of the announced arrangements is necessary.

  WRITERS' SATURDAY HALF-HOLIDAY.
  MR. TCITE: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether, in reference to the favourable reply given by him on the 26th of last August, with regard to the Writers' Saturday half-holiday, it was his intention that such alternate Saturday half-holiday should commence from the date of his reply?
  THE SECRETARY TO IHE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON,): No, Sir; the alternate Saturday half-holiday to copyists was not intended to be given until provision should have been made by order in Council for the grant of the same privilege to clerks of the second division.

  IRELAND—CASE OF MR. JOHN M'ENERY.
  MR. O'KEEFFE: I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether his attention has been called to the sentence of one month's imprisonment passed yesterday on Mr. John M'Enery, editor of the Limerick Leader, by Messrs. Hoddes and Robertson, in default of giving bail to be of good behaviour for 12 months, for publishing without comment proceedings of a meeting of a branch of the Local National League on the 3rd of February; whether the magistrates are correctly reported to have refused to state a case for superior Courts on this conviction; and if, having regard to sentences in similar cases being under review by superior Courts, he will take steps not to permit said sentence to take effect?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN,): The magistrates did refuse to state a case for a superior Court of Law in the matter referred to in the Question. They so refused on the ground that the question of law submitted to them had been already decided by the Exchequer Division in the case of another prosecution. I have no power to take the steps suggested in the third paragraph of the Question, but I may point out that, whenever magistrates act erroneously in refusing to state a case, their error can be corrected on an application to the Court of Queen's Bench,
  1166
  under the provisions of 20 and 21 Vic, c. 43.
  MR. FLYNN: Has this prosecution been brought under the Criminal Law Procedure Act, or under the Statute of Edward III.?
  MR. MADDEN: The sentence appears to have been given under the Statute of Edward III. I believe the charge was under the Criminal Law Procedure Act.
  MR. O'KEEFFE: The charge was that the defendant had published without comment the report of a meeting of a branch of a Local National League. Does not the decision of the magistrates amount to a breach of the decision of the County Court Judge at Waterford?
  MR. MADDEN: The question of the correctness of the decision of the County Court Judge at Waterford is now sub judice, and pending the ultimate decision of the superior Court I can give no opinion on the subject.
  In reply to Mr. CLANCY (Dublin County, N.),
  MR. MADDENsaid: The Court of Queen's Bench has jurisdiction in the matter, and beyond that I can say nothing.
  MR, CLANCY: Upon a former occasion when the Court of Queen's Bench was appealed to, the appeal was not opposed. Will the Government agree not to oppose an appeal in this case?
  [No answer was given.]

  THE CORK TELEGRAPH OFFICE.
  MR. LANE: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether the recent appointments to vacancies in the Cork telegraph offices have been made in accordance with Rule No 6, which vests the nomination in the Local Postmaster; and, if not, why were the nominations taken out of the hands of the Cork Postmaster; and will the course prescribed by the above rule be adhered to in connection with the two appointments now vacant in the Cork office?
  MR. RAIKES: It is the practice to let the local Postmaster nominate to junior appointments in his own office, but such practice is, of course, subject to the pleasure of the Postmaster General, who himself nominates when he thinks such a course con-

  1167
  ducive to the public interest. The five male telegraphists who during the last four years have been transferred to Cork from other offices have been so transferred for the following reasons:—One for the sake of economy, in order that the situation he relinquished at Youghal might be abolished; two for purposes of discipline, that they might be under more efficient control; one on medical grounds, having suffered from illness at Limerick, where he was previously employed, and the fifth was transferred in order that he might be with his parents, who reside at Cork. Whether to the two appointments now vacant at Cork it will be left to the Postmaster to nominate or not I have not yet decided.

  EGYPTIAN ANTIQUITIES.
  MR. HOWORTH: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is true, as reported in the Academy of the 8th of February, in a letter signed by Lieutenant-Colonel Rose, Inspector-General of Irrigation in Egypt, that some person unknown has this winter been systematically mutilating the tombs of Beni Hassan, in Egypt; that 25 Royal names have been erased, and the heads of the principal figures abstracted; and, if these facts prove to be true, whether Her Majesty's Government will make representations to the Government of His Highness the Khedive, so that immediate steps may be taken to ensure the safety of antiquities whose interest and scientific value is unique?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: No such information has been received by Her Majesty's Government, but inquiry will be made of Sir E. Baring.

  ONE POUND NOTES.
  MR. MORTON: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Government intend to bring in a Bill this Session giving the Bank of England or other banks the privilege of issuing £1 bank notes; and whether he can state the conditions on which they will be issued?
  MR. GOSCHEN: I have not heard of any Government Bill dealing with the subject-matter of this question being on the stocks. But the hon. Member must be aware that in no case are either Minis-
  1168
  ters or private Members in the habit of sketching out to the House the features of any Bills which they may contemplate.

  THE EIGHT HOURS QUESTION.
  MR. CUNINGHAME GRAHAM: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he contemplates giving further facilities for the discussion of the Eight Hours Question; and, if so, when?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH,): I freely recognise the importance of the subject, and I am anxious that it should be fully discussed; but I observe that the hon. Member has a Motion relating to this subject down on the Paper for March 18th, and that a Bill is also down for March 26th. Under those circumstances I am unable to give any pledge on a subject so far in advance.
  MR. C. GRAHAM: Can the right hon. Gentleman hold out any hope of a day being given for the discussion of the Eight Hours Bill?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: It is obviously impossible at this moment to give any undertaking of the kind.

  THE TRANSVAAL.
  MR. EDWARD HARDCASTLE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Suzerainty of the Transvaal was retained by the British Crown when the troops were withdrawn from that country; what is the nature and value of that Suzerainty; and whether under it British subjects, who are said already to outnumber the Boers, are entitled to the franchise?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: The Convention of London, made in 1884 between Her Majesty and the South African Republic, contains no express reservation of the Queen's right of Suzerainty, and, although Her Majesty retains under the Convention the power of refusing to sanction treaties made by the South African Republic with Foreign States and nations and with certain native tribes, it is a cardinal principle of that settlement that the internal government and legislation of the South African Republic shall not he interfered with. No persons, whether British subjects or otherwise, can at present obtain the franchise within the

  1169
  South African Republic unless they make a declaration of allegiance to it, which involves, to a considerable extent, the renunciation within the Republic of their national rights and obligations as subjects of the Queen.

  THE SUPERANNUATION BILL.
  MR. DIXON-HARTLAND: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury what are the intentions of the Government regarding the Superannuation Bill which was withdrawn last Session; and whether it is proposed to re-introduce it during the present Session?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: Yes; it is the intention of the Government to introduce a Superannuation Bill, as the recommendations of the Royal Commission make it our duty to proceed with the subject, difficult and complicated as it is.

  IRELAND—BOYCOTTING RETURNS.
  MR. J. MORLEY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is now able to place on the Table particulars with reference to the boycotting cases mentioned in his speech of last Tuesday?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I understood that all that was desired was some means of identifying the cases. The Government have always resisted returns giving the names of cases of boycotting, for the obvious reason that it might endanger life. But as the cases to which I referred have already been made public, either in newspaper controversy or before Courts of Law, I have no objection to giving the names, with the dates and places. I presume that that will be adequate.
  MR. J. MORLEY: And the circumstances?
  Mr. A. J. BALFOUR: I think that such a return as I have mentioned is already rather unusual, and I do not think I can undertake to add a narrative of the circumstances, which, however, are already well known.
  MR. J. MORLEY: The right hon. Gentleman has made use of the circumstances as arguments, and I wish to test those arguments, which I cannot do unless the circumstances are placed before me.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I will undertake to give a sufficient statement of the
  1170
  circumstances to enable the right hon. Gentleman to identify the cases.
  MR. CLANCY: With reference to the reason given by the Chief Secretary for Ireland for not giving the names, may I ask how can there possibly lie boycotting without its being known?
  [No answer was given.]

  PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE.
  Ordered, That the Report of the Select Committee on Estimates Procedure (Grants of Supply), of Session 1888, be referred to the Committee of Public Accounts. —(Mr. Jackson.)
MOTIONS.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE-COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY.
  (4.10.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That the Committee of Supply have precedence this day of Notices of Motion; that so much of Standing Order 11 as requires that the Question shall be proposed, 'That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair' be suspended next Friday; and that the provisions of Standing Order 56 be extended to this day and Friday next."—(Mr. William Henry Smith.)
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman upon the early zeal he has shown in taking private Members' days, and still more on the astuteness with which he has arranged business in this House in order to suit the exigencies of his position. For my own part I fully admit that the difficulties of the right hon. Gentleman's position are, to some extent, his excuse for the action he has taken. The right hon. Gentleman is at the head of a majority of this House, but of an exceedingly composite majority, with no constructive cohesion, the only desire being to keep out the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. Gladstone), and to prevent Home Rule from taking place in Ireland. ["Hear, hear!" from the Ministerial Benches.]Hon. Gentlemen opposite, I see, agree with me in that. Perhaps they will go further, and agree with me that it is wise for the First Lord of the Treasury to limit the action of the House to discussing Government Bills, the details of which have been carefully arranged between the different

  1171
  sections that support the right hon. Gentleman. I can see why the right hon. Gentleman objects to Private Members' days; there are so many rocks ahead for the vessel which the right hon. Gentleman navigates. The hon. Member for the Blackfriars Division of Glasgow (Mr. Provand) has a Motion on the Paper with reference to the obnoxious taxes on tea, coffee, and currants, which would have put the Liberal Unionists in a difficulty as to how they were to vote, and they naturally looked to the right hon. Gentleman as the pilot to get them clear of that difficulty. It cannot be said that the debate on the Address has been long. It has only occupied seven days, for I exclude the two Wednesdays, the first of which was occupied by the Gentlemen in uniform who usually perform on such occasions, and the second only began at two o'clock, owing to right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite desiring to spend their morning in prayer. It is said that the Motions brought forward on the Address justify the Government in proposing to take away private Members' days. That is mistaking the cause for the effect; it is because hon. Members have had experience and know that their days will be taken away, that those Motions are brought forward on the Address. No sooner did the right hon. Gentleman hear that the House was willing to close the debate on the Address on Monday than he put down a wishy-washy Motion on the Report of the Special Commission for the following Monday. Next day the right hon. Gentleman said he must have a little money, and a day afterwards he said he must have Tuesday to get his money, and so the trick was done. Why the right hon. Gentleman should have added Friday it is impossible to say. Friday has always been sacred to private Members, even at the end of the Session, by means of morning sittings. I am sorry to say it appears to me that, to the right hon. Gentleman, there is nothing sacred. I know what the reply will be. The right hon. Gentleman will get up and say that he owes a duty to his God, his Queen and his country, and that notice has been given in the Queen's Speech of very valuable Bills with which it is desirable to proceed. But what are those Bills? There are only two of any importance—one to get hold of a certain
  1172
  amount of money for the Irish landlords' and the other to facilitate the clergy in their marauding efforts to get hold of the tithes. After what happened last year about the Tithes Bill the right hon. Gentleman has no right to expect aid from the Opposition in passing that sort of predatory Bill, or in enabling the Liberal Unionists to avoid the embarrassment of voting against Liberal Motions. I hope I shall get the support of hon. Members below the Gangway opposite in the Division which I intend to take on the Motion.
  MR. PICTON: If the right hon. Gentleman is to conduct the business of the House in this manner I imagine that private Members will cease to be of any use, and all he will have to do will be to introduce a system of proxies, such as formerly prevailed in another place, but has now been abandoned, and allow us to go about our business. The right hon. Gentleman, when my hon. Friend below me (Mr. Labouchere) alluded to the brevity of the debate on the Address, smilingly shook his head with as near an approach to satire as was possible. Let me remind the right hon. Gentleman that of late years the debates on the Address have been necessarily very long. In 1887 the debate lasted 16 days—17 if the day occupied in considering the Report is included—and in 1888 11 days, and last year about the same time. I can find no precedent for a Minister, immediately after the Address has been voted, proposing to take away private Members' days. The fact is that the old practice of the House of Commons is being destroyed, and it is becoming an assembly of mere ciphers waiting on the dictation of the head of the Government. No serious debate takes place in this House, and the discussion of public affairs is transferred to the newspapers and the constituencies.
  MR. J. LOWTHER: There are many hon. Members on this side of the House who would like to hear some good reason from the Government for the course they now propose to take, and who are inclined to protest against the principle of taking away the time belonging to private Members for the purpose of voting Supply. I would also say that it has been the practice of the House in times past willingly to afford

  1173
  facilities to Her Majesty's Government when the necessities of Supply were pressing, or when any real emergency arose. Is there emergency now? No doubt the debate on the Address has not been unduly curtailed, to say the least of it, and we must also bear in mind that the Government have placed a considerable portion of their time next week at the disposal of the House. I recognise the situation, but I wish to elicit from the First Lord of the Treasury that this practice of taking the days of private Members is not going to be made a precedent. I also want to have an assurance that the application made by the Government to the House is founded upon bonâ fide public requirements, and that the time to be taken from private Members is to be devoted to the specific object of considering urgent Votes in Supply.
  THE FIRST LORD OF IHE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH,): I trust that hon. Members will feel it their duty to accept the Motion I have already submitted to the House. The only precedent which I could ask the House to lay down is a precedent declaring that the necessities of the public service must be provided for. It has been the practice in the last two or three years to discuss Supply at great length. In those years every Government day might have been devoted to the consideration of Supply, to the exclusion of other business. The hon. Member for Leicester says that the old practice of the House of Commons is being destroyed. I agree with the hon. Member. Hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House are destroying that practice, which was to vote the Address in one night, or in two nights at the most. This year the debate on the Address has occupied a fortnight, and we have arrived at the 25th of February, a date when it is usual for the Government to proceed with Supply. We can not expect the debate on the Report of the Special Commission to occupy less than the whole Government time next week, and in these circumstances it becomes imperative to devote this evening and Friday next to Supply. Friday, however, might be preserved to private Members if the House will grant previously all the Supply for which it is necessary to ask. The hon. Member for
  1174
  Northampton has given me credit for great astuteness. I do not claim to be astute; all I claim is this, that I pay regard to the business of the House and seek to render its transaction possible. If the consideration of that business excludes the consideration of Motions and Bills in which hon. Members are interested, I regret the fact, but I contend that the Government are not responsible. We are anxious that private Members should enjoy the opportunities which the rules of the House intended them to have, and if hon. Members would only revert to the ancient practices and customs which enabled them to enjoy those opportunities nobody would be more delighted than myself and my Colleagues. I am most anxious to revert to the Parliamentary practices which prevailed before the introduction of that extreme heat which now is manifested in political affairs. If we can but resume those practices the political interests of the country will be greatly advanced and also the interests of the different political parties in this House. I may point out, before sitting down, that the first notice of Motion on the Paper relates to a subject which can be discussed exhaustively on the Budget.
  SIR W. HARCOURT,: I was very glad to hear the right hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet maintain a doctrine which I have held ever since I have sat in this House. The right hon. Gentleman has not taken the best means to avoid heat in this discussion by casting an explosive bomb across the House and accusing the Opposition of being the cause of all the evils of which he complains. It is quite true that the practice of the House has very much changed, and that protracted debates on the Address are of comparatively recent date. The practice, as far as I know, began in the years between 1880 and 1885. There was a debate in one of those years which lasted 11 days, and the questions discussed, such as the affairs of Egypt, were raised by Gentlemen who then sat on the front Opposition Bench. I do not, however, want to indulge in recriminations. In this matter the right hon. Gentleman must take the responsibility of having introduced this topic to-night, but, comparatively speaking, in former years such occasions were very rare, although it has now become

  1175
  almost a regular practice to debate the Address at very great length. Why? Because Members of this House know that if important questions are not debated on the Address, opportunities for discussing them will never be obtained. Let this be understood when charges of obstruction are brought. In old days the Government were content with the time appropriated to them by the Standing Orders of the House. In the present Parliament, the Government has thought it right, for one reason or another, to appropriate almost the whole time of the House from the very beginning of the Session. The result is that no question of general public interest can be discussed in the House, unless it is discussed on the Address. The consequence of this state of things is extremely injurious to the House of Commons, for, excepting the topics which the Government choose to select for consideration, all the discussion of matters in which the country is interested takes place outside the House instead of inside. This is a very serious evil. I think it is reasonable to expect, from what has happened during the last three years, that the Government will soon ask for all the time of the House. There is, therefore, no opportunity except upon the Address or upon Motions for Adjournment—which is also a new practice and an undesirable practice if it can be avoided—of bringing these matters under the consideration of the House. The time of private Members has, to a large extent, been taken away in recent years. It is urged that the Government have made a present of next week to the House. But the subject for next week is really Government business of the first importance. The Attorney General and the latest Member of the Cabinet have taken pains outside the House to explain that the Report is Government business. It is a Government Report and a Government Motion, and it is for the Government that this debate is to be held. The Attorney General posted off to Oxford, and he has been followed up by the new Minister of Agriculture, who backed him up in the ceremony. What are the next items of the bill of fare? We are to have the plan of Irish land purchase, on which from the nature of the case there will be a protracted discussion, and then there is
  1176
  the Tithe Bill. These are to exclude all other topics which Members of the House and people outside may desire to have discussed in Parliament. I do not believe it is for the advantage of the country that we should discuss nothing-but the Commission Report, land purchase in Ireland, and tithes; and these constitute the programme of the Government. There are a great many other questions which ought to be discussed. But I venture to say, from what I have seen in recent years, that these subjects will use up the whole time of the House, and all other topics which interest the country will be excluded. I thought it necessary to make these observations because the new methods of raising discussions to which I have referred have been rendered necessary by the new claims of the Government. Take this question of the tea duties. The right hon. Gentleman opposite asks why my hon. Friend did not wait for the Budget. But everybody knows, who is acquainted with the practice of Parliament, that it is idle to wait for the Budget, because when once it is introduced, and the Government are pledged to their proposals, no discussion or Motion has any chance of success. The only way in which influence can be brought on the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or a reform of this character can be promoted, is by a debate before the Budget is-introduced. I agree with the right hon. Member for Thanet that the House ought to listen to Government claims of a financial character, to enable them to meet their statutory obligations; and Parliament has always given time, and always will give time, to the Government in order that they may discharge these requirements. But the right hon. Gentleman has no such case as that today. The right hon. Gentleman has said that discussions on Supply would probably be extremely protracted, and that he will therefore have to take the time of private Members. But it is not the time of private Members. It is the time for discussing public topics other than those introduced by the Government. I confess I have not heard any answer from the right hon. Gentleman to the appeal of the Member for Thanet in justification of so extraordinary a demand at so early a period of the Session. No urgent necessity has been

  1177
  shown and no such case has been made out as is ordinarily made when a demand is preferred by a Government for taking from members the time assigned for the discussion of matters of public importance.
  Question put.
  (4.50.) The House divided:—Ayes 229; Noes 131.—(Div. List, No. 10.)

  CHURCH BUILDING ACTS (COMPULSORY POWERS REPEAL) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Francis Powell, Bill to repeal the provisions of the Church Building Acts relating to the Compulsory Purchase of Sites for Churches and Burial Grounds, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Francis Powell, Mr. Talbot, Mr. Tomlinson, and Mr. Addison. Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 164.]

  BUILDINGS (SANITARY REGISTRATION) BILL.
  On Motion of Dr. Farquharson, Bill for the Sanitary Registration of Buildings, ordered to be brought in by Dr. Farquharson, Lord Henry Bruce, Sir Henry Roscoe, Sir Guyer Hunter, and Dr. Cameron.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 165.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  SUPPLY—SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES.

    CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, 1889–90.
    Considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)

    CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, 1889–90.

      CLASS I.
      1. Motion made, and Question proposed,
      "That a supplementary sum, not exceeding £6,800, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1890, for the Buildings of the Houses of Parliament."
      MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK: In accordance with the notice I have placed on the Paper I beg to move the reduction of this Vote by the sum of £2,000, and my object in doing so is to elicit some explanation from my right hon. Friend the First Commissioner of Works, as to the alterations which have been carried out in connection with Westminster Hall. In order to inform myself on the subject I took the trouble to go to my right hon. Friend's office to ascertain whether
      1178
      or no the Committee which sat and reported on Westminster had agreed on the sum of money to be spent; but I was not able to obtain the information I sought from the officials. I would ask my right hon. Friend to explain this expenditure. I have inspected the part of the Hall which I believe to be the subject of the outlay, and I must say I have not been very much impressed that any favourable result is likely to be arrived at. At the present moment there are no means whatever of ascertaining what are the intentions of the Board of Works. The area which has been dug out—unfortunately, as I think—below Westminster Hall is now occupied by a large number of workmen, and there is no indication as to the design of the work to be done. Moreover, the Report of the Committee, that very mysterious document, referred to so often last Session, contains, so far as I am able to see, no plans whatever of the intended works. I was shown in the office of my right hon. Friend two pictures in the Appendix of the Report, but I am not able to find out whether they represent the work for which we are asked to pay this £2,000. I do not think it satisfactory that we should be asked to vote this not inconsiderable sum of money without having before us a statement of what is intended to be done, and particularly after the lesson we have learnt from the other map with regard to the unfortunate griffins and staircase, as to which, I say again, the House was taken by surprise. I am anxious that in the present case we should know what, we are going f o obtain for this money, so that there should be no groping or leaping in the dark. In note "A" giving details of this sum we are informed that it is the money required for "increased accommodation at the disposal of Members and the necessary buildings and furniture." Well, I have examined the larger room, which is called "the Conference Room," and I find there a most extraordinary feature called "the chimney piece," and I should like to ask my right hon. Friend how that chimney piece came there, whether it was the creation of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) and how much it cost? Of course I cannot expect my right hon. Friend to answer that now, but perhaps he will take a note of my query, and let us know on some future occasion.

      1179
      how that singular piece of furniture came to the position it occupies. With regard to another matter, after the discussions which took place last year in both Houses of Parliament as to the alterations in Westminster Hall, I wrote a letter to my right hon. Friend asking him whether he would not at the eleventh hour remove the bastion or parapet which so much disfigures the southern end of Westminster Hall. My right hon. Friend was at that time absent from England and was not able to comply, and the answer I got was not of a very definite character. But I really must appeal to the right hon. Gentleman once more to take this matter into his consideration, and see whether he cannot remove this imitation of Spurgeon's pulpit and the other staircase, or, at all events, take some steps to render the southern end of the Hall symmetrical. When I was a boy at school at Westminster the place this bastion now occupies was an open doorway from which we used to pass out from Westminster Hall into Palace Yard, and there is no authority whatever for the door being placed half way up the wall. I am informed that the door is never used, that it neither opens nor shuts, and that nobody ever goes through it. If that be the case, why does not the right hon. Gentleman really take the matter into his own hands, and have this hideous, unsuitable bastion removed, and an iron gate put in its place as companion to that at the entrance which loads to the House of Commons, so that if any one did wish to go up there they could go in by the gate? I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not be led in a wrong direction by these so-called architects, but will endeavour to do something to restore one of the most beautiful fabrics in the world to its original condition.
      Motion made, and Question proposed, "That item B, £2,000, for the restoration of Westminster Hall, be omitted from the proposed Vote.—(Mr. Cavendish Bentinck).
      MR. MARJORIBANKS: I rise to support the Motion of my right hon. Friend opposite. I do so because I feel sure that the opportunity should be availed of by everybody in this House who has any respect for the
      1180
      ordinary canons of good taste and utility of protesting against the way in which this restoration of Westminster Hall has been carried out. The interior of the Hall itself has been disfigured by the erection of that monstrous rostrum which is guarded by those still more monstrous heraldic beasts. That disfigurement has been alluded to on former occasions, and I will not allude to it now further than to say that I consider it a very great disfigurement, and that I have not seen anybody, whose taste is worthy of being called taste, who does not think the same. But there is another thing I wish to refer to, and that is the extraordinary pit which has been provided outside the House at the end of Westminster Hall for the reception of Members' carriages. This pit reminds one of what one has been accustomed to see in children's picture books, illustrative of the receptacle for lions in which Daniel was cast. It is a kind of descensus Averni, a decline down which no carriage could be driven with anything like safety, and inside the shed I would defy any one to turn a carriage round. The shed may be useful for any hon. Members who come to the House on bicycles or tricycles, or in wheelbarrows, but to say that it is of any use for receiving Members' carriages is a false representation of the case. In order to get a carriage in it would be necessary to back it down the declivity. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will take steps to have the pillars inside the cloister removed, if the place is to remain a receptacle for carriages, and that he will have something like an accessible means of entrance provided. The old wooden shed was not beautiful but it was useful, whereas the present shed is neither beautiful nor useful.
      MR. MORTON: I wish to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether this money has not been practically spent, and if so, whether there is any good in our discussing the question how the work has been carried out? I would also ask whether or not these works are put out to public tender?
      SIR G. CAMPBELL: I suppose we shall have to pay this money, but, at all events, I am glad it is not going to be done without a protest. I am not without hope that the

      1181
      discussion which took place last year has had some little effect on the Chief Commissioner, and that public opinion has induced him to draw back a little from what he at first intended. I am glad to find that no more beasts have been put into Westminster Hall, and that £1,000 has been saved on those in the Hall, which sum it is proposed to spend outside. These beasts have been called "monstrous," but a friend of mine says he would not call them "monstrous," as they will be useful designs for illustrations for "Alice in Wonderland," and books of that kind. As to the whole of the restoration of Westminster Hall, the more we see of it the less we like it. The rooms that have been provided are miserable rooms. In the course of my peregrinations through the new building, the other day, I found the place deserted, except by "the Last Man." The only decent room there is is the one called the Grand Committee room, and as it is over the receptacle for horses. I should think the people using it will have to complain of a very unpleasant smell. Architecturally, the projecting room is the most miserable excrescence, and disfigures these great buildings as much as it is possible to disfigure them beyond the natural state of dirt and dilapidation into which they have lapsed. I have perfect confidence that some day or other, when our eyes are open, and we are in our right minds, we shall discover that a very shocking mistake was committed when the Law Courts were removed from Westminster in not reserving the space so secured for the Parliamentary buildings which will be required when we come to that system of devolution—by means of Grand Committees and otherwise—to which we may ultimately attain. I am confident that if we spend a few thousand pounds in railing in that space, the time will come when we shall be ready to pull down the jimcracks we have just erected, for the purpose of putting up useful buildings in their place. Westminster Hall could never be made a beautiful building externally. I am convinced that in Scotland there are 50 United Presbyterian Churches which are more creditable from an architectural point of view.
      THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. PLUNKET,): I am grateful to the hon. Member for the qualified support I have on this occasion received from him. He has drawn from one of his peregrinations through the new buildings rather a sad picture of the condition of the rooms on the other side of Westminster Hall. He says he found them deserted. I can imagine the scene almost as it might have been described in Campbell's "Last Man." It must, indeed, have been a spectacle of desolation when the hon. Member stood there after the last clerk had departed, "as if the skeletons of nations were around that lonely man." The effect on his spirits was depressing, I am sure. But if the hon. Gentleman had visited the buildings at the time of day when the clerks by whom they are used are there at work, he would, I think, agree with me not only that the rooms are comfortable, but that their occupants think them pleasant rooms to look at and to live in. The large room the hon. Member has referred to is an extremely handsome one, the only drawback to its usefulness as a Committee room being its distance from this House. I do not know whether that disadvantage can be overcome. As to the observations the hon. Member has made in regard to the "unsightly heraldic animals," I would remind him that the Vote we are discussing has nothing whatever to do with them. Then with regard to the shed that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Berwickshire complains of, the shed was not intended to be a receptacle for carriages, but a stand for horses. If carriages were allowed in there it would be inconvenient. No doubt the shed is only to be approached by a precipitous descent, but that is not the fault of the Office of Works. It is the fault of the course of time and the progress of ages, which have raised a considerable hill just outside the entrance to Westminster Hall. If I could put back the finger of the dial so far as to get rid of that small mountain of course the difficulty would disappear, but I am not able to do that, and I cannot see how it is possible to avoid a rather precipitous descent, looking at the nature of the ground. As to the alterations outside Westminster Hall, I would point out to the right hon. Gentleman who moves the reduction of the Vote, that the designs for the building

      1183
      and its whole cost were contemplated by the Committee that adopted the scheme. If the right hon. Gentleman will look at the plan he will see we have carried it out most faithfully. Then it is asked what we are going to do with the remainder of the space. We propose to carry the wall which, at present ascends from the entrance to the horse stand to the gates of Palace Yard at a height of between four and five feet all along to the porch of St. Stephen's Hall. There will then be a good view obtained of the Palace of Westminster on that side, and the wall will be sufficiently high to prevent any accident. Inside the wall it is proposed to lay out the ground as a garden with walks through it. I venture to say again that the new buildings have not only added very considerably to the convenience of Members and officers of the House, by finding additional room for them, but has added very considerably to the beauty of the Palace.
      MR. J. ROWLANDS: The original estimate amounted to £7,854, and now we are asked for £2,000. That is an increase of the Vote by more than 25 per cent. I know the weakness in all these Estimates is that we are committed to them at a given sum, though somehow or other they have a great tendency to increase. But the increases seldom amount to more than 25 per cent. Can the right hon. Gentleman give us some reason why this Estimate has been so largely exceeded? What extra work has been undertaken to necessitate the increased expenditure? I find that the cost of fencing, levelling, and laying out the ground on the western side of Westminster is estimated at £6,000. That seems to me a large sum for the purpose. I should also like to know whether we are at the end of the expenditure in Westminster Hall, or whether, after we have voted this money, we shall be asked in the ordinary Estimates for another amount. Architecturally I think the new buildings are most unsightly.
      MR. PLUNKET: The difficulty in which the hon. Gentleman finds himself is easily explained. This is really not an addition to the sum of £7,854. The £2,000 is asked for additional works. In order to complete the works as far as possible by the meeting of Parliament we had to hurry them on, and I pressed the
      1184
      Treasury to allow me to take this course, because I thought it would be for the convenience of Members. We do not expect that it will be necessary to ask for anything else beyond that which appears on the Estimate, and the sum of £3,000 which is referred to in the foot-note.
      MR. DE LISLE: I should like to know whether this Estimate includes the restoration of the timbers on the eastern slope of the roof of Westminster Hall. Last year the timbers on the western slope of the roof were restored, but those on the eastern slope do not appear to have been touched. The dormer windows are still blocked, presenting a most unsightly appearance, both inside and outside the building. Although the restoration is not quite as we all desired, I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman upon the work, and hope he will complete it by the necessary work in the roof.
      MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK: Before the right hon. Gentleman replies I should like to press him for an answer on the point I raised with regard to the bastions at the eastern end of the Hall. After I raised the question on a previous occasion, the right hon. Gentleman wrote me a letter in regard to it, and I should now like to know whether he has come to any positive decision about it, whether he has conferred with the architect or any other architect in regard to it, and whether he thinks it is a desirable thing that an ancient monument should be pulled about in this way without any reason?
      MR. MORTON: Perhaps the First Commissioner of Works will also reply to the question I raised just now.
      MR. PLUNKET: I apologise to the hon. Member for not having answered his question before. The answer to his question is that all the work of this kind done under the Office of Works is done by contract, which is put up for competition.
      MR. MORTON: My question was whether the money had been actually spent.
      MR. PLUNKET: Yes. This money has been, or is being, or will be spent before the end of the financial year. In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Leicestershire I have to say that the Western slope of the roof of the Hall

      1185
      has been completely restored. The work required on the eastern side has not been lost sight of, hut at any rate it is not a very expensive business. The point raised by my right hon. Friend (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) has nothing to do with the Vote we are now discussing. But I may say that I have asked the opinion of many others on the point, and they are not in favour of the change. I shall, of course, do my best to secure the approval of my right hon. Friend in this particular instance. A considerable number of people take the view he does, and if I can find that his is the prevailing opinion I will turn my attention again to the matter. I cannot, at present, however, undertake to alter the building.
      MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: Having myself pressed on the right hon. Gentleman the completion of the work by laying out the ground, and having protested against the long delay which took place in this respect, I view with great satisfaction this Supplementary Estimate. As my right hon. Friend has stated, this is really not connected with the structural work on the Hall, and does not raise the question referred to by the right hon. Member for Whitehaven, Upon that question there is a very great difference of opinion amongst Members of the House and others. There is a large amount of authority in favour of these bastions, but after all the matter is a very small one. If the prevailing opinion should turn out to be adverse to these staircases it will not be difficult to remove them. Personally, I believe that when the work is complete the general opinion will be that as regards the interior of the Hall, at all events, the improvement has been great.
      SIR G. CAMPBELL: I will only say one word upon the question of finance. The right hon. Gentleman tells us that what is being done now was foreseen from the beginning. In that case why did he not give us at first an honest Estimate of the whole cost? I protest against being led into jobs of this kind without being told what they are to cost. We voted a large sum in a former Session for this restoration, and now we are asked for a sum for the surrounding fencing and clearing up. I do not think this is a reasonable or right way of treating the House.
      MR. J. ROWLANDS: I am glad I elicited the answer from the right hon. Gentleman that this is not an increase of the Estimate by 25 per cent., but what he has said puts us in another difficulty. We find that the Estimate for £7,854, which was passed last year, was to cover certain work, and now the right hon. Gentleman tells us that this £2,000 is for extra work not included in the Estimate. I agree it is well that all the work possible should be finished before the opening of Parliament; still I do not think there was any great emergency which necessitated such a strong proceeding as the expenditure of £2,000 for work which had not been sanctioned by Parliament.
      MR. LABOUCHERE: Personally, I think the alterations both inside and outside Westminster Hall are hideous. The Member for Bradford, who was one of the promoters of the scheme, thinks the contrary, and so does the architect, Mr. Pearson. But this Vote in no sort of way affects the question of the structural alterations. Outside there has been a great hoarding. It is perfectly true there was no Estimate last year for levelling and grassing and making the wall round the space, but the right hon. Gentleman had to face the fact that if he did not commence to do the work it would have been put off for months. Although I generally protest against money being expended before it is voted, this is a case of a halfpenny worth of tar which was absolutely necessary, owing to what had been expended, to finish the job.
      ME. MORTON": I am very glad to know these works were put up for public tender, but as far as I can understand there is not a single item connected with these works which might not have been easily estimated and voted on before the works were undertaken. I must protest against the Estimates being exceeded, as in this case. I understand that the House was told last year, or at some other time, that the total cost of these works would be £25,300. We are now told when the works have been commenced that they will cost £36,180. That is an increase of something like 40 per cent. Such increases are unfair to the taxpayers and are to be severely condemned.
      (5.55.) Question put.
      (5.55.) The Committee divided: — Ayes 106; Noes 215.—(Div. List, No. 11.)
      Original Question put, and agreed to.
      2. £7,000, Supplementary, for Public Buildings, Great Britain.
      3. Motion made, and Question proposed,
      "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £100,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1890, for the acquisition of certain Land and Buildings at South Kensington."
      SIR BERNHARD SAMUELSON: I do not think we should allow this Vote to pass without an acknowledgment of the perseverance the Vice-President of the Committee of the Council has displayed, and which at last has been successful in inducing his Colleagues to assent to this purchase, though I believe they were at first not favourable to the proposal. I think also some recognition is due to the Commissioners of the Exhibition of 1851 for the liberal way in which they have met the wishes of the Government. I am told the extent of the land is about 4½ acres, and I need hardly tell the Committee how much greater the value of the land for building purposes is in this part of London. The Commissioners, taking a very wise view, thought their duties as Commissioners were not fulfilled by merely looking to derive revenue from this land. They thought it proper that the land should be devoted to the advancement of Science and Art, and they expressed their willingness to show some consideration for such an object in the price they asked, and, unless I am misinformed, they have very properly attached to the sale the condition that the land shall be devoted to Science and Art purposes and no other. The complaint cannot be urged against this Vote that it is asked for after the money has been spent, for the purchase is, I believe, subject strictly to the sanction of Parliament, in the sense that should the House not vote this money the transaction will be void. But I hope the Committee will not be so short-sighted as to refuse the
      1188
      Vote. With my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester (Sir H. Roscoe) I served on the Departmental Committee to take into consideration the accommodation necessary for the Museum of Applied Science in connection with South Kensington Museum, and although some of the Members of that Committee were at the outset prejudiced strongly against any further expenditure, after hearing the evidence in favour of this proposal there was not a Member who was not convinced that it was absolutely necessary that a building must be erected if it was to be worthy the name of a Museum of Science and Art at all. I have only further to hope that when the land is acquired too much time will not be lost before it is turned to the purpose for which it is designed, and that with the truest economy the building will be worthy of its purpose. Proper consideration should be given to the plans, and no regard for a small saving should induce those entrusted with the erection of a building to do otherwise than arrange it in the best possible manner for the purpose to which it is to be devoted. At present it is not possible for the museum to serve the purpose for which it exists. The expenditure need not be very large, and a considerable expense now incurred by the Department in the shape of rent will be saved, and this rent capitalised ought to go a long way towards the erection of a suitable building. I am glad this Estimate has been brought forward, and I congratulate both the right hon. Gentleman and the Commissioners on the arrangement which has been arrived at.
      SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLE-WORTH: I do not rise to follow my hon. Friend's arguments in favour of voting the money, but to call attention to another matter in connection with the Vote. My hon. Friend has informed the Committee that, the money has not been paid, that the purchase is not actually completed, and of course we are glad to hear that, for it is much more regular to come to Parliament before the money is paid than afterwards. But if the money has not been paid, I should like to ask the question why should not the ordinary course be followed and this amount be included in the Estimates for the coming

      1189
      year? It is a proceeding that should be closely watched in Committee of Supply, for there is a tendency on the part of the Government of the day to do that by Supplementary Estimate which would be more regularly done in the ordinary Estimates for the year. Here we are at the end of February, and if this money has not been paid and we are dealing with friendly parties like the Exhibition Commissioners, why not postpone payment to the next financial year instead of dealing with it in this irregular manner by Supplementary Estimate? The Government ask for time from private Members to discuss the Supplementary Estimates, and then we find that they include this item, which ought to take its place in the ordinary Estimates. Speaking as a Member of the Public Accounts Committee, I cannot help thinking there is grave financial objection to this proceeding, and that it is calculated to impair the control the House ought to have over the expenditure. It is also calculated to impair the principle laid down that, after the House has voted the money for the year, unexpended balances should go towards the reduction of the National Debt, for in reality you deprive that reduction of debt of a sum of £100,000.
      (6.20.) THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON,): Perhaps I may be allowed to answer the question at once. There were, I think, very strong reasons why the course taken should have been taken on this occasion. In the first place, the Exhibition Commissioners have been extremely patient with regard to the negotiations which have been going on for years in connection with this particular question. The Government have been pressed, certainly for the last three years, very strongly to say "Aye" or "No," whether they proposed to purchase the land or not. There has been the Committee which has been referred to by the hon. Member for Banbury considering what should be done with a view to providing additional accommodation for a Science Museum. The right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Exhibition Commissioners has communicated with the Treasury on several occasions, and when the Government had the Report of the Committee which has been referred to, they determined —and without going into details I may
      1190
      say they are justified in that Report— on accepting the principle that there should be some extension and relief to the overcrowded buildings of South Kensington. It was impossible to decide what should be done until the question of site was settled. We were pressed on the one hand—I think rightly pressed, and make no complaint against it; I think it was only fair to the Commissioners—that they should have an answer "yes" or "no" whether the Government would take the land or not; and, on the other hand, we had the pressing needs of South Kensington. The Chancellor of the Exchequer came to the conclusion that the offer made by the Exhibition Commissioners was one that he ought to accept in the interest of the nation generally, and that the question of additional accommodation for the Department could not be longer postponed. We could take no steps until the question of this land had been decided, and so we decided to put the case before Parliament, leaving to Parliament the responsibility of saying whether or not this land should be purchased. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Clitheroe knows perfectly well the uncertainties in regard to Supply. He knows perfectly well it would not be in our power, or in accordance with custom in this House, to take any part of this money in a Vote on Account, and it would have to be relegated to a time when the Vote could be got through as a whole. I hope the Committee will agree that the Government have been right. We have no desire to evade responsibility, but, on the whole, have come to the conclusion that this was the best course to pursue. We had no certainty that even if we put the Vote on the Estimates for next year the House would accept our proposal, and, therefore, we thought it advisable at once to take the opinion of the House before we committed ourselves to the expenditure. I hope that expenditure will be sanctioned, and that we shall be enabled to take some practical step towards accomplishing what I believe is a general wish.
      SIR H. ROSCOE: I hope the explanation from the Secretary to the Treasury will be considered satisfactory. It seems to me most desirable that the money should be voted at once. No doubt the plot of

      1191
      land in question is the only one in the neighbourhood and the only one in the neighbourhood, likely to be available for all time for the establishment and extension of this great Science Museum. My hon. Friend below me has alluded to the Committee of which I had the honour to be a Member. Our instructions were to give an opinion as to the general value of the collection, and to see if any articles should be eliminated. We came to the conclusion that the value was extremely great, and that there were few articles which with advantage could be eliminated. The Committee should remember that this is not a Museum for London alone; it is a National Institution to be used by a largo number of teachers and scientific students from all parts of the country, and it also provides valuable and interesting objects that are sent on to other parts of the country. We had the assistance of experts of all kinds, and all agreed as to the great value of the collection, and that it was absolutely necessary to have some proper building in which it could be housed, with proper means of keeping it up year by year to the requirements of modern science. It is a satisfaction to know that the Government are prepared to carry out the views of the Committee. It is, of course, no use having the land unless we put a building upon it, and I hope that before long a small portion of the large surplus we hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will have at disposal will be set apart for this particular purpose. One question I should like to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, and that has reference to the dwelling house built on the Queen's Gate side of the ground. What is the arrangement with the Commissioners in regard to this house?
      MR. SHAW-LEFEVRE: I do not desire to enter into the question whether the present galleries should be enlarged or not, but to say a word on the point raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Clitheroe (Sir U. Kay-Shuttle-worth). He protested against a Vote of this magnitude being included in the Supplementary Estimates, and I think the answer given by the Secretary to the Treasury is very insufficient. He has shown no sufficient reason why the Vote should not be postponed to next year's ordinary Votes. He says the Commissioners for the Exhibition of 1851 wished
      1192
      to have an answer, but I apprehend the Commissioners would have been perfectly well satisfied with the announcement that the Government intended to buy the land, and it would be a matter of comparative indifference to them whether the money was voted in the one year or the other. The effect of taking the Vote now will be to reduce the expenditure of the coming year by £100,000 and diverting that sum from the possible reduction of the National Debt. I agree that the House should not be called upon to vote at this time a sum of money which could very well be brought forward in next year's Estimates in the ordinary course, and at a time when Ave should be able to have the whole scheme before us, and know what are the intentions of the Government on the matter. I do not propose at this stage to enter on the question of policy. What I desire to object to is the introduction of these large Votes in Supplementary Estimates, because it is a proceeding altogether without precedent, and one which, whenever attempted during the last few years, has been described as wholly contrary to Parliamentary practice. I take it that the general rule with regard to Supplementary Estimates is that only money should be applied for which must be paid in the current financial year, and that anything which can be legitimately postponed should be put off till the next year. I therefore join my right hon. Friend in protesting against the course which, has been taken on this occasion, but I protest only on financial grounds.
      MR. MORTON: I quite agree with the objections raised by the right hon. Gentleman on the Front Opposition Bench. I should like to have some more information on this matter. I want to know who valued this land. How are we to know it is worth £100,000? It does seem to me extraordinary to ask for a Vote of this large sum, and then to give us no information whatever as to who valued the land, or as to the extent of it, or where the money is going to, or whether any persons got a commission upon the sale.
      SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: I am resident at South Kensington, and am therefore in favour of spending money there. As a British citizen I am also in favour of spending money for the

      1193
      promotion of science; but, at the same time, I feel that this is a large order, because it is not only an application for a Vote of £100,000, but it will bind us to the expenditure of several more hundreds of thousands of pounds for the buildings which will have to be erected. I think it is not right that in a Supplementary Estimate such a scheme as this should be sprung upon the House. Of course, I should be happy deliberately to consider the scheme which is to be laid before the House, but I do share the opinion of the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, that it is neither right nor proper that the Government should ask us to pass this Vote, and enter into no explanation either as to the extent or as to the value of the land. I was looking at the land this morning, and was struck by seeing upon it a solitary house. Is it included in the purchase? Now, I should like to know what it is exactly that we are buying, how the land has been valued, whether it is a fair bargain between the Commissioners and the Government, and what authority there is for the opinion which has been expressed that the Commissioners are generously parting with the land at a great deal below its value.
      MR. JACKSON: With regard to the questions which have been addressed to me by hon. Members, I am -afraid I took it for granted that everybody knew the circumstances connected with this purchase. The land is 4½ acres, and, in addition to the land, there is a building on it which is called the Southern Gallery, for which, at present, we pay a sum of £1,500 a year. That £1,500 yearly will, of course, fall out of the Estimates when we become the proprietors of the land. An. hon. Member opposite has asked whether there are any commissions to be paid in connection with this transaction. I may tell him that there are no commissions to be paid, either on one side or on the other, because the transaction is one between the 1851 Exhibition Commissioners—gentlemen who are very well-known to all who take an interest in this question—and the Government. It is not very easy to say what is the sale value of the land unless it were, in some way, offered for public sale. The area to be bought includes the whole of the land on the south side of Exhibition Road, from one end to the other, with the exception of a house
      1194
      which was built on a portion of the land prior to the sale of it. We have had a valuation made by the Office of Works, and the result is that the value of the land was put down at something between £100,000 and £120,000. I believe that the Exhibition Commissioners have also had an estimate made which was considerably higher. In fact, they put the value of the land at £200,000, but they are willing to sell it to the Government for this purpose, and for this purpose only, at what they call a nominal price. I think there can be no doubt as to the advantages which will be derived from the Government being the owner of the whole of the land from the south side of Exhibition Road to Cromwell Road.
      MR. MUNDELLA: As I have been pressing the Government to make provision for the Science Collections for the last 10 years, I think I ought to say something in defence of the action of the Government in putting this Vote in the Supplementary Estimate. I do not, of course, object to the principle which has been laid down by my right hon. Friends as to what Votes ought properly to be included in the Supplementary Estimates; but there is no doubt that this question has been a pressing one for some years. We have a most valuable science collection which is housed in a most disgraceful manner. We have collections such as no other country in the world possesses. The Treasury have all along resisted every application for the extension of the Museum, and for placing these valuable collections in a building in which they would be useful and accessible to the country. There have been no less than three Departmental Committees appointed to inquire as to the necessity of extending the Museum, and although some of the Members so appointed on the Committee went into the inquiry holding the view that the extension was unnecessary, they have, before the inquiry closed, been bound to confess that it was not only necessary, but highly desirable. I hear it asked for the first time whether we are going to get good value for our money. Now, I have been for many years a Member of the Exhibition Commission, and I know something about the value of the property. I believe our

      1195
      Surveyors—one of the most eminent firms in London—valued it at £160,000, this valuation not including certain portions of the property. The present value is undoubtedly£200,000, and welet the Government have it for the nominal sum of £70,000, the balance being the value of the Southern Gallery. Now we are asked what is to be done with the money. My reply is, that we are looking forward to provide a sum of £5,000 a year in scholarships for technical education, and I do not think that we could better apply the money than in this direction, for we propose that the scholarships shall be open to all schools in every part of the United Kingdom. I never stood up in this House to recommend any expenditure with a more clear conviction that I am doing my duty than I now possess in urging the Commission to pass this Vote and enable the Government to have the Museum completed as rapidly as possible.
      MR. JAMES ROWLANDS: The right hon. Gentleman has failed entirely to grasp the objection which we are taking to this Vote. I do not wish for one moment to be considered as objecting to the proper housing of the science exhibits which we may have. We are as strongly in favour of proper buildings for Scientific Institutions as any one in this House. But the great thing is, where is the proper place to put these buildings, whether we get full value for the money we pay, and whether the money asked for ought to be included in a Supplementary Vote. I am surprised at the right hon. Gentleman, with his experience of 10 years in respect to this matter, failing to see the importance of the position we have taken up. We are told by the Government that they must have the money within a short time. We are also told by the Secretary to the Treasury that the Exhibition Commissioners have been trying to get an answer from the Government during the past three years, but have failed to get it. What have the Government been about during those three years, and what reason is there that they should not wait another month in two instead of trying to get the Vote in the present financial year? If the Commissioners have been kind enough, as we are told, to offer the land at a sum much below its real value, surely they might
      1196
      add to their kindness by waiting for the Vote to be asked for properly at a time when Members can have full information on the subject before them. Again, I am not sure that the Commissioners have a right to sell the land to the Government at a reduced price. If they are anxious to establish scholarships, they ought to make the Government pay the full value of the land. I do not wish to be too severe on the right hon. Gentleman, but it struck me whether he and his Colleagues were not committing a breach of trust in giving away valuable land which they have under their charge. There is another question which strikes me, and that is, whether it is necessary that all these buildings should be put up at South Kensington. That is not, as a matter of course, the most convenient spot for these institutions, or for the students who come up from the country to attend them. It is, I admit, a most convenient place for a number of wealthy people who like to have these art and science collections at their very doors. I think the time has come when we should consider the propriety of building these institutions on sites which cost something less than £20,000 an acre, and I believe that if we chose other localities it would be more convenient to the students, who would be able probably to get cheaper lodgings, while the localities would greatly benefit. But my strong ground of opposition is that you are using a Supplementary Estimate for a purpose to which it ought not to be applied. There is no reason why you should thus suddenly spring this matter upon the House after it has been in abeyance so many years. Surely if we have the friendship of the Exhibition Commissioners they might be expected to wait until the ordinary Estimates for the year could be laid before the House of Commons, and Members have an opportunity of considering the scheme as a whole. I shall consequently vote against the Estimate.
      MR. BAETLEY: It seems to me that we are making a fresh departure in the way of buildings at South Kensington. On the east side of Exhibition Road there is a considerable quantity of vacant land, and I think it is a great scandal that the South Kensington Museum is left in its present unfinished state. But this is a Vote

      1197
      to enable us to acquire land on the other side of the road, and I agree thoroughly with the hon. Member who has just spoken that it is a great mistake to concentrate all these buildings in one place. I want, in the first place, to see the Museum on the east side of the road completed, and I think when that is done the building will serve all practical purposes for some time to come. But the present proposal really amounts to the beginning of a new Museum. I think it is a great misfortune that this Vote has been put forward under these circumstances. I would much rather see a new Museum established in some other part of London. I want to see these places of public instruction distributed, and I do protest strongly against acquiring this new lot of land when we have so much space at South Kensington still unoccupied, and not likely to be occupied for many years to come, and when other parts of London are so inadequately provided with museums.
      MR. PICTON: I sympathise with what fell from my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield as to the extreme desirability of properly housing our science and art collections; but I think there is a good deal to be said for the objections which have been made to the course taken by the Government in presenting this as a Supplementary Estimate, and I trust that before the debate is concluded we shall have some further explanation. It is evident that there is a good deal of danger in initiating the practice of thrusting into the Supplementary Estimates demands which properly belong to the succeeding year. We did not know until we came down to the House what these Supplementary Estimates were about, and we, therefore, have had no time to consider this proposal. Supposing a Minister has a piece of work to get through which is not at all popular, he conceives the idea of putting it into the Supplementary Estimates, and bringing it forward at a time when it cannot be properly discussed, because no one knows anything about it. I entirely sympathise with the objections which have been raised, and unless I can lie convinced that the sum proposed to be granted now does not properly belong to the burdens of next year, I shall be compelled to vote against the grant.
      MR. BLANE: When a right hon. Gentleman spoke of South Kensington being crowded with many valuable exhibits, I think he could not have been at that place very recently or else he would have known that in one large room there is nothing but a number of old and dusty chairs which have not been used since 1862, while the electric appliances room is utterly unused. I think if all the space there were properly utilised there would be no necessity to ask for this Vote, and the right hon. Gentleman would have no reason to complain that our valuable exhibits are badly housed. I say that the bad housing is due to want of attention on the part of the heads of Departments. This is a large sum to be voted in a Supplementary Estimate, and I think the Government might fairly have waited for the beginning of a new financial year before asking for it.
      SIR LYON PLAYFAIR: Having acted as honorary secretary to the Royal Commission for some years, I wish to say a few words in explanation of a mistake which has evidently arisen in the course of this debate. The hon. Member for Finsbury suggested that the Commissioners might be doing a great wrong to the public by selling the land at a price below its actual value. But the fact is, that a Charter was given to the Commissioners for the purpose of acquiring the land, and either giving it, or selling it at a low price for the foundation of institutions such as these. The reason for giving the Charter was that the cost of sites for public buildings in the Metropolis was so enormous that it was desirable to secure a large extent of land, and then dispose of it at moderate figures for various public purposes. If any hon. Members will go to the Library, they will find the Report of the Royal Commission of 1851 which came out towards the end of last year, and in which the whole of this Vote was explained at great length. The Commissioners have based their estimate of the value of the land upon sales of similar land which have actually taken place in the locality, and they have come to the conclusion that the land which they are offering to the Government for £70,000 is actually worth about £200,000. The additional £30,000 which is to be

      1199
      paid by the Government is in respect of a building upon the land, and the sum of £30,000 is the value put upon that building by the Board of Works Surveyor, although the Commissioners are of opinion that the value is higher. With regard to the disposal of the, £100,000 by the Commissioners, I may say that they are being continually pressed by people in the provinces to set apart a portion of their revenue for the purpose of promoting technical education. We have been pressed year after year to apply our surplus revenues to educational purposes, and could not do so because originally more land was secured than we had the money to buy, and have had to borrow money on mortgage. Our present debt is £129,000, and when the present amount of the Vote is applied to the extinction of the debt, if the Government choose to accept our offer we shall have only £29,000 of debt, which would be easily met by certain contributions from revenue. We have pressed the Government to come to a decision on the question whether they will acquire the land for the public, or whether it should be let to private individuals at full value to pay off the debt. We are now tired of waiting, the present state of things having been going on for 10 years, during which time the pressure from the provinces has been more and more strongly exerted upon the Commissioners, and after what we heard from the last Committee which reported on the subject, the Commissioners told the Government—
      "We now offer you this land for the last time for £70,000, although we believe it to be worth £200,000. Will you take it? We cannot wait any longer, as we must answer the provincial demands for applying the revenue which will exist after we have paid off the debt."
      At last the Government have come to a conclusion, which I think is a wise one; and when it is argued that it is unusual to vote a sum of this kind on the Supplementary Estimates, I believe that when the Correspondence on the question is published, it will be seen that we have been very patient, and that the time has come when the Government must give us an answer. This they have done, and it is now for the Committee to say what course it will take upon the subject.
      MR. LABOUCHERE: It strikes me that the right hon. Gentleman
      1200
      has not made a very good defence. He tells us that the Commissioners have entered in to a species of general engagement either to give their land for nothing, or to part with it under its value for purposes connected with science and art. But he now says the money ought to be granted immediately, and that if not they will sell the land to private individuals for building upon. But obviously the Commissioners are bound not to do that.
      SIE L. PLAYFAIR: They may apply the proceeds of any money they may obtain for public purposes.
      MR. LABOUCHERE: That seem to me to be a round-about method. The sites are for London and not for the provinces, and therefore the Commissioners are bound to sell the land for sites in London far below it* value, in order that it may be used for scientific purposes. I think we ought to register a protest against these large sums of money being-put into the Supplementary Estimates. To bring them forward in that way usually means that, by some sort of accident, there has been an excessive expenditure which was not at first contemplated; it was never intended that a scheme like this for a building in connection with the South Kensington Museum should be so dealt with. Even had it come up in the ordinary Estimates, I am inclined to think I should have opposed the proposal; because I regard the South Kensington Museum as a perfect vortex against which we should be upon our guard. I am positively shocked at the amount of money obtained for South Kensington. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sheffield (Mr. Mundella) generally looks upon those of us who take this view as Goths and Philistines, because we object to this expenditure on his part and on the part of the friends of art; but I say the time has come when it is necessary that we should keep a wary eye on the proceedings of the friends of art, who, as a rule, mismanage everything with which they are connected, and spend thirteen pence where they ought not to spend more than tenpence. The friends of art ought to think of finance as well as of art. Under all the circumstances I hope the Committee will not only divide against this £100,000 Vote, but will throw it out.
      MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: The policy of the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken is pretty clear; it is to oppose any grants in favour of South Kensington; and this is because it is not in his view a good commercial speculation. But I think I may make an appeal to the commercial and financial mind of the hon. Gentleman. I differ entirely from him on this point, because, as he will be told by duly qualified persons, if you take the erections of South Kensington, they are at the present moment worth, in mere commercial value, two or three times as much as they have cost the nation. I think that this fact ought to satisfy the commercial mind of the hon. Gentleman. But there is another point I should like to press on the hon. Member. Some of the most valuable possessions in the South Kensington collection have either been bequeathed to the nation or presented as gifts during the lifetime of the donors; and those gifts and bequests are dependent almost entirely in point of value on the appreciation the public have for them. If after obtaining gifts of this kind the nation does not take steps to house them properly they are not likely to obtain such gifts in future. I think, also, in a matter of this kind we are bound to take cognisance of the experience we have had of what has been the case in connection with the provincial museums and exhibitions. Where-ever the community show the great value they attach to these collections, they have at once been met by the public spirit of the inhabitants, and large gifts have been made in consequence. The collection at South Kensington is both splendid and unique, and one of which any nation might be proud; but it is improperly and inadequately housed. I am, therefore, delighted to see this Vote placed before the Committee, and hope it will only be the precursor of other votes of the same kind.
      MR. PICTON: I should like to hear why it is that the Government cannot wait till the end of the financial year.
      THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH,): The answer is short; the end of the financial year falls at such a time that the vote could not be taken until June or July, or perhaps August,
      1202
      and it is unreasonable to ask the Commissioners of 1851 to wait until then. I am one of those who have resisted the expenditure at South Kensington as long as I could, and until I was perfectly satisfied it was necessary in the public interests. A Committee was appointed by the present Government to inquire and report whether any further accommodation could be found to meet the requirements of the case. We have received the Report of that Committee, and have no alternative but to carry out their recommendations to the best of our ability. The step we propose is one of the first steps necessary to be taken. When exception is taken to the Vote appearing in the Supplement Estimates I wish to point out what is involved in that objection. It is suggested that the Government may at any period enter into a national engagement for the purchase of costly property and not communicate it to the House; of the two alternatives I should say the postponement of the announcement of such a financial engagement must be regarded as a much more serious matter than to ask the House to confirm at once the obligation into which the Government have entered. I may add that full notice has been given of the engagement into which we entered, as the Estimates were circulated last night or early this morning, and consequently hon. Members have come down to the House with ample information on the subject.
      MR. LABOUCHERE: The right hon. Gentleman says we have had full information; whereas the Government merely enter into an engagement of which we have this short notice, and then leave it to the House to pass the Vote. The right hon. Gentleman (Sir L. Playfair) says the Commissioners cannot wait for another six months. Why not? They have already waited for 10 long years, and surely they might wait another six months. The light hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain) appeared to me to take a somewhat huxtering view of the matter. He seems to say that "We ought to go on purchasing every species of bric-à-brac, because its price has risen in the market; that what the nation has bought is worth three times what it was. Here is a splendid speculation! Let us buy a quantity more in the hope

      1203
      the price will continue to rise." The right hon. Gentleman also says many persons have given certain things to South Kensington. Well, whenever I have been there, I have generally found, on inquiry, that where there is a very poor thing, it has been given by some gentleman, but that where there is a really good thing, it has been bought by the nation. If you go on building in the manner proposed, you will have persons sending every species of rubbish in the hope that their names may be put down as donors to the nation. I object to that. We ought not to accept a gift horse without looking it in the mouth, and most assuredly we ought not to build a stable of more than three times the value of the horse.
      MR. MUNDELLA: The hon. Gentleman has stated that what is given to the Museums are generally rubbish; does he not know that during a period of three years the value of these gifts has equalled half a million sterling? Why, Sir, many of these gifts are perfectly unique. The Jones Collection alone is worth £350,000, and is one of the best collections of its kind, in Europe. In fact, I belief the gifts to South Kensington are worth many times over the amount the Government has expended there; while recently more was received in gifts in one year than had been expended during the previous 27 years.
      DR. CLARK: The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Smith) has stated that if this Vote were not placed in the Supplementary Estimates, it might have to wait till July or August. I ask does he propose to carry out the policy of last year by taking the last Votes first, and making Class 1 come at the end of the list? We want to know from the First Lord whether he intends to begin with Class 1 or Class 6?
      MR. BARTLEY: I think there is a misapprehension about the Vote now. I agree that the collection at the Kensington Museum is not properly housed; and, secondly, that the Museum is not complete. But will this Vote assist the better housing of the collection? The Vote is simply to buy a piece of land now used by the South Kensington Museum; it will not in any way aid in the better housing of the collection. Therefore, I think we ought to give a liberal Vote to complete the South Kensington Museum,
      1204
      and to put the collection in proper order, in which it is not at the present time. But I thoroughly object to extending the Museum to the "other side of the road before completing the building on the east side of the road.
      MR. MORTON: I am glad to hear that this land has been valued by somebody. We are told that the purchaser valued the land at £120,000, and the landlord at £200,000; and it appears that we are going to give £70,000 and £30,000 for the building. I want to know how we can get it for a less sum than the purchaser valued it at. I object to this money being spent altogether in the West End. Some of this money ought to be expended in the East End of London, or even in the North End. The aristocracy of this country have already got enough of the good things of this world, and if we are to have these buildings and collections by all means let us have them in the East End of London, to improve; the people there. I hope the Committee will allow this matter to be postponed with the object of our having time to consider whether, in common fairness, to the people of this country, and especially to the people of the Metropolis, some of these buildings ought not to be erected in the East End of London.
      MR. BLANE: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sheffield has said that gifts worth half a million have been received at the South Kensington Museum in the course of one year. When visiting that institution, the first thing that has met my gaze has been the bust of the right hon. Gentleman himself. I take great interest in objects of art, and I know what pleases me, and I quite agree that this bust is not properly housed. There is also a picture of the Committee of the Exhibition of 1851, in which is a portrait of the right hon. Gentleman, Sir Lyon Playfair. I quite agree that it also is not properly housed. It is a good portrait, but it is not in a good position. Perhaps this good portrait of the right hon. Gentleman might be put in a better position than it is at present. I have no objection to the right hon. Gentleman having both his bust and the painting put in a good position, so long as he does so at his own expense, but I object to expending

      1205
      £100,000 for the purpose, and I therefore resist this Vote.
      MR. MUKDELLA: The hon. Gentleman is entirely mistaken. I have no bust at present at the Kensington Museum. The bust was a presentation from the faetory workers, but has long since been removed.
      (7.23.) The Committee divided:— Ayes 144; Noes 67.—(Div. List, No. 12.)
      4. Motion made, and Question proposed,
      "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £2,050, he granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending 31st day of March, 1890, for Diplomatic and Consular Buildings."
      MR. LABOUCHERE: This is one of those singular items that occasionally slip into Supplementary Estimates. We are perpetually being asked to spend money on the Legation at Washington. The original Estimate for the alterations there was £700. That Estimate is exceeded this year by £850; that is to say, it has positively been doubled, and yet we have not any species of explanation offered to us. This is an instance of the reckless manner in which Gentlemen connected with the Foreign Office act in these matters. I see that £100 is put down for buying a filter, and £450 for alterations and repairs to the heating apparatus, and £700 for alterations in the drainage arrangements.
      MR. PLUNKET: I think I can explain the necessity of taking this Vote in the form of a Supplementary Estimate. When Sir Julian Pauncefote went to take up his residence at Washington, it was found that the house was in a very bad state, and there were no means of heating the upper part of it. It was necessary if he was to go into the house this winter that the work should be done at once. The drains were in a bad condition, and a number of officials had been suffering from illness caused by the defective arrangements. The water supplied to the Embassy house at Washington is often in a bad state in consequence of floods, and it is therefore necessary to filter it. £100 seems to be a large sum to expend on a filter, but it was a very large filter, as it was necessary to deal with the water supply of the whole of the house and the stables.
      MR. LABOUCHERE: I can only tell the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Plunket) that I lived for some years in the house at Washington, that it had no heating apparatus, no special drainage arrangements, and no filter. I drank the water, and I throve. I have no doubt that Sir Julian Pauncefote and his successors would have thriven in the same way without these alterations. An Ambassador or a Minister never goes to any Legation which has been built at great cost to the country without insisting on having some sort of alteration made. It is really a strong thing for the right hon. Gentleman to tell us that it was absolutely necessary to put up a filter at a cost of £100. Probably the President of the United States drinks the Washington water unfiltered, and the Cabinet in Washington no doubt drink it also. I think it will meet the exigencies of the case if I move to reduce the Vote by £1,350, so as to bring it down to the original estimate.
      Motion made, and Question porposed, "That Item N, of £1,350, for the Washington Legation, be omitted from the proposed Vote." —(Mr. Labouchere.)
      MR. D. CRAWFORD: I know something of the circumstances of this case, and think it would be ungracious of the Committee to divide against the Vote. I was recently in the house in question, and I think if there is anything wrong it is in the system, and not in the demand for repairs. It seems very unsatisfactory that the repairs of our establishments in foreign countries should be dealt with, at a distance, by the Board of Works, and that if an Ambassador requires to have any repairs carried out he should have, as in this case, to come to England, and besiege the doors of the Board of Works. When that is the state of things it is not wonderful that there should be a gradual accumulation of repairs, and that larger sums should be asked for than are altogether agreeable. I believe that in this case several of the people employed in the house, including some of the secretaries and servants, were laid up in consequence of defects in the drainage. That is not a creditable thing, and it is not wonderful that a considerable expense should be necessary under such circumstances. When a

      1207
      man is serving Ms country at a great distance from home, I think it is only reasonable that we should give him a decent and healthy house to live in.
      MR. MOLLOY: The hon. Member's views on this subject are evidently the result of having dined with the Ambassador at Washington. I can personally testify that the water at Washington is quite as good in every sense as the water supplied in London, and I may add that the ordinary price of a family filter in America is four dollars, or 16s. It appears that a filter which costs 16s. is put down, when it is for an Ambassador, at £100. It is too ridiculous. Either this expenditure is not for a filter, or, if it is, there is something more than appears on the face of the Votes. It seems absurd to discuss small items of this kind, but it is generally in regard to these smaller items that fraud creeps in. The supposition that any filter in America ever cost £100 is absolutely ridiculous. We can hardly object to the cost incurred in altering the drains, because we all know that drains go wrong, and we ought not to let our Ambassador run the risk of illness on account of the drains. But the sum of £450 is put down for heating four or five rooms in a house in Washington. Why, £450 would heat a. terrace in Washington. The small furnaces which they have in the rooms there, and which, to my mind, are very unhealthy and unpleasant, only cost a few dollars. If we go to a Division I shall certainly vote for the Amendment.
      MR. BRYCE: I hope my hon. Friend (Mr. Labouchere) will be satisfied with the discussion that has taken place, and that he will not think it necessary to go to a Division. At the same time I think this is one of the frequent occasions on which the Board of Works seems unprepared to give the explanations we might expect from them. There must be something wrong in the working of a system which frequently gives rise to cases of this kind, when the expenditure seems disproportionate to the result. However, we have had evidence that the drainage is bad, and I do not think, therefore, the Committee has any reason to quarrel with the chief item of the Vote.
      MR. LABOUCHERE: I would
      1208
      ask leave, then, to withdraw the Amendment. I think the case has been met by the discussion which has taken place, and I hope it will act as a warning to our Ministers abroad, and to those who represent them here, that they must not-incur reckless expenditure whenever they go to a fresh Embassy.
      Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
      Original Question again proposed.
      MR. MORTON: I wish to object to this Vote on principle. The original estimate for the well and water supply in this case was £790, and we are asked to sanction an expenditure of £700 more than that amount. It appears that the Committee was deceived last year when it was told that the work would cost only £790. I quite agree that the House should be put into good order, and that the drainage should be perfected, but I am not sure that these are fair charges. I speak with some little knowledge of drainage, and £750 seems to me to be an enormous sum for the drainage of one small house. I think that the Yankees, have made a fool of John Bull over this matter. I should like to have some further explanation respecting the filter, and also with regard to the "contingencies." Contingencies may mean anything. I remember reading some years ago that Joseph Hume discovered that "etc." in the House of Commons meant sherry and biscuits. I wish to know whether "contingencies" means sherry and biscuits, or whether it means some other extraordinary expenditure?
      MR. BLANE: AS to this water supply—
      THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member cannot go back to that item, as it has been disposed of.
      MR. BLANE: I wish to speak on the total Vote. I think the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works (Mr. Plunket) does not know much about Washington or its water supply. He alleges that the water supply is sometimes unhealthy by reason of the floods. The reverse is the case, and there is a better water supply at Washington than in any town I know of in the United Kingdom. It is manifest that if our Minister is not satisfied with the Embassy at Washington he must be very hard to please. It has done for

      1209
      his predecessors for many years, and if Sir Julian Pauncefote is not satisfied Let him make the alterations he desires at his own expense. He has an allowance of some £700 a month or more.
      MR. A. O'CONNOR: I do not want to go into the details of the Vote; but I would point out that it refers to works carried on a long way from this country. In past years a very large number of cases of this kind have come, not only before this House, but before the Public Accounts Committee, and observations have been made upon them. I remember the sum of £40 being once charged for a washing-stand in the Embassy at Berlin. How far the items now before us are admissible we shall not learn this evening. We must, perforce, pass the Vote. I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that something like an understanding was arrived at on a previous occasion, whereby not only were Clerks of the Works to be sent out from head-quarters to visit distant places and report on repairs and buildings, but it should be taken into consideration whether there should not be some transfer of the services. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether that matter has been decided upon or considered; or whether we are to go on, year after year, having bills sent in which are transparently ridiculous and exorbitant in respect of services which cannot be checked?
      MR. PLUNKET: I am not aware of an understanding of the kind referred to by the hon. Member.
      Vote agreed to.

      CLASS II.
      5.£700, Supplementary, for the Foreign Office.
      MR. HENNIKER HEATON: A study of the Estimates and Appropriation Accounts for the last 10 years has convinced me that the growth of the telegraph expenses in all the Departments has been rapid and uncontrolled. The increase of gross expenditure has been very great—in fact, it has in eight years doubled; and it is remarkable that year by year the Estimates have been largely exceeded, almost without exception, in every Department. The importance of the subject justifies
      1210
      me in asking that an inquiry into the whole subject of telegraph expense in all Government Departments should be granted without delay. The total expenditure on telegrams by the Foreign and Colonial Offices, by the Diplomatic and Consular Services, and by the Navy during the 10 years 1876–77 to 1886–7 was £409,459, but the original Estimates for those Services only amounted to £239,400. We are now asked to vote £7,600 for extra expenses incurred in telegrams for these Departments, in addition to the sum of £13,400 originally voted. These sums are paid to a Telegraph Company for sending messages over lines to South Africa which we now subsidise to the extent of £35,000 a year. I allude to the company controlled by that monopolist, Sir John Pender, which in addition gets a subsidy of £19,000 a year for a cable down the West Coast of Africa. This is not the time for raising the graver question whether the Government ought not, as a matter of State policy, and with a view to afford the public a cheap telegraph service throughout the Empire, to become possessed, by purchase or construction, of a complete Imperial telegraphic net. But, in any ease, I think I am justified in asking that a Committee be appointed to inquire into this large expenditure and the continual abnormal growth in Government telegraph expenses.
      Vote agreed to.
      6. Motion made, and Question proposed,
      "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £2,166, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1890, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Board of Agriculture."
      SIR W. BARTTELOT: I should like to say a word on this Vote. In the first place, I should like to congratulate my right hon. Friend (Mr. Chaplin) on the high place he now occupies; and I think that we who speak on behalf of the agricultural interest will be sure on all occasions to receive the greatest courtesy and consideration at his hands. I should like to ask my right hon. Friend what are the additional salaries, amounting to £500, for collecting agricultural statistics? We are anxious to have every information

      1211
      that can be given to us on that subject. I presume there is to be a large extension of the Returns we have previously had. We have always felt that the Agricultural Returns should be as accurate as possible, and I am sure that such is the intention of my light lion. Friend. I presume that the expenditure with regard to the Land Commission will now be merged in that of the Department of Agriculture; but I hope that the money already voted for the Land Commission will be spent under that head, and that at the end of the financial year the operation of the Commission will be carried out by the Agricultural Department.
      MR. COBB: I desire to move the reduction of the salary of the President of the Board of Agriculture by the sum of £100. In doing so, I must say I very heartily join with the hon. Baronet opposite in congratulating the right hon. Gentleman on the position to which he his attained; and I am sure that whenever Ave want any question attended to we shall be met by the right hon. Gentleman with the greatest courtesy. He knows I should be the last person to deprive him of his salary, which I am quite sure will be well earned. My only object in moving the reduction is to give him an opportunity of affording us some further information than he can do in answer to questions addressed to him across the Table of the House. There are a great many important matters on which we should like to have a statement. The right hon. Gentleman has been looked upon in this country as the champion of the tenant farmers. He has urged upon them the desirability of a great number of remedies for alleviating the great distress which agriculture has undoubtedly been afflicted with in the last few years. It is not so long ago that the right hon. Gentleman thought a return to Protection would be desirable for the purpose of alleviating the distress. It was, I think, called Fair Trade. After that he dropped Protection like a red-hot coal and took up another subject, which is called bimetallism. It would be satisfactory to us on this side of the House if the right hon. Gentleman would tell us plainly that he has altogether abandoned those two visionary remedies. Earlier in the Session I
      1212
      asked the right hon. Gentleman whether Her Majesty's Government intended to carry out the recommendations contained in the Report of the Departmental Committee on Agriculture and Dairy Schools, and especially as to the Central Normal School at Rugby. The right hon. Gentleman replied that, undoubtedly, the Government did propose to promote technical education in agriculture and dairy farming, and he pointed out that at present only £5,000 was given to the new Department of Agriculture to assist him in the matter. I hardly think that £5,000 is sufficient for what is wanted, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will use the great influence which we know he possesses as a Member of the Cabinet to obtain a large increase of that sum. The results of helping agricultural schools which have shown a, disposition to help themselves have been very satisfactory, and we on this side of the House are decidedly in accord with him when he says he prefers rather to help those schools which are helping themselves than to provide new schools to be maintained by the State; but in saying this, I wish still to urge the importance of establishing the Central Normal School at or near near Rugby. I also, by means of a question, called the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the subjects that have been discussed by farmers and fox-hunters as to the mode in which fox-hunting can be carried on in this country, so as not only to keep up the great reputation of that sport, but also to be more beneficial to farmers than it is at the present time. The right hon. Gentleman treated the question as somewhat of a joke, and said he presumed it was put to him as an ex-master of foxhounds, and not as the Minister of Agriculture. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that it was not so; and if he reflects for a moment he will see that in the position in which he is now placed it would be desirable for him, as far as possible, to cast aside all recollections of the distinguished position he occupied as a master of fox-hounds, and to remember that he is now the head of an important Department of the State. When sport is mentioned in this House hon. Members opposite seem to think they have a monopoly of it. But I can assure them that there are Gentlemen on the Opposition side who can

      1213
      ride as straight, shoot as straight, and present as straight a bat to the bowler as hon. Gentlemen on the other side. There are some points on which the right hon. Gentleman might do something for the tenant farmers. In the first place, it might be desirable that there should be an enforced subscription to the hunt.
      THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! The hon. Member is going beyond the scope of the Vote. The right hon. Gentleman has duties imposed upon him by Parliament, and the hon. Member should address himself to them.
      MR. COBB: I was coming to that. The second section of the Act distinctly states that the Board of Agriculture may? do anything which may be useful for promoting agriculture. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he sees his way to promoting agriculture by enabling farmers to have a better opportunity for selling the horses they breed, and the forage which their fields produce, so that it should not be necessary for purchasers always to go to middlemen. The stock and crops of the farmers are now, owing to want of arrangement rather than to bad arrangement, not properly protected. I am not a huntingman; but everyone knows that the farmers' crops, stock and fences are liable to reckless and wanton damage, which, it is thought, might be prevented if proper arrangements were made by the appointment of field-stewards. The right hon. Gentleman has said that the damage to crops might be more effectually dealt with by the masters of hounds themselves. If so, why have they not dealt with it in past years so successful as to put an end to complaints which are now continually made? Then, he said, he thought all these questions might be left to the good sense and good feeling of all concerned. Of course, there is nothing better to leave them to than good sense and good feeling; but, again. I would say it has been left to their good sense and good feeling for a great number of years; but that has not prevented the farmers demanding that their voices should be heard through the medium of Agricultural Committees appointed to meet the Hunt Committees. There are many other subjects to which I could allude, affecting the agriculturalists,
      1214
      whom we all desire to help—such, for instance, as the muzzling orders in Kent and Essex, and still more the numerous amendments which are so urgently required in the Agricultural Holdings Act; but I leave these to be dealt with by my hon. Friends sitting near me.
      Motion made, and Question proposed "That Item A, £1,266, Salaries, be reduced by £100, part of the Salary of the President,"—(Mr. Cobb.)
      COLONEL WARING: There is one thing with which the Committee will agree in the hon. Member who has just sat down, and that is that he is not a hunting man, because his arguments with regard to fox-hunting were impracticable. Whilst I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his promotion, I wish also to express my own intense grief, astonishment, and amazement when I find that his beneficent sway is not to extend to our side of the Channel. I think it a most disastrous thing that this should be the case; because the agricultural interests of the country are very intimately connected, and it is desirable that they should be placed under the superintendence of one head. I wish to call the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the Irish cross-Channel traffic. The animals from Ireland are treated in such a barbarous way whilst coming across the Channel that their value is much deteriorated. Cattle are brought from America in a much better and more humane manner, although the voyage is much longer and more stormy, and I do not see why a similar system should not be adopted with regard to Irish cattle. Some of the Railway and Steam-Packet Companies agree to take cattle at a lower rate at what is called "owners' risk," and these cattle are treated in an especially brutal matter. To my mind, the "owners' risk" system ought to be abolished. Another point which ought to occupy the attention of the Board of Agriculture, and in dealing with which I am sure my right hon. Friend will assist the Irish Government, is the extermination, by very firm and determined means, of the disease of pleuro-pneumonia. We are perpetually being accused, I think for the most part very unjustly, of sending over pleuro-pneumonia. At any rate, a great loss is occasioned to the Irish farmers by these

      1215
      continual alarms; and I am certain that nothing is wanted but a firm application of the Slaughter Order wherever pleuro-pneumonia is proved to exist; and I think it would much improve the chance of success if the cost of communication were paid out of Imperial rather than out of local funds. I am bound to say that the composition of the Irish Privy Council, which is supposed to deal with this subject in Ireland, is not such as to give confidence to Irish agriculturalists. It is composed largely of lawyers, some of whom might have some difficulty in deciding at which end of a cow to look for its head and at which to look for its tail. I hope the right lion. Gentleman's beneficent sway will soon be extended to agriculture in Ireland. (8.25.)
      MR. CHANGING: My hon. Friend the Member for Rugby,at the opening of his remarks, expressed a feeling, which I am sure is general on this side of the House as well as on the other, that the Motion which stands in his name was not framed in an unfriendly spirit, but was simply intended to enable us to draw the attention of the Minister of Agriculture to one or two points of importance. I should like, in the first place, to express my own satisfaction on the appointment of the right hon. Gentleman. I happen to know that some of my Radical supporters, who are farmers, think that lie is the right man in the right place, and I am sure there is a general feeling of approval of the appointment made by Her Majesty. The fact that his appointment is approved by farmers of both sides in politics I hope may induce the right hon. Gentleman to signalise his tenure of office by an advanced and a generous treatment of agricultural matters. As this Vote refers to the question of agricultural statistics and the Veterinary Department, in addition to the salary of the right lion. Gentleman, I do not think that I shall be out of order in referring briefly to those two questions. I have taken a great deal of interest, as other Members have, in what has been made known of the practice of other Boards of Agriculture in other countries; and I sincerely hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not hesitate to pull on the purse-strings of the Chancellor of the Exchequer,
      1216
      in order to make the Statistical Department of the Board of Agriculture an honour to the country, a help to the farmers, small as well as large, and a real means of furthering the great interests of agriculture. Then, as to the Veterinary Department. I wish, to take this opportunity of recording my satisfaction—a satisfaction which I think is generally felt—with the firm administration of the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Acts by the right hon. Gentleman. The information which is now in the hands of private Members is not so exhaustive as we could wish with regard to the prevalence of disease in France and Germany; but I venture to say that hon. Members, irrespective of Party, will gladly support any policy which will protect the farmers of the country from the ravages of these dreadful diseases. Now, I will turn to the questions which particularly prompted me to take part in this debate. It seems to me, Mr. Courtney, that we are rapidly arriving at a new stage with regard to the whole policy of the Legislature respecting compensation for agricultural improvements. I know I might be out of order if I entered into the question of the state of the existing laws, which is a question rather of legislative reforms than of the administration of the Department of Agriculture; and so, as I do not wish to put myself out of order, I will not go beyond the scope of what I wish to bring before the attention of the Committee. Now, in carrying into practice the principles laid down in the Agricultural Holdings Act, there is a very important power placed in the hands of the right hon. Gentleman by the Act of last Session, and I hope it will be used for the benefit of agriculture. The Committee will know that the Act of last year transferred to the new Ministry of Agriculture the powers of the Land Commission. One of these powers was the drawing up of lists of competent valuers in counties. Sir James Caird, who occupies so distinguished a position on the Board of Agriculture, and who is, perhaps, the very best man who could have been placed in the position, expressed his opinions five or six years ago on the question of the appointment of valuers. All of us interested in agriculture, and especially in the great principle which we thought had been successfully asserted by the Agricultural Holdings

      1217
      Act, namely, the principle that the tenants should have a real right of compensation for the value added to the land by their improvements, have had our attention drawn to a very remarkable speech delivered before the Chamber of Agriculture of Norfolk by a former well-known Member of this House, Mr. Clare Sewell Read. Any one who read that speech must feel that if the facts are verified by inquiry a very serious state of affairs prevails. I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will grant an inquiry, by a Select Committee of the House of Commons, into the working of the Valuation Clauses of the Act, and especially with regard to possible future action by the Board of Agriculture in reference to the appointment of valuers, as well as with a view to instituting a more satisfactory mode of carrying out agricultural valuation? I think I am justified in drawing attention to the important references to this mode made by Mr. C. S. Read. I am not dealing with legislative changes; I am merely going to attack the administration of the Act; and the point I wish to dwell upon is this—that in the county of Norfolk the lawyers and valuers and land agents have successfully boycotted the Agricultural Holdings Act; they have paralysed its administration, and have made it null and void, and of no use to the tenants. Mr. Read does not find fault with the Act itself; he does not challenge the wisdom of many of its provisions; but he does find fault with the spirit in which is carried out, and the way in which the valuers do, in practice, defeat and paralyse the objects of the Act. He gives many striking illustrations of this. For instance, in cases in which the tenant has a right under his lease to sell the hay off his land, when the lease expires and he is going out and he puts in his claim for unexhausted improvements, he is at once met with a counter claim—on a most extravagant basis—for the manurial value of the hay so sold. Mr. Read gives his own experience in this particular. He had the right on one of his farms to sell off the hay, the manurial value of which, according to the ordinary custom of valuation, was £18. But he had a counter claim sent in for £45; and when he drew the attention of the valuers to the act that he had spent no less than £300
      1218
      in artificial and other manures during the preceding two or three years they would allow him nothing for that, but insisted on enforcing the counter claim of £45. Mr. Read also described in his speech how he had spent as much as £1,000 on one farm, and when he put in a claim for £57 it was at once met by a counter claim for £30, afterwards raised to £90. He pointed out that he had converted a, wilderness into fruitful fields, and did not expect gratitude, although lie did expect even-handed justice; but he could not get a, penny of compensation, and was actually a considerable loser on the whole of these transactions through the present system of valuation. An Act which was intended to benefit tenant farmers has been turned into an engine of oppression. Under these circumstances, I think a strong case is made out for an inquiry into the present system of valuation—an inquiry which I trust may lead to the establishment by the Board of Agriculture of something like the system which has been carried out by the Local Government Board with regard to the valuation of property under the Artisans Dwellings Act, namely, the appointment of an official arbitrator or valuer to act for a moderate scale and office fees, and to examine into the whole matter, and decide, in an impartial spirit, the questions in; dispute between tenant and landlord. By adopting this course we should get rid of those professional middlemen who have really lived on the vitals of agriculture too long, and have wrung such immense bills of costs out of landlords and tenants, while instituting a system which generally defrauds the tenants, and often defrauds the landlords of part of their just claims. Before I pass from this subject I wish to emphasise the question I put to the right hon. Gentleman; i.e., whether he can see his way to consent to the appointment of a Select Committee, or to some other form of inquiry, into the working of the Agricultural Holdings Act in the matter of valuation, and with a view to instituting a better system from which will be absent the evils complained of by Mr. C. S. Read. Now I come to another matter. Those acquainted with the Agricultural Question must have had their attention drawn by several recent cases in the North of England to the state of the law with re-

      1219
      gard to mortgaged farms; and I should like to ask the right lion. Gentleman, as the guardian of agrieultural interests, whether lie will not take these cases into his careful consideration and hold an inquiry, with a view to legislating this Session upon the subject? I have no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman and the House are familial with the case which recently occurred in Yorkshire (near Doncaster), in which an unfortunate tenant took over a farm and paid £1,500 for the tenant right. He was deceived, whether by the landlord or the agent "I do not know, and was told that the farm was not mortgaged, whereas it was. When he decided to leave the farm he gave the proper notice, and obtained an award of £1,000 for his out-going tenant right. But the mortgagees subsequently foreclosed, and actually sold the stock and standing crops off the farm which they cleared, as they had power to do, under the existing law, and the tenant had not a claim for even a farthing against the mortgagees, who had become, in fact, the owners of the farm. That constitutes an obvious state of injustice in the law which I believe—
      THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order!
      MR. CHANNING: This is, perhaps, a matter for legislation, and I am not, therefore, justified in further alluding to it; but having drawn to it the attention of the right hon. Gentleman, T hope he will not let it escape his notice. I will only say, in conclusion, and with regard to the main object with which T spoke, that it is of the utmost importance to the effective carrying out of the principle of the Agricultural Holdings Act the principle of recognising that tenants who have added to the value of the soil should reap the benefit of what they have done to improve the land—that he should endeavour to secure an improved system of valuation under the Act.
      MR. C. W. GRAY: I am somewhat surprised to find we have become engaged in an agricultural debate on this Vote. I am sorry we should thus be taking up the time of the House, for I think it is not fair to force our grievances on the House on this occasion, although the temptation to do so is very great. We have had almost every subject connected with agriculture touched upon; but as I think more convenient opportunity will be
      1220
      found during the Session for discussing these topics, I prefer to-night to confine my remarks to doing what other speakers have done, and that is to congratulate the Government on having formed this. Board of Agriculture, and particularly on having put at the head of it a gentleman whoso appointment meets with universal approval. The appointment also of Major Craigie to the Statistical Department is, I am sure, equally popular. It is of the utmost importance that agricultural statistics should be thoroughly looked after, and that they should be in the hands of a competent Director. The importance of this has been exemplied recently in connection with the collection of the market prices of corn, and I hope that the supervision of that collection will be one of the duties entrusted to Major Craigie. A year or two ago a Committee sat upstairs for the purpose of finding-out whether the Returns were efficiently made; and we found, after examining gentlemen whose duty it had been to make the Returns, that the work was not effectively carried out. The Returns made since last harvest have been very misleading, especially in the matter of the comparisons of quantities of corn sold on the market this year and last. According to the Returns, for instance, the sales of barley since last harvest have been largely in increase of the quantity in the preceding 12 months, although, as practical farmers, we know that the last crop of barley was very deficient. Therefore the statistics are very misleading. The hon. Member for Rugby has suggested that the Ministry of Agriculture should take fox-hunting under its charge; but I think we had bettor by far get it to deal with questions of much greater importance. Surely hunters and farmers can arrange between themselves any little disputes that may arise. With regard to the question of tenants' compensation, no doubt the Minister will pay attention to the matter; while as to the case of mortgaged farms, if it can be shown that tenants' property has been sacrificed through defects in the existing law, it may be hoped that legislation dealing with it will soon be introduced. The hon. and gallant Member for North Down has asked the right hon. Gentleman to take steps in the direction of securing that cattle brought over to this country from Ireland shall be

      1221
      protected as far as possible from injury. This is a question of the greatest importance. As we in England find corn production no longer profitable—and the growing of wheat at £5 per acre is impossible—we are obliged to change our business, and the only change we can make is to convert arable into pasture land—and in many cases it will be very poor grass we shall get from these pastures. Consequently, we have to depend more and more on stock raising; and it is therefore very important that the British farmers should be able to get store stock from Ireland and other districts in which it is bred placed on his farm in the best possible condition. I do not think this is think time to trot out all our various ideas; so, in conclusion, I will only say I hope that the work of the new Ministry will continue in the same favourable way as it has commenced.
      MR. PICTON: I also wish to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on what I think is a well-deserved honour, and I assure him that I wish him success in carrying out the duties that will devolve on him in his new office. But I have something else to say. Doubtless the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Agriculture remembers that in the Daily News of February 4th there appeared a precis of a letter addressed to the editor by an Essex gentleman, in which that gentleman described the hunting that went on in his district, and spoke of there being some 220 or 300 skilled riders.
      THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! The hon. Gentleman is travelling quite beyond the question raised by the Amendment.
      MR. PICTON: I bow, Sir, to your ruling, and would merely express a hope that the right hon. Gentleman will do something for the amelioration of the farmers. I might refer him to a letter from Mr. George Baylis in regard to the difficulties with which certain farmers on the borders of Berks have to contend in reference to the payment of tithes. It appears that many of them are unable to pay the 10s. and 11s. per acre, which includes both rent and tithes. That, I think, is a point deserving consideration. There must be some reason why farmers holding very fair land should not be able to pay so small a sum. Of course, he has
      1222
      been told that the burdens imposed on the farmers by the present fiscal system were more than they can bear.
      THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! The hon. Gentleman is again entering upon matter which is irrelevant to the subject before the Committee.
      MR, PICTON: I again bow, Sir, to your ruling; but I presume I am in order in asking the Minister of Agriculture to consider in what way he may best improve the position of the cultivators of the land; and in regard to that question I would point out that there is a matter of great importance deserving his careful attention. I allude to the growth of fruit. In the United States of America there is a Department of the Government which distributes statistics relative, amongst other things, to the cultivation of fruit. Last May several cargoes of apples were brought here from the Colony of Tasmania, and they were sold at as much as from 12s. to 20s. a bushel, which is a very good price. It is also stated that a few years ago as large a quantity as one million and a half of barrels of apples were imported from America, while in a more recent year the importation of that fruit from America reached 800,000 barrels. That is an enormous quantity to import into this Kingdom from one country, and I think inquiry should be made into the matter; because if, as is said, we can grow as good or better fruit as can be brought from abroad, our growers must be placed at a considerable disadvantage by the competition thus going on. I am told that near the Land's End there is a small fruit farm which pays a good percentage to the owner; but that is due to the fact that he is the owner of the land on which the fruit is grown. Again, I think the Minister of Agriculture would do well to pay some attention to the ominous words of the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. C. Gray), when he said that the only alternative for the decreased production of corn was the increased production of meat. Surely other alternatives ought to be possible, and would be so, if our farmers took a more intelligent view of their position. That is an important matter, and well worthy of serious attenon. In conclusion, I would merely express my sympathetic hope that the appointment of the right hon. Gentleman, who, from his previous association with

      1223
      agriculture, is exceedingly well qualified for the position he holds, will lead to a more intelligent appreciation of the difficulties which beset the British farmer, and to the consideration of measures whereby his present position may be materially improved.
      THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. CHAPLIN,): As this is the first occasion on which it has ever been my fortune to defend the Estimates of a Government Department, I hope I may be allowed to refer to the kind expressions which, have, without one single exception, been used by hon. Members, no matter in what part of the House they sit, with regard to the appointment which I have the honour to hold. I beg to express my thanks and gratitude to those hon. Members who have spoken so kindly in reference to myself. If the ruling of the Chairman will permit, I should desire to say something in reply to the hon. Member who has just sat down. It is true that the conditions of agriculture have very considerably changed during the last few years. I am as sensible of that change as any Member of this Committee; and although I do not, perhaps, attach quite so much importance to the cultivation of fruit as the hon. Gentleman appears to do. It has engaged my attention, and undoubtedly all those matters are entitled to, and are, in fact, at the present time engaging, the careful consideration of the Board of Agriculture. Fruit cultivation is a matter which we are now considering in connection with the question of agricultural education; but let me give one word of caution on this subject. It must be remembered that the cultivation of fruit depends perhaps more upon climate than upon anything else, and there we stand unquestionably, with the exception of some favoured districts, at a disadvantage as compared with many other countries of the world. The hon. Member said he could not understand why certain land in Berkshire could not afford to pay 10s. an acre for tithe and rent combined, and asked what was the reason. The answer is perfectly simple. The value of land depends upon two things—the quality of the soil and the prices of produce. The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is that land, unfortunately, is in some cases too
      1224
      bad at the present prices of produce to pay any rent at all. That that is not at all an unknown state of things in this country I know from my experience in connection with a farm, which I consider a fairly good farm, and which used in former times to bring me in a good revenue. It was my misfortune to have to let that farm for no rent at all, rather than have it on my own hands. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Sussex asks me to explain that item in the Supplementary Estimate which consists of £500 for collection of additional produce Returns beyond those provided under another sub-head of the same Vote. There is a Return given of the estimated total produce of barley and oats in bushels. It was thought desirable to supplement this Return during the present year by further information of the average weight of the bushel, which varies considerably in different seasons. The collection and tabulation of this Return added to the cost—and it is to cover this that the Supplementary Vote is required. The subject of statistics is under consideration, and, indeed, revision, by the Department, and we hope to make some improvement. My hon. and gallant Friend behind me asked whether the Land Commission was in future to be under the control of the Board of Agriculture. As a matter of fact, the Land Commission at the present moment, by an Act that was passed last Session, is merged altogether in the Board of Agriculture, and as my hon. and gallant Friend perhaps has noticed, at the foot of the Returns is a note to this effect, which I hope will be satisfactory to him that the additional charges under the Supplementary Estimates will be more than covered by the savings upon the Vote of the Land Commission, which savings amount, notwithstanding the present Supplementary Estimate, to £2,290. I come to the question put to me by the hon. Member for Rugby as to agricultural education. The hon. Gentleman repeated his inquiries, to which I gave him an answer some, days ago, with regard to the establishment of a central normal school at Rugby, or in that neighbourhood. That is a matter which the Board of Agriculture have under consideration. I do not know that I can do more on this

      1225
      occasion than repeat practically the answer which I gave to him the other day. The whole' subject of agricultural I education at the present moment is engaging our careful consideration, for it will be some satisfaction to the hon. Member to learn that the subject is included in that branch of the Department which is at present presided over by Major Craigie. I was only fortunate enough to obtain the services of Major Craigie for the Department a few weeks ago; and it has been impossible, because of the great quantity of other work which has fallen to the Department, to frame a complete scheme of agricultural education at present. I hope, however, that it will be possible to do so before any very considerable period has elapsed. And I can assure the hon. Member for North amptonshire, who urged upon me to pull hard at the purse strings of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that I shall never be backward in that respect when the interests of agriculture appear to justly demand it; but which of us can pull the harder at the strings only the future can determine. But I am bound to say for my right hon. Friend that I have no cause of complaint of any kind of the way in which he has met me up till now. The hon. Member for the County Down drew my attention to the question of the traffic in animals across the Channel between this country and Ireland. He was kind enough to express his regret that the duties of the Board of Agriculture do not also include the agricultural interests of Ireland. I cannot say that I altogether share in the regret of my hon. Friend, although I thank him for the complimentary and kindly allusions he made to myself. But I may be able to give him some satisfaction by stating that up to the present time the Board of Agriculture and the Irish Government have always been able to work in perfect harmony—a harmony which I trust will continue as long a:-my right hon. Friend and myself continue to occupy the offices which we dc at present. Undoubtedly it is of great importance that there should be complete and harmonious working between the two Governments; because the question to which he called my attention, that of pleuro pneumonia and the effective control of that disease, is undoubtedly of the
      1226
      very first importance, and is a matter which even at the present moment is more than under consideration, for it is one with regard to which I have already prepared a Bill, which I hope to introduce into this House at no distant time, but with regard to which also it is impossible for me on this occasion to give any further information. The hon. Member for Northamptonshire, while expressing satisfaction, which I was exceedingly glad to note, with the policy which I thought fit at the Board of Agriculture to pursue with regard to the importation of foreign animals into this country, and the duty and necessity which fell upon this Board to take reasonable measures to prevent that importation being accompanied by the introduction of foreign disease—the hon. Member, in addition to that question, laid great stress upon the alleged deficiencies of the Agricultural Holdings Act. He called my attention in particular to statements that have been made in relation to that subject.
      MR. CHANNING: The right hon. Gentleman will pardon my interrupting him for a moment. I did not draw attention to the defects of the Agricultural Holdings Act, but to the way in which the present system of valuation is carried out by the valuers, so as to defeat the purposes of the Act.
      MR. CHAPLIN: Quite so; but these valuers are appointed under the Act, and I concluded that the hon. Member's observations reflected upon the Agricultural Holdings Act itself. With regard to the appointment of valuers, that is a question to which, undoubtedly, after the observations of the hon. Member, it will be necessary for the Board of Agriculture to devote the most careful attention. He asked me whether I was willing to agree to the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire, I understood him, into this question. I am of opinion, and I always have been, that, probably, in all these matters there is a good deal too much of red tape already; and as far as I am concerned, I entertain the view today which I have always entertained, I that arrangements of this kind are much better managed by private agreements between the landlord on the one hand and the tenant on the other than they could be by any legislation in the world. This is the first occasion, I confess, that

      1227
      my attention has been called to the necessity of appointing a Select Committee to inquire into this question. I have not bad an opportunity of seeing and of considering, with the necessary care, any sufficiently full and accurate report of the statements that were made by Mr. Clare Read some little time ago, and I am somewhat sorry that I have been disappointed of having an interview which I partly expected with Mr. Read, who is an old and valued friend of mine, upon this subject. But I am perfectly willing to admit that it is a matter which deserves careful and thorough consideration, as I attach very considerable importance to anything which falls from Mr. Clare Read on agricultural questions. I am bound to say this also: that, so far as I am acquainted with what did fall from him on the occasion referred to, it seems to me that the difficulties of which Mr. Clare Read complained and the injustice which I understand he alleged is suffered, were owing rather to some old agreements entered into many years ago than to any defects in the law at the present time. My own view of this question, generally speaking, I confess is that in these days, and more especially during the last few years, the tenant farmers, as a rule, have been placed in so advantageous a position, for this purpose at least, that they have been able on all occasions to make almost any agreement that they pleased. Certainly it has been my own experience during the last few years, and I expect that it will have been the general experience of the landlords throughout the country, that where a farm has been in the market for which a tenant has been required the rent has practically been fixed by the tenant and not by the landlord. And if a tenant can fix the amount of his rent, which is by far and away the most important part of his agreement, there is no reason in the world why he cannot fix the other terms in that agreement as well. At the same time, I can promise the hon. Member this: that with regard to the question of valuers which he has raised, it shall receive my most careful consideration; and although I cannot pledge myself to the appointment of a Select Committee, this being the first occasion on which the proposal has been brought to my notice, I can promise him that the
      1228
      whole question which he has raised shall receive the careful attention of the Board of Agriculture. The hon. Member raised another question which is perhaps of even greater importance. He called my attention to the case which occurred in Yorkshire, in the neighbourhood of Doncaster, some two years ago, in which, I believe, it was the fact that the tenant of a farm which had been mortgaged left it for some reason or another, when the mortgagee stepped in and seized the estate. The estate was not sufficient to pay the debts of the landlord, and the general result was that the tenant was turned out of the farm without receiving any compensation whatever, either under the Agricultural Holdings Act or under his agreement with his landlord. The result to him was this: that he had no one from whom to recover compensation except his landlord, who was a bankrupt. I acknowledge that this is also a question of importance and is deserving of great consideration. I remember that I examined into this question when it was first brought under my notice; but I came to no conclusion sufficiently definite to induce me to take action upon it. I have not considered it since I was appointed to this office, and therefore I do not wish to pledge myself to anything-definite upon the subject at the present moment. I admit the importance of the matter, and it is a question upon which, before I commit myself to any particular policy with regard to it, I naturally desire to consult the Legal Authorities. It is, however, a question which the hon. Member has not only a right, but is fully justified, in my opinion, in bringing to the notice of the Government, and it is one which I shall be careful to consider. Then I come to the question raised by the hon. Member for Essex, who sits behind me. He referred to the present condition of the Corn Returns. He is not satisfied with them, and he thinks that a very great improvement might be effected in connection with the corn trade. He thinks that the present system in connection with the corn trade is susceptible of great improvement. That system which is in operation is at present carried on by the Board of Trade, and not by the Board of Agriculture, and naturally, although I am glad to be able to agree with him, I

      1229
      do not wish to pass criticism of a hostile character upon the work of a Department other than my own. There is one more question which I approach with some trepidation after your ruling to-night, Mr. Chairman—I mean that which was brought under our notice by the hon. Member for Rugby, who spoke at some length upon it. He put to me a whole list of questions with regard to the future of fox hunting in this country. I was impressed with one suggestion which bears on the interest of agriculture. The hon. Member suggested that it would be most desirable if, in future, horses and forage could be bought directly of tenant farmers instead of from middlemen and dealers, who prevent the profits from going' into the pockets of those whom we desire to have them. I warmly endorse the suggestion. I think it would be the most desirable thing in the world; but it is not a question in which the Board of Agriculture ought to interfere. The hon. Member next dwelt 011 the damage to fences and crops, and insinuated—
      THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order!
      MR. CHAPLIN: To tell the truth I am very glad, Sir, to be relieved from the duty of replying at greater length to the observations of the hon. Gentleman, which are scarcely, I think, with in the province of the Department. I hope now that the Supplementary Estimates of the Board of Agriculture will be allowed to pass. I assure hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House that the various suggestions which have been made to me will receive the most careful attention of the new Department of which I am President.
      Question put, and negatived.
      Original Question again proposed.
      MR. LABOUCHERE: I wish, Sir, now to bring back the discussion to its financial aspect, and I have no doubt I shall have the attention of the right hon. Gentleman at the* head of the Board of Agriculture to the matter on which I am about to speak. I intend to move the reduction of the Vote by the whole of the salary of the right hon. Gentleman, and I think I shall be able to show him that my proposal is reasonable and legitimate. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that there is nothing per-
      1230
      sonal in this Amendment, nor do I take this action because the right hon. Gentleman happens to be at this time President of the Board. I have no doubt that he will make just as good a Minister of Agriculture as any other gentleman on that side of the House. But there was a distinct pledge given by the Government, after a good many discussions, as to the appointment of a Minister of Agriculture. Formerly, the duties of this Minister were performed by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, whose office was a purely honorary one. I remember once meeting the late Mr. John Bright during the vacation. I asked him something about his office, and he replied, "Oh, I have not even seen my private secretary for the last four months; there is really nothing to do." It was admitted that there was nothing to do in the office, and the duties now fulfilled by the right hon. Gentleman were added to those of the Chancellor of the Duchy. It was fully understood that when a Minister of Agriculture was appointed, the salary of the Chancellor of the Duchy would be transferred to the office now held by the right hon. Gentleman. But we have still a Chancellor of the Duchy—a very estimable nobleman—and we cannot attack his salary, as it is not in the Estimates. It comes out of the revenues of the Duchy. We are therefore obliged to attack the salary of the right hon. Gentleman himself. I do not expect that right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench opposite are so patriotic as to say they do not want salaries, and I would therefore say to the President of the Board of Agriculture, "Go to the Duke of Rutland. Get your salary from him—get his salary." There was a pledge given to the House that the salary of the Chancellor of the Duchy should be given to the new Minister for Agriculture, and it has not been carried out. I need not refer to the day when that pledge was given, as it must be in the recollection of the right hon. Gentleman. "Coming events cast their shadows before," and the right lion. Gentleman took a much greater interest in the discussion in the course of which the pledge was given than some of us on this side did. I would urge that the pledge which was given ought to be carried out; and, as a protest against its non-fulfilment, I move the reduction of the Vote by £1,120.
      (10.10.) Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Item A, £1,266, Salaries, be reduced by £1,120, part of the Salary of the President.—(Mr. Labouchere.)
      The Committee divided:—Ayes 58; Noes 118.—(Div. List, No. 13.)

      CLASS III.
      7. £9,068, Supplementary for County Courts.
      8. £326, Supplementary, for Revising Barristers, England.
      9. £3,400, Supplementary, for Reformatory and Industrial Schools, Great Britain.
      ADMIRAL HELD: I desire to call attention to the question of the Reformatory and Industrial School Ships. There are 18 of these vessels, and I wish to draw attention to the absurd and mischievous system of inspection which exists.
      THE CHAIRMAN: That subject is outside the scope of this Vote.
      SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLE-WORTH: I desire to point out that the number of children in industrial schools goes on increasing, and I am anxious to know what steps are being taken to press forward the Bill on this matter. I hope some assurance will be given to Members on both sides of the House who served on, the Royal Commission that the Government intend on an early day to proceed with the Bill. I would suggest to the Home Secretary whether it would not be better to introduce the Bill in this House rather than in the House of Lords? A Bill on the subject was introduced in the other House last year and went before the Standing Committee on Law, but it was cruelly murdered by its own parents after having been amended, to some extent, by the Committee. I think, as one of the Commissioners, I have a right to urge the Government to pass a Bill. The subject is pressing, as this Vote is increasing from year to year, and there are many reforms needed, such as the substitution, in suitable cases, of the system of boarding out for that of confining children in industrial schools.
      THE HOME SECRETARY (Mr. MATTHEWS,): I can assure the right hon. Gentleman
      1232
      that I have this matter very much at heart. I certainly have turned over in my own mind the alternative of bringing in the Bill in this House, but I am convinced that the best plan would be to follow the course of last year and introduce the Bill in the House of Lords. The Bill is quite ready, and will be introduced without delay.
      Vote agreed to.
      10. £630, Supplementary, for the Register House, Edinburgh.
      11. £1,205, Supplementary, for the Crofters' Commission.
      SIR G. CAMPBELL: I do not think we can fairly object to the items of this Vote; but, before it is agreed to, I should like to take the opportunity of asking that we should have the latest information possible in regard to the condition of the crofters. For my own part, I never shall be satisfied with the way in which the crofter plan has been carried out.
      THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman cannot enter into the general question on this Vote. He can only discuss the supplementary additions.
      Vote agreed to.

      CLASS IV.
      12. £565, Supplementary, for Universities, &c, in Scotland.

      CLASS V.
      13. £4,000, Supplementary, for Diplomatic Services.
      MR. LABOUCHERE: I understand this Vote refers to the abortive mission of the Member for West Birmingham to America.
      THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD or TRADE (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,): No; the Vote refers to the Maritime Conference held within the last few months at Washington.
      SIR G. BADEN-POWELL: I should like to express the appreciation of my constituency, aud also that of the other great mercantile centres, of the action of the Government, not only in joining this Conference, but in so ably representing the interests of this country. I may add that I have found from various sources that the great success of that Conference has been

      1233
      in a great measure due to the skill, eloquence, and ability of the hon. Member for Cambridge shire, our chief delegate. It was stated before the Conference met that the delegates had no power to bind Her Majesty's Government, and that any proposals could only be dealt with ad referendum.I should like to know whether the Government, before they come to any definite decision on the subject, will give those interested in the great mercantile interests of this country any opportunity of expressing their opinions upon those decisions.
      MR. GOURLEY: I should like to know whether, as the outcome of this Commission, any change is to be made in regard to the rule of the road at sea. I should like also to ask whether the Commission has under its consideration the existing load-line; whether there is any probability of the Conference bringing about an International load-line between this country and America, and other countries; and, also, whether it is the intention of the Government to place in the hands of Members a full Report of the Conference proceedings.
      SIR G. CAMPBELL: The last thing I would wish to do would be to object to this expenditure. I believe it is expenditure incurred for an excellent purpose. But I hope that before the Vote is passed the President of the Board of Trade will be able to state what is the exact state of the negotiations.
      SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I should like, in the first place, to corroborate all that has been said by my hon. Friend behind me in commendation of the admirable way in which this country has been served by its delegates at this Conference. Too much cannot be said in praise of the hon. Member for Cambridge shire, who has acted as First Commissioner, and who has been most efficiently assisted by the other delegates. It is especially agreeable to the Government and to the country to observe the attention which has been paid to this Conference by the representatives of all nations, and the recognition of the special knowledge and experience of England in these matters. In reply to the questions addressed to me, I have to say that the Protocols of the Conference have not yet arrived,
      1234
      and it is, therefore, premature to discuss the proceedings. It is certainly desirable that the proceedings should be made public as soon as possible in order that they may be carefully considered by the country before anything is done to carry out the recommendations of the Conference. As to the two questions of the hon. Member for Sunderland, I may say that very few alterations have been proposed in the rule of the road, and I believe it will be possible to adopt them. As to the International load-line, I myself suggested the insertion of that subject among the matters to be considered. It was considered, but I am sorry to say it was found impossible to arrive at any decision on the subject.
      Vote agreed to
      14. £10, Supplementary, for Consular Services.
      15. £5,030, Supplementary, for Colonies, Grants in Aid.
      16. Motion made, and Question proposed,
      "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £23,250, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1890, for certain Charges connected with Bechuanaland, the High Commissioner for South Africa, and other services in South Africa."
      SIR G. CAMPBELL: I have given notice of a Motion to reduce this Vote by £20,000 in respect of the additional grant in aid to Bechuanaland. The Bechuanaland territory has been an extremely expensive territory to this country. We have already voted this year £70,000 as a grant in aid of it, and now we are asked to vote an additional £20,000. May I ask what is our position with regard to the new Chartered Company? We are told that the revenue of the territory does not come up to the expenditure, and that additional expenditure has been found necessary in consequence of the rise in price of wages, and the heavy cost of the police in the Protectorate. But I understand that the rights and privileges which the Government acquired in that part of Africa have by Charter devolved upon a company. In that case might not the company be called upon to bear the expenses? Why should we be called upon to pay an additional £20,000 for

      1235
      the maintenance of order in the Protectorate? I look with great suspicion and doubt upon the policy of devolving great territory upon Mercantile Companies got up in the City; for I am afraid that through the action of these companies we are led into annexation which is not desired by Parliament or the country. Perhaps the Under Secretary for the Colonies will tell us whether the new Chartered Company has assumed the function which has hitherto been assumed by Her Majesty's Treasury; and, if so, why we are called upon to bear this additional expense? In order that my question may be answered, I beg to move that the Vote be reduced by £20,000.
      Motion made, and Question proposed,
      "That Item D, £20,000, Bechuanaland, be omitted from the proposed Vote."—(Sir George Campbell.)
      THE UNDER SECRETARY FOR THE COLONIES (Baron H. de WORMS,): The hon. Member is in error in supposing that the increased expenditure for the police has any connection, however remote, with the Chartered Company.
      SIR G. CAMPBELL: What I suggested was that the Chartered Company was intended to relieve us of the expense.
      BARON H. DE WORMS: I do not think it was ever intended that the Chartered Company should relieve us of the expense of the police which has nothing whatever to do with the company. There has been no increase in the number of the police, but the force has proved a great deal more expensive than we expected owing to the great distances to be travelled and to the increase of prices. The reason why it is necessary to have a police force there, I think, I explained to the hon. Member last Session. It is to prevent filibustering on the frontier of our Protectorate. The hon. Member seems to be under the impression that the Chartered Company are doing nothing to relieve us of the burden and expense consequent on the territory in which we have allowed them certain rights. That is not strictly correct. The company are spending out of their own pockets about £60,000 on a telegraph line north of Bechuanaland, and they are constructing at their own expense a
      1236
      railway from Kimberley. It is anticipated that an immediate advantage will accrue not only to British Bechuanaland, but to the advancement of industry in the Protectorate by this action on the part of the company.
      SIR G. CAMPBELL: I understand that all the profits which may be derived from the territory have been made over to the Chartered Company. The Under Secretary tells us that the expense which is now proposed to be met by this £20,000 is increased expenditure on the police. What I want explained is, why should not the company bear the expense of the police in the territory, exactly as the East India Company bore the cost of the Army maintained in India.
      DR. CLARK: I think there is involved in this-Vote a far more important question than my hon. Friend has raised. I know that Colonel Carrington, who is in charge of the police, has been in Cape Colony, and that recruiting is going on in the Transvaal and the gold fields for 1,000 men to go into this Protectorate. I naturally supposed that this £20,000 was for these new soldiers that Colonel Carrington has been sending there. However, we are told this grant in aid has nothing to do with that, but is necessitated by the extra cost of the police in the Protectorate. Let us understand the position of affairs. Last year we voted £48,000, and the last Report is that there is no filibustering and no crime, that every one at the gold fields is rich, and there is no trouble. During the present year we have increased the grant from £48,000 to £70,000, and now we are asked for £20,000 in addition. The whole of this sum is to be spent on the police. You have got a declining revenue—your revenue is going down every year because your land sales are going down. Why is that, and why is this colony one of the biggest disgraces we have ever had? In this grand colony of Bechuanaland there is no church and no clergyman. Your officers have been appealing to you to get them a church and a clergyman; and in this huge territory, twice as big as this country, there are only two medical men. The people appeal to you for more medical officers. They appeal to you for education. There is not one school for white children in the whole

      1237
      country. Last year I brought the matter before the House and pressed the Government to do something, and a month or six weeks ago the High Commissioner, Sir Hercules Robinson, in a letter to the Times,entreated of the Treasury to do something. The condition of the colony is a disgrace to the Treasury. Under your fostering care the population is lessening and the revenue is declining. I wish hon. Members who are fond of annexation would read the Report sent home by our officials out there, for it will put them to shame if anything can. You are there told that in one village with 6,000 inhabitants, people are dying at the rate of 10 per day. If we had handed the colony to the Cape they might have done something with it. The last Report showed that £105,000 had been spent. Of that £80,000 was spent on the police and £25,000 spent for all other purposes! Now, I wish to know why Colonel Carrington wants 1,000 more men. Why has he been down in Cape Colony picking up recruits and promising them large salaries? Do you want with these men to attack Lobengula, the King of the Matabeles? It seems to me that the present policy is to force the Matabeles into war. The Bechuanaland Protectorate embraces a portion of the Matabeleland territory. We claim that territory because some time ago King Lobengula made a Treaty of friendship with John Moffatt. What is there in that Treaty to give you any right to determine any question with reference to Matabeleland? No rights or privileges in that country have been conferred on the Chartered Company, and if they want possession of Lobengula's territory they will have to fight for it. There is no doubt that the 1,000 men Colonel Carrington is recruiting are the men intended to fight the Matabeles and get mineral rights for the company which Mr. Rhodes is running.
      THE CHAIRMAN: I do not see how this arises out of this Vote.
      DR. CLARK: Certainly, because this money is for police, and these police are like the Irish Police—a military force.
      BARON H. DE WORMS: The lion. Member is in error. The police who are being recruited tire the police of the company. There is no charge whatever on the Estimate for them.
      DR. CLARK: Then why is Colonel Carrington, who is the Chief of the Police, recruiting these filibusters? We want definite information. If these men are not for the Bechuanaland Police, I want to know why the gentleman whom we pay very highly and who is at the head of the Bechuanaland Police should be the recruiting officer for the new company?
      BARON H. DE WORMS: I am not prepared to admit that Colonel Carrington is the recruiting officer for the police; the only statement to that effect that I have heard is that of the hon. Member himself. What I stated was that the police, to whom the hon. Member refers as being recruited, are not for Her Majesty's Government, and have nothing to do with them. The hon. Member was in the House the other day when I entered fully into the merits of the Charter. I then explained that the British South Africa Company are raising 500 police for the purpose of maintaining law and order within the districts over which they have certain rights. [Dr. CLARK: What rights?] I do not think that the rights of the Chartered Company can possibly arise in the discussion of a Vote for the Bechuanaland Police, and I should be out of order if I discussed now the policy with respect to Matabeleland and the position of the Chartered Company. With respect to the raid which has been referred to, we have an assurance from the President of the Transvaal that there is no truth in the report that any is contemplated, and the hon. Member, from his official position in relation to the Transvaal Government, ought to be in possession of information to that effect. In reply to the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy, I have to repeat that we have not increased the number of police, but the, increased expenditure is owing to the fact that provisions are much dearer owing to the drought. We have moved the police further north, and thus, being further from their base, the cost of maintenance has increased.
      DR. CLARK: Is it not the case that these police are engaged in the territory over which the company exercise their rights and privileges? Is it not the case that they are stationed north of the Molopo river and outside the colony of Bechuanaland?
      SIR G. CAMPELL: The statement of the Under Secretary for the Colonies makes explanation more necessary than over. We are constituting a police force, for which we are asked to pay, and at the same time this Chartered Company is also raising a police force for the same country, for which they are to pay. Where is the line drawn between the functions of these two bodies of police? It is the police of the Chartered Company which is responsible for keeping the peace, and, I suppose, for making war in that territory; but how can you draw a line between the functions of the Government police and the police of the Chartered Company?
      BARON H. DE. WORMS: These police will not be in that district. The police of the company will be far beyond the frontier where our police are. The police of the company are for the purpose of maintaining law and order in the territory over which the company exercise certain control and have certain rights. Our police are stationed on the frontier of our Protectorate to prevent the operations of filibustering expeditions there.
      SIR R. FOWLER: I think the Under Secretary has made it very clear that these police are to be stationed within our own territory, and that what goes on beyond is matter for the Chartered Company, and not relevant to the present discussion. The hon. Gentleman opposite began by complaining that "we did not do enough for this settlement. There were, he said, no surgeons and no clergymen there. I do not, from what I know of the views of lion. Gentlemen opposite, suppose that the hon. Member means to suggest that the Government should send out clergymen, but I hope, at all events, he will support an increase of surgeons. I think we have just cause to look with satisfaction upon what has been done in Bechuanaland. I remember in former years how the late Mr. W. E. Forster earnestly advocated something of this kind. The policy the Government have pursued is in accordance with that of the statesmen I have mentioned, and has been productive, I think, of great good. I think the House should look in no niggardly spirit on any demands Her Majesty's Government may make towards carrying out their policy there, and in maintenance of our interests in South Africa.
      DR. CLARK: What are really the facts of the case? They seem very difficult to get at. These police are to be found far beyond the Bechuanaland frontier. You can meet them in the country of Bamangwato, in Mashonaland, in the country of the Moslikatzes, in native territories far north of the Molopo River, between that river and the Zambesi, all coming within the control of this company. This amount of £20,000 is, in my opinion, for the services of these police who are in this territory now, without the colony without the protected territory. I am glad the Under Secretary is content with the proper proclamations, but if he had occupied his present position some six years ago, when Bechuanaland was in pretty much the same position it is in now, he would know that exactly similar proclamations were issued then as now, notwithstanding which people did cross the frontier, and there was fighting in consequence. Every one who roads the South African Papers knows that Colonel Carrington is getting together his new recruits, and that when he has completed his force he will go into Mataheleland. There he will probably meet with a hostile reception, and we shall be asked to send a military force to support him. We shall probably have a war before the year is out. Now, Mr. Bowler is an Englishman having a large interest in Mashonaland, and he claims to have received some concession from the Mashonas for giving assistance to them. These are the most industrious and peaceful among these South African peoples, while the Matabeles are the most warlike. Now that Lobengula cannot send his young men across the Molopo he will send them to make raids on the Mashonas. Mr. Bowler has organised a force for the protection of the Mashonas, and we shall have trouble, all President Kruger's proclamations notwithstanding. If I were in the Transvaal I would do as I thought proper so far as President Kruger is concerned. Paper proclamations have never stopped these inter-tribal wars in South Africa, which always end in the acquisition of territory by the white men who take part in the wars. By a treaty, which is merely a treaty of friendship, and more a personal treaty than anything else, between the father of the present Kino and the late Dr. Moffatt, the father of John Moffatt,

      1241
      who was on terms of intimate friendship with the King, giving his name to the King's son—by this treaty and on this shadowy foundation you put forward claims to territory in Matabeleland and Mashonaland. Lobengula is sure to resist. War will arise in which freebooters will take part on one side legalised by us, or the other side not legalised by the Transvaal. Who is to step in and take command? In Mashonaland and Matabeleland we shall have a repetition of those terrible scones of bloodshed that disgraced South African Administration six or seven years ago. Instead of this Chartered Company solving the problem in South Africa, it makes the problem more difficult, and you are legalising filibustering-some 500 miles from where it went on six or seven years ago.
      BARON H. DE WORMS: Perhaps I might shorten the discussion by dispelling some errors into which the hon. Gentleman seems to have fallen. He seems to think that the police force is intended to protect the new territory of the company, but, as a matter of fact, the police force was augmented last year or the year before, before the Chartered Company was thought of. The force is not intended to protect the interests of the company. The hon. Gentleman has advocated the claims of Mr. Bowler, but it is alleged that this raid into Mashonaland has been instigated by Mr. Bowler, who thinks he has a concession from the Mashonas and wishes to enforce it. It has nothing whatever to do with the Chartered Company nor with Her Majesty's Government. We have received a telegram from President Kruger disclaiming any participation in Mr. Bowler's proceedings. I do not think, Sir, this Committee should be made the medium of pushing the interest of individuals or companies. I say, again, this raid into Mashonaland has nothing to do with the action of the Transvaal Republic.
      COMMANDED BETHELL: I should like to remind the Committee that we, having established a Protectorate, are bound to take measures to protect our interests and prevent filibustering expeditions being pushed forward. I think the hon. Member for Caithness always takes a pessimistic view of affairs, and that he has exaggerated the evils that do exist.
      1242
      Te fact of Her Majesty's Government not having taken sufficient steps to provide schools and other advantages for the settlers is no argument for making matters worse by not having' a sufficient number of police. But in regard to the increase in expenditure, I may, perhaps, remind the lion. Member for Kirkcaldy that it would be hardly fair to this company—the policy of which I personally do not approve, I dislike these big companies—it would not be fair to place the original expenditure for police on the shoulders of the company in the very genesis of its existence. These are old troubles existing on our borders. It is true the company has been started to take up a position outside our protectorate, but it would be unfair to put upon the company straight away the burden of those troubles. What may be the case in the future when the company has more power is another matter. A distinction must be drawn between the original police to protect our own borders, and the police the company have a right to raise for the territory within which they have some sort of rule. As I understand, that is what the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy wished to get from the Under Secretary when he asked why the company did not take over the police duties. The answer is it would be unfair to require the company to do so now, though the company may do so in the future.
      SIR G. CAMPBELL: I acknowledge the hon. and gallant Member has put the case much more clearly than the Under Secretary did. It is acknowledged that the police are employed in the territory this company now occupies. I cannot help thinking the lion. Baronet the Member for the City confused the House by his reference to British territory, not drawing a distinction between British Bechuanaland and the protected territory beyond. As the hon. and gallant Gentleman has explained, that is the scene of the operations of the new company, which I do not like, and as to which it is argued that it would be hard to put the burden of the police on the company in the earliest days of their occupation, though, in time, the company might be required to undertake it. I shall be glad if the Government accept this explanation, and say this is only a temporary charge. We pay

      1243
      £90,000 a year for Bechuanalund; that is not the mere bagatelle the lion. Baronet (Sir R. Fowler) seems to think it is. Why, a great deal is thought of an expenditure of £10,000 for the relief of crofters, in Scotland, and we are told the country cannot afford this or that, and yet here is £90,000 a year spent for the administration of this miserable territory in South Africa, and to maintain order among a number of wretched African tribes. I admit the hon. and gallant Gentleman's explanation has put a better face on the matter, but I must ask the Committee to disallow this £20,000.
      SIR G. BADEN-POWELL: There is one misconception hon. Members are under. It is a question of time, not of place, that is under discussion. The protectorate had to be arranged, and this £20,000 is required for preserving order in this territory, which is now under the control of the Imperial Government, but which is to pass under the control of the Chartered Company.
      SIE G. CAMPBELL: Has it not passed?
      SIB G. BADEN-POWELL: I do not know the present position. It is to pass. The great expenditure from year to year On Bechuanaland is for the extension of the Protectorate, not for the Colony, and when this Protectorate passes under the control of the Chartered Company these extra charges, especially that for police, will cease to appear on the Estimates, and will fall upon the Chartered Company. I am convinced that this company will respect all the rights and interests of the natives quite as much as the Imperial Government. When the hon. Member for Caithness speaks of Colonel Carrington recruiting soldiers for filibustering expeditions into the country of the Matabeles, I may point out that recruiting that is carried on is not for filibustering expeditions nor is it by Colonel Carrington, but by agents of the great Chartered Company, with a view of having a supply of reserve men should any emergency occur. We know that filibusters do exist in Mashonaland, Matabeleland, and all the territory along the Zambesi, and that in protecting its own interests, and that of the natives, the Company may have to control these filibusters by force.
      MR. LABOUCHERE: We are gradually getting information, but
      1244
      every hon. Member on the other side gives another reason, and, as he thinks, a better reason, for the Vote than that offered by the Under Secretary. I can only say that if these reasons are correct, then the right hon. Gentleman at the commencement of this debate must have been signally ignorant of matters connected with Bechuanaland and this great Chartered Company. We are asked to vote an extra £20,000 for police for what is called Bechuanaland, and at the head of the police is a certain Colonel Carrington. It is admitted—it is openly stated in all the Cape papers—that Colonel Carrington is recruiting police for this Chartered Company. The hon. Gentleman just now told us the recruiting is not carried on directly by Colonel Carrington, but is in some sort of way aided by Colonel Carrington, which is nearly the same thing. Now, the Under Secretary has protested against my hon. Friend advocating, as he said, the claims of an individual, and yet the hon. Member (Sir G. Baden-Powell) finished his speech by a puff, which I might almost call indecent, of this Chartered Company. Now, what is this Chartered Company? You will be surprised to hear, Mr. Courtney, that it consists of seven individuals, two of them the noble Dukes of Fife and Abercorn—
      THE CHAIRMAN: This is travelling outside the limits of the discussion.
      MR. LABOUCHERE: Then, Mr. Courtney, I will say that the hon. Member for Holderness Division said we ought to incur a certain burden for this Chartered Company because this company would do so much good afterwards. Why, Sir, this Chartered Company subscribed a million sterling, and could at this moment raise four millions per annum.
      THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order!
      MR. LABOUCHERE: I will not go into that. At any rate, we may clearly understand, not from the Under Secretary, whom I do not blame personally, because Under Secretaries in his position usually know less about the Colonies than anybody else, but from those hon. Members whose knowledge of what they talk about we admit, that this sum of £20,000 is an expenditure being incurred for this Chartered Company, that it is expenditure which but for this company would not have been incurred, and that this very company could raise four

      1245
      millions sterling. I hope my lion. Friend will persevere with his Motion and divide against the Vote.
      DR. CLARK: We are getting nearer the facts. At first we were told there were no police in this territory, but now we are informed that for a certain time the police are there, and that the expense will, after a time, fall upon the company. Then we have been told—and that I knew long ago—that reserves are being massed to meet certain eventualities. Now, I want to know, will the Government protect the Mashonas from the incursions of the Matabeles, and if war arises between the Matabeles and filibusters which will you support? Although the names of the Duke of Fife and the Duke of Abercorn are prominently put forward, the real meaning is that Mr. Rhodes wishes to enforce the concession he claims from the Matabeles. I remember that the lion. Member for Lichfield showed that he holds that concession, and 20 years ago worked for gold under it. Lobengula has since repudiated the concession claimed by Mr. Rhodes.
      BAROX H. DE WORMS: I would ask you, Sir, if this is really relevant to the Vote?
      THE CHAIRMAN: The Under Secretary stated several times that the police were required to go outside the territory.
      BARON H. DE WORMS: Not into Lobengula's territory.
      DR. CLARK: Lobengula claims it as his country, and sends his warriors to make raids there. The condition of things is that the whole country is in a state of fermentation, and I say that the company's filibusters try to force their way, bloodshed will result, and I ask are you going to protect the Matabele King in the war that may arise? The right hon. Gentleman accuses me of advocating the claims of Mr. Bowler, but I do nothing of the kind. I neither want to grind Mr. Bowler's axe or Mr. Rhodes' axe. Of the two, perhaps, I should prefer to grind Mr. Rhodes' axe.
      BARON H. DE WORMS: I have no information dealing with the matter the lion. Member raises, and I cannot say what the action of Her Majesty's Government would be under hypothetical circumstances, and which have no foundation except in the fertile imagination of the hon. Member.
      COLONEL NOLAN: The circumstances now remind me strongly of the condition of things some 14 or 15 years ago, when the Government refused to listen to us on South African affairs, and the House was impatient of discussion. But following this, and in a great measure because of the impatience of the House and the refusal of the Government, came the Boer War and the Zulu War, in the one of which we suffered considerable loss of prestige, and in the other heavy loss of life. I ask the Government not to attempt to cut short this debate, but to allow it to be adjourned, as the subject is one of great consequence. The Duke of Wellington once told us to beware of little wars, and I venture to think that we are laying the foundation for a very expensive little war in South Africa. We ought, therefore, to have more time to discuss the matter.
      DR. CLARK: I will now ask the First Lord of the Treasury, whom I see in his place, if we are going to make a treaty of friendship with the Matabelele King? The Chartered Company are now enlisting recruits; are we going to protect Matabelele against these filibusters? I remember that when it was once suggested to Lobengula that if he loved his country he would kill all the white men, he made the diplomatic reply—
      "If you will kill all the white men at the Diamond Fields and Gape Town, and then come to me, I will hand all the white men in my territory over to you to be killed."
      I can assure you recent occurrences have excited strong feeling in Swaziland. Now, I want to know, will the Government support the Matabelele King or will they legalise the acts of the filibusters who intend to attack him?
      (11.35.) The Committee divided:—Ayes 79; Noes 143.—(Div. List, No. 14.)
      Original Question again proposed.
      SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: There is another item on which I should like some information, and that is, as to the sum of £2,700 for defraying certain expenses in connection with Swaziland? I hope the Government will tell us something about the matter.
      BARON H. DE WORMS: The hon. Gentleman must be aware I stated the other evening that it is utterly impossible to give the House any infor-

      1247
      mation upon this subject. Sir Francis De Winton's Report has not yet been considered by the Government, and therefore I cannot go into details.
      DR. CLARK: Will the House be given an opportunity of discussing the Report, supposing this estimate is passed?
      SIR R. FOWLER: I believe that the hon. Member for Liverpool has secured an early Tuesday in March for the discussion of the subject of Swaziland. That occasion will supply the opportunity which the hon. Member desires.
      MR. BAUMANN: Will the Government undertake to lay Sir F. De Winton's Report on the Table before the date fixed for the discussion of the Motion of the hon. Member for Liverpool? The House, I hold, is entitled to see the Report before that debate, and I also think the Colonial Office should not come to a decision on the question until we have had an opportunity of discussing it.
      BARON H. DE WORMS: As I have said before, it is obviously impossible for the Government to submit the decision of this question to the House. The Papers will be presented by the Government as soon as possible after the decision has boon arrived at.
      MR. BRYCE: When may we expect to have the Report in our hands?
      MR. W. H. SMITH: The Government regard the subject as one of considerable importance. As soon as it becomes possible for the Government to take the House into their confidence they will certainly do so. The Report has not yet reached the Government. I myself have not seen it. Therefore it is impossible to give any precise promise as to the date on which information will be given, but it will undoubtedly be given as soon as possible.
      SIR W. BARTTELOT: The country feels exceedingly strong on this question of Swaziland, and upon the way in which it may be decided. I hope the Government will take no steps in the direction of giving up Swaziland, but if they contemplate such steps they ought certainly to give the country some opportunity of expressing its views.
      SIR G. CAMPBELL: I should be very glad to know that we may with honour and safety be relieved of the
      1248
      great difficulties attending the retention of Swaziland. Have I rightly understood the Under Secretary for the Colonies to say that the House will not be given an opportunity of discussing the matter before it is settled? My information differs somewhat from that of the hon. and gallant Member opposite, and as we have given up the territory surrounding Swaziland, I think we might give up the country also.
      MR. W. H. SMITH: This is pre-eminently one of those questions with regard to which the Government must act on their own responsibility. If they act wrongly it is for the House to censure them. It is obviously impossible for us to submit our policy on a matter of this kind to the House of Commons. The Government are alone responsible for the conduct of such affairs, and the House cannot take matters of this kind into its own hands.
      MR. BRYCE: I think the right lion. Gentleman the leader of the House has not quite appreciated the point of my hon. Friend's question The hon. Member for Liverpool has given a notice of Motion on the subject, and at present the Under Secretary for the Colonies refuses to express any opinion, on the ground that the Report of Sir Francis de Winton has not been considered. The right hon. Gentleman tells us the Government alone must bear the responsibility. That we admit. But the fact remains that many Members opposite, like those on my own side of the House, wish to have the opportunity of discussing this subject. We do not ask the Government to follow the opinion which the House may express. I hope the Government will not endeavour to prevent the House from having all the information before it, so as to enable it to make up its mind. Surely an expression of the views of the House ought to be welcomed by the Government.
      MR. W. H. SMITH: The hon. Gentleman has taken an erroneous' view of what I said. As soon as the Government have considered the Papers, they will, at the earliest possible moment give full information to the House, which will have an opportunity to express an opinion on the course taken by the Government. But the Government must come to their decision first.
      MR. BUCHANAN: Will the Government agree not to come to a final decision about Swaziland until the lion. Member for Liverpool has brought forward his Motion? I can give a precedent for this. In the year 1884, when negotiations were going on between this country and Portugal with regard to the Congo, a Motion was brought forward in the House; it was discussed before the negotiations were completed, and the result of the discussion was a promise by the then First Lord of the Treasury that the Treaty should not be ratified without the consent of the House of Commons.
      MR. W. H. SMITH: I wish to treat the House with all possible respect. Hon. Members will see that we are obliged to come to a decision before Papers are presented. If afterwards the House takes a different view from that at which the Government arrive, it will be in the power of the House to express an opinion adverse to the decision of the Government.
      (11.54.) Question put, and agreed to.
      Resolutions to be reported.

      CLASS VI.
      Motion made, and Question proposed,
      "That a supplementary sum, not exceeding £8,101, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1890, for superannuation and retired allowances."
      MR. A. O'CONNOR (: I see that, in connection with the Supreme Court of Judicature, five gentlemen have retired, and provision is to be made for them. Is it not extraordinary that such cases as these should appear in the Supplementary Estimates? The Government must have been perfectly well aware at the beginning of the year of the ages of these gentlemen. What is the explanation of these being dealt with in this Estimate? Is it because some arrangements for the re-organisation of the Service are being carried out?
      MR. W. L. JACKSON: The hon. Member has exactly stated the facts of the case. There has been a re-organisation and a re-arrangement under which certain taxing masters have retired, and considerable economies
      1250
      have been effected. Under the system which now obtains, it is not possible for us to make provision for any super annuations which occur after the accounts have been made up, and, as hon. Gentlemen are aware, the 30th September in each year is the date for making up the accounts, on which the Estimates for the following year are framed. Sometimes it happens that the pensions which fall out equal in amount the new ones, but, unless the House of Commons will entrust the Treasury with a round sum with which to meet contingencies, these items in the Supplementary Estimates cannot be avoided.
      MR. A. O'CONNOR: How is it that the names of some gentlemen who have retired do not appear in any of the Estimates?
      MR. JACKSON: I know of no such cases; but if the hon. Gentleman will give me names I will make inquiry.
      MR. BLANE: The working classes of this country are often lectured for their want of forethought in providing for old age; and I think they are entitled to ask how it is that these gentlemen who have received high salaries for many years are granted these large annuities on retiring? Surely if a man is well paid he ought himself to make provision for his old age.
      It being Midnight, the Chairman left the Chair to make his report to the House.
      Resolutions to be reported to-morrow: Committee also report Progress to sit again to-morrow.

  MERCHANDISE MARKS.
  Ordered—
  "That a Select Committee he appointed to inquire and report whether any alteration is required either in the provisions of 'The Merchandise Marks Act, 1887,' or in its administration, in order to prevent fraud by the use of an indirect indication of origin on imported goods, or their false marking after importation; and whether there is necessity for fresh legislation for prosecutions of offences against the Act."—(Mr. Howard Vincent.)

  PARLIAMENTARY PAPERS DISTRIBUTION.
  Ordered—
  "That a Select Committee be appointed to assist Mr. Speaker in superintending the form

  1251
  and regulating the Distribution of Parliamentary Papers:—The Committee was accordingly nominated of,—Mr. Arthur Acland, Mr. Bartley, Mr. Causton, Mr. Arthur Elliot, Mr. Gill, Mr. Howell, Mr. James Maclean, and Sir Herbert Maxwell.
  Ordered, that three be the quorum.—(Sir Herbert Maxwell.)

  MOTIONS.

    TOWN HOLDINGS.
    COLONEL NOLAN: I have to move the Motion which stands in my name on the Paper, namely—
    "That the Committee on Town Holdings be re-appointed to inquire into that portion of the original reference to the Committee which the Committee was precluded by want of time from reporting on last Session—namely, 'into the question of imposing a direct assessment on the owners of ground rents and on the owners of increased values imparted to land by building operations or other improvements.'"
    I hope the right hon. Gentleman will grant this inquiry, as it is really a matter of great importance to the parties interested?
    MR. W. H. SMITH: I think it only fair that the Committee asked for should be appointed, and therefore I make no objection to the Motion.
    Motion agreed to.
    Ordered—
    "That the Committee on Town Holdings be re-appointed to inquire into that portion of the original reference to the Committee which the Committee was precluded by want of time from reporting on last Session, namely, 'into the question of imposing a direct assessment on the owners of ground rents and on the owners of increased values imparted to land by building operations or other improvements.'"—(Colonel Nolan.)

    ALLOTMENTS ACT (1887) AMENDMENT (No. 2.) BILL.
    On Motion of Major Rasch, Bill to amend "The Allotments Act, 1887," ordered to be brought in by Major Rasch, Mr. Jesse Col-lings, Mr. Hobhouse, Sir Edward Birkbeck, Captain Selwyn, Colonel Cotton, and Mr. Story-Maskelyne.
    Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 166.]

    PUBLIC LIBRARIES ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
    On Motion of Sir John Lubbock, Bill to amend the "Public Libraries Acts, "ordered to be brought in by Sir John Lubbock, Mr. Baumann, Mr. Sydney Buxton, Sir William Houldsworth, and Mr. Justin M'Carthy.
    Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 167.]

    CONTAGIOUS DISEASES (ANIMALS) {PLEURO-PNEUMONIA) BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. Chaplin, Bill for conferring further powers under the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Acts, 1878 to 1886, with respect to pleuro-pneumonia, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Chaplin, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Mr. Ritchie.
    Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 168.]

    TITHE RENT-CHARGE RECOVERY AND REDEMPTION BILL.
    On Motion of Sir Michael Hicks-Beach, Bill to make better provision for the Recovery and Redemption of Tithe Rent-charge, ordered to be brought in by Sir Michael Hicks Beach, Mr. Attorney General, Mr. Chaplin, and Mr. Raikes.
    Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 169.]

    LAND PURCHASE (IRELAND) BILL.
    On the Motion for adjournment—
    MR. SEXTON: I beg to ask the; right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland if there is any particular reason why he has further postponed the introduction of the Land Purchase (Ireland) Bill, which has been on the Paper for some time, until Monday next; and whether he intends to introduce the Bill on that day?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Bill referred to by the hon. Member is an important Bill, and certainly will not be introduced on any night on which it cannot be made the chief business. It cannot be introduced on Monday next. The Government have been given to understand that it would not be convenient to Irish Members that any important Irish measures should be taken this week.
    MR. SEXTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman allow me to ask him whether he intends to name an early day for the introduction of the measure?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Land Purchase Bill is the first' important Bill which the Government have set down for this Session, and it will be introduced as soon as the exigencies of public business will permit.
    House adjourned at ten minutes after Twelve o'clock.