Commons Sitting of 31 July 1890

QUESTIONS.

  CATTLE IMPORTED FROM TRANSATLANTIC PORTS.
  MR. HOWELL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether his attention has been called to the cruelties which attend the importation of live cattle into this country from transatlantic ports, and to the dangers to merchant seamen in connection therewith; whether his Department has evidence to show that the prohibition of the shipment to this country of live cattle for food would necessarily raise the price of meat to the consumer, seeing that the cattle now so shipped could also be shipped as dead meat; and, if so, to what probable amount; whether he has any Statutory powers for regulating the traffic in live cattle, so as to prevent the cruelties referred to; and, if so, under what Acts; and whether he is prepared to make regulations under these Acts for the prevention of the cruelties complained of pending further legislation?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. CHAPLIN,): Yes, Sir, my attention has been called to the suffering of cattle referred to in the first paragraph of the question, which, I am afraid, is inseparable from every passage across the Atlantic in bad weather. With regard to the second paragraph, we have certainly no evidence to show that the prohibition of the shipment to this country of live cattle for food from transatlantic ports would raise the price of meat to the consumer; on the contrary, I should say, from inquiries I have made since the question appeared on the Paper, that the presumption would be the other way. I am informed that the meat of American cattle killed in Great Britain was selling to-day at 3s. 9d. per stone of 81b., while the meat of animals killed in America, and sent to this country as dead meat, was selling at 2s. 7d. In reply to the third paragraph, the Board of Agriculture has considerable powers under the Con-
  1340
  tagious Diseases (Animals) Act, 1878–1890, to make regulations for the purpose of preventing the cruelties referred to. And in reply to the last paragraph, I may say that I have already arranged for the appointment of a Joint Departmental Committee of the Board of Trade and the Board of Agriculture to consider what further regulations may be necessary to prevent, or, at all events, to minimise, as far as possible, the suffering of cattle on their passage across the Atlantic.

  CULTIVATORS IN KOLABA AND TBANA.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether the Secretary of State has seen in the Times of India, of 9th April, 1890, a Resolution of the Government of Bombay, relating to trees on occupied lands in Kolaba, in paragraph 30, where it is stated—
  "The same terms as are being offered in Thana under paragraphs 9, 10, and 13 of Government Resolution, No. 2447, dated 8th April, 1890, may for this purpose be offered in Kolaba;"
  whether what purports to be Government Resolution No. 2447, dealing with trees in occupied lands, Thana, has been published in the Times of India of 12th April; whether he will state what were the terms mentioned in paragraphs 9, 10, and 13, of the Resolution No. 2447, of 8th of April, and whether they contained important concessions to cultivators; whether he will state why this Resolution has not been published in the Government Gazette; and whether the Government of Bombay having refused, in their letters Nos. 3024 and 4163, to supply copies of the Resolution to the Forest Association of Thana, he will give instructions for the publication of the Resolution, as framed by Lord Reay's Government, so that the cultivators in the Kolaba and Thana districts may obtain the benefits which it was intended they should derive?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Sir J. GORST,): The answer to the first paragraph of the question of the hon. Member is in the affirmative. The Secretary of State has seen the Resolution from paragraph 3, and not 30, of which the quotation is taken. The answer to the second para-

  1341
  graph is in the negative. The other Resolution, No. 2447, has not been published. In answer to the third paragraph, I have to say that the Secretary of State cannot state the terms of the Resolution, because the document in question is marked confidential. The Secretary of State is not aware whether the Government of Bombay has refused to publish the document, nor, if so, on what grounds. The Secretary of State is not aware of the refusal of the Government of Bombay to publish the Resolution, and the matter seems to be one of local administration, with which, as at present advised, he should not interfere. The hon. Member's question will be sent to India in ordinary course.

  THE BURMESE DACOIT BOH YAN MYUN.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether he has yet received any answer to his inquiries into the case of the Dacoit Boh Yan Myun's trial in Burmah?
  SIR J. GORST: No telegram has reached me on the subject.
  SIR W. LAWSON: When does the right hon. Gentleman expect to hear?
  SIR J. GORST: Probably by Monday next; inquiry is being made.

  INDIAN MIDLAND RAILWAY.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether the Indian Government documents relating to the acquisition of the lands and material in certain of the states of Buudelkund, Central India, for the purposes of the Indian Midland Railway, numbered respectively 357, 359, 272, 2,550, G86, 584, and 756, of 1886, concerned all the States through which the railway runs, and covered the acquisition of all lands, and the purchase of timbers, stones, &c.; whether in the engagements entered into under these documents a sum of about five lakhs of rupees have been claimed by certain chiefs of States in Bundelkund; whether, notwithstanding such engagements, Mr. Henvey, the Agent of the Governor General of Central India, has recommended that no compensation be paid to the chiefs, on the ground that collateral advantages may hereafter accrue to
  1342
  them; and whether the Government will lay upon the Table the Papers relating to the transactions entered into with any and all of the chiefs of States in Bundelkund, through which the Indian Midland Railway runs, by the contractors for the railway, or by any other parties in connection with the railway.
  SIR J. GORST: With the exception of No. 272, which was the subject of my reply on the 3rd of July, none of the documents referred to in the question can be traced. The question will be sent to the Government of India in ordinary course.

  POST OFFICE SAVINGS BANKS.
  MR. HOWELL: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he is aware that the Post Office Savings Bank Department has refused to accept the transfer of moneys, deposited by the Trustees of the Camberwell branch of the Amalgamated Society of Painters and Decorators, with the Trustees of the Camberwell Savings Bank, to the Post Office Savings Bank; and, if so, on what grounds the refusal is based; whether he is aware that the moneys aforesaid, amounting to £118 1s. 3d., were deposited in the Camberwell Savings Banks under the Friendly Societies' Clause, as a Friendly Society, and was entered as G. 583 in the said bank; whether the Amalgamated Society of Painters and Decorators is a Friendly Society within the meaning of the Act, and has been allowed, as such, to deposit its funds in Trustee or Post Office Savings Banks for many years, and has now deposited funds in the Post Office Savings Banks of the country; whether he is aware that this branch of the Amalgamated Society of Painters and Decorators is unable, by reason of the closing of the Camberwell Savings Bank, and the refusal of the Post Office to accept the transfer of its funds, to make payments to its members for sickness, funeral, accident, out of work, and other benefits; and, whether he will cause such transfer to be accepted without delay, in accordance with the existing law and practice in similar cases?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN,): The National Debt Commissioners are responsible for what has happened, and, therefore, the question

  1343
  ought to have been addressed to me instead of my right hon. Friend. I am making inquiries into the matter, and will be glad if the right hon. Member will postpone the question until tomorrow.

  CHELSEA SAVINGS BANK.
  MR. HOWELL: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is a fact, as has been stated, that the assets under the control of the Official Liquidator of the Chelsea Savings Bank are sufficient to pay all the depositors in full; and, if so, can he inform the House why the depositors have not been paid in full; whether it is true, as alleged, that the costs of the Solicitors, Messrs. Hare & Co., of the Official Liquidator, and of the Treasury Agents already amount to the sum of £3,000; and whether he will lay upon the Table of this House a statement of the costs and charges in connection with the winding up of the affairs of the Chelsea Savings Bank?
  MR. GOSCHEN: No, Sir; the assets are not absolutely sufficient to pay all the depositors in full. But those who are not paid in full will receive 19s. 8d., when the Official Liquidator pays a further dividend of 4s. 8d., which he hopes shortly to be able to do. The costs and remuneration of the liquidator will bo settled, and the solicitors' charges will be taxed by the Court, in accordance with the usual scale, and together will probably exceed £3,000. But this is only an estimate. I will consider the question of laying a statement upon the Table, such as the hon. Member suggests.

  THE BRENNAN TORPEDO.
  MR. HANBURY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for "War what is the total amount paid, and to be paid, to Mr. Brennan for his torpedo; how much of it was payable as a lump sum, and how much as an annual payment, or payments, and for how many years; and who recommended these payments?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. E. STANHOPE,): The total amount to be paid to Mr. Brennan for his torpedo was £110,000, of which £30,000 was paid in a lump sum, and the balance at the rate of £16,000 a year for five years. These payments were recommended by the
  1344
  Secretary of State for the time being, after consultation with several military and naval officers.

  THE ARCHBISHOP'S THRONE AT CANTERBURY.
  MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he is aware that the archbishop's throne which was presented to Canterbury Cathedral by Archbishop Tenison, and which was designed and executed by Grinling Gibbons, has for many years past been stowed away as lumber in a damp cellar adjacent to the cathedral cloisters; and whether he will, on behalf of the Department of Science and Art, apply to the Dean and Chapter for the loan of this beautiful and interesting work, in order that it may be rescued from its present unsatisfactory position, and preserved in the Kensington Museum?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Sir W. HART DYKE,): I am very much obliged to my right hon. Friend for calling attention to the matter, and shall be glad to act upon his suggestion as soon as possible.

  SPEED OF CRUISERS.
  MR. S. SMITH: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether his attention has been drawn to the discrepancy between the statement made by him explanatory of the Navy Estimates, 1889–90 (pages 5 and 6), where the nine first class cruisers and the 29 second class cruisers are all given a "speed at sea (continuous steaming) of 18 knots," whilst in the Navy Estimates, published in February of this year, the same first class cruisers are given a continuous seagoing speed of 96 hours duration, natural draught, in smooth water, and with clean bottoms, of 16¼ knots an hour, and the second class cruisers mentioned above a speed of 16 knots; and whether he can explain these differences?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Lord G. HAMILTON,): The particulars given for these cruisers at pages 5 and 6 of the statement were supplemented by those given on pages 182 and 188 of the Navy Estimates for 1889–90. From the latter

  1345
  it will be seen that the figures for speeds relate to maximum trial speeds—with forced draught, 20 knots, and natural draught, 18 knots, respectively. The words continuous steaming, as the context shows, were used to contrast the speed developed under forced draught for four hours, and that under natural draught for a longer period. Since the preparation of the Estimates for 1889–90, and the explanatory statement thereon, the whole question of the probable development of power in Her Majesty's ships when steaming continuously at sea for long periods has been re-considered. A number of trials have been made with ships on service, and the figures published in the Navy Estimates for 1890–91 represent the results of the inquiry, and the calculated speeds corresponding to the powers that will probably be developed for long periods under the conditions of actual service. I may add that the capacity and boiler power of these vessels have been largely increased, and are some 20 per cent, in excess of that contained in the original design.

  RATING OF VOLUNTARY SCHOOL BUILDINGS.
  MR. HOWARD: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether, in view of the action of the London County Council with respect to increasing the rating of voluntary school building's, the Government will promote legislation to exempt public elementary schools from rating, so as to prevent the extinction of many voluntary schools?
  SIR W. HART DYKE: If the threatened steps to increase the rating of elementary schools are seriously intended, a large number of voluntary schools must inevitably be closed, and in order to avert such a disaster there can be no doubt that the demand for the exemption of all public elementary schools from rating will, in the general interests of the ratepayers, become more pressing, but at this stage of the proceedings it would, I think, be premature to pledge the Government to any particular course of action.

  THE MASTER OF THE HAWKS.
  MR. SEYMOUR KEAY: I beg to ask the Secretary to
  1346
  the Treasury what part of the £965 paid yearly to the Master Surveyor and Keeper of the Hawks was originally for salary, and what part was for the purchase and maintenance of hawks; whether he has observed that the Act 2 and 3 Will. 4, c. 96, Clause 9, whereby the pensions to the Marquess of Down-shire and other persons were first charged on the Civil List, directs the same to be so charged "during the pleasure of His Majesty"; whether he will state if, since the Treasury proposed that the pay of £162 10s. yearly to the warders of Hillsborough Fort shall continue until "the resignation or demise of the present recipients of the allowances," steps have been taken to ascertain who the recipients are, and what are their respective ages and consequent expectations of life, so as to determine whether the allowances, before they lapse, will amount in the aggregate to a large or only to a small sum, in order to enable the House to "pass an opinion on each agreement to commute," as invited by the last paragraph of the Treasury Minute of 15th July; and whether the Treasury has any reason to expect that any of the warders will tender their "resignation," and so terminate their allowances before demise?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON,): If the hon. Member will refer to the reply which I gave on Tuesday to my hon. Friend the Member for Preston, and to the appendix of the Report of the Select Committee, he will find all the information asked for in his first and second questions. Payment to the warders would only be made on direct proofs of life and of tenure of office.
  MR. HANBURY: The right hon. Gentleman did not answer part of my question the other day, namely, whether all the payments will be commuted at the same rate?
  MR. JACKSON: Certainly, Sir; but I think I did answer that question the other day.

  SCHOOL BOARD OF HULLAVINGTON.
  MR. CHANNING: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he is aware that the School Board of Hullavington, Wilts., in advertising for a certificated master from

  1347
  Michaelmas next for the mixed School Board of Hullavington, the wife or sister of such master to take infants and needlework, have intimated that—
  "The present teacher (mistress) takes the church services, for which she receives separate remuneration."
  And—
  "That if the master had a daughter to take pupil teacher's place it would be a great inducement to his appointment."
  And that candidates—
  "Must he members of the Church of England;"
  whether, having regard to the Cowper Temple Clause and other provisions of the Education Act of 1870, a School Board is within its legal right in insisting on membership of any particular Church as a necessary qualification for teachers; and whether the Education Department will take stops to prevent the imposition of such religious tests?
  SIR W. HART DYKE: I have no information beyond that given in the question, but some years ago the Department took a legal opinion upon a similar point, and they were advised that they had no power to interfere with such an advertisement.

  LABOUR TRAFFIC IN THE PACIFIC ISLANDS.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies if the Imperial Government controls the labour traffic in the islands of the Pacific for the supply of the Queensland plantations, and takes measures to prevent the forcible abduction of natives and other abuses; whether the Naval Officers, acting with the Western Pacific High Commission, have orders to safeguard the liberties of the natives; whether any regulations and instructions have been issued for the guidance of Her Majesty's Officers in that matter, and where they are to be found; and whether it is true that N. MacNeil, and other British subjects, convicted in the Qeeensland Courts of the murder of natives on the high seas, in the year 1884, and whoso death sentences were commuted to penal servitude for life, have since received a free pardon, and are now at large; if so, whether the pardon was given by the Government of Queensland, with the sanction and approval of the Secretary
  1348
  of State, or solely on the advice of the ColonialMinisters?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY or STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Baron H. de WORMS,): If the hon. Member will refer to the Pacific Islanders' Protection Acts, 1872 and 1875, I think he will find the information he requires. Instructions are, from time to time, sent to the Naval Officers, but these have not been published. The prisoners referred to have not received a free pardon, but their sentences have been remitted, and they are now at large. The remission was granted by the Governor of the colony, on the advice of his Ministers.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: Did the Secretary of State for the Colonies sanction the pardon?
  BARON H. DE WORMS: I should have thought the hon. Member would have known that the Secretary for the Colonies had no power to interfere in the matter.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: As this was a case of murder on the high seas was it not dealt with by the Imperial Court, and not by the local Queensland Court?
  BARON H. DE WORMS: No, Sir.

  THE NATIONAL GALLERY.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how the account stands in regard to the pictures purchased for the National Gallery, a few years ago, under the arrangement by which the excess amount was to be recouped from the usual allowance for the purchase of pictures, how much has been recouped in this manner, and how much remains unrecouped?
  MR. GOSCHEN: Out of the total grant of £87,600 for the Blenheim pictures, £55,600 will have been recouped under the arrangement mentioned by the hon. Member by the end of the present year, leaving an unrecouped balance of £31,900.

  LONDON WATER SUPPLY.
  MR. TATTON EGERTON: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to the quality of the water supplied by the Grand Junction Water Company, which contained on 24th July 33 percent, more organic ammonia than the sample taken

  1349
  on 23rd July, 1889, and nearly double the amount of that contained in the Chelsea Water Company's water, namely, 16·4, as against 9·2, per 100 mil.; also the solids, on heating, showed a marked blackening, and the colour was of a marked yellow colour; whether this all indicates bad filtration; and what penalty attaches to supplying water of such an inferior character?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE,): My attention had not been called to the quality of the water of the Grand Junction Water Company on the date referred to, until my hon. Friend gave notice of his question. I do not know where my hon. Friend gets his figures from. I may, however, say that, so far as regards the water supplied by this company in the earlier part of the present month, the Report of Dr. Frankland, by whom analyses of the water of the London Water Companies are made on behalf of my Department, was to the effect that the improved quality which the Thames-derived waters have of late exhibited had been maintained. With regard to the supply on the date referred to, the result of the inquiries which I have caused to be made is, that I find that on July 24, and for some days before and after that date, the Thames was swollen with rain, and the water was turbid and highly tinted with colouring matter, no doubt mainly derived from the abundant vegetation, cut grass, &c, spread about in the Thames Valley. At the same time, there can be no question that the want of adequate filtration arrangements prevented the company from effectually coping with the difficulties referred to. The attention of the Directors has been repeatedly called in the Reports of the Water Examiner of the Metropolis to the necessity for increased filters, and I am glad to learn that, in view of the evidence which has been afforded of the need for a larger filtering area, in order to deal with exceptional conditions of the river, the company have intimated that the construction of additional filters will be undertaken without delay. Dr. Tidy, by whom the waters of the company are analysed, states that no such thing as organic ammonia exists in the water, but is manufactured during the process of analysis. The special material to which
  1350
  the colouring matter of the water is due, yields large quantities of the so-called organic ammonia, the quantitative estimation of which is no reliable test whatever of pollution. In justice to the Water Company I think it right to state that I am informed by the Water Examiner that the filters, as now existing, are capable of dealing satisfactorily with the water when the river is in a normal condition, and the Directors appear to have been erroneously impressed by the fact that during the past 18 months the company's water showed on several occasions, in Dr. Frankland's tables of the results of his chemical analysis, the smallest proportion of organic impurity of any of the Thames-deriving companies. In fact, in its average proportion of organic elements during 1889 the company appears to stand, with the Lambeth Company, second in degree of purity of the river-drawing companies. I see no ground in the communications which I have received on the subject for the suggestion that the appearance of the water, or the results of the analysis, show sewage contamination.
  MR. T. EGERTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman able to say whether the water of the Grand Junction Company did not contain much higher percentage of organic ammonia than the water from the Chelsea Company?
  MR. RITCHIE: There is no doubt that the filtering power of the Grand Junction Company, as compared with that of the Chelsea Company, is deficient. Assuming that what my hon. Friend says is correct, although I have no knowledge of that, it is undoubtedly due to that fact.
  MR. T. EGERTON: My authority is the public analyst of the Vestry of St. George's, Hanover Square, who is also analyst for Kensington.

  ADMIRALTY—UNIFORM COMMITTEE.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the Uniform Committee has finished its sittings; whether it has presented a Report; and whether it is intended to supplement the inquiries of the Committee by sending round to all ships in commission an outline of the recommendations of the Committee before giving effect to them?
  LORD G. HAMILTON: I understand that the Committee appointed to consider the question of the uniforms of officers of the Royal Navy have practically concluded their inquiry, but they have not yet presented their Report. Until the Report has been considered by the Board of the Admiralty it is impossible to say what further action, if any, will be found desirable; but no material changes in the existing uniforms would be made without further consultation with the Service afloat.

  POST OFFICE HOLIDAYS.
  EARL COMPTON: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether sub-postmasters are entitled to any holiday, and whether they have some substitute not at their own cost during such holiday; and whether, in the case of large sub-offices where three clerks are employed, these clerks are appointed from the established Service, or whether they must be provided and paid for by the sub-postmasters?
  MR. RAIKES: (1) Sub-postmasters are not required to give their whole time to the Service, and are not entitled to annual leave of absence at the cost of the Department. (2) The Sub-postmasters are paid in accordance with the amount of business transacted, and out of their pay they have to provide any assistance which they may need in carrying on the duties.

  CHATHAM CONVICT PRISON.
  MR. SEXTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recommendations of the Visitors who held the recent inquiry at Chatham Convict Prison have been adopted; and what recommendations, if any, have not been acted upon by the Executive?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS,): Some of the recommendations of the Committee were already the practice of the prison. The others have all been acted upon by the Prison Board, except that they have not thought it necessary to issue any order with respect to the recommendation contained in paragraph 45 of the Report, as they considered the complaint as to the gates outside their cells not being un-
  1352
  locked for the admission of breakfast and tea to be of a trivial nature.
  MR. SEXTON: Has it not been recommended that Durban, one of the persons mentioned in the Report, should be reinstated?
  MR. A. O'CONNOR: Was not this man Durban degraded and removed from his position on the recommendation of the officials of the prison? Is it the case that he is now employed in compounding medicines, and, among others, for the prisoner Daly?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I must ask for notice of those questions.

  THE ANGLO-GERMAN AGREEMENT.
  MR. CHANNING: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that the Hon. Cecil Rhodes, the new Premier of the Cape Colony, has given notice of a Motion in the House of Assembly, that that House regretted that the Cape Government had not been consulted with regard to the Anglo-German Agreement, as far as it concerned the territory south of the Zambesi, and that the Cape Colony ought to have a voice in any subsequent agreement regarding such territory; whether it is true that no intimation was given to the Cape Government until the terms of the Concession to Germany of the territory stretching to the Upper Zambesi were settled; and whether, in any future negotiations involving cessions of territory or "spheres of influence," which affect the interests of British Colonies, a proper opportunity will be given to the authorities of such colonies to lay their views before Her Majesty's Government, in time for them to be fairly considered, before such negotiations are completed?
  MR. SUMMERS: I beg also to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is now in a position to state what was the nature of the communications that passed between the Home Government and the Government at the Cape with reference to the matters dealt with in the Anglo-German Agreement, and more particularly with reference to those portions of the Agreement which concerned the territory south of the Zambesi?
  BARON H. DE WORMS: Her Majesty's Government have seen the report of Mr. Rhodes's notice of Motion in the

  1353
  newspapers. Communications in respect of Walfisch Bay and Damaraland passed with the Cape Ministers before the Anglo-German Agreement was signed. The High Commissioner also made various communications to Her Majesty's Government, relating to the retention of Lake Ngami and the keeping open of the route northwards. Her Majesty's Government can give no such general pledge as the hon. Member for East Northampton proposes in the third paragraph of his question; but it may be assumed that every opportunity which is possible will be given to the colonies directly affected by international negotiations to lay their views before Her Majesty's Government?

MAILS TO SHIPS OF WAR—H.M.S.

  THRUSE.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he is aware that H.M.S. Thrush left England on 1st June for Gibraltar and Las Palmas, instructions being left that mails for the vessel should be sent on without delay to those places, and that although the Thrush stayed a fortnight at Gibraltar, reaching Las Palmas on or about 30th June, up to 1st July last the only mails addressed to the Thrush that had been delivered were those of the 6th and 7th of June; can he explain why the mail steamer reaching Las Palmas on 1st July brought no mails for the Thrush; and whether he will take measures to insure the punctual despatch of mails to Her Majesty's ships of war, according to the instructions given?
  MR. RAIKES: Correspondence is despatched hence to Her Majesty's ships with the utmost regularity in accordance with addresses furnished by the Admiralty to the Post Office, and no fresh measures are required. I find that the Thrush left on the 1st of June; that the address furnished for her mails up to the 17th was Gibraltar, and after the 17th Bermuda; and that the mails were punctually despatched to those addresses. The steamer referred to by the hon. Member as reaching Las Palmas without mails for the Thrush would seem to have been that despatched from Liverpool on the 21st of June, when the mails were already being sent to Bermuda.

  PURCHASE OF THE SUBMARINE CABLES.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he is now in a position to inform the House if the purchase of the submarine cables by the English and French Governments has proved a financial success; and whether he can state the share of profits realised by the two Governments respectively, and give any statistics showing the increased number of words and messages forwarded over stated previous annual periods?
  MR. RAIKES: In reply to the hon. Member I have to state that a substantial profit will, no doubt, result from the purchase of the submarine cables between this country and the Continent; but it would be premature at present to estimate the amount of that profit in view of the condition of the cables. As the House is aware, some of these cables are very old, and it is possible that, before long, a considerable expenditure may have to be incurred in renewals. Not only so, but the necessity for additional plant has arisen, and a large sum will be spent in the course of the current financial year on a new cable and land line. The number of words in Anglo-French telegrams has risen from 13,376,333 in the year to the 31st March, 1889, to 15,495,791 in the year to the 31st March last. Other telegrams have passed over the Anglo-French cables, but I am not able to give separate particulars with regard to them.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: Arising out of that question, I beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that the French Assembly has been asked for a Vote for an additional cable to England, also whether this House will be asked for a Vote for a new cable to France?
  MR. RAIKES: I have no knowledge of what has passed in the French Chamber. It is possible that it may be necessary there to ask for a Vote for a cable between France and England, but it is not necessary to ask Parliament for the money for a cable to France.

  UPPER MACEDONIA.
  MR. LEVESON-GOWER: I beg to ask the Under Secre-

  1355
  tary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can give the House any information as to the condition of Upper Macedonia, as described from personal experience by the special correspondent to the Daily News in the issue of the 29th instant; whether Her Majesty's Government have received any reports throwing light upon the brutal murders alleged to have been committed by Arnauts upon Christians in the neighbourhood of Pristina and Prisrend; and whether, in the event of the Porte being unable or unwilling to protect the lives and property of its Christian subjects in that Province, Her Majesty's Government would think it advisable to confer with the other Powers as to the best means of restraining the excesses of the Arnauts?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir J. FERGUSSON,): I am unable to add anything to the reply given to the hon. Member for Aberdeen on the 22nd instant, as we have received no subsequent information. No information has reached Her Majesty's Government which would, in their opinion, justify so serious a step as inviting a conference of the Powers on the internal affairs of Turkey.
  SIR. G. CAMPBELL: Is anything being now done to fulfil the provisions of the Treaty of Berlin as to giving Home Rule to Macedonia?
  [No reply was made.]

  THE FLOATING DEBT.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the present amount of the Floating Debt; what is the rate of interest at which the last issue of Treasury Bills was made; and whether he proposes to take any measures to reduce the amount of the Floating Debt, which is now considerably in excess of that at which it has generally stood in recent years?
  MR. GOSCHEN: The present amount of the Floating Debt in the hands of the public is about £23,000,000, as against an amount of a little under £14,000,000 in 1885–6. The present amount of Unfunded Debt held by the National Debt Commissioners is about £11,400,000, as against an amount of about £3,750,000 in 1885–6. The large
  1356
  increase under both heads is almost wholly due to conversion and redemption operations, and it must be remembered that the amount held by the National Debt Commissioners can be funded at any time. The last issue of Treasury Bills was made at about 3¾ per cent., but it would not be fair to let the rate of interest at any particular moment influence the judgment much. The average rate over a series of years for three months' Treasury Bills has been £2 6s. 8d., and for six months' Bills £2 12s. 2d., clearly a very remunerative rate for the Exchequer. The rate of interest during the current financial year up to date, taking three and six months' Bills together, works out at £2 11s. 5d., still a satisfactory result, but it is probable that the average will be higher during the remainder of the financial year. On the whole, the interest of the Floating Debt over a series of years has been materially in favour of the State as compared with the rate of Consols. Still, I am anxious gradually to reduce the amount of Unfunded Debt in the hands of the public, and I have that object constantly in view. The resources of the National Debt Commissioners afford me the means of doing so, and they would gradually absorb the excess. Another possible means of reducing the amount in the hands of the public would be the issue of Consols on a large scale, the proceeds of which would be applied to paying off Bills, but I do not contemplate such a course. It would disturb the money market and the Consol market, and would, under present circumstances, certainly not be profitable to the State. I look on a gradual reduction as a preferable policy. I hope that, if the right hon. Member will only give me time enough, I may leave a reduced amount of Unfunded Debt to whoever may be my successor.

  BRITISH ENTERPRISE IN SERVIA.
  SIR ROPER LETHBRIDGE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether the attention of Her Majesty's Government has been directed to a statement in the Times of 10th July, that an important concession for the salting and curing of pork at Nish has been granted to a British subject by the

  1357
  Servian Government; whether the Foreign Office has received any informa tion regarding this concession; and, whether Her Majesty's Consuls in the Danubian States have been instructed to report fully on such openings for British enterprise?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: An exclusive concession for pork-curing has been granted to a British subject for 15 years, with certain requirements as to his erection of a factory and obligation to slaughter 60,000 hogs in the first year, 80,000 in the second, and 100,000 in the third, with many contingent privileges and immunities. Her Majesty's diplomatic and consular officers all over the world are instructed to report on enterprises which offer openings for British capital, and notices of such Reports are frequently published. These instructions were laid before Parliament in No. 16 Commercial, 1886.
  MR. A. O'CONNOR: May I ask. the right hon. Gentleman if it is to be clearly understood that the answer he has given is by no means an assurance or intimation of the opinion of the Government that this particular concern is a sound commercial investment?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: No, Sir; I merely stated the effect of the Report made to the Foreign Office.

  CARNARVONSHIRE QUARRIES.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether there is a probability of the negotiations now pending for the grant of a lease of the Gwylwyr Sett Quarry, Pistyll, Carnarvonshire, being brought to a speedy and successful determination? I wish further to ask, whether, having regard to the vital importance of the Gwylwyr Sett Quarry, Pistyll, Carnarvonshire, to the quarrying population in that district, he will take steps to ensure that no lease shall be granted of that quarry which does not contain a proviso for its being worked by an edequate number of men; and whether, in the event of there being more than one application for such a lease, he will advise the selection of the applicant who has the greatest interest in and is the most likely to develop the quarry.
  MR. JACKSON: There is a probability that the negotiations will be brought to a speedy and successful determination. It is usual to insert in Crown leases of quarries a convenant requiring the employment of a certain number of men, and, so far as is known at present, there seems no reason for omitting that covenant in the case of the Gwylwyr Quarry.

  GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS—MESSRS. BRYANT & MAY.
  MR. HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he has received any communication from Messrs. Bryant & May, contradicting the official statement that, although appealing for public support on the ground that they were large employers of British labour, they had a factory in Sweden for the supply of the English market and Her Majesty's Service; and, further, if it is true that an annual contract has been recently renewed by Her Majesty's Government with a middleman for the supply of Swedish safety matches to order, and, in such case, if directions can be issued to the public Departments that, wherever practicable, goods made by British or Irish labour are to be ordered, having regard to the congested state of British labour, and the desirability of returning the taxation of the people, so far as circumstances allow, in industrial wages?
  MR. BRADLAUGH: I should like to ask whether the recent statistics published by the Labour Bureau of the Board of Trade do not show that the labour market is not congested?
  MR. HOWARD VINCENT: Before my right hon. Friend answers the question of the hon. Member for Northampton, let me ask him if the Reports of the Labour Department of the Board of Trade should not refer almost exclusively to the state of the skilled labour market, on the evidenceof the Trades Unions who consent to report, and not to the masses of unskilled labour?
  MR. JACKSON: I am afraid that it would be out of order if I were to enter into that matter. Since I answered a question on the same subject the other day, I have been informed by Messrs. Bryant & May that they ceased to have any interest in the Swedish factory at which the "Lion"

  1359
  matches are made, in 1886, and that their matches are made only at their Fairfield Works at Bow. I am unable to suggest to my right hon. Friend the First Commissioner of Works a course which would preclude his purchasing any articles necessary for the Public Service, even though such articles be manufactured abroad.
  MR. HOWARD VINCENT: Does my right hon. Friend mean that, although British working men may be starving at the gates of Parliament for want of employment, public money may be fitly used in remunerating foreign labour?
  MR. BRADLAUGH; May I ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the periodical Returns of the Labour Department do not contradict the view that there is a congested state of the labour market?
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I must ask for notice.

  THE DUKE OF CAMBRIDGE AND THE GRENADIER GUARDS.
  CAPTAIN VERNEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether His Royal Highness the Duke of Cambridge, as Colonel of the Grenadier Guards on full pay, is in any degree responsible for the discipline and efficiency of that regiment, or whether the appointment is a paid sinecure?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: His Royal Highness the Duke of Cambridge, as the Colonel of the Grenadier Guards, is in the same position as all other honorary colonels, and is in no way responsible for the discipline and efficiency of the regiment.

  TRAM AND RIVER STEAMER FARES.
  MR. COX: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that some Tram and River Steamer Companies in the metropolitan district are in the habit of charging double, and, in some instances, quadruple, the ordinary fares on Bank Holidays; and, if so, whether this excess charge is legal?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,): This is a matter with which I have no power to deal; and, on the question of tact, no information has reached me. I cannot undertake to express any opinion on the legal point, but may
  1360
  observe that in the case of tramways the fares are fixed by the special Acts of Parliament.
  MR. A. O'CONNOR: Cannot these companies be compelled to fix up in legible characters outside a list of fares?
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I cannot answer that question off-hand.

  SWAZILAND.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that a Convention has been signed with the Transvaal Government, and whether that Convention excludes Her Majesty's Government from the paramount position in Swaziland conceded to it under the Convention of 1884; and whether Her Majesty's Government have acquiesced in the demand of the Transvaal State for extension of their site to the sea?
  BARON H. DE WORMS: Her Majesty's Government are not aware that a Convention has been signed with the Transvaal about Swaziland; but if the hon. Member will repeat his question in a few days, I trust that I may be in a position to give him some information on the subject. The hon. Member will see that it would not be in the public interest that I should give further information until negotiations are concluded.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: I will repeat the question on Monday.

  SLAVERY IN ZANZIBAR.
  SIR LEWIS PELLYI beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, referring to the telegrams from Zanzibar appearing in the Times of Saturday 26th July, which state that the Arabs at Zanzibar, under the influence of intriguing advisers, are becoming much alarmed as to the effect of the forthcoming British Protectorate on their slaves, is there any intention that the private property of Arabs in domestic slaves should be confiscated on the Sultanate passing under the protection of this country?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: Her Majesty's Government have received no confirmation of the reported agitation among the Arabs. There is no intention of confiscating domestic slaves, but every effort will be made to insure the carrying

  1361
  out of the provisions of the Act of Brussels, and the prevention of abuses.
  MR. DILLON: Are we to understand that when a country is put under the British flag, slavery is to be retained?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: There is no idea of putting the dominions of the Sultan of Zanzibar under the British flag.
  MR. BUCHANAN: May I ask whether it has not been stated that the Protectorate of Zanzibar is to be established in a concrete fashion; and, if so, is slavery to be upheld?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: I only said it is not intended to assume the Protectorate in so complete, not concrete, a fashion as to exclude the commerce of other Powers. I think it will be found that the measures to be taken on the coast will largely result in the suppression of slavery.

  H.M.S. BARHAM
  MR. GOURLEY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, when the Barham broke down for the third time on Thursday last, the engines were being worked at the guaranteed power of 6,000 horses; if not, at what rate; whether the main cause of this vessel's repeated breakdowns is that no margin is left for the expansion of the tubes when subject to intense heat, the result being that the tubes are forced through the plates at the fire-box, and thus the collapse of the boilers; and what steps are being adopted to make the vessel seaworthy, and also to prevent similar casualties occurring with the sister ship Bellona, now in course of completion?
  LORD G. HAMILTON: The machinery of the Barham was not being worked on Thursday, the 24th inst., at the power specified, but at 3,800 horses, being 300 above the guaranteed natural draught power. The boilers of this ship are of the wet bottom locomotive type, and were constructed by a firm having great experience in boilers of this class in the usual manner, and with provision for expansion under heat. The cause of the leakage of the tubes is under investigation, and experiments are now being made as to the steps to be taken to overcome this defect, both in the Bellona as well as the Barham.

  TECHNICAL INSTRUCTION.
  MR. SUMMERS: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education if he can inform the House to what extent the Technical Instruction Act of last year has been put into operation in England and Ireland respectively, and to what extent "The Technical Schools (Scotland) Act, 1887,"has been availed of in Scotland?
  SIR W. HART DYKE: I have no information as regards Scotland, but if the hon. Member will refer to pages 43 and 44 of the recent Report of the Science and Art Department, he will see that very gratifying progress is being made in bringing the Act of last Session into active operation.

  GERMAN PROTECTORATE OF ZANZIBAR.
  MR. SUMMERS: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, under Article I. of the General Act of the Conference at Berlin (1885), the Conference Powers agreed to use their good offices with the Governments established on the African shore of the Indian Ocean, for the purpose of obtaining their approval to the establishment of complete Free Trade within their respective territories, and, in any case, of securing the most favourable conditions to the transit traffic of all nations; and whether the Conference Powers did use their good offices in the sense indicated; and, if so, with what results?
  MR. MUNRO FERGUSON: I beg also to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether his attention has been drawn to that part of the Declaration of the West African Conference embodied in Article VIII. of the Anglo-German Agreement, and whether, therefore, it will be beyond the rights of the German Authorities to levy duties upon British and Indian trade in the German Protec torate of Zanzibar, including the 600 miles of coast territory, of which Great Britain has engaged to facilitate the absolute cession to Germany; and, if not, in virtue of what special arrangement between Her Majesty's Government and Germany will the German Authorities be entitled to levy duties?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: The Act of Berlin, which must be meant by the

  1363
  "Declaration of the West African Conference," stipulates that in a certain defined zone no Import or Transit Duties shall be levied. There is no restriction as to the levying of Export Duties except a provision against differential treatment. The prohibition as to Import Duties is modified by the Declaration appended to the Act of Brussels, which permits their being levied up to a maximum of 10 per cent, ad valorem except in the case of spirits. The territory of the Sultan of Zanzibar, though -within the zone, was not to be subjected to the trade system of the Act, except with His Highness's approval, which has not been given. Duties on British and Indian trade at Zanzibar, both on the mainland and on the coast administered by the British and German Companies, are levied in accordance with the Commercial Treaty of 1886, which allows a maximum of 5 per cent, on imports, excepting spirits, on which the duty is 25 per cent., and certain specified duties on exports. If a portion of the Zanzibar coast is ceded to Germany, duties on British and Indian goods will continue to be levied under the Treaty, or if the free zone system is applied under that system, as amended by the Brussels Act. Under either the trade is protected from any differential treatment or excessive burdens.
  MR. SUMMERS: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered the second part of my question.
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: No, Sir; the Powers have never exercised their influence in the sense indicated.
  MR. BUCHANAN: What are the portions of the German sphere of influence within the limits of the Free Trade zone, to which the provisions of Article VIII. of the Anglo-German Agreement are to apply?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: I must ask for notice of that question.

  MR. A. R. SAWYER.
  MR. FENWICK: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether it is true that Mr. A. R. Sawyer, Assistant Inspector of Mines for the district of North Staffordshire, has resigned, or offered to resign, his appointment; if so, whether such resignation has been accepted by the Government;
  1364
  and whether he will state the alleged grounds for such resignation?
  MR. MATTHEWS: Yes, Sir; Mr. Sawyer resigned in February last. The ground of his resignation was that he was suffering from an affliction of the eyes, which was aggravated by his occupation as an Inspector of Mines. He retired on medical certificate, and received a pension from the Treasury.

  THE LIVERPOOL TELEGRAPHISTS.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether the Chief Superintendent at the telegraph branch of the Liverpool Post Office has refused to allow a Petition from the Liverpool telegraphists, praying for the reinstatement of the exiled Cardiff telegraphists, to lie for signature within the official premises under his control; and whether this is contrary to usage?
  MR. RAIKES: No, Sir; I have received no information on the subject referred to in the question, but I will make inquiry.

  THE SCOTCH MAILS.
  MR. ESSLEMONT: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether arrangements have yet been completed to accelerate the mails between London and the North-East of Scotland?
  MR. RAIKES: I am happy to inform the hon. Member that arrangements have been made for accelerating the night mail service between London and Aberdeen on and from the night of the 4th proximo. The mail will reach Aberdeen nearly an hour earlier, and the return mail to London will leave Aberdeen nearly an hour later.

  PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS
  MR. HOWELL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, inasmuch as the laws relating to Parliamentary elections fill a very considerable space in the Statutes of the realm, and that the total number of Acts, and portions of Acts, now in force relating to such elections, qualification, disqualification, &c, of Members of this House, the qualification, registration, and mode of voting of electors, and other matters, extends to something like 180 Acts, the Government will, during the Recess, consider the propriety of preparing a measure for consolidating, amending, and

  1365
  simplifying the law relating to Parliamentary elections, and matters connected therewith?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH,): The subject to which the hon. Gentleman calls the attention of the Government will receive very careful consideration.

  CARDINAL MANNING.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether Her Majesty's Government have advised or mean to advise Her Majesty in the issue of Royal Commissions or similar documents to give precedence by courtesy next after the Royal Family to Cardinal Manning or any other priest of any of the unestablished religious sects in this country; and, if so, whether that act of courtesy is one dependent on age, or any considerations other than the claims of the Religions Body to which he belongs?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I am not competent to express any opinion on such a difficult question as precedence. Such matters are regulated by Act of Parliament, and we have no intention of introducing a Bill on the subject.

  SIR LINTORN SUMMONS'S MISSION.
  MR. SUMMERS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether His Holiness the Pope, in the farewell audience granted to Sir Lintorn Simmons on the affairs of Malta, said that—
  "Negotiations conducted in this way between the Holy See and Her Majesty's Government would be beneficial as regards the people of Malta, but might also be usefully extended to other parts of the Empire where Catholic interests were of great importance;"
  and whether, in accordance with the suggestion of His Holiness, it is the intention of the Government to send special Missions to the Vatican to discuss questions of administration and legislation affecting Catholics in other portions of the British Empire besides Malta?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: This is a Departmental question, and had better be answered by the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. In the case of purely Departmental questions (of which there are several on the Paper addressed to me) it would be better that they should be
  1366
  addressed to the person responsible, who would be able to give information which I cannot give myself.
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: The passage is correctly quoted from Sir Lintorn Simmons's Despatch of April 7, reporting his final audience to the Pope, which was presented to the House in Miscellaneous No. 1. Her Majesty's Government do not at present contemplate sending any further Mission to the Vatican.

  JEWS IN RUSSIA.
  MR. FORREST FULTON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is true, as stated by the correspondent of the Times, of 30th July, that the Russian Government have ordered the enforcement of supposed obsolete laws, which would compel all Jews in Russia now engaged in agriculture to abandon their occupations and migrate into the towns; to force all Jews living throughout Russia to migrate into 16 specified countries; to deny them any educational advantages; and to prevent their following the literal professions, such as the law and medicine; and whether, if this report be true, the Government will take steps, either alone or in conjunction with the other great Powers, to protest against such an exercise of arbitrary power upon the unoffending members of an important nationality, many of whom are domiciled in the British dominions?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: According to information supplied by Her Majesty's Charge d' Affaires in St. Petersburg last month, no measure depriving the Jews of such privileges as they now enjoy in the Russian Empire was intended.

  THE ANGLO-FRENCH AGREEMENT.
  MR. SUMMERS: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in the proposed Anglo-French Agreement, the Government will take care that in any enlargement of the sphere of influence of France in North Africa, complete freedom of trade shall be secured?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: It is impossible for Her Majesty's Government to pledge itself in advance to make any particular stipulations, but it is manifestly their duty and intention to consult British interests to the utmost possible extent

  1367
  in any negotiations with foreign Powers. To require the abolition of all Customs Duties in territory on the southern frontier of Algeria would be to require the same abolition in Algeria itself, as an internal Custom House is evidently very difficult.

  AGREEMENTS WITH FOREIGN POWERS.
  MR. SUMMERS: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that Article VIII. of the Treaty of Paris stipulates that
  "If there should arise between the Sublime Porte and one or more of the other Signing Powers any misunderstanding which might endanger the maintenance of their relations, the Sublime Porte, and each of such Powers, before having recourse to the use of force, shall afford the other contracting parties the opportunity of preventing such an extremity by means of their mediation;"
  and whether Her Majesty's Ministers will consider the advisability of acting in conformity with this precedent, and of inserting arbitration clauses in agreements which they may hereafter make with Foreign Powers?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: As the House has been already informed, Her Majesty's Government are favourable to arbitration where the circumstances render that course expedient; but they cannot enter into any such general engagement as is indicated.

  IRELAND—PETTY SESSIONS CLERK OF KILREA.
  MR. MAC NEILL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been directed to the election by the Magistrates, on the 7th of July, of Mr. Hay, as Petty Sessions Clerk of the Kilna district; whether the late Petty Sessions Clerk of this district obtained his appointment on the condition of residence in Kilrea; whether Mr. Hay, who has been appointed in preference to several other candidates, fills the office of Petty Sessions Clerk in Coleraine, a town 18 miles distant from Kilrea; and whether this dual position is compatible with the due and efficient discharge of the duties of either post; whether he is aware that Mr. Hay had been previously dismissed from the clerkship of Petty Sessions in Coleraine in consequence of
  1368
  several grave irregularities in connection with that office, and was only reinstated to the post after two elections by the Magistrates; and what action, having regard to the circumstances of the case, does the Government propose to take with reference to the ratification of this gentleman's election to the Petty Sessions clerkship at Kilrea?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOB IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): The Registrar of Petty Sessions Clerks reports that the late Clerk of Petty Sessions of Kilrea obtained his appointment on the condition of residence in Kilrea. He held that clerkship alone, and in such cases the rule is that a clerk must reside in his district. Mr. Hay, the present clerk, resides at Coleraine. He is permitted to do so because he holds the clerkship of Coleraine as well as that of Kilrea. Care will be taken that he makes adequate attendances at Kilrea, which is connected with Coleraine by rail. In many instances the duties of two or more districts are satisfactorily discharged by one clerk, and there is no reason to doubt that Mr. Hay's dual position is compatible. It is true that in 1867 Mr. Hay was dismissed from the clerkship of Coleraine, for irregularities resulting-from intemperance. He was re-elected at one, not two, elections, in November, 1888. The Lord Lieutenant, after long and careful consideration, approved of his re-appointment, all claims against Mr. Hay having been fully discharged, and it being shown that his life during the 21 years between dismissal and re-election had been steady and respectable. His conduct since re-appointment has been excellent, and His Excellency does not propose to interfere with his holding the clerkship of Kilrea.

  THE CORK TELEGRAPH OFFICE.
  MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether, when dealing with the case of the Cork telegraph office, under his new scheme, inquiry was made as to the relative cost of living and house rent in Cork and Belfast where the maximum pay for first-class telegraphists is to be 4s. a week in excess of that at Cork; whether such inquiry, if not already instituted, will be made; whether the classification and average amount of work performed

  1369
  by first-class telegraphists in Cork and Belfast are equal, and the strain on individuals identical in both cases; whether, in the new scheme, many offices that perform no night duty and deal with no heavy Press work are put on an equality with Cork with regard to pay though the latter, as regards both these harassing duties, is in the same category with the first-class offices in Ireland and England that are favoured with the new higher maximum salaries; and whether, in view of these circumstances, the claims of Cork, to be placed in an intermediate position as regards pay between these two classes of offices, as Belfast has been, will be considered, especially if the contention of the Cork staff that the cost of living and house rent in Belfast are not in excess of those in Cork should be found to be correct?
  MR. RAIKES: The points referred to have been considered, but the hon. Member must perceive that the position of the various towns and offices must be regarded from a somewhat larger point of view, and I am satisfied that, looking at the conditions of Cork as a whole, that it has been placed in its proper category, and that it would not be right for me to alter the arrangement.

  THE TRIAL OF CAPTAIN RYE.
  MR. ELYNN: I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether Mr. John S. Collins was one of the jury who tried the case of Captain Richard Tonson Rye, J.P., D.L., who was charged at the present Cork Assizes for unlawfully firing at and wounding Jeremiah Corcoran; is he aware that a Mr. John S. Collins wrote a letter to the Cork Constitution, the local Conservative paper, on the 11th April last, in which he condemned the Magistrates at Farran Petty Sessions for having sent the case forward for trial; and is this Mr. Collins the same person as the Mr. Collins who served on the jury; and, if so, how did it happen that he was allowed to sit on a case which he had publicly prejudged?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN,): I have no means of obtaining information on the subject of this question. If it be true that Mr. Collins wrote the letter imputed to him, he proved himself to be eminently open to reason, for,
  1370
  having heard the evidence, he concurred in a verdict of guilty against Captain Rye.
  MR. FLYNN: Is this man the Collins who wrote the letter; and, if so, why did not the Crown Solicitor instruct him to stand by, seeing that more than 30 challenges were made by the Crown?
  MR. MADDEN: I have already said that I have been unable to obtain the information.
  MR. SEXTON: Was it not the duty of the Crown Solicitor to prevent this man from serving on the jury?
  MR. MADDEN: Certainly it was, if the facts are true, but the fact I have been unable to find out is that he is the man who wrote the letter. Beyond all doubt if he had expressed an opinion one way or the other he ought not to have been on the jury.
  MR. SEXTON: If I put a question on Monday will the right hon. Gentleman have sufficient opportunity to enable him to ascertain in the meantime if this was the same person?
  MR. MADDEN: I have no means of ascertaining.
  MR. MAC NEILL: Is it not the fact that Captain Rye was charged with firing at and unlawfully wounding Corcoran, and that he was only tried for a common assault?
  [No answer was returned.]

  EAST LANCASHIRE REGIMENT.
  MR. M'CARTAN: At the request of the Secretary of State for War I beg to postpone a question I intended to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether his attention has been called to the report in the Newry Reporter of 26th June, 1890, of an action for trespass against Captain Irwin, of the East Lancashire Regiment, brought before the County Court Judge of Down at the last sitting of the County Court at Newry, from which it appears that, on the 15th July, 1889, Captain Irwin and about 60 men of his regiment were going through a "night attack," in the course of which a number of his men trespassed on the lands of Mr. James Goodman, of Cloghmore, and did damage to his crops; whether he has observed that it appeared in evidence that, when Mr. Goodman protested against the trespass on his

  1371
  crops, one of the soldiers pointed a revolver at him and threatened to shoot him; whether Mr. Goodman offered to leave to arbitration the amount of loss sustained by him; whether Colonel Griffiths, on 14th August last, in answer to a letter of Mr. T. J. Marron, Solicitor for Mr. Goodman, referred Mr. Marron to Captain Irwin as "the officer who was in sole command, and who was solely responsible for any occurrence connected with his party on that night;" whether, at the trial, advantage was taken of the fact that the trespassers were under the immediate command of the colour-sergeant, and that the proper defendant was not before the Court and whether the Judge is correctly reported to have said "he believed damage had been done by the military, but he could not hold Captain Irwin liable," and he dismissed the case; "and whether he will cause inquiry to be made into the matter, and see that fair compensation be given to Mr. Goodman for the damage done to his property by the soldiers on that occasion.

  THE ROYAL IRISH RIFLES.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether it is intended to supply the Royal Irish Rifles with the new pattern head-dress, which has been served to the Rifle Brigade and to the 60th Rifles, in place of helmets?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: The whole question of the head-dress for Rifle Regiments is now under consideration.

  OUTRAGE IN TRALEE.
  COLONEL SAUNDERSON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that in the district of Tralee, County Kerry, four stabs were inflicted on a donkey belonging to Thomas Grogan, on an evicted farm; if so, whether any one has been made amenable for the outrage?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Constabulary Authorities report that it is the case that in the district of Tralee a donkey which was grazing on an evicted farm was found on the 22nd instant to be stabbed in four places. No person appears to have been so far made amenable for this cowardly and cruel outrage.
  MR. E. HARRINGTON: Has it been brought to the knowledge of the right hon. Gentleman that the punctures were such as might have been made by a Constabulary bayonet?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No, Sir.
  MR. DILLON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the owner of a racehorse stabbed his own animal and then obtained 100 guineas from the Grand Jury?
  [No answer was returned.]

  CHARGE AGAINST A PETTY SESSIONS CLERK.
  DR. TANNER: I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether ho is aware that Francis C. Garvey, of Murrisk Abbey, Mayo, Ireland, who was appointed clerk of Petty Sessions for Louisburgh district by the Justices of said district, and also recently appointed Commissioner for taking affidavits by the present Lord Chancellor of Ireland, was dismissed his ship and the Service, he being then an officer in the Royal Navy, on a charge of larceny, and was sentenced to a term of imprisonment; and whether, in the face of the above-mentioned finding, he will be continued in the position of trust and emolument to which he has been appointed?
  MR. MADDEN: I must ask the hon. Gentleman to defer the question until some day next week. The Registrar of Petty Sessions clerks is making inquiries.
  DR. TANNER: The matter is one of very great importance, and I ask that an answer shall be vouchsafed at the earliest possible opportunity. I will put the question down again for Monday and shall expect an answer.

  APPEAL ON SUMMARY CONVICTION.
  MR. SEXTON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, considering that the Law in England allows every person convicted by summary jurisdiction, and sentenced to imprisonment without the option of a fine, the right of appeal to a superior Court, whilst the law in Ireland denies such appeal except when the term of imprisonment exceeds one month, the Government will take any step to modify the system by which Magistrates in Ire-

  1373
  land are able to refuse to increase sentences of one month and under, and so withhold from persons summarily convicted in Ireland the right of review by a superior Court enjoyed in every case as a matter of legal right in England? I wish to explain that the question has been fundamentally altered since I handed it in, and that I did not refer to the ordinary Justices at all.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I can only answer the question as it appears on the Paper. The difference between the two countries depends on the terms of the Petty Sessions Act, 1851, which govern all summary jurisdiction. It is impossible without legislation to modify the system, and legislation, even if desirable in the abstract, is obviously impossible in existing circumstances.
  MR. SEXTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman introduce a non-contentious Bill to assimilate the law of the two countries; and, if not, will he lay on the Table of the House a declaration that it is expedient to give the same right of appeal to prisoners sentenced in Ireland as that which is now enjoyed by prisoners sentenced in England? The right hon. Gentleman must remember that he promised an appeal in all cases.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I deny that, either in public or private, I ever intimated any intention of interfering with the Magistrates in the exercise of their judicial functions.
  Several IRISH MEMBERS: You did.
  MR. SEXTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman bring in a Bill to assimilate the law of Ireland to that of England in respect of the right of appeal?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It would be obviously absurd to undertake to introduce this Session a Bill to make so important a change in the law.
  MR. SEXTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman introduce a Bill next Session?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I can make no promise of the kind.

  THE ARTILLERY RANGE AT ROSSBEIGH
  MR. EDWARD HARRINGTON: I bog to ask the Secretary of State for War whether any Memorial has reached his Department from fishermen of Crombane, Killorglin, County Kerry, whose industry has been affected at the
  1374
  most favourable fishing season by the fact that the confluence of the three rivers in which they trawl salmon is in the line of fire of the Artillery range at Rossbeigh; whether the names of such men, who have (after paying for their £3 licences) been hampered in their industry, have been forwarded to the War Office; and will their representation be favourably considered?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: Memorials have been received from seven fishermen of Rossbeigh and Crombane asking for compensation for losses in salmon fishing consequent on Artillery practice at Glenbeigh. The Chief Crown Solicitor in Ireland reports that on completion of the Bye Laws for the Artillery Range at Glenbeigh, the question of the rights of the fishermen will have to be considered; and as the petitioners' claims to compensation for disturbance in the pursuit of their industry depend upon their possession of such rights, the matter must be left in the Crown Solicitor's hands for further report. The Irish Fishery Department have also offered to hold a local inquiry into the case.

  MR. PERCY MAGAN, J.R.
  MR. HAYDEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he can now state what decision the Irish Land Commissioners have come to with regard to the explanation given by Mr. Percy Magan, J.P., to the charge of having obtained money under the Arrears Act by false representations; whether he will lay the explanation before the House; and, whether, the Land Commission showing by their demand for an explanation that a prima facie case had been made out, he still declines to take any steps to direct the attention of the Lord Chancellor to the case, with the view of having Magan suspended from the discharge of magisterial functions pending a full inquiry.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Land Commissioners report that they have considered the charges made by the hon. Member, and Mr. Magan's reply thereto, and that they intend to forward a Report in the matter to the Lord Lieutenant. The Executive Government now await the receipt of that Report.
  MR. SEXTON: As a primd facie case has been established, will not the

  1375
  Government in the meantime suspend Mr. Magan?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: As the Law Officers of the Crown have not yet seen the Report, the hon. Member will see that they cannot take any action in the matter.

  LAND COMMISSION—WICKLOW.
  MR. HAYDEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that on the County Leitrim estate of Mr. William R. La Touche, Bellevue, Wick-low, originating notices have been served as far back as October, 1887, which have not yet been heard by the Land Sub-Commission; whether he is aware that it is proposed to sell the estate under a mortgage; and, whether, in view of the fact that under such circumstances it is very undesirable that the rent should remain undecided, he is in a position to state the date for the next sitting of the Sub-Commission in Carrick-on-Shannon.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Land Commissioners report that there are only five cases outstanding on the estate referred to. They were all received subsequently to October, 1887. An application has been made to the Land Commission to purchase this estate, which is for sale in the Land Judge's Court, with a view to re-sale of the same to the tenants. Three of these cases, which are in the Poor Law Union of Bawnboy, will probably appear in the Ballyconnell October list. No arrangements have yet been made for a Sub-Commission sitting for the Union of Carrick-on-Shannon.

  LAND COMMISSION-DOWN AND ANTRIM.
  MR. M'CARTAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware of the dissatisfaction among the farmers of the Counties of Down and Antrim, who have upwards of two years ago served notices to have fair rents fixed, and who, pending the hearing of their applications, are now obliged to pay the old rack rents; whether the Sub-Commissioners appointed for Down and Antrim were some time ago taken away from their work there, and sent to another part of Ireland; whether anything has been
  1376
  since done in these counties to give to the tenants the benefits conferred upon them by the Land Acts; and, whether, considering the inability of the tenants to pay the old rents, and the number of ejectment decrees already obtained against them, he will give directions to have the Sub-Commissioners sent back to these counties without delay?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Land Commissioners report that all applications to fix fair rents in the Counties of Down and Antrim have been disposed of up to the end of the year 1887. In April last the Commissioners found it necessary to move the Sub-Commission which had been working in the counties in question to the Counties of Mayo and Sligo, in order that the undisposed of cases in those districts might be brought up to a level date. According to the present arrangements a Sub-Commission will commence the hearing of the cases from the Counties of Down and Antrim on the 7th of October next. In the case of any tenant proceeded against for the old rent, it is open to him to apply to the Court for a stay of execution or other order as to the Court may seem fit, and where the tenant pays at the old rate he is entitled to make a future deduction for the difference between such payment and any reduced rate at which the judicial rent may be fixed.

  CONVICT PRISONERS AT CHATHAM.
  MR. MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether a Member of this House was not permitted to have an interview with James Egan, a prisoner in the Convict Prison at Chatham, except in the presence and hearing of a warder, although such interview was granted at the convict's own request, whereas agents for the Times, and detectives in the service of the Times, were permitted to hold interviews with convicts both in Chatham Prison and other prisons in England, such interviews being unsolicited by the convicts, and held on some occasions in the presence, but not in the hearing, of a warder, and on other occasions out of the presence and hearing of a warder; and on what ground is the distinction of treatment of a Times agent and detective and the treatment of a Member of this House maintained?
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: I also beg to ask the right hon. Genitleman, with reference to the case of Egan, whether he is aware that the warder in charge of the prisoner told the hon. Member for South Wexford, during his visit to Egan on Monday last, that "he (the warder) had received special instructions not to permit the slightest reference to the treatment of the prisoner," and by whom such special instructions were given; whether Egan solemnly protested that "it was a matter of life and death to him" to be allowed to refer to it; whether he is aware that the friends of the prisoner apprehend the most grave circumstances unless he allows a visit by some independent person in whom the prisoner will have confidence; and whether, considering the peculiar circumstances, he will now allow such a visit?
  MR. MATTHEWS: The interview with James Egan, at Chatham, alluded to in the question, was subject to the practice which governs all ordinary visits, namely, that they take place in the presence and hearing of a prison officer. I am not aware of any exception having been made to this rule. Visits by solicitors on business are special visits. They are allowed to take place before conviction in the sight, but not in the hearing, of an officer; and in local prisons the Commissioners have, in their discretion, allowed similar visits after conviction. The visits of Mr. Soames to convicted prisoners at Chatham took place in the sight and hearing of the Deputy Governor. His agents saw some prisoners in a local prison in the sight, but out of the hearing, of the prison officers. I am not aware of any such visit having been held out of the sight of a prison officer. I have more than once explained in this House that a distinction is made by the Prison Authorities between ordinary visits and visits by solicitors on business, and this is the sole cause of the difference alluded to by the hon. Member. No special instructions were, so far as I know, given to the warder in charge of the prisoner with reference to the visit of the hon. Member for South Wexford. The general instructions given to all visitors are that reference to prison treatment is not allowed. Any complaint by a prisoner of his prison treatment should be
  1378
  addressed, not to an outside visitor, but to the Governor, or to the Prison Directors, or to the Secretary of State, or to the Visitors of the prison, who are perfectly independent, and who, a short time ago, made a special inquiry covering Egan's treatment. I have requested the Visiting Director to make immediate inquiry from Egan personally as to his complaints.
  MR. A. O'CONNOR: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the hon. Member for South Wexford (Mr. J. Barry) sought to obtain from the prisoner in question a statement as to the treatment he received, but that the warder interrupted him, stating that he had received special instructions not to permit the slightest reference to the matter; that Egan then protested that it was a matter of life and death to him, and seemed greatly distressed, pressing his hand to his head. In view of the peculiar circumstances of this case, will the right hon. Gentleman consent to allow some person quite independent of the prison, not necessarily a Member of the House, but someone in whose discretion the right hon. Gentleman himself would have confidence, to have a private interview with the prisoner, and represent to the right hon. Gentleman the result of the interview, so that the impression which exists in the public mind regarding Egan's treatment may be removed?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I must remind the hon. Gentleman that only a short while ago a special inquiry was made into the prison treatment at Chatham, and with the result with which the hon. Member is, no doubt, acquainted. Inquiry will, however, be made into this subject, and if I find there is any difficulty in getting a full statement from Egan of his complaint, I will request some one not connected with the Service to hold an inquiry. But I must point out that it would be destructive to prison discipline if Members of Parliament or other persons outside were to make a claim to investigate these cases.
  MR. J. O'CONNOR: In the case of prisoners in Scotland, has it not been decided that they are entitled to additional letters in consequence of the difficulty of seeing them.
  MR. MTTHEWS: In a matter of detail of that kind it would be better to put a question on the Paper.
  MR. J. O'CONNOR: I may remind the right hon. Gentleman that I have already put a question on the subject, and that he promised to make inquiry. I now ask him what the result of the inquiry is?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I do not remember the circumstance. If the hon. Member desires to have a correct answer, he had better put a question on the Paper.

  SHELBOURNE NATIONAL SCHOOL, KENMARE.
  MR. KILBRIDE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the attendance in the Shelbourne National School, Kenmare, the class of the principal teacher, and the condition of the school, warrant the appointment of two monitors; whether he is aware that Julia O'Sullivan, sister to the principal teacher, recently passed successfully the required examination for monitress, but was rejected merely because, owing to the illness of the local Registrar, a certificate of her age was not forwarded within six days; and what has been the average daily attendance for past year and for past quarter in said school, and what is its present teaching staff?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Commissioners of National Education report that the appointment of two monitors is not warranted. The condition of the school has not been satisfactory. Within a period of little over three years the teacher had to be twice reprimanded, once cautioned, and once admonished. The previous monitor, moreover, failed badly in his fourth year's examination. The application was refused for the foregoing reason, and because no recommendation was received from the Inspector, who stated he was doubtful as to the advisability of the appointment, and he thought it would be well to postpone the question until next year to afford time for a further observation of the working of the school. The last recorded annual average—that for the year 1889—was 71·6; the average for last quarter was 86. The staff of the school at present consists of a principal and an assistant teacher.

  MAIL SERVICES BETWEEN LARNE AND STRANRAER.
  MR. SEXTON: I beg to ask the Postmaster General to what decision he has come with respect to the representations and suggestions lately made to him for acceleration of the mail services by the Larne and Stranraer route; is the right hon. Gentleman aware that letters were received only to-day, too late for delivery?
  MR. RAIKES: I have received no information to that effect, and shall be sorry to find that it has been so. In reply to the question on the Paper I have to say that the Railway Companies concerned have not yet furnished me with a statement showing definitely the terms on which they would be prepared to provide a greatly accelerated service via Stranraer and Larne. I am, therefore, not yet in a position to come to any decision in the matter; but, meanwhile, I have ordered Returns of correspondence to be taken, with a view to determine what expenditure, if any, might properly be incurred for the establishment of the service desired.

  THE NATIONAL LIBRARY, DUBLIN.
  MR. SEXTON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether complaints have reached him that the furniture supplied to the National Library in Dublin is of an inferior and unsuitable class; and whether directions will be given that the furniture shall be in keeping with the panelling, doors, and other woodwork fittings of the interior?
  MR. JACKSON: I have not heard any complaint so far, but I will communicate the question of the hon. Gentleman to the Board of Words.
  MR. SEXTON: I trust I may be allowed to express a hope that this important National institution will not be furnished like a waiting-room at a railway station.

  EX-CONSTABLE PALMER.
  DR. TANNER: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether it is true that ex-constable Palmer was interviewed and recognised by the detective police at Queenstown on the steamship Arizona when escaping from justice; and whether any attempt to effect his extradition will be made by the Dublin Castle Authorities?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Constabulary Authorities report that they have grounds for believing that the ex-constable when on board the steamship was spoken to by the detectives, but that it is not true that they recognised him. The man gave his name as "Joseph Pears." The police did not observe anything to suggest suspicion. The offence is not one to which extradition applies.
  DR. TANNER: Did not a man see him on board the Arizona who had been in the Force with him for six months?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: That is a matter of fact of which I must have notice.

  MICHAEL MORISSEY.
  MR. CAREW: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, seeing that Michael Morissey is now nearly five months in prison for contempt in disobeying an order which he could not legally obey, he will recommend his immediate release?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: As I have already stated, the Government have no title to interfere with the discretion of a Judge in a case where he has made a committal for contempt of Court.

  DERRY PRISON.
  DR. FITZGERALD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, with reference to the sanitary condition of Derry Prison, if it is true, as stated in the Report of Major Beamish, that the "soil pipes of the prison are deficient of disconnecting traps and air inlets" at the point where they join the soil drains of the prison?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: With regard to the point in Major Beamish's Report as to the condition of the soil pipes in Derry Prison, the General Prisons Board refer to their statements in paragraphs 3 and 4 of page 8 of that Report. Since that Report the ventilating pipe recommended in connection with the public sewer of the town has been erected by the Corporation, and the new medical member of the Board has also visited the prison, and is clearly in accord with the former expressed opinion of the Board as to the satisfactory condition of the drainage of this prison The Board
  1382
  further add there is in this prison a system in full operation for the complete and frequent flushing of the drains, which is found to be most effective.
  DR. FITZGERALD: I think the right hon. Gentleman does not understand that the town drainage in no way affects these traps. Will he make further inquiry?
  DR. TANNER: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the question. Yes or no?

  THE REVOLUTION IN ARGENTINA.
  MR. SCHWANN: Has the right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs any information to give with regard to Buenos Ayres?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: This telegram arrived to-day, dated 7 o'clock last evening:—"Everything settled; town quiet; street traffic resumed."
  MR. SCHWANN: Is there any information from San Salvador and Guatemala.
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: No, Sir, nothing yet.

  WARSHIPS AND DISABLED FISHTNG BOATS.
  MR. M. CAMERONI beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether his attention has been called to the stranding of the fishing boat Missionary, of Stornoway, in Wick Bay, and to the ineffectual efforts made by the crew of another boat, named Orient, to get her afloat, that during those efforts the gunboat Jackal lay quietly at anchor, while her commander, owing to the want of steam, could not offer any effectual assistance beyond sending a small boat to the stranded craft; whether it is not the duty of the commander of the Jackal to have sufficient steam continuously in his ship's boilers to enable him at any moment to weigh anchor and render assistance to disabled fishing boats; and whether the noble Lord is prepared to substitute for so antiquated a vessel as the Jackal one of more modern construction?
  LORD G. HAMILTON: It is an error to suppose that it is the business of Her Majesty's war-ships to keep up steam for the purpose of assisting fishing boats in distress. Their duty consists in protect-

  1383
  ing fishermen, or in seeing that foreign fishermen do not interfere with them.
  MR. M. CAMERON: Then are we to understand that it is not the duty of the officer in charge of a vessel appointed to look after the fisheries to render a boat assistance when it is in difficulties?
  LORD G. HAMILTON: No doubt assistance should be given in such cases, but that is not the object with which a vessel is sent on duty.
  MR. M. CAMERON: I shall refer to the matter on the Estimates.

  THE IMPRISONED GUARDSMEN.
  MR. E. STANHOPE: Some 10 days ago I was asked a question, which I was not then able to answer, with respect to the six Guardsmen recently tried by Court Martial and sentenced to terms of imprisonment. I hope the House will now allow me to answer it. In the interests of the men themselves, I hope that no attempt will be made, either in this House or by means of any public meeting, to put any pressure on the War Office in this matter, because it will be clear to the House that any sympathy shown or suggested with a gross breach of discipline will at once aggravate its importance and its danger. I think, however, that there will be a general feeling that the sentences passed upon these men were in themselves severe. The time has not yet arrived to decide this question, but I have requested the Commander-in-Chief, and he has readily undertaken to examine the cases of these men, including their subsequent behaviour in prison, with the view of considering whether, with due regard to the requirements of military discipline, any remission of the sentences could be granted.

  SIR G. ERRINGTON'S MISSION TO THE VATICAN.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury a question, of which I have given him private notice—whether there are any Papers in the Foreign Office relating to the Mission of Sir G. Errington to the Vatican, under the auspices of the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian, and, if there are any Papers, whether they will be laid before Parliament?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I have only received notice of the question after entering the House. The hon. Member will therefore see that it was not possible for me to communicate with the Foreign Secretary since then. If the hon. Gentleman will put a question on the Paper for Monday, I will inquire whether there are any Papers which could be produced.
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I have not received any notice of this question, and, considering that it is quite obvious at whom the question is aimed, I think, in point of decency and Parliamentary usage, the hon. Member might perhaps have given me notice of it. There has never been anything, so far as I know, in the nature of a mission to the Vatican under any Government with which I have been connected, or any other Government, but there were, and have been at various times, undoubtedly, communications held so far back as the time of Lord Palmerston and in the Pontificate of Gregory XVI.—communications held by persons holding some office in Italy for the purpose of conducting any correspondence that it was thought fit to establish. There are many cases to be made known, and a variety of them might, I should suppose, from the annals of the Foreign Office, be specified, and an account laid before this House, which I think would not be an undesirable mode of giving information to the country upon a question of great interest. As far as I remember, the persons who were principally concerned—at all events, some of the persons who were concerned —were a diplomatist who belonged to the family of the Seymours in the time of Lord Palmerston, and in the Pontificate of Gregory XVI., after that the very well-known and highly-esteemed diplomatist Lord Odo Russell, and the last of these was the case of Sir G. Errington in the Government with which I was connected. He bore no diplomatic character whatever, but he undoubtedly conveyed and received information. As far as I am aware, the essential distinction between those cases and the case of Sir Lintorn Simmons was this— that no gentleman who carried on these correspondences on any occasion had any power whatever to commit Her Majesty's Government upon any subject, or claimed any power to receive requests

  1385
  or demands from the Vatican, and to accede to those requests and demands. But I am quite of opinion that, as the right hon. Gentleman is going to inquire into the matter, it would be well that the inquiry should hardly he limited within the bounds of an answer to question. The subject is of great importance. Much attention has justly been drawn to it in consequence of recent circumstances, and I should think that the preparation of a careful Memorandum in the Foreign Office, illustrated by all documents which are available, and which can be properly produced, would tend to put the House and the country in full possession of matters of which, undoubtedly, they are but partially informed, and which are of great importance to the country. I may state this, with regard to the Mission of Sir G. Errington—which I should not be at all sorry to see brought under discussion in this House, when I could express my sentiments about it—that, as far as I am aware, the Mission of Sir G. Errington, was really not so much a Mission as the taking advantage of Sir G. Errington's residence in Rome to correspond with the Foreign Office and to make known his views. As far as I know, the case of Sir G. Errington differed from all cases which preceded it in this, that it was constantly made the subject of questions and explanations in this House, and to the best of my memory in all the previous cases hardly any notice was given to the matter.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I will take care to communicate to my noble Friend at the head of the Foreign Office the suggestion which the right hon. Gentleman has thrown out—that a careful narrative Report, by the documents which may be in existence, should be prepared for the information of the House. The suggestion will be carefully considered by the Government. It would be better now to refrain from any argument or any statement with regard to the character of the Representative of this country at the Vatican, either under a former Government or this Government.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I beg to give notice that I shall repeat the question on Monday.
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I desire to add that in giving an answer on the moment to the notice of the hon. Gentle-
  1386
  man behind me, I must not be taken to have purported to give a complete or historical narrative. I stated all that was within my recollection, and I rather think that what I have stated will be found to be correct so far as it goes, although doubtless it may admit of amplification.
  MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK: I desire to ask the First Lord of the Treasury a question, of which I have given private notice, with regard to the speech last night of the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian, in which the following passage occurred—
  "The Pope was induced about 18 months ago, I think, to fulminate what was called a rescript against the Nationalists of Ireland. Ho thereby, in my opinion, at great cost to his own influence within the legitimate sphere of purely spiritual authority—at very great cost, damage, and detriment to himself—undoubtedly did his utmost to prop up a labouring and failing cause, namely, that of the anti-Irish Party in this country. That was a great step on the part of the Pope. Did it not demand a return? You have got the return before you. The return is by sending somebody whom you call an Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary to the Pope."
  I wish to ask whether there is any foundation whatever for the insinuation that the late Mission of Sir Lintorn Simmons was the consequence of the action of the Pope in publishing a rescript condemning the un-Christian practices of boycotting, intimidation, and the Plan of Campaign?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order ! The hon. Gentleman must be aware that this is a question which a Minister cannot be expected to answer in that form.

  PUBLIC BUSINESS.
  MR. J. MORLEY: I wish to ask as to the order of business. Will the Report of the Local Taxation Bill be the first order of the day to-morrow; next, is the House to sit on Saturday; and lastly, as this is the 31st July, and there are ill-omened rumours of our meeting in November, will the right hon. Gentleman state what Bills will be proceeded with?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I understand from my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer that it will be for the convenience of the House that the Report of the Local Taxation Bill shall be taken to-morrow if the Com-

  1387
  mittee is concluded to-day, and if that is the view of the House the Government will be very glad to take the Rpeort tomorrow, substantially as the first order. They then propose, if a sufficient interval can be found, to take the Post Office Vote, which it is desirable should be obtained. The Police Bill will be taken as soon as the Report of the Local Taxation Bill shall be completed, whether on Saturday or Monday. I have received intimations from different parts of the House that it will be for the general convenience that the House shall meet on Saturday, the sitting being subject to Wednesday rules—that is, that the business shall practically be suspended at half-past 5 o'clock. The Bills which the Government intend to proceed with are the Local Taxation Bill, the Police Bill, the Census (Ireland) Bill, London County Council (Money) Bill, Public Works Loans Bill, and the Savings Banks Bill, if it is not opposed.
  MR. STOREY: It will be opposed to the end.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: Then, with reference to that intimation, I can only deeply deplore there should be opposition of the kind declared to a Bill which, I believe, is regarded by the vast majority of Members, even on the hon. Member's own side, as embodying a great safeguard to investors in Savings Banks. On the hon. Member must rest the responsibility if the Bill is not passed. The Partnership Bill, a purely Legal Bill, I believe has been accepted by the House without question. The Public Health Acts Amendment Bill the Government desire to proceed with, and, of course, the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill must be passed. As to the Employers' Liability for Injuries to Workmen Bill and the Reformatory Schools Bill, the order will be discharged. The Electoral Disabilities (Naval, Military, and Police) Bill I hope to pass, on the understanding that Ireland will be exempted from the scope of its operation. With this statement I hope I may appeal to hon. Members to give the Government their assistance in making material progress with the business of the remainder of the week.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: The right hon. Gentleman has not mentioned what is to be done with the Indian Councils Bill. We ought to know the
  1388
  intentions of the Government with regard to that measure.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: Could not the Bill be taken on Saturday, instead of the Police Bill, which has never been discussed in Committee, and to bring on which would be very inconvenient to Members, as it affects nearly every constituency?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I am afraid the Indian Councils Bill must be postponed until after Supply, and if it is possible to take it during the stages of the Appropriation Bill the Government will be glad to do so.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: If the Bill is left to the end of the Session it will be extremely unfair to hon. Members interested in it, and will, moreover, be an absolute breach of the promise given by the First Lord of the Treasury in the Debate on the Address.
  MR. A. J. MUNDELLA: Is it intended to discharge the order for the Education of Blind and Deaf Mute Children (Scotland) Bill?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: If the right hon. Gentleman will assist us to pass the Bill without opposition, we shall be glad to do so.
  MR. A. ELLIOT: When will the Scotch Police Bill be taken.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I cannot say at present.
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: With reference to the promised day for discussion of the Treasury Minute relating to Treasury pensions, may I suggest whether it would not be advisable to postpone any commutation till next Session, so as to give a fair opportunity for discussion. There is no immediate necessity for action this Session.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I think the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman a very reasonable one, and, therefore, I have no hesitation in postponing the consideration of the Minute till next Session.
  MR. DILLON: May I ask when the long-promised opportunity for the discussion of the Report of the Vote on the Irish Land Commission will be given me?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: The Government are anxious the hon. Member shall have his opportunity. It is, of course, subject to certain business being carried through.
  MR. DILLON: There is no such condition.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: That is the condition on which alone it is in the power of the Government to give the hon. Member his opportunity; and if we are able to conclude the Local Taxation Bill before 11 o'clock this evening, and obtain a vote in Supply, the Government, will then take the Motion of the hon. Member.
  MR. DILLON: That amounts to a declaration that I am not to get my opportunity. Now, I have to inform the right hon. Gentleman that I gave a large quid pro quo in the agreement made with him. I paved the Government a great deal of time, and the Chief Secretary promised that an opportunity should be given me, in consideration of my foregoing my right to talk out the Vote, to raise a discussion on the Report of Supply.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It does not appear to me that the explanation of the hon. Gentleman is inconsistent with what the First Lord of the Treasury has just stated. I stated to the hon. Gentleman that he should have the opportunity of discussing the Report of the Land Commission Vote at a reasonable period —that is to say, not later than 11 o'clock. But no particular day was stated or suggested. The hon. Gentleman knows that we must take this Report, and we are pledged not to take it after 11 o'clock.
  MR. STOREY: There is an Amendment on the Paper to enlarge the amounts which depositors are permitted to pay into a Savings Bank daring the year. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that Amendment is an exact copy of a clause of the Bill proposed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian in 1880, at the time when he reduced the interest charged by the Savings Banks? The second part of the Bill had to be abandoned under the stress of the Compensation for Disturbance Bill, though we were promised that it should be re-introduced in 1881. Up to the present time, although the Savings Banks interest has been reduced, that promise to the Savings Banks has never been carried out. In view of that promise, given by the Government of the day in 1880, I would ask the
  1390
  right hon. Gentleman whether he will accept the Amendment?
  MR. GOSCHEN: The hon. Member asks me whether it will be possible to deal with a matter that was so contentious that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian had to drop it from his Bill. Clearly, if a matter of such controversy is to be introduced, either on one side or the other, it will be impossible to pass the Bill.
  MR. LEVESON-GOWER: Will the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House say when the Foreign Office Vote will be taken, as there are several important topics, which hon. Members on both sides are interested in, which will have to be dealt with.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I have already stated that we hope to take the Vote as soon as we have disposed of the Police Bill.
  MR. S. SMITH: May I ask when the Intoxicating Liquors (Ireland) Bill will be taken?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: That measure is in the hands of private Members.
  MR. CHILDERS: I desire to ask in what position it is proposed to put the Scotch Superannuation Bill. I understand that the Government have undertaken to take it after the Report stage of the English Bill, but from what has just fallen from the right hon. Gentleman it looks as though he contemplated making some modifications in the arrangement of the business. I ask the question, as I took a great deal of interest in the Bill in Committee, and I think we should know precisely how the Bill stands.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: Is it intended to put the English Police Bill through on a Saturday?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: Most certainly. With reference to the Scotch Superannuation Bill, I will consult the convenience of Scotch Members, and shall be glad if we can deal with it in the manner the hon. Gentleman suggests. I trust that I may appeal to the House to make progress to-night, seeing that the contentious matter of the Local Taxation Bill has been largely disposed of. Then we can take the Post Office Vote, which is so much required.
  MR. CHILDERS: The suggestion that the Committee stage of the Scotch Police Bill should follow the Report

  1391
  stage of the English Bill was well received by Scotch Members on both sides of the House. If the right hon. Gentleman will inquire I think he will find that that is the feeling of the majority of Scotch Members.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: As I take it that the right hon. Gentleman speaks with the concurrence of the great majority of the Scotch Members on his side of the House I will endeavour to make the arrangement he refers to.
  MR. E. ROBERTSON: As there will be great opposition to the Scotch Superannuation Bill, would it not be well for the Government to postpone it altogether for the consideration of the Scotch people?
  SIR J. LUBBOCK: Will the London County Council (Money) Bill be taken to-night? I see it is on the Paper.
  MR. JACKSON: I should think it would be better to take it on Monday, but hon. Gentlemen opposite will know about it better than I.
  SIR J. LUBBOCK: The Bill will only require slight amendment, and I think it would be to the general convenience of London Members if it could be taken to-night.
  MR. JACKSON: I will confer with the right hon. Baronet on the matter.
  MR. ESSLEMONT: Considering the interest taken in the Bill relating to Blind and Deaf Mute Children in Scotland could it not be arranged to take that measure by consent some night after 12 o'clock?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. P. B. ROBERTSON,): I know that the hon. Member and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sheffield take some interest in this subject. I will confer with them, and shall be glad if some arrangement can be come to by which the Bill can be taken.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: The right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury is mistaken in saying that the Youthful Offenders' Bill is not opposed. There are Amendments on the Paper, and the Bill will most certainly be opposed.
  DR. FARQUHARSON: Will the Army Estimates be taken next week?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I am afraid I have gone as far as I can. The hon. Member will see that I cannot say more than I have.

  IRELAND—EVICTIONS ON GREAT BLASKET ISLAND.
  MR. E. HARRINGTON: I desire to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he has received any official Report as to the cruise of Her Majesty's ship Britomart, which was referred to in yesterday's newspapers. It was stated that at an early hour on Tuesday morning the inhabitants on Great Blasket Island, 10 miles to the west of the Dingle Promontory, were surprised to see Her Majesty's gunboat Britomart in their waters. The vessel had on board the Sub-Sheriff of Kerry, a number of Bailiffs, 100 police under County Inspector Lop-nell, Mr. Cecil Roche, R.M., being in supreme command. The object of the invasion was to make seizures in satisfaction of rent due to the Earl of Cork and Orrery. It seems that a number of fishing boats were seized, amongst the number being one belonging to the opposite shore, which had been used for the purpose of bringing a clergyman to the island. Were these boats taken on board the Britomart, and is it the intention of the Admiralty to continue this practice of lending Her Majesty's ships of war for passenger boats to convey, not merely troops, but a Sub-Sheriff, Bailiffs, and police. I would also ask whether, in answer to a question of mine, the Government did not refuse to the fishermen at this very place?
  MR. SPEAKER: I think the hon. Gentleman ought to give notice of that question. It is a complicated and somewhat argumentative question.
  MR. E. HARRINGTON: Then I would merely ask whether the Admiralty has received any report as to the cruise of the Britomart?
  LORD G. HAMILTON: Not that I am aware of.

  SIR G. ERRINGTON'S MISSION.
  MR. A. O'CONNOR: When the Government lay on the Table the Papers relating to Sir G. Errington's Mission, will they take the same course in regard to the Mission of the Duke of Norfolk?
  MR. SEXTON: May I ask if the Government can give us any information as to the functions about to be performed in Rome by Mr. Kenelm Digby?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I am not aware of the existence of Mr. Kenelm Digby, but will make inquiries.

  MESSAGE TO THE LORDS.
    CHILDREN'S LIFE INSURANCE BILL.
    Ordered, That a Message be sent to the Lords to request that their Lordships will be pleased to communicate to this House, a Copy of the Report from the Select Committee appointed by their Lordships on the Children's Life Insurance Bill, with the Proceedings of the Committee and Minutes of Evidence.—(Mr. Ritchie.)

    COLONISATION.
    Report from the Select Committee, with Minutes of Evidence, brought up, and read [Inquiry not completed];
    Report to lie upon the Table.

    MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
    That they have agreed to,—Supreme Court of Judicature Bill, changed from —Supreme Court of Judicature (Procedure) Bill, Removal Terms (Scotland) Act (1886) Amendment Bill, Sutton, Southcoates, and Drypool Gas (Electric Lighting) Bill, with Amendments.
    That they have passed a Bill, intituled "An Act to amend the Settled Land Acts 1882 to 1889."[Settled Land Bill [Lords.]
    And, also, a Bill, intituled "An Act for further promoting the revision of the Statute Law by repealing enactments which have ceased to be in force or have become unnecessary."[Statute Law Revision (No. 2) Bill [Lords.]

    FOREIGN JURISDICTION (CONSOLIDATION) BILL [LORDS].—(No. 383.)
    Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; read the third time, and passed, without Amendment.
LOCAL TAXATION (CUSTOMS AND EXCISE) DUTIES BILL.—(No. 244.)

  COMMITTEE.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 4.
  MR. STOREY: Inasmuch as I shall have another oppor-
  1394
  tunity of discussing Clause 4, and shall then be able to raise the question whether this shall be a temporary or permanent charge, I do not propose to go on with the Amendment I mentioned yesterday afternoon when the House resumed. I now ask leave to move an Amendment at the end of line 39, after the word "England." The clause, as it at present stands, reads:—
  "The remaining half of the said annual sum shall be distributed by the Police Authorities for the Police Forces in England."
  I propose to add "other than the City of London." The effect of that will be to distribute the £150,000 a year over the Police Forces in the Kingdom, except that of the City of London. The object I have in view must be apparent to the Government, and I cannot but think that it has been by pure inadvertence that they themselves have not proposed the Amendment.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN,): I am willing to accept the Amendment.
  MR. STOREY: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider a clause to exempt other large municipalities in the country who have sufficient borough power, who do not want to be brought under the operation of the Bill, and who are willing to forego their share of this money?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOB THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS,): We accept the Amendment, on the ground that last year an Act was passed enabling the City to make satisfactory arrangements for the superannuation of its police. I do not know that other Municipalities are in the same position.
  MR. STOREY: The right hon. Gentleman is aware that there are other boroughs and districts in the country who have for years proportionately spent quite as much on police superannuation as the City of London. The City of London spends at the present time only £11,818 per annum, but the County of Lancaster spends £14,901; the North Riding of Yorkshire, £10,210; the City of Liverpool, £10,764; and Manchester, £6,405. These districts desire to be free from Government control in this matter. They want to be treated as men, and not as children in leading

  1395
  strings, and I ask, supposing they are willing to forego their share of this filthy lucre, ought they not to be excluded.
  MR. MATTHEWS: I am aware of the facts to which the hon. Member refers, but I would be no party to depriving any of these localities of their share of this money.
  MR. STOREY: The right hon. Gentleman knows that English people get on very much better when left alone.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman is discussing a point which is not now before the Committee.
  MR. STOREY: I will take the answer, Sir.
  Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 39, at the end of the line, to insert the words, "other than the City of London."(Mr. Storey.)
  (5.24.) Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
  Clause 4.
  Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 4, to leave out from the word "so," to end of Clause, and insert the words "distributed and applied shall remain to the credit of the local taxation accounts."—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  MR. E. ROBERTSON: Supposing the Scotch Police Act fails to pass this year the proportion allocated to Scotland would, I suppose, be sufficient to meet all requirements.
  MR. GOSCHEN: Yes.
  MR. STOREY: The clause as it stand enables these municipalities to receive money which has to be distributed and applied to superannuation in accordance with a Bill hereafter to be passed. That Bill may not be passed this Session at all, and I hold that it is improper and unconstitutional to appropriate money in one Act which can only be applied by another that possibly may not be passed until a future Session. It is a pity that a Conservative and Constitutional Party should need to be reminded of the desirability of adhering to constitutional methods by an extreme Radical.
  (5.26.) Question put, and negatived.
  Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
  Question proposed, "That Clause 4, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  MR. STOREY: I must oppose this clause, but it is unnecessary for me to repeat the arguments I advanced when attempting to introduce Amendments. I must, however, reassert my position, that if the Government propose a Superannuation Fund, and the division of the money rests with the House, it ought to be allocated according to the size of the Police Forces, and on no other basis whatever. The Home Secretary, the other night, said he based the sub-division of the money of the expenditure at present incurred by the different Police Forces on superannuation. I think I am entitled to press on the Government that this is an extremely illusory and absurd basis, for it amounts to this, that the municipalities who have spent most are to get most. Those who have spent least are to get least. That may be very fair, by way of punishment, but the fact remains that those municipalities who have spent most will have less need to spend in the future, and that those who have spent least, and have the least effectual superannuation, will have more need to spend in the future. It should be distributed over the whole Police Forces of the country, according to the size of each Force. In order to give effect to that view, I shall take the liberty of dividing the Committee against the clause.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: I think it is the case that too much money is given to the Metropolitan Force. The Home Secretary justifies his position by the argument that the distribution should be according to the expenditure of each Force. I consider that the Metropolitan Police Authorities have been extremely extravagant, and the system of superannuation which they have initiated is extremely extravagant. I have the Report of the Home Secretary, which shows that the present system of superannuation will amount to considerably above £500,000, probably £600,000. Because an extravagant system has been initiated, I do not see that a disproportionate amount should be given to the Metropolitan Police in

  1397
  order to cover this extravagant super-it annuation system.
  MR. GOSCHEN: The hon. Member for Sunderland has confined his observations into a very short space, and I put it to him whether he will not content himself with a protest, and avoid consuming the time which would be occupied in a Division.
  MR. STOREY: I hare incurred the censure of the right hon. Gentleman in reference to the Savings Bank Bill, and I would not like to fall under his double censure. I have no objection to be content with the protest I have made.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Clause 5, agreed to.
  Clauses 6 and 7 omitted.
  Clause 8.
  Amendment proposed, in page 5, lines 22 and 23, to leave out the words "if an on-licence."—(Sir Wilfrid Lawson.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out, stand part of the Clause."
  MR. GOSCHEN: As the Government have chosen to omit this clause, it will not be necessary to discuss any Amendment in detail before we move the omission.
  SIR W. LAWSON: Notwithstanding that the clause is to be omitted, we wish to go through with our Amendments. I shall move this one, and we shall do what we can to carry it.
  MR. STOREY: This is a Government clause, but the Government have never had any affection for their own offspring, and they do not wish to press it. But we are too fond of the offspring of the Government to permit them, without considerable debate, to slay their own child. There is no earthly reason why the clause should not be accepted by the great body of the House. If there is any objection at all, it must come from hon. Gentlemen opposite. I venture to assure the right hon. Gentleman that any proposal to withdraw this clause will not save time, but will have the effect of causing prolonged discussion.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE,): It is obviously impossible for the Government
  1398
  to discuss this Amendment, for the very reason that we are asking the House to omit this clause. What we propose is to accept the Amendment.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  SIR W. LAWSON: I beg to move in page 5, line 23, after "granted," to leave out all the words to the end of clause. The House will see that the effect of the Amendment is that all these exceptions shall be left out. I want to leave them out, because I believe that if they are retained things would be left very much as they are now. It would be a valuable clause if these exceptions were left out, and it stood "That there shall be no new licences granted." If the Government accept this, they could put in a proviso that the clause should only be enforced for one year or two years, just as Mr. Bruce did when he brought in his clause. If they accept the Amendment, they would then be able to carry out the clause.
  Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 23, after the word "granted," to leave out all the words to end of clause.—(Sir Wilfrid Lawson.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE.): The Committee must not be in the slightest doubt as to what the course of the Government is going to be when I say that we shall accept this Amendment, and that upon the clause as amended being put, we shall vote against it. The clause as it originally stood in the Bill, along with other clauses, was fair and proper as part of a series of clauses for dealing with licences. The other clauses have been omitted, and if this clause were now left in, it would not form part of a scheme, and would be isolated, and without anything in the Bill germane to it. The leader of the House some weeks ago stated what was the policy of the Government in respect to this clause. If there had been a disposition on the part of the Committee to accept the clause practically as it stood, even though it was not germane to the Bill, the Government, in face of a strong expression on the part of the House,

  1399
  would have raised no objection. But instead of the suggestion of my right hon. Gentleman being regarded with favour, and hon. Members doing their best to pass the clause, a considerable number of Amendments have been put upon the Paper.
  MR. STOREY: Your own side.
  MR. RITCHIE: I do not care; I am not regarding the question as from one side of the House or the other. I want to avoid any discussion of that kind, tempting as it is. I will mention a few of the questions which are dealt with by these Amendments. One class of Amendments has for its object the omission of the whole clause, because it would create a very great monopoly. Another point raised is that an increased duty should be put upon licences. There is another enormously important question—and that is, the repeal of the law with regard to removals. Some desire to do away altogether with the possibility of removing licences from one house to another. That is a very arguable question. Then there is the policy of exceptions to the non-issue of new licences, and again whether the interest in the licence shall be restricted to the owner of the licence. That is a point which has been very fruitful of discussion. Another point raised in these Amendments is that the licence ought to expire with the lease of the house to which the licence is granted. Another point is that licences, if granted at all, ought to be paid for by some money payment to the Local Authority. Yet a further question is the vesting of absolute discretion in the Local Authority to refuse the renewal. Of course, we know there is a contention that the Licensing Authority has that discretion now. I am not going to argue that question at present. Then there is also the whole question of compensation involved in these Amendments on the Paper. There fore, I think the Committee will see that, however desirous the Government might be of proceeding with this clause, with these Amendments on the Paper, there is no hope that the Committee would be unanimous on the subject, and we should inevitably be called upon to discuss all these Amendments, some of them involving very great matters of principle. Under all
  1400
  these circumstances, the Government have been driven to the conclusion that it would be impossible to ask the Committee to proceed with this clause.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The right hon. Gentleman explained that, in accepting the proposed Amendment, he was not to be understood as accepting the clause. The discussion on the proposed Amendment ought to be confined to the proposed Amendment. The discussion on the general question of the clause will take place when the Motion is put from the Chair, "That this clause stand part of the Bill."
  SIR W. LAWSON: Certainly, Mr. Courtney; but I was only going to observe that, having accepted my Amendment, all the other Amendments are gone, and there can be no talk about them. I am very pleased with that result, and the clause as it stands is a very good clause, and we shall do our best to carry it.
  (5.55.) Question put, and negatived.
  Question proposed, "That Clause 8, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  MR. RITCHIE: I am greatly obliged to you, Mr. Courtney, for having permitted me to say what I did with regard to the Amendments. I was extremely anxious that the Committee should not be misled. I have stated the reason why we cannot accede to the passage of the clause. The hon. Baronet has said that all the Amendments are disposed of, but I am sure he will understand that the only reason why the clause has been allowed to assume the position in which it is, is that the Government have expressed their intention of opposing the clause, and every one of those gentlemen who have Amendments on the Paper would be entitled to complain that there had been no opportunity to discuss his Amendment if we accepted the clause in its amended form. We now propose to oppose the amended clause.
  MR. STOREY: We are now in a position to test the bonâ fides of the Government in the matter of temperance. Here is the clause as amended:—"After the passing of this Act a new licence shall not be granted." The Government told us that they were against the present state of things, and that they were extremely anxious to do something for the cause of temperance. I listened

  1401
  with amazement to the right hon. Gentleman, who said that this clause was an isolated clause. It fulfils a very important function. The Government have told us that they are extremely anxious that the granting of new licences should be curtailed and curbed. Here is a clause which will prevent the granting of any new licences throughout the whole country. I submit to the right hon. Gentleman that if he opposes this simple suspensory clause to-night, it will then make it all the more incumbent in the very next year to deal with this whole matter. The clause is an excellent one as it stands. It will need amendment next year. That is the inevitable issue of all clauses and Bills passed in this House. Inasmuch as it is a good clause in itself, I submit that we ought to take the opportunity of voting for it, and thus get the matter out of the way. It will be our duty to show that, at any rate, the Government have not been in earnest in the matter.
  MR. E. ROBERTSON: My hon. Friend must not be supposed to be speaking the universal sentiment of hon. Members on this side of the House. I am bound to confess that if the Bill had remained in its original state, I should have opposed this clause, and placed an Amendment on the Paper with that object. This clause is now irrelevant to the Bill—so irrelevant that if it had been moved as a new clause, I imagine it would have been altogether out of order. As it stands, the clause is a flat and bare prohibition of the issue of new licences—I will not say naked and brutal—a phrase which has been current in the House during the last two or three days. What is the first and necessary result? It is the creation of a new monopoly. It means an increase of the monopoly value of the licences now in existence. What has been the great difficulty of the House in dealing with this temperance question all along? Has it not been the value vested in existing licences through the restrictions at present in operation? The hon. Baronet the the Member for Cockermouth in his desire to curtail licences has forgotten a great number of very useful things—among them the public interest in this licensing question. It is not in the interests of the country that this enormous endowment should be con-
  1402
  ferred upon those who own licences. We have had denunciations of the owners of licences, and of those who control the owners of licences. We are told of immense fortunes made by brewers and others who own tied public houses. It is the Temperance Party who, through their ill - considered restrictions, are responsible for these monstrous fortunes. The great question of temperance reform is whether the monopoly value caused by these restrictions is to go into the pockets of the publicans, the brewers, and the distillers; or whether, being public money, because it is a monopoly caused by restrictions, it shall be applied to the public. That is a solution of the question which has been adopted in many of the States of America.
  MR. STOREY: I refer my hon. Friend to the Reports now before the House.
  An hon. MEMBER: What State?
  MR. E. ROBERTSON: Philadelphia, Chicago, and many others.
  MR. STOREY: I know how various the systems are, and I wish to know what State he is referring to.
  MR. E. ROBERTSON: The States are so numerous that I did not stay to name them. The high licensing system is one which prevails very largely in the United States. I may inform my hon. Friend that I wrote to the Foreign Office to get the best available information with respect to the system prevailing in the United States; and the right hon. Baronet who represents the Foreign Office in this House most courteously acceded to my request; and the result is, the two Reports which may be seen in the Library. I am not going to discuss the high licensing, but I am certain that the broad result of official opinion in those two Reports is, that high licensing is the best road to temperance, and that it is taking the place of the prohibitory movement. There is a concensus of opinion that it not only promotes temperance in the best way by suppressing the worst class of public houses, but that it preserves to the public that public endowment which is created by restriction. Much as I respect the principle of my hon. Friend the Member for Cockermouth, I will not aid him to bring it about by the wholesale endowment of the very class he denounces. Something has been said about moving the Amendment to facilitate the passage

  1403
  of the clause. To my mind, the removal of all restrictions from the clause makes it not less, but more objectionable, because it makes the prohibition unlimited, and more peremptory than it was before. Let me say that we, who dare to call ourselves friends of temperance, wish to leave the regulation of the liquor traffic to the people who are affected by it. We want to leave to the community the power of dealing with the liquor traffic in that community. In other words, we are Local Optionists. Where is the Local Option in this clause? It is Imperial prohibition of all licences.
  SIR W. LAWSON: Hear, hear.
  MR. E. ROBERTSON: Well, it is a very good thing; but it is not Local Option. We who have supported the temperance movement are really Local Optionists, and we want to leave the community to deal with this question. Sir, I am constrained much against my will to follow the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board on this occasion in opposition to his own clause.
  MR. RITCHIE: It is not my clause now.
  MR. E. ROBERTSON: The right hon. Gentleman is responsible for the existence of the clause. But I shall not quarrel with him for that, and shall assist him in opposing it.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I think the Division that will take place to-night will clear the air for temperance reformers in this House. We have been considerably mixed of late. I, for one, certainly welcome this Division which will draw a distinction between mere sentiment and active temperance work. Now, I stood by the Licensing Clauses of the Government when it was unpopular to do it. I am not going to run away from them now. I think this is the best clause in the Bill, and I think it is immensely better as amended than it was before. The right hon. Gentleman has got rid of all the difficulties, a list of which he read, by accepting the Amendment of the hon. Member for Cockermouth. The simple issue now before the House is whether new licences are to be granted or not. The hon. Member for Dundee objects to this proposal because it creates a monopoly. The monopoly is created already. There is a ring drawn round the traffic now, and the hon. Baronet says that no more
  1404
  shall enter that ring. Another mistake the hon. Member fell into was this: He taunted the hon. Baronet with Local Option. But the hon. Baronet has never professed to be a mere Local Optionist. He has merely used Local Option as a means to the end, the prohibition of the traffic. He objects as a prohibitionist to the creation of any further licences. The Government have made up their minds, and I am with them, that you will not be able seriously to diminish this traffic in future without compensation. Now that having been resolved upon by the Party opposite, I put to them this question: If you are going to compensate these traders in future—and I admit it is very hard you should be compelled to do it—why are you creating any more of them? We are told that there are new neighbourhoods, and why should they not have licences? What are the facts relating to new neighbourhoods now? They are places where the people fight against licences being thrust upon them. As a matter of fact, the landowner has power to prevent new licences being granted, and that power has been exercised all over the country. The real fact is, the country is deluged with drink; the liquor shops are everywhere. I shall vote for this clause all the more that it has been amended, and the Division will, at all events, tend to separate the sheep from the goats, and allow the Temperance Party to know who is who, and who are the real temperance reformers.
  MR. KELLY: As I voted against the other licensing clauses of the Bill, I wish to explain why it is that I vote against this one as it now stands. In my judgment, the hon. Member for South Tyrone fell into two strange errors. He said that this clause does not create a monopoly because a monopoly already exists. But what is the value of that monopoly? If you had no further new licences granted, would the hon. Member for a moment suggest that the value of existing licences would not be enormously increased? Where you have a growing population, the demand for drink will become year by year greater; and if the number of houses is restricted, inevitably it must follow that a larger quantity of drink must be consumed in the houses which remain, and that the value of those

  1405
  houses must thus of necessity be increased year by year. He says that compensation must be given, and he must know that the more licences you grant the more compensation you will have to pay. I decline to accept that view.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I said quite the opposite.
  MR. KELLY: I say no compensation need be given. Without confiscating the property of the publican, you may avoid, and easily avoid, paying one farthing in money. But then the hon. Member has entirely forgotten what the proposal in Clause 9 was. Clause 9 must be taken with Clause 8, and the object of both was to considerably limit the number of public houses. There can be nothing simpler and bolder than Clause 8 as it now stands. It simply says that new licences shall not be granted. I regret that what the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board has to-day said was not stated before, namely, that the Government might have persisted in Clause 8, had it not been for the string of Amendments put down to it. Had he said this before, the great bulk of those Amendments would have been withdrawn, and this clause might very well then not have been lost. Not that I believe it would have made much difference with the hon. Baronet the Member for Cockermouth. He has destroyed what I believe would have been a most useful clause, and one which would have done more for the cause of temperance than anything else I am able to suggest. He has emasculated it; and he is prepared, as all temperance leaders are, to accept any amount of responsibility in that direction. I lament to think that he has struck one of the saddest blows at temperance that has been delivered by any man in this House or outside of this House. The prohibition of further public houses, which prevents the extinction of hundreds of houses by way of removals, will do nothing but aggravate —seriously aggravate—the present system, and I do not think any honest, or rather real—for I do not wish to question the sincerity of the hon. Baronet the Member for Cockermouth—friend of temperance can vote for the clause, which is not now the clause of the Go-
  1406
  vernment, but the clause of the hon-Member for Cockermouth.
  DR. CLARK: I do not know whether I am an honest and real friend of temperance, only I do not know what my hon. Friend (Mr. Robertson) means by temperance. I heard him with astonishment, because he generally advances logical reasons for the course which he adopts. The monopoly that now exists will not be increased in value by the adoption of this clause. The value of the monopoly will be lessened, because by every new licence you create you increase the amount of compensation. The brother of the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian fought out this question in Liverpool many years ago, and my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee perhaps takes the same position as was taken then—that, is free trade in liquor.
  MR. E. ROBERTSON: What I am advocating is not free trade in liquor, but the high licensing system.
  DR. CLARK: One result of increasing the monopoly would be that you would have an increase of crime, pauperism, and premature death. As a matter of fact, the supply of your houses causes the demand, and hence you have an increase in the traffic, and hence you will have more to pay in compensation for those licences than you would have to pay now. Some of us do not call ourselves temperance men because of the meaning attached to the name. The hon. Baronet the Member for Cockermouth is not a temperance man; he is a prohibitionist, and he wishes to obtain prohibition by Local Option, as that is the easiest way to obtain it. I myself think that the only solution of this question is absolute prohibition of the importation, manufacture, or sale of intoxicating drinks. We are told that the public interests are not considered. But that all depends upon what the public interests are. If by a traffic the pauperism, crime, and premature death of the country are increased, then that seriously affects the public interests. Under the high licence system, what would my hon. Friend do with the money that went to the State? Would he use it for the purpose of buying them out?
  MR. E. ROBERTSON: Certainly not.
  DR. CLARK: If, as in Norway and Sweden, you find that the money so obtained has to be expended in remedying the results of the traffic, then it is a very bad method and a very bad way of raising revenue. I am very sorry that the Government are not going to support the clause, because it will have the effect of creating more licences to be bought out. The clause ought to be tried for one or two years, and I think the probable result would be a diminution of the evils resulting from drink to a degree so convincing as to induce a continuance of the work not only in the direction of issuing no new licences, but in reducing the present number of licences.
  SIR W. HOULDSWORTH: I confess I regret that the Government cannot support the clause as it stands. I quite understand the reasons which induce them to withdraw the clause as it stood, with the many Amendments standing against it on the Paper. I believe some of the Amendments were very good ones, and might have been very well accepted by the Government. Still, there is no doubt they would have drawn the House into a very considerable discussion which at this time of the Session it is almost impossible for the Government to contemplate. But as the clause has been simplified, I really do not see why the Government cannot accept it. It is admitted on all hands that there are too many licences in the country, and surely the simplest way of beginning to reduce them, if we cannot hit on a plan for reducing those in existence, is, at any rate, not to create any more for a time. Now, the principal part of the clause, in addition to that which we are now discussing, was that relating to special cases and new districts. I think that is a very proper subject for consideration, but I do not press the Government on that. All the great majority of the House wishes is to do something to decide the question. We have not decided yet what we are agreed to do. That is precisely what was the position of affairs in 1871, when the House, without a Division, I believe, decided to suspend the creation of new licences for one year, in order that the country and the House might have time to consider the whole question. That is
  1408
  the position in which we now are. If the Government cannot accept the Amendment as it now stands, I hope that they will accept it with a limitation to one year. I am not surprised at the Government not caring to enter on this burning question; but, still, it must be settled one way or the other. I do hope the Government will consider whether they can accept the Amendment with the limitation I have suggested; if they do not, I shall certainly have to go into the Lobby against them.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I think that no new licences should be granted. The only argument advanced against the retention of this clause seems to be that the refusal to grant new licences will create a greater monopoly in the liquor trade than at present exists. But I hold that the larger the number of houses licensed for the sale of drinks the greater is the amount of intoxicating liquor consumed. We are not, however, discussing that point this afternoon. Never, I think, have any Government made such propositions with reference to compensation as were made by this Government at the beginning of the Session. I contend that if we agreed to the retention of this clause less compensation would have been paid than if the clause were rejected. Whatever may be the monopoly, there is no doubt that there would be a larger demand for compensation for four houses than if there were only three. We on this side of the House desire to retain this clause. We believe it will be a step towards a diminution in the consumption of intoxicating liquors. We do not believe that this increased monopoly will really entail a larger amount of compensation, because, when the question of compensation comes to be argued, the question will turn upon the amount of profits made.
  MR. MARK STEWART: I have taken a somewhat prominent part in advocating the retention of these licensing clauses, and I hope that the Government will leave this an open question, for there are many of their supporters who would like to see this clause retained, and who would very much regret having to vote against them.
  MR. COGHILL: There are many hon.

  1409
  Members on this side of the House who are in favour of the retention of the clause, and who will be obliged to vote against the Government if they persist in seeking to omit it.
  CAPTAIN BOWLES: No doubt those who are in favour of prohibition would like to see this clause retained in the Bill. Many hon. Members are in favour of dealing with this licensing question by means of Local Option; but if the Government retain this clause in the Bill, they will be practically shutting the door to trusting localities in this matter hereafter. I think each locality might be left very well to decide for itself what public houses shall be retained in its midst. There is one important point which seems to be overlooked, and that is that there are many brewing firms who have nearly a monopoly of public houses in given districts; and I cannot help thinking that if this clause were passed, the result would be to secure their monopoly, and they would thereupon treat the public to inferior drinks. Some hon. Members laugh at that suggestion, but bad as good beer may be, bad beer is a great deal worse. With these few remarks I will conclude by expressing the hope that the Government will persist in their proposal to withdraw the clause.
  MR. J.C. STEVENSON: No one, I think, will venture to say that our present licensing system is satisfactory; and any proposal to arrest the system of a single year in order to clear the way for a new departure should, I think, be heartily welcomed. I fail to see why the Government should not for a single year suspend the system, and next year endeavour to deal with this most difficult question in the way in which it should be dealt with. The clause as it originally stood in the Bill, while permitting new licences in certain circumstances did not provide that the additional value given to the premises by such licences should be the property of the public, but created new interests in private hands.
  MR. LENG: I had not the advantage of hearing the reasons adduced in support of the Motion by my hon. Colleague the senior Member for Dundee on this
  1410
  clause; but, regarding it as a practical question, it appears to me it is most desirable that we should avail ourselves of the opportunity this proposal of the Government gives us to put a check on the means for the sale of drink. I have no doubt that before this clause was proposed by the Government it was very carefully considered, and it appears to me that the reasons which then existed for its introduction in the Bill must remain as valid now as then. If anything could have induced me— and at one time I wavered in my mind as to the course I ought to take—to have supported the Compensation Clauses in Bill, it was this suspension clause. It seemed to me that to impose a limitation upon the continual growth of public houses was a most desirable object; that it was the one bright spot in the Bill which counterbalanced its faults. I still think it is most desirable the Bill should contain some such enactment Let us try and adopt the view of the hon. Baronet opposite, and, at all events, let us endeavour for one year—and after the excitement of the last few weeks we need a little time for reflection—to see what would be the effect of suspending the issue of new licences. If we only make that experiment for one year, it will give us time to formulate our views with regard to the legislation of the future. I shall, under these circumstances, vote for the retention of this clause in the Bill.
  MR. JOHNSTON: I wish to join in the appeal to the Government to retain this clause. I have consistently supported them throughout the Session in all the important Divisions. I trust that the Amendment proposed by the hon. Baronet on this side will be accepted, and that the Government will see their way to retain the clause in the Bill, and thus avoid the painful necessity which would be thrown upon some of us of voting against our Party.
  MR. RITCHIE: Some weighty reasons have been given by my hon. Friends in favour of the clause, but the reasons which prevent the Government from accepting their advice are of considerably greater weight. I do not think I was bound to put a notice on the Paper, because some days ago I gave full and adequate notice that I should move the omission of the clause. The Govern-

  1411
  ment have accepted certain Amendments, and the consequence is that the proposal now before the House has assumed an extremely simple form, but it might be argued that it is an extremely objectionable form. If the clause were retained, it would prevent the issue of any new licence for an hotel or any other place, though absolutely wanted; it would prevent the granting of a licence on removal, and no renewal of an old licence could be given. Therefore, the Government cannot possibly assent to the clause. To accept it would be a gross breach of faith. In consequence of the position which the Government have taken up, many hon. Gentlemen have been prevented from moving Amendments, and, therefore, if the Government accept this amended clause, it would be a breach of faith. It has been suggested that we should accept the Bill for one year, but it is impossible for the Government to hold out any expectation, as has been suggested, that they will legislate on the subject next Session. They will have much to do next Session, but among their measures they do not include the re-arrangement of the licensing system. It will, therefore, be impossible for them to accept the proposal to confine the operation of the Bill to one year. I very much regret that in this matter we cannot have the support of some of my hon. Friends behind me, but we must adhere to our proposals.
  MR. BRYCE: I have heard with great regret the statement of the right hon. Gentleman. I do not think it lay with the Government, after having consented to Amendments, to say that they could not accept the clause without being guilty of a breach of faith. The better course would be for the Government to say what modifications they think will be absolutely essential for the proper working of the clause, and allow the House to consider it in that form. I hope that even now the Government will agree to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Manchester. It is quite within the power of the Government to introduce modifications, and I think that the House is so anxious to deal with the question in an effective way that it will be willing to accept less for the sake of getting an improved plan. It has been suggested that the value of existing licensed houses will be increased if
  1412
  no new licenses are granted; but I think that that argument is outweighed by the consideration that if new licences are granted, you create new vested interests. I think the Government will be acting in accord with the feelings of many of their own supporters if they retain the clause and introduce necessary Amendments on the Report stage.
  MR. CORNWALLIS: I deeply regret the proposal of the Government to withdraw the clause. I fully appreciate their efforts in the cause of temperance, but cannot support the amended clause in its present crude form. I hope that even now it is not too late for the Government to show the Committee the way out of the difficulty, so as not to leave this pressing question open any longer. The Government have shown, by bringing in the Bill, that they know the evils arising from the liquor traffic, and the time is now near when there must be some restriction on the issue of new licences. It is on that account that I wish to see the Government do something to accomplish the object which so many have in view.
  (6.54.) The Committee divided:— Ayes 128; Noes 157.—(Div. List, No. 216.)
  Clause 9 omitted.
  Clause 10 omitted.
  Clause 11 agreed to.
  Clause 12 omitted.
  Clause 13.
  Amendment proposed, in page 8, line 3, to leave out from beginning of line, to end of line 11, page 9, and insert—
  "The expressions 'burgh,' 'police burgh,' and 'police commissioners,' have respectively the same meaning as in 'The Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1889.'"—(Mr. Ritchie.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 14 agreed to.
  Preamble agreed to.
  Bill reported as amended.
  Question proposed, "That the Bill, as amended, be considered to-morrow."— (Mr. Ritchie.)
  DR. CLARK: It is necessary that we should have the Bill reprinted in its amended form in order

  1413
  that we may give notice of Amendments, if necessary, on the report stage. I would ask that the consideration of the Bill be set down for Monday, for we do not now know what we are dealing with; nobody knows exactly what the Bill is in its present shape.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH,): The hon. Gentleman must be aware that this was the subject of a question and answer earlier in the evening, and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer was appealed to last evening to fix Report stage for to-morrow in the event of Committee being finished early this evening. We have undertaken that the Bill shall be reprinted and in the hands of Members to-morrow, and I should be breaking faith with hon. Members if I did not set it down for to-morrow.
  DR. CLARK: But if we only get the Bill to-morrow, it will be impossible for us to give notice of Amendments in the usual way.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I think hon. Members are well aware of the position of the Bill as it stands, and it is perfectly in the power of hon. Members to put Amendments on the Paper this evening without having the reprinted Bill. I am under engagement to take the Report stage to-morrow.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill to be considered to-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 404.]

SUPPLY—REVENUE DEPARTMENTS.
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
1. Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum not exceeding £4,898,551 (including a Supplementary sum of £50,000), be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1891, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Post Office Services, the Expenses of Post Office Savings Banks, and Government Annuities and Insurances, and the Collection of the Post Office Revenue."
MR. SHAWLEFEVRE: I propose on the Post Office Vote to raise a question of some importance in connection with the financial position of the Postal Service.
1414
I propose to show that there has been a large and growing increase in the gross Post Office revenue in the last few years, while at the same time there has been considerable neglect and delay in improvement of Postal Service. Few people are aware, I think, of the extent at which Post Office revenue has grown of late years; the figures are rather surprising. In 1860, when the Post Office had recovered altogether from the changes made by the introduction of penny postage, I find the net surplus revenue paid into the Exchequer, after deducting the cost of the packet service, was £440,000. Ten years later, in 1870, the net Post Office revenue had increased to £1,173,000, in 1880 it was £2,225,000, and in the year ending March 31st last the net surplus revenue paid into the Exchequer was £3,335,000. During the whole of that period, with few exceptions, the progress of the increase in Post Office revenue was continuous. In the years 1884 and 1887 there were slight reductions as compared with the previous years in consequence of very large capital expenditure, in the one case in making preparations for the introduction of the system of parcel post, and in the other cases by the purchase of an expensive site for the extension of Post Office and Savings Bank premises in the City of London at a cost of £300,000. With these exceptions, the increase has been continuous up to the present time. During the last four years the increase has been greater than it, ever was before. On the average, during the last four years the increase has been something like £200,000 a year, so that in the present year the Chancellor of the Exchequer is receiving about £600,000 more from the Post Office than he did when he came into office. The income derived from the Post Office is six times greater than it was 30 years ago, and three times greater than it was 20 years ago. The question is, has this large increase been obtained by neglect of improvements in the Service, which the public have a right to expect? The hon. Member for Canterbury in a recent pamphlet has enumerated no fewer than 60 different points on which he considers improvements might be carried out, and, without committing myself to all the various items, I feel bound to give it as my opinion that in the very large majority of cases

1415
the hon. Member has right on his side. Irrespective of those specific points, there are certain general heads in which improvement is required in the Postal Service. The means of cross communication, not only between rural districts, but also between towns of considerable importance, are deficient, and as the result letters take two days in transit from one district to another; there are large districts of great commercial importance in which there is no second delivery, and consequently a large proportion of their correspondence takes two days in transit; there are numerous cases in which suburbs of large towns are not included in the town delivery; there are a great many scattered hamlets in which there is no delivery at all and where inhabitants have to send a mile or two for their letters; there are important commercial centres where accelerations ought to be made, and especially of the foreign mails. We had the question raised a day or two ago in connection with the mails to the West of England, and there are other illustrations of the way in which improvements under this head might be effected; and, lastly, the Parcel Post greatly needs simplification and reduction in charges. Of course, all those improvements would involve additional expenditure in the first instance, but the almost invariable experience of the Post Office has been that such increased expenditure is eventually covered by increased income, and that usually in a comparatively short time. There is no question also that the Department has fallen behind in respect to offering increased public facilities, as compared with other countries. I can cite the Permanent Secretary, Sir Arthur Blackwood, as a witness, who, at the Jubilee Memorial Dinner a short time ago, said it was true that some countries which followed us in the postal reforms introduced by Sir Rowland Hill, had in some respects outstripped us in improvements since, and he confessed to some feeling of humiliation when at International Postal Conferences he had been asked if England, so long in the van of postal reform, was now going to take second place. Sir Arthur Blackwood went on to say, avoiding any criticism of the doings of his superiors, that he should like to see the Department administered on something like fair commercial prin-
1416
ciples to the public at large, offering increased facilities and extending its work in the country. Now, Sir Arthur Blackwood is one of the most loyal and courteous of public servants; he was trained at the Treasury, and has all the instincts of a Treasury official. So that such language, coming from him, is strong support to my contention that improvements and extensions of Post Office work are neglected. Why is it, then, that the Post Office has thus fallen behindhand in respect of improvements? That the Post Office has fallen somewhat behindhand in respect of improvements in the Service is not the fault of the officials of the Post Office. So far as my experience goes, they are still imbued with the traditions infused into the Department by the late Sir Rowland Hill, and it is the fact that from that time to the present almost all great reforms in the Department have been suggested by permanent officials; and in this connection I might mention the names of Mr. Scudamore, Mr. Tilley, and others, and I believe there are men now in the Service quite as able and quite as willing to institute improvements and reforms as the men I have mentioned. I do not believe it is due to my right hon. Friend the Postmaster General. I think my right hon. Friend himself must be conscious of the need of improvements in many directions. The Postmaster General is controlled and restrained by the superior powers at the Treasury, and I cannot but think that of late years the power of the Treasury over the Post Office has been increasing, and that the tendency has been to convert the Postmaster General into a subordinate officer of the Treasury. I cannot but think that it was to the Treasury my right hon. Friend referred when, at the jubilee dinner, he spoke of the progressive and reforming spirit of the Department being checked by the influence of his partner "Jorkins." It is, no doubt, a fact that the Treasury is supreme in all matters of Post Office expenditure. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, as guardian of the public purse, and wishing, no doubt, to add to the income of the country, practically overrules the Postmaster General in all the applications which the latter makes to him. It is a fact that the Postmaster General cannot spend a single penny of the money which

1417
he receives from the Post Office on improvements of any kind, small or large, without the previous consent and approval of the Treasury. In all questions of extensions of offices, new branches, improvements of service, and additional deliveries, the Post Office is under the strictest rules laid down by the Treasury not to incur any expenditure until it can be shown that it will be accompanied by an increase of income sufficient to meet the increased expenditure. With regard to local improvements and more important matters, the consent of the Treasury has to be obtained, and I think I am right in saying that when a question goes to the Treasury it is perhaps necessarily regarded, in the main, from a Treasury point of view. I do not doubt that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to some extent, takes into account the requirements of the public and the necessities of the Service; still, it is only in human nature that the right hon. Gentleman should consider the interests of the Exchequer from a revenue point of view rather than the interests of the Post Office from a public point of view. I cannot help remembering that whilst we have seen this continuing increase of revenue from the Post Office on the one hand, on the other we have complants that improvements are not made in the Post Office, and that there is neglect and delay in giving facilities which the public want. The effect of the Treasury curb is felt over the whole Postal Service. The Postmaster General himself does not like to be continually urging improvements on the Treasury when he knows that a large number of them will constantly be refused, and there is the same feeling among the officers of the Post Office below him. This affects also the question of economies which might be carried out, because there is a feeling among the officials that the money saved by economies is not used for the benefit of the Service, but goes to swell the Treasury surplus; and it is only human nature, therefore, that the Post Office officials are not so eager to effect economies as they might be if the savings effected went towards improvements in the Post Office itself. I think I am right in saying that, as a matter of fact, no other country in the world makes the same income out of its Post Office that
1418
we do. In some countries the expenditure is greater than the revenne.
MR. HENNIKER HEATON: That is the case in every country but one.
MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: Yes, in no case but our own is there any considerable revenue made out of the Post Office. I cannot but think that some change is-necessary in the relations between the Post Office and the Treasury which will give a freer hand to the Postmaster General in the institution of improvements in the Post Office itself; and that there should be a fixed limit to the income to be derived from the Post Office, so that facilities of all kinds to the public may be increased. I do not suggest that the whole surplus income should be given over for improvements in the Postal Service; that would mean a large increase of taxation in other directions, and I am not in favour of such a course. The surplus for this year is £3,335,000, from which there is to be deducted a certain amount of expenditure on buildings amounting to about £140,000. I am content to put the-limit at £3,000,000 a year. I should not propose that the limit should be statutory, but rather a Parliamentary and Departmental one; that there should be a general understanding that only £3,000,000 should be paid over by the Post Office to the Treasury. The suggestion which I make has met with the general approval of Chambers of Commerce throughout the country, and I think that the Government would do well to adopt a suggestion of this kind. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the interests of the public revenue, would do well to consider this matter, because he cannot but be aware that there is a growing discontent in commercial circles at the neglect of improvements which characterises the Post Office. During the last few years the increase in the surplus has amounted to £200,000 or £300,000 a year.
THE CHANCELLOR or THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN, St. George's,): During the last five years it has only been about £100,000.
MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: I admitted at the commencement of my speech that in 1884 and also in 1887—in consequence of the very large capital expenditure in

1419
1885 on the preparations for the Parcels Post, and in consequence of payments to the extent of £300,000 having to be made for sites and the increase in the Post Office Savings Bank business in London—there was a temporary reduction, but I think the fairer way to deal with the matter is to take decennial periods, and I have given the figures for those periods. The Chancellor of the Exchequer cannot gainsay that the surpluses of the Post Office, taking into account the Packet Service has increased from £440,000 in 1860 to over £3,000,000 in 1890. There can be no doubt that the revenue has multiplied six times in 30 years. My belief is that there is a general impression throughout the country that Post Office improvements are being neglected and that postal facilities of all kinds that the public demand are being refused. I believe that unless something in the direction I have indicated is done, the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer will risk a much larger and wider demand which may trench to a much greater extent on his surplus. I think, therefore, that in the interest of the revenue he has been receiving for the last few years, he will do well to adopt the suggestion which I have made, and to give a freer hand to the Postmaster General in the disposal of the surplus beyond a certain point, which point, as I say, I am ready to put at either £3,000,000 or £3,200,000.
THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON,): The right hon. Gentleman has given some interesting statements of what he considers to be the views of the public generally, and also the views of the Postmaster General and the Secretary to the Post Office. I understand that the speeches he quoted of the Secretary to the Post Office and of the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General were both of them after-dinner speeches, and we are apt sometimes to allow a little latitude for the imagination under such circumstances. The right hon. Gentleman opposite desires, apparently, to fix some limit to the net revenue which is to be derived from the Post Office, and I gather from him that his object is that the balance of revenue received above a certain sum shall be expended in making improvements in the Postal Service
1420
generally. But neither the right hon. Gentleman nor the Committee need trouble themselves about fixing a limit of revenue, because although during the last two or three years the revenue has shown a tendency to increase, yet the figures show that there has been an enormously increased expenditure in recent years on the improvement of the Postal Service; and I may say further-speaking as I do with some knowledge of the applications which have been made and are being made to the Treasury for increased expenditure—that within the next few years there must be a very large increase of expenditure in providing additional accommodation for increase of business. These is hardly one of our large towns—nay, there is hardly one of our middle-sized towns—where increased accommodation is not necessary and must be provided within a short time. In London at this moment there are schemes of improvement on foot which will cost some hundreds of thousands of pounds, and the sooner they are carried out the better it will be for the Service. In Liverpool, also, improvements are advocated. I was rather horrified to hear that the Postmaster General had received a deputation, who had suggested that he should buy a site in Liverpool, which I think will cost more than £300,000, and those improvements, and the extensions in connection with them, will involve an expenditure probably of not less than £500,000. In Glasgow, in Edinburgh, in Leeds, and in nearly all the large towns, with the exception of only two or three where additional provision is being completed, a large expenditure is pending which will involve an enormously increased charge upon the Post Office Department. It must be borne in mind that the conditions of the Parcels Post Service have very greatly increased the necessity for additional accommodation, and this accommodation has to be met in some cases at a very heavy charge in consequence of the sites required. Space has to be obtained very often in the most expensive parts of big cities. There has been an experiment made, which I believe the Postmaster General will be able to show has been of great advantage, and which has resulted, so far as London is concerned, in partially separating the great centre for the Parcels Post from those

1421
of the letter post and telegraphs. This expenditure will go on, and I am seriously afraid that the right hon. Gentleman's limit will become automatic from the extension of the Service itself. The right hon. Gentleman gives us figures from which he draws the comforting conclusion that the Post Office revenue is increasing at an enormous rate. He said, however, that in his opinion the Post Office was lagging behind. There is not a single piece of evidence in support of that statement. I do not believe the English Post Office lags behind. I have seen something of it both inside and outside, and I believe it keeps up with the times very well indeed. In the five years commencing 1879 and ending 1884, the total revenue of the Post Office was a little short of £37,000,000, and in the five years ending in the present year, the total revenue was a little over £45,000,000. Therefore, in that period there had been an increase on gross receipts of about £8,500,000, Very nearly the whole of that £8,500,000 has been given in improving the Postal Service, because the net Revenue during the same period has only increased by about £1,000,000. The money has been spent in increasing wages, increasing accommodation, increasing the Mail Service, increasing deliveries, and increasing expenditure in every way. This is a conclusive answer to the right hon. Gentleman, who says there has been nothing done for the improvement of the Postal Service. There has been a very large increase in the wages paid, and there have recently been changes which involve a very large additional outlay. If the right hon. Gentleman thinks the Treasury has within the last two years been exercising any pressure or unduly resisting any improvement which the Postmaster General recommends, and which, after full consideration, the Treksury think it possible to accept, I can assure him he is mistaken. The Treasury has always met the requirements of the Post Office in a reasonable spirit. I think we must, within the next few years, expect a large increase in expenditure; but as far as I know, the relations between the Treasury and the Post Office have never been marked by less friction than is now the case. The Treasury desires to
1422
supplement the efforts of the Postmaster General in giving to the country the benefit of an efficient and cheap Postal Service.
SIR W. HARCOURT: To a large extent I share the sentiments of the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down. I think the Treasury acts as a very useful governor upon the expenditure of all the Government Departments. I have myself spent a longer time in Departments than at the Treasury, and I know it was the desire of my Department to get as much money as we could. I have no doubt that is more the case with the Post Office than in any other Department. Naturally, an enthusiastically patriotic Postmaster General desires to give the public as much accommodation as he can, and to derive as much credit as he can for so doing, and all the Departments are apt to make extraordinarily sanguine estimates of the results of reductions. Before I was a Member of this House I was counsel before the Parliamentary Committee which considered the purchase of telegraphs. Mr. Scudamore, the Secretary of the Post Office, was confident that he could buy the telegraphs for £3,000,000. I had the honour of being one of the counsel against him, and we took very good care that he did not purchase the telegraphs for less that £10,000,000. Since that time the telegraphs have never paid the interest on that expenditure. Then came our lamented friend, Mr. Fawcett, a great Post Office reformer, who was extremely sanguine as to the results of the Parcel Post in a pecuniary sense, and as to the receipts to be derived from the reduced telegraph rates. I do not know whether the revenue has yet recovered from these reforms. If so, it has barely done so, after the lapse of many years. It is necessary, therefore, to be cautious in these matters, and not to accept too readily estimates which are made as to the economical results of great reforms. Our experience shows that such reforms never have paid. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury has done scant justice to the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bradford (Mr. Shaw Lefevre). My right hon. Friend asks us that if a certain fixed sum is exceeded the surplus should go to the public. I think that is fair if the

1423
capital sum is fixed at a fair figure. The Post Office is conducted as a commercial concern, and it is the only commercial concern the Government have ever entered into without enormous loss. One peculiarity about the Post Office is that it is conducted with no working capital. In any other commercial concern any extraordinary demand is met from the capital account. The Post Office has always met capital charges out of its revenue. What I think the Government ought to try and do is to estimate what has been the capital expenditure upon the Post Office. I do not know whether it could be ascertained, but I daresay it could be approximately settled. Supposing the capital is fixed at £50,000,000, if you put the interest at 6 per cent. it would amount on the whole to £3,000,000 a year. The Government might very fairly say they were entitled to a commercial dividend of £3,000,000 a year, and that if they earned more than that the surplus should be given away in additional accommodation to the public. I am perfectly prepared to protect the revenue of the Post Office, and I think that, in a great commercial concern of this kind, there ought to be a fair commercial profit upon the money expended. At present the working expenses are about three-fourths of the gross receipts, and therefore it is a very expensive business to manage. Great demands are made upon the Post Office. I do not at all complain of those made by the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Henniker Heaton). They are all in one direction. They are all abroad. I can understand that in view of his colonial connection; but I would ask the hon. Members to consider the interests of people at home.
MR. HENNIKER HEATON: All their relations are abroad.
SIR W. HARCOURT: There is much to be done at home. Since the reforms of Mr. Fawcett, the telegraph system has not paid its working expenses until, I think, last year. A year or two ago I know it did not pay them by £100,000. The rule is, that telegraphic communication is not given except in places where it will pay. Well, in my opinion, if you have a surplus, your generosity should go rather in the direction of providing additional facilities at home than in giving reduced rates abroad.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr.GOSCHEN, St. George's,): I certainly cannot complain of the tone of the two speeches made by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, and I am especially grateful for the support afforded to the Treasury by the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby. The relations between the Post Office and the Treasury, as my right hon. Friend (Mr. Jackson) has said, are extremely pleasant at present. Of course, there must occasionally be differences between a Department which is so extremely active and ambitious as the Post Office, and a Department that must have some regard for the public purse. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman who opened the Depate that the Post Office is not so entirely discouraged as he seemed to think. A great many applications, no doubt, are made to the Treasury. We have been able to grant many of them, and we have been compelled to refuse some. I would point out that there are other objections besides the objection of expense to the great extension of the Post Office, and to the adoption of all the plans proposed to them. I do not think it desirable to increase to any further extent the great army of those who are employed in the Service of the State. An increase of staff often involves an increase of space, and very often the very success of an experiment makes it necessary to secure additional accommodion with the result that any possible profit derived from the improvement itself is eaten up. Both the right hon. Gentlemen opposite have admitted that the sum of £3,000,000 would be a fair estimate of the revenue which might be reasonably claimed by the Post Office, and they have suggested that profits beyond that should be employed for the benefit of those who use the Post Office. But what would happen is this: If you gave away the surplus above £3,000,000, in one or two years, you would probably find in the third year that there was a large expenditure needed for buildings, and the revenue would fall below £3,000,000. There has recently been a great demand for sites, and great additional expense occasionally becomes necessary in connection with salaries. We have had to make considerable increases in the pay

1425
of telegraph clerks and in the remuneration of some of the Post Office employes. It has been shown that the growth of revenue has, in the main, been devoted to additional expenditure and not treated as additional profit. The net revenue was £3,000,000 five years ago, and it is now £3,340,000. Therefore, in the last five years the increase in the annual revenue has only been £300,000, while the amount that has properly gone in the improvement of the Service and to improving the position of the Post Office servants has been very much larger. I believe there has been a great misconception on this point. The opinion has been expressed that a very large portion of the increased revenue went to the State; but the figures I have given show that there has been much exaggeration on the subject. I really do not think there is much difference between ourselves on this side of the Committee and the right hon. Gentlemen opposite.
SIR W. HARCOURT: I rather gather from the Chancellor of the Exchequer that, in point of fact, the Post Office has been acting on the principle I laid down, because the profits were £3,000,000 some years ago, and they are about the same now.
MR. GOSCHEN": In 1881–1882 the net revenue was £2,000,987, while in 1882–1883 it was £3,037,000. Therefore, as a matter of fact, the Post Office has practically acted under the check of the Treasury very much as was suggested by the right hon. Gentleman, only they have not done so consciously. They have considered all the matters suggested, and they have assented to those which appear to be reasonable, while they have dissented from some which appear to be too costly. We cannot estimate in advance the cost of an improvement, seeing that the cost will increase with the additional hands required and the additional space which may have to be secured. I am inclined to think that there is force in the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion, that when there is money to spare, it is not at all so certain that the best means of appropriating it is to reduce the ocean postage to one penny. We have paid regard to the sentiment that colonial and Indian postage should be put on a reasonable footing. We have devoted a certain sum to that purpose, but I confess it is
1426
fairly open to question whether in some parts of the country there might be an extension of telegraphic communication, even though it was not absolutely remunerative. We have not arrived at a point when the Telegraph Service is remunerative, looking at the enormous sum paid for the telegraphs which was sanctioned by a Committee of the House of Commons on which I had the honour to serve, and on which I divided occasionally in minorites of one and two against the enormous sums which the eloquence of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby was unable to extract from the majority of the Committee. I have always held that the majority of the Committee was over-persuaded to pay twice for the same article. I hope that will be a warning to other Governments to be extremely careful before we embark upon the purchase of these gigantic undertakings.
MR. BRADLAUGH: I have no doubt the few remarks I am about to make will be received with disapproval on both Front Benches; but, nevertheless, I think it is necessary to make them. I am one of those who hold the doctrine that the Post Office ought not to be a tax collecting machine; that it ought to make such charges as will prevent the transmission of communications between citizens, being a tax on those who send them. I contend that any surplus ought to be applied in improvements and not in relief of taxation. I quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby that facilities at home should be first of all afforded, but what I wish to particularly urge upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Postmaster General is that the wages paid to the lower class of servants in the Post Office are not such as ought to be paid. At present there are very great temptations placed before very poorly-paid men. These temptations are increased by the neglect by the public of the Post Office Regulations. Thefts take place, and expenditure is incurred in detecting and prosecuting thieves. I submit that while the institution is a paying institution, there ought not to be persons paid not only starvation wages, but exposed to special temptation by having valuable property intrusted to them for

1427
delivery. There is no real relief to the nation in getting £3,000,000 from the Post Office and relieving taxation to that extent. The sum would be much better expended in facilities in out of the way districts and on telegraphs in connection with fisheries and other industries which would enable persons to contribute to the wealth of the State, and would produce greater economy in the end. (8.30.)
(9.0.) Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present,
MR. SAMUEL SMITH: I have to make an appeal to the Postmaster General on behalf of a new Post Office for Liverpool. The case of Liverpool is a very urgent one. The grievance is one of old standing. The Liverpool Post Office is very much overcrowded, and, besides, it is placed in a very inconvenient situation for trade. The fact, too, that it is overcrowded, renders it very unhealthy for the employæs. They are crowded together in a most uncomfortable manner, and although the Postmaster has done everything in his power to mitigate their discomfort, there is no doubt that the work has entirely overgrown the premises, and there is great discontent among the employes on account of the way they are unavoidably treated. I appeal to the Postmaster General to give serious attention to the grievance of Liverpool in this respect. It has been going on for many years, and has always been getting worse, as the traffic and the Post Office work have increased. I suppose there is no town in the Kingdom whose trade and commerce has increased to a greater extent of late years than Liverpool, and the Post Office work has increased accordingly. Not only is the Post Office overcrowded; it is in a very bad situation. It is situated in a very poor —I may say a low—quarter of the town. It lay close to the Sailors' Home, where seamen are discharged, and which is frequented by foreigners, and everyone knows the accompaniments of such people. It is surrounded by public houses, and all sorts of coarse accompaniments. Many of the telegraphists employed in the Post Office are women, and in leaving the place they are sometimes subjected to insult, many of them being positively in
1428
dread of going home in consequence of the character of the surroundings. These facts are already known both to the Secretary to the Treasury and to the Postmaster General, and I think it is time something should be done to provide Liverpool with a proper General Post Office. As regards the general question, I think the employes, as a rule, are overworked, and that they ought to be better paid. I do not think the State should employ the cheapest labour it can obtain, but that the wages paid by the State should be ideal wages. That would prevent strikes and disorganisation in Government Departments. I am glad that the Postmaster General has lately made some substantial concessions to this deserving body of public servants. It should be the aim of the heads of Departments to keep the men in a state of contentment, and I therefore rejoice at every improvement made in their status.
MR. ATKINSON: I was glad to hear the hon. Member testify to the good state of trade in Liverpool. It is a condition of things one might always expect when a Conservative Ministry is in power, and if my hon. Friend opposite will only assist in maintaining them in Office, I have no doubt he will continue to have cause for congratulation in this respect. I rose for the purpose of making one or two suggestions to the Postmaster General not of a local character. I wish to raise the question as to the manner in which we Members of Parliament are charged for letters which are re-addressed to us and by which the right hon. Gentleman is sweeping large profits into the common chest. I say it is unfair, especially to hard working Members of Parliament that not only should they be continually receiving letters from their constituents, asking them to vote in a particular way —although if those constituents would reflect upon the consistent speeches which were delivered at election times, as in my own case, they would know in which way the vote would be given—I repeat, I think it is rather hard on them that they should be charged for postage simply because those letters are re-addressed to them when their residence is outside the London area. In my case I have been subjected during the present Session to a fine of about

1429
£20 under these circumstances, and when we see the Department making profits to the extent of millions annually, I think we have a right to call on the Postmaster General to relieve us of that burden. It is his duty, I think, not to endeavour to make profits, but to transact the business of the country cheaply, and to devote any surplus which he may have to facilitate the mail traffic, and to decreasing postal rates.
MR. CREMER: A few weeks ago I addressed a question to the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster General in regard to the Petition which the countermen had forwarded to him; and the right hon. Gentleman, in reply, courteously informed me that he was considering the claims of these men, claims which, I believe, to be just, because they have many thousands of pounds passing through their hands every week, and in the main they are a very high-minded, honourable, and trustworthy body of servants. They are badly paid at the present moment, and the right hon. Gentleman will, I think, admit that their demands are fair and just. I wish now to ask him what decision he has come to upon their Petition,' and whether he is inclined to accede to the request which they have made. There are other matters which I desire to bring before the right hon. Gentleman in no spirit of complaint. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby was, I think, quite correct when he stated that many reforms in the Post Office were needed before we took in hand such changes as has been so frequently and strenuously urged by the hon. Member for Canterbury, who has so near his heart the question of Ocean Penny Postage. Now, I desire to ask the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the anomalous position in which the people of the United Kingdom are placed in regard to the book post. Hon. Members frequently receive from the Continent printed matter, enclosed in an envelope, which is not sealed, but which is left open in such a manner that officials of the Post Office can in an instant ascertain if the packet contains any written communication. Packages thus sent come at a cheap rate. Yet, if we desire to send similar packages from England to the Continent, we have to pay
1430
exactly doable what Frenchmen and Germans have to pay in forwarding them to us. I cannot understand why the people in the United Kingdom should not have the same privileges, and not be able to address communications to friends on the Continent at the same rate as people living on the Continent are enabled to do, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give that question his serious consideration, and introduce this much-needed reform. A few weeks ago I happened to have occasion to address a few hundred communications to friends on the Continent, and I considered it sufficient for my purpose if the envelope in which the communications were enclosed was cut open as is the custom on the Continent, so as to enable any officials in connection with the Post Office to ascertain if the package contained any printed matter. Had the envelope been sealed, the cost of postage would have been 5d. each package, because it weighed a trifle over the half ounce, and I therefore resorted to this simple and ingenious plan of cutting open the envelope, thinking by that means to secure the privilege of the halfpenny post; but I was informed by the Postmaster in my district that this could not be allowed; that it was absolutely necessary for the envelope to be cut open from corner to corner. I declined naturally to go to the expense of 5d. for each package, and consequently the Post Office lost a revenue of several pounds, simply because this unfortunate restriction was enforced. Another question to which I wish to call attention is that of carte telegrams which are in vogue on the Continent, and by means of which a man can send a message for a charge, I believe, of 3d. to his friends through a pneumatic tube, the message being delivered in another part of the city within the hour. Could not we have some such system adopted in this country?
THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! That question must be raised on the Telegraph Vote.
MR. CREMER: Of course, Sir, if you rule that this is out of order now, I will defer my remarks upon it until the Telegraph Vote comes before the Committee. In conclusion, I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to consider whether the enormous revenue which he

1431
derives for the working of the machinery of the Post Office cannot be utilised for some of these reforms? I admit that, in the main, his management of the institution is economical, although, I have had to complain once or twice of ukases which he has issued, and which I believe to be tyrannical to the employæs. It was never contemplated that the Government should make a profit of two or three millions out of this Department. It was never intended that it should be worked for the mere purposes of profit. I think the men employed ought to be better paid than they are. I sometimes pity them for the work which they have to do. For instance, in the office which I occupy, they have to mount 40 or 50 steps in order to deliver my letters, and yet those letters are delivered with punctuality, and the men are remarkably courteous and obliging, although they are underpaid for the labours which they have to perform. We have been frequently told that the rate of wages should be governed by the law of supply and demand. If that doctrine were to be applied to the highest class of officials, as well as to the lowest ranks, well and good. If the right hon. Gentleman will permit me to say so, I think there are many men quite competent to discharge the duties of his office who would be willing to do so at a much lower remuneration than he receives. There are also many other very well paid officials in the Post Office, whose duties might be as efficiently performed at a less salaries than are now paid. I hold that we are not justified in applying this doctrine of political economy to the lower grade of servants in the Post Office and not to the higher grades. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to give me an answer to the questions I have raised, and to say whether he is prepared to give these hard-working men an increase of 2s. or 3s. a week in their wages. I should also like to know what step he intends to take with regard to the countermen's Memorial—whether he will introduce the much-needed reform in the book post to which I have referred, and whether he will adopt the system of carte telegrams so advantageously and economically applied on the Continent of Europe?
MR. CHANGING: I wish to bring again before the
1432
Postmaster General the question which I raised last year, and to ask how far the reforms then promised with regard to the employment of postmen indoor and outdoor on Sundays have been carried into effect? I moved last year a reduction of the salary of the right hon. Gentleman, and he in reply made a very reassuring statement as to the policy of the Department. Will he now tell us what further steps he has taken in advance towards diminishing the labour of rural and urban messengers and of indoor officials on Sundays? The arguments I advanced last year were based on the statements of Sir Arthur Blackwood, that there were still between 1,000 and 1,200 rural messengers obliged to work every Sunday, and I then received an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman that certain sums had been set apart for diminishing still further the number of those employed on Sundays as rural messengers. I hope that to-night he will be able to announce that the Department has seen its way to further reduce the number of men so employed, and that the rule of alternate employment on Sundays has been generally adopted at but a trifling extra cost to the country. With regard to the indoor officials, the facts were still most striking. Of course, the difficulty of reform in their case was much greater, as the skill and knowledge possessed by those officials necessarily limits their number; but, still, we were told that in the provinces many of these officials were working seven Sundays out of eight, and three Sundays out of four, and obviously there was a large margin for reform in that respect. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to state that something more has been done in that direction. The general policy of the Department has been fully discussed, but I cannot part with this Vote without saying that, while I recognise that the Department has been vigorously and economically, and wisely managed in many ways, it is, nevertheless, the duty of any Member dealing with this question in this House to record his opinion that the right hon. Gentleman has not shown that promptitude and tact in dealing with the Post Office employæs which would have prevented the irritation which has arisen, reaching the point it did; and that, probably, had he seen

1433
his way to the application of these remedies and reforms more rapidly, that action would have saved many good and honest men who went out on strike from being dismissed for insubordination; so that instead of running themselves as they have done, they might now have been earning a fair remuneration and living happily upon it. I sincerely regret that these reforms, good as they are, were not introduced in time to avoid the loss of these men's services. The hon. Member for Haggerston (Mr. Cremer) has made one or two practical suggestions as to the Post Office work I should like to ask one question of the right hon. Gentleman with regard to the method of dealing with registered letters. In the United States, when a registered letter is sent, the sender receives back, through the Post Office, a signed receipt from the receiver. I wish to ask whether the right hon. Gentleman has considered the possibility of introducing such a practice into this country. I think that, if the difficulties in the way are not found to be insuperable, great advantage might be derived from the extra security afforded by this method.
GENERAL GOLDSWORTHY: I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to go a step further, and do something that would place us in a better position in regard to the general delivery of letters. An hon. Member has said he did not think it desirable that the Government should pay large wages to the postmen; but, for my part, I regard it as somewhat mean on the part of the Government that they should pay the lowest market rate of wages to the servants they employ. I trust the Government will in future see their way to place these men in a somewhat better position. With regard to the remark of the last speaker, that the recent reforms might have been made earlier, I would point out that the time of the Postmaster General, and the heads of other Departments of the State, is so much occupied in this House in answering the wearisome iteration and reiteration of speeches by hon. Members opposite, that they are unable to give the requisite attention to the performance of the duties connected with their Departments. I regret, for my own part, that the Postmaster General could not see his way
1434
much earlier than he did to ameliorate the condition of the poorer class of employes in the Post Office, but, at the same time, I think there are great excuses for him and for other Members of the Government placed in a similar position. Although Ministers may, under such circumstances, make mistakes, I shall, nevertheless, support them [Laughter.] Hon. Members opposite may laugh, but, at the same time, what I have said is a fact which has been proved by experience, and one of which right hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench have just reason to complain. Having said this, I merely wish to ask the Postmaster General whether he cannot go a little further in improving the position of the letter carriers, a matter which, I think, fairly demands his serious consideration.
MR. J. C. STEVENSON: I do not rise to urge the Postmaster General to do anything more than endeavour to make the public better acquainted with the accommodation which the Post Office already affords. I would call his attention to the Post Office Guide, a book which is issued by the Department for the information of the public. I think that if the right hon. Gentleman would issue a fresh edition of that book, containing information of a plainer and more simple character, much good would be done. The regulations as to the postal charges on letters are coached in language which is capable of great improvement. The public at present possess means of accommodation which they do not know of. For instance, it is not generally known that an arrangement exists whereby a person, having sent a letter to be forwarded by a foreign mail, may have an addition to that letter or an independent communication forwarded by telegraph at one half-penny a word on payment of the ocean letter postage. I myself sent a letter which left a provincial post office for the mail from Queenstown to America, and, when I asked if what I have just referred to could be done, the postmaster told me that no such arrangement existed, but it fortunately happened that one of the clerks did know of that arrangement, which will be found on p. 417 of the Post Office Guide. It is extremely useful that the public should know that by means of a telegram they may overtake

1435
letters going to foreign parts by adding the ocean postage to the inland telegraph charge, but no one would ever find this out by reading the paragraph relating to the matter which appears in the Post Office Guide.
MR. HEKNIKER HEATON": I have spent much time in investigating the accounts of the Post Office, and I have found that for many years the Surplus Revenue has been nearer £4,000,000 than £3,000,000, as stated by the right hon. Member for Bradford. But the way in which the Post Office accounts are presented is so confusing that it is very difficult for an outsider to understand them. Matters that ought to be kept separate are mixed up with one another in a very unsatisfactory manner. The whole of the expenditure in regard to the purchase of sites, for instance, is charged to Revenue Account by the Post Office Department, a thing which no private firm would do. Again, in seeking to get at the exact accounts, I find that up to a certain period the whole of the packet service was charged to the Post Office General Account, whereas in other countries, such as France, Germany, and America, it is properly charged to a separate account. Another point to which I wish to draw attention is this —that the question of the payment of large sums to foreign Governments in connection with the mail service ought to be submitted to Parliament, which, under the present system, has no means practically of checking or dealing with them. I have no hesitation is asserting that the expenditure of that money without its being submitted to the House of Commons is illegal. The fact is that the Post Office plan of dealing with the accounts would not be tolerated in any large private firm. I am most anxious that the Department should present to the House of Commons a business-like and commercial statement of its transactions. If we had a statement of that character, showing the expenditure on buildings, and the absolute receipts from all quarters, we should have a more satisfactory state of things than at present. The actual Revenue receipts of the Post Office are £13,000,000 a year, while the actual expenditure does not amount to £9,000,000. These facts can be proved by the Treasury statement, but there
1436
were no fewer than three different statements of account in connection with the Post Office presented last year, and the whole three differed one from another. I think the suggestion that has been made by the right hon. Member for Bradford, that the surplus above a fixed sum of Revenue should be devoted to the improvement and cheapening of the Postal and Telegraph Services, is a fair one, and should be taken into consideration, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer has evaded the main point, and says it cannot be done, and points out that the Revenue is not so much as we say it is, and that if it amounts to less than £3,000,000, the proposition of the right hon. Member for Bradford would be of no avail. But if you fix the amount at £3,000,000, and the Revenue does not reach that amount, it is only fair to say there is nothing available for improvements; but, if on the contrary, that amount is exceeded, the excess ought to be devoted to improving and cheapening the Postal Telegraph Services. Some compliments have been paid by the right hon. Member for Bradford to the administration of the Post Office. I am not prepared to bring before the House the numerous grievances which justify me in differing from the right hon. Gentleman, but I venture to assert that any officer, however eminent, entering the Post Office, at once becomes as stubborn and obstinate as any official in the country. The moment Sir Rowland Hill entered the Post Office he became an official in every sense of the word—obstinate, obstructive, and objected to every proposal for affording facilities to the public. I need only point to the troubles which arose between Sir Rowland Hill and the Press, especially in the case of the Times, to indicate the way in which official obstruction operated. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby said that most of the reforms which I have advocated are directed to improving communication with our people abroad, but the right hon. Gentleman forgets that the profits we derive from such communication with our friends abroad are so large as amply to justify our asking for a small reduction of the rates. From Australia we receive £300,000 a year in small money orders, and from America as much as£l,250,000. I have not the slightest doubt that

1437
before another year is passed my right hon. Friend on the Treasury Bench will be willing to accede to my request for an Imperial penny postage. One of the local grievances we suffer from is the charge for re-addressing letters. Any foreign letter coming to England is re-addressed, if necessary, without charge, whereas an English letter requiring to be re-addressed in this country undergoes an extra charge of 50 or 100 per cent. I understand the Postmaster General is in favour of this change, but his applications on the subject have been refused by the Treasury. I believe it can be shown that considerably more than half the applications made to the Treasury, for even the most petty conveniences, have been refused. It was only in 1888 that I asked the Postmaster General to institute a very small reform, namely, that the charge of 2d. for the receipt of sixpenny telegrams should no longer be made. He promised that that should be done, but four months ago he wrote tome saying that, in accordance with his promise, he had made application to the Treasury, and that the Treasury had refused it. A more humiliating confession I never heard of the sort of petty annoyances to which the right hon. Gentleman is subjected by the Treasury. In another case, a stamp having fallen off a letter a charge of 2d. was made for fixing the unused stamp upon the letter. With regard to the sending of circulars in open envelopes, I have urged the right hon. Gentleman to introduce that reform, but he has been unable to do it. Another reform I wanted is, that the use of postal cards, upon which we can affix stamps, should be allowed. That is a common-sense reform, yet the Treasury will not grant it. I wish to know how long we are to wait for a reform with respect to the supplements to illustrated papers, which are required to bear a date before the Post Office will carry them. Before sitting down I wish to ask when will the reduced rate of postage with India and Australia come into operation? These parts of the Empire have agreed to it, and are anxiously waiting for the great boon to be conferred upon them. There is no difficulty in the matter, and yet we are told, in answer to repeated questions, that all the colonies in the British Empire must agree before it is carried out.
THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES,): I would point out to the Committee that, however interesting and attractive may be the principle that there should be no such thing as a Post Office Surplus, the question is whether the House of Commons would assent to such a principle when it is recognised that the adoption of the policy suggested means additional taxation to the extent of £3,000,000 a year. I must say I think the day is very distant when the House of Commons is likely to accept the very interesting and attractive theory that there should be no surplus derived from working the Post Office, when it is recognised that the adoption of the policy suggested would mean additional taxation to the extent of £3,000,000 a year. The hon. Member for Northampton used an expression with regard to the lower grades of postmen which was, perhaps, rather rhetorical; and he also suggested that their wages are too low to be compatible with honesty. I hope no wages can be too low for honesty in this country. I trust it will never be the case that there will be found working men who will put forward as an excuse for dishonesty that their wages are not so large as they should be.
MR. BRADLAUGH: I did not put it quite so broadly as that, I think I put it that the temptation to a poor man entrusted with articles of value was more than he could resist when he was underpaid.
MR. RAIKES: I appreciate that view of the case. There have been cases of dishonesty amongst the postmen, but those who are most experienced in these matters assure me that the cases of dishonesty in the service of the Post Office which can in any way be connected with absolute poverty are very rare. Cases of dishonesty are mostly to be traced to bad habits or bad company. Considering the extraordinary amount and value of the property passing through the Post Office the number of offences is extremely small, and the Post Office quite holds its own with the other Public Departments with regard to honesty. With regard to what fell from the hon. Member for Flintshire (Mr. S. Smith) his speech formed something of an object lesson illustrative of the speech of the

1439
right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt). The hon. Member found this a suitable occasion to press upon the Government the claims of Liverpool to be provided with a new Post Office, the site for which would cost something like £250,000, and the building £150,000 more. There is, therefore, a demand upon the Post Office surplus for something like £400,000 in respect of one great and wealthy community. I do not at all deny that the Post Office at Liverpool is not in the most convenient part of the town, and I do not believe that the Post Office buildings are the best adapted for the purpose. I should be extremely glad if I could see my way to find a better site, and provide better buildings for Liverpool, but I think that the hon. Member for Flintshire must remain satisfied with this general statement upon my part; and, at all events, it is well that Liverpool should bear in mind that it will be necessary that Liverpool itself should come forward with something in the shape of an offer to get rid of the premises at present occupied, and which, at all events, can be made to do for some years longer, before the Government can undertake the enormous expenditure of providing new premises. I am happy to take the opportunity of correcting the hon. Member's statement as to the insanitary condition of the present building. I have had inquiry made into the subject, and I find the health of the staff of Liverpool quite up to the average of the staffs of ordinary Post Offices. The hon. Member for Boston (Mr. Atkinson) referred to a question which he has frequently mooted in this House, namely, the charge for re-direction of inland letters. I cannot see why letters should be carried free a second journey, which involves exactly the same amount of cost to the Post Office as the first journey. I admit, however, that since letters coming from abroad can be re-directed free, there does seem some injustice in charging for re-direction in the case of home letters. This forms one of the subjects now being inquired into by a Departmental Committee, with a view to legislation early next Session. As to the London countermen, I am glad to inform the hon. Member who spoke from below the Gangway on the opposite side of the House, that, under the new regula-
1440
tions promulgated a few weeks ago, these men will reap substantial benefit, a higher maximum rate of pay being obtainable by those in both the first and second class. As to the question of open envelopes being conveyed at book post rates, the matter is being inquired into by the same Committee, and must, therefore, stand over until next year. I hope to be able next year to make some positive proposal on the matter. With regard to the observations of the hon. Member for North am ptonshire, who pressed me as to Sunday labour, the policy of the Department is continually to diminish Sunday labour, and during the past year I have been steadily pursuing that policy in the case of certain classes of rural postmen. Indoor labour, being skilled, is not so easily dealt with; but, under the new arrangement which has just been sanctioned by the Treasury, sorting clerks in the provinces will, in future, receive extra pay for Sunday labour. There has been some misunderstanding as to the terms of the engagement of these clerks, which are different from those of their London brethren. The provincial clerks are engaged for 50 hours per week, 48 hours on week-days and two on Sundays, while the London clerks are engaged for 48 hours only, and receive extra pay for Sunday labour. Under the new arrangement, therefore, the provincial clerks may be said, in a sense, to be paid for Sunday labour twice over. With regard to the Hammersmith Post Office, which my hon. and gallant Friend (General Goldsworthy) wishes to see raised in rank, if I cannot do all the hon. and gallant Gentleman asks, I hope I shall be able to do something in the direction indicated. As to the question raised by the hon. Member for Shields, the question of simplifying and reducing the tables of postage was the raison d'etre of the Departmental Committee I have already referred to, and was the first subject I asked them to inquire into. I hope that in that direction also I shall be able to introduce legislation next Session. I do not wish to revive the question of the position of the postmen. The hon. Member for North am ptonshire (Mr. Channing) thinks the recent unfortunate difficulties might have been avoided if I had had more tact. I daresay if the hon.

1441
Member had been in my position a display of tact would not have been wanting. But, at all events, we do our best in the Public Service, and I am inclined to believe, now that we have got rid of the outside disturbing element, that the relations between the postmen and their official chiefs are likely to be of a harmonious and satisfactory character. I speak from the experience of the interviews I have had with the postmen. I think it necessary to say that before the late disturbances I had on the anvil a scheme for improving the position of the non-established Force, which was before the Treasury, and if the disturbances had not taken place it would have been promulgated some time ago. I am happy to say that I have obtained the sanction of the Treasury to my proposals, which I believe will tend to improve the position of the non-established postmen who have remained true and loyal. I wish to correct one misapprehension. It is supposed that the position of the Government is that only the market value should be paid for labour of this sort. Those who sat in the Committee will remember that I laid down a different doctrine the other day. My own view is, that while the market value must be the governing consideration, because we are not dealing with our own money, but with the money of the taxpayers, the taxpayers would wish that, in applying that standard to those in the Public Service, we should always bear in mind that a great Government should treat its employes liberally. I have long considered that the wages which the non-established men are receiving, though they may be suitable in the case of boys, are not adequate in the case of adults. The hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Henniker-Heaton) has gone over some familiar ground. The hon. Member has dealt with the question of account, which, I am afraid, must remain an open question between him and the Post Office. I only wish I had the surplus the hon. Member would give me. I have, however, to be content with the somewhat smaller surplus which is shown by the official figures. I am inclined to agree with the hon. Member that the purchase of sites should come from capital, but as we have no capital account, that charge must come out of the Revenue of the year. The question
1442
of half-penny stamps on cards is one which is occupying the attention of the Departmental Committee. I wish I could state when the new postal rates to the colonies and India will begin; but I am certain the time cannot be long deferred. Certain questions have arisen with regard to dealing with India, and the Committee will understand that if two mails travel together in the same ship, and form part of the same post, it is in the highest degree desirable to deal with them together. I hope that an arrangement with regard to India will be soon completed, and when it is, I shall be glad to announce to the House the beginning of the new rates. I will not inflict on the Committee a repetition of the reasons which have led the Government to decline to adopt a system of Ocean Penny Postage. I think it was rather unfortunate that in this year in particular, when the civilised world has been celebrating the jubilee of the Penny Post, which was established by the exertions of Sir Rowland Hill, the hon. Gentleman should have thought it his duty to speak of that great man as "an obstinate and obstructive official." I hope that those who appreciate the merits of that description of Sir Rowland Hill will be able to discount the value of any of the hon. Gentleman's statements with respect to the present Postmaster General. I thank the Committee for listening to this somewhat discursive speech, and I hope hon. Members will now allow the Vote' to pass, particularly as we have before us another Post Office Vote which may give rise to some discussion.
MR. J. ROWLANDS: I do not wish to detain the Committee long, but I think I am justified in occupying some little time on this occasion. I am glad to hear that the right hon. Gentleman has a scheme ready for dealing with the postmen not on the general staff, and I hope it will be a generous one. At the same time, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will bear in mind that there is a strong opinion that that portion of the Service should be kept as low as possible. I was glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman say that good relations now exist between himself and the postmen. I would appeal to him to say whether, the outside element having now gone, he cannot treat the men who, unfortunately,

1443
forgot themselves on a recent occasion, in a generous spirit, and take a very large number of them back into the Service again. I want to know whether, within the past few days, men in the sorting service have been called upon to give an explanation of their conduct for having shown some sympathy with the postmen at the time of the strike. I desire also to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he can give me any information as to what progress is being made in the consideration of the Memorial which was presented to him by the London sorting staff. The staff are very anxious to have the questions raised in the Memorial settled, especially when they know that the Memorial of another Department, presented after theirs, has been dealt with. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will also say whether the female sorters in the Savings Bank and Postal Order Department will come within the scope of the alterations he proposes to make?
MR. MACARTNEY: I wish to call attention to the transference of mails at Kingstown and Holyhead. I gathered from an answer made the other day by the President of the Local Board of Trade (Sir M. Hicks Beach), that the service cannot be perfected, because the Post Office and the Railway Companies are somewhat reluctant in assisting the Board of Trade in the matter. The boat service is at present one of the best carried out in the United Kingdom, and I do not think I need do more than call the attention of the Postmaster General to the delay which occurs very frequently on both sides of the Channel, owing to the means of transferring the mails from the trains to the steamers and from the steamers to the trains. I do not press my right hon. Friend for an answer at the present moment, but I would like to call his attention to the fact that passengers and the public at large are much inconvenienced by the present delay in the transfer of mails, and I earnestly hope the Post Office will see its way to use a little effort with the Railway Companies to induce them to carry out the improvement,
MR. BURT: I wish to join my hon. Friend the Member for Finsbury (Mr. J. Rowlands) in his appeal with regard to the men who have
1444
recently been dismissed from the Post Office. A few days ago the Postmaster General promised to make an investigation into the case of these men, but he has not, in the speech he has just delivered, made any reference to the matter. Considering the result of that unfortunate dispute, I think the right hon. Gentleman is in a position to act with magnanimity and generosity, and I trust he may see his way to reinstate, if not the whole, a great number of the men dismissed.
MR. KELLY: I am anxious to put a question to the Postmaster General with reference to-the system of opening letters in the Post Office. Hon. Members sitting opposite are constantly in the habit of asserting that their letters are opened, and there are few who have at one time or another darkly hinted at something of the kind. The hon. Member for West Mayo (Mr. Deasy) has asserted that when he went to Australia his letters were opened, and the charge which he then made against a postmaster there had a singular and amusing result, as the Committee will remember. I, therefore, think I am justified in asking the Postmaster General whether there is any truth in these allegations. I feel all the more justified in putting the question because of the remarks of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) made at a banquet given in his honour, of the 28th June last. Speaking of the day of the memorable Division which took place on the 19th June (which he characterised as a critical and snatched Division), the hon. Member for the City of Cork said that had he and his Colleagues known the Division was to be taken they would have been present, and he added—
"We could not send out a Whip because it is a notorious fact that Government open our letters, and if we had had the time to send out a Whip it would have defeated its object."
There may be times when there is some justification for opening letters, but it is an act which the country would resent very bitterly if done when no real necessity existed for it. As I understand, the opening of letters can only be done on the warrant of the Home Secretary. No one can suggest that there is now the slightest ground for opening letters of hon. Members opposite,

1445
or, so far as I know, at any time since 1886. I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman if it is a fact that the letters of hon. Members opposite are opened, and whether, since he has been Postmaster General, the Home Secretary has upon a single occasion given his warrant authorising the opening of any letter of any Irish Member?
SIR G. CAMPBELL: I have put down an Amendment to the Supplementary Estimate, but I do not propose to move it, because, if I did, I should be precluded from drawing attention to a local grievance of my own, which I have already submitted to the Postmaster General. Burntisland is not a very large town, but it is a very important commercial place. As soon as the Forth Bridge was opened it was placed very much in the position of Aberystwith, that is to say, its letters were carried past it, and then sent back later in the day, but too late for business men. I am always for economy, and I know the difficulty the Postmaster General has in dealingwith Railway Companies. But, at the same time, up to the present, Burntisland has enjoyed excellent postal facilities, and it is rather hard it should now be placed in a position of peculiar disadvantage. I trust the right hon. Gentleman will consider the matter as favourably as he can. With regard to the Motion I have on the Paper, let me say I think we ought to give to the Post Office servants something more than the market rate. We require these people to surrender a certain part of their civil rights, and we ought to bear that in mind in remunerating them. I have had some official experience, and I am ready to acknowledge that the Post Office took the best stand of all the Departments in the recent disputes. We have been given to understand that the Postmaster General has made some recommendation with regard to the salaries of the unestablished postmen. It is well the right hon. Gentleman should give us some information as to the nature of the increase in wages he proposes, and as to the reason for the proposal. There is one matter I have to express a little doubt in regard to, and that is his proposal that there should be no deduction in case of absence from sickness. I am inclined to think it is an excellent plan that in cases of
1446
short and casual absence from sickness no deduction should be made, but we know that people very often stop away on account of sickness, when they know that they are not to lose anything. People who have to make their money from day to day are very slow to lay up. Again, I think the Postmaster General will find that if there is no deduction, a good many men will not take care of their health. There are cases, for instance, in which sickness is caused by men's own fault.
MR. A. O'CONNOR: I desire to elicit from the right hon. Gentleman a satisfactory explanation on a point in regard to which I gave him a notice some days ago: it relates to the conduct of the Secretary to the Post Office attending a meeting at Exeter Hall. Some months ago a considerable amount of litigation took place in connection with the detention of children by a Dr. Barnardo. The Court of Queen's Bench at last issued a writ of habeas corpus, and intimated to Dr. Barnardo that unless he surrendered or produced the body of a certain child, who had been removed through his instrumentality to Canada,, he would be committed to prison. Upon that decision, an advertisement was issued to the effect that a mass meeting would be held in Exeter Hall, on the 10th December, 1889, that Sir Arthur Blackwood, K.C.B., would take the chair, and be supported by a great number of well known Christian workers, that the meeting would be addressed by Dr. Barnardo, who would place before the meeting all the facts in the Gossage case, and that it was earnestly desired that the meeting should be a triumphant rejoinder to the strictures so recently passed by the Court of Law, and re-echoed by the public Press, upon Dr. Barnardo. Knowing the position of Sir Arthur Blackwood, and the constitution in great part of the institution of which he was so important an official, I thought it incumbent upon me to write to the Postmaster General, drawing his attention to the matter. I pointed out in my letter that it was evident an attack was to be made on a portion of the community who are Catholics, and that I felt sure the right hon. Gentleman could not have been made aware of the contemplated action of the Secretary to the Post Office. The Postmaster

1447
General replied to me from Wales. He said he had communicated with Sir Arthur Blackwood, and was good enough to comment upon the temperate and conciliatory tone of my communication. I received the right hon. Gentleman's letter on the 9th of December, and the meeting was held on the 10th. Sir Arthur Blackwood was in the chair, and had, of course, to listen to the speech of Dr. Barnardo. Dr. Barnardo said he was most anxious to avoid making the least reflection on the learned Judges, but he went on to name two Judges, and only two, whom a very large portion of the public knew very well to be Roman Catholics. Speaking of the case of one child, he said—
"In that particular case the mother was a Roman Catholic and the father was a Protestant, or had been before he died. Well, to cut a long story short, I was able to send that child away, so that he could not be got at. I did not break the law, but I got the child away, and he is away now and doing very well."
Further on he mentioned the name of Mr. Justice Day. He said—
"I went hack into Court and said to Mr. Justice Day, 'My Lord, we have had these children for years; they are now going to leave us; cannot these lads have the privilege of three or four minutes conversation with them in the corridor alone?' Mr. Justice Day said, 'Certainly not, unless the Solicitor is present.' I put that to you to show that where religious feeling is strong you must remember—I say with all respect—even Judges are but men."
He added—
"If religious prejudice was not behind, you? would never have the bitter strictures coming from the Bench that have got into the papers about me."
And so Dr. Barnardo redeemed his promise of making a triumphant rejoinder to the strictures of the Bench. I do not complain of Dr. Barnardo; what I complain of is, the conduct of Sir Arthur Blackwood attending the meeting. In fairness to Sir Arthur Blackwood, however, I am bound to say there is more than one passage in his speech which goes to deprecate any extreme view of his conduct. He said he felt obliged, as a Vice President of Dr. Barnardo's Homes, to be present to show and express his unabated confidence in Dr. Barnardo's work, to stand by his friend, even if he had made a mistake. He also said he had received warning that the leading Roman Catholic newspaper, the Tablet, had written to the
1448
effect that the facts would be laid before the House of Commons. [Cheers.] Well, I can assure the hon. Gentleman who cheers that passage that I am not here to defend the Tablet. I do not attach importance to it, and far from considering it a leading Catholic paper, I think it anti-Catholic, and that it has done immense damage to religion. Sir Arthur Blackwood went on to say that it mattered little to him that Roman Catholic Members had expressed an intention to take up the position that his-taking part in a public meeting of this kind was evidence of his unfitness to hold the position of permanent head, under the Postmaster General, of a Department employing 100,000 servants, and to deal impartially with Roman Catholic servants of the Crown. He denied that anyone could charge him during the time he had held his official position with having allowed his deep, his extremely deep, religious convictions to interfere for one moment with the discharge of his duty to the State, or to influence him against (impartial dealing with any man whose religious convictions happened to differ from his own. Well, I think I have stated the facts of the case. I do not want to blame Sir Arthur Blackwood for his deep religious convictions, and the fact that these convictions are of a particular complexion is nothing to me. On that account he will never meet with the slightest objection or blame from me. My point is this: here is a public official, almost supreme head of a Department in which, as he says, he has 100,000 men under him—and of these a very considerable number belong to that portion of the community which this meeting was called to denounce and charge with conspiracy. I ask, is it possible after this public manifestation of his feelings that officials under him can look to him with confidence, and trust to be dealt with impartially where their religious convictions are known to be different from his own? I do not think it is reasonable to expect it. As a fact, there exists among the Post Office staff very considerable distrust as to their prospects of promotion or fair treatment where the religious feelings and convictions Sir Arthur Blackwood mentioned have any room for play. I desire to emphasise the case in this respect. It was a case in which the head of the Depart-

1449
ment, the Postmaster General himself, had communicated to his subordinate in reference to the matter, and after that communication was made, rightly and courteously made—and so far as I am concerned I have nothing to complain of in the action of the Postmaster General— this meeting was held, a meeting which I say it was utterly unfit for a man in the position of Sir Arthur Blackwood to attend, having regard to the decision of Judges on a most important point affecting the liberty of the subject, and where they had threatened to exercise their jurisdiction in a very extreme manner. Sir Arthur Blackwood went out of his way to attend a meeting advertised as for the purpose of making what was described as "a triumphant rejoinder to some strictures recently passed by the Court of Queen's Bench," and I say that was a line of conduct highly improper. With all due respect to the observations of the Secretary to the Post Office, I beg the Committee to remember that within recent times officials have been subjected to reprimand and punishment because they ventured to openly manifest their presence at meetings of a political character. Not very long ago a customs officer in Norfolk was removed, at his own expense, because he addressed a question to a speaker at a Primrose meeting. Well, if this is the way subordinates are treated, why is the Secretary to the Post Office treated differently? At least there is as much objection to attending a meeting convened to denounce the findings of Judges on a subject which excited a great deal of feeling in the country, as in attending as an ordinary citizen a public meeting. Yet in the one case an insignificant offender is visited with pains and penalties, while Sir A. Blackwood is allowed to go scot free, after attending this meeting in spite of a communication which he had received from the head of his Department. I do not wish to move a reduction in the Estimate, certainly I do not want to embarrass the Postmaster General, or detain the Committee. I should be glad to relieve the right hon. Gentlemen from the many hours attention he has given to these discussions; yet I do wish for a few minutes to prevent this subject being crossed by a number of others of local interest, and to secure this I formally move a reduction of the
1450
Vote by £100 in respect to the salary of the Secretary to the Post Office.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Item A be reduced by £100, part of Salary of the Secretary to the Post Office."—(Mr. Arthur O'Connor.')
MR. RAIKES: I presume I should not be in order, after the Amendment has been moved, in replying to questions put by several hon. Members relating to other branches of the Vote, and, therefore, I will confine myself to this particular matter. I very well remember the correspondence with the hon. Member opposite on this subject last year, but I confess that until recently I had thought that the hon. Member would have been satisfied with having made a protest against what he regards as an improper proceeding, and that he would not have thought it necessary to bring the matter before the Committee. I am not here to defend the terms of the notice convening the meeting, but Sir A. Blackwood was not in any way responsible for them; he consented to occupy the chair on that occasion because the person in whose immediate interest the meeting had been called is one who is an old friend of his, with whom he has been largely associated in various philanthropic and benevolent works, and he considered that it would be an unmanly act on his part not to stand by his friend when, as he believed, that friend was exposed to a good deal of obloquy, and desired an opportunity of clearing his character. I think it is impossible for any impartial man, reading through Sir Arthur Blackwood's speech, to come to the conclusion that he impugned the conduct of the Judges, or made random or reckless charges against our Catholic fellow-subjects, and I trust there is no such feeling as the hon. Member describes among Post Office employés of distrust of Sir Arthur Blackwood's general action in the Department, in consequence of proceedings at that meeting. Roman Catholics in the Post Office have no reason whatever to suspect Sir A. Blackwood of being prejudiced against them. I know that, on a recent occasion, when his Private Secretary was disabled, he secured the services in that most confidential position of a Roman Catholic Member of the Post Office staff. I

1451
think that is sufficient evidence that members of that religion have no right to expect other than fair and generous treatment. I think the Committee will agree with me that, having regard to the feeling which is always excited if there is any attempt to draw tightly the rules which preclude Civil Servants from taking part in public meetings. I should certainly have rendered myself liable to a good deal of criticism, and, I think, just criticism, if I had called upon an eminent public servant to absent himself from a meeting of a non-political character in which he had personal reasons for wishing to make himself an active participator. If the fact of Sir A. Blackwood's presence at this meeting has given offence to any class of his fellow-citizens I much regret it, but I am not prepared to censure Sir A. Blackwood for having done nothing more than exercise one of the rights appertaining to every subject of the Queen.
SIR R. N. FOWLER: As I was present at the meeting and moved a resolution, I may be allowed a word or two. The hon. Member opposite seems to think it was a political meeting, but most emphatically it was not so.
MR. A. CONNOR: I never said it was.
SIR R. N. FOWLER: You may call it a religious meeting, and, to a certain extent, it was so. It was attended by gentlemen belonging to all Protestant denominations, and, politically, I suppose the majority were attached to the Party opposite. But it was not a political meeting in any sense. What Sir Arthur Blackwood's political views are I do not know, and as a Civil Servant he takes no active part in politics; but my impression is that his political views are largely in sympathy with those of hon. Gentlemen opposite. But this is only my impression. My personal acquaintance with Sir Arthur Blackwood is slight, but I feel it an honour to have been associated with one who has shown so much devotion to the good of his fellow men, and in promoting the best interests of his countrymen.
MR. A. O'CONNOR: I am afraid the hon. Baronet has misunderstood the drift of my observations. I do not want to raise any religious question, and I did not suppose that this was a
1452
political meeting. The meeting, no doubt, was attended by those who represented various shades of non-Catholic opinion. I do not object to that; they were acting as they thought fit. What I object to is, that a public servant in the position of Sir Arthur Blackwood could reconcile his action with that impartiality which a man in his position should maintain. He not only attended the meeting, but, as Chairman, he sat and listened while two Judges were denounced by name for the exercise of what they thought their duty on the Bench. That appears to me extraordinary conduct for a man in Sir Arthur Blackwood's position. Remember there are many men on these Benches who have been sent to prison in Ireland for words used by somebody else on the platforms where they happened to be, or for the language of the advertisement calling a meeting which they attended. I object to the different treatment in the case of a highly favoured public servant. I think it was an improper thing for Sir Arthur Blackwood to do to attend the meeting, and the right hon. Gentleman cannot gloss over the fact that a public servant in this prominent position should listen to public denunciation of two Judges by name simply because they happened to be of a religious complexion different to his own. As a protest against the manner in which this, my complaint, has been met, I think it my duty to take a division.
(11.20.) The Committee divided:— Ayes 64; Noes 185.—(Div. List. No. 217.)
Original Question again proposed.
DR. CLARK: I wish to call attention to the question of accelerating the Northern Mails. I understand that the North-Eastern Mails are to be accelerated, and I want our grievances in the far North to be also attended to. There are 3,000 or 4,000 fisher people on the North-West Coast, and a letter can go from England to America almost as quickly as one from Stornoway to the Coast of Caithness and the Orkney Islands. These people are practically as far from each other as they were 100 years ago. If a letter is posted at Stornoway for Caithness on Monday it is not delivered till the following Thursday, although the distance is only 100 miles.

1453
The reason is that the Postmaster General has for years been fighting with the Highland Railway on this subject. At one time I sympathised with the right hon. Gentleman, but since then we have had the arbitration in which Lord Derby was umpire, and the decision went against the Postal Authorities, who had to pay the Highland Railway Company about £12,000 more than that Company offered to give them for the facilities they asked for. I hope they will soon come to terms with that Company. The whole thing is a perfect farce. There are 10 hours between the arrival of the morning and evening mails, and yet both are delivered at the same time. At least one of these mails ought to be abolished unless a better arrangemant can be come to. At Thurso the local mails are detained in the post office from 12 to 18 hours. The reason is that the Postmaster at Thurso is interested in some of the coaches which run from that place to various towns in the country, and these are the only coaches which carry the mails. The consequence is that the mails are detained until the coaches in which the Postmaster is interested are able to start. I would suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should give us a Departmental Committee to inquire into these matters so that the people of the Highlands may obtain the same facilities as are afforded to the rest of the country.
MR. W. M'ARTHUR: I should like briefly to call the attention of the Postmaster General to the Postal Service between London and the West of England. It will be seen that the matter is one of great importance, when the population and interests of that part of the country are considered. Memorials have been presented to the right hon. Gentleman from the counties of Cornwall, Devon, Hampshire, Dorset, and Somerset, and I trust he will be enabled to come to some arrangement by which the service of that large district will be accelerated.
MR. RAIKES: In reference to the remarks just made by the hon. Member opposite, I may inform him that the matter to which he refers has
1454
been thoroughly thrashed out in the Department, and that proposals in reference to it are now before the Treasury. I quite admit that the people of that district have special claims to consideration, but, as I have already stated, the matter has been thoroughly investigated. Allusion has been made to the opening of letters from Irish Members at the Post Office. In reply to that accusation, I have only to say that it has no foundation whatever. With regard to the service between Stornoway and the mainland, I admit that there is much delay, and I am in hopes that before long the arrangements may be materially improved. With reference to the Service between London and the West of England, I am sorry to say that I am not at present in a position to hold out any hope of its improvement. I trust that now the Committee may be enabled to agree to this Vote.
MR. CONYBEARE: I cannot but express my surprise that the remarks of the hon. Member for St. Austell have not been received more favourably. The question of affording greater facilities for the Postal Service to Plymouth concerns the entire counties of Devon, Cornwall, Somerset, Hants, and Dorset, and their case has been represented to the right hon. Gentleman on behalf of no less than 300 Town Councils, Petty Sessional Divisions and Public Bodies generally in those counties, the deputation which waited on the Postmaster General having been described as the most numerous and influential ever received by the Department. Why cannot the Government arrange with the Great Western and South Western Companies to run midnight trains from Paddington and Waterloo to Plymouth? But I am mainly concerned in behalf of the population of the far West, where the population is very considerable, and the mining and other industries pursued are of great importance. The postal facilities afforded to that district cannot be described as superlatively good; in fact, they are far behind those that are afforded to any

1455
other part of the country. The amount required to effect the requisite improvement would be very small, and if the Government would only consider the propriety of giving us these facilities, instead of squandering money on persons like the Duke of St. Albans in the commutation of pensions which never aught to have been bestowed, they would be doing something that would meet with public approval. I am not anxious to delay the taking of this Vote, and, therefore, shall not detain the Committee by bringing forward another complaint on a subject as to which I will call attention at a later stage.
MR. CAUSTON: I wish to call attention to a matter of some practical importance, namely, the absurdity, as admitted by the Postmaster General himself, of the existing regulations relative to the postage of invoices and voters' claims bearing certain directions at foot. The right hon. Gentleman proposed to introduce a Bill to deal with that question, and that Bill was introduced, but, before the House had had an opportunity of seeing it in print, it was withdrawn. I wish to ask whether the existing regulations are made under the provisions of an Act of Parliament or by the Postmaster General himself. If the latter, then the right hon. Gentleman has the power to institute the necessary reforms.
COLONEL NOLAN: The right hon. Gentleman has stated that no letter from an Irish Member has been opened by the Post Office Authorities, but does he mean that no such letter has been opened under the sanction of the Home Secretary, who alone has authority in such cases?
MR. RAIKES: What I said was that no such letter had been opened. Of course the Committee is aware that no letter can be opened by the Postmaster General except under the authority of the Home Secretary. In reply to the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Causton), I have to say that I believe the regulations he
1456
refers to wore made in accordance with the Statute under a Treasury Warrant, which has had to be interpreted by the legal advisers of the Department. I regret the interpretation that has been put upon this document, but I trust that no great length of time will elapse before I shall be able to deal with this question.
MR. WINTERBOTHAM: I wish to make a claim on behalf of the rural postmen. At present they have to buy their own boots, which is a great hardship, because they have to walk enormous distances and their wages are admittedly not very high. The concession I ask for would be a very small one; but, at the same time, it would be very popular with a very deserving body of public servants, namely, that their boots should be found, together with the rest of their uniforms. Another point I wish to bring forward is that, whereas in the West of England a letter may be posted to Dublin in the evening and delivered next morning, letters posted in Dublin in the evening are not delivered in the West of England until the following afternoon. In fact, the post one way is a day, and the reverse way a day and a half. This is a matter which ought to be looked into and remedied.
MR. RAIKES: In reply to the hon. Gentleman, I have to inform him that, on the question of the postmen's boots, I promised the postmen the other day that this should be one of the many subjects I intend to take up.
Question put, and agreed to.
2. £539,829, to complete the sum for the Post Office Packet Service.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum not exceeding £1,583,845 (including a Supplementary sum of £50,000), be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1891, for the Salaries

1457
And Working Expenses of the Post Office Telegraph Service."
Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again,"—(Sir Edward Reed,) —put, and agreed to.
Resolutions to be reported to-morrow.
Committee also report Progress; to sit again to-morrow.

EMPLOYERS LIABILITY FOE INJURIES TO WORKMEN BILL.—(No. 172.)
Order for Second Reading read, and discharged.
Bill withdrawn.

ELECTORAL DISABILITIES (NAVAL, MILITARY, AND POLICE) BILL. (No. 146.)
Order for resuming Adjourned Debate on Instruction to Committee [24th June] read, and discharged.
Bill withdrawn.

REFORMATORY SCHOOLS BILL [LORDS].—(No. 347.)
Order for Second Reading read, and discharged.
Bill withdrawn.

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL.—(No. 388.)
Bill considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2.
MR. KELLY: I beg to move the omission of Sub-section (2). I wish it to be understood that in making this Motion I am not actuated by any hostility to the London County Council, though I am bound to admit that I think in some respects the Council has disappointed us. I remember distinctly that as candidates a great majority of the members of the London Council spoke very freely about economy. They told us there was
1458
to be an era of proper and reasonable economy; there was to be no paid Deputy Chairman and no palatial residence or Council Chamber. The first promise was, however, very soon forgotten, and this is not the first occasion on which we have seen this mysterious clause as to the acquisition of a site for a Council Chamber. With the hon. Member for North St. Pancras (Mr. T. H. Bolton). I hope and believe the day is rot far distant when London will be one when we shall not have a Council for the City and another for London, but one Council for the whole Metropolis. I believe so completely that this will be the case that I think it would be absolute insanity to build a Council Chamber for the present London County Council. In time the County Council will have the Guildhall, a finer meeting place than anything they can build. I am reminded that this clause is guarded by the words "with the approval of the Treasury," but I think the Council would be well advised to postpone the question of a Council Chamber until they have learned what their constituents have to say upon the subject. Their constituents will not be likely to give them their votes again if they talked of spending £500,000 upon a palatial Council Chamber. I trust the Committee will omit this sub-section.
Amendment proposed, in Clause 2, to leave out sub-section (2).—(Mr. Kelly.)
Question proposed, "That sub section (2) stands part of the Clause."
MR. T. H. BOLTON: I do not think the Committee will consider that, in the observations I am about to make, I have the slightest hostility to the London County Council. On the contrary, I very cordially support the general policy of that body. I feel, however, there is a great deal of force in the remarks of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Kelly). With him, I am of opinion that the County Council need not take power to raise a large sum of money for the purpose of acquiring a site for a new Council Chamber and offices. The Council have expended a very considerable sum of money—some thousands of

1459
pounds—in adapting the old Metropolitan Board Room and offices to their requirements, and I am told by members of the Council that the Board Room meets the reasonable requirements of the Council. I hear there are also lobbies, tea rooms, and every other convenience and accommodation for the members. It is suggested that the offices are dispersed; but the offices of Her Majesty's Government are dispersed. The business of the country is far more important than that of the County Council of London, and yet I do not understand that any inconvenience arises from the public offices not being all under one roof. I am sorry the County Council make this proposition, because it is a sort of admission that their present position will continue. I did hope they looked forward to the time when, by friendly union with the Corporation of the City, there would be one great Municipal Authority for the whole of the Metropolis. The necessary consequence of that would be, that the County Council would go to the centre of London: they would go to the Guildhall, and there merge the old traditions of the Corporation in the aspirations of the younger municipal life. I look forward to the time when this House will unite the two bodies. The County Council would be very unwise to spend a large sum of money upon a site involving as it would the expenditure of another large sum upon a meeting house, because, in that case, London would have more municipal offices than it could use. We do not want two sets of great buildings in London for municipal purposes. I trust the right hon. Baronet the Member for the University of London (Sir J. Lubbock), who so ably represents the County Council, will withdraw this section of the Bill, so that the House may indirectly express its opinion that the time is not far distant when we shall have one authority for the whole of London. I know that the other night the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. Fowler) suggested that it was proper we should leave the matters dealt with by this Bill to the representative body of London; but at present the responsibility of approving of this Bill lies with us, and we ought to fulfil our obligations as intelligent men.
1460
I believe I represent the feeling of a large number of the people of London—I certainly represent the feeling of a good many members of the County Council—-[Sir J. LUBBOCK: [No, no.] —when I say they are not at all disposed to spend money in the erection of a new Council Chamber and of new offices. This point was only carried in the Council after discussion and division, and many of the best men on the Council are of opinion that the proposed outlay is unnecessary. Therefore, while I do not desire to assume any hostile attitude towards the County Council, I beg to support the proposition of the hon. Member for Camber well.
SIR J. LUBBOCK: I quite appreciate the friendly spirit in which both my hon. Friends have addressed the Committee, and I entirely recognise that in the Motion they have no hostility to the County Council. With them I indulge the hope that our relations with the City may at no distant period be different to what they are at present; but, at the same time, those who most wish that a change should be effected will hardly advise us to wait until then, and it must be remembered that the Guildhall and the other offices belonging to the City will always be required for City purposes. My hon. Friend the Member for Camberwell (Mr. Kelly) laid great stress on the provision of a Council Chamber. That is not what we are anxious about. We have a Council Chamber, which I quite admit is suitable for the purpose: if it is not beautiful, it is very convenient, and we do not wish for any change on that score. But at the present time our staff is scattered over a number of separate buildings at some distance from one another. My hon. Friend behind me (Mr. T. H. Bolton) says that the different Departments of the Government are in different buildings. I am sure the Government have always felt it is most desirable and almost necessary for the economical conduct of business that each Department should have one building for itself. Nobody who has a large business of his own to transact can possibly do it effectively or economically if his clerks are distributed up and down several buildings. At the present moment, the

1461
County Councils have clerks in the attics of houses built as dwelling houses. In the interest of the ratepayers, it is desirable we should have a space of ground on which we can build offices for the accommodation of all our officers. Now, if I have occasion to consult the Comptroller, I have to send across the street to another house asking him to come and see me, or I have to go across to him. That is not a way in which business can be satisfactorily conducted. We believe the proposal we make in this Bill is one that will conduce to economy, and, therefore, I hope the Committee will assent to it. Surely in such a matter as this we must regard the County Council as the governing body of London, responsible to the ratepayers for the manner in which it discharges its duty. It is most difficult to go on with the work of the County Council with our offices scattered in several houses. There is nothing more wasteful than the distribution of clerks in small buildings, and it is clearly to the interests of economy to concentrate the work as much as possible. I would also call attention to the fact that nothing can be done without the special assent of the Treasury. I think the Committee might trust the Treasury not to sanction anything in the nature of extravagrant expenditure.
MR. HOWARD VINCENT: I only rise to make a suggestion to my hon. Friend the Member for Camberwell (Mr. J. Kelly), namely, that he should be content with the omission of the words "Council Chamber," so as to let us get our clerks together. I think the vast majority of the Council are satisfied with the present Chamber, but it will be generally felt we are under great disadvantage with regard to our staff.
MR. TATTON EGERTON: If the present County Council had only attended to the business carried on by the Metropolitan Board of Works they would not have required their present exorbitant staff. There is really no work done by the County Council, except that of the Asylums Beard, which was not carried on by the Metropolitan Board of Works. The offices of the County Council are at
1462
present perfectly sufficient for the work the Council has to do, and I think this is not the time to ask the House to grant powers for the expenditure of more of the ratepayers' money.
MR. CAUSTON: I hope we shall hear a few words from the President of the Local Government Board. On these County Council matters I like to hear his voice, and I like to see him support by his vote the views he expresses at the Table. With regard to this particular Amendment, I shall vote against it. I am in favour of giving the Council power to spend the money they think necessary. I do not say I am in favour of their spending the money, but I have confidence in the Representatives of the people of London. Members opposite seek to thwart the action of the County Council in every possible way. There was considerable disappointment felt by hon. Gentlemen opposite at the result of the last election, and they now think that if they hold the Council up to ridicule and decline to give them necessary powers, they will succeed in making them unpopular. I hope the President of the Local Government Board will have the courage to say whether he thinks it right or wrong that the Council should have the powers asked for, and that he will support his opinion in the Lobby. We have had many instances lately of the right hon. Gentleman making a brave speech at that box, and then either walking out of the House or voting against the County Council. The right hon. Gentleman justly attains considerable credit for forming the County Council, and I think it is very hard on him to be placed in the position in which he has more than once been placed by his colleagues in this House with reference to the proposals of the London County Council.
CAPTAIN VERNEY: I am quite sure the hon. Gentleman who spoke just now (Mr. Tatton Egerton) could not have intended to mislead the Committee when he stated that the County Council did no more work than was done by the Metropolitan Board of Works. The London Council not only does a deal of work in connec-

1463
tion with the Asylums, but its Fire Brigade work has something like doubled since the extinction of the Metropolitan Board of Works. Then there is the licensing question to deal with, and the inspection of buildings, while the area of the parks is about doubled since the Council came into existence. I would point out that even if we do take over the offices of the City at some future time, we shall have to provide more buildings. The work of the County Council is very much greater than anything the Board of Works had to do; and buildings that are ample for the City, and that would have been sufficient for the Metropolitan Board of Works, are entirely inadequate for the County Council. If in years to come it is necessary to buy a site, the I ratepayers will look back to the present time and ask why we did not acquire one when the price was comparatively low compared with what it may be then. If the site were not required it could always be sold, and in the meantime it would be continually increasing in value.
MR. CAUSTON: I would really ask the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board to give us his views on the subject.
MR. CONYBEARE: Two appeals have been made by Metropolitan Members to the President of the Local Government Board. I think he might, at all events, have respectfully and courteously declined to reply. There is another official directly interested in this matter, and that is the right hon. Gentleman who represents the Treasury. I think we ought to know what the Treasury think about this clause, and I would ask the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Jackson), upon whose courtesy we can always rely, to give us his views on the subject.
MR. JACKSON: Ithinkthe hon. Member must forget that this Bill has been approved by the Treasury, and is introduced by the Treasury.
DR. TANNER: As an humble Irish Member who has Captain Verney
1464
listened to the Debate, I think it would be wise, judicious, and advisable on the part of the responsible and paid Ministers of the Crown to get up and remonstrate with their supporters for the obstruction they have been practising.
Question put, and agreed to.
Clause agreed to.
Other Clauses agreed to.
Clause 11.
MR. DIXON-HARTLAND: I beg to move the omission of this clause, which proposes to lend money to the London School Board; and I do it on the ground of the carelessness of the London School Board in the matter of passing unsatisfactory school buildings. I hold that the carelessness of the Board itself is not less than that of its architects and surveyors, and the case I am about to present to the Committee I have made out from the Reports of the School Board itself.
MR. LAWSON: As a point of order, I would ask whether it is competent for the hon. Member to discuss the conduct of the London School Board?
THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member appears to be out of order, but I should have liked to hear him a little further before giving a definite ruling.
MR. DIXON-HARTLAND: I wished to draw attention to the fact that many of the schools under the London School Board are badly built, and that a charge of ¾d. in the £1 will be levied on the ratepayers by the Board, all of which money will be advanced by the London County Council under this clause.
THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member's observations are no relevant to this clause.
MR. DIXON-HARTLAND: Part of this money is to be used for the repair of existing schools, but I will not persist in the matter against the ruling of the Chair.
SIR J. LUBBOCK: The hon. Member is under the impression that if he carried his Amendment he would prevent the School Board from spending money, but that is not so. What the clause does is to give the London County Council power to lend money to the School Board. If it were not for loans through the County Council, the Board would have to pay a higher rate of interest, and the ratepayers would suffer.
MR. DIXON-HARTLAND: My idea was, that if I brought forward certain facts, the ratepayers might recover money of which they have been defrauded from certain contractors.
Clause 11 agreed to.
Clauses 14.
Amendments proposed, in page 11, lino 24, leave out from "Acts," to end of line 27; line 29, at end, insert—
"Shall be charged to the special county account to which the expenditure for the purposes of the said Acts is chargeable."—(Mr. Jackson.)
Amendments agreed to.
First Schedule:—
MR. BAUMANN: I see here that the London County Council makes loans to Vestries and District Boards, but this Bill is introduced by the First Lord of the Treasury for the express purpose of giving Parliament a control aver these borrowing powers. The Metropolitan Board of Works used to circulate with Money Bills the statements of accounts of Vestries and District Boards, and it is obvious that if the House is to exercise control, somesuch statements of accounts ought to be presented. The County Council does not give us these statements.
SIR J. LUBBOCK: I would point out to the hon. Member that this Bill is not introduced by the London
1466
County Council, but by the Government and it must be assumed that the Government are satisfied with the information contained in it. The Bill does not give to Local Authorities any spending powers they do not possess at present. It gives the London County Council power to borrow, and enables the County Council to lend to the Local Authorities at a low rate of interest.
MR. LAWSON: In the first table that accompanies the Bill there is a minute statement of the loans advanced.
MR. BAUMANN: These particulars were given in the last Money Bill of the Metropolitan Board of Works.
MR. T. H. BOLTON: Some of these loans are borrowed with the sanction of the London County Council, but others are not. In the case of money borrowed by Boards of Guardians the public are protected, as there is an investigation by the Local Government Board; and I would put it to the Government whether similar precautions should not be taken in the case of all these loans. There was no proper investigation under the Metropolitan Board of Works, but there ought now to be one under the London County Council [Cries of" Agreed !"]
SIR JOHN LUBBOCK: Though the hon. Gentleman opposite may have correctly explained the procedure of the Metropolitan Board of Works, he has not been so accurate as regards the proceedings of the London County Council. The applications for loans are carefully looked into by our Finance Committee, which is presided over by Lord Lingen, who is justly regarded in this House as a great authority. Loans are not granted on the recommendation of any particular member, but on the recommendation of the Finance Committee as a whole.
MR. WEBSTER: It is not correct to say that no inquiry took place under the Metropolitan Board of Works in reference to loans. I remember on

1467
more than one occasion loans being refused to Vestries. On one occasion a Vestry wished to build a kind of music hall, and then application for a loan was refused.
Schedules agreed to.
Bill reported, as amended, to be considered to-morrow.

TRAMWAYS, ORDER IN COUNCIL (IRELAND) (SOUTH CLARE RAILWAYS) BILL.—(No. 301.)

  COMMITTEE.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  DR. TANNER: I beg to move, Mr. Chairman, that you do report Progress.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It is impossible for the Government to proceed with this Bill if it is opposed.
  DR. TANNER: My object in moving to report Progress was to obtain an explanation from the Minister in charge of the Bill as to its provisions. I would advise the Chief Secretary to shake off his nonchalance, and to give us some explanation as to what this Bill is intended to do. In the absence of some of my friends who represent the County of Clare, I object to the Bill. If the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary would be advised in time he would take a lesson in Ministerial manners. [Cries of "Order !"] I speak advisedly. I desire to have some explanation of this matter, believing that I am entitled to it. I do not wish to be continually throwing away my time in lecturing the Chief Secretary.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member has moved to report Progress, and he must confine himself to that.
  DR. TANNER: Certainly, Sir. I think the Chief Secretary should have offered some explanation of the Bill; and if he had done that, I should have offered no
  1468
  opposition. If my colleagues are satisfied with the Bill I shall say no more.
  MR. SEXTON: I must say I think it would have been well if we had had some explanation of the Bill. I notice that the hon. Member for one of the Divisions of Dublin, who had an Amendment on the Paper, has withdrawn that Amendment; and as that hon. Member is thoroughly conversant with this subject, I have a right to assume that his withdrawal implies approval of the Bill. Furthermore, I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Clare is in favour of the Bill, and, under the circumstances, I trust that the measure will not meet with further opposition from these Benches.
  DR. TANNER: I shall certainly offer do further opposition, but I must say I think the Chief Secretary should have explained the Bill.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Bill reported, as amended, to be considered to-morrow.

  PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION EXPENSES (IRELAND) BILL.—(No. 401.)
  Bill read a second time, and committed for to-morrow,
  STATUTE LAW REVISION (No. 2) BILL [LORDS.]
  Bill read the first time; to be read a second time upon Saturday, and to be printed. [Bill 405.]

SETTLED LAND BILL [LORDS].
Bill read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 406.]
It being after One of the clock, Mr. Speaker adjourned the House without Question put.
House adjourned at five minutes after One o'clock.