Commons Sitting of 22 July 1890

QUESTIONS.

  THE NEW MAGAZINE RIFLE.
  THE MARQUESS OF GRANBY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether a sufficient number of cartridges for the new magazine rifle are being manufactured to form an efficient reserve of ammunition, or whether only enough are being turned out to meet the present musketry instruction requirements of those regiments which have had the new rifle supplied to them?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. E. STANHOPE,): It would not be to the benefit of the Public Service for me to state what number of cartridges for the new magazine rifle have been manufactured, but I am taking measures to insure the supply being sufficient for all purposes.

  LEEWARD ISLANDS.
  MR. SEALE-HAYNE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies if he has received a copy of the Report of Colonel Sir Arthur Mackworth, of the Royal Engineers, appointed by the Governor of the Leeward Islands to inquire into and to report upon the public works in the Island of Dominica, which Report was laid before the Island Road Board, and officially condemns the public works upon which one-third of the loan has been already expended; if the said public loan of £20,000 was raised upon the security of the revenues of the island, and the Governor of the Colony, in disregard of the protests of the members of the Road Board and the unofficial members of the Local Assembly,

  491
  continued with the public works now condemned by the Royal Engineer; and if he will state to the House in what way he intends to hold the Governor of the Colony responsible for this expenditure, as stated by the Under Secretary of State in answer to a question upon this subject on 4th November, 1888?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Baron H. de WORMS,): The Secretary of State has received from the Governor of the Leeward Islands a copy of a Report made by Sir Arthur Mack-worth, at his request, on certain bridges which had been commenced in Dominica, as part of a scheme for the improvement of the roads in that island, the cost of which is provided by a public loan. The Report was unfavourable as to some of the works. It is not known whether the Report has been laid before the Road Board, or what proportion of the loan has been spent on the works condemned by Sir A. Mackworth. The loan was raised on the security of the revenues of the island. The works were designed by, and their execution was commenced under, the direction of an experienced engineer, specially engaged for the work. Objections were made to them by members of the Road Board and of the Assembly. The Governor did not at first accede to their objections; but, after a time, he put a stop to the works and called in the assistance of Sir A. Mackworth. The Governor is responsible for the application of the loan to the purposes for which it was raised, but the Secretary of State does not hold him responsible for engineering mistakes.
  MR. SEALE-HAYNE: Arising out of that answer, may I ask if the right hon. Gentleman is aware that on the 26th of June last, the Governor of the Colony used his casting vote for the purpose of overruling the opinion of the Legislative Assembly, with respect to the expenditure of a further sum of £10,000 upon these works, and whether, in his opinion, it is proper that the Governor should override the opinion of the elected Members of the Assembly on questions involving taxation?
  BARON H. DE WORMS: I have received no information upon that point. The hon. Member had better put down a question.
  MR. SEALE-HAYNE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies if he has received from the Roman Catholic Bishop of Roseau (Colony of Leeward Islands) a complaint touching the treatment of Roman Catholic patients by the Medical Officer of Institutions in the public poors house in Dominica; if he is aware of the fact that in 1888 the Legislative Assembly in Dominica passed a resolution calling upon the Governor of the Colony—
  "To remove the Medical Officer of Public Institutions from the anomalous position of being Chairman of the Poor Law Board and Medical Officer to Public Institutions;"
  and further, that since 1888 the Members of Assembly have several times asked the Governor to carry said resolution into effect; if he has received a copy of the inquiry by the Poor Law Board into the conduct of the medical officer, and of a resolution passed by the said Board on 21st March, 1890, praying the Secretary of State to put a stop to the practice of making the Medical Officer of Institutions an ex officio member of the Board; and if he will instruct the Governor of the Colony to remove the said medical officer from the Board of Management, and thus give effect to the resolutions of these two important Public Bodies?
  BARON H. DE WORMS: The Secretary of State has received through the Governor of the Leeward Islands a complaint from the Roman Catholic Bishop of Roseau against the action of the Medical Officer of the Public Institutions with respect to a Roman Catholic inmate of the poor house; but after being furnished with the Governor's explanation of the circumstances, he saw no reason to blame the officer. In 1889 the Legislative Assembly of Dominica passed a resolution to the effect stated in the question, but the Secretary of State does not know whether the members of the Assembly have subsequently asked the Governor to carry it into effect. The Secretary of State has received a Report of an inquiry by the Poor Law Board, and a resolution recommending the repeal of the Statute under which the medical officer is ex officio a member of the Board. The Secretary of State has considered the question, but does not propose to instruct the Governor to give effect to these resolutions.
  MR. SEXTON: If the Government disputes the accuracy of the Report, is there any objection to lay on the Table the Report of the Roman Catholic Bishop of Roseau?
  BARON H. DE WORMS: I will communicate to the Poor Law Board the desire of the hon. Gentleman.

  PRISON LABOUR—MAT MAKING.
  MR. QUILTER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is in a position to state what is the daily average number of prisoners employed in mat making; how many of that number are working for the Prison Department; how many have their labour let out to the trade; and what proportion of the last-named are working on behalf of the firm of Goodacre & Company, of West Ham and Glemsford?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. STUART WORTLEY,): The Secretary of State is informed by the Prison Commissioners that the daily average for the last year was 1,218, and that this number has since been reduced. Of these, as far as can be estimated, 288 were working for the Prison Department, and 930 had their labour let out to the trade. Of these latter 532 worked for Messrs. Goodacre.
  MR. QUILTER: Does not the hon. Gentleman think that 930 out of 1,218 is a very large proportion of prison labour to hire out in competition with free labour in a limited trade?
  MR. STUART WORTLEY: That is a matter for Debate.

  CENSUS CLERKS.
  SIR WALTER FOSTER: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the census clerks, selected for employment under the Registrar General will "be chosen by open competition within suitable limits of age," as specially recommended by the Census Committee in its Report; and, if not, why not?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON,): The arrangements for appointing census clerks are not yet concluded, but steps will be taken by examination to secure that none but efficient clerks are appointed. It will be necessary to make
  494
  clear that the appointments are only temporary, and do not set up any right or title to the permanent Civil Service.

  THE WOMEN'S UNION.
  MR. WALTER M'LAREN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will explain why he refused to receive a deputation of women, mainly representing the Women's Union, who wished to lay before him certain complaints respecting the conduct of the police, who were stated to have behaved with great harshness to working women during their agitation for better wages; and whether he will re-consider his refusal and receive the deputation?
  MR. STUART WORTLEY: The Secretary of State in the exercise of his dis cretion did not consider then, and does not consider now, that any public advantage would be gained by his consenting to receive this deputation. Complaints as to assault should be addressed to the Courts of Law, and not to the Secretary of State, who has no power to determine whether or no assaults were committed on particular occasions. The allegations as to the harsh conduct of the police were duly referred to the Commissioner of Police, and his Report shows that every care was taken by the police to avoid rough usage, and that they in no way exceeded their duty.

  TUBERCULOSIS IN CATTLE.
  MR. LEES KNOWLES: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if he will state the names of the Commissioners to be appointed to inquire into the subject of tuberculosis in cattle, and the nature of their inquiry?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE,): The Commissioners are Lord Basing, Professor Brown, Dr. George Buchanan, Mr. Frank Payne, and Professor Burden Sanderson. They are appointed
  "To inquire and report what is the effect, if any, of food derived from tuberculous animals on human health, and, if prejudicial, what are the circumstances and conditions with regard to the tuberculosis in the animal which produce that effect upon man."
  MR. SEXTON: May I ask why no person connected with Ireland has been appointed on the Commission?
  MR. RITCHIE: The fact that Ireland might desire to be represented did not occur to me. The Commissioners chosen are men of great professional ability, in whom I am sure the three countries will have confidence.
  MR. SEXTON: If the Irish Members desire to have a representative, will the right hon. Gentleman consider the point?
  MR. RITCHIE: I am afraid it is too late now, because the names have received the Royal Assent, and the Warrant has been made out. I will, however, inquire and let the hon. Member know the result.

  THE GRENADIER GUARDS.
  MR. CUNINGHAME GRAHAM: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he has yet considered the sentence on the men of the Grenadier Guards; if the men sentenced were old or young; if they will remain in England to undergo their sentence, or whether they will accompany the regiment to Bermuda; and if he will recommend the reduction of the sentence?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: I have not considered the sentences. The men of the Grenadier Guards who have been convicted by Court Martial are aged 27 years and nine months, 26 years and two months, 28 years and one month, 25 years and seven months, 25 years and 10 months, and 29 years and six months. They will remain in England to undergo their imprisonment.
  MR. E. ROBERTSON: May I ask on what principle the six men, and six men only, were selected for trial, and whether any punishment, except being sent abroad, is to be awarded to the other in subordinates? I will also ask whether the right hon. Gentleman will lay on the Table of the House a complete copy of the proceedings of the Court Martial?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: My reply to the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's question is entirely in the negative. The reason why six men were selected for trial was that, according to the custom in such cases, the men tried were the senior soldiers in the respective companies.
  MR. SINCLAIR: May I ask whether the sending of the troops abroad is to be considered a punishment?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: I can only, as I have already said, lay the facts before the House. The House must draw its own conclusions.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: I feel the difficulty of Parliamentary interference where discipline is concerned, but having been myself a private soldier I venture on an appeal. As the sentences passed on the convicted men were considered excessive, will the right hon. Gentleman, from the point of view of mercy consider whether part of those sentences may not be remitted?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: I have not yet had an opportunity of seeing a copy of the proceedings in question, or forming any opinion upon them, but I deprecate Parliamentary interference in such cases. Of course, I take full responsibility in the matter.
  MR. E. ROBERTSON: Is there any special reason why the Reports of these proceedings should not be laid on the Table, as is usual in such cases?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: It is not usual to lay the proceedings of Courts of Inquiry on the Table.
  MR. E. ROBERTSON: This is not a Court of Inquiry, but a Court Martial; and I must press for a reply to the question.
  MR. E. STANHOPE: I am afraid I must decline to lay the proceedings on the Table.
  MR. CUNINGHAME GRAHAM: Will the right hon. Gentleman order an inquiry into the conduct of the officers?
  MR. CONYBEARE: Is there any precedent for sending a regiment abroad as a punishment for insubordination?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: I have not pursued my historic inquiries far enough to be able to answer the question of the hon. Member.
  An hon. MEMBER: Has Colonel Maitland applied to be tried by Court Martial?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: I have not heard so.

  PRIZE FIGHTS AT THE PELICAN CLUB.
  MR. CUNINGHAME GRAHAM: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if any Reports have reached him as to alleged prize fights having taken place at the Pelican Club

  497
  and other places; if the fact of the men wearing a small hand glove places them beyond the restrictions of the law; if he is aware that at a recent exhibition of this nature at the Pelican Club one man was seriously hurt; and if in future the police will be instructed to stop all prize fights, whether with or without gloves?
  MR. STUART WORTLEY: The Secretary of State has received representations on the subject of glove fights. In the opinion of the Secretary of State the wearing of a small glove does not by itself affect the character of a contest which may, or may not, be illegal by virtue of the attendant circumstances, and irrespectively of the fact whether gloves are worn or not. I have no information as to a man having been recently hurt at the Pelican Club. The Secretary of State is advised that exhibitions of skill in boxing, as distinguished from prize fights, are not in themselves illegal. It would be impossible, therefore, to give any such general instructions to the police as are suggested.
  MR. CUNINGHAME GRAHAM: If information reached the police that one of the combatants had been severely punished, would it not be within the province of the police to interfere, or is the fact that gloves are used, although a man may be knocked senseless, to debar the interference of the police?
  MR. STUART WORTLEY: I have no doubt that every case would be considered on its merits.

  OVERLOADING OF CATTLE SHIPS.
  MR. CUNINGHAME GRAHAM: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been called to several instances of alleged overloading of cattle ships from New York to Liverpool; if the death-rate among the cattle is very high on these passages; and if reports of great cruelties to cattle on board these ships have reached him?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,): I fear the death-rate in some of these cases has been extremely high, but I have no information that would justify a charge of cruelty. I have directed inquiries to be made on the whole subject.

  NEWFOUNDLAND.
  MR. B. ROBERTSON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can confirm the report that Sir Baldwin Walker has paid the damages claimed by Mr. Baird for illegal seizure of his lobster factory on the coast of Newfoundland; and whether, as the litigation is apparently now ended, he will now state under what law of the Imperial Parliament, or the Newfoundland Legislation, or in virtue of what prerogative of the Crown, the instructions to commanding officers were issued by Her Majesty's Government?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Baron H. de WORMS,): I know nothing more than the telegrams in the newspapers; and as I am not in a position to confirm the report, I must refrain from answering the second part of the question.

  THE LOCAL TAXATION BILL.
  MR. BARBOUR: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the £40,000 he purposes to give to Scotland is to be divided proportionately between the Burgh and County Councils or given to County Councils only; if to County Councils only, can he state on what principle this decision has been arrived at?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN,): The sum in question, which amounts to £50,000, and not to £40,000, as stated by the hon. Member, will be divided proportionately between Burgh and County Councils.

  RATE OF EXCHANGE IN INDIA.
  MR. KING: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether, in view of the fact that since March last, when the official rate of exchange between the Indian and Imperial Governments was fixed at 1s. 5d. to the rupee, the rupee has risen in value to over 1s. 7d., whereas the Indian Government is, to its great profit, now paying its servants their family remittances, furlough, and pensions at 1s. 5d., the Secretary of State will now arrange, since it is practically certain that the rupee will not fall in value

  499
  during the current financial year, to give the benefit of the rise in exchange to its servants by settling with them at the current rate?
  SIR ROPER LETHBRIDGE: Before the right hon. Gentleman replies to the question, I wish to ask a further question on the same subject, of which I have given him private notice. I wish to know whether he is aware that more than one-half of the Indian Uncovenanted Civil servants pensioned in England receive pensions of less than £200 a year; and is he aware that a nominal pension of £200 a year is reduced by the loss of the exchange to about £135, although the Government get about £160 for the same sum at the current rate?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE TOR INDIA (Sir J. GORST,): In reply to the question of the hon. Member for Hull (Mr. King), I have to say that the Secretary of State cannot alter the official rate of exchange after it has been once fixed. It is applied to very large transactions, amounting nearly to £1,000,000. In reply to the hon. Member for North Kensington (Sir Roper Lethbridge), I have no doubt that the figures he gives are correct, but such considerations cannot affect the current rate.
  MR. KING: Is it not the fact that since the official rate was fixed a Silver Bill has been passed in America, which practically ensures what I state in my question, that the rupee will not fall in value during the current financial year?
  SIR J. GORST: I am sorry to state that the Secretary has no information of what passes in the United States.
  MR. MAC NEILL: If I put a Motion on the Paper for a Return of the amount of profit which the Government make under this head, will the right hon. Gentleman oppose it?
  SIR J. GORST: I must have notice of that question.
  MR. MAC NEILL: Then I will repeat it to-morrow.

  THE INDIAN BUDGET.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India when the Paper which he last year described as an explanatory Memorandum on the Indian Financial Statement will be circulated; and if he can
  500
  say on what date the Indian Budget Statement will be made?
  SIR J. GORST: The Paper to which the hon. Gentleman refers will be circulated a few days before the Indian Budget was taken. In regard to the last paragraph of the question of the hon Member, I have to say that I can neither foretell nor fix the day upon which it will be for the convenience of the House to discuss the Indian Finances.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will remember that last year he gave us two months to consider this Paper.
  SIR J. GORST: The hon. Gentleman is in error. I did not give two months to consider the Paper. I circulated the Paper when I thought the Indian Budget was coming on, but the House postponed the consideration of it.
  MR. CONYBEARE: May I ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he can give the House any information as to the day upon which the Indian Budget is likely to be taken?
  THE FIRST LORD OP THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH,): I am afraid that further progress must be made with the Bills now before the House and with Supply before the Indian Budget can be taken.

  THE AMIR OF AFGHANISTAN.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether any and what communication has been recently addressed by the Viceroy of India to the Amir of Afghanistan relating to the treatment of some of the Amir's subjects; if he can state what reply has been received from the Amir; and whether he will lay Papers upon the Table?
  SIR J. GORST: Yes, Sir; certain communications have taken place, but it would not be to the public interest to produce them.

  THE SHIRE DISTRICT.
  MR. BUCHANAN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can assure the House that Her Majesty's Government will not accept any arrangement with the Government of Portugal by which the British Settlements in the Shire district and the Shire Highlands are placed under Portuguese rule?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: No such proposal has been at any time entertained by Her Majesty's Government.

  ARMENIA.
  MR. SCHWANN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to the report in the Daily News of 19th July, that General Hassan Hairi Pasha has been appointed Governor of Erzeroum and General Osman Nowie Pasha Governor of Van, in the places of Samih Pasha and Halied Bey dismissed; whether he knows anything as to the previous history and character of the two former; and whether it is true, as reported in the Daily News of the 21st instant, that
  "Osman Ghazi Pasha has been appointed to command in Armenia to carry out a policy of wholesale persecution and suppression in Armenia"
  which is said to have been decided upon by the Porte?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: We have no official knowledge of these appointments.
  MR. LEVESON GOWER: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether Her Majesty's Government have reason to believe that it is the present intention of the Porte shortly to proclaim a state of Martial Law in Armenia; whether such a proclamation would be in distinct violation of the undertaking of the Turkish Government in the Anglo-Turkish Convention of 1878, to introduce reforms into the administration of that country; and whether, in the event of such a proclamation being issued, Her Majesty's Government will notify to the Porte that they hold themselves fully absolved from all obligations imposed upon England by this Convention?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: The Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs will answer the question.
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: We have received no information of any such intention on the part of the Porte, and it is, therefore, unnecessary that I should reply to the hypothetical questions suggested by the hon. Member.

  CYPRUS.
  MR. E. ROBERTSON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies if he can explain what were the
  502
  grounds for the opposition of the official members of the Legislative Council of Cyprus to a Bill, brought forward by Mr. Pascal Constantinides, having for its object the formation of an Agricultural Bank in Cyprus, which was one of the foremost remedial measures urged by the Cypriot Deputation that waited on the Colonial Office in the autumn of 1889, and which was recently passed by the majority of the members, seeing that repeated promises have been made by the Colonial Office to attain that object; whether the Colonial Office intend, in the case of the Bill in question, to allow the views of the elected representatives of the people to be carried out; whether in view of the fact that recommendations adopted by the representative section of the Legislative Council have been frequently disregarded, it is proposed to take any steps to give better effect to the wishes of the majority; whether any and that action has been taken to mitigate the heavy pressure of taxation obtaining in Cyprus, and which was also a matter of argent appeal in the Memorial submitted by the Deputation referred to; and weather it is true that Her Majesty's Government have refused appreciably to curtail the expenditure of which complaint was also made?
  BARON H. DE WORMS: The answer to the first and second paragraphs of the hon. Member's question is that the High Commissioner has not yet reported officially as to the introduction of this Bill, or the proceedings which took place upon it. It is not the case that the Colonial Office has made repeated promises to attain the object of establishing an agricultural bank. All the promises which the Secretary of State has made upon the subject have been conditional on a practicable scheme being brought before him. The third paragraph of the hon. Member's question contains such controversial assumptions that it is impossible to give it an answer. If he will refer to the Colonial Office Letter, to the Cyprus Deputation of the 4th of August, 1889, at page 10 of the Blue Book C 6003, he will see that those assumptions are not admitted to be accurate by the Secretary of State. As regards the views of Her Majesty's Government on the question whether the taxation is oppressive, and whether

  503
  both the taxation and expenditure can, and ought to be reduced, I would refer the hon. Member to the views of Her Majesty's Government as expressed in the Secretary of State's Despatch of the 22nd of March on pages 33 and 34 of the Blue Book C 4003, to which I have nothing to add.

  BRAZIL.
  MR. P. STANHOPE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the attention of Her Majesty's Government has been called to the action of the Provisional Government of Brazil, in arbitrarily confiscating concessions granted to British Railway Companies in that country; and whether Her Majesty's Government will take steps to point out to the Brazilian Government the serious injury thereby inflicted upon its credit?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: The attention of Her Majesty's Government has been called to the action of the Provisional Government of Brazil in cancelling two concessions granted to a British Railway Company in that country, on the ground that the company had failed to fulfil the conditions of the contract. The company state in their defence that this failure is due to circumstances beyond their control. Her Majesty's Minister has been instructed to make friendly representations on the subject, as it is believed that the action of the Provisional Government was founded on erroneous information as to the proceedings of the company.

  RAILWAY RATES.
  COLONEL BLUNDELL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade when the Report of the Board of Trade inquiry into Railway Rates, of which Lord Balfour of Burleigh was President, will be issued, as the Midland, London and North-Western, Great Western, and North Staffordshire Railway Companies have announced an increase of 9d. per ton upon coal and coke to Hastings and St. Leonards, such increase to take effect from 1st August?
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I do not see the precise connection between the first and second parts of my hon. Friend's question. As provided by the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1888, a Report
  504
  will be presented to Parliament when it is seen whether the companies do or do not come to an agreement with the Board of Trade on the maximum rates proposed.

  MORTALITY AMONG CORNISH MINERS.
  MR. CONYBEARE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when Mr. Pinching, the Inspector of Mines in Cornwall, was instructed by the Government to inquire into the excessive rate of mortality among the miners of Cornwall; whether he can state what steps Mr. Pinching took to acquaint himself with the facts as to the prevalence of the disease, its causes, its results, and the best remedies; whether he has received from Mr. Pinching any evidence upon the subject, or any written Report in addition to the opinion telegraphed on the 14th instant; whether he is aware that no notice whatever of any such intended inquiry was given in the county and among those principally interested in the subject, namely, the miners themselves, and that, consequently, no evidence on the part of the miners can possibly have been placed before the Inspector; and whether, as no inquiry will be satisfactory or command the confidence of the mining population which is not thorough and public, he will cause such an inquiry to be held in the locality?
  MR. STUART WORTLEY: The hon. Member seems to be under some misapprehension as to what has taken place. No special inquiry has been ordered, or is being held. In the ordinary course, the question of the hon. Member, when it first appeared on the Paper, was referred to the Inspector for his Report and observations. It may be assumed that the Inspector had made himself acquainted, in the ordinary discharge of his duties, with the necessary facts, without taking special steps to investigate a matter which had for many years past been engaging the attention of the Department, and which was specially reported upon in 1888, with a view to the amendment of the existing law. The Inspector's written Report has not yet been received. The Government are already in possession of what information they require to enable them to deal with the question of improving the conditions

  505
  of work in Cornish and other metalliferous mines, so far as they can be improved by legislation, and a further inquiry of the nature suggested by the hon. Member does not seem to be necessary.
  MR. CONYBEARE: IS it the fact that the Home Office have received a telegraphic opinion, from Mr. Pinching, and do they intend to act upon that telegraphic opinion?
  MR. STUART WORTLEY: The Bill has been drafted which is to deal with the question.
  MR. CONYBEARE: Will the Bill be introduced this Session, so that the Representatives of the miners may have an opportunity of considering it before the Winter Session?
  MR. STUART WORTLEY: I am unable to say.
  MR. CONYBEARE: Do the Government share the opinion of Mr. Pinching that everything that is necessary is done for the miners, and that they are in no danger?
  MR. STUART WORTLEY: That is a matter of opinion upon which the hon. Gentleman will be able to form his own judgment when he sees the Bill.

  CUSTOMS HOUSE MESSENGERS.
  MR. J. R. KELLY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether any Memorial has been recently received by the Treasury from the messengers at the Custom House praying for the redress of certain grievances; and whether, if so, he will state when a reply to it may be expected; whether the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Customs have recently decided to fill only each alternate vacancy to the first-class messenger ships, and whether he will state the reason for which two vacancies in such class have remained unfilled; and whether, in view of the fact that the whole of the second-class messengers entered the service under the conditions set forth in the Treasury Minute of 1st April, 1873, giving them the right of rising to the maximum of £90 per annum, he will take the necessary steps for the carrying out of such Treasury Minute?
  MR. JACKSON: A Memorial from the Customs Messengers was received on the 16th inst., and is now under the consideration of the Treasury. It will
  506
  be answered in due course; but, pending the answer, I am not in a position to answer other questions.

  CIVIL SERVICE WRITERS.
  MR. J. R. KELLY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether Civil Service writers who may be recommended by the heads of their Departments for appointments as statistical abstractors, but who previously to becoming writers may have been clerks in Government offices and have commuted their pensions, would be ineligible for such appointments under the provisions of the Superannuation Acts or otherwise?
  MR. JACKSON: I do not know who the officers are described by the hon. Member as statistical abstractors, and I, therefore, can give no reply as to the particular instance which he cites. The Superannuation Act requires the Government to recall pensioners to the Service when practicable. That and the Commutation Act prescribe the reductions to be made in receipts of pensioned men re-appointed to the Public Service, whether they are drawing or whether they have commuted their pensions.

  QUINQUENNIAL VALUATION OF THE METROPOLIS.
  MR. J. R. KELLY: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to the great difficulty which has been experienced in obtaining proper information for the purposes of the Quinquennial Valuation for the Metropolis, more especially with reference to the value of tenement houses, of which the weekly rentals have in the first instance been given in but very few cases; and whether, with a view of obviating such difficulty in the future, he will consider the question of the desirability of so altering the forms (9 B) as to include a question specially applicable to tenement houses, and also a notice to the owners of such houses that they are required to state the full weekly rentals received by them?
  MR. GOSCHEN: I am informed by the Inland Revenue Department that they have not heard of any such difficulty as that referred to by the hon. Member. All the Returns for the valuation now being made for the current year have already been received and laid before the Assessment Committees for the purpose

  507
  of hearing objections. The question of altering the form of the notice for return in the manner suggested by the hon. Member will be considered before the next Quinquennial Valuation.

  MACEDONIA.
  MR. BRYCE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the attention of the Foreign Office has been called to a letter which appeared in the Times of Saturday last, describing in detail the deplorable condition of anarchy which prevails in North-Western Macedonia, the frequent acts of robbery and murder perpetrated on the Christian population there by Albanians and other Mussulman tribes, and the virtual connivance of the Turkish Authorities in these outrages; whether he can now give the House any information as to the massacre of Christian refugees near Kossovo, regarding which he was questioned three weeks ago, and an account of which appeared a month ago in a semi-official journal at Vienna as well as in other German newspapers; and whether Her Majesty's Government intend to take any steps to inform themselves regarding the condition of this part of European Turkey, where elements of disorder exist which seriously threaten the peace of the East?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: The Reports from Her Majesty's Consular Officers tend to show that there is considerable agitation and insecurity to life on the Turco-Servian frontier, and in North Albania. Troops have been sent to the disturbed districts to restore order. With regard to the alleged massacre of Christians at Kossovo, the Porte knows nothing of it, but promises to make inquiries. The truth seems difficult to arrive at. The Vice Consul at Scutari has been requested to make further inquiries.

  MALTA.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs with reference to the following passages respecting the Maltese clergy, which occur in a Despatch from Sir Lintorn Simmons to Lord Salisbury, dated 12th December, 1889, describing his interview with the Papal Secretary of State:—
  508
  "The Carninal seemed surprised at the state of ignorance of the priesthood, and expressed an opinion that measures must be taken to improve their education,"
  and to the following, which occurs in the Despatch of 23rd December:—
  "In discussing the subject of the education in the English language of those who will officiate as clergy in Malta, and of their instruction as to the condition under which the island is governed, I informed Cardinal Ram-polla, generally, of the sadly ignorant state of the priesthood in the island;"
  whether Sir Lintorn Simmons has been requested to give the grounds for these statements reflecting on the education of the Catholic priesthood; and whether the letter, dated 20th June, from Cardinal Rampolla to Monsignor Pace, Bishop of Malta, in which the following passage occurs:—
  "His Holiness is well satisfied at receiving the information which you furnish relative to the education of your clergy,"
  has been communicated to Sir Lintorn Simmons or Her Majesty's Government?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: I understand that Sir Lintorn Simmons's statement was founded on the Report of the Director of Education, an extract from which had been placed in the hands of Cardinal Rampolla. Cardinal Rampolla's letter to Monsignor Pace has not been communicated either to the Foreign Office or Colonial Office.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Will any apology be sent to the Maltese priesthood for this accusation of ignorance brought against them?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: I have already referred the hon. Member to the authority for the statement of the special Ambassador.
  Subsequently,
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I am very reluctant to forestall a discussion by moving the adjournment in consequence of the very curt answer of the right hon. Baronet the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs. If the right hon. Gentleman can assure the House that some endeavour will be made to rectify the matter by making an attempt to procure the letter of Rampolla, I will certainly defer the Motion. I would suggest that the Cardinal's letter ought to be obtained by the Government.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I am sure it would be very far, indeed, from the wishes of Her Majesty's Government to

  509
  cast any reflection upon any section of Her Majesty's subjects, and I will endeavour to get information upon the subject by next Thursday.
  MR. SUMMERS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he is aware that Section 29 of the Letters Patent of the Constitution of Malta (12th December 1887) provides that
  "All votes of public money shall, if challenged, be determined by a majority of the votes of the elected members present, and the votes of the official members shall not be recorded on such questions;"
  and whether, in view of the fact that a majority of the elected members of the Council of Government in Malta is opposed to the payment of the expenses connected with the Mission of Sir Lintorn Simmons to the Vatican out of the revenues of Malta, he will consent to place upon the Estimates a Vote for the Mission in question?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: The hon. Member is correct in his statement as to Section 29 of the Letters Patent. It will not be necessary to place a Vote upon the Estimates; for if the hon. Member will refer to Section 39 of the Letters Patent and the Schedule, he will see that £1,000 a year is at the disposal of the Government for special services under the title "Civil Contingencies."

  IRISH CIVIL DEPARTMENTS—THE SEVEN HOURS SYSTEM.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the seven hours system, recommended by the recent Royal Commission, is being applied in Dublin offices; and, if so, whether it would be a ready and economical method of supplying the deficiency in the staff of the Registry of Deeds, and whether it would permit of the daily work being ready for public inspection on the following morning?
  MR. JACKSON: The Government is in favour of the extension of the seven hours system to the Civil Departments in Dublin wherever practicable and economical. It is already in force in the following Departments:—Chief Secretary's Office, Prisons Office, Fisheries Office, Local Government Board, Office of Works, and Registrar General's Office.
  510
  It has been sanctioned for the Registry of Deeds, and will, no doubt, facilitate and hasten the process of registration.

  THE NATIONAL LEAGUE.
  COLONEL SAUNDERSON: I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether he is aware that, at the Glin Branch of the National League, the following resolution was proposed and passed unanimously, on Sunday, 29th June:—
  "That the branch condemns the continued arbitrary action of the Knight of Glin in again refusing the offer of a fair rent from Mr. John G. Fitzgerald, one of his oldest and most respectable tenants, and hopes, even now, he will see the folly of carrying out another death sentence on his property;"
  and whether, a week afterwards, certain horses were killed and barbarously mutilated on this evicted farm of the Knight of Glin?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN,): According to a report in the Limerick Leader, it is the case that a resolution was unanimously passed at a meeting of the Glin Branch of the National League in the terms stated in the question. I am informed that on the morning of July 8 a colt was found killed, and two other colts stabbed in several places, apparently with a hay-fork, on the farm of the Knight of Glin, from which a man of the name of Hayns had been evicted in 1882.

  CHARGE AGAINST IRISH CONSTABLES.
  MR. ROCHE: I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether the Government intend to pay the expense of defending the constables against whom Mr. Fahy and Morrissey obtained decrees for £5 and £2 at last Quarter Sessions held at Gort for false arrest; also the cost of appeal which was heard before Judge O'Brien at Galway Assizes, he confirming the County Court Judge's decree, with costs; and whether he will state what course he will adopt in reference to the conduct of the constables?
  MR. MADDEN: I must ask the hon. Gentleman to postpone the question. I have not received the information that will enable me to answer it.
  MR. SEXTON: As the Chief Secretary is in his place, I will ask him if he

  511
  is aware that the appeal has been dismissed. The fact is, that two constables arrested these two men, dragged them through the streets, kept them all night in custody, and then brought them before the Magistrates, who dismissed the case. An appeal against the decision of the County Court Judge's decree has now been dismissed by the Judge of Assize, and, as these men have acted on the advice of the right hon. Gentleman and brought their case before a legal tribunal, I wish to know what steps he proposes to take in the matter?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I will telegraph for information.

  PUBLIC BUSINESS.
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I wish to inquire of the right hon. Gentleman whether the Heligoland Bill will be taken on Thursday, and also whether he is now able to indicate the time, to which my hon. Friend behind me refers, when the Foreign Vote may be taken, and when the various questions connected with the island of Malta may be considered?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: The Government propose that the Heligoland Bill shall be taken on Thursday. I am not able to say when it will be possible to put the Foreign Office Vote on the Paper, but I hope it will be in the course of next week.
  MR. J. LOWTHER: Will the Heligoland Bill be the first Order?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: Yes.
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that there is a strong feeling, at all events on this side of the House, that the matter requires early attention.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I assure the right hon. Gentleman that it is the desire of the Government to consult the convenience of hon. Members as much as possible; but the right hon. Gentleman is very well aware that there is a great pressure on the Government.
  MR. BUCHANAN: Will it be possible to discuss the whole question of the Anglo-German Agreement on the Heligoland Bill?
  MR. W. H. SMITHwas understood to say that the Speaker would decide that question.
  MR. BUCHANAN: The Government will make no objection?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: No, Sir.
  MR. H. KNATCHBULL- HUGESSEN: When will the Naval Estimates be completed?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I am not able to state when they will be completed.

  RAILWAY RATES.
  In reply to 'Mr. TOMLINSON (Preston),
  SIR M. HICKS BEACHsaid: The Board of Trade do not propose at present to issue any further Papers in reference to railway rates.
  MR. TOMLINSON: Where can the Papers be got?
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: At the Stationery Office.

  INTESTATES ESTATES BILL.—(No. 59.)
  Lords Amendment to be considered forthwith; considered, and agreed to.

  COUNTY COURTS (PLAINTS).
  Address for—
  "Returns, from every County Court in England and Wales, of the Total Number of Plaints, &c., entered in each Court, from the 1st day of January to the 31st day of December 1889, both days inclusive, distinguishing those not exceeding £20, those above £20 and not exceeding £50, and those by agreement over £50;"
  "And, of the Sittings of the County Courts in England and Wales holden before the Judges of such Courts in the year 1889 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 303, of Session 1889)."—(Sir George Russell.)

  BOARDS OF GUARDIANS (PERSONS IN RECEIPT OF RELIEF).
  Return ordered—
  "Showing in respect of each Union and Parish under a separate Board of Guardians in England and Wales, the number of persons of each sex in receipt from Boards of Guardians (a) of in-door relief or (b) of out-door relief on the 1st day of August 1890, who were over 60 years of age, distinguishing those who were over 60 and under 65, 65 and under 70, 70 and under 75, 75 and under 80, and 80 years of age and upwards; lunatics in asylums, licensed houses, and registered hospitals; vagrants and persons who were only in receipt of relief constructively by reason of relief being given to wives or children not heing included."— (Mr. Burt.)

  BRITISH AND FOREIGN SPIRITS.
  Report from the Select Committee, with Minutes of Evidence, brought up and read [Inquiry not completed].
  Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 316.]

  POLICE BILL.—(No. 338.)
  Reported from the Standing Committee on Law, &c.
  Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 317.]
  Minutes of Proceedings to be printed. [No. 317.]
  Bill, as amended by the Standing Committee, to be taken into consideration upon Friday, and to be printed. [Bill 392.]

  ANGLO-GERMAN AGREEMENT BILL [LORDS].
  Read the first time; to be read a second time upon Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill 393.]
  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to,—Amendment to Amendment to Registration of Voters (Borough of Belfast) Bill, without Amendment.
MOTIONS.

  PUBLIC HEALTH (SCOTLAND) ACT (1867) AMENDMENT (NO. 2) BILL.
  On Motion of Sir John Kinloch, Bill to amend "The Public Health (Scotland) Act, 1867," in relation to rating in special drainage and water supply districts, ordered to be brought in by Sir John Kinloch, Mr. Shiress Will, and Mr. Thorburn.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 394.]

  FOOTPATHS AND MAIN ROADS BILL.
  On Motion of Sir John Dorington, Bill to amend the Law relating to Footpaths and Main Roads, ordered to be brought in by Sir John Dorington, Sir Richard Paget, Mr. Charles Acland, Mr. Hobhouse, and Mr. Wharton.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 395.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  CENSUS [EXPENSES].
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  (4.10.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of all expenses that may be incurred for the purposes of the Census under any Acts of the present Session for taking the Census of England and Wales, Scotland and Ireland."
  MR. SEXTON: I presume that the Treasury have arrived at an estimate of the expenditure. I should, therefore, like to know what will be the proportion for each of the three Kingdoms.
  MR. JACKSON: I am afraid that I cannot give the information without notice. I am not sure whether an estimate has yet been made of the full cost. The amount likely to be required in the course of the present year has at present only been estimated.
  MR. SEXTON: I will put a question down for Thursday.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

  (4.14.) PUBLIC WORKS LOANS [REMISSION].
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Resolved, That it is expedient to authorise the remission of a loan, made by the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland in respect of Killeany Pier, in pursuance of any Act of the present Session relating to Local Loans.
  Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

CENSUS (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL (No. 385.)

  COMMITTEE.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1.
  MR. ATKINSON: Will the persons enumerated have an opportunity of declaring their religion under the head "Protestant," or "Catholic?"
  THE CHAIRMAN: That question can be raised on Clause 5.
  Clauses 1 to 4 inclusive, agreed to.
  (4.16.) Clause 5.
  MR. W. A. MACDONALD: I beg to move, in page 2, line 11, after "age," to insert "capacity to read and write." I think the Amendment is one of very great importance. If it is necessary to ask the age and sex of the population, I think it is far more necessary and expedient that the state of their education should be ascertained. There is no acquisition more important than the power to read and write, and I do not think it will be said that it can be difficult to obtain the information.
  Amendment proposed, in Clause 5, page 2 line 11, after the word "age," to insert the words "capacity to read and write."—(Mr. W. A. Macdonald.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE,): It might be interesting if we were able to get a Return of those in this country who are unable to read or write.
  MR. W. A. MACDONALD: Who are able.
  MR. RITCHIE: It is the same thing.
  MR. W. A. MACDONALD: With deference, I submit that it is not.
  MR. RITCHIE: I will not enter into a dispute with the hon. Member. I am afraid that no person would be willing to return himself as incapable of reading and writing, and as the information would undoubtedly be inaccurate it is not desirable to endeavour to obtain it.
  MR. W. A. MACDONALD: I do not think the argument of the right hon Gentleman should have any weight at all. At the present moment you ask for a person's age, and there can be no doubt that many inaccurate Returns are made as to ladies' ages. In many instances false Returns are made, but, nevertheless, the information is asked for. I do not see that there ought to be the least difficulty in getting a satisfactory answer to such a simple question as whether a person can read or write.
  MR. CONYBEARE: The suggestion of the hon. Member is one that is worthy of consideration, and I think there are other inquiries that would be exceedingly useful, in order that we might obtain some
  516
  idea of the condition of the population. In foreign countries, especially in the colonies and in America, the Census Returns are much fuller than those of this country. It is, therefore, of importance that the Government should see their way to extending the scope of this clause.
  MR. RITCHIE: We are quite willing to learn everything' we can from the experience of foreign countries, but I must point out that the methods by which the Returns are checked in foreign countries are such as it would be impossible to adopt here. It is perfectly clear that the Return asked for would be altogether unreliable, and, therefore, it is not desirable to enforce it. As to the age, no Return would be of any value unless the age was given.
  MR. BRYCE: The right hon. Gentleman opposes the Amendment on the ground that the information, because people would be unwilling to render it, and resent its being asked for, would, when procured, be unreliable and misleading. Now, there are no countries in the world where the people would more strongly resist any attempt to force information from them at the point of the sword than America and the British colonies, and there could be no difficulty experienced here that would not be experienced there. Nevertheless, this information is asked for and is supplied in the United States, and in some colonies, and I submit that in this country it would, if obtained, be of more value and utility than many of the Returns which are actually made.
  MR. RITCHIE: The hon. Gentleman must not forget that the whole matter has already been inquired into by a strong Committee; but they did not recommend that this information should be obtained.
  Question put, and negatived.
  MR. HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to move, in page 2, line 5, after "age," to insert "nationality of father." The Committee reported in favour of an improvement in the means of ascertaining the number of foreigners here. I think it is exceedingly desirable that we should possess some better data, and the best means of ascertaining the number would be if the nationality of the father were given
  Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 5, after the word "age," to insert the words "nationality of father."—(Mr. Howard Vincent.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. RITCHIE: My hon. Friend is mistaken if he thinks that the nationality of the father would be of any real practical value. It will be sufficient to know where the individual is born and whether or not he is a British subject.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: I speak only from memory, but I believe that no one in the Committee but the hon. Member himself was desirous that the nationality of the father should be given. There certainly is nothing in the Report of the Committee to justify the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member.
  Question put, and negatived.
  BARON DIMSDALE: I beg to propose, after the word "age," to insert "and religion." In moving this, I wish to remind hon. Members that this was one of the questions into which the Committee inquired, and on which they took evidence, but as to which they pronounced no definite opinion. I have now endeavoured to raise the question in a way most likely to commend itself to the attention of the Committee. The two Amendments of which I have given notice have been taken bodily from the Irish Census Bill. In these days, when the great question of the day is union or separation, it is not desirable to have different laws for the two countries. I cannot conceive anything which would tend more to the repeal of the Union. Hero it is proposed to have one law for England and another for Ireland. The hon. Member for East Mayo on the Second Reading said that he did not know any Irish Roman Catholic who would not be glad to make a declaration of his religion, and from what I know of Irish Protestants the same remark applies to them. But I know that objection is entertained to the proposal by the Nonconformists, who do not like being what they call ticketed. By a subsequent Amendment I intend to provide that nobody shall be subject to penalties for refusing to state his religious profession.
  518
  It is very remarkable that the leading Members of Administrations, whether Liberal or Conservative, have always been in favour of this proposal, and they have yielded only in deference to the opinion of Nonconformists. One reason why this census is wanted is on account of the important effect it would have in any discussion on disestablishment. A respected clergyman in my own neighbourhood the other day said the Government had not done much for the Church this Session, for they had not given them a Tithe Bill, nor had they consented to a religious census. It is evident there is a strong feeling among the clergy in favour of this census.
  Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 11, after the word "age," to insert the word"religion."—(Baron Dimsdale.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'religion' be there inserted."
  MR. H. J. ATKINSON: I am not aware where the hon. Member has obtained his information as to the wishes of Nonconformists in this matter. I have sat on Conferences and Committees of Nonconformists for the last 35 years, and I never heard any of them object to being "ticketed." Personally, I have no objection to being ticketed myself, for either my political or my religious opinions. I have good grounds for holding them, and I am quite prepared to stand up and give my reasons for those opinions. I hope my hon. Friend will disabuse his mind altogether of that idea. The Amendment includes one which I was going to move, but I am willing to accept the larger proposal. I hope my right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board will be merciful, and give us what we ask; if not, I will appeal to the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian, in whose society I should be most happy to find myself so far as this question is concerned. It is said that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian in a certain publication advised how the names of those should be arranged who had gone over from the Church of England to the Church of Rome. They were people of position. I hope the right hon. Gentleman has interest enough in the rank and file to give his support to this proposal. I am aware that it would be a shock to some right hon.

  519
  Gentlemen opposite to have their opinions on political or religious subjects recorded at stated intervals, because so many changes would have to be registered. I do plead that the number of Roman Catholics and Protestants, at all events, shall be given. As to whether the number of members of the Church of England, and the number of Dissenters and Nonconformists, should also be given I do not very much care; but if the numbers are given hon. Members opposite must clearly understand that there is a difference between a Dissenter and a Nonconformist. It will not do to mix up Dissenters with Nonconformists. I cannot agree with my hon. Friend the Baron that the census should show how many of the people are members of the Church of England and how many are Nonconformists, because by law every man who has no religion belongs to the Church of England. Put it in this way. Suppose that a man dies, declaring himself to be neither a member of the Church of England, nor a Nonconformist, nor a Dissenter, his relatives would call in a Church of England clergyman to bury him, and the man would be treated as a member of the Church of England. I do not desire to know how many people are members of the Church of England, and how many are Wesleyan Methodists. If my hon. Friend's Amendment is defeated I suppose I shall be in order in moving mine?
  THE CHAIRMAN: No.
  MR. ATKINSON: Then, Sir, I think there is a great want of business arrangement in this House, which is supposed to be a model of Parliamentary conduct. Surely if we cannot succeed in getting the larger demand conceded, we ought not thereby to be precluded from trying to get a smaller concession. I should have thought that common sense would have dictated the adoption of such a course. I do appeal to the right hon. Gentleman, whom I have supported for 40 years as Chairman, candidate, and Member, to consent to this Amendment or to a modification of it.
  MR. PICTON: The hon. Member who last spoke taunted his fellow Dissenters.
  MR. ATKINSON: I am not a Dissenter; I am a Nonconformist.
  MR. PICTON: I am sorry I do not appreciate the hon. Member's position. I will say, however, he has taunted his fellow Nonconformists with having a distaste to be ticketed; but there is another difficulty which the hon. Gentleman has not realised. A great many persons do not know how to describe themselves in the matter of religious belief. Personally, I should not know how to fill up the Return, or how to describe myself in this respect; and there are hundreds of thousands in this country who are in a similar position. The hon. Member for the Hitchin Division of Hertfordshire has let the cat out of the bag. The religious census is to be a kind of plébiscite in favour of the Established Church; but this plébiscite is a matter which ought to be decided at the polling booths. As to the principle of equality between England and Ireland, hon. Members ought to remember that the circumstances in the two countries are very different indeed. In Ireland religious differences are clearly marked, and are comparatively few in number. The vast bulk of the population is divided into the three great denominations of Catholics, Anglicans, and Presbyterians. Other classes are exceedingly few. It is, therefore, of considerable importance to know what proportion the Catholic population in Ireland forms of the whole people. On the other hand, it may be said that there are about 365 denominations in this country—one for every day in the year. If the Irish people desire it, by all means let them have a religious census in Ireland, but we do not want one in England.
  MR. J. E. ELLIS: I hope, in the interests of accuracy, that the President of the Local Government Board will stand by the Bill. The whole question has been carefully considered by a Committee, and the evidence tended to show that in proportion as the number of questions to the householder were multiplied, the chances increased of diminishing the accuracy of the replies received. Quite apart from the merits of questioning people as to their religious views, as we all know, there are sufficient persons not distinctly attached to any religious denomination to destroy the value of any census records on the subject.
  MR. WHITMORE: As a member of the Census Committee, let me say it is not accurate to say that the Report of the Committee had any definite bearing on the merits of a religious census.
  MR. J. E. ELLIS: I have no wish to convey an erroneous impression. I gather the Report amounts to this, that the Committee did not find themselves in a position to make any recommendation.
  MR. WHITMORE: The Committee have not thought it right to weigh the relative merits and demerits from the political point of view of a religious census. From the statistical point of view the Return would be valuable; but when the Committee came to consider the political difficulties which surrounded a Return of this kind, they felt that they were not the proper body to go into those questions. The evidence we had before us strengthened my own opinion in favour of a religious census. It is, undoubtedly, a strong fact that in Ireland there has not been any difficulty encountered in making a Return as to religious belief. Out of the whole population only 3,000 neglected to make the return. In our Colonies this Return is cheerfully made. I confess it seems to me that the balance of argument is in favour of a religious census. The hon. Member for Leicester, whose mind on religious subjects is exceptionally flabby, need make no return of his religious belief. I believe the vast majority of the population would have no difficulty, and would in no way object to making the Return. The main objection to a religious census is that an exaggerated importance may be attached to the figures. It is said that great numbers would return themselves as members of the Church of England when, in reality, they had no very definite opinions. I quite feel the force of that objection, but it is an objection which will apply to nearly all the Returns under the census. No one pretends for a moment that the Return in any one of the columns of the census is absolutely and mathematically correct. The Return is made subject to all the inferences and deductions which an observer of human nature has a right to put upon a Return. Everyone knows the value of a Return of age; no
  522
  one thinks that it is absolutely accurate, especially in the case of one sex. So, undoubtedly, it would be the case with respect to a religious census. The Return would not be absolutely and mathematically accurate, but it would be a far more trustworthy Return than any we have at present. It would be properly open to criticisms and inferences, but I think it would be an important and interesting addition to our statistical information, and, therefore, I hope the Committee will assent to the Amendment proposed.
  MR. G. OSBORNE MORGAN: The hon. Member for Boston, taunted us with having changed our opinions. I would remind the House that the man who never changes opinions is a fool. [Laughter.] I do not use that word to convey any personal disrespect. It is an old and true saying. I do not know where the hon. Member for Boston got his his knowledge of Nonconformist opinion. I certainly should not have guessed from his Votes whether the hon. Gentleman was a Dissenter or Nonconformist. But, speaking for myself, I have represented a constituency of Nonconformists for something like 22 years, and I can state that a great many Nonconformists look upon a religious census as a means of inviting a man to say he is a member of the Church of England. In the eye of the law I believe we are all members of the Church of England, and the consequence is you would get all the persons whom the late Mr. Miall used to call "absenters" credited to the Church of England. The hon. Member for Chelsea candidly avowed that a religious census would not be at all satisfactory, or represent the real religious opinion of the country with perfect truth. He said that an observer of human nature would be sure to draw his own conclusions, and to make allowances. But I am afraid those who looked at the Returns are not observers of human nature, and they would at once conclude that the members of the Church of England were enormously in excess of the members of other denominations, and they would, therefore, be led to a false conclusion. In Wales there is deep religious feeling, and I am perfectly certain that there the people would have no hesitation in stating their

  523
  religious faith. But when you come to the "absenters" in England you have a very different state of things. I had hoped that this matter was settled. With regard to the Committee, they certainly came to no conclusion on the point. But I understand from the First Lord of the Treasury that the Government has settled the matter, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board will bring some pressure to bear on his supporters to resist this Amendment, which was being quite unexpectedly sprung upon us.
  MR. RITCHIE: The right hon. Gentleman must know that the Government are bound to the Bill which they lay before the Committee. At the same time I am bound to confess that, when the right hon. Gentleman appeals to me to control our followers on this particular matter, this is one of those points in respect of which we do not feel at all inclined to put pressure upon our supporters or the friends of the right hon. Gentleman who are with us. The Bill is the Bill of the Government, and to that Bill the Government, of course, will adhere. At the same time, I am bound to say that I think there is a very great deal to be said in favour of the suggestion made by my hon. Friend, and I am not in the least astonished that he has brought forward his proposal. There is great force in the arguments used on this side of the House, and in the arguments used on the other side; at the same time I do not share the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down. If the Return proved unsatisfactory, I take it that it would be because of the failure of those who are not members of the Church of England to make the Return they were asked to make. To them would attach the blame if any preponderance of the Church of England were shown. But though there is something to be said in favour of the proposal, it is not one which the Government, under the circumstances of the case, at present are prepared to accept. We should be very sorry indeed if any very sharp differences of opinion were to be raised throughout the country by a demand for such a Return. We should be sorry indeed to raise religious or political feeling in the various com-
  524
  munities, and the effect of which would be felt in other matters in respect of which we desire to obtain information. We have adopted mainly the recommendations of the Committee with regard to the information to be obtained, and, looking to the sharp differences of opinion which exist, we see that it will be well to adhere to those recommendations, and not ask the House to assent to a religious census.
  MR. HOBHOUSE: I intend to vote for the Amendment, for I do not think that this question is at all one to be regarded from a Party or sectarian point of view, and I am sorry those considerations have been so far introduced. No one disputes that if this item were included in the Census Returns it would be of very great statistical advantage. I believe in Canada and the United States the Religious Return is always included, and no serious difficulty has been experienced, in spite of the great number of denominations in those countries. I cannot believe that there is a very large number of people of the opinions of the hon. Member for Leicester, who would return themselves to the enumerators as members of the Church of England. I was very glad to hear my right hon. Friend say that the Welsh people had no objection to the Return, and I believe there would be very little objection in the rest of the country.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNER-MAN: I confess I listened with considerable astonishment to the speech of the right hon. Gentlemen the President of the Local Government Board. I remember distinctly the First Lord of the Treasury said that the Census Bill would be precisely the same as on previous occasions. Yet the President of the Local Government Board gets up and encourages his followers to support the Amendment, which he knows will be bitterly opposed on this side of the House. I do not say it is a breach of understanding or of faith, but certainly it is not what we expected from the statements on the part of the Government with regard to this business in particular. I speak for a good many Members on this side of the House when I say that we are not afraid of a religious census because of the result it may bring about. We object to it on principle. I object to

  525
  being asked of what religion I am. If a religious census is put in practice in other countries, all I can say is, I am glad I do not belong to those other countries. It is on this principle, and not because the result might be deceiving owing to weak people representing themselves as being what they are not, that many on this side of the House are strongly opposed to this Amendment. We have been led to believe that no such proposal would be encouraged by the Government, and according to what fell from the mouth of the First Lord of the Treasury these Bills were to be really the same as those that have been passed on previous occasions. Consequently, I was amazed beyond expression to find that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board, practically on the part of the Government, although he said the Government did not support the Amendment, giving a sort of backhanded support to the Amendment.
  MR. RITCHIE: I do not think that a single word of what I stated could possibly have suggested the tone the right hon. Gentleman has adopted. I stated most distinctly that the policy of the Government was the policy of the Bill; that the Government intended to adhere to the Bill, and to oppose the Amendment; but it seems to have given the right hon. Gentleman much astonishment, that at the same time I could acknowledge there were some good arguments in favour of the Amendment, and that we did not propose to put that pressure which was suggested by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Denbighshire upon the supporters of the Government. The right hon. Gentleman said truly that this ought not to be treated as a Party question, and we, having stated our views in regard to the matter and that we adhere to the Bill, propose to leave it to those who generally support the Government to act according to their own views on the subject.
  MR. ESSLEMONT: I must remind the Committee of what took place in regard to this Bill yesterday, the result of which was that there was no discussion on the Second Reading of the Scotch Bill. Will the right hon. Gentleman say that that was not the result of the acceptance by the Scotch Members in good faith of the statement that the Bill as it stood was
  526
  to be adopted by the Government and their supporters? I say, unhesitatingly, that had we supposed that such an Amendment as this, involving a principle on which, as regards Scotland there exists the widest divergencies of opinion, these Bills would not have been allowed to pass the Second Reading as easily as they did. We were, in point of fact, led to understand that this discussion would not arise, and one of the supporters of the Government actually stated that he did not intend to press for and did not know whether a Division would be taken. It certainly is a most unusual tiling to hear a Minister say that, although the Government themselves intend to vote for a Bill, all those who support the Government are at liberty to vote as they wish. If that is the sort of understanding we are to have in regard to public measures let us be told that it is so; but at any rate it is not the sort of understanding we have been accustomed to in this House.
  MR. M. STEWART: I only wish to say a word in reply to what has just fallen from the hon. Gentleman opposite. Are we on this side of the House to be expected invariably to vote for every proposal which comes from the Front Bench, without any regard to the views we ourselves entertain, or to the views our constituents wish to express? This is a question on which, in Scotland, there has been greater division of opinion than on almost any other subject, and I intend to vote according to what I believe to be my conscientious duty. In the discharge of that duty I shall vote for the Amendment of my hon. Friend, and I may add that I think the Government are perfectly right in the course they are taking on this question. I am glad they have left it as an open question, and that they do not regard their supporters as bound to follow them in their action on this Amendment.
  MR.S.RENDEL: We are called on to divide upon this question under somewhat peculiar circumstances, and I think it important that there should be no misapprehension, such as would appear to have been created in the mind of the hon. Member for East Somerset (Mr. Hobhouse) as to the attitude of the Welsh Members. It is quite true that the Welsh people are

  527
  not at all afraid, and have nothing to fear from the results of a religious census; but, at the same time, it is a great mistake to suppose that they are favourable to this proposal, or at all approve of a religious census. On the contrary, they strongly object to it on principle. But, without delaying the House by going over the obvious arguments from a Welsh point of view, I would point out that the effect of adopting this Amendment would be to create a religious agitation as to the character of the machinery to be employed and to what extent it would affect the influence of the Church. I think, under the circumstances, it would be the most harassing and unwise proposal the House could pass, and I do hope it is clearly understood that coming, as this proposition does, at the last moment of the Session and by surprise, when, to our amazement, we hear from the Government that this is to be left as an open question, the Welsh Members as a body join in a vigorous protest against the Amendment.
  SIR R. FOWLER: I feel bound to enter my protest against the assumption of the hon. Gentleman opposite the Member for Aberdeen (Mr. Esslemont), that because the Second Reading of this Bill was passed without a Division certain hon. Members on this side of the House have no right to dissent from this portion of the measure. I protest against the dictum of the hon. Gentleman that we are bound to vote against an Amendment the object of which is to carry out the views we have long entertained on this subject. We who are independent supporters of the Government ought not to be called upon to go with them into the Division Lobby when they are taking a course of which we do not approve, although, of course, the thirty gentlemen who are members of the Ministry are bound to vote for the Bill as it stands.
  SIR H. JAMES: I am sure that no one can object to the right hon. Baronet and other supporters of the Government expressing their views on this subject, but, to my mind, the question is of far too much importance to be left to run loose without responsibility on the part of those who introduced the measure. No one objects
  528
  to an estimate being formed of the religious opinions of the population; what is objected to is an attempt to insist on a man's making public his religious views. ["No, no!"] Hon. Members say "No," but if this Amendment be carried every man will be bound to make this Return. I know that the refusal will not be subject to a penalty, and that, legally, he need not make the Return unless he likes; but if he is asked to give his religious opinion, and he does not choose to do so, he leaves it open to the public to express doubts as to whether he really holds the religious views he professes in his private life, or to say he has no religious views to declare. This Amendment involves a change in our system of dealing with this question in England and Wales, which has never been adopted before, and to which I have always been opposed. It involves an inquisition as to men's religious opinions which ought to be most private, and ought certainly not to be made a matter of public discussion. I would much rather insist on asking a man what are his political opinions, and how he has voted; for it seems to me that from such a declaration many considerations are absent that must necessarily affect the question as to what are a man's religious opinions.
  VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: I am wholly at a loss to understand the indignation of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, because he himself was responsible as a Member of the Government which brought in the last Census Bills, one of which contained a provision imposing on Ireland the necessity of making a religious Return. Why did not the right hon. and learned Gentleman exhibit on that occasion all the energy and eloquence which he has evidenced on this? He has spoken of people being compelled to state their religious belief, but he knows there is nothing in this Amendment of my hon. Friend compelling anyone to make a statement on this point. It simply allows the people of this country, if they please, to state the religious opinions they hold, and they may either say what those opinions are, or that they have no religious opinions at all, or to decline to answer the question altogether. The hon. Member for Leicester has stated that he would have a difficulty in making such a Return.

  529
  I do not think the hon. Member would find that he would have any difficulty, as he need not put any statement in that particular column of the Return; but I am sure the hon. Member does not belong to that class who would be afraid to state what religious views they hold, and I am equally certain that he would not state religious views which he does not entertain.
  MR. PICTON: My statement was that if I were to refuse to state my religious views I might be put down as a member of the Church of England.
  VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: The hon. Gentleman sits among the Members for Ireland, and probably that may have influenced him in forming so rash a conclusion. Does he not know that after the census is taken no man will be one whit the wiser as to the religious belief of any of his neighbours. I should be inclined to say that Returns such as are asked for by this Amendment would furnish almost the most interesting statistics we could have. There is no reason why we should not follow the example of all our colonies and part of the United Kingdom, namely, Ireland, as well as the advice of many of our fellow subjects in this House—I refer to the Scotch Members. For these reasons I think hon. Members should feel no scruple in voting for the Amendment.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I think the noble Lord in his address to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Bury (Sir H. James) forgets at which end of the Bench the right hon. Gentleman sits. The noble Lord, in the language he used to the right hon. Gentleman, was almost as vehement as he would have been if he had been attacking us. But, with the consent of the noble Lord, I will say a word as to the course the Government are taking. We had hoped that we had got into smooth waters, and that we were going to conclude the Session. The Government, on the Second Reading of the Bill, made it distinctly understood yesterday that their policy was to exclude the religious question from this Bill. [Ministerial cries of "No."]"No"? Well, we so understood it. It was in the spirit and upon the faith of that statement that the Second Reading was agreed to. I have never known a Government depart from an under-
  530
  standing made in this House without being justly condemned and properly punished for it. What is the position of the Government now? At an earlier part of the Session they introduced unnecessarily a liquor question, and now it appears as if they want to introduce a religious question. If they do introduce it there will be no question of Parliament meeting in November, for we shall sit till then. From the observations of the President of the Local Government Board I should say that the Government are playing fast and loose with the House. When the Government say, "We are bound to take one course ourselves, but our followers may do as they like," we know very well what it means. We know that it is an instruction to those who sit behind them, and who are a majority in the House, to defeat them on a point on which they want to be defeated. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury will at once remove the impression produced by the remarks of the President of the Local Government Board by assuring the House that the Government stand by the declaration made yesterday that this is not to be a religious census—a declaration which certainly prevailed up to half an hour ago.
  MR. ATKINSON: No, no!
  SIR W. HARCOURT: There is an hon. Gentleman behind the Government who undertakes to say that there was no understanding arrived at.
  MR. ATKINSON: I do not say "no" for them; I say it for myself.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I do not at all care about the hon. Member's saying it for himself.
  MR. ATKINSON: I do.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I quite recognise that. It is quite right that he should; but what I want to know is, what more responsible people than the hon. Member think about the matter. I think we have a right to claim a specific declaration from the Government. We have a right to expect that the Government will abide by what they have said, and that they will use their legitimate influence with their supporters to induce them to reject the Amendment.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH,): I have no hesitation

  531
  in responding to the appeal of the right hon. Gentleman. The Government undoubtedly stand by what they have said. They are responsible for the Bill they have presented to the House, and, in their opinion, it is not desirable to introduce into the measure the provision under consideration. All that my right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board said was that the Government are not able to exert such pressure upon some of their followers as is necessary to prevent them from voting for the Amendment. Have not the followers of the Government already voted against them in the course of this Session? I wish the House to understand distinctly that the Government have presented this Bill in perfect good faith, believing that, on the whole, it is far better to proceed on the lines settled in the past than to make the census a religious one. Personally, I should have no objection whatever to the introduction of the religious question, but I respect the objections that are entertained against that course by a very large number of my fellow-subjects. I therefore deprecate strongly the attempt to introduce into a measure of this kind a subject which must cause heat, and, to a certain extent, ill-feeling, and certainly a vast amount of misrepresentation. It is a misfortune that this should be the case; a very great misfortune, for the statistics in regard to religion, if they could be obtained, would be very valuable. But if there is a very strong objection on the part of a large number of persons to give this information, I am not one of those who would insist upon its being furnished, nor do I think it would be sound policy to insist on its being given. The Government, therefore, stand by the Bill, and will vote against the Amendment, and I should regret the fact very much indeed if this provision were agreed to I trust I have satisfied the House that the Government have acted in complete good faith, and that they desire that the measure shall pass in its present form.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: [Cries of" Divide !"] I take it that hon. Members who cried "Divide" are in favour of the Amendment. I can quite understand their anxiety for a Division. They fancy they have a majority—I do not think so, but they
  532
  do—and they are anxious to take advantage of the circumstances. The course the Government have adopted has been somewhat curious. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board went out of his way to say that he did not intend to exert any pressure on hon. Gentlemen behind him, and that they might vote as they liked.
  MR. RITCHIE: That observation was called forth by a remark of the right hon. member for Denbighshire, who appealed to me to put all the pressure I could upon Members who differed from me with regard to this question, so that they might vote against the Amendment. It was to that that my observation was directed.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: What did the right hon. Gentleman say in response to the appeal of my right hon. Friend, who urged that the Government should put that ordinary pressure on their followers which is usual when a pledge has been given to the Opposition? The right hon. Gentleman said he could not do so. He turned round with a sort of nail-his-ears-to-the-pump look and said, "Do as you like; I will not exercise any pressure." I say that when the Second Reading was passed, it was passed on the distinct understanding that the Government were not going to allow the introduction of this religious question. It is a curious fact that the First Lord of the Treasury has avoided using any words of exhortation to his followers. In fact, he went out of his way to say that, personally, he had no objection to a religious census. What the right hon. Gentleman ought to do is this: he ought' to say that the Government pledged themselves to pass the Bill as it stands, and that if they are thwarted they will drop it. If the right hon. Gentleman were to say, "If this Amendment is forced upon us, we will withdraw the Bill," the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London and other in depen dent Baronets and Members on the opposite side of the House would shrink into their shells at once and follow the Government humbly into the Lobby.
  MR. WINTERBOTHAM: [Cries of "Divide !"] Hon. Members who object to further discussion have apparently come down to the House to spring this

  533
  Amendment upon it. Until an hour or less ago we had no idea on this side of the House that a Religious Census Bill was contemplated. We came down to discuss a non-contentious—a Census Bill merely. If the Amendment is passed, the feeling of the country, which is that a man's religious belief is a matter purely for his own conscience and not for the State, will be even more intense than the feeling evoked by the Ministerial Liquor Bill. Hon. Members in this House may not in the least object to state their religious views, but many of the people whom they represent cannot afford to do so. There are tens of thousands of domestic servants in this country, and not a few of them are engaged on the conditions that they go to church and communicate, and in the villages of England what amounts in result to religious persecution prevails to a large extent. I mean that for a labourer to declare himself and his family to be Dissenters or Roman Catholics, would mean giving up all share in coal and blanket funds, and getting the cold shoulder in many ways. This Division List will be scanned everywhere throughout the land, for it will tell the people who the men are who wish to revive the old methods and touchstones of religious bigotry and intolerance. If the Amendment is carried, there are many of us who will exhaust every means at our disposal to prevent the Bill from passing.
  MR. BARTLBY: As Independent Members have been spoken of, I wish to say that it would be very interesting to have these statistics as to religion, if they could be obtained; but the collection of them would cause too much heart-burning, annoyance, and irritation. I shall, therefore, vote for the Bill in its present form.
  MR. H. J. WILSON: I desire to enter a protest against the proposed alteration of the measure. I had to leave the House shortly after the Debate commenced, and only heard the observations of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board, in reply to some earlier Amendments. In those observations, however,
  534
  the right hon. Gentleman took his stand on the recommendations of the Select Committee, and did not tell his followers that they could vote as they liked, and I naturally inferred that the Government intended to stand by the Bill. When I returned to the House, however, I found that the right hon. Gentleman had set his followers at liberty in this particular matter. If this Amendment is accepted, it will lead to very great difficulty and inconvenience. The enumerators will find it difficult to carry out their work, especially in cases where they have to instruct the people how to fill up the Returns; and, further, the selection of the enumerators will be a more serious, and perhaps contentious, matter than it need otherwise be. Then I would ask how long or wide is it proposed to make the religion column in the census paper— for there are a good many forms and shades of religious belief in this country, and some people may find it difficult to describe themselves in the ordinary space of a census paper.
  MR. ILLINGWORTH: It is impossible for anyone to imagine that the object of the proposal is merely to ascertain the religious belief of the people of the country. I contend that the proposal has an ecclesiastical and political object in view. Nobody will be influenced in the slightest degree by figures collected in such a way or be influenced by them in any degree in considering the question of Disestablishment, either in England or Scotland. The feeling of the country on that important question will have to be tested in a very different way—at the polls. I trust the House will not allow any form of religious plebiscite to be taken, and I hope the Government will make it clear to their followers that they do not approve of the Amendment.
  MR. RITCHIE: Both the First Lord of the Treasury and I have declared that the Government think it would be most impolitic to introduce this Amendment into the Bill.
  (5.50.) The House divided:—Ayes 69; Noes 288.—(Div. List, No. 196.)
  MR. S. T. EVANS: I beg to propose to insert, after "day," in line 14,"and whether any such person speaks Welsh only

  535
  or both Welsh and English." I understand that the Government are prepared to accept the Amendment.
  Amendment proposed, in line 14, after the word "day," to insert the words "and whether any such persons speak Welsh only or both Welsh and English."—(Mr. S. T. Evans.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted"
  MR. RITCHIE: I have considered the matter since last night, and as I gather it is the universal wish of the Members for Wales that these words should be inserted, I accept the Amendment.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  MR. W. A. MACDONALD: I beg to move the insertion, after "lunatic," in line 16, of the words "and if a child, whether he or she, is attending school." I do not wish to press the Amendment strongly; but it does appear to me that if you do not accept this Amendment, you will have no complete classification of the number of children attending school. We can get details as to the number of boys attending the great public schools and you may obtain the number of children attending Board Schools, but there are very many children who attend schools of a different character. Many children attend private adventure schools, where they get a very good education, but there are no means at present of ascertaining the number of these children. I am anxious to know how many children, both boys and girls, attend school, and it appears to me that, unless you adopt this Amendment or some Amendment going in the same direction, you will not obtain what is a most elementary piece of information.
  Amendment proposed, in Clause 5, page 16, after the word "lunatic," to insert the words "and if a child, whether he or she, is attending school."—(Mr. W. A. Macdonald.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. RITCHIE: I quite appreciate the motive that prompts the hon. Gentleman in moving this Amendment, and, if I thought that the householder could be fairly asked
  536
  under all the circumstances to give such information, I should be glad to do what I could to meet his views. But I am sure he will agree with me that it is extremely probable that what he desires will not be obtained, namely, correct information. There are some classes who will, no doubt, imagine that the information may be used against them for the School Board officers, and, however desirable it is that we should do everything we can to induce people to act according to law and to obey the law, it would be unfortunate if any impression were created in the minds of anybody that we desire to put the pressure of the law upon them.
  Question put, and negatived.
  MR. WOODALL: I desire to ask the right hon. Gentleman if, in dealing with the deaf and dumb and the blind, he has given his attention to the recommendation in the Report of the Royal Commission, which Report was presented to the House a few months ago, and in which the importance of a specific and uniform classification was set forth? May we hope that in the method to be adopted for collecting information, there will be statistics distinguishing, for example, between those who are born blind, deaf, or dumb, and those who have subsequently become thus afflicted?
  MR. RITCHIE: My attention has been directed to the Report of the Royal Commission and to that portion of it to which the hon. Gentleman has referred. If we were to obtain the information in an elaborate way, it would add considerably to the size of the Schedule. At the same time, I will undertake that the question shall be carefully looked into, and if there can be any alteration made in the Paper with regard to these persons, I shall be glad to consider it.
  MR. WOODALL: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the particular form of the question on the subject? Will he see, for instance, that the different classes of imbeciles are specified?
  MR. RITCHIE: The person filling up the Paper is to make a Return whether the persons in the house is afflicted in any of the modes to which the hon. Gentleman has alluded. If we were to subdivide the class in question the

  537
  Paper might possibly be unwieldy, but I will consider the point.
  MR. WOODALL: I take it the right hon. Gentleman recognises the importance of the question I have put, and that possibly by some supplementary process he may meet the desire I have expressed.
  MR. CONYBEARE: I desire to move an Amendment which I have not been able to put on the Paper. This clause provides that every occupier shall fill in the schedule and sign his or her name. I can conceive there may be cases in which the occupier or householder may be unable to read or write, and I have not been able 'to discover within the limits of the Bill that any provision is made for a case of that kind. I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether provision is made for such a case by instructing the enumerator to fill in the paper for the occupier, and whether, in that case, the occupier is required to affix his or her mark to the paper so as to authenticate it. I think it is desirable my Amendment should be moved for the purpose of eliciting from the right hon. Gentleman the information I desire.
  Amendment proposed, in Clause 5, page 2, line 32, to insert—
  "If such occupier be unable to read and write, then such schedule shall be filled up by such other person he may appoint to do so, and shall be authenticated by the mark of such occupier."— (Mr. Conybeare.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. RITCHIE: The Amendment of the hon. Gentleman is really not necessary, because in Clause 6 full power is taken by which, if the schedules appear to be defective or erroneous, or the information is not complete, the enumerators may make them complete. Instructions are printed at the back of the paper to the effect that if householders are unable themselves to fill up the paper properly the enumerators are charged with the duty of filling up the Return.
  MR. CONYBEARE: Is the enumerator required in that case to make any statement on the paper to the effect that he has filled up the paper on behalf of the occupier?
  MR. RITCHIE: I have not had time to look into the matter, but I do not think
  538
  it is one of importance. If the householder is unable, from any cause whatever, to fill up the paper he has a right to call on the enumerator to fill up the paper.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 5 agreed to.
  Clauses 6 to 17 inclusive agreed to.
  Clause 18 deferred.
  Clauses 19 to 23 agreed to.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again to-morrow.

CENSUS (SCOTLAND) BILL.—(No. 387.)

  COMMITTEE.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 6.
  MR. SOMERVELL: I beg to move, in page 2, line 22, after "age," to insert "religious profession." I have no intention of reiterating the arguments which have been used in the discussion on a similar Amendment to the English Bill, but I desire to point out that the question of taking a religious census occupies totally different ground in Scotland from what it does in England. The numbers belonging to the various denominations in Scotland is a subject of discussion both inside and outside the House, particularly since the relation of the Established Church to the State has been brought into prominence by the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. Gladstone). If this opportunity of discovering with some degree of accuracy the numbers of the different denominations is lost, there will be no certainty upon the subject when the momentous question of Disestablishment may be submitted to the country, and statistics of a misleading character may influence the House in coming to a decision. The House has received Petitions from the Kirk Sessions of almost every parish in Scotland in favour of inserting a column of this kind. There is a very strong feeling indeed among the majority of the people of Scotland on the subject, and Scottish Members untrammelled by office on this side are unanimous in its support. If the Government accept the Amendment they will be giving effect to a strong popular

  539
  desire, and will obtain valuable information on a question which is most keenly interesting to the people of Scotland, and which they consider of vital importance to them. I can hardly hope that the Government will on this question be induced to give an absolutely free hand to those who sit behind them, and also to the Members who occupy the Treasury Bench. If, however, the Government can see their way to recognising this claim I would press the matter to a Division, but I have no intention of wasting the time of the House either by prolonging my remarks, or by forcing a Division, if the Government do not see their way to refrain from making this a Government question.
  Amendment proposed, in Clause 6, page 2, line 22, after "age," insert "religious profession."— (Mr. Somervell.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. P. B. ROBERTSON,): I am sure my hon. Friend has stated his views with great clearness and moderation, but I must say at once that we must assume, on this question, the attitude the Government took upon the English Bill; we are unable to assent to the Amendment. It is superfluous for me to dwell on the reasons; they have been adequately stated by my right hon. Friend, and I think they, in an equal degree, apply to Scotland. I do not deny the value that such statistics would have, but they could only be obtained by a census carried out with the assent of the country, and it is quite obvious, from what has passed here to-night, that that assent is not likely to be obtained. I must say, with reluctance, but quite distinctly, that we cannot accept the Amendment.
  MR. HOZIER: I trust that everyone will clearly understand that those who are in favour of disestablishment, and actually claim to have the people of Scotland at their back, are those who are afraid of the results this census might disclose. For our part, we on this side of the House are keenly anxious to have the information, so that we may know exactly where we are.
  MR. ESSLEMONT: I am very unwilling to continue this discussion, for I think the answer
  540
  of the Lord Advocate ought to be satisfactory to every Scotch Member. I am really surprised that the two hon. Gentlemen who have spoken from the other side of the House should not be satisfied with the statistics their Party have gathered up in regard to the denomination to which they adhere. We have been told that these statistics have been proved and tested by ministers and elders, and are vouched for on the faith of their church and religion, and yet now they come here upon this Bill and say these statistics cannot be relied on and that they must have State Authority for them. ["No, no !"] Well, I think the statement of the Lord Advocate is conclusive that a large number of people will not furnish these religious statistics. This is really a manoeuvre of the Church Defence Association, with a political and ecclesiatical purpose, and I think the Government act wisely in not giving countenance to it.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clauses up to 19 agreed to.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again to-morrow.

CENSUS (IRELAND) BILL.—(No. 386.)

  COMMITTEE.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE,): I believe an understanding has been arrived at between my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary and hon. Members opposite that, with a view to the further consideration of points raised, the Bill shall not be proceeded with to-night. I, therefore, move that you do now report Progress.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Thursday.

SAVINGS BANKS BILL.—(No. 240.)

  SECOND READING. [ADJOURNED DEBATE.]
  Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment to Question [21st July],"That the Bill be now read a second time."
  And which Amendment was—
  To leave out from the word "That," to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "in the opinion of this House, it is inconvenient to assent to the Second Reading of this Bill before the terms of the First Schedule of the Bill have been filled in."—.(Mr. Howell.)
  Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  Debate resumed.
  DR. CLARK: I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland is anxious to say something on behalf of the Banks whom he thinks have not yet had the opportunity of stating their case. I think myself the case has been fully gone into, and nothing remains that cannot be dealt with in Committee. With the modifications the Chancellor of the Exchequer suggests, I think the Bill ought to go through.
  MR. LENG: I will only say a few words in support of that view. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has met a very large deputation representing banks in England, Scotland and Ireland, and has made concessions to that deputation which have almost entirely satisfied them. Some remarks were made last night as to the serious condition which it was alleged some of the banks presented, but that seems to me an argument not for delaying but for proceeding with the measure. I do not think it necessary to detain the House, but on the part of the Scotch banks I may say that they are exceedingly well satisfied at the way in which they have been met by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and there is every anticipation that the Amendments he has placed on the Paper will meet with general acceptance.
  MR. SHAWLEEEVRE: I have no intention to continue the Debate, because all that remains to be said may be reserved for the Committee stage. I do not know that it can be shown that the concessions made are altogether satisfactory; so far as I understand they are somewhat a whittling down of the suggestions of the Committee last year, suggestions which, I believe, are of a very moderate character in themselves. From the draft of the proposed Amendments, with which the right hon. Gentleman has been good
  542
  enough to supply me, some of them seem to destroy the recommendations of the Committee. But the main project is the constitution of the Committee of supervision, and that can be more practically discussed on the 2nd clause.
  MR. STOREY: I am just a little anxious to submit a few questions.
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member having already spoken, and moved the adjournment of the Debate, has exhausted his right to speak.
  MR. STOREY: That, Sir, was on the adjournment of the Debate on the Amendment.
  MR. SPEAKER: That Amendment the hon. Member for Bethnal Green asked leave to withdraw.
  MR. STOREY: And the House objected to that.
  MR. SPEAKER: Yes; and upon that the hon. Member spoke, and moved the adjournment of the Debate.
  MR. STOREY: What I understand took place, Sir, is that there was a Division upon the adjournment of the Debate upon the Amendment. The Division decided against the adjournment, and afterwards the hon. Member asked to be permitted to withdraw the Amendment. I am quite clear upon that. After that the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord consented to an adjournment.
  MR. SPEAKER: I have the record of the proceedings here. The hon. Member for Bethnal Green moved an Amendment. Upon that the hon. Member moved the adjournment, and consequently, under the Rules of Debate, he has spoken and cannot speak again.
  MR. BUCHANAN: May I ask, Sir, is the Amendment of the hon. Member for Bethnal Green still before the House?
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Sunderland interposed on the question before the House with a Motion for adjournment. That constitutes a speech.
  MR. BUCHANAN: But will you inform us, Sir, what is the question before the House now? Is it the Amendment?
  MR. SPEAKER: The original Question was that the Bill be read a second time, to which the hon. Member for Bethnal Green moved an Amendment. The hon. Member will find the position set out in

  543
  a note at the foot of the Orders of the Day.
  MR. HOWELL: With the permission of the House, I will withdraw my Amendment after the explanation given.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Main Question again proposed.
  MR. STOREY: I will trespass on the time of the House but a few minutes, for I have no disposition by long speeches to retard the progress of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman will agree that I had some reason to complain last night. The fault is no more that of the Government than my own. I had serious objection to the measure, and the right hon. Gentleman was good enough to promise that before the Second Reading he would put before us the Amendments to which he was willing to agree, so that I might ascertain if my strong objection to the original scheme was assuaged. Owing to misadventure a copy of these Amendments did not come into my hands until after the Division last night, and had not reached me when I made my objection. Since then I have availed myself of the courtesy of the right hon. Gentleman and have examined the Amendments, and I am bound to say that, while the Bill as originally drawn was in my judgment an exceedingly reprehensible and unnecessary Bill, the Amendments to which the right hon. Gentleman has consented have, to a considerable degree, modified the objections which I and many persons connected with Savings Banks have felt. After saying that, I will occupy a few minutes in stating the views of the Savings Banks, and perhaps I shall not be thought at all impertinent in expressing those views when I say that personally I have filled every position in connection with the management of a Savings Bank. I have been auditor, secretary, manager, and, at the present time, I am Trustee of a thriving and very considerable Savings Bank in my own town of Sunderland. For 20 years I have studied the law dealing with these banks, and the method of their operations. I know the position to which they have attained, and the points upon which they have reason to complain. I think the object with which the Bill
  544
  was originally drawn entirely unnecessary. I think that the statements made regarding Savings Banks have been grossly exaggerated, and in some particulars they have been most unfair and unjust to those most valuable institutions. These institutions existed long before the Post Office Savings Bank, and were started and have been carried on by a number of gentlemen from philanthrophic and humanitarian motives, to assist the people in acquiring habits of thrift. I was grieved and astonished to hear the charge made last night that politics entered into the management of these banks. My experience is that they are managed by persons of all religious creeds and political opinions, who work together on broad humanitarian principles. We have Church of England clergymen, Catholic priests, Nonconformist ministers, all acting together on broad humanitarian grounds for the encouragement of thrift. The remark was an unfortunate one. I do not agree with it, or in the fear entertained that the proposed Committee will have a political aspect. While I say this, I say that Savings Banks, established and carried on as I have said, have been hardly treated on both sides of the House by officials, and by private Members. What are the facts? I am credibly informed, on the authority of an hon. Gentleman opposite, that there are 300 or 400 of these Trustee Savings Banks in existence, and in the course of 50, 60, or 70 years, for many of them have been in existence so long, there have been a few instances only in which there have been defalcations, and some slight loss to depositors. I do not think that any business transactions can show a much better record. During their existence these banks must have turned over capital to the amount of £1,000,000,000, and in the course of these transactions there have been very few departures from rectitude in the management and losses to depositors. Is there any public department or private business of which more can be said than of the Trustee Savings Banks as a whole? I appreciate the public spirit and honesty of purpose actuating my hon. Friend (Mr. Howell), but I think he is not altogether zealous with knowledge. He made some notable admissions. He said the law at present, if properly administered, is amply sufficient for

  545
  securing proper government of the banks. But what more can be said of any law? It is admitted that the managers or Trustees have not been the people who have made a profit out of the small amount of defalcations which have taken place, and if this is all the indictment that can be brought against them, it will not be possible for any change in the law to guard absolutely against dishonesty on the part of paid officials. By no system of public audit can you absolutely guard against that. In my judgment, and in that of many connected with Trustee Savings Banks, no such legislation as is now proposed is necessary at all. But the Government having determined to take up this legislation the managers of these banks, taking a common-sense view, said, "We will get the Bill amended as far as we can, and make the best of a bad business," but let me say in regard to opinions expressed by managers of banks in favour of the Bill, that though they have expressed satisfaction at the changes made in the original Bill, there are a considerable number of them who think there was no necessity to have moved in the matter at all. Looking at the Bill, as amended, I may venture to point out that there are even yet some changes that ought to be made in Committee. I do not know whether hon. Members have noticed what the first clause originally was. Of course, as it has been revised, I will not discuss it, but I may mention that it absolutely provided that Savings Banks should stamp on the face of every pass-book the fact that the Government are not responsible for the security of the funds of the Savings Bank. A more unjust, a more unfair slur to 'cast upon a great institution, or a set of great institutions, which have done untold good, I cannot conceive. The Chancellor of the Exchequer smiles when I speak of a slur being thus cast, but what would he say, if in any business with which he happened to be connected, an Act should specially provide that every invoice should bear the statement that the Government had no responsibility for money concerned? Why, it would not be true. Savings Banks have between £40,000,000 and £50,000,000 capital, and every penny of the money, except about £2,000,000, is invested with the Government, so that
  546
  for 38–40ths the Government must be responsible.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN,): The point is not whether the Government are responsible for the funds invested, but whether the Government are responsible to the depositors. It was to prevent depositors having the belief that the Government are responsible for disasters that may occur. There was no desire to cast any slur upon Trustee Savings Banks, but simply a desire to state the fact that the Government are not responsible for deposits.
  MR. STOREY: Well, I need not discuss it, for the right hon. Gentleman has accepted an Amendment at the hands of the managers of the banks that the statement on the pass books shall be that the Government are only responsible for the funds invested with the National Debt Commissioners. It is a concession for which we are not ungrateful. If in Committee he will accept a further and consequential Amendment, setting forth that the books shall also bear on the face of each the amount of money the bank has so invested, that will be an additional advantage to the banks. I will not trouble the House with the observations I intended to make on other clauses, because I admit they are points of detail I can raise in Committee, but there is one point to which I invite serious attention. I ask the attention of every hon. Member connected with Savings Banks to the proposed omission from the Bill of Clause 11. As the House is aware, at the present time a depositor is only allowed to have £150 altogether in a Savings Bank, which may accumulate by the addition of interest to £200. Clause 11 proposes that in future a depositor may have £200 in the bank, and may draw out the interest every year. The Chancellor of the Exchequer now proposes to withdraw that clause. I listened to the observations of the right hon. Gentleman not only with regret but with positive anger at the way he and his predecessors have treated Trustee Savings Banks in this matter. It must be remembered that the old limit was adopted at a time when £150 was a very large sum for a working man. As working men have grown in means, and in the present prosperous state of the

  547
  country, £150 by no means represents the same proportion to wages as it did in old days; it is easier now to save £300 than 50 years ago it was to save £150. It was recognising this fact that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian—I wish he were present now, for he and his Government deserve blame, though perhaps those right hon. Members who were Members of his Government, and are now on the Front Bench, will take the blame on their shoulders—the Government of the right hon. Gentleman brought in a Bill in 1880, and the present Chancellor of the Exchequer shares the responsibility, for he was a Member of that Government.
  MR. GOSCHEN: NO, not in 1880.
  MR. STOREY: I thought the departure of the right hon. Gentleman from among us was of more recent date, but I find I am wrong. The Government of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian brought in the Savings Banks Bill, and that was a double-barrelled Bill; it contained clauses reducing the interest payable by the Government to Trustee Savings Bank, and for increasing the amount that workmen could deposit. What was the fate of that Bill? The right hon. Gentleman came down to the House one day and told us that he proposed to ask the House to pass the first part of the Bill, but in deference to opposition in certain quarters, he would not press the second part; but he gave a distinct promise that it should be brought on in the next year. The House accepted his proposal, as the House was in the habit of doing in those days. We were anxious to have the limit of deposits increased, though we did not wish to have the rate of interest diminished. But next year came, and the Bill was never re-introduced, or, if it was, it was not passed. I am told it was never re-introduced. So the engagement made with the Savings Banks has never been kept to this day. It was a fair engagement, taking account of the new state of things arising out of the different character of the time. It recognised that working men could well afford to save more money, and that there ought to be no absurd limitations placed by Parliament on their willingness to save. I did hope that when the right hon. Gentleman brought in this Bill he would have carried out the engagement
  548
  entered into by the Liberal Government, and have increased this limit. But what has the Chancellor of the Exchequer now done? Why, he has withdrawn Clause 11, out of deference to opposition from certain quarters. No doubt the House well understands what are those quarters. The House well knows that it is the Joint Stock and other Deposit Banks which forced the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian to give up his proposal, which was similar to this, and it is the same opposition which is preventing the Chancellor of the Exchequer from pressing this matter at the present time. Workmen now have become more prosperous, they have more means and better wages, and are able to save larger sums than formerly, and, therefore, it is a just thing that the amount they can deposit should be enlarged. I submit that it is to the public interest that these limits should be increased. The proposal made was, in all conscience, moderate enough; to my mind, it was entirely inadequate, and I think the limit should have been at least £300. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will realise that his chance of carrying this Bill through is by no means enhanced by his withdrawal of this clause. I trust that the Government are in such a frame of mind that they will willingly concede anything in order to secure the passing of the Bill, and I, therefore, give notice to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that I shall put down Amendments which, if adequately supported, will enable the right hon. Gentleman to disregard the opposition, the interested as against the public opposition, of these Joint Stock and Deposit Banks, and which also will enable him to fix the limit at £200.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: It was my intention to postpone the remarks I had to make on this question, but I hope I may be permitted to say a few words. Having been a Member of the Committee to which the Bill was referred, and recognising that it is founded mainly on the recommendations of the Committee, it is my intention to give the Government whatever assistance I can in the passing of the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland commenced his observations by saying that the Bill was unnecessary, and that the evil it was

  549
  intended to cure was greatly exaggerated. I must protest against that statement. The Committee which sat on this subject last year, and which gave the greatest possible attention to the subject, unanimously agreed that considerable changes in the law were necessary. I may, at this point, thank the hon. Member for Bethnal Green for having raised this question, for I think the Resolution of the Committee abundantly justified the action he took, and although, perhaps, the Bill does not go so far as he desired, yet I think a public service has been done in calling attention to the matter. The Committee, I may say, felt that they would not be justified in going into minute inquiries in the cases of individual banks, because they might periodically affect the interests of really sound banks. I agree that, as the Report sets out, if the provisions of the law are really carried out by Trustees, managers, and officers, there is ample security for depositors, but there is reason to think that there are cases, though I believe not many, in which the law is not observed, and that is really the danger of the position. In some cases the Trustees or managers have negligently allowed the officers to make entries or receive money without that supervision over them which the Act contemplates. What is, therefore, necessary is that there should be something in the nature of an audit, or independent inspection. In saying that I do not wish to throw discredit on the Savings Banks generally. I know that the large majority of them in the great towns, such as those at Liverpool, Manchester, Bradford, and Glasgow, are conducted with a degree of security and care which could not be excelled, but there are a number of smaller banks where the Trustees do not pay attention to the every-day business which is desirable. Now, the recommendation of the Committee is that there should be some audit, so as to secure that the provisions of the law are adequately carried out. The real crux of the thing is this -—that if the audit is to be a Government audit then there cannot be a doubt the Government will become responsible. If the audit is to be a Government audit it would be better that the business of the banks should be handed over entirely to the Government. But
  550
  all the Members of the Committee deprecated this, and I presume this is in accordance with the view of the Government themselves. The point, then, is how to arrange the audit independent of the Government, and yet for the Government to participate in it. The snggestion of the Committee is that the Board of Inspection or Audit should be of a thoroughly representative character, composed of members representing the Trustees, the depositors, and the Government, and I understand the Government have adopted this view. On the whole, I concur with the general lines of the Bill, which is framed on the recommendations of the Committee, and, so far as I am concerned, I regret that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has given way as much as he has done to the Trustees of the Savings Banks. I believe the Bill has thus been weakened, and the right hon. Gentleman must not be surprised if efforts are made in Committee to induce him to strengthen the Bill on those very points.
  MR. TOMLINSON: As representing the views of some of the assenting parties to the concessions proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the meeting in the Conference Room, I desire to say that they only wish to have those concessions, as they understand them, embodied in the Bill. So far as I gathered the effect of the proposed modifications, as explained by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, they appeared to me to effect the objects of the proposals made in the Conference Room, except with reference to Clause 1, as to which I did not distinctly catch the words of the proposed Amendment. It appears to me that the best course that can now be taken will be to have the Bill read a second time, and then committed pro forma, in order to introduce the proposed Amendments, the re-committal being postponed, so as to allow of the Amendments being considered by those connected with the Trustee Banks. With regard to the last remarks of the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, I wish to say that those who are interested in Trustee Banks expect to have the whole of the Amendments embodied in the Bill, and will be satisfied with nothing less.
  SIR A. ROLLIT: I confess that at first the Bill prepared by the Government was not very acceptable to Savings Banks, but, taking a somewhat different view to that expressed by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, I am bound, on behalf of the great majority of Savings Banks, to thank the Chancellor of the Exchequer for receiving the deputation which a short time since I had the honour to introduce to him, and for framing the Bill in a way which, I believe, is acceptable to them. I have just received a message expressing the hope that no obstacle will be placed in the way of the Bill, which protects alike the public and the banks.
  MR. STOREY: That is from Hull?
  SIR A. ROLLIT: Yes, they believe it to be an advantageous measure. I think that the attention of the House could hardly be directed to a more important subject, for no institution does more to teach thrift to the people, and to demonstrate its advantages to them, than Savings Banks. There is one feature in the Bill which I particularly approve, and that is that in future the position of the Trustees will be one of substantial reality, that they must attend a meeting, at least once a year, that they will be expected to also attend six meetings of the Committee of Management, that the nature of the connection of the Government with these institutions will be clearly set forth, and that the Committee of Audit or Inspection will be of a thoroughly representative character, representative of the views, experience, and interests of the banks on the one hand, and of the Government on the other. I welcome any precaution which will give additional security to these banks, and thus increase the confidence of the people in them. I cordially agree with the view of the hon. Member for Sunderland that the limitation of amount of deposit should be extended in the Savings Banks, for there ought to be free trade in facilities for saving rather than a regard for vested interests. Speaking for the Savings Banks generally, I welcome the Bill, and hope it will receive the unanimous assent of the House.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I wish——
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member has already spoken.
  MR. GOSCHEN: I should like——
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The right hon. Gentleman is in the same position, and cannot speak without the leave of the House.
  MR. GOSCHEN: Yes, I am in the same position, but, with the leave of the House, I should like to say a few words in answer to the points which have been raised. In reply to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford, I may say the Government certainly do not contemplate wholly appointing the Committee or Board of Inspection; for their view is that it should be largely representative. With regard to Clause 11, it was dropped in order to get rid of the more contentious part of the Bill, and thus enable it to be passed into law this Session. If we are pressed on all sides, and in different directions, the fear would be that the Bill might be lost. The Bill, as a whole, is considered a valuable measure, and I do trust hon. Gentlemen will do their best in the spirit of compromise to assist the Government to pass a measure which only the hon. Member for Sunderland, I think, considers ought not to be passed. In reply to my hon. Friend behind me, I do not think it would be advisable at this period of the Session to refer the Bill to a Select Committee.
  MR. STOREY: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell me whether the Savings Banks agreed to the withdrawal of the clause?
  MR. GOSCHEN: No, Sir. I discussed with them the points to which they attached most importance. There was no argument with regard to this clause. It was a very small clause, and some compromise was made. Of course, I shall be prepared to deal with the point when it is reached.
  MR. BARTLEY: I think hon. Members are really forgetting the exact circumstances. At present from £150 to £200 can be deposited in the Post Office Savings Bank or a Trustee Savings Bank. In the case of an ordinary family of five, that would enable one family to deposit £1,000. At that rate, if every one invested, we should have something like £70,000,000,000 invested. Therefore, instead of increasing the maximum, what we should endeavour to do is to induce people to invest in Consols, which are

  553
  equally secure, and have the advantage, or disadvantage, of rising and falling according to the prosperity of the country, and do not bear a fixed rate of interest guaranteed by a section of the community. While we ought not to raise the maximum, I do not think it ought to go forth to the world, seeing that a family can invest £1,000, that we wish to limit the savings of any individual family.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed; considered in Committee, and reported.
  Bill re-committed for Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 396.]

PUBLIC WORKS (LOANS) BILL.—(No. 39.)
(7.35.) Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
MR. DUFF: I do not quite understand the limitations of this Bill. I observe that a sum not exceeding only £10,000 is to be lent to the Scotch Fishery Board. Last year they had £20,000. Will this limitation prevent other applications from Scotland being-entertained by the Public Works Loan Commissioners?
MR. GOSCHEN: My hon. Friend will understand that the sums named in the Bill are quoted by Acts of Parliament. Under those Acts of Parliament we are bound to say what is necessary for each of these purposes. I am bound to say that in the case of the Fishery Board the result of the loans which have been made is that the sums reclaimed in some cases have been so small that we have not thought it right to issue the £80,000, and the amount has been reduced to £10,000. It would be misleading the House if we issued as loans what really turned out to be sub sidies.
MR. SEXTON: This Bill proposes to nominate and appoint persons for five years. It proposes to confer upon them very important functions, and to administer the loans made from the Public Revenues for local works in various parts of the Kingdom. I have looked with curiosity through the list to see what districts are represented.
MR. JACKSON: It does not extend to Ireland.
MR. SEXTON: Are there no loans to Ireland? I see by the 4th clause that a loan in Ireland is named.
MR. JACKSON: I might explain to the hon. Member that the Public Works Loan Commissioners no longer make loans to Ireland. That is done by the Board of Works in Dublin, who grant the whole of the loans on public works in Ireland. The House will, therefore, see that the names of the Commissioners apply to England and Scotland and Wales. Section 4 is necessary for this reason. It refers to an old debt for money lent for the repair of Killeany Pier, which amount was written off in former years from the Local Loan Account, but that writing off did not exonerate the locality from payment. But representations were recently made that this debt still stood against the Local Authorities, and it is withdrawn as against them. It is necessary to do that by a clause in this Bill. That has been written off so far as the Local Loan Account is concerned; but it still stands as a liability against the locality.
MR. SEXTON: I am much obliged for the explanation as regards that point. Although the disbursement of loans with regard to Ireland is conducted by the Board in Dublin, I would point out that this is an Imperial Department connected with the Imperial Revenues, and it is not expedient that this important Imperial Department should be constituted without any representation whatever of Irish interests. This Commission is constituted as if the United Kingdom were composed of England, Scotland, and Wales, and that Ireland had no place in it. I find there are four Peers, who are not connected with Ireland, and nine other English and Scotch gentlemen. I should like the Chancellor of the Exchequer to explain why a Department constituted for the administration of Imperial Revenues should be established without any reference to Ireland. I believe Ireland has as much interest in the outgoings from the Imperial Revenue as she has, in one sense, in a disbursement made for her benefit. It is not a proper thing that an Imperial Department should be constituted with reference to England and Scotland, as if

555
Ireland was not included in the United Kingdom. I do not know upon what qualifications these gentlemen have been selected, but I would suggest that two Representatives of Ireland might very properly be appointed. I respectfully submit that course to the Government.
MR. GOSCHEN: The point which the hon. Member has raised comes upon us by surprise. The hon. Member will be aware that the gentlemen appointed are not salaried officials. It is an honorary office. If, in future cases, Ireland desires representation from the point of view put by the hon. Member, I can only say that we are glad that hon. Members opposite do not wish to dissociate themselves from matters of Imperial concern.
MR. SEXTON: I had intended to divide on the Second Reading. I will not take that course, but I give notice that unless the Government themselves nominate two persons representative of Ireland, the Irish Members themselves will bring forward an Amendment.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill read a second time, and committed for Thursday.

SUPPLY—ARMY ESTIMATES.
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £258,400, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge for the Salaries and Miscellaneous Charges of the War Office, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1891."
MR. MONTAGU: I feel it my duty to move the reduction of this Vote by the sum of £500, part of the salary of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War. My object in doing so is to call attention to a question which I raised last year, namely, the re-admission of the public to the Tower Wharf. I feel quite certain that the people of the East of London will not rest contented until the privilege of using that wharf is restored to them. I do not now intend to make a second speech on this subject, but will content myself with a mere recapitulation of the bare facts. It is not denied by the Government that the public up to the time of the Crimean War had full access to this
556
open space, which was the most enjoy able promenade in the neighbourhood of Whitechapel. I have letters from some of the oldest inhabitants in the district on the subject, and I suppose the Committee are aware that at the time to which those letters refer the river was not in so good a condition as it is at present, and also that the population of Whitechapel, and, indeed, the East of Lendon generally, was very much smaller than it is now. Moreover, at that period there were a good many wealthy residents in the district, whereas at the present day the population consists almost entirely of the working and labouring class. I think—and I have no doubt the Committee will agree—that some consideration is due to that class, and that we ought to afford them, during their dinner hour, and at other times when they are not at work, as many opportunities as we can to enjoy the fresh air of the riverside. The opening of this wharf to the public would be a boon not only to the inhabitants of Whitechapel, but to those of Limehouse and St. George's-in-the-East. I am sorry the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board is not in his place, because he, as the Representative of the Tower Hamlets, is fully aware how few open spaces there are for the use of the people of the East End, and of the necessity which exists for increasing, as far as possible, the opportunities of open air recreation for the benefit of the people. I would remind the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War that last year the explanations he offered on this subject were not considered satisfactory, and a Division was taken, and that course will be adopted on the present occasion unless the right hon. Gentleman consents either to restore the privilege of access to the Tower Wharf, or to afford some clear and satisfactory explanation of the reasons why that wharf is not to be devoted to the use of the public, as in former times.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Item A, Salaries of the War Office, be reduced by £500."—(Mr. Montagu.)
COLONEL NOLAN: Of course the Committee is aware that a Motion for the reduction of the salary of the Secretary for War is merely

557
put forward as a medium for discussing a particular grievance, and that it is not at all aimed at the right hon. Gentleman; indeed, if it and the other Motions for the reduction of his salary were to be agreed to the right hon. Gentleman might find that he would be without salary altogether. Of course the public will understand that Motions like this for the reduction of the Secretary's salary are a mere Parliamentary fiction, enabling us to raise certain questions upon which we think discussion is desirable. I may say that I have always taken an interest on matters relating to the Tower. I served on the Committee appointed to consider the question of the Wharf Bridge, and only a week ago I went to look at the place to see what objections could be offered by the Secretary for War to this proposal. The right hon Gentleman stated, on a former occasion, that the opening of the wharf would create difficulty in relation to the landing of stores. I think that that objection is really an insignificant one. There are only about 200,000 rifles stored in the Tower, and I believe that only about five barges a year are unloaded at the Tower Wharf, which affords a large open space between 200 and 300 yards in length. I do not think it would be found that the admission of the public to the wharf would interfere in any way with the unloading of the few barges that go there. I believe that this argument about the unloading of stores is a fiction, and that there must be some other reason behind. If the argument be that the closing of the wharf is necessary for the defence of the Tower, I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is so regarded by the Constable of the Tower and the other high Military Authorities. There is a ditch between that wharf and the outside buildings connected with the Tower, and it would be perfectly impossible to attempt to take the Tower from that position. Indeed, if such a thing were attempted, the wharf would be about the worst spot from which any assault could be made. This being so, I can only attribute the objection to opening the wharf to the fact that there are certain officials who, for their own particular objects, desire to exclude the public. I do not suppose the hon. Mem-
558
ber for Whitechapel desires us to pass an Act of Parliament to hand the Tower Wharf over to his constituents. I have no doubt he would be content to see it put on the same footing as the barrack field at Woolwich, where the Commandant can always close that field to the public at any time he may think proper. Indeed, they never hesitate to turn the people out when they want the field for cricket, lawn tennis, or any other purpose, in which no doubt they are quite right, but as it is the public get as much use of the place as they require. So in the case of the Tower Wharf, if barges are coming there to unload it would be very easy to exercise the power of excluding the public, and, of course, in time of war, when the Tower might be used as a real depository of military stores, the Government would be justified in keeping that wharf entirely to themselves. As it is, however, there is no such necesssiaty, and the public are unnecessarily excluded.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. E. STANHOPE,): I have, since the discussion of last year, again very carefully considered this question of throwing open the Tower Wharf, and I can assure the Committee that I have approached the matter with a desire, as far as possible, to promote the interests of the seething population in the neighbourhood of the Tower. Indeed, the present Government have already demonstrated their desires in this direction by throwing open the gardens on the other side of the Tower, a privilege which has been used without detriment to the Government, and, doubtless, with great advantage to the public. But I am bound to say that the opening of the Tower Wharf is very strongly objected to by the Military Authorities, who have considered the question as well as myself, and have come to the conclusion that it would not be consistent with their duty to throw this wharf open to the public. The hon. and gallant Member opposite has drawn a parallel between this wharf and the barrack field at Woolwich, and, no doubt, the parallel was a very ingenious one, but I am compelled to oppose it on very different grounds from those urged by the hon. and gallant Member. The Tower is, as the hon. and gallant Member said, largely used as a

559
storehouse, and there would be great in convenience, not to say danger, if the Military Authorities were deprived of the fullest and most unrestricted use of the wharf whilst stores are being dealt with. Having made a personal examination of the place, and given the matter the very best consideration I can, I have come to the conclusion that the request made cannot be acceded to.
MR. MONTAGU: The right hon. Gentleman has not specified the danger that would arise from the admission of the public, and there is a very large space available for a promenade. I would urge upon the right hon. Gentleman that the very narrow walk in the Tower gardens is quite insufficient to meet the needs of the population, and would remind him that the terrace at Windsor is thrown open by Her Gracious Majesty to the public on Sundays, and I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider whether, in this case, an experimental exception cannot be made on Saturdays and Sundays, when, surely, the admission of the public would not interfere with the landing or embarking of stores?
MR. E. STANHOPE: I shall be very glad to consider that point, but I cannot give an answer until I have done so.
CAPTAIN VERNEY: We shall be very glad if the right hon. Gentleman is able to tell the Military Authorities what pressure has been put upon him in the House. It may very well be that it is of less importance to use the Tower as a storehouse than to give free access to the riverside to the seething population of the district. A storehouse can easily be found at some spot on the river bank, where it will not interfere so seriously with the enjoyment of the people. The right hon. Gentleman evidently feels himself, as much as we do, the importance of this question, and I believe he will welcome a little pressure being put upon him by the public.
MR. MONTAGU: I will withdraw the Motion.
DR. TANNER: The right hon. Gentleman said there would be danger to the public in opening this walk. Are we to understand that combustibles are stored in the Tower? We know that empty rifles are not objects of danger to the public.
560
If the Tower is used as a storehouse for explosives, I maintain that there will be very serious danger to the seething population on that side of the City. I would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to look at the question in a common sense way, and with the object of benefiting the people of the district. It is ridiculous for the Military Authorities to say there is danger in opening the river side walk, when the moat and gardens are open to the public. I insist upon a reply to my question, whether combustibles are stored in the Tower?
MR. E. STANHOPE: I am certainly not prepared to say what is in the Tower.
DR. TANNER: What I want to know is, are combustibles stored in the Tower of London?
MR. E. STANHOPE: What we have in the Tower depends entirely on the requirements of the Service.
DR. TANNER: Of course, the public will be able to form their own judgment from the character of the right hon. Gentleman's reply, and I hope the public will take very good care that no such things as lighted pipes are to be seen in the Tower Gardens in future. I have put the question entirely on the ground of public safety, and I sincerely hope the public will take notice of the equivocating reply of the right hon. Gentleman.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Original Question again proposed.
MR. BRADLAUGH: I wish to bring before the Committee a question affecting the Secretary for War and also the Under Secretary for India. It relates to the charge for military stores made by the War Office upon the Government of India. It appears that a dispute has been going on, I am sorry to say altogether for nearly 20 years. During the past year an attempt has been made to submit it to arbitration, but the Secretary of State for India has refused to let it be so submitted. The allegation made on the part of the Government of India, as far as we can judge from the accounts submitted to this House, is that charges of an exorbitant nature have been made against the Government of India for stores. The Government of India, as I understand it, have never assented to

561
that price, and have paid on account of it, as I understand, only something like 90 per cent., leaving the 10 per cent. in suspense. It surely is most unbusinesslike, even if it be true—and I believe it is not the case that the 90 per cent. represents the real cost—that year after year there should be a discrepancy in the accounts.
MR. E. STANHOPE: Mr. Courtney, I do not know whether I am right in asking you whether this discussion in regard to the issue of warlike stores should not have taken place on Vote 6, which deals with warlike stores?
MR. BRADLAUGH: On the point of order, Sir, I wish to submit that I am attacking the Secretary for War for having refused to submit the claim to arbitration. It is on that ground that I am basing my statement to the Committee, the facts I am using being merely illustrations used to enable the Committee to understand my complaint. I shall be quite content if the Secretary for War will now say that during the coming year some steps shall be taken to put an end to an undignified dispute between two great Departments of the State, and in which it is alleged that overcharges are made against the Government of India. I was about to appeal to the Under Secretary for India (Sir J. Gorst) on behalf of the starving population of whom he was speaking the other night, to state the facts and the steps taken to try and induce the Secretary for War to submit the question to arbitration.
THE CHAIRMAN: It seems to be a question of policy as to the mode of settling the dispute. If that be so, it is debatable upon this Vote.
MR. BRADLAUGH: It is a rather long story, and I have no wish to take up the time of the Committee if the Secretary for War will state that the matter shall be dealt with by arbitration during the next six months or something of that kind. There is a real bonâ fide case. The auditor of the India Office has reported directly against the War Office, and I shall have to appeal to the Under Secretary for India to place before the Committee the written opinion of the auditor on the subject. If the Secretary for War will not say that the matter shall be submitted to arbitration it will be my duty to submit
562
the whole case to the Committee, and, if necessary, to move a reduction of the Vote. It is really a rather gross matter, and will entail the production of a large amount of detail.
MR. E. STANHOPE: The hon. Member may or may not be aware that there are a number of outstanding questions between the War Office and the India Office. Some questions of the kind were settled by a tribunal over which Lord Northbrook presided, and which is practically a standing Committee, meeting from time to time. Other questions are settled by the Government as a whole. The Cabinet has perfect competence to decide such questions, and it does decide them as they arise. I cannot give the hon. Member any other answer than that.
MR. BRADLAUGH: That is not sufficient, because it appears that the Under Secretary for India asked the Secretary for War to submit the question to arbitration, and that request was declined by the War Office. I appeal to the leader of the House (Mr. W. H. Smith) to say whether he intends at this period of the Session to force on a Debate which must be lengthy, in which I admit my information must necessarily be incomplete, and in which I must ask the Secretary for War to give me further information. What reason can there be for not submitting this to some tribunal? I do not want to waste the time of the Committee in the matter. We find the Under Secretary for India saying "Lord Cross is unable to withdraw the claim." What is the claim? It is one, rightly or wrongly made, that the War Office have been overcharging the Government of India? I do not wish to ask the Committee to express any opinion on that, but I shall ask them to do so if I do not get an assurance that this matter will be made the subject of an investigation. I ask for an assurance that there will be some kind of arbitration, so that there may be no need for me to ask the Committee for an opinion.
MR. E. STANHOPE: I am anxious at this period of the Session to avoid any unnecessary discussion, but I cannot pass by the observations of the hon. Member. It is utterly impossible for me to admit that anything unjust has taken place.
MR. BRADLAUGH: I do not ask the right hon. Gentleman to admit that.
MR. E. STANHOPE: If anything we have been too indulgent. All this has arisen because last year the Indian Government were treated very leniently, and were not charged the full value for the stores. As, however, there appears to be a difference between the two Departments, the Government will undertake that it shall be looked into and settled.
MR. BRADLAUGH: And in the event of the two Departments not coming to an agreement will there be some arbitrament between them?
MR. E. STANHOPE: No; the Government must settle their own affairs.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH,): The Government, of course, are responsible for settling all differences that may arise between two Departments of the Government. I will undertake, on behalf of my right hon. Friend and the Government, that a fair settlement of this case shall be arrived at between the two Departments. There shall be an inquiry and a settlement.
MR. BRADLAUGH: I will be satisfied with that, merely adding that if, unfortunately, no settlement should be arrived at, or no settlement should be in course of being arrived at by some investigation, I will take the earliest opportunity that next Session affords of bringing the subject before the House.
MR. HANBURY: Before we pass to sub-head "b" I should like to say a word or two as to the Civil Central Department and the Central Military Department. I desire, in reference to the question raised the other night in reference to Lord Hartington's Commission, to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the statement he then made with regard to his intentions expressed his whole view of the steps that should be taken in order to carry out the recommendations of that Commission, because if that is so neither of the two most important objects embodied in those recommendations will be attained. Those two objects were— first, to fix responsibility upon some political person for the administration of
564
the Army, and the other was that an expert officer should be made responsible for the strength of the Army. Under the present system, neither the Secretary for War nor the Commander-in-Chief is really responsible for anything, and it is impossible to punish anybody when anything goes wrong. It is impossible, if things go wrong, to prevent them coming to Parliament, and saying, "Our duties are so immense that, although we assume responsibility for everything, we are only fallible men, and we have more duties thrown upon us than we can attend to ourselves; there is no proper sub-division of duty in the War Office, and though we are nominally responsible our responsibility is a farce." In addition to all this responsibility thrown on these two great offices you have this further fact, that it is impossible to bring home responsibility to the Secretary of State for War. Take, for instance, the failures we have had in our Army lately in regard to our great guns, our swords, our bayonets. Under this system it is impossible to punish anybody. If we attack anyone very low down in the Department, the Secretary for War very chivalrously comes forward and says, "I will bear all the responsibility." That sounds very fine, no doubt, but it means nothing at all, because his responsibility is only a Party one, and if anything goes wrong the Party say, "That may be wrong, but we have to keep the Unionist Party in power—or some other Party in power—and we must back them up." It is the same in the case of the Commander-in-Chief. As long as we have a Royal Duke for a Commander-in-Chief, and a Secretary for War who is backed up by Parliament, that state of things must necessarily continue, and it will be impossible to drive home responsibility. The Commander-in Chief, as an expert, ought to be responsible for maintaining the strength of the Army at a proper point. But in neither the Army nor the Navy is this principle adopted. I was astounded, on the Committee on the Navy Estimates, at the answer I received from Sir Arthur Hood to a question I put to him as First Sea Lord of the Admiralty. I asked—
"Before these Estimates were framed, did you even take into your calculations what were the requirements of this country, and what

565
the strength of the Fleet ought to be, because if you did not do that as Executive Officer, these Estimates are all illusory, and we do not know whether we have voted too much or too little."
He replied—
"I did not do that, and within my knowledge it has never been done."
That is the way we vote this money. In the case of the Duke of Cambridge, in July or August last year His Royal Highness went about the country complaining that we ought to have 9,000 or 10,000 more men to render our Army efficient. Did the noble Duke impress that on the Secretary for War before the Estimates were framed? He did not, and I say, therefore, that such a thing is ridiculous. We ought to have an expert to whom we can look for advice on such a matter as this—a man who, having vast knowledge on the subject, can form a reliable opinion as to what the forces of the country ought to be. We ought not to allow the Military and Naval strength of this country to depend upon mere Party emergency. I hold that the most important recommendation of the Royal Commission has not been dealt with at all. Then, again, the complaint has been made that the Commander-in-Chief, having no definite duties assigned to him, has a roving commission to go about and meddle and muddle everything; not that I wish it to be understood for a moment that the Duke of Cambridge does that, but I say that that is the result of our system of dual control without fixed responsibility. There is no definition of responsibility. There is no reason, if we keep a Commander-in-Chief, why definite duties should not be assigned to him. There is no other Army in the world, so far as I know, where a man who should lead the Army in time of war has a sort of roving commission to deal with all Departments of the War Office. It seems to me that to have Committees and Commissions and Councils to assist the Secretary for War, instead of having a well-defined sub-division of duties, is a step in the wrong direction, because my experience is that Commissions and Committees and Boards are simply things to screen responsibility. The object of any attack I make on this Department is to secure that there shall be one man to whom you shall look for responsibility if anything
566
is wrong, and I hold that the more you depend on Boards and the like the more responsibility is hidden from the public eye, and the more difficult is it to trace it. With reference to the Committee of the Cabinet, I desire to know whether the decisions will be recorded?
THE CHAIRMAN: Order ! I do not see how that question comes up under the sub-head we are now considering. As the sub-head contains the salaries of the Secretary of State and the Commander-in-Chief, the examination of their functions is quite permissible; but to enter into the question as to what is to be done by the Committee of the Cabinet appears to be out of order.
MR. HANBURY: I am anxious to know whether the statement the right hon. Gentleman made with regard to the Committee of the Cabinet applies also to the other Committees and Boards, because our great difficulty in regard to all these Departments and Committees is that we can never get at the facts of the case. Will the records of these Commissions and Councils be accessible to the public, and not only to persons within the War Office and the successors of my right hon. Friend? I now pass to the Board of Promotion, and I want to know whether the right hon. Gentleman is going to afford the officers an opportunity of testing their qualifications for promotion? At the present moment it is very difficult for anybody to find out who is the officer best fitted for promotion. In the German Army there is every opportunity of knowing who is fitted for promotion, especially in the higher ranks. There there is a school, so to speak, in which the future Generals are trained. The German Generals can be tested by being put in command of Army Corps. We have nothing of the sort here. We have not got an Army Corps to which——
THE CHAIRMAN: I fail to see how this comes under the sub-head at all.
MR. HANBURY: I take it that the Board of Promotion will be composed of officers connected with the War Office, and my argument is that this Board will carry us very little further than the present system. Under the present system there is no opportunity afforded to officers of distinguishing themselves, or of showing their qualification for promotion. I do not think it would be possible for my

567
right hon. Friend to go as far as they go in the German Army; but I do think he might throw a little more responsibility upon colonels of regiments and regimental officers, so that we may see how far they are qualified for promotion. I now wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman one or two questions with regard to the difficulties which have arisen within the last two or three weeks in regard to the Guards. I do not desire to say anything which will in any way interfere with the Secretary of State's control. In the first place, I have to ask, in regard to the Guards generally, whether he is going to lay down the rule that in future all the officers shall live in barracks, because what has taken place shows pretty clearly that the privilege the officers of the Guards have hitherto enjoyed ought to be done away with once for all. [Colonel NOLAN: Unmarried officers.] I do not know what is the origin of the outbreak; but I think there is a very strong public opinion that the officers of the Guards have not been in touch with their men as officers ought to be, and as I believe the officers of other regiments generally are. One can judge of this by small things. Coming down to this House I have noticed officers of the Guards going to the Wellington Barracks. I have seen them saluted by men, and yet take no notice of the salute. It makes me indignant to see that. It is not the conduct of officers or gentlemen; and we may depend upon it that things of this sort—
THE CHAIRMAN: Again I do not see the relevancy of the hon. Member's remarks. These are matters which ought to be entered into on the Vote for men and pay.
MR. HANBURY: Do I understand I am not entitled to ask the Secretary of State for War on this Vote the two following questions: Whether there were really any justifiable complaints on this matter—of course, whether they were justifiable or not the punishment of the men was richly deserved, because they took the wrong course to obtain redress —whether there were any justifiable complaints, such as complaints about barracks damages, food and sentry work; and, if so, whether the Secretary of State for War, or some other responsible person, is going to put an end to such a state of things, and whether the Secre-
568
tary of State has provided, or the Regulations of the Army provide, any proper means by which privates, who are complaining of injustice done by their Commanding Officer or anybody else, can report their complaints to the Inspecting Officer when he comes round? It strikes me as a curious fact that, although this regiment was inspected only a few days ago, no complaints were made to the Inspecting Officer. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman can give me some information on these points. (8.40.)
MR. CUNINGHAME GRAHAM: I do not know how far the rules will pemit me to enter upon a subject the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Hanbury) has treated, I mean in reference to recent occurrences in the Guards, but I understand, Sir, you have allowed the hon. Member to address one or two queries to the Secretary of State, and I presume I shall be in order in following the same line to a certain extent. I do not take the same view with the hon. Member as to responsibility and control of Parliament over the Army. I hold that Parliament should have absolute control, both in general management and in matters of detail. That being the case, if you will permit me to enlarge, not at great length, on events which have recently taken place, there are two questions I wish to ask. It is inconvenient on a question like this to ask questions of a Minister who is not present, but if in order I will proceed, and perhaps the Financial Secretary can give me answers. I think it may fall within the scope of your ruling if I press the right hon. Gentleman for a clear and definite answer on two points, though I know that clear and definite answers are not particularly pleasant to a Minister, especially in regard to such grave circumstances as these upon which I have to comment. I should like to know whether it is contemplated to hold any sort of inquiry into the conduct of the officers who are responsible, I suppose, for the maintenance of discipline in the regiment. I do not wish to attribute any lack of judgment in dealing with the men to the officers or to any particular officer, but I desire to say that some officer evidently has not known exactly how to deal with the men in this matter, and that owing to that officer's want of tact

569
and judgment a state of things has arisen which the Duke of Cambridge characterised as being almost unparalleled and as reflecting grave discredit on one of the first regiments in the British Army. When the Commander-in-Chief commits himself to a statement of that kind, the House of Commons ought to allow considerable latitude in discussing the question. When we see a regiment of which we are all justly proud ordered away at a moment's notice, and in a way in which it has not hitherto been customary to order a regiment abroad, I do think the Secretary of State for War, now that his salary is under consideration, might vouchsafe to us some slight modicum of information on the grave matters which have been going on in the interior economy of the regiment. I have always thought, in common with other Members, that it is not usual, nor I believe has it been usual, to send the Guards away except in case of war, and the last time they were ordered away I believe it was to Canada, complications existing at that time with the United States Government which it was thought might lead to war. But owing to the misconduct, or the alleged misconduct—for the public are absolutely ignorant of what did transpire —owing to the alleged misconduct of 6 or 7 men, all young men, we have this fine regiment ordered away at the expense of the taxpayers for an uncertain period to a place like Bermuda, which, though it may be an agreeable and healthy place of resort, is not the sort of place to which such a regiment would be sent in this particular juncture. I think we are entitled to know what really occurred at the barracks. So far as we know, and our only knowledge is derived from the Press, five or six men refused to turn out at bugle call and locked themselves in their quarters, and used some foolish and insulting words to their officer. For this, which may have been a harmless freak of very young men, almost boys, a very grave degradation—I think I may call it so— has been inflicted upon the smartest regiment in the Army; and I would ask why such a very severe sentence, ranging over a period of from 18 months to two years, has been inflicted on men for an offence which in other conditions of I life would have merely called for reprimand? When men place themselves
570
voluntarily under military discipline they must, more or less, take the consequences of their own act, but even to men under military discipline some fair measure of justice should be extended; and for a fault of this kind to inflict sentences which on civilians would only be inflicted for aggravated assaults or burglaries, or other crimes of the most serious nature, is a course which will tend to render it difficult to get recruits to enter Her Majesty's Army, and which may in the end prove subversive of that discipline Military Authorities think it will tend to strengthen. I shall not enlarge further upon that, I will merely press upon the Secretary for War that he should give a distinct answer on the point I have placed before him, and especially upon the point whether we may hope for a relaxation of the sentence upon the men, who I think at the very most were misled into a neglect of discipline. There is another matter I hope I may be in order in raising. I have addressed more than one question to the right hon. Gentleman on the grievances of General Mitchell—I do not know whether I shall be in order——
THE CHAIRMAN: That would come under the Military Vote, Vote 1.
MR. E. STANHOPE: Vote 11 I think, Sir, would cover it—retired pay.
MR. CUNINGHAME GRAHAM: I feel an uncertainty as to which ruling I am to follow?
THE CHAIRMAN: The question may be raised on Vote 11.
MR. CUNINGHAME GRAHAM: Then I will not now continue my remarks on that subject. I hope, however, that the Secretary of State will give some definite answer to my questions concerning the recent disturbances among the Guards.
COLONEL HUGHES: I desire to move that the salary of the Secretary of State for War should be reduced by the sum of £100, for the purpose of bringing before the House a miscarriage of justice which has happened in connection with the Department over which the right hon. Gentleman, speaking generally, so ably presides. Some two months ago I presented a Petition from certain labourers employed at Woolwich Arsenal, and this was ruled out of order, because it applied for an increase of wages, and

571
thereupon I sent it through the heads of the Department at Woolwich to the War Office. I have a letter from the Commissary General, Colonel Ingram, acknowledging receipt, and this is dated May 14.
THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. BRODRICK,): As a matter of order, I would point out that the amount for wages was included in Vote 1, and that this has nothing to do with the Vote under discussion.
THE CHAIRMAN: I was waiting to hear the exact point of the hon. and gallant Gentleman's complaint. If it refers to wages only, then it is relevant to Vote 1.
COLONEL HUGHES: At the present moment I am waiting to hear a reply to that Petition, and this has not yet been received, and I take it this involves a complaint of the conduct of public business in the Department of which the right hon. Gentleman is the head. I am desirous of enlarging my remarks and to deal with what the petitioners desire; and, subject to your ruling, Sir, I feel sure I shall have the sympathy of the Committee.
THE CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Member complains of delay in not attending to a communication from himself to the Department he must confine himself to the facts in relation to that delay.
COLONEL HUGHES: Submitting myself to your guidance, Sir, I will confine myself to that. The letter of acknowledgment was dated May 14. The Petition related mainly to labourers in the Ordnance Store Department to the number of nearly 1,000. Colonel Ingram informed me he had forwarded it to the War Office. Yesterday I applied to Colonel Ingram to know what had become of it, and to-day I have received a reply from that officer stating that no answer had been received from the War Office. Now, under these circumstances, no reply having been received, these men being in the employ of a Government Department, having a grievance and having applied to the heads of the Department for redress in a Petition sent under cover of a letter from myself, and two months having elapsed without any reply beyond a bare acknowledgment from the official to whom it was immediately sent, I feel it is a duty to my
572
constituents that I should mention the subject-matter embodied in the Petition.
THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order!
COLONEL HUGHES: On a former occasion, when I endeavoured to move for a Committee of Inquiry, I was told that I should have an opportunity on the Estimates of raising the question on a Motion to reduce the salary of the official immediately concerned, but to my mind it is much better to appeal at once to head quarters. I have no complaint to make against those in charge of the particular Department where the complaint originates. I know they spend all the money they can get from the Treasury for wages; my complaint must be of those responsible for the Estimates.
THE CHAIRMAN: If the complaint refers to the inadequacy of pay, it ought to be brought forward on the Vote containing the amount for the wages of the men.
COLONEL HUGHES: I could only raise the point by moving a reduction, and that would be placing myself in a false position, for my complaint is that the wages are now insufficient. If, by the Rules of discussion, I must place myself in such a ridiculous position, I will do so to secure my object, but I thought that as payment of wages is made under the authority of the Secretary of State, I could raise the subject now. If this is not so, Sir, what Vote do you suggest as relevant to the purpose? This may appear amusing to hon. Members, but it is no laughing matter to those men on whose behalf I am pleading. I desire to do my duty to my constituents, and I think I am entitled to assistance, not only from the Chairman, but from hon. Members around me.
THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must find out the Vote upon which the question of pay arises, and upon that bring forward his complaint.
DR. TANNER: The hon. and gallant Gentleman has addressed several letters to the War Office, and simply because he stood up for poor working men in his own constituency he has been treated in a contemptuous way and has received no proper answer. As far as I can gather from the remarks of the hon. and gallant Member, the War Office have not behaved with courtesy to him, or in a way in which a Public Department

573
should behave. I do think that some explanation is now due from the Secretary for War, because I gather that there must be some fire in the complaint raised, and that it is not all smoke.
MR. E. STANHOPE: I am only too glad to have this opportunity of answering.
DR. TANNER: It is very hard to get you up.
MR. E. STANHOPE: I am only too glad of this opportunity of saying a few words in reply to my hon. and gallant Friend. He complains that certain labourers have not received an answer from the War Office. But I may mention that when the Petition was received a letter was written to the hon. and gallant Member who had made certain allegations which were highly misleading, and he was asked to point out what labourers were receiving 25s. or 30s. a week. All this time we have been awaiting a reply to that question. But I do not wish to get rid of this question on that point. No doubt some of the labourers in the Ordnance Store Department have been asking for an increase of wages. I hope that these men will approach me in a proper manner. They must not approach me through the hon. Member.
DR. TANNER: Why not?
MR. E. STANHOPE: They must approach me through the head of the Department.
DR. TANNER: Yes, on their knees.
MR. E. STANHOPE: I hope and believe that the men, if they are well advised, will adopt that course. If they do, they will get an answer in a few days, for I never hesitate for a moment to listen to complaints which reach me in a legitimata manner. I have listened to the speech of the hon. Member for Preston, and I confess I do not recognise in his description any resemblance to the War Office as it now exists. He asks me for certain particulars about the records of the War Office Council. All I can say is that the proceedings referred to are recorded for the benefit of the Government that is and the Governments that are to come, and not to be communicated to the public. I cannot gratify the hon. Member for Preston with the information ho desires, and I believe it would only be an additional means of finding fault with the Estimates.
MR. HANBURY: I only desire that in cases where the Secretary for War takes a course contrary to that advised by the Council the fact shall be made known, so that the House in case of necessity may attach the blame in the right quarters.
MR. E. STANHOPE: I am not prepared to do that. With regard to the questions relating to the Guards, the hon. Member for Preston asks me whether I will lay down a rule that all officers of the Guards shall reside in barracks, and he spoke of abolishing what he called the privileges of the Guards. One of those privileges is that they pay for their own lodgings. For my part, I should be exceedingly glad if I could provide that the officers should reside among their men; and although I am not going so far as to require every officer henceforth to reside in barracks, yet I think that a fair proportion of the officers—at any rate, the unmarried officers—should have the means afforded them of living in barracks.
MR. HANBURY: Is the right hon. Gentleman going to treat the officers of the Guards in exactly the same way as the officers of other regiments?
MR. E. STANHOPE: In other barracks quarters are provided for the officers. I should, indeed, be glad to provide accommodation in the barracks for the officers of the Guards.
MR. HANBURY: Why not?
MR. E. STANHOPE: It is easy to say "Why not?" but the hon. Member must know that the space in Wellington Barracks and Chelsea Barracks is limited. Then the hon. Member asked me as to complaints and their nature. He requested me to tell him whether or not they were justifiable, and what I have to say in reply to that is that I do not in-tend to give any information. I do not think it would be in the interest of the Public Service——
MR. HANBURY: May I again interrupt the right hon. Gentleman?
MR. E. STANHOPE: No, no I shall decline to afford any opportunity either to the hon. Gentleman or the House to discuss this. This is a question on which I do not propose to give any information at all.
MR. HANBURY: What I asked was whether there were any justifiable complaints, and whether the complaints are

575
going to be remedied. I ask that purely as a matter of fact and for our future guidance. We have heard a great deal on the subject of rations and as to sentry duty. I only want to know if these complaints are to be gone into.
MR. E. STANHOPE: Any complaints that are made I am ready to consider. If I find anything in them I shall be happy to remedy them, but I am not prepared to give the House of Commons any further information on the subject. Then the hon. Member asked as to the opportunities the men have of bringing forward their complaints. Well, every soldier in the Army has a book telling him in the plainest way the mode in which, if he has any complaint to make, he can make it. In that book the soldier is told that if he thinks himself wronged he can make complaint to the captain. If he thinks himself wronged by the captain he can complain to his commanding officer, and if he thinks himself wronged by the commanding officer he may complain to the general or other officer commanding the district or station. The officer to whom complaint is made must, in due course, make inquiry. I cannot pass this by without saying one single word. I have tried to deprecate strongly any interference with the discipline of the Guards, and I hope that I carry with me the general sense of Parliament. But I hope the Committee will not run away with the notion that because of this unfortunate occurrence in one single regiment of the Guards, therefore they must look with suspicion on the brigade of Guards as a whole. The Guards have a most honourable record. They have served in all parts of the world with distinction, and at all times when serving in London the Guards have met not only with the approval of those who command them, but the public have had every reason to be satisfied with the conduct and discipline of the Guards. I, therefore, repudiate, in the strongest way, the idea that because one battalion has offended the whole brigade of Guards should be blamed, or held open to censure and criticism. They have hitherto deserved well of their country.
DR. TANNER: I rise to order. I wish to ask whether any hon. Member has imputed any blame to any other battalion of the Guards than the 2nd Battalion?
THE CHAIRMAN: The right hon. Gentleman is perfectly in order in the statement he was making. The hon. Member is under a complete misapprehension as to what constitutes a point of order. The question of order is one of form, and not of substance.
MR. E. STANHOPE: As this Vote has now been under discussion for two days, and as the hon. Member behind me (the Member for Stockport) has a very important and interesting question in connection with it to bring forward, I hope that the Committee will now proceed in a businesslike manner to dispose of it.
COLONEL HUGHES: My right hon. Friend has said that I failed to answer a letter which was sent to me. That letter was an inquiry as to the wages of the labourers in the iron works, whereas the Petition referred to the labourers in the Ordnance Stores Department. That Petition was signed by 900 men, and I wish to know whether that can be sent direct, or whether a fresh Petition must be signed?
MR. E. STANHOPE: I should recomment that the Petition be withdrawn and sent in in the ordinary manner.
MR. A. O'CONNOR: I propose to deal now with one item on the Vote, i.e. that of the pay of the Commander in Chief. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War is constitutionally the representative of the Army in this House, and he is responsible to Parliament for the general administration of the Army. The Commander in Chief is at the head of the combatant portion of the Army, and is directly responsible to the Sovereign for the discipline and command of the Force. I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman that it is not a proper thing to bring before Parliament questions of internal discipline in connection with any particular regiment unless it becomes a matter urgently requiring the attention of Parliament. This is not a Committee of public safety. If it were, it would probably result in evils as great as those which cropped up in France. But at present we are asked to vote a certain sum of money for the pay of the Commander in Chief. I presume we are to infer from that that it is the intention of the Government to continue the Commander in Chief in his present position, and at his present salary, and

577
yet having regard to what we have learned recently it appears rather strange that that should be so, because we have had a Report of a Committee accepted by the Government with regard to the positions and functions and responsibilities of the Commander in Chief which points in a different direction. The representations of the Committee are of a very serious nature. The Commander in Chief is entrusted now with a variety of functions. He is not only the Commanding Officer in Chief fulfilling duties which attached to the office when it was established in 1793, but he has also since had thrown upon him responsibilities for work previously discharged by officers who were heads of a variety of Departments. The Committee which sat under the noble Lord the Member for Rossendale declared that the present system resulted not only in overloading the Commander-in-Chief, but also in weakening the sense of responsibility in all the officers subordinate to him, but who were responsible to the Secretary of State only indirectly and through the Commander-in-Chief. It has been suggested that on the occurrence of a vacancy certain changes should be carried out, and that in these changes regard should be had to the responsibilities to Parliament of the Secretary of State, the improvement of the consultative functions of the professional advisers of Ministers, and the direct responsibilities to Ministers of officers charged with well-defined duties. What are those duties? Outside the duties proper of the Commander-in-Chief are all the subsidiary services without which an Army could not be worked. There are the Commissariat Department, the Clothing Department, the arrangements for transport and locomotion at home and abroad, the medical treatment of men in peace as well as in war, and last, but not least, the question of fortifications. Now it is impossible for anyone to discharge all these miscellaneous duties without weakening the responsibility of the officer in charge of the subsidiary service. Now, I think we are entitled to an explicit statement by the right hon. Gentleman on the points I am raising, namely, whether it is intended to continue the present Commander-in-
578
Chief in the same position, with the same responsibilities and with the same emoluments, during the whole of the ensuing financial year.
MR. E. STANHOPE: Yes, Sir.
MAJOR RASCH: I wish to call the attention of the Committee to a subject of considerable importance, namely, the employment of reserve and discharged soldiers in various Government posts, such as clerkships and writerships, and as messengers and porters. This was a very important question, when considered in connection with the difficulties of recruiting. The Report of the Inspector General of Recruiting forms far from satisfactory reading, for it states that although the quality of recruits has been reduced, it is still impossible to get the required quantity of men. Several nostrums have been suggested, among them being the raising of the pay and the bounty, the: better feeding of the men, and the finding of employment for reserve and discharged soldiers. If you do the former the money will only go into the canteen, if you increase the bounty you place a premium on desertion. As to food, I cannot agree with the Report of the Committee, which suggests that the bread should be baked in 2lb. instead of 4lb. loaves, for I think the soldier should have a meal between dinner time and breakfast time the next morning. It is, therefore, to the question of employment that I think we must look for a remedy. I think it would be a distinct advantage to the Public Service that men attached to a regiment should be enabled to keep in contact with their original trade, so as to be fit to resume it when they retire from the Service. During the last five years the Association for the Employment of Discharged Soldiers has procured employment for 5,000 men, and yet it receives but £200 a year from the Government, while the War Office Vote is £250,000. That is but a small quantity of bread to such an intolerable deal of sack. I think the matter is well worthy of consideration.
CAPTAIN VERNEY: I shall move that the Vote be reduced by the salary of the Commander-in-Chief, £4,500, and I do not see how it is possible for the Committee to avoid doing so on that question. I understand

579
that the right hon. Gentleman said in this House that when a vacancy occurred the duties of the Commander-in-Chief would be divided in an entirely different manner, and with great advantage to the Army. Are we to be told that because the Commander-in-Chief does not resign the Army is to remain in its present state? The Government have put off the Army and Navy Estimates until this late period of the Session, and then deprecate any discussion of the Estimates. I hope hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House will sit until the middle of September rather than allow the Vote to be taken without proper discussion, especially after the enunciation distinctly of a sound policy by the right hon. Gentleman himself. I move the reduction of the Vote by £4,500.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Item A, Salaries of the War Office, be reduced by £4,500, the Salary of the Commander-in-Chief."—(Captain Verney.)
MR. E. STANHOPE: I rise at once to take up the challenge of the hon. Gentleman. I never heard the reduction of a Vote moved upon more slender or meagre grounds. I can quite understand a Motion for the reduction of the salary of the Secretary of State or anybody else connected with the War Office; but when the hon. Member takes upon himself what is, after all, an immense responsibility, he ought to give some reasonable grounds for it, while the only ground the hon. Gentleman gave was a misquotation from himself. All that I said was that I adopted entirely the language of the Royal Commission, that it was not likely that any successor of the Commander-in-Chief, if there was to be one, could for a long period of years have the same authority. The Commander-in-Chief has been in the service of his country for over 50 years, and he must have greater authority in the administration of the Army than any man who might succeed him for a long period. At any rate, changes which might afterwards be considered could not be adequately considered now. I have taken exactly the ground which the Royal Commission has taken, and I cannot, therefore, believe that the hon. Member is serious in proposing the reduction.
DR. TANNER: We know that the Commander-in-Chief cannot live for ever. We all know that he is an old gentleman to whom nobody has imputed any bad conduct or anything wrong. But it has reached the ears of many through the Press that the Commander-in-Chief is about to retire, and that our Royal Duke is to be appointed; and I think it would be a very good thing if we could get some definite and explicit answer from the Secretary for War. But I rose for another purpose. I was passing along by Wellington Barracks early in the morning, and I saw crowds of weeping women there who were not on the strength of the regiment which was going abroad. I would ask whether any provision is going to be made for these poor women, or are they to be left destitute?
CAPTAIN VERNEY: The right hon. Gentleman says I misquoted him, and I consider that is sufficient ground for withdrawing my Motion, because it was only because of what I understood he said that I moved it. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Original Question again proposed.
DR. TANNER: It appears to me that numbers of these poor people will be thrown into the workhouse unless something is going to be done for them. As an Irishman in London, I would ask whether anything can be done to alleviate the suffering caused by sending this regiment abroad?
MR. E. STANHOPE: I am very sorry indeed that such cases should arise as the hon. Member has called attention to. When a regiment is sent abroad, there must necessarily be cases of considerable hardship. But, then, there is a good deal to be said on the other side. It would have been much better if, before marrying, the men had waited until their short period of service had expired. I hope something may be done by the charitably disposed.
MR. JEFFREYS: Sir, with regard to discharged soldiers. I wish to call attention to the difficulty experienced in finding suitable employment for them, because, though they have served with the colours, they rarely know any trade. I would suggest whether it would not be possible to

581
have technical schools attached to the regiments?
THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman's observations are not in order. The hon. Member for Essex ingeniously connected his remarks with the pay of the Inspector General of Recruiting, but that was rather an evasion of order.
MR. JENNINGS: Mr. Courtney, I desire to draw attention to the expenditure on the Vote, though I am almost disinclined to go on with the discussion on account of the time which has already been consumed on the Vote. The subject is one of very considerable importance to the Public Service. For the organisation of the War Office the Secretary of State is not in any way responsible. It existed long before the time of the Secretary of State, and I doubt whether it is in the power of the right hon. Gentleman entirely to remedy its defects. The organisation is cumbrous, extravagant, and defective. If hon. Members look down the Vote it will be seen that the characteristics of the office are extravagant salaries, a larger number of persons to do the work than are required, and a constant tendency to accumulate high pensions. These are characteristics of other offices besides the War Office, but no other possesses them in greater perfection. In spite of reorganisations and large bonuses paid to persons to go out of office who ought never to have been in, at this moment the office is ludicrously overmanned. There are no fewer than five head accountants, costing £5,800 a year, besides a large number of principal and senior clerks. There is also an elaborate system of reduplication of work going on outside the War Office itself, and it is obvious to all of us that any Secretary of State, with a real eye to business, must sincerely wish that he had it in his power to make a clean sweep of the whole concern, and start afresh on a rational basis. At the present moment the staff of clerks and draftsmen cost £144,812 a year, while the copyists and boy clerks cost an additional sum of £8,800, making nearly £154,000 for clerical labour alone. It would be needless to say anything about this amount if the labour were indispensable, and if the sum paid for it were reasonable. A great part of
582
the labour is, however, entirely superfluous, and it is paid for at an extravagant rate. I find that there are 18 principal clerks receiving salaries of £880 a year; 47 in receipt of £650 a year; and 31 receiving £480 a year. As times go, these are not bad salaries, especially when we remember that there are always pensions accruing upon these salaries, and that the whole of the clerical staff have not only the usual holidays at Christmas and other times, but that they have also a vacation of a month or six weeks during the summer; some of them getting as much as seven weeks off duty in the course of the year. I quote this fact from the evidence given before the Committee, of which I was a Member, by Mr. Knox, and I would point out that this estimate does not include the Saturday half-holiday which continues all the year round. If an advertisement were put in the papers for a clerk on these terms, Westminster Hall would not be large enough to hold the applicants. There is no doubt that the heads of the Departments work much longer and much harder than the clerical staff, and this may apply to some of the principal clerks to the heads of Departments, but these are the rules of the office, and rules of this kind are never wantonly infringed. No doubt it will be said that these clerks perform duties of a very onerous and difficult nature; but when this is the case, I think it is the exception rather than the rule. We are not left in any doubt or to vague conjecture on this subject, because the Royal Commissioners and the Select Committee of this House, who have gone thoroughly into the matter, have ascertained all the facts. They tell us there is a great mass of work at the War Office which only calls for ordinary intelligence, experience, and industry, and not for high intellectual attainments or advanced education. In their Second Report the Commissioners say the duties of the office can be done by clerks who have received an ordinary commercial education; but there are a large number of persons interested in the matter who wish us to believe there is something to do in Government offices which is not done elsewhere, and can only be done by those who have been properly initiated into all the mysteries. The fact is, that

583
the clerks in the War Office are remunerated at a rate more than double that which they would receive for performing similar duties in any commercial establishment of this or any other country. Take the case of a principal clerk at the Receiving House, with 50 clerks under him, and great responsibilities upon his shoulders. His salary is only from £210 to £300 a year. Why should the Government be called upon to pay more than the market value of the labour done? The only reason is that it offers the clerks a fixed position, light hours, easy duties, a certain amount of social prestige, and a pension; but surely these are not reasons for the payment of extravagant salaries. The Committee, of which I was a Member, distinctly explained that a large portion of the work consisted of simple repetition; that the number of clerks employed in the office, especially in the higher grades, far exceeded what was necessary; and that the proportion of supervising clerks to those supervised was far too large. I am afraid we shall be told that this arises from the difficulty placed in the way of re-organisation by the Resolution of the House in 1888. The condition in which we are in at the present moment is this: that notwithstanding the enormous expense of re-organisation in the past, there is a constant demand for new re-organisation. The moment one reorganisation is over the same machinery is set to work, and a new experiment in a few years becomes necessary. It is less than 12 years since a tremendous re-organisation was accomplished which cost the country over £40,000 in pensions and £110,000in bonuses. What the public demand is that these Government offices shall be conducted on the same principles as prevail elsewhere, and that no more hands shall be employed than are needed to do the work. Furthermore, if there is nothing for the clerks to do, they must be called upon to retire on pensions obtained from a fund to which they have themselves contributed. During our investigation at the War Office we obtained a list of clerks retired under the age of 50 and found that there were 39 of them. They were retired at over half their full salaries, and bonuses of from £500 to £1,000 each. The public will not tolerate this operation
584
again. I should like to call attention for a moment to a statement made on the undeniable testimony of a very competent witness. I allude to Sir R. Thompson, the Permanent Under Secretary, who admitted that much of the highly-paid work in the War Office could be dispensed with. Red-tapeism is supreme. Evidence has been given about a pane of glass of the value of 4s. 6d. which was broken. It took six months and an immense mass of correspondence to decide which Vote it should come under. Evidence has been given by a clerk at the War Office as to his daily duties, and that evidence related to a particular day selected by himself. All this Upper Division clerk, receiving a large salary, had to do was to certify that certain work had passed through his hands. He declared that the most important part of his daily duty was to see that the observations of a clerk of a Lower Division upon an account were grammatical—for it seems that an ordinary Lower Division clerk is very shaky in his grammar until he passes to the Upper Division, when increase of knowledge comes with increase of salary. I feel sure that if the Secretary of State for War had to re-construct the Office throughout, he would place it on a very different footing from that on which it stands at present. Another clerk, named Huggett, was called before the Commission and was asked whether there was not a great deal of unnecessary supervision, and he replied that there was. The fact is, that those who are supposed to check, examine, and supervise, leave the duty to clerks below them, thus proving the superfluity of labour in the office. It is a curious fact for the Committee to consider that the Germans get this work done, notwithstanding the immensely greater number of their Army, for £160,000, while the cost with us is £258,000. But in the German War Office military clerks are engaged, and are occupied in useful work, and not in writing elaborate Minutes about a broken pane of glass. The necessary work of the War Office is done by them, and done exceedingly well, and no complaint has ever been made about them. This illustrates the point I have endeavoured to set forth. I see no reason, also, why officers on

585
half-pay cannot be engaged by the War Office, but red-tapeism is against them. I listened very carefully to the evidence of Mr. Knox, the Accountant General, a gentleman of great ability and of conspicuous devotion to the Service, and I was much surprised to hear him declare that the feeling in the Service is against the employment of military clerks. It is unfortunate that he should cherish a superstition against this system, especially as many high authorities in the Army are against him. Lord Wolseley and General Brackenbury, who are officers of high authority, have strongly recommended the employment of military clerks; and Lord Wolseley has stated that it would result in a large saving in civil pensions, in dispensing with highly-paid civil clerks, and in making the Army more popular. That is also the opinion of General Brackenbury, who told the Commission that he had never heard expressed even a suspicion of the military clerks not performing their duties properly. He declared that his own confidential clerk was almost entrusted with State secrets. Mr. Knox took a different view, and said that he would not trust military clerks. But there are already a large number of military clerks engaged at the War Office, and they do their work satisfactorily. In fact, there are 87 on this Vote, costing about £9,300 a year, while there are 394 civilian clerks, who cost £118,000 a year. The only objection, it seems, that is urged against the farther employment of military clerks is that they might fall into collusion with contractors—that is, in short, they are not to be trusted; but that idea is ridiculous, and I deny that there is any force in the objection. Mr. Knox is in favour of the employment of University men in these positions, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer appears to support that view; but I contend that a University training, however desirable in itself, does not necessarily qualify a man to deal with business affairs. No great commercial firm would conduct its business on such principles, and on the same point the Committee may take the testimony of Sir Algernon West, than whom there is no higher authority in the Civil Service, who told the Royal Commission that a University man was of little use for this work without busi-
586
ness experience. My objection to the selection of University men is not, of course, because they have had a University training, but because they receive far higher salaries than the nature of their work justifies the country in paying. It is often stated, in answer to this, that if these men had gone to the Bar they would have earned yet more money. But that is not certain; every barrister does not become a Lord Chancellor, with a purse-bearer. I undertake to say that there are many barristers now in practice who would be very willing to sell their wigs and gowns at half price if they could obtain desks at the War Office with salaries of £700 or £900 a year— salaries very much higher than the nature of the work justifies. But even if there were any foundation for the argument that if these gentleman had gone to the bar they would have made larger incomes, it is no answer to my contention. It is interesting to inquire what these clerks themselves have to say about their work. If it could be contended that this work is such as could not be performed anywhere else for less than £900 a year, I admit that the whole case would fall to the ground. One of the clerks in the War Office—a gentleman named Moir— went before the Royal Commission and told them plainly that there was no work in the Department which required even the mental attainments of a clerk in the Higher Division, and that a University man going into the War Office would, in the course of time, through the simple work he was constantly called on to do, utterly lose his brain power. Surely that is worse than anything I have presented to the House.
MR. A. O'CONNOR: In what Department is that gentleman?
MR. JENNINGS: That I cannot say, as I did not make a note of the Department. I did, however, make a note of the number of the question, and I will give him that. It was question No. 4,824. Here we have a gentleman stating that a clerk in the War Office, simply through the performance of his routine duties, loses his brain power. Even Mr. Knox must be struck with remorse when he looks at the University wrecks who have gone to pieces on the rocks of £900 a year and a pension. I would not

587
have brought this case forward on my own responsibility, but I thought that at least the clerks in the office could be trusted to tell the truth about such a matter as this. I will not dwell upon the fact that the amount set down for messengers in the War Office is nearly £9,000. The redeeming feature in this, however, is that the men are old soldiers, who may, it seems, be trusted to carry a letter, but not to copy one. I contend that their services should be much more utilised than at present. I am not so unreasonable as to call on the Secretary for War to make a reduction in the Vote at once, and I do not ask him to do more than that he will in the future facilitate arrangements by which it may be possible to make necessary and useful reforms. No one who has examined the working of this office can fail to come to the conclusion that it is open to a good deal of reasonable reform. The fact that previous attempts at reform have not succeeded is no reason why further efforts in that direction should not be made. I will not, however, in moving the reduction of the Vote, press the Motion to a Division. I only wish to give expression to the opinion, which I believe is held by the public and by the House of Commons, that the expenditure is extravagant and ought to be reduced.
MR. BRODRICK: I am sure that no Member of the Committee can complain of the tone or substance of the hon. Member's speech. My hon. Friend has given great attention to this matter, and he was a valuable Member of the Committee who inquired into this and other War Office Votes. No doubt a considerable amount of evidence was taken on that occasion, and some of it, to which the hon. Member has referred tonight would point to the necessity for some change in the existing system. At the same time, the hon. Member will not expect me to concur altogether in the gruesome picture which he drew of a War Office clerk condemned to short hours and a large salary losing his brain power through routine work, and unable to find any scope for his abilities. My hon. Friend will recollect that the evidence given before the Royal Commission referred to the War Office under the old system, before competitive examinations were introduced, and to the
588
large number of clerks who dated from the old days of nominations. My hon. Friend will have noticed the enormous reduction which has been made in the number of Higher Division clerks receiving high salaries and entitled to large pensions appointed prior to the re-organisation. Originally there were over 200 of that grade, and our authorised establishment is 136, but they have been so reduced that the present number is 113, though I do not say that that number even is necessary for the work. I think that 60 or 70 would be nearer the mark, and proposals have been made to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for allowing some such limit to be drawn. The work to be done by responsible clerks is very large, and no man is now promoted to the higher posts except by selection, and when the Higher Divisions gets down to the normal level, the whole of its members will be employed on superintending duties, and we wish to carry on this process as rapidly as possible, as we regard it as to the advantage of the Public Service. My hon. Friend asserts that much of the work of the War Office is superfluous, and I am entirely in accord with my hon. Friend on that point. We have pointed out time after time that the principles upon which the House of Commons, acting through the Treasury, has forced the War Office to proceed in the audit of every single item of expenditure, are extravagant principles which could not possibly be carried out in any commercial enterprise. I must remind the Committee that the House of Commons is entirely responsible for these principles. The House cheers every allusion to the action of the Auditor General, and time after time we have been taken to task because my right hon. Friend the Secretary for War declined to allow the Auditor General to interfere in the practical new working of the department, not excluding such questions as those of contract, for which the Auditor General has no expert knowledge to guide him. With regard to the allegations of overpayment of the staff, we quite recognise that the great majority of the work of the War Office can be performed by men of ordinary intelligence and experience; and my right hon. Friend

589
is filling all vacancies by the appointment of Lower Division clerks—copyists. With regard to military clerks, it is desired that as many shall be employed as is consistent with the work to be done. But it is a question whether we should be wise to take officers of nearly 30 years' service and put them to superintending work now performed by civilian clerks whose numbers were being rapidly reduced. As to the employment of soldiers and non-commissioned officers, this is done now as far as work can be found for them, and it proves to be advantageous. The numbers of military clerks has gone on increasing year by year, and we shall continue to employ them as long as we find it is really economical and labour-saving to do so. As to the messengers of the War Office, the expenditure upon them looks large, although they are entirely old soldiers. The physical conformation of the War Office buildings is extremely difficult to deal with. The War Office, I might almost say, is scattered all over this part of London. There are nine separata buildings, and messengers have to be constantly passing to and fro. The cost of messengers roust continue to look disproportionate until it is thought necessary to re-build the War Office at considerable expense. However, considerable reduction will be made in the Vote, the number of established messengers being diminished, and temporary messengers being employed instead. Proposals in several directions have been submitted to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for reducing the expenditure at the War Office. We recognise that a much smaller number of highly-trained men, with a proportionate number of men of ability suited to the work they have to perform, will be sufficient for us in the future. Of course, the number of men has grown enormously, and the work has grown enormously. We have under arms half as many men again as we had in 1860, and the labour of the Department is correspondingly increased. Our desire is to study economy in every particular in the appointments and the administration, and to relieve ourselves, if we can, of some of the superfluous work that is thrown upon us. We adopt the spirit of the suggestions
590
made by my hon. Friend, and we feel grateful to him for the moderate and the practical manner in which he has put them forward.
MR. A. O'CONNOR: Anybody who has listened to the explanations of the hon. Gentleman will not be surprised that the administration of the War Office falls sometimes into a muddle. He admits that the staff of the War Office is excessive, and he goes on to say that the amount of work it has to do is very large; that it was imposed on it by the House of Commons, which insists on the work of the Auditor General being carried out to a ridiculous extent. I do not think that is any answer to anyone who knows practically the organisation and administration of the War Office. Three-fourths of the staff of the War Office in its upper grades might be done away with, and I think the continuance of that staff is a very considerable reproach to the existing administration. The hon. Member has stated that the clerks in the Higher Division were to be reduced in number from 113 to 60. Then why are the extra clerks retained at all? If the time of clerks is fully occupied it must be either with necessary or unnecessary work; and if any part of the work done is unnecessary it ought to be got rid of.
MR. BRODRICK: There is no power to reduce the audit work, or to get rid of these gentlemen.
MR. A. O'CONNOR: No doubt there is a considerable amount of audit work, but it is not necessary to have it done twice over, and that which is the work of audit proper ought to be transferred to the staff of the Auditor General. No doubt there must be a sufficient clerical staff to enable the Department to know how much money it has expended and how much it has yet available. Having some knowledge of the Department, and having sat on the Royal Commission on Civil Establishments, I have no hesitation in saying that out of 47 senior clerks 30 might be dispensed with immediately; and out of 31 who have salaries of between £150 and £500, 20 might be got rid of. Many of these clerks are what is known as redundant; they were continued in the Department at the time of the last re-organisation. I contend that work might have been found for

591
them in other Departments in which appointments and promotions are being made. The Chancellor of the Exchequer shakes his head; but does the right hon. Gentleman deny that promotions and appointments have been stopped in the Civil Service until redundant clerks have had work found for them?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN,): I can assure the hon. Member that in the War Office, as in other Departments, the greatest difficulty has been found in dealing with redundant clerks; but you cannot stop promotions, for in that case there will be discontented service, and remonstrances will be made in this House by Members who will have their pockets full of complaints that the Government has been guilty of breach of faith.
MR. A. O'CONNOR: The right hon. Gentleman's explanation does not remove what appears to be the great blot on the system. Is it contended that a Civil servant has a vested right of promotion in his own Department irrespective of the public interests?
MR. GOSCHEN: Certainly not.
MR. A. O'CONNOR: Then if redundant men are transferred from Department A to Department B, and promotion is then stopped, why should there be an outcry in Department B which the Government are bound to recognise?
MR. GOSCHEN: It is human nature.
MR. A. O'CONNOR: Well, if human nature is to be yielded to, you will have cries from all directions. Human nature must not override the right of the public to obtain work from those whom it is bound to pay. The fact is, this House is, to a large extent, responsible for extravagance in the Civil Service, because both sides bring pressure to bear on a Member who does anything which remotely threatens what are regarded as vested interests. That is one reason why promotions and appointments are being made while there are still redundant clerks. Hard as it may seem to the country if work cannot be found for men, the Government will be justified in putting them on the retired list. It is said the men are over-paid for the work they do. In too many cases this is true. You have got into the Civil Service, if I may use the simile, horses to do asses'
592
work, and having got these highly-paid men in the Public Service on certain conditions, you cannot dismiss them, and are bound to pay them their salaries. I do not propose that any very large, sweeping reductions should be made, but I do say that a very considerable reduction can be effected in the War Office in the higher ranks, and the change can be made without inflicting any great hardship on individuals by extending the system of transfer. Why should not men now in the War Office be transferred to the Treasury or the Colonial Office?
MR. BRODRICK: One man has been transferred to the Treasury and one to another Office.
MR. A. O'CONNOR: No doubt. One man! But a great many men are transferred from the Treasury to other offices, especially if they happen to have been private secretaries. The Treasury is always treated with exceptional favour. If it is so easy to practise the principle of transfer when it is a question of giving Treasury men appointments in other branches of the Civil Service, why should it be so difficult to practise the principle in the case of the War Department? I believe that if the Civil Service were treated as a whole, a great many of the existing difficulties might be got rid of. I know it will be said by the Government that the men who are in charge of the Departments do not like to see strangers brought in from other Departments over the heads of their own men. That difficulty is never allowed to prevail when it is a question of transferring Treasury officers to good situations elsewhere, and a Minister of determination would very soon brush away difficulties of that kind. If a reduction of the Vote had been moved, I should feel it my duty to vote for it, because I believe this is an inflated Vote, a Vote which might, without any personal injustice being inflicted, be reduced.
MR. GOSCHEN: The present appears to be one of those occasions when the House of Commons is feverishly in favour of a reduction of establishments and the cheapening of the cost of Public Departments. But these are only spasmodic occasions, because it is often the case that when

593
the Government take in hand any scheme by which a real reduction of the number of Civil servants will be effected, hon. Members, either from compassion or from other motives which I will not characterise, bring pressure to bear upon the Government in resistance to the scheme. I have been asked whether any Civil servant has a vested right to promotion. My reply is emphatically that there is no right of the kind. But although there is no vested right, there is an expectation on the part of persons who have entered the Service that after a certain time they will reach positions of larger emolument, and when such posts are abolished there is naturally disappointment and discontent. I wish I could convince hon. Members of the difficulties which the Government experience when they attempt to reduce the number of the superior appointments in the Service. I have Memorials before me at the present time petitioning the Treasury not to carry out the scheme of reduction which ought to follow as a result of the Royal Commission. The argument put forward by the petitioners are these: they do not exactly claim a vested interest, but they have worked up to a given point; they have done good service, and they have had for many years the expectation to rise to the superior posts; and I am sure it would cause cruel disappointment and dissatisfaction throughout the Civil Service if the Government were to proceed with anything like stringency in the direction of abolishing these superior posts, and a discontented Civil Service would be a great calamity to this country. It would, therefore, be unwise to proceed with any degree of exaggeration on this path, which, nevertheless, the Government ought to follow, as they are most anxious to carry out the views of the Royal Commission. I hail with satisfaction occasions like this when hon. Members declare they are with the Government in the attempt to abolish a certain number of these superior posts which are no longer wanted. At the same time, we must proceed with considerable caution. The hon. Member for East Donegal asked, "Why not transfer to the Treasury and the Colonial Office?" The answer is, that the Treasury and the Colonial Office
594
are full and want no more clerks. The Commission reported that the superior posts in nearly all the offices are unnecessarily numerous, and that vacancies ought not to be filled up. We have not the opportunity of transferring clerks from the War Office to other Departments, because in those other Departments there ought also to be reduction on the same scale.
MR. A. O'CONNOR: The Local Government Board and the Board of Trade.
MR. GOSCHEN: I only wish I could convince the hon. Gentleman of the difficulties we have had with the Local Government Board and the Board of Trade. We have endeavoured to transfer some clerks from the War Office to the Local Government Board, but we have received most serious remonstrances from my right hon. Friend the President of that Department, who says that it will not be the best, but probably the worst, clerks whom the War Office will wish to send over. No Department ever wishes to transfer its best and most useful clerks, and, therefore, other Departments are afraid of getting bad bargains. The First Lord of the Treasury has taken the greatest pains to effect transfers from one office to another. Sometimes he has been met with what I may call grumbling acquiescence, and at other times the resistance has been so great it has been very difficult to carry out his object. The transfers are still on a small scale, and for the reason that in all the offices where the Government are trying to diminish the number of superior clerks the transfer scheme is fraught with difficulty. I hope the hon. Member and the Committee will not understand we are opposing the desire of the Royal Commission or the Committee on this point. We are anxious to make progress in this direction, but the difficulties are far greater than they appear to the casual observer. A comparison has been drawn between the emoluments received by civilians in the War Office in this country and the salaries given in Germany. Those who made that camparison have not made allowance for the fact that work of all kinds is paid for less highly in Germany than here. I wish the Committee to understand and I wish

595
the public to understand this, that during the last four years fewer new men have been admitted into the Public Service than in any four years previously. The Government are doing all they can to keep down the cost of the Public Service, but, at the same time, they are attempting to do so in a manner which will not create discontent among the Civil servants.
(11.25.) SIR G. CAMPBELL: I have also great experience in these matters, and I acknowledge, to a certain extent, the difficulties to which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has alluded. There are great difficulties about the transfer of Civil servants. The disposition always is to transfer the bad bargains, and there is a great unwillingness on the part of offices to accept the bad bargains of other offices. But this is only a question of degree, and it seems to me the hon. Member for East Donegal has raised a question of great width and importance, and has put his finger on a great abuse. If it was the case that the Civil Service was to be reduced all round, I could believe there was a justification for what the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said, but the Estimates testify that that is not the case. The Civil Service Estimates increase every year, and that increase means the employment of more men. At the same time, the number of redundant pensioned men is increasing. Men are pensioned in the prime of life on one pretext or another, and enormous burdens are thus imposed on the country. The Treasury ought to exercise firmness, and insist, when there are too many clerks in one Department, on transferring some of them to another Department. I admit that as soon as you exercise firmness, you are apt to have hon. Members of this House bringing pressure to bear on the Government on behalf of the Civil servants who think they are injured. That raises a wider question. In my opinion, a very serious and fatal mistake was made in giving votes to Civil servants, and giving them liberty to take part in political agitation. It is most difficult to keep the Public Service within proper bounds when you have public servants exercising great political power. The evil is growing, and I fear we may reach that unhappy state of
596
things which obtains in America, namely, that the Civil servants go in and out with the Government. I respect their Republican system and the advantages it gives; but there is one blot on the system, that their whole Civil Service is political. There are not wanting tendencies towards the same danger in the Civil Service of this country. It is a great evil, and the War Office is an instance of the danger, as I think the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer has indicated. I am not quite sure if I am in order in another point on which I desire to ask a question; it has regard to policy. First, I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is his view that the contributions from our colonies towards the expenses of the Army are adequate?
THE CHAIRMAN: That does not depend on the Secretary of State.
SIR G. CAMPBELL: I am sure I do not know whom it does depend upon. But, Sir, I replace that question with another, which I think does depend on the Secretary of State, and that is, whether he confirms the view in regard to the distribution of the Army which was stated by the right hon. Gentleman the late Secretary for War; whether he maintains the view that it never was intended there should be any real localisation by the regimental quarters being in the district whence the regiment derives its name; whether it was never intended that localisation should be for anything but recruiting purposes? I will not attempt to discuss the merits of such a view, only I wish to know whether it is understood on both Front Benches that it never was intended to localise the Army beyond recruiting purposes. One other question I should like to ask, and it is suggested by a reply given to-day. An hon. Member asked in how many cases the liability of retired officers had been carried into actual service. The answer was that no occasion for their service had arisen; that none had been called upon.
MR. E. STANHOPE: Not under that particular warrant.
SIR G. CAMPBELL: May I ask what this warrant is? I shall be very glad to understand the answer of the right hon.

597
Gentleman was not of general application, for I have always thought it a very great abuse that comparatively young men, well under the prime of middle life, should be retired from the Army and not be called upon to serve again.
THE CHAIRMAN: This should be brought on upon the Vote for Retired Pay.
SIR G. CAMPBELL: There is only one more question I wish to ask, and that has relation to promotion from the ranks. I have been given to understand that this principle of promotion from the ranks has been very much abused, and that these promotions are not made as the result of good conduct and long service; but that young men, the sons of wealthy families, are promoted by favour. I should like to be informed whether this is the case; whether the number of the commissions allowed for promotion from the ranks are not considerably reduced by the promotion of young gentlemen who, unable to pass the examinations in the regular way, enter the Army, and are promoted by this back-door system?
MR. E. STANHOPE: I believe there were only two questions of the hon. Gentleman which were in order. First, as to localisation, the main object of this—namely, for recruiting purposes—has been gained. Its full effects in this respect have not yet been realised, but they were being experienced more and more each year. I have no reason to differ from the explanation given by the right hon. Gentleman opposite. As to promotions from the ranks, it is perfectly true that there are different degrees of promotion from the ranks. I am always glad to hear of promotions having been made actually from the ranks, and for good service, as these are an encouragement to soldiers to do their duty.
COLONEL KENYON-SLANEY: I rise, under peculiar difficulties, to ask the Committee to grant me a few minutes while I make a reference to an attack made, unknown to me and unexpected, from a quarter where I had no reason to expect it, upon a regiment with which I have long been intimately connected. I need hardly appeal to the feelings of the
598
Committee, and I am sure I need not to the feelings of military men, to bear with me while I relate an attack which I am told has been made, unfortunately in my absence, by the hon. Member for Preston, upon a regiment with which I have been very closely connected. I am told that the hon. Member for Preston referred to matters of recent occurrence in the Guards, and used language which is absolutely outside the facts and wholly unauthorised and unjustifiable as coming from an absolutely ignorant and uninformed Member of this House. I am told that the hon. Member stated that there is a strong feeling abroad that the officers of the Guards are not as much in touch with their men as they ought to be, and as the officers of other regiments are. [Sir G. CAMPBELL: Hear, hear.] The hon. Gentleman says, "Hear, hear," but the reports and opinions of general officers under whom the Guards have served are to be preferred to the opinion of an hon. Gentleman whose chief distinction in this House is prolixity in debate. How, then, does it come that in all the experience of the various wars in which the Guards have taken part the Reports from those who have commanded them in the field have, without one exception, been absolutely favourable, absolutely good, and especially strong as to the working of the men under these officers, in which they have formed a favourable contrast with other regiments. I, as a Guardsman, would be the last in the world to draw an invidious comparison between the Household Troops and others; our proudest boast has been that when we have been brought into line with other troops our conduct and efficiency has been proved to be not one bit worse than theirs, and that boast is proved, not by empty words of a partisan, but by the express Reports of all those officers who have had to command them, under the most trying circumstances, and in the most recent experience. Are we to believe the testimony of general officers and brigadiers, those who have had experience in the Service, or are we to accept the expression of opinion of an hon. Member whose sole connection with the Army is that he has made himself somewhat prominent as a critic of contracts? It was injudicious on his part to assume a rôle for which he is

599
absolutely unqualified. I would not venture to touch the hem of the hon. Member's garment in matters on which he is conversant, and the hon. Member would be better advised if he left matters of military efficiency and discipline to those who have, at all events, some slight acquaintance with the subject. I could enlarge on this theme, there is unlimited command of subject, but time is running on. I recollect when the battalion marched out of town——
THE CHAIRMAN: I have not interrupted the hon. and gallant Member in his reply to an attack made upon the brigade of Guards, but I may point out that the line taken by the hon. and gallant Member is not strictly relevant to the Vote, and that he would do well to confine himself in as few words as possible to repelling the attack made upon the regiment.
COLONEL KENYON-SLANEY: I much regret if I have travelled for one moment from the line I have laid down for myself. With reference to the statement of the hon. Member that he had seen officers of the Guards, when entering Wellington Barracks, fail to return the salute of their men, I can only say that I have served for 20 years in the brigade of Guards, and if there is one thing more absolutely insisted upon than another it is that never upon any occasion should an officer forget to return in the most accurate and direct manner any salute that may be paid to him. It may be that in London, where there are sentries at almost every corner, a young officer going to his club, and possibly thinking of other things, might occasionally forget to put his finger to the peak of his cap; yet upon that temporary forget fulness—which is one I have very seldom in my long experience seen—an hon. Member does not hesitate to rise in the House and criticise the conduct of the officers as being that neither of officers nor gentlemen. You have warned me, Sir, and I do not wish to allow my warmth to cause me to over-run your forbearance. It is a cause I have much at heart. In conclusion, the Guards are willing to bear any criticism which recent events justly call down upon them. They may feel, as they do, most bitterly and terribly what has
Colonel Kenyon-Slaney
600
recently occurred, but I think it would have been wiser and in better taste, as well as in greater consonance with the feelings of gentlemen and officers, had the hon. Member, not especially conversant with the subject under discussion, refrained from making those charges, which naturally come with an especial bitterness and an especial sting at a moment such as the present. I have ample proof at my command to rebut any such flippant and frippery attacks. I have proved, I think, that the remarks of the hon. Member were characterised neither by good taste and judgment, or any knowledge of the subject, and I would invite the hon. Member for the future to confine himself to the role of a critic of contracts, and not to criticise either the code of honour or of duty which characterise the officers of the brigade of Guards, and which always has, always must, and emphatically always will iCharacterise them on any duty to which Her Majesty may be pleased to call them.
MR. E. STANHOPE: No one can be surprised that my hon. and gallant Friend should have desired to repel with some warmth attacks which he thought to be unjustly levelled against the brigade with which he has been so long connected. I rise, however, not for the purpose of making any remarks on the subject, but rather in order to deprecate any further discussion. I hope the Committee will now allow the Vote to be taken, after three nights discussion.
COLONEL NOLAN: I do not wish to continue the discussion further upon this matter, but I think that it is only fair to the hon. Member for Preston to say that his principal point was that quarters should be provided for unmarried officers, and in that I agree with the hon. Member, As to the point raised by the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy about promotion from the ranks, the hon. Member is right in saying that there are 20 in the year, but these commissions are given away to gentlemen who enter the Army for the express purpose of being promoted. I have no objection to a man being promoted who is a gentleman, but I think that these 20 commissions should be the right of deserving non-commissioned officers. The

601
present system, in my opinion, is unfair, and ought to be inquired into by the Secretary of State for War.
Question put, and agreed to.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum not exceeding £294,800, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge for the pay of Medical Establishments, and the cost of Medicines, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1891."
MR. E. STANHOPE: I would make an appeal to the hon. Member for West Aberdeen, who I know desires to raise the question of the position of Army Medical Officers, not to press a discussion at the present time. As the hon. Member is well aware, I have had the advantage of receiving a deputation consisting of representatives of all the great medical bodies in England, Scotland, and Ireland, who have pressed certain matters upon my attention as to which I felt bound, in the face of such an influential deputation, to promise to give serious consideration. This I am now doing, and I would advise the hon. Member that if he brings on a discussion now it will be impossible for me to make any statement upon the representations which have been made to me. That being so, I think the hon. Member will see that in his own interest it is not desirable to raise a discussion now.
DR. FARQUHARSON: I quite appreciate the friendly spirit in which the right hon. Gentleman has made the appeal, but I think it will be only satisfactory to professional friends, both inside and outside the House, that I should take the opportunity this Vote offers of making a few observations. I shall discuss the Vote in no unfriendly spirit, and it is in no obstructive sense I move to report Progress. I think, considering the position I have taken upon this question, it is expected that I should take the opportunity to express the views of those I represent. I, therefore, beg to move that you do now report Progress.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress,
602
and ask leave to sit again."—(Dr. Farquharson)
MR. A. O'CONNOR: When will Army Estimates be taken again?
MR. W. H. SMITH: It is impossible for me now to say when.
COLONEL NOLAN: Will it be on Thursday?
MR. W. H. SMITH: No.
DR. TANNER: I think we ought to know when this Vote will be taken. I have waited here all night for it, sitting through discussions in which I had not the remotest interest in the expectation of this Vote being reached.
MR. E. STANHOPE: If the hon. Member had exercised a little more forbearance himself, the Vote might have been reached at a reasonable time, and we might now be in a position to take the Vote.
DR. TANNER: As a matter of personal explanation allow me to say that throughout I have only spoken twice, and the record will show that altogether I only spoke for 4½ minutes.
DR. CLARK: If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to make progress with his Estimates he must treat us in a different spirit. We might have legitimately continued the discussion on the previous Vote by a Motion for the reduction of his salary because he has taken action contrary to the recommendations of the Committee he himself appointed. My hon. Friend is perfectly justified in taking what opportunity he can for his discussion; such opportunities are now rare.
SIR WALTER FOSTER: May I make an appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to definitely fix some day for taking the Vote? If not this week, then let him say some day next week. It will be a great convenience to Members, many of whom are much interested in this Vote. I do not wish in any way to obstruct business, but will he, in the interest of the Army medical officers, say on what day the Vote will be taken?
MR. W. H. SMITH: I am most anxious to consult the convenience of Members as far as I possibly can, but, as the hon. Gentleman is, no doubt, aware, the whole of this week is mapped out, and next week must

603
depend upon the results of this. It is impossible for me to upset the whole arrangements for the sake of one specific Vote.
Question put, and agreed to.
Resolution to be reported to-morrow.
Committee also report Progress; to sit again to-morrow.

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL.—(No. 388.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  MR. BAUMANN: I appeal to the Government not to take this Bill at this hour. It is an important measure, which deals with a large sum of money, and it is impossible to discuss it adequately now.
  MR. H. W. LAWSON: There is absolutely nothing contentious in this Bill. No question of principle is involved. It has received the assent of the Treasury, and I think it would not be wise to delay passing it.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON,): Perhaps I may be permitted to appeal to the hon. Member to allow the Bill to proceed. It follows the precedent of previous years, and the effect of stopping it would be to arrest all the improvements and works in the Metropolis sanctioned by Parliament. I appeal to my hon. Friend to withdraw his opposition. I will undertake that we shall have an opportunity in Committee, of discussing any questions he desires to raise.
  MR. BAUMANN: I must explain. I have carefully read the Bill; I am afraid the Secretary to the Treasury has not.
  MR. JACKSON: I beg the hon. Member's pardon. I have read every word.
  MR. BAUMANN: Part of the Bill refers to the sanction——
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member has already spoken.
  MR. BAUMANN: Not on a Motion to adjourn the Debate. The Bill refers to schemes for the coming year, which have not received the sanction of Parliament. I think it is most improper and most unreasonable on the part of the County Council and the Government to ask that the Bill shall at this hour of the night be read a second time without discussion. Half of the Bill deals with schemes for the coming year, which are of an extremely contentious nature, and which have not received the sanction of Parliament. Those Bills require discussing, and I, for one, object——
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is exceeding his rights. He has already spoken twice.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: No doubt the hon. Member feels it rather hard that the Bill should come on so unexpectedly, because he was unable to issue his customary Whip to hon. Members opposite against it. He has already defeated two of the Bills of the London County Council this Session, and no doubt he will defeat this if he can. But, after what the Secretary to the Treasury has said, hon. Members will approve of the Bill. The hon. Member for Peckham will have an opportunity in Committee of objecting to particular clauses. The largest portion of the measure refers to matters now being dealt with by the Council, and it is important that power should be given for continuing the works.
  SIR J. COLOMB: I trust that my hon. Friend will not press his objection. Opportunity has been promised him for discussing the details in Committee, and I, therefore, hope he will allow the Bill to be read a second time.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE,): If the Bill is not read a second time not a penny will be available next year for the Council to carry on the works which Parliament has sanctioned. Nothing but the pressure of business has prevented the Government dealing with the demands of the London County Council in a different manner from that proposed to day, but I hope early next

  605
  Session to lay before the House a scheme dealing with the finance of the County Council, which will obviate the necessity of these annual Bills.
  MR. BARTLEY: I think that my hon. Friend has not been treated very well. I sympathise with his view. I agree that the question is of great importance to Metropolitan Members, and we object to pass the Bill without discussion. Had this been an Irish Bill, and had hon. Members for Ireland objected to proceeding with it, the Government would have at once given way, but although we Metropolitan Members on this side are nearly as numerous as Irish Members opposite, they will not give way. I beg to move the adjournment of the Debate.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."— (Mr. Bartley.)
  MR. KELLY: I support that. I contend that it is not fair that the metropolitan Members should be called upon to agree to the Second Reading of a Bill of this importance without some sort of discussion. I appeal to the Government to give us reasonable facilities for that.
  MR. W. H SMITH: The Government would be excedingy sorry to press the Bill on if it involved any new principle whatever. The work authorised by Parliament to be carried out by the County Council cannot be proceeded with unless this Bill is introduced. The County Council are not responsible for the Bill. Parliament has already sanctioned the work for which the Bill is designed, and, under the circumstances, I trust my hon. Friend will not think it necessary to persist in his Motion. He can gain his object better by examining the details of the Bill in Committee rather than by postponing the consideration of the measure.
  MR. H. W. LAWSON: The real motive for delaying the Bill is the jealous animosity against the London County Council.
  MR. BAUMANN: I wish to ask, Sir, whether the hon. Gentleman is in order in imputing motives to hon. Members?
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman would do well to avoid imputing motives; neither is he addressing himself to the question of the adjournment of the Debate.
  MR. H. W. LAWSON: I am not wishing to impute any private motive; I am only suggesting that it is hostility to the County Council which prompts hon. Gentlemen opposite to oppose the Bill. I hold that there is no occasion for the House to discuss the details of the Bill. These have already been fully considered by the County Council, which is the proper body to deal with this business, The President of the Local Government Board has explained that next Session it is his intention to introduce a measure which will make such Bills as these unnecessary, and which will place the London County Council, so far as money matters are concerned, on the same footing as other Local Authorities. I repeat that no new principle is contained in this Bill, and that all the House has to do is to agree to the County Council raising money for its public works and administrative duties in the usual way.
  MR. GOSCHEN: After the controversial speech just delivered, I think it is not likely that the Bill can be discussed in a business-like spirit, and it would be better that the House should accept the Motion for adjournment.
  Dr. TANNERrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put;" but Mr. SPEAKER withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.
  Debate resumed.
  MR. CAUSTON: I had hoped that the Government would stand firm for once, and I was going to appeal to the First Lord of the Treasury to resist this attack on the London County Council. I think the Honse should divide, if only to protest against the spirit of hostility towards the County Council displayed by hon. Gentlemen opposite.
  MR. LABOUOHERE: Her Majesty's Ministers have declared that they are strongly opposed to the Motion for the adjournment, and I hope the House will now give them the opportunity of voting against it.
  (12.20.) The House divided:—Ayes 111; Noes 98.—(Div. List, No. 197.)
  DR. CLARK: On the question of the date on which this Bill is to be taken, might I ask that it be put down as the first Order, so that we may have the opportunity of discussing its principle?
  MR. SEXTON: The majority of the House having expressed an opinion, I submit it is too late to proceed with any other business, and I beg to move the adjournment of the House.
  MR. SPEAKER: I do not regard that as a regular Motion. We must go through the Orders of the Day.
  Debate to be resumed upon Thursday

ST. GILES', EDINBURGH (RESTORATION) BILL.—(No. 118.)
Order for Second Reading read, and discharged.
Bill withdrawn.

TRUST COMPANIES BILL [LORDS]. (No. 225.)
Order for Second Reading read, and discharged.
Bill withdrawn.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
On the Motion for adjournment:—
MR. DILLON: Sir, I wish to ask the Government whether they will now give some definite statement as to when they will take the Report on the Vote for the Irish Land Commission. I have sat here night after night, on the understanding that I would get an opportunity of discussing this Vote. I would only ask the Government now to state definitely
608
and clearly when they will give us the promised discussion on the Irish Land Commission. I do not think it fair to the House, after we facilitated the Government on a particular occasion, that we should be kept here night after night without any apparent effect.
MR. JACKSON: I am not able to say definitely, but I think it will be possible to find an early opportunity.
MR. CONYBEARE: What business will be taken at 12 o'clock?
MR. DILLON: On what night will they take it?
MR. E. HARRINGTON: I desire to put it to the Speaker whether it is convenient that Report of Supply should be put down simply with the dates attached, without specifying what the Report is upon.
MR. SPEAKER: The Clerk at the Table, when Report is taken, immediately reads out the first Resolution.
MR. E. HARRINGTON: I listened, and I did not hear any Resolution read.
MR. SPEAKER: That was because Report was not taken.
MR. E. HARRINGTON: I thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I apologise for having needlessly raised the question.
SIR W. LAWSON: When will the Local Taxation Bill be brought in, and will the allocation of the money now passed be embodied in a fresh Bill?
MR. MARJORIBANKS: The Post Office Vote will be taken to-morrow, I understand?
MR. JACKSON: Yes. The date is not definitely fixed when the Local Taxation Bill will be taken, but I believe the Amendment will be embodied in the Bill.
SIR W. LAWSON: When will we have it?
MR. JACKSON: I cannot say. Probably to-morrow.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before One o'clock.