Commons Sitting of 31 March 1890

QUESTI0NS.

  EXPORT DUTIES IN THE SCILLY ISLANDS.
  MR. CHANNING: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that an Export Duty of 6d. per cwt. has been for some time charged by Mr. Smith, the proprietor of the Scilly Islands, on all flowers exported from the islands; with what object has this Export Duty been imposed, and is such duty legal; whether he is aware that Mr. Smith imposes a duty of 5s. a year on every boat-owner, and in addition 1s. extra duty for every boat actually employed, and a duty of 1d. each for all shell fish exported from the islands, including lobsters, crayfish, and crabs; and whether Mr. Smith has carried out any works for the improvement of landing-places in the off islands out of the proceeds of those duties; whether he has been informed that in the past the captains of vessels anchored in the roads have in some instances refused to pay the charge levied upon such vessels, on the ground that no legal right existed to impose such charges; whether, in the Provisional Order constituting a Local Council for the islands, it is proposed to confirm the rights, if any, of Mr. Smith to levy these several duties; and whether he will take into consideration the advisability of withdrawing from the proprietor the right to impose some or all of these duties, especially those levied on the export of flowers and shell fish?
  *THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE,): The Provisional Order which the Local Government Board propose to issue for the constitution of a Local Council for the Seilly Islands will not touch the question of any rights of Mr. Dorrien Smith to levy the duties or charges which are mentioned in the question. The Board are not empowered by the Act under which the Order is issued either to con-
  270
  firm any rights of Mr. Dorrien Smith to levy these charges or to withdraw from him any such rights. As regards these duties or charges they are matters with regard to which the Board have no jurisdiction whatever.

  IRELAND—THE RIVER SLANEY.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that there are 36 preserves or several fisheries on the River Slaney between the town of Ennis-corthy and the source of the river in which the respective owners have neglected to pay to the Board of Conservators the amount laid down by Act of Parliament, namely, 10 per cent. on the Poor Law valuation of such fisheries; why has this money not been collected from the owners in the same way as the Licence Duty required by rod and net fishermen; and with whom does the fault lie that this rate has not been collected up to the present?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): The Inspectors of Irish Fisheries report that at the present time there are only two fisheries in the River Slaney valued under the Poor Law, and that on each of these Licence Duty covering the 10 per cent. rate fixed by Statute has been paid. The point as to whether any other fisheries in this river should be rated is under the consideration of the Valuation Department. The 10 per cent. rate is recoverable by Boards of Conservators in the same manner as Licence Duty.

  UNMUZZLED DOGS.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether it has come to the knowledge of the Police of Dunfanaghy that considerable alarm and annoyance has been caused to the inhabitants of that town by a ferocious dog, the property of Captain Brunker, of the Royal North Lancashire Regiment, stationed at Dunfanaghy; and whether this dog has frequently worried and maimed other dogs in the streets, unchecked by Captain Brunker; and, if so, whether he can say why this animal. is allowed to go unmuzzled, and why its

  271
  owner has not been prosecuted by the police?
  "MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am given to understand that no complaint has been made to the local police, nor has any circumstance come to their knowledge suggesting that there is any ground for such a complaint.

  THE BELFAST SORTING OFFICE.
  MR. SEXTON: I beg to ask the Postmaster General how long the Controllership in the Belfast sorting office has been vacant; and when it is to be tilled up?
  *THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES,): There is no such appointment as that of Controller in the Belfast Post Office. The appointment in question is that of clerk, and this appointment has been filled by the promotion of Mr. Grant, who has for some time been performing the duties of Controlling officer.

  THE FASTNET ROCK LIGHTHOUSE.
  MR. CRILLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he will explain why tenders were not invited for the contract for boat attendance on the Fastnet Rock Lighthouse, which lapsed on the 6th of January last; when will tenders be invited, and what reason is there for the delay; when the late boat Halcyon was suspended from attendance, were any steps taken to ascertain the truth or otherwise of the allegations made by the crew of this boat that their lives and the lives of the light-keepers of the Fastnet Lighthouse were seriously endangered on more than one occasion through the boat's unseaworthy state; whether the Board of Trade were warned a few years ago that the boat was in a dangerous state; whether there is any intention to re-instate this alleged unseaworthy boat in attendance on the lighthouse; at what weekly cost has the steamship Alert been for weeks doing the work, and would he inquire whether the attendance could be carried on more cheaplyand as efficiently by a local boat; how long is it intended to continue the Alert at this work; and is it a fact that a seaworthy boat has been offered to attend on the lighthouse at the old contract price?
  *THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir MICHAEL HICKS BEACH,): I have communicated with the Commissioners of Irish Lights, who inform me that tenders were not advertised for as usual on the expiration of the late contract, inasmuch as the question of revision has been for some time past under consideration, but that tenders will be immediately invited by public advertisement, for temporarily carrying on the attendance on Fastnet. In January last, the contractor reported that some of his crew complained that the Halcyon was not seaworthy; but on a subsequent examination made by order of the Commissioners by the commander of their steamship Alert, assisted by his ship's carpenter, the vessel was reported to be "perfectly sound" and well found in gear, &c. Should the former contractor tender again, and his tender be accepted, the Commissioners will not object to the employment of the Halcyon. No additional expense has been incurred through the steamship Alert being sent to Crookhaven to carry out the service, beyond the cost of the coal and stores expended, and she will continue the work until such time as a new contract for the temporary service has been arranged. The former crew of the Halcyon stated they had a boat, and would attend the Fastnet at the old contract rate per trip; but the Commissioners know nothing of the boat in question. With regard to the fourth paragraph of the question, I have to say that three years ago, when tenders were being invited, the Board of Trade were told by an intending tenderer that the boat. of the existing contractor was unseaworthy and the complaint was forwarded to the Commissioners of Irish Lights, who are the Executive Authority in the matter.

  SALES OF INCUMBERED ESTATES.
  MR. JOHN ELLIS: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland what is the area and value of the land which has changed hands under "The Sale of Incumbered Estates Act, 1848," up to 31st December, 1889?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Registrar to the Land Judges reports that there are no means of ascertaining the area of the land disposed of by sale during the period mentioned. The total receipts for

  273
  land sold, which, however, includes house property, amounted from 1850 to December 31, 1889, to £54,565,205.

  THE LAND COMMISSION.
  MR. PETER M'DONALD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, inasmuch as originating notices served in 1887 by tenants in the County Sligo are still undisposed of, why the Land Commissioners departed from their practice hitherto of holding sittings in December as well as in July; and when the next sittings will be held? May I further ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, as he now proposes to proceed with the Land Purchase Bill, it is not desirable to expedite these proceedings?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes; I think it is desirable that the proceedings of the Court should be carried on as rapidly as possible; but I do not know that that is a matter which is directly affected by the Land Purchase Bill. In regard to the particular question on the Paper, the Land Commissioners report that no fixed rule has ever existed for holding sittings of Sub-Commissions at regular intervals or at specified periods of the year. The Commissioners are using every exertion to have the remaining-applications received in the closing months of 1887 cleared off with every possible expedition.

  CHARGE AGAINST AN IRISH MAGISTRATE.
  MR. HAYDEN: I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether his attention has been called to the recent statement of the Chief Secretary for Ireland, that Mr. Percy Morgan, J.P., had obtained money under the Arrears Act, in consequence of an affidavit joined in by him in which he swore that a sum of £30 rent was due to him by Bernard Clogher, his tenant, up to 1st November, 1880; whether he has been furnished with a receipt showing that on the 30th April, 1881 (one year and seven months prior to the swearing of the affidavit) Mr. Clogher had cleared up all rent due by him to the 1st November, 1880; and whether he will make inquiries into the matter, and consider whether the penalties specified in Section 7 of the Arrears Act should be enforced in the case?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN,): I have not yet had time to obtain the facts necessary to enable me to form an opinion as to the character of the transactions. I will, however, do so without delay.
  MR. SEXTON: Assuming the receipt to be genuine, does it not show that a swindle has been committed?
  MR. MADDEN: I am unable to give a complete answer to the question until I know what the facts of the case are.

  THE ENNISKILLEN POST OFFICE.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he will now grant the sum of money offered as compensation to David McGaw, of Enniskillen, in 1884, in settlement of the dispute in reference to the Enniskillen Post Office?
  *MR. RAIKES: A sum of £200 was offered to Mr. McGaw in 1884, on condition of his releasing the Postmaster of Enniskillen from an agreement to take a lease of the old Post Office premises. Mr. McGaw refused those terms, and the Postmaster was compelled to execute the lease. Under these circumstances, I am not now prepared to recommend that any sum of money should be granted to Mr. McGaw.

  THE QUINN BEQUEST.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland why there is so great delay in the matter of the "Quinn Bequest" for Newry?
  MR. MADDEN: I gather from information received from my hon. Friend the Attorney General for England that this is a bequest which is being administered in the English Courts. If the hon. Gentleman will postpone the question I will cause full inquiry to be made.
  MR. W. REDMOND: I beg to give notice that I will repeat the question on an early day after Easter.

  BOYCOTTING.
  MR. O'HANLON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the trial of James Daly, a large merchant in the town of Carrickmacross, and three others from the same place, before Judge O'Brien, at

  275
  Londonderry, on Thursday, for having boycotted the Great Northern Railway (Ireland), three of them getting six months each hard labour, the other three months; whether he is aware that they were taken from the County Monaghan to the City of Derry; that all Catholics were asked to stand aside, some of the Catholics being Justices of the Peace, and that the greater number of the jury who tried the prisoners were Orangemen; whether the report is correct that a local solicitor, not employed in the case, advised the Solicitor General as to the Protestants who should not be allowed on the jury, and that a gentleman connected with the Derry Sentinel newspaper also advised Mr. Ross as to keeping off a Protestant named Hatrick; and whether care will be taken in the future that Catholics shall not be excluded from juries?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: My attention has been called to the conviction referred to in the question. It is the fact that the venue was changed from the County of Monaghan to the City of Derry in order to obtain a fair and impartial trial; but I have no information as to the religion of the persons who composed the jury, or of those who were directed to stand aside. The report mentioned in the third paragraph, that a local solicitor advised the Solicitor General as to the Protestants who should not be allowed on the jury, does not appear to be correct.
  MR. SEXTON: Can the right hon. Gentleman throw any light on the fact that three of the prisoners, who were not members of the National League, only got three months' imprisonment; while three others, who were members of the League, got six months' imprisonment, although the Lord Lieutenant has never exercised his full powers in that county?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No, Sir; I cannot throw any light upon it.

  THE POSTMASTER OF MEARNS CROSS.
  MR. O'HANLON: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether Thomas Kelly, of Esnacillager, or Mearns Cross, who was appointed postmaster some two years ago by an official from Dublin, was ever remunerated for his troubleand expense; and whether, inasmuch as Kelly set the boxes apart for stamps, letters, and papers, and kept them exclusively for that purpose
  276
  since, and that his place is eight miles from Clunes, County Monaghan, and three miles from the nearest post office, some remuneration will be paid to him for his expenses?
  *MR. RAIKES: I cannot find that any appointment was conferred on Thomas Kelly, as supposed by the hon. Member; but about the time stated the official delivery of letters was extended in the neighbourhood of Mearns Cross. I will, however, have further inquiry made on the subject.

  THE CASE OF CAPTAIN EYE.
  DR. TANNER: I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether Mr. C. J. Harold, one of the Justices who were trying the case against Captain Rye at Crookstown, County Cork, has been and still is employed by Captain Rye as bailiff or agent; and, if so, whether an intimation will be conveyed to him not to take any further part in the case in which there are four other magistrates-adjudicating?
  MR. MADDEN: I have called for a Report upon this matter, but have not yet received it. I must, therefore, ask the hon. Member to defer the question.
  DR. TANNER: As the matter is one of great interest, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman deign to afford me information to-morrow?
  MR. MADDEN: Certainly, if I have received it.
  DR. TANNER: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, as President of the Irish Local Government Board, whether hisattention has been directed to the action of Mr. John Rye at the Bandon Board of Guardians, and if it is correctly reported that Mr. Rye endeavoured to prevent the poor labourer, Jeremiah Corcoran, from obtaining out-door relief; whether he is aware that it was proved that Mr. Rye's object was to oblige Corcoran to take the bribe of 7s. weekly made by Captain Rye, now on his trial for shooting Corcoran; and that medical evidence was given the Board in support of Cor-coran's claim; and whether the Local Government Board intend to take any action in the matter?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am informed that it is the case that at the meeting of the Board of Guardians Mr. John Rye

  277
  did state that if Corcoran required more than the 7s. a week offered by Captain Rye it would be given, as the latter did not wish that the man should be a charge upon the rates. The assertion in the second paragraph was made by a member of the Board, but was repudiated by Mr. John Rye. Medical evidence was given in the case. The Board decided to continue the allowance of 5s. a week sanctioned at their previous meeting. The Local Government Board are not aware of anything in the matter calling for action on their part.
  DR. TANNER: Am I to understand from the right hon. Gentleman that the reports which appear in all the Cork newspapers, to the effect that Mr. John Rye said that Captain Rye had offered this man 7s. a week, and that there was, therefore, no necessity for granting him out-door relief, are not correct?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have not seen the reports in the Cork papers.
  DR. TANNER: Was not this money deliberately offered to Corcoran on behalf of Captain Rye, as a bribe, after having fired at him twice, not to give evidence against him?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have given the hon. Member all the information that has readied me. I understand there was no question of a bribe, nor am I aware that Captain Rye fired twice. That is the very question at issue.
  MR. P. O'BRIEN: Was it not stated before Mr. Cecil Roche that the man had been tampered with; and did not Mr. Cecil Roche adjourn the Court so that he might have the man brought before him in order to ascertain whether he had been tampered with?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I must ask the hon. Member to defer that question.
  DR. TANNER: I will take the opportunity of raising the question of this discreditable transaction on the Vote for the administration of law and justice.

  ROMAN CATHOLIC MAGISTRATES.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether it is a fact that the Dromore, County Tyrone, Bench of Magistrates is composed of nine Orangemen and one Roman Catholic, although an overwhelming majority of the people in the district are Roman Catholics; and whether he will draw
  278
  the attention of the Lord Chancellor to the matter with a view to having some Catholic Magistrates appointed?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Lord Chancellor's Secretary informs me that the Dromore Bench appears to have been attended during the last three years by nine Local Justices. There is no information as to whether any of these Magistrates are Orangemen, nor as to the relative proportion of the religious denominations of the people in the district. I am also informed that the Vice Lieutenant of the county is always glad to consider the names of any properly-qualified Roman Catholics that may be submitted to him and the Lord Chancellor to give effect to such recommendations when made.

  IRISH TRAMWAYS.
  MR. DONAL SULLIVAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury what is the unappropriated residue of the £40,000 a year mentioned in "The Tramways (Ireland) Act, 1883"; and whether any, and, if so, how much, approximately of this residue will be applied, in addition to the £600,000 mentioned in "The Light Railways Act, 1889," towards carrying out the railways passed by Grand Juries under that Act?
  *THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON,): Of the £40,000 mentioned in the Tramways (Ireland) Act, 1883, the amount unappropriated is, I am informed, £16,691, which will be available for appropriation in addition to the £600,000 provided under the Light Railways Act of last Session.

  THE ERASMUS SMITH ENDOWMENT.
  MR. JOHN O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland when will the Educational Endowments Commissioners publish their scheme dealing with the Erasmus Smith Endowment?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I understand that some delay has occurred in considering the scheme, owing to the retirement of Mr. Justice Naish, one of the Judicial Educational Endowments Commissioners, from the Commission owing to ill-health. But that the matter now only awaits the return from Circuit of his successor on the Commission.

  THE CLONGOREY ESTATE.
  MR. SEXTON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether Mrs. Kelly, the tenant of the Clongorey holding referred to in the order of committal issued by the County Court Judge of Kildare, has been released from prison by the Executive; whether Mrs. Morrissey, a person not the tenant of holding, is still in prison, with her infant, one month old; and whether the Executive have resolved that this imprisonment shall continue?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: As already stated in reply to a former question, Mrs. O'Kelly was discharged from custody on medical grounds. Mrs. Morrissey is still confined in prison with her infant. The Executive Government have no control in the matter. The woman is in custody by order of the County Court Judge, and can obtain her release at any moment by purging her contempt.
  MR. SEXTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the husband of Mrs. Morrissey is in prison also; and does he contend that this woman and her infant had any control over the farm?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am not sufficiently acquainted with the case to answer the question. Mrs. Kelly was released from custody on medical grounds on the approval of the committing Judge. If medical grounds can be urged in the case of Mrs. Morrissey, I have no doubt that she will be discharged also.
  MR. SEXTON: As the husband, who is the only person to control her, is in prison, is it not the imperative duty of the right hon. Gentleman to ascertain whether there has not been an abuse of authority?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have already said that the Government cannot interfere.
  MR. SEXTON: Then I will endeavour to press the question upon the attention of the House before the adjournment for Easter.

  EVICTIONS IN DONEGAL.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the
  280
  lately-contemplated evictions on the Stewart and Swiney Estates in County Donegal have been abandoned in deference to any suggestions made on the part of the Irish Executive; whether like suggestions were made to the agent of the Olphert Estate; and, if so, by whom, and what was his reply; how many families have been evicted on the-Olphert Estate during the past week; and how many evictions were abandoned and by whose authority, and for what cause they were abandoned?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No suggestions as to the abandonment of evictions on any of the estates mentioned have been made by the Government, nor have I any reason to believe that the evictions on the Stewart and Swiney Estates have been abandoned, although it would seem that they have been for the most part deferred. I understand that one decree was executed on the Swiney Estate last week; 67 families were evicted on the Olphert Estate, all of whom, except those who were sub tenants, had joined the Plan of Campaign and paid money into-the war chest instead of to the landlord. Four evictions were abandoned at the instance of the agent to the property, owing in one case to the tenant having died the previous day, and in the other cases to the opinion of the military doctor present, that the inmates of the houses concerned wore unfit for removal through illness.
  MR. P. O'BRIEN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a telegram was. sent by the agent of the Olphert Estate to the District Inspector, threatening that he would carry out evictions himself next week if protection was not afforded, and why did he threaten to do this?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I know nothing whatever about. the telegram. It appears as if it has been stolen.
  MR. P. O'BRIEN: Without discussing that question, I may say that, whether stolen or not, it is not forged. I beg to give notice that after the Easter Recess I will call attention more specifically to the evictions on this estate.

  MR. HUGH GRAHAM, J.P.
  ME. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether any complaints have reached the Lord Chancellor of the conduct of Mr. Hugh Graham, J.P.,

  281
  of Rahoney, Dromore, County Tyrone, accusing him of drunkenness and threatening to assault a passenger in a railway carriage on the 27th of March, 1889, of being under the influence of drink while giving evidence in a Land Court on 23rd January, 1889, when Mr. Justice Litton had him removed from court by a policeman; and of being on another occasion drunk at the Omagh Railway Station and annoying ladies, when a policeman who was asked to arrest him refused, on the grounds that he was on railway premises; and whether the Lord Chancellor has inquired into these allegations, and with what result?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I understand that the case of this gentleman is being inquired into by the Lord Chancellor.

  LAND PURCHASE IN IRELAND.
  DR. TANNER: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the report of the professional valuer appointed by the Land Commissioners, as reported in Cork Herald, to inquire into the security offered by the holdings on the estate of Mr. H. B. O'Sullivan at Rahoona and Kilnamartyra, County Cork, for the repayment of the advance, from which it appears that the purchase money offered by the tenants was excessive, and that the combined interests of the tenants and landlord were not deemed by the valuer security for the money; whether it is a fact that the terms of purchase agreed upon by the tenants would have brought down the yearly payments to nearly 50 per cent. under the present rents; whether it is true that the rental in question was determined and enforced by the Receiver Department of the Chancery Court, and that many tenants were evicted by the court in default of payment of rack rents; and whether it is his intention to take any notice of the Report of the professional valuer?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Inquiry is being made into this matter.
  DR. TANNER: May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that the matter has been brought under the notice of this House again and again? How long will it take the right hon. Gentleman to give me some sort of a reply, or will he give me any reply at all?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a reply until I receive the information that will enable me to answer his question.
  DR. TANNER: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will observe the usual courtesy towards hon. Members who feel it their duty to put questions in this House. *MB. SPEAKER: Order, order!

  THE HISTORICAL MANUSCRIPTS COMMISSION.
  MR. CRILLY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he can explain how it is that some of the volumes issued by the Historical Manuscripts Commission in 1888 were allowed to appear without the valuable and exhaustive index which usually accompanies these interesting collections of manuscripts; and if, seeing that the value and usefulness of these volumes are largely enhanced by such an index, he will request the Historical Manuscripts Commission to prepare and publish an index to the manuscripts of the Duke of Rutland, the manuscripts of Marl Cowper, and any other volume of the series that is at present without an. index?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS,'): It is distinctly stated. in the first volume of the Report on the Duke of Rutland's manuscripts that the index to the first two volumes will be given at the end of the second. The second volume is now in the press. The index to the three volumes of the calendar of Lord Cowper's manuscripts (two of which have been issued) will be at the end of the third and concluding volume, which is practically complete and in the press. I am not aware that any other volume in the series is at present without an index.

  THE CAMBRIDGE MISSION TO DELHI.
  MR BRADLAUGHI beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been drawn to a letter of the Bishop? Designate of Durham, published in the Times of 26th March, respecting the. Cambridge Mission to Delhi, in which it, is stated that "This work was undertaken at the suggestion of the Indian

  283
  Government, who have given the site; "and whether this statement is accurate; and, if so, whether this is a departure from the traditional British policy in India of strict neutrality in religious matters?
  *THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Sir J. GORST,): In reply to the hon. Gentleman, I have to say that the "work" referred to by the Bishop Designate of Durham is St. Stephen's College, Delhi—an educational establishment of the Cambridge Mission. It has always been the practice of the Government of India to make grants in aid to all institutions calculated to promote the education of the people, and this practice has not been found to interfere with the religious freedom which the British Government guarantees.

  THE MAHARAJA SCINDIA.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether the telegram of the Governor of India, of the 19th June, 1886, to the late Maharaja Scindia, was in reply to the dying request of His Highness, that his son should not be placed for instruction under a European tutor; and whether the Secretary of State will lay upon the Table the complete text of the letter of the late Maharaja referred to in the previous answer of the Under Secretary, and of any reply thereto?
  *SIR J. GORST: The character of the request of the late Maharaja Scindia is not correctly described in the question; but it was undoubtedly his wish in June, 1886, that his son, then under 10 years of age, should be under native and not European tutors. This wish was for three years complied with, and the young Maharaja was left during that time under the charge of native tutors only. He is now 13½ years of age; and in the judgment of the Government of India his own interests and those of his people require that, while neither his religion nor caste will be in any way interfered with, he shall be under the charge of a British officer. The Secretary of State does not think it in the interest of the Public Service to lay on the Table either the letter or the reply.

  THE 19TH MIDDLESEX RIFLES.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he can state the date or dates or tenor of any charges of insubordination preferred against the bandsmen of the 19th Middlesex (Bloomsbury) Rifles; when such charges were investigated; and whether the accused were then severally present and heard in their defence, or whether he will cause inquiry to be made in the matter?
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. E. STANHOPE,): The commanding officer reports that the insubordination of the bandsmen consisted of persistent and long-continued defiance of, and opposition to, the bandmaster's authority. Apart from this general course of insubordination, they were insubordinate on December 11 and January 25, on which latter day some of them were very insolent to the adjutant. I have no doubt that the commanding officer satisfied himself that these men could not be retained as bandsmen consistently with discipline; and I do not contemplate any further inquiry.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that with reference to Bandsmen Andrews, C. Butler, W. Butler, and Norman, the colonel heard the charge against them, and acquitted them; while with reference to five others there has been no charge and no hearing against any of them? If the right hon. Gentleman can be satisfied that such was the case, will he direct inquiry into the matter?
  *MR. E. STANHOPE: In the interests of discipline, I shall not go behind the decision of the commanding officer.

  EXTRADITION TREATY WITH THE UNITED STATES.
  MR. HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if the new Extradition Treaty between Her Majesty and the United States has been duly ratified and is now in force; and whether, having regard to the longstanding interchange of criminal refugees between Anglo-Saxon States which may now be effectually stopped, the provisions of the new Treaty can be brought to the knowledge of the Chief Officers of Police throughout the country?
  *THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir J. FERGUSSON,): The new Extradition Treaty between Her Majesty and the United States has been duly ratified, and will come into force on the 4th of April. I am informed that the Secretary of State for the Home Department will call the attention of Chief Officers of Police to the Treaty.

  RETURNS OF ACCIDENTS.
  SIR WILLIAM PLOWDEN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has any objection to include in the Return of Accidents (Factories, Railways, and Mines), notice of which appears in to-day's Orders, the localities, and the names of the factories, workshops, and mines in which accidents have occurred during the year ending 31st October, 1889?
  MR. MATTHEWS: am afraid I cannot comply with the hon. Member's request. It would add enormously to the labour and cost of the Return. and it would be wholly unprecedented, and not a little invidious, and would lead to conclusions possibly altogether erroneous as to the persons really responsible for the accidents, unless the cause of the accident were in each case explained.

  VOLUNTEER CORPS.
  MR. WALLACE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what regulations, if any, exist requiring that the Finance Committees of Volunteer Corps shall sanction the incurring of debt for their corps by Commanding Officers, as well as the paying of debt after being incurred by such officers?
  *MR. E. STANHOPE: There are no specific regulations on the subject; but it is considered that paragraphs 704 and 705 of the Volunteer Regulations are sufficient security against improper administration of the funds of a Volunteer corps, either by the Commanding Officer or the Finance Committee.

  FEES IN BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS.
  MR. CALDWELL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether it is the case that the fees payable to the Accountant of the Court of Session in respect of the Audit
  286
  and Supervision of Bankruptcy proceedings are payable in stamps; whether these stamps are procurable only in Edinburgh; and whether, considering the large number of bankruptcy estates in Glasgow and the West of Scotland, he would arrange for the stamps being procurable in the Stamp Office, Glasgow? *ME. JACKSON: Instructions have been given for a. supply of the necessary stamps for denoting these fees to be sent at once to the Stamp Office in Glasgow.

  THE CONTRACT FOR STATIONERY AND STAMPS.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the new contract with Messrs. De la Rue and Company for the supply of stationery and stamps has been signed; and whether he has any objection to lay the contract upon the Take?
  MR, JACKSON: The contract was signed and has full effect. No public-advantage would be derived from laying it on the Table.

  CUSTOMS OFFICERS.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that officers of Customs on water-guard duty on the River Thames art-employed continuously for periods of 24 hours without rest, and whether there is any bedding supplied to the Harpy cutter, where these officers are stationed; whether officers, when employed in the landing and examination of free goods fully entered, arc obliged to give continuous attendance, when necessary, for 12 hours per day without any extra remuneration, during the eight months from March to October; and whether officers of the Outdoor Department are employed on clerical work at present for eight hours per day, whilst seven hours per day is the maximum for officials employed on clerical work in the Indoor Department, and what is the reason for this distinction?
  *MR. JACKSON: It is true that officers of Customs employed upon water-guard duty on the River Thames are in attendance for duty contingent upon ships' arrivals for 24 hours continuously, being relieved from attendance for the succeeding 24 hours. In all such cases

  287
  of employment officers do, as a matter of fact, receive some rest in addition to the time allowed for meals, which necessarily varies according to the exigencies of the work. Beds are furnished upon request to all stations where officers of Customs are liable to give attendance on water-guard duty for 24 hours continuously. Up to the present no request, however, has been received from the Harpy cutter. Customs regulations permit of the landing and examination of free goods fully entered between the hours of 6 a.m. and 6 p.m. during the eight months from March to October. This privilege is, however, not often availed of to the full extent, and only in very exceptional cases does it happen that Customs officers are required to give 12 hours' continuous attendance upon this work. Officers of the Outdoor Department who are required to be employed on warehousing accounts are necessarily held available for such service throughout the hours during which the bonded warehouses are open, which at this season of the year are eight a day; in the winter months only seven hours a day. Officers so employed are inter-changeable with those who are actually working in the warehouses or upon landing stations for the like number of hours in each day. The hours of service for the Indoor Department are based on different requirements, and are rendered, not by outdoor officers, but by clerks appointed solely for clerical work.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: If it is true that the officers of the Harpy are employed continuously for 24 hours, will the hon. Gentleman see that beds are supplied?
  *MR. JACKSON: Beds are supplied whenever a request is made for them. No request has been made in this case. If the men think it more for their comfort that beds should be supplied, I am sure that any wish on their part to that effect will be complied with

  RAILWAY RATES-THE CARRIAGE OF MILK.
  MR. BRUNNER: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the Report made by Dr. Fox to the Rural Sanitary Authorities of Mid-Cheshire districts on the importance to the public health of cheap rates of carriage for milk; and whether the
  288
  Railway Commissioners in deciding upon the matter are empowered to take into their consideration this most important question of the public health?
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I have seen the Report referred to, and agree as to the importance of cheap rates of carriage for milk. The Act of Parliament contains no special provision with regard to milk; but in fixing maximum rates for that as well as other articles, the Board of Trade must take into consideration all the circumstances affecting the case.

  THE FOREST OF DEAN.
  MR. SAMUELSON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that some grievance is felt, by persons who own sheep which feed on common or unenclosed land in the Forest of Dean, who have hitherto obtained exemption from taking out licences for dogs kept by them solely for use in tending sheep, because they have this year been compelled by the Inland Revenue officers to take out such licences; whether this change has been ordered by the Department; and whether he will consider the propriety of removing the grievance by reverting to the former custom?
  *MR. JACKSON: The statutory exemption is in favour only of "farmers" in respect of a dog used solely in tending-sheep or cattle on a farm. The Board of Inland Revenue have already considered the case of persons who own sheep which feed on the unenclosed land in the Forest of Dean, and have decided not to insist too stringently on the term "farmer," though it is rather doubtful whether colliers or small tradesmen become "farmers" by feeding sheep on common lands. But the Board do insist that any dog for whom exemption is granted shall be used solely for tending sheep or cattle, and any other use of such a dog forfeits the exemption and renders the owner liable to the penalty for keeping a dog without licence.

  TRINITY COLLEGE, TORONTO.
  SIR JOHN LUBBOCK: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Royal Charter granted to the University of Trinity College, Toronto, gives it authority to examine candidates, and to issue degrees in the Faculties of Arts,

  289
  Medicine, Divinity, Law, and Music outside the diocese of Toronto; whether the examinations in music, conducted on behalf of the University of Trinity College, Toronto, notified to be held in London at Easter, are still to be proceeded with; and whether he has considered the protest of the English Universities, the Royal Academy, and Royal College of Music?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOB THE COLONIES (Baron H. de WORMS,): This question is under reference to the Law Officers, and I therefore cannot, at present, make any statement as to the powers of this University. The Secretary of State has no control over the examinations, and has no information which would enable me to reply to the second paragraph of the question. The protests referred to in the concluding part of the question are under consideration.

  INSANITARY CONDITION OF ASSIZE COURTS.
  MR. CHAINING: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the statement of Mr. Justice Denman, at Chelmsford on Friday 21st March, that the Assize Court was in such an insanitary state as to be a perfect disgrace, and dangerous to Judges, counsel, and prisoners, and, further, to the similar comments made by Mr. Justice Smith and Mr. Justice Wills, on Thursday 27th March at Cardiff, as to the sickening smells in the Assize Court at Cardiff; whether attention was drawn by the Departmental Committee two years ago to the insanitary condition of these Courts; and whether he will take immediate steps, by representations to the Local Authority or otherwise, to have these and other Courts which may have been similarly complained of put into a proper sanitary condition?
  MR. MATTHEWS: Yes, Sir. The learned Judge has called my attention to the state of the Court at Chelmsford; but I have not seen the comments referred to as to the Cardiff Court. The duty of providing a proper Court-house and accommodation for prisoners awaiting trial rests with the Local Authorities. In consequence of the Report of the Committee of 1886, I made strong representations to all the Local Autho-
  290
  rities throughout the country, including-those of Chelmsford and Cardiff. At Cardiff many improvements have been made. With regard to Chelmsford, I again in July last asked the Justices to take the earliest opportunity of giving effect to the recommendations of the Committee. I am now making further inquiry with regard to both places.

  INLAND REVENUE DEPARTMENT.
  MR. HAYDEN: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will state the number of officials in the Inland Revenue Department who have 40 years of service; whether it is true, as stated in the Civilian of 22nd March, 1890, that eight expectant Inspectorships and one Inspectorship are vacant; and when the vacancies may be filled up?
  *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN, St. George's,): I do not think any public object would be served by inquiring into the number of officials in the Inland Revenue Department who have 40 years of service. The statement in the newspaper referred to by the hon. Member is inaccurate. There is no Inspectorship vacant. The expectant Inspectorships are new appointments, and there has been some delay in filling-them up (owing to the examination of the books, &c, of the candidates) which will not occur again. But there are five, not eight, of these posts vacant, and they will be filled up in a few days.

  THE CHELSEA SAVINGS BANK.
  MR. WHITMORE: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that, although two months have elapsed since the Chelsea Savings Bank was closed, and although large assets were available for immediate distribution, no dividend has yet been declared; and whether any steps can be taken to expedite the action of the Official Liquidator?
  *MR. GOSCHEN: The hon. Member is aware, of course, that the assets in such a case as that of the Chelsea Savings Bank are not available until all the claims have been got in by the Official Liquidator. Reasonable notice has to be given for this purpose, and the date fixed for claims to be sent in with regard to the Chelsea Savings Bank was the 18th of this month. An order was

  291
  made four days later for payment in full to depositors under £5, including interest up to January 20 last, and of 15s. in the £1 to depositors of over £5, who were also offered facilities by the Liquidator for the transference of their moneys to the Post Office Savings Bank. The money for the actual payment of the dividend ordered will be placed to the credit of the Official Liquidator, and payment will be made after April 8. I trust that the hon. Member will recognise that all possible diligence has been shown in the matter.
  MR. HOWELL(: Will the Treasury call the attention of the Trustees and Managers of this bank to the recent decision in the case of the Cardiff Savings Bank?
  *MR. GOSOHEN: As it is a matter of great interest to all Trustees, I think it is probable that the case has been brought to the attention of these gentlemen in the same way in which the hon. Member's attention has been drawn to it. I do not know whether the Liquidators are aware of the judicial view taken by the Judge.
  MR. BARTLEY: May I ask when the Bill on this subject will be introduced?
  *MR. GOSCHEN: The Judgments in the case referred to, which were only delivered a few days ago, and were of a very complicated character, will have to be considered in connection with the Bill.

  CHINESE EMIGRATION TO AUSTRALIA.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the negotiations with the Government of China on the question of Chinese emigration to Australia have been completed; and, if so, what settlement of the matter has been come to?
  *SIR J. FERGUSSON: No settlement in regard to this question has yet been arrived at. Some of the Colonial Governments, whom it was necessary to consult, have not yet expressed their views. Answers have now been requested of them by telegraph.
  MR. W. REDMOND: How long have the negotiations been going on? Early last Session, when I put a question upon
  292
  the subject, I was told that the negotiations were nearly complete.
  *SIR J. FERGUSSON: That is so; but the hopes which were then entertained were disappointed. I am not able to say when the negotiations will be finally concluded.
  MR. W. REDMOND: Is the matter now awaiting the consent of the Australian Colonies?
  *SIR J. FERGUSSON: Yes, Sir; or rather of some of them.

  PILOTS.
  MR. DILLWYN: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been drawn to the pecuniary disadvantages the pilots of most of the ports of Great Britain and Ireland labour under by their inability to provide funds for the payment of Parliamentary and legal charges incurred in obtaining the necessary Provisional Order to enable them to obtain the unanimous recommendation of the Select Committee on Pilotage (1888), and the benefits of the Merchant Shipping (Pilotage) Act of 1889, which granted to the pilots a seat on every Pilotage 3oard; and whether the Board of Trade has any funds at their disposal which could be used in assisting the pilots to obtain the Provisional Order for direct representation, or whether he will introduce a clause in the Merchant Shipping Bill to facilitate the pilots in obtaining the requisite Provisional Order?
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: Pilots who apply for Pilotage Provisional Orders are in no worse position than applicants for other Provisional Orders, such as those for Oysters and Mussels, Piers, Tramways, Gas and Water, &c. Applicants in all cases have to pay, towards the expenses of settling the Order, a fee the amount of which has been fixed by the Treasury; but they have no Parliamentary or House fees to pay, as Bills to confirm Provisional Orders are introduced by the Department. Legal charges in defending an application against opposition would, of course, fall on the applicants. There are no funds at my disposal which could be applied to the relief of one particular class of applicants; but if special circum stances should arise which would justify a representation to the Treasury to forego the fee, or a portion of it, I will direct such a representation to be made.

  THE MAILS TO THE HEBRIDES.
  MR. BAUMANN: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he is aware that the steamer Lochiel, which carries the mails between Strome Ferry and Stornoway, is so small that when the weather is rough she is unable to make the trip, and that she has several times during the past winter not made the voyage; whether he is aware that Mr. MacBrayne, the contractor, frequently sends the Lochiel round by Portree, thus delaying her arrival in Stornoway till 1 or 2 in the morning, while the Portree steamer is sent to out-of-the-way places to pick up sheep, cattle, and other traffic: and whether he will take some steps to provide a good and regular mail service between Strome Ferry and Stornoway?
  *MR. RAIKES: Yes, Sir; I am aware that the steamer Lochiel has failed on certain occasions to perform the voyage between Strome Ferry and Stornoway on account of rough weather, when a larger and more powerful vessel might have succeeded. The deviations of route round by Portree, and the consequent deviations of the Portree steamer to which the hon. Member refers, have also, I am informed, been due to stress of weather. I regret that I am not in a position to incur the large additional expense which the employment of a more powerful steamer would involve, having regard to the fact that existing arrangements already entail a very heavy loss to the revenue.

  POSTAL ARRANGEMENTS WITH THE COLONIES.
  MR. HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the Postmaster General if it is a fact that the United Kingdom is precluded by some Convention with Foreign States from entering into preferential postal arrangements with the Colonies of the British Empire; and, if so, what is the date of the Foreign Treaty which so limits the power of Her Majesty within Her own dominions; what are the terms of the restrictive clause; and for how much longer will it remain in force?
  *MR. RAIKES: I may, perhaps, usefully refer my hon. Friend to a reply which I gave in this House to the hon Member for Glasgow on the 11th of March last as bearing upon the present question.
  294
  In that reply I said there was great reason to doubt if it would be competent to this country to reduce the ocean postal charge to its colonies to 1d. without withdrawing from the Postal Union; but I am not aware of any Convention which generally precludes the United Kingdom from entering into any preferential postal arrangements with the colonies of the British Empire.
  MR. J. LOWTHER: Arising out of the answer, may I ask whether it is competent to enter into preferential arrangements without the consent of the parties to the Convention?
  *MR. RAIKES: I imagine that certain preferential arrangements would be possible without the consent of the parties to the Convention.
  MR. J. LOWTHER: Do the Government contemplate taking any immediate steps to obtain freedom from these embarrassing obligations?
  *MR. RAIKES: That is a question which I cannot answer.
  MR. J. LOWTHER: I will ask a question on the subject at a later date.

  SEVERE SENTENCE.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the case of Isabella Pickup, who, in February, 1889, at the Manchester City Sessions, was sentenced to five years' penal servitude for stealing a pair of boots; and whether he will make inquiry, with a view to consider the justice of this sentence?
  MR. MATTHEWS: No, Sir; my attention has not been called to this case otherwise than by the question of the hon. Member. I gather from the calendar that there were numerous previous convictions for drunkenness, abusive behaviour, and felony against the prisoner. If the hon. Member has any facts in his possession which can be urged in the woman's favour I shall be happy to give them full consideration; otherwise I do not see any reason to interfere with the sentence.

  THE DEATH OF W. H. GATCLIFFE.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department why, in the private exami-

  295
  nation recently conducted by one of Her Majesty's Inspectors, Captain Wilson, inside Strangeways Gaol, Manchester, relative to the death of W. H. Gatcliffe, owing to the breaking of six of his ribs and his breast bone, two persons who could have given important evidence were not examined, namely, Dr. Kitchen, who made a post-mortem, examination of the prisoner's body, and Henry Mac-Birnie, a prisoner who occupied the next-bed to that of the deceased?
  MR. MATTHEWS: The persons named had already given evidence on three different occasions before the coroner, the stipendiary, and the Judge, and there was no reason for their further examination by the Inspector, who had their evidence before him, and exercised his discretion in a manner with which I am quite satisfied as to what witnesses could be most usefully examined by him.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: Is it not the fact that on the occasion referred to the evidence was confined to an investigation as to whether a certain person was guilty or not; whereas the investigation of Captain Wilson would occupy a much larger field?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I do not think that the post-mortem examination was calculated to throw any light upon the matter.

  MAJOR H. B. WOODS.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in view of the eminent services of Major H. B. Woods during 22 years as an officer of the Royal Marine Light Infantry, the strong recommendation to mercy which accompanied the finding of the court martial on him last October, the fact that the language, in regard to which he was found guilty, having been due to a brother officer calling him a liar, and the numerously signed Petition in his behalf from the inhabitants of Plymouth where he was quartered, the Lords of the Admiralty could see their way to re-consider their confirmation of the sentence of the court martial, so that the country may not entirely lose the services of this gallant officer?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Lord G. HAMILTON,): The statements in the question
  296
  of the hon. Member give an inadequate and incorrect idea of the gravity of the offences and acts for which Major Woods was tried. The sentence of the Court and all the circumstances connected with this most painful affair have been fully and carefully considered by myself and the naval members of the Board, and it is our unanimous opinion that the sentence should not be interfered with.

  CAMBRIDGE TRUSTEE SAVINGS BANK.
  MR. HOWELL: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the Trustee Savings Bank at Cambridge is closed for the receipt of deposits; whether it is a fact that the Trustees and Managers have refused to afford through the Post Office Savings Bank Authorities the usual facilities to depositors to transfer their accounts on the spot: whether they have refused to allow the exhibition of the usual Post Office notices on the premises of the bank; whether Messrs. J. Mutlock and Co., bankers, of Cambridge, treasurers of the aforesaid Trustee Savings Bank, are making arrangements for the transfer to their own bank of a large number of the deposit accounts of the said Trustee Bank; and whether the National Debt Commissioners can take any steps to bring to the notice of depositors, who are generally ill-informed as to these matters, the usual facilities and information afforded by the Post Office Savings Bank to depositors, with the view of attracting the deposits of a closed Trustee Savings Bank to the Post Office Savings Bank?
  *MR. GOSCHEN: The answer to the first three questions is, yes. As regards the fourth question, I am informed that statements have appeared in the local papers attributing this action to Messrs. Mutlock and Co. The action of the Trustees has been entirely new and unprecedented; but the National Debt Commissioners have no means of communication with the depositors of a savings bank. They have, however, given the Trustees full information as to the steps to be taken for closing the bank, adding that—
  "The Trustees will, no doubt, in the interests of the depositors themselves, induce as many of them as possible to accept transfers to one or other class of savings banks."

  297
  that is, Trustee Saving's Hanks. It is a question whether a provision should not be made in the new Bill compelling the Trustees of banks which are closed to inform their depositors of the facilities afforded by the Post Office Savings Banks. ME. HOWELL: To whom do the deposits belong? Do they not belong to the Trustees and not to the Commissioners of the National Debt?
  *MR. GOSCHEN: The Commissioners can only communicate with the managers and Trustees. They have no direct communication with the depositors. I believe that the Trustees are as anxious to increase the legitimate business of these banks as the hon. Member himself.
  MR. BRUNNER: Will the right hon. Gentleman make a formal request to the Trustees to put up the usual announcement in the building?
  *MR. GOSCHEN: That has already been done by the direction of the Commissioners.

  CIVIL SERVICE WRITERS.
  MR. JOHN KELLY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether three Lower Division vacancies in the Accountant General's Department of the Admiralty have recently been filled up by persons who have passed no examination, except in the case of one who was for some time a boy copyist; whether about a dozen Civil Service writers in this Department were recommended for promotion under the Treasury Minute of 21st December, 1886, to the Lower Division, and that of this number three only have been so promoted; and whether, in the event of the appointments to the above-named vacancies in the Accountant General's Department being only of a temporary character, it is intended that steps should at once be taken to fill up the vacancies from the writers in the Department so recommended, and who have for several years discharged the work?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. FORWOOD,): The Civil Service Commissioners having exhausted their list of qualified candidates for Second Division clerks, three vacancies in the Accountant General's Department of the Admiralty had to be temporarily filled by copyists. It is not intended to
  298
  promote any of the present copyists to the Second Division clerkships now vacant.

  THE EASTERN SOUDAN.
  MR. BRYCE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government can now see their way to advise the Egyptian Government to expend a considerably larger sum than £500 on the relief of the inhabitants of the Eastern Soudan now perishing of famine, having regard to the terrible sufferings reported from that district, and to the desirability of establishing influences and connections which may make for the re-establishment of peace in the Soudan, and prevent the recurrence of like calamities?
  *SIR J. FERGUSSON: The Egyptian Government, besides placing £500 at the disposal of the Governor of Suakin for the relief of the distress, has directed him to provide work for the able-bodied men. It is obviously undesirable to give gratuitous relief except to those who are physically unable to work. In answer to inquiries how a London Committee could best assist, Sir E. Baring has advised that £500 should be sent to the Local Committee, and it is hoped that the arrangements made by the Governor, with the aid of private charity, may prove sufficient to relieve the starving people without any serious demand on the taxpayers of Egypt. Her Majesty's Government are unwilling by any tender of their advice to the Egyptian Government to allow the impression to exist that that Government is insensible to the dictates of humanity.

  SHIPPING GOODS TO THE UNITED STATES.
  MR. CAUSTON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware of the great trouble, inconvenience, and loss caused to partners in firms shipping goods to the United States of America, through their being compelled personally to attend the American Consulate to make declarations on all consignments of the value of £10 and upwards; and whether it is not possible to come to an arrangement with the United States Government whereby this inconvenience may be avoided?
  *SIR J. FERGUSSON: Her Majesty's Minister has addressed the United States Government with reference to the memorials received on this subject from Chambers of Commerce, and has asked for modifications of the regulations in the sense desired. He has been informed that the regulations are undergoing revision, but has not been able as yet to ascertain whether the grievance complained of has been remedied.

  RATING AND VALUATION (SCOTLAND).
  DR. CAMERON: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether the Government propose during this Session to re-appoint the Select Committee on Rating and Valuation (Scotland) which in 1888 took evidence but made no Report?
  *THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. P. B. ROBERTSON,): It was on the Motion of the hon. and learned Member for Dundee (Mr. E. Robertson) that this Committee was appointed in 1888. If a Motion is made for the re-appointment of the Committee, the Government will not oppose it.
  MR. E. ROBERTSON: Then I beg to give notice that directly after the Easter Recess I will move for the reappointment of the Committee.

  ASCENSION ISLAND.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can state what is the value of the victualling stores supplied from Ascension to the vessels of the West African Squadron during the last two years, or either of them?
  *LORD G. HAMILTON: The value of the victualling stores supplied from Ascension to the ships on the West Coast, of Africa station amounted during the two years ended September 30,1889, to about £10,500, or an annual average sum of £5,250. This is exclusive of the value of the stores issued to the residents on the island, amounting to about £3,000 per annum.

  THE OATHS ACT.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: I beg to ask the Solicitor General whether he is aware that at Lynn County Court, on March 19th, Robert Green claimed to affirm
  300
  Under "The Oaths Act, 1888;" whether the County Court Judge is correctly reported as having asked: "Are you a Quaker?" and on being answered in the negative, refused to allow Green to explain how he was entitled to affirm under "The Oaths Act, 1888," saying, "You must go to argue that somewhere else;" and whether any steps can be taken to bring "The Oaths Act, 1888," to the official knowledge of the Judge?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir E. CLARKE,): In reply to the hon. Member, the Attorney General is informed that the statement in the question does not fully represent what passed. The learned Judge states that he understood the defendant was claiming a right to make a speech and not asking to be allowed to affirm, and on his telling him he must be sworn, or if he had conscientious objections to taking the oath he might affirm, the defendant at once consented to be sworn and gave evidence. The learned Judge seems to be acquainted with the provisions of "The Oaths Act, 1888."

  NAVAL AND MILITARY COUNCIL OF DEFENCE.
  SIR JOHN COLOMB: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether Her Majesty's Government, when considering the suggestion of the Royal Commission respecting the formation of a Naval and Military Council of Defence, will further take into consideration the opportunity afforded by the establishment of any such Council for providing in some form for the representation upon it of outlying portions of the Empire contributing to the maintenance of the regular Naval and Military Forces of the Crown?
  *THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH,): The subject to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers will undoubtedly receive the consideration of Her Majesty's Government, but he will, I am sure, realise that it is surrounded with very great and serious difficulties.

  POSTAL ORDERS.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he is aware that large numbers of cheques are drawn for one guinea or two guineas in payment of subscriptions to charitable

  301
  and other institutions, and greatly to the inconvenience of the bankers; whether he will supply the public with postal orders for one guinea and two guineas respectively; and whether he will extend the time so as to make postal orders payable within 12 months of issue, without fine or increased charge?
  *MR. RAIKES: I have no information as to the number of cheques drawn for sums of a guinea or two guineas respectively, though I have no doubt that they are numerous, but I know that the idea of introducing a postal order for a guinea had to be abandoned owing to the opposition of bankers. As regards the last part of the question, the hon. Member does not seem to be aware that the limit of time during which postal orders are payable without fine was reduced in deference to the wishes of this House from 12 months to three, when the Act of Parliament was under the consideration of the House.

  RAILWAY MESSAGES BY TELEGRAPH.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether his attention has been called to the evidence of the late Mr. C. H. B. Patey, C.B., Third Secretary of the Post Office, given before the Select Committee on the Revenue Estimates, that, under the terms of the Telegraph Act, the Post Office had, as part of the bargain for its way leave, to transmit messages sent on the business of railway companies free of cost; that in 1871 there were transmitted 97,000 such messages, and in the year 1888 961,000 messages; that these railway messages would represent something like 1s. a message at the least, the loss of revenue on them being nearly £50,000 a year; and that the railway companies had found it more convenient to do their business by means of the Telegraph Office for nothing than to do it in other ways; and whether he will at once take steps to introduce a Bill into Parliament to put an end to this arrangement?
  *MR. RAIKES: I am well acquainted with the evidence in question which, the hon. Member may recollect, was given in my hearing. He may also recollect that he was present in this House on the 28th March last year, when attention was called to the evidence by the right hon.
  302
  Gentleman the Member for Bradford, and the hon. Members for Bethnal Green and South West Notts; and I would refer him to the remarks which I made on that occasion. I may add, for the information of the House, that legal action on the right of the railway companies to send certain classes of messages is now pending, and, until the result is known, I shall not be in a position to consider the question of the further relation of the Post Office to the companies in this matter.

  INDUSTRIAL EDUCATION.
  SIR RICHARD PAGET: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, whether his attention has been called to the Report of the Commission on Industrial Education, made to the Legislature of Pennsylvania, 1889, of which 10,000 copies were ordered to be printed; and whether he will consider the propriety of directing the Science and Art Department, South Kensington, to issue, as a handbook for the use of such technical schools as may require it, a series of plates of the nature of those engraved in the Annual Report of the Pennsylvannia State College, which are stated at page 304 of the Report of the Commission above referred to, to be "the best available illustration of a progressive series of exercises for a course of the mechanic arts?"
  THE VICE PRESIDENT or THE COUNCIL (Sir W. HART DYKE,: I have seen the Report to which my hon. Friend refers, but valuable and instructive as the plates are, it is not proposed to issue a handbook because it has not been found expedient for a Government Department in this country to publish text-books. No doubt, as manual instruction is henceforth to be included in the curriculum, many books on the subject will be produced by private enterprise and may to a large extent be based on the Report in question.

  IRELAND-CASE OF MR. McDERMOTT.
  MR. THOMAS GILL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland what have been the costs incurred by the Crown in the various remands of Mr. McDermott, of Clanricarde. including the cest of

  303
  transporting and escorting him on each occasion from the gaol to the locality in which the secret Court before which he has been summoned has been held?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have already answered this question in reply to a query of the hon. Member for Cork.
  MR. GILL: Is not the right hon-Gentleman aware that Mr. McDermott has already been for 10 weeks in gaol, and is he not of opinion that the time has now arrived to grant his release?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am aware that Mr. McDermott is in prison because ho has refused to answer the questions which have been put to him.
  MR. GILL: Has he refused to answer any question that may be put to him in open Court, and has he not been brought 10 times from Galway Gaol to Ballenasloe, a distance of 40 miles?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I only know that he is detained in custody because he refuses to give evidence in regard to the commission of an outrage.
  MR. GILL: Has he not offered again and again to give evidence in open Court?
  [No answer.]

  THE EDUCATION CODE.
  SIR W. HART DYKE: I beg to give notice that on Monday, April 14, I will move for leave to bring in a Bill for the purpose of making operative certain articles in the new Education Code with reference to instruction in evening schools and the proposed new Grant to small schools in rural districts.
  MR. MUNDELLA: Will the Bill be confined to those official subjects?
  SIR W. HART DYKE: Yes; to those special subjects.

  PUBLIC TRUSTEES AND TRUST COMPANIES'BILL.
  MR. HOWARD VINCENT: I bog to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer a question, of which I have given him private notice, namely, whether the Government will consent to the Public Trustee Bill and the Trust Companies' Bill, which have now come down to this House, being referred to a Select Committee to inquire and report upon their provisions?
  *MR. GOSCHEN: Yes, we should certainly propose that those two Bills should
  304
  be referred to a Committee, but I am not quite certain whether it should be a Select Committee specially appointed for the purpose or whether it should be one of the Standing Committees.

  CRETE AND TURKISH WAR VESSELS.
  MR. BRYCE: I also desire to ask the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs a question, of which I have given private notice, namely, whether there is any foundation for the statement in the Times of this day telegraphed from Athens that several Turkish war vessels cruising around Crete have endeavoured to disguise their character by flying the British flag; and whether, if the statement is found to be true, the Government will take prompt notice of such unwarrantable conduct?
  *SIR J. FERGUSSON: We have heard that there was a rumour at Athens that one or more Turkish men-of-war had been seen in the direction named, under Italian colours. No mention was then made of such use of British colours, nor have the Admiralty heard anything concerning these allegations.
  MR. BRYCE: May I ask whether, considering the positive way in which the statement is made in the Times, the right hon. Gentleman will take steps to inquire whether the statement is true?
  *SIR J. FERGUSSON: The Foreign Office are hardly bound to make inquiry on every statement that appears in the newspapers. I would remind the hon. Gentleman that this country has ships in those waters, and that if any improper use is made of the British flag it is quite certain to be reported to the Admiralty.

  THE CONVICT DALY.
  MR. SEXTON: May I ask if the Home Secretary has any statement to make in reference to the prisoner Daly?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I have made it clear on former occasions that the visitors have written in answer to an application made to them stating that they expect their Report to be ready in the course of the Easter Recess.

  EPIDEMICS IN IRELAND.
  MR. E. HARRINGTON: I wish to ask whether the Chief Secretary for Ireland is aware of the fact that influenza or some other epidemic has seriously interfered with the attendance of school

  305
  children in Ireland; and whether he will give any instructions on the subject?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I will communicate with the authorities on the subject.

  CHARITY COMMISSION SCHEMES.
  SIR R. PAGET: I wish to ask the hon. Member for Penrith whether the Charity Commissioners will be prepared to send to the clerks of County Councils a copy of every draft scheme to be published by the direction of the Commissioners, for the regulation of a charity administered for the benefit of any parish or place within the jurisdiction of the County Councils respectively?
  MR. J. W. LOWTHER: The Charity Commissioners will comply with the request of any County Council which passes a resolution requesting to be supplied with a copy of every draft scheme for a charity in that county published after the date of such resolution.

  NEWFOUNDLAND.
  MR. W. REDMOND: I wish to ask the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs a question of which I have given him private notice. It is whether the attention of the Government has been called to the cablegram received by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland with reference to the Newfoundland Fishery Question, in which it is alleged that the Government of Newfoundland deny having consented to the modus vivendi between Her Majesty's Government and France, alleging that it had been only partially submitted to Newfoundland? Is it true that the Government of Newfoundland did not consent to the modus vivendi at present existing, and is it true that the despatches were only partially submitted to Newfoundland?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: With regard to the questions now put by the hon. Member, I answered similar questions last week. I may state that the modus vivendi was submitted with a view to meeting, as far as possible, the views of the Government of Newfoundland. In its original form it was not consented to by the Government of Newfoundland, but a full explanation of the whole case has been sent to the
  306
  Government of Newfoundland, and the objection which has been expressed to it is, I think, founded on a misapprehension. I think it would be much better to wait until the Government of Newfoundland is in full possession of the facts of the case.
  MR. W. REDMOND: Considering the extremely excited condition of public opinion in Newfoundland over this matter, do not Her Majesty's Government consider it vital to cable out the full text of the arrangement come to with France; and do the Government intend to invite representatives of Newfoundland to this country?
  *SIR J. FERGUSSON: Her Majesty's Government have expressed their desire that representatives from Newfoundland should come over to this country for the purpose of consultation, but I am not authorised to make any further communication.
  MR. W. REDMOND: In consequence of the reply I have received I beg to give notice that I shall call attention to this subject on the Vote for the Foreign Office.

  THE NEW EDUCATION CODE.
  MR. A. J. MUNDELLA: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman when his Bill will be introduced?
  SIR W. HART DYKE: Monday, 14th April.
  MR. MUNDELLA: Will it be confined to the subjects which have been mentioned?
  SIR W. HARTDYKE: It will; that was my object in making the statement.

  PUBLIC PETITIONS COMMITTEE.
  Fifth Report brought up, and read; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

  LAND PURCHASE (IRELAND) (NAMES OF LANDOWNERS).
  Return ordered—
  "Giving the names of the landowners the purchase of whose properties under" The Land Purchase (Ireland) Act, 1885,' has been sanctioned by the Irish Land Commission since the 1st day of January, 1889, with the following-particulars against each name:—(a) area of the property; (b) county in which situated; (c) total rental; (d) valuation: (e) amount of purchase money; (f) total number of holdings on the estate (in continuation of Return, No. 81, of Session 1889.")—(Mr. J. Morley.)

  ARMY (COURTS MARTIAL.)
  Addresss for—
  "Return for 1889, for each Regiment of Cavalry, Battery of Artillery, Company of Engineers, and Battalion of Infantry, respectively, of the number and proportion to average strength of, first, General; second, District or Garrison and Regimental Courts Martial, distinguishing those in which the offences are only in relation to Enlistment; third, Minor Punishments; fourth, Desertions; and, fifth, Stations (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 308, of Session 1889.")—(Sir Frederick Fitz-Wygram.)

  EDUCATION (PRIMARY INSTRUCTION IN PARIS.)
  Address for—
  "Copy of Letter from Sir B. Samuelson, Baronet, M.P., to the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, concerning Public Primary Instruction in Paris."—[Sir William Hart Dyke.)

  NEW MEMBER.
  Edmund Francis Vesey Knox, esquire, for the County of Cavan (West Cavan Division).
MOTIONS.

  SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE (MORNING SITTING.)
  (4.47.) Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do meet Tomorrow, at Two o'clock."—(Mr. William Henry Smith.)
  MR. SEXTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman state what is to be the order of business?
  *MR. W. H. SMITH: I hope to be able to make sufficient progress in Supply this evening in order to be able to move the Adjournment to-morrow. In that event, there are one or two Bills which will not occupy more than two minutes. After that we will move the Adjournment, which will take effect at the rising of the House at seven o'clock.
  MR. SEXTON: What Bills?
  *MR. W. H. SMITH: The South Indian Railway Purchase Bill, and I hope we may possibly take the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Bill.
  DR. TANNER: How much money—how many Votes will the right hon. Gentleman require this evening?
  *MR. W. H. SMITH: I hope it will be possible to take Class 1. Some of the money is required for buildings, and it is desirable that there should be no delay in obtaining it, in order that the buildings may be proceeded with during the most favourable time of the year.
  MR. SEXTON: I understood that no Irish Supply was to be taken before the 17th April.
  *MR. W. H. SMITH: That is the last of the Votes in Class 1, and it will not be taken.
  Question put, and agreed to.

  PRIVATE BILL PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  On Motion of The Lord Advocate, Bill to amend the Procedure in regard to Private Bills relating to Scotland, ordered to be brought in by The Lord Advocate, Mr. William Henry Smith, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Mr. Solicitor General for Scotland.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 214.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY.
  Order for Committee read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

  CUSTOMS DEPARTMENT.
  *SIR JOHN COLOMB&c.): Mr. Speaker, I wish to call attention to the increased responsibilities and duties of certain officials employed in the Customs Department during the last eight years, arising from recent legislation, Departmental changes, and developments of trade and shipping; and to move—
  "That in the interests of the Revenue and the commercial and shipping transactions of the United Kingdom, it is expedient that special inquiry should be made into the organisation of the Customs Department, particularly as regards the position, the hours, and the overtime of the outdoor officers, upon which subjects the Royal Commissioners on Civil Establishments were unable to report, and therefore remitted to the Treasury to deal with."
  I do not, Sir, wish to weary the House, or to approach this question in a spirit of captious criticism, but rather to deal with it on broad and general grounds, believing as I do that inquiry is necessary and that it should be an inquiry which

  309
  will go to the root of the matter. The Customs Department performs two great functions. First, the overhauling and minute examination of all ships, of all cargoes, of all passengers, and of all the effects of passengers coming into the Kingdom, and various other complex duties connected with bonded warehouses, the export trade, transhipments, and the gauging duties. This work is done by the practical or out-door staff of the Customs. The second function is the recording of the results of such overhauling and minute personal examination by the practical staff. This recording is done by the clerical or indoor staff. Now, the central superintending establishment over this duplex Organisation consists of a Board of three Commissioners, a Secretary's Office, a Surveyor General's Office, an Accountant General and Controller's Office, a Statistical Branch, and a Bill of Entry Branch. The superintending establishment is composed of 207 officials in the proportion of about 3 of the practical staff to 204 of the clerical. Two out of the three Commissioners were Treasury clerks; the third was a War Office clerk, while the Secretary was also a Treasury clerk. Thus, the general administration is almost exclusively in the hands of gentlemen without previous practical experience of Customs work. The rest of the Customs Department is organised in establishments at the various ports, such as London, Liverpool, and elsewhere, and each of these Departments at each port is divided into indoor and outdoor branches—or, as I prefer to call them, the clerical and practical staffs. The duties of the clerical staff of a port establishment do not materially differ from clerical work in other Departments of the State. But the duties of the practical staff at the port are heavy, complicated, peculiar, and various. The practical or outdoor staff are on duty by night as well as by day; they are exposed to all the vicissitudes of the weather. Rain or shine, fog or storm, in rough or smooth water, their work must be done. Upon the activity, vigilance, and accuracy of these officers, the Cus. toms Revenue depends. Upon their tact, temper, and judgment also depends the smooth working of the gigantic foreign trade of the country. In 1888, the aggregate tonnage of ships
  310
  dealt with was 68½ millions of tons. The value of the imports and exports dealt with by the practical staff in that year amounted to £685,500,000. The net duty from weighing and gauging all dutiable goods and assessing Customs Revenue amounted to £21,000,000. Then they have the keeping of the accounts of goods in 308 bonded warehouses. They have charge of Quarantine Duties, the examination of passengers' baggage, of ships' stores, of dangerous oils and explosives, and of cattle, and they have to see that there is no evasion of the law with respect to indecent publications and to British trade marks. They have to verify statistics with regard to imports, and to enforce the law respecting copyright. They have also their duties connected with the bonded warehouse, including the examination and certification of the shipments of all bonded and draw-back goods, and the authorisation of all the deliveries from bonded warehouses. Taking the number of the examining staff, every examining officer overhauls annually, on the average, over 40,000 tons of shipping in the year, supervises over £400,000 of imports and exports, and assesses over £12,000 of Revenue. That justifies the statement that the duties of the practical staff are complex and various. In order to bring the ground for inquiry into as small a focus as possible, I will now confine myself to illustrating my point by taking the establishment of the Port of London as exhibiting the general conditions which I think should be inquired into. The establishment of the Port of London consists of a clerical staff of 92, and of an outdoor staff of 1,278; and I find that the average salary of the clerical staff is £293, whilst the average salary of the outdoor staff is only £140. Now, this exemplifies sufficiently one of the points which, I think, demands careful examination, namely, that the average salary of the practical or outdoor staff is less than half the salary of the clerical or indoor staff. This great discrepancy in the salary averages is a matter which, I think, in view of what I have brought before the House, demands serious and careful investigation. I can only account for it by remembering that the Treasury itself is a thoroughly clerical Department, and naturally has a fellow-

  311
  feeling for the clerical branch of the Customs. As regards hours of work, those of the clerical branch are much the same, I understand, as those of the other clerical Departments of the State, but the hours of duty of the practical outdoor staff are longer—so far as my information goes—than those of any other Department of the Civil Service. I find that officers at the larger ports are often on duty and, perhaps, without rest, for alternative, continuous, periods of 24 hours, and that Sundays and Bank Holidays are included. I find that the Chairman of the Customs, commenting on that statement before the Ridley Commission, observes that—
  "When on duty for 24 hours, the officers are allowed time for meals and for [such rest and sleep as the Service will permit."
  Well, I think that is a very mild qualification, and one that supports my argument for inquiry. I find that the information was laid before the Civil Service Commission by Mr. Hinks, the head of the Water-guard, that in each 21 days a man is in attendance 224 hours, or 10¾ hours in every 24, and is on duty, at most, every other Sunday. That was also a qualifying remark on the broad statement of long hours that was laid before the Ridley Commission by the outdoor Department. I think it will be seen by every one who peruses the Report of that Commission, or reads the Appendix, that it is officially acknowledged that the hours are longer than in the clerical Departments of the Services. Then the outdoor staff have less chances of promotion than the indoor. They receive, on an average, less pay, and they are longer on duty, and yet they do all the practical work of the Customs Department. The origin of this state of things, so far as I am able to ascertain, began in 1882. In that year there was a great re-organisation of the Customs Department, and, as far as I can make out, it resulted in the rapid promotion and increased payments of the clerical heads of the Customs, and an increase of work and reduced chances of promotion to the outdoor practical staff. Previous to June, 1882, the clerical work of the warehousing branch of the Port of London was performed by an indoor special clerical staff of 269 officials with average salaries of £250 a year; but in Sir John Colomb
  312
  1882 the work was transferred as an additional duty to the outdoor services, performed by the practical officers, whose average salaries at that time were about £128 a year. In order to compensate the outdoor staff for the unpleasant effect of this amalgamation a new classification of the staff was not only promised, but actually approved of by the Treasury. In effect, that classification was to provide superior appointments and improvements in the status of the officials in the higher Department of the outdoor branch of the Customs. But the promise has not been kept. The classification was altered, and the benefits promised by it were withheld. In the revised classification the number of higher posts was cut down and a new lower and cheaper grade of outdoor officers—called "assistants"—was added at the bottom of the classification. The increase at the bottom was to compensate for the cutting off at the top of those good appointments and better prospects afforded by the original classification. I find that since 1882 the general Customs staff has been materially reduced, and I find also that there are now only 112 persons employed overlooking and superintending the outdoor Customs work for the whole of the ports of the United Kingdom. Since 1883 the practical staff of the Port of London has been reduced by something like 22 surveyors and 8 first-class examining officers; and I find on comparing the Board of Trade Shipping Returns of 1882 and 1888 that while, on the one hand, the clerical Department has been cutting down the superintendents and practical officers of the Port of London, the aggregate number of. tons of shipping entering the port has been 1,500,000 tons greater in 1888 than in 1882. Now, the result of all this, however satisfactory it may have been to the clerical Department, has been that the work of the practical Department has been increased, whilst the promotion has been retarded. I find that, taking the last decade and dividing it into two portions of five years each, in the five years ending 1888 there were 43 less promotions from second-class examining officers to first-class examining officers than there were in 1883; and I find that in the five years ending 1883 the promotions of inferior grades to

  313
  assistant examining officers and examining officers and gaugers were 425, but in the five years ending 1888 the number of promotions had fallen to 311, so that the decrease of promotions for these two periods, and for that particular step of advancement, has been 114. I find that in 1888 there were only six promotions to first-class, while the average of such promotions in previous years was 28. So that, with increased duties, there has been a decrease of prospects of promotion in the Outdoor Department. In order, as it appears to me, to get the practical work done with less hands, and to avoid increasing the cost, the Department has had to resort to the plan of having temporary makeshift appointments—acting men and acting assistants who belong to the lower grade, and whilst doing the work of the higher grade, receive the pay of the lower. This is naturally a grievance to the lower grade officers, and my point is that on broad grounds of public policy it is a bad system that responsibilities assigned to a particular class of individuals should, because you have an insufficient number of such men, be imposed on men of an inferior grade. Thus inferior officers of the practical staff are employed on superior duty without extra remuneration, although the work has been increasing, a thing which, in itself, it seems to me, deserves very searching inquiry. There is a matter in connection with this subject to which I think I am justified in drawing the attention of the House. I am not going to labour the point, and I am not going to say that the statistics I give are such as justify a strong pronouncement of opinion; but they are curious and interest ing, because it does appear to me that as it is the practical staff that stands between this country and evasion by dutiable goods, and on their efficiency and their work depends the revenue of the country, there should be a very minute inquiry to ascertain whether all the changes which have occurred since 1882 to the detriment of the practical staff have not led to a decline, to some extent, of that revenue. During the past eight years, whilst these changes which have tended to diminish the number of the practical staff were occurring, there has been a great advance in our national business. The tonnage of
  314
  the ships entering and clearing the ports of the United Kingdominl888was7,000,000 tons greater than 1882. That means a largely increased number of ships, and means a great increase of personal exertion in overhauling 7,000,000 tons of additional shipping. Then, if you take the Export and import Returns of 1882. and compare them with those of 1889, you will find that goods of the value of £2 1,000,000 more in the last named year than the former had to pass under the supervision and constant examination of the practical outdoor staff. The increase in the supervision of passengers and their baggage it is impossible to state, for the reason that whilst there is a record kept of immigration and emigration from and to places outside Europe, there is none in regard to European immigrations and emigrations. In the record that exists, I find that the emigration and immigration figures in 882 were 78,000 passengers, whereas in 1888 they were 129,000. or an increase of 64 per cent. It is fair to assume that in the unrecorded emigration and immigration the increase has been as great. Therefore, it will be seen that there has been an increase in the amount of work the outdoor Custom House officers have had to perform. But in addition to that, this House has imposed and placed fresh duties on the practical staff since 1882. The enforcement of the provisions of the Merchandise Marks Act of 1887 is one of these fresh duties. The new work created by the excellent Wine Duties Act of 1888 is another. Then there is the Registry of Fishing Boats Act of 1886, with respect to which new duties are imposed and increased labour is also thrown on them by the new system of gauging casks to the quart instead of to the integral gallon. There is also the testing of spirits for "obscuration." It is a curious fact that, in spite of all the increase of trade and business, the revenue from Customs Duty stagnates in a way not to be satisfactorily accounted for by the alterations made in the amounts of the duties. The Customs Returns, oddly enough, show that the revenue collected has, since 1882 fallen as the number of officers of the outdoor department has diminished. I do not base any strong argument upon the fact; I merely notice the coincidence. I have not been able to work out the

  315
  variations due to alterations in duty, and there are various nice considerations to be taken into account before it would be safe to lay down the doctrine that the revenue has fallen, because the number of officers has been reduced, and the number of duties imposed upon the Department has increased. There is another odd fact. As the number of officers of Customs has been reduced, the number of seizures of smuggled goods has increased. It is interesting in this respect to compare the figures of 1882 with those of 1889. In 1882 the number of established Customs officers was 5,223. In 1889 it had fallen to 4,595—a decrease of 628. The revenue collected in 1882 was £22,175,937, whilst that collected in 1889 was only £21,888,603—a decrease of over a quarter of a million. The seizures of smuggled goods in 1882 numbered 1,698, and in 1889 they had risen to 4,354—an increase of 2,656. The convictions for smuggling in 1882 numbered 1,516, and in 1889 3,294—an increase of 1,778 cases. The number of seizures of tobacco and spirits had in seven years increased by 113 per cent. When it is remembered that goods seized are liable to treble duty, it is evident that in order to make smuggling profitable there must be at least some three successful evasions of duty to compensate for each failure. Therefore, we may approximately compute the number of cases of smuggling last year at some 10,000 cases, over 8,000 of which were not detected. The revenue from unmanufactured tobacco, which is most likely to be affected by an increase in smuggling, is tolerably stationary, in spite of the increase of population in the last decade. The consumption of tobacco per head of the population given in the Statistical Abstract is, of course, based only upon the consumption of tobacco which has paid duty. I find that in 1868 it amounted to 1–35 lbs., whilst in 1878 it was 1·44 lbs., showing an increase of 9·100ths of a lb. of tobacco per head. But this ratio of increase has not been kept up, for in the l0 years between 1878 and 1888 the increase was only l,100ths per head. It is certainly difficult to reconcile these figures with one's own observation as to the practice of smoking except by assuming that large quantities of tobacco reach the country without having paid duty.
  316
  As a proof that smoking has increased I may mention the fact of the new institution of smoking concerts constantly given by almost all the political clubs in the Kingdom. I find also that the number of occasional dealers licensed in 1889 was nearly fourfold that in 1879. These facts seem to me to show that the consumption of tobacco is increasing, and is not practically standing still, as would appear from the Statistical Abstract. In conclusion, I would mention that the whole case of the complaints of the outdoor staff was laid before the Ridley Commission and was commented on by the Clerical Head and the Secretary of the Customs Service. The Commissioners reported that they "did not feel themselves in a position to report in detail," and for so declining to report they gave as a reason that
  "It would require much more accurate and technical knowledge than could possibly be at our command, before we could give opinions adverse to those entertained by responsible heads of offices, who are so thoroughly acquainted with the character of the work," &c.
  And so the Commission left the question to the Treasury. I would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to devise some machinery for an inquiry being conducted "with more accurate and technical knowledge" than the Commissioners possessed, and by which a thorough and impartial investigation may be made into the whole question. The House is aware that neither the present Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Goschen) nor the present Financial Secretary (Mr. Jackson) is responsible for the pulling to pieces of the Customs machinery in 1882. I fully recognise the difficulty of putting right a, huge and complex administrative machine after it was pulled to pieces by 'prentice hands eight years ago, and after it has been tinkered with ever since. I recognise also that the cry for economy in this House involves cheeseparing in the lower grades of Departments. I am fully alive to the fact that there are inherent evils and dangers to the administration of the Services by the modern system of multitudinous Commissions and Inquiries, which are often at cross purposes with each other. I apprehend that the ever-increasing demands on the time and attention of Ministers by the continually accumulating power of Parliamentary talk, is

  317
  really shifting the practical duties of administration from their hands to those of permanent clerical officials, who in theory are their subordinates. It appears to me that as the time and attention of Ministers is more and more absorbed by this House than by the Departments over which they preside, so must the permanent clerical officials transfer to themselves more and more of the administrative functions of Ministers. For the grave evils I have ventured to bring before the House I blame not men but the modern system, and I bring forward my Motion on the ground of its importance, and because I am persuaded of its public necessity.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words-
  "In the interests of the Revenue and the commercial and shipping transactions of the United Kingdom, it is expedient that special inquiry should be made into the organisation of the Customs Department, particularly as regards the position, the hours, and the overtime of the outdoor officers, upon which subjects the Royal Commissioners on Civil Establishments were unable to report, and therefore remitted to the Treasury to deal with,"—(Sir John Colomb,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. BRADLAUGH: In rising to second the Amendment moved by the hon. and gallant Gentleman, I wish to say I am placed in an exceedingly difficult position by the concluding words of his speech. If I fancied anything I was likely to say in support of the Amendment tended in any way against the policy of economy which I understand both Front Benches practically concur in, I should be extremely loth to occupy the time of the House. But there is economy and economy, and if the case presented with so much detail by the hon. and gallant Member has anything in it, as I think it has, a ground for inquiry has been made out. It is true that many evils necessarily result from raising discussions in this House upon the administration of the various Departments; but I think that is an evil inherent in our system of Parliamentary Government, and it is no use deploring
  318
  it at the present moment. Ministers are under the control of Parliament, to some extent at any rate, and evils in the Departments should be brought before the House in order that Parliament may understand what it is giving Ministers money for. Prima facie I would suggest that, if there were no such grounds presented as have been presented in support of this proposal, the fact that general inquiries have been deemed necessary by Royal Commissions in the other Departments would involve the possibility that such an inquiry might be necessary here. If it be true that, coupled with the reduction of the Customs staff, from various parts of the coasts and creeks smuggling has increased, some inquiry is necessary. I see the Chancellor of the Exchequer contradicts that, and I am sure his means of information are more complete than can possibly be those at my disposal; but then we have before us the fact that there has been no increase of revenue proportionate to the increase of population. I see the Secretary to the Treasury says I am wrong in that. I know there is nothing more deceptive than a mass of figures; but I am bound to say it seems to me to be the case at the moment that there has not been the increase of revenue from tobacco and spirits which one would expect in view of the increase of population. Of course, if this was due to the-greater sobriety of the people—and I believe the masses of the working-classes are growing more sober year by year—it would be a matter of congratulation. But the statement made by the hon. and gallant Gentleman seems to show that there has been an increase of smuggling all round, and the increase in seizures and convictions seems to show that a business of no inconsiderable extent is carried on. Certainly I think some inquiry should be made into the hon. and gallant Gentleman's allegations. Since the Play fair inquiry, in 1875, the conditions under which these Civil servants work have not been inquired into. This evening, in reply to a question I put to him, the Secretary to the Treasury said some of these men are kept at their work continuously for a period of 24 hours.
  *THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY, (Mr. JACKSON,): No, I did not say that. There is a confusion

  319
  of terms. I said they were in attendance for duty.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: But they are liable to be called upon at any time during the 24 hours. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman in his happy life ever had the disadvantage of being liable to be called upon in this way. Having been part of my life subject to a command of "guards, turn out," I am bound to say that a man who is liable to be called upon at any time in 24 hours, even if he has convenience for rest, is certainly not in a very enviable position. When we are told that in the case of the Harpy cutter no bedding is provided for the men who are on duty, it is quite clear that the authorities think that the men are likely to be called upon so often that the beds would not be much used if they were provided. I do not want to stand between the Government and the Votes they wish to take, and therefore I simply suggest that a prima facie case has been made out by the Mover of the Amendment for some inquiry. The hon. and gallant Gentleman does not ask for a Royal Commission or for an inquiry by the House—forms of inquiry which I expect would not be well received by any one connected with the Department. But surely the Chancellor of the Exchequer might himself undertake some inquiry, or undertake that special attention should be paid to this matter, so that Parliament should see there was no real grievance which was left unredressed. I understand by his manner that the Chancellor of the Exchequer assents to the view I am expressing. If that is so, I am loth to occupy the time of the House longer.
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: It appears to me that there is one very simple and quite conclusive ground for the Amendment which almost precludes, and certainly does not require, any lengthened discussion. There seems to be no dispute about the fact that there has been an inquiry into the organisation of the Civil Service establishments, and that those who were charged with that inquiry have not been able, from want of time, to undertake an examination into the organisation of the Customs Department. It is, therefore, in point of fact a question of what has been recognised as a public duty, com-
  320
  bined with the evidence before us that a portion of that public duty remains unfulfilled. I therefore think the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member is obviously reasonable in the purpose which it contemplates, and I gathered from different indications that the Government are not indisposed to accede to that opinion. It appears to me also that the hon. and gallant Member has exercised a sound discretion in avoiding any endeavour by the terms of his Amendment to limit the action of the Government as to the nature—the precise machinery—of the inquiry they are to make, and I would suggest, if it should appear that there is a general concurrence with regard to the purpose in view, that the hon. and gallant Member should show a further discretion by withdrawing his Amendment on the clear understanding that the Government are to discover for themselves and to state to the House what they deem to be the best machinery of inquiry. I think the hon. and gallant Member will feel—as I myself certainly feel, and strongly feel—that there ought never to be any interference by the House, through any vote or Motion, in a question of the administration of a Public Department, except where a necessity for such interference has arisen. No necessity for such interference can be said to have arisen when the object contemplated by the Amendment is one which Her Majesty's Government admit to be reasonable, and with respect to which they are prepared to provide adequate means for carrying it into effect. Upon that supposition I recommend the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment not to ask the House to come to a vote on the Amendment. I am bound to say I have another reason for wishing that the House should not come to a vote upon the Amendment, and that is that while I commend what seems to me the sound judgment of the Mover of the Amendment in respect to the discretion he allows to the Government, and in respect to the substantial justice of his object, I certainly should not like to be pledged to the general colour and tendency of the speech of the hon. and gallant Member. The hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Brad-laugh) has said that nothing would induce him to second the Amendment if he thought there was anything in it

  321
  which would be adverse to public economy. Then the hon. Member said "but there is economy and economy." Will he forgive me for saying that that is a remark which I have often heard used in this House? No doubt the hon. Member used it with a good object. The fact is, every one who recommends anything extravagant in this House invariably takes care to have it well understood he does so in the interest of economy. There is good economy and bad economy, such an hon. Member will say, and he is in favour of good economy as opposed to bad economy, and on that account he recommends certain expenditure, having it in his mind to save the money in some other way not yet developed or explained. Such declarations ought to be received with some caution, and I am quite clear that if we go into this inquiry it ought to be undertaken without prejudice and without any general supposition that what is to be arrived at is a foregone conclusion. A considerable point of the Mover's speech was to show that whereas there has been an increase of duty in the Port of London between 1878 and 1888, the increased duty is performed by a diminished number of official persons. I should have thought that prima facie that statement ought to fill the mind of the hon. Member with a lively satisfaction. On the contrary, it is treated by the hon. Member as being a most grave circumstance. requiring a minute and jealous inquiry. Indeed, that part of his speech actually tended to the conclusion that if it could be shown that there was a diminished amount of duty done by an increased number of officials, that circumstance would have filled the hon. Member's mind with satisfaction and joy. I have not the smallest doubt that in the case of the constituents of the hon. Member, as in other cases, a very large amount of public duty is performed by a body of trustworthy servants at moderate remuneration. I do not question that, but I must observe that the case of the Customs Department is peculiar from one very important point of view. There is no other department of the State the duties of which have undergone so extraordinary a revolution in our time—I mean in the sense of simplification and facilities. It is nearly 50 years since, as Vice Presi-
  322
  dent of the Board of Trade, I became minutely acquainted with the working of the Customs Department, and it is marvellous to compare its duties at that time with what they are now. A very large proportion of the duties of the Board of Trade at that time consisted in investigating the cases of difficulty which arose, and arose from day to day, under the Customs law, and required incessantly to be made the subject of appeal from the Customs Authorities to the Board of Treasury, which used the Board of Trade as its adviser. What has become of those appeals? The whole subject matter of them has been swept away. The change in our commercial system which has reduced the 1,200 articles of our tariff to something like 12, and which has established as the rule of trade in this country a system of free goods and free entry instead of universal duty, striking every commodity as it approached our shores, and entailing a system of examination, checks and counter-checks, such as are now totally unknown, has happily relieved the department of ninteen-twentieths of its former difficulties. I must say I believe also that the Department has been extremely well administered under its successive heads. Everything I trust that can be established in the nature of a substantive grievance on the part of the hon. and gallant Member's constituents will, I hope, receive a close and careful examination, but I trust this inquiry will not be undertaken with the belief that something must be very wrong indeed, on grounds such as have been laid before the House by the hon. and gallant Gentleman.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN, St. George's,): I think it is desirable I should rise at once to state the course which the Government propose to take in regard to this Amendment. The Amendment was introduced in a conciliatory speech by my hon. and gallant Friend, and I may say at once that the Government will meet him precisely in the spirit indicated by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian, who for many years has been endeavouring to reform the administration both of the Customs and of the Inland Revenue, and who is as responsible as any one, and probably

  323
  more responsible than any one, for this desirable result—that the revenue in this country, both of the Customs and the Inland Revenue, is collected with less cost to the taxpayer than in any other country in the world. A distinction ought to be drawn between the efficiency of the Service and the position of the officers engaged in that Service. With regard to the officers engaged in the Service, one fact is clear, namely, that rigid good faith must be kept with them, and that they should have no reason to complain that the terms on which they entered the Service have been changed to their detriment. But neither are they entitled to claim that if there is a Service pretty similar to their own, which stands on a different footing, the terms of their own engagement must be altered to their advantage. There is nothing more dangerous than the levelling up of all Departments of the State by a system of comparison of the salaries received in one Department with those received in other Departments. The question is whether the duties of the officers are adequately remunerated. My hon. and gallant Friend supposes they are not adequately paid, but there are now600 applicants for the Service. I have had sufficient experience of the Civil Service to know that if the Customs officers are levelled up to some particular point, another class will at once wish to be levelled to the same point also. For the Government I can say that they will inquire into every possible real grievance that may exist; but I must deprecate the basis of a general levelling up of salaries advocated by my hon. and gallant Friend. One of the hon. and gallant Gentleman's main grievances was that there has been a certain reduction in the upper part of the Service.
  *SIR J. COLOMB: The Outdoor Service.
  *MR. GOSCHEN: Well, my point is that whenever any re-organisation or reform takes place involving a diminution of num-bersit must be asked, where is the diminution to take place? It will not take place at the bottom of the scale, where the young men are, nor in the middle, because the House naturally and rightly objects to pensioning men in the prime of life. Therefore, the reduction must take place in the upper branches of the Service; and if any such reduction is to be deprecated because it curtails the opportunities for promotion, there will
  324
  be an end to all reform at once. I have heard the complaint made many times, and I think that it is impossible to recognise that Civil servants have any vested interest in the number of offices in the higher grades of the Service. If the State acknowledges that there is such a vested interest, then there will be an end to all reform. I therefore would beg hon. Members, when complaints are brought to them that promotion is slackened by any scheme of re-organisation, not to lend too ready an ear to that which is claimed as a vested right. I feel strongly on this point, for I regret to see the degree to which the minds of Civil servants have lately been disturbed. No one recognises more than myself the immense merits of the Civil Service. It is a Service of which any nation might be proud. In its honour, integrity, and loyalty it is unapproached; while the loyalty which it ever shows to the Executive Government of whatever Party is one of the most striking features of the Services. There is also another loyalty, and that is a strong feeling of loyalty among the Civil servants to the Departments to which they belong. I fear that this latter sentiment is being injured by the tendency not to think of the special Department, but to treat the Service as one vast Body. If that is done, loyalty to particular Departments will be destroyed, and I am not sure that the public interests will not suffer thereby. As to the proofs which exists that the Service is not efficient——
  *SIR J. COLOMB: Sufficient.
  *MR. GOSCHEN: I should be very sorry to think that the Customs officers do not believe their services to be efficient, or that there is any slackness as to seizures. I think that the hon. and gallant Gentleman's proofs will entirely break down under examination. But there is no evidence that an increased number of seizures means an increased amount of smuggling. The Customs officers have derived great assistance from the employment of steam launches, and this fact, together with increased vigilance, may account for the greater number of seizures. The hon. and gallant Gentleman suggests that there has been a reduction in the amount per head of the Customs revenue; but he should not be too ready to speak of a reduced consumption of spirits per head. It is rather too soon to do that, and

  325
  I am afraid my hon. Friend and the House may have a rude awakening as to any great falling off in the amount of spirits consumed per head. Again, if there has been a reduction it might be due to the increased temperance adopted during the time when wages are not so plentiful. It would not be wise to form any premature conclusions as to the revenue from spirits in a year of increasing prosperity. So far as spirits, then, are concerned, I think my hon. Friend's case has broken down. As to tea, it has been proved conclusively that a reduction in the amount of tea consumed per head is due to the substitution of Indian for China tea, the former being stronger and producing more cups to the pound. My hon. and gallant Friend has not established a conclusive case; but there are points to which the attention of the Government should be directed. I think that there ought to be a rigid examination of all those arrangements which the Customs officers hold to be objectionable; because, even though the officers are wrong, the Government' wish to remove the sense of injury. Too much importance cannot be attached to the advisability of having contented as well as an efficient Service. As to the 24 hours' question, the Government will make it the subject of inquiry how far the convenience of the men and the necessities of the Service can be made to agree. I propose that I myself, if the House will so far confide in me, should undertake to conduct a personal inquiry into the matter. I will enter upon it without any preconceived ideas on one side or the other, and will act simply on the principle that strict justice must be done between the interests of the taxpayers and the demands of the Service, and that the interests of the taxpayers and the contentment of the Service are equally secured.
  MR. FORREST FULTON: I desire to express a very earnest hope that the right hon. Gentleman, in the course of his inquiry, will call before him officers from the Outdoor Department as well as from the Indoor Department.
  *MR. GOSCHEN: Yes.
  MR. FULTON: The outdoor officers complain most that they have to do all the work, while the indoor officers and
  326
  the clerks from the Treasury secure all the plums of the Service. Nearly all the higher offices have been filled in that way, and this, I think, is a distinct grievance under which they believe they are suffering. I have been brought into close contact with many of these officers; I think them a very reasonable body of men; and I know they will be satisfied with such an inquiry as the right hon. Gentleman offers, provided they have an opportunity of placing their grievances before him.
  MR. RALPH NEVILLE: I wish to thank the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the promise he has given us, and I am quite certain that it will prove extremely satisfactory to my constituents. In Liverpool I think there has been one great abuse, namely, the appointment of officers of one grade to the active duties of those of a higher grade without any payment of the higher emoluments. Though occasionally unavoidable, it is obvious this practice is easily abused, and one result is that by it you are not keeping faith with a body of public servants who took office in the belief that they would have certain chances of promotion. Ever since I have had the honour to represent Liverpool in this House, outdoor officers have frequently complained to me of the extreme length of the hours imposed on many of them. Some of the men who are employed in watching and in boarding vessels are often on duty for 24 hours at a stretch. It may be true that those duties do not require any great amount of intelligence, but they make great demands on physical strength through lack of shelter, for the men have to be on deck in all weathers, and no adequate provision is made for their rest in the short intervals during which they are off duty. I think the right hon. Gentleman will find that too much is expected of some of these men; and I am glad that they are to be afforded an opportunity of stating their grievances. At the same time, I hope it will be clearly understood that the men are not to suffer in any way for stating what they believe to be their grievances. There is a feeling that men who have brought forward grievances have been treated with harshness, and certainly an inquiry which was set on foot at Liverpool was followed by

  327
  men being removed to other ports, much to their own disadvantage.
  MR. J. R. KELLY: Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer give us an assurance that the inquiry shall extend to the case of the messengers, who believe rightly or wrongly that they have a serious grievance? When the warehousing system was altered in 1882 there were 16 first-class messengers and 20 second-class, and a great majority of the latter entered the Service believing that as vacancies occurred among the first class messengers they would be filled up by men of the second-class. It is true these messengers receive but small salaries. The second-class men get £70 a year, with an annual increment up to £80, while the first-class get £80, with an annual increment up to £90. Their complaint is that now when vacancies occur in the first-class only every alternate one is tilled up from the second-class. I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will give this matter his attention. I should also like to know if the inquiry will extend to the case of those who are employed in the Statistical Department? It will surprise the House to learn that out of 120 gentlemen employed in that Department as many as 54 are writers, and, therefore, have only temporary engagements. Mr. Giffen, in referring to these men, expressed a strong opinion that they were called upon to discharge duties which should be fulfilled by persons on the permanent staff; and a former Secretary of Customs pointed out that there was no difference between the work done by these writers and that done by the Lower Division clerks. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will inquire whether it is right and in the public interest that a great portion of the responsible work done by this Department should be done by gentlemen who only hold a temporary position.
  MR. A. O'CONNOR: I desire to express the genuine satisfaction with which I have heard that a personal investigation is to be made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in whom the Civil Service generally will place confidence. But I do venture to impress on the right hon. Gentleman that it will still be necessary to re-assure a large number of men in the Customs,
  328
  who are very doubtful whether they can give evidence with safety to themselves, whatever tribunal may be constituted. Some time ago an officer was drowned at Harwich, and at the inquest evidence was given by certain Customs officers as to the number of hours he and others had been on duty. Soon afterwards those who gave this evidence were summarily removed to other ports, which involved the breaking up of their homes. This was done by orders of the Board of Customs. I do not say it was the result of their giving evidence, but it certainly was the sequel; and in the Customs generally there is a strong feeling that that is likely to be the kind of treatment meted out to men who venture to give evidence with regard to matters of internal administration. I have been assured that owing to the long hours and the insufficiency of the staff for certain duties—chiefly water-guarding, landing, and export duty—officers are required to give a record of daily work, which it is impossible for them to perform; and those who have made inquiries for me have said that the statements can be proved if opportunity is afforded. Mr. Horsfall's Committee in 1862 recommended a limitation of the number of hours that men should be employed; and since then the tendency has been to increase rather than diminish them. I do think there should be a searching investigation into these matters.
  SIR GEORGE BADEN-POWELL: During the time I have represented Liverpool in this House I have become cognisant of many grievances of Customs officers. Some of the complaints, no doubt, are perhaps exaggerated, and when the Chancellor of the Exchequer comes to look into them he may find them to be empty grievances. But some of them are, undoubtedly, substantial. grievances, and one of these has to do with the matter of promotion. Therefore, the undertaking of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to personally preside over this inquiry will give general satisfaction.
  MR. SEXTON: I hope that the inquiry of the Chancellor of the Exchequer will embrace the ports of Ireland, and particularly Belfast, which has witnessed marvellous development, which is now the third port in the United Kingdom, and which probably

  329
  will compare very favourably with any similar port in respect of the cost at which its revenue is collected. I do, therefore, ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to inquire into the condition of the Customs officials in Ireland, and to give them every facility for laying their case before him.
  MR. LAFONE: I do not wish to deny that the officers have grievances of which they may complain; but there is also a grievance among merchants, labourers, and others, which arises from the short hours during which outdoor officers are on duty during part of the year. During four months in the year their hours of duty are from nine to four, and thus the waterside labourer was restricted to earning 2s. 11d. a day, under the old wage rate of 5d. per hour. I trust this grievance on the other side will not be forgotten in this inquiry. I do not think there is a single trade in London in which the hours are so short. I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his Committee will take into consideration these extremely short hours during four months in the year during which Customs officials allow the landing and storing of goods. I suggest an extension of hours with increased pay, if necessary, as the present system is a source of great inconvenience and loss to merchants, shipowners, and labourers.
  MAJOR BANES: I only wish to express the hope that this will not be a merely Departmental inquiry, but that every facility will be afforded for every officer to fully ventilate his grievance. For over 40 years I have had practical experience among them, and I know they have substantial grievances of which they complain. I am quite sure the Chancellor of the Exchequer will appreciate the advantage of having contented servants instead of discontented slaves. There is a growing sense of injustice among the men as year by year they have found their work and responsibilities increase, while they have fewer chances of promotion. I am convinced that if they are allowed to state their case fully the right hon. Gentleman will be inclined to give them redress, and so I hope that full opportunity will be given.
  MR. MORTON: I have no intention of prolonging the debate; I only wish to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will extend the inquiry to include the messengers of the Customs Department? I am strongly in favour of economy: but I would not have it practised on the lower salaries ranging from £70 to £100 a year. It is fair, however, that all who have grievances should have them inquired into, although I do not suppose inquiry will settle the matter entirely, for I never yet heard that public officers were ever perfectly satisfied. Of course, however, after fair inquiry, there should be less ground for complaint.
  MR. R. G. WEBSTER: I do not represent a river side constituency, but a large number of my constituents are engaged in the Customs Department, and I think that I, in common with all Metropolitan Members, may congratulate the Government on their intention to hold this inquiry. But I would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer not to look with too optimistic a spirit on the fact that there is a large increase in the number of prosecutions for bringing in goods without paying duty. The offence of smuggling seems to have greatly increased, so much so, that recently there were as many as 200 prosecutions at Liverpool, and the goods "run" were chiefly tobacco. Concurrently with this there was a diminution in the staff; and I cannot understand how, with a decreased number of officials, there should be an increase in the number of discoveries of cases of smuggling-. I also find that since the staff was decreased several warehouses in Liverpool are not watched while goods are landed, and it is practically left to the honesty of traders to declare that goods are not smuggled. I trust when this investigation takes place the question will be included whether there are a sufficient number of Custom House officials to protect the interests of the Revenue and the taxpayers.
  MR. GOSCHEN: With the indulgence of the House I will answer the questions that have been put to me. Certainly Irish officials will have the same opportunity as other classes of hiving their complaints inquired into.

  331
  As to the character of the inquiry, and the suggestion that it shall not be Departmental, I can only describe it as one in which I shall sit as a Judge; and I shall have the assistance of my hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury, and men with practical acquaintance of the matters under investigation and impartial judgment. But I must say, in answer to the hon. Member opposite, that the inquiry will be confined to the class mentioned by my hon. and gallant Friend. It would be impossible for me to extend the inquiry into all the other branches of the Service, and upon this particular Service inquiry was recommended by the Commission, and this is one of the grounds upon which I undertake it. These, I think, were the main questions asked. I am glad that the House is satisfied with the undertaking I have given; but may I venture to express a hope that Members will not too much encourage communication between members of the Civil Service and politicians in relation to the conditions of service, for it has a tendency to undermine proper discipline in the Service.
  MR. LAWSON: May I inquire whether inquiry will be directed into the allegations as to the insanitary conditions of work said to prevail in certain classes of the Service?
  *MR. GOSCHEN: I presume that will fall within the scope of the inquiry.
  *MR. MORTON: And in reference to my question as to messengers.
  *MR. GOSCHEN: It is not contemplated that these should be included in the inquiry. I may say that there arc no posts in the Service for which there are so many applications, which seems to indicate the conditions are not very unsatisfactory.
  (6.40.) Question put, and agreed to. Main Question again proposed.

  ALLEGED MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE CASE OF GATCLIFFE.
  MR. PICKERSGILL (: I take this opportunity to call attention to a grave miscarriage of justice. It is a matter upon which the Home Secretary has been questioned, but his answers have been altogether unsatisfactory. I refer to the circumstances under which a prisoner named Gatcliffe
  332
  met with his death while confined in Strangeways Prison, Manchester. The facts of the case are briefly these: Gatcliffe was committed for 21 days for a comparatively venial offence, being drunk and disorderly. He was removed to Strangeways Gaol on November 20, and was at the time found to be suffering from delirium tremens, and was at once admitted to the hospital, being lodged in what is called the "Association" room, where at the time there were six or eight prisoners confined. He was there subjected to the usual examination by the assistant surgeon of the prison, and at that time, it is important to observe, the surgeon has stated. upon oath there were no external marks of violence upon his body. He was repeatedly seen by the surgeon, and I mention particularly that he was seen by the surgeon on Friday the 22nd, when he presented no unfavourable symptoms. The surgeon next saw him at half-past 9 on the Saturday morning, when he was suffering from severe injuries, was in fact dying, and actually died half an hour afterwards, and the medical evidence is that he died in consequence of certain injuries which the post-mortem examination disclosed. To give a brief summary of the injuries, his breast bone was broken, besides four ribs on one side of the body and two ribs on the other were fractured, one of the ribs being fractured in two distinct places; and, in addition, there were more than a dozen contusions and bruises on chest, arms, and thighs. The post-mortem examination was in accordance with statute made by a surgeon, not an official of the prison (Dr. Kitchen); and from Dr. Kitchen we have it in evidence that, in his opinion, the fractures could not have been self-inflicted, and that some of the fractures and bruises must have been caused by the list of another person. Dr. Kitchen did not stand alone in this evidence—he was generally corroborated by Dr. Paton, the assistant surgeon of Strangeways Prison. Then came the question, how were the injuries sustained? I mentioned just now that the prisoner was seen by the surgeon, and seemed to be going on well on Friday, 22nd; therefore, it is clear that the injuries, however they arose, were sustained between that time and half-past 9 on Saturday morning. The warder in charge of the association room

  333
  on that night, a warder named Mitchell, was placed on trial for the manslaughter of Gatcliffe; and against him there was the direct evidence of three prisoners in the room that during the night they saw Mitchell repeatedly strike Gatcliffe with his fist, Gateliffe being at the time tied down to his bed. These prisoners were asked why they did not ring the bell, or give an alarm, and they replied they were too much afraid to do that, for if they had done so they would have been charged with mutiny, and have got into serious trouble for committing a breach of discipline. Of course, I am not in any way desirous of re-trying the case in the House of Commons, and I will not refer-to the trial except so far as the result of it fixes responsibility upon the Prison Commissioners, and, through them, upon the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary. The jury rejected altogether the evidence of the three prisoners. Well, for my own part, I do not think their story incredible, or even improbable, and I base my opinion on a very weighty document. Here I have the Report of the Penal Servitude Acts Commission, in which the Commissioners draw attention to the evidence given before them by the Governor of Chatham Prison to the effect that he would never take prisoners' evidence against a warder, that he had always shown prisoners that be takes the warder's part; that even if he disapproved of the conduct of a warder he would not let a prisoner know it; that the word of a warder is decisive in every case; that when a man becomes a convict he is necessarily placed in such a, position that under no conceivable circumstances is his word to be preferred to that of a free man; that, in fact, it is of very little use practically a prisoner making a complaint. The Commissioners add, "the Governor of Chatham Prison is an upright, careful officer." Well, my only observation is that when an officer takes such a distorted, extravagant view of his position this character is all the more dangerous. There were two theories set up on the part of the defence, one being that the prisoner Gatcliffe was delirious, and that he injured himself tumbling about. Now, I submit this theory is completely upset if one considers the position of the injuries upon the body of the prisoner. There were no in-
  334
  juries whatever upon the head and face, or on the back part of the body; all the injuries were upon the chest, arms, and thighs, I rely a good deal upon this fact, because J think it will' be, obvious that if you suppose a delirious patient injuring himself by tumbling about it will be almost inevitable that, the extremities of the body, and the head and face particularly, that will sustain injury; whereas, in this case, not a scratch appeared on the extremities of the body; all these terrible injuries were in the front part and near the middle of the body. Another theory for the defence was that the injuries had been sustained in the course of putting a! strait jacket upon Gatcliffe, and his struggles against this. This theory is altogether untenable, having regard to the medical testimony, not only of Dr. Kitchen, but of Dr. Paton, the prison surgeon; and when one considers the character, extent, and number of these terrible injuries I submit to the right hon. Gentleman that even if we acept this theory we cannot escape the conclusion that reckless criminal violence was applied to the person of the prisoner, and, therefore, that manslaughter was actually committed, although, of course, there might be some change in the precise legal aspect of the offence. How does the matter stand so far as the responsibility of the Prison Commissioners is concerned? I submit with the utmost confidence that upon the evidence we must conclude one thing, at all events, that the injuries to Gatcliffe were not self-inflicted, and the conclusion is irresistible that in that association room which was occupied at the time by some eight prisoners, criminal and brutal violence was applied to the body of Gatcliffe, and, as a result, he died. Warder- Mitchell has been acquitted. Of course, I accept the verdict of the jury as to Mitchell's innocence, but who then, I ask, is the guilty person who committed this offence in the room while eight persons were present? That is the question to which the public have a right to insist upon an answer. Are the Commissioners content that it should be possible to do a man to death by brutal violence in this way, and no one shall be brought to justice? If so, is the Home Secretary content? I am bound to say, with all respect

  335
  that if the right hon. Gentleman does not control his Commissioners with a firmer hand they will bring him into vary grave discredit with the country. What has been done in the matter? The Home Secretary has informed us that there has been an inquiry, a secret inquiry, so far as the public are concerned, conducted by Captain Wilson. But who is Captain Wilson? He is either a Commissioner or an Inspector, or one of the servants of the Board; so you have actually one of the officers of the Board, whose administration is called in question, appointed to investigate the circumstances of this case. I venture to think that the public would have felt more satisfied if the Visiting Justices of the Prison had been requested to hold the inquiry. In the case of Daly, in Chatham Prison, the Visiting Justices were asked to conduct the necessary inquiry, and I cannot see why, except, indeed, for the purpose of sheltering the Prison Commissioners, a similar course was not taken in this case. Well, Captain Wilson, at all events, has conducted the investigation, and certain results have followed. I understand that Chapman, the hospital warder, has been dismissed. I shall be glad to know if this is so, and, if so, why was he dismissed? I understand, also, that Dr. Braddell, the chief medical officer, who has performed excellent service for 23 years, has been served with three months' notice to leave, and if that is so, I should like to know why? The Home Secretary has told us that two other officers of the prison have been dismissed, and perhaps he will be good enough to tell us why this is the case. Apparently the only person who has escaped with absolute impunity is the Governor of the prison, but if there has been so lax an administration as that in the course of this inquiry, no less than four officials have been summarily dismissed, how is it that the person chiefly responsible for the administration and discipline of the prison, Major Preston, has been allowed to escape censure? I am informed, upon what I believe to be excellent authority, that an order has been given that in future all oases of prisoners suffering from delirium tremens shall be treated in the body of the prison, under the care of two or more prisoners. If that, be so, I certainly protest most strongly against any such order being
  336
  carried out. The Prison Commissioners are not without experience of the fatal results following such an arrangement. I presume the right hon. Gentleman has not for gotten the painful and fatal occurrence which happened at Armley Gaol in March, 1888, when a certificated lunatic was placed in a cell under the care of two prisoners, and, during the night, one of those prisoners was killed by the lunatic. I only mention this because it shows that the Prison Commissioners have had experience of the fatal results which follow mischievous arrangements of this character. Now, this case, so far as the Commissioners are concerned, comes upon the top of many recent cases which have caused very great disquietude in the minds of all who are interested in the administration of our English prisons, and there are one or two of those cases to which I think it necessary to allude. It is only a few months since I drew attention in this House to an occurrence in Ipswich Gaol. In a civil action brought against the Governor of that prison the plaintiff recovered damages to the amount of E75. on the ground that he, being an unconvicted prisoner, was put in prison clothes and forced to enter the bath against his will. The gravamen of the complaint in that case lies in the fact that it was proved that for 10 years there had been in operation in that gaol a set of rules that were absolutely contrary to the law. Only a month or two ago a much stronger case occurred, and the late Governor of Northampton Gaol is now suffering 10 years' penal servitude for attempting a criminal operation on a pregnant woman, that pregnant woman being the matron of the female side of the prison of which he was the chief officer. That was a scandal of the very grossest kind, and is proof that the supervision exercised by the Prison Commissioners is not what it ought to be. Now, Sir, I have just a word to say with regard to Daly's case. I am aware that that case is still sub judice, but it is admitted on both sides that Daly, a prisoner in Chatham Gaol, was poisoned not once, but on several occasions, by the wrongful administration of belladonna, which is sufficient evidence that there was very considerable laxity in the administration of that prison. Let me take another case. I refer to one that occurred in Birming-

  337
  ham Gaol last year. The Visiting Justices of that prison reported to the Borough Justices that the bread served out in the gaol was unfit for human food and that the health of the prisoners who had eaten it had thereby become impaired. Of course, one is glad that the Visiting Justices discovered this, and drew public attention to it, but surely it was not the business of the Visiting Justices to find out an impropriety of such a character. It ought to have been discovered by the officers of the prison long before. There is another case to which I will briefly call attention. it is one which occurred inside Millbank Prison in January last—only two months ago; in that case an inquest was held on the body of Joseph Honeysett, who was seriously injured there during the month of December, so much injured that he died in consequence. it is true, I believe, that the prisoner stated that he fell down in his cell, but, according to the evidence given by his mother at the inquest, he had had to undergo a regular fight to get into the Infirmary. The 'Coroner naturally inquired for the prison doctor, but that person was not forthcoming. I presume they have more than one prison doctor in that gaol, but it was said that the doctor was ill and there was no one to represent him. A juror said—
  "Mr. Coroner, I am afraid we shall not get at the bottom of this now, for the case is most unsatisfactory.
  And a witness said
  "It is a strange thing that the deceased should have been in prison for five or six months, and the authorities there should know nothing of it."
  I think that the remark made by the Coroner is worthy of the attention of the right hon. Gentleman, for he said—
  "It is idle to hold inquiries if the information is withheld from us."
  Now, this exactly touches what I believe to be the real source of the mischief. The Prison Commissioners have adopted a policy of hushing up everything that may in any way bring discredit on the administration, and consequently on themselves. For my part, I do not hesitate to say that this policy of excessive secrecy leads, and always will lead, to abuses and scandals, because it affords the most effective cover for bad and un-
  338
  scrupulous persons. I do not wish to do any injustice to the prison service of this country. It is clear that in every service there must be a certain proportion of bad and untrustworthy men, and this remark, I think, applies with exceptional force to the prison service, where the duties are of a singularly unpleasant and repulsive character, and where the officers of every grade are constantly brought into contact with the seamy side of human nature It is only by publicity, and by meting out punishment where power has been abused, that you can hope to make the prison service of this country what it ought to be. In conclusion, I have only to say that in the case of the prisoner Gatliffe there has been, in my judgment, a serious miscarriage of justice, and that if the matter is left where it is you will have taught a bad lesson to unscrupulous men in the prison service, namely, that they may be guilty of brutal ill-treatment towards helpless creatures placed under their charge, and the Prison Commissioners will do their best to hush up the matter, and thus secure for them practical immunity. I think it is high time that a protest should be made against the policy which distinguishes the present Prisons Board. I have felt it my duty to make this protest to-night, and I trust that, in doing so, I shall have, at any rate in some degree, the support of this House.
  SIR R.N. FOWLER: I only desire to say a few words upon this matter to which my attention was called a few weeks ago. I refer to the Manchester case which I looked into with some care. I was not, however, aware that it would be brought up today, or I should have been better prepared to have discussed it. Nevertheless, I may say that it struck me as being a case which we can hardly be called upon to decide in this House, because it has already been considered by a jury whose verdict ought to prevent our going into the matter. All I wish to do at the present moment is to point out that several of the officials of the prison have been dismissed by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, which is a proof that he has had the matter under his careful consideration. Representations were made to the Home Office, and the case was thoroughly investigated by my

  339
  right hon. Friend, and from the fact that he has dismissed a number of the prison officials it is evident that he was not satisfied with the result, and that he is disposed to take a strenuous line in the discharge of his duty.
  MR. P. O'BRIEN: I do not think it is at all surprising, after the cases that have been brought before this House in reference to the treatment of prisoners in Irish gaols, that an English Member should have thought proper to bring forward the question which is now before the House. The experience we have had in Ireland, where the question of prison treatment has long been a burning question, has had the effect of throwing a little light on what appears to be going on in England. And I am glad that the prison discipline of this country is now beginning to attract the intention of English Members. I do not think you could have a better instance of this than the fact that the hon. Baronet who has just addressed the House, and who, when Irish cases have been brought before us, has habitually treated them with contempt, and invariably given his Vote for the Government, has at last found it necessary to bestow some attention on an English case. Now that the question has reached a stage in which it has secured the attention of British Legislatures, there can be little doubt that before long the necessary reforms in regard to prison treatment will be brought about. I read in one of the London papers, published on Saturday last, an account of an interview with a man who had recently been released from Chatham Prison, and, in the course of his statements, the man preferred very serious charges against the officers of more than one gaol. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman the Homo Secretary will be able to say, in the reply he will presently make, whether there is any ground for those charges, and what course he intends to take with regard to the officers who are implicated. This man alleges that while he was in Chatham Prison, he was very badly treated. He says:—
  "Four times I was punished by solitary confinement in a solitary cell, and on every one of those occasions the punishment was unjustly given. They charged me with not returning
  340
  to work when I was not able to work through my ill-health, and they charged me with talking when I was not. I cannot describe the terrors of those sells. The smell in them is horrible, and they are so cold, while the light is altogether insufficient. Whenever I came out of them after confinement, I felt like a drunken man on regaining a better atmosphere; but if the change made me reel, as it did once or twice, I only got a clump on the head."
  This is a strong charge against some officer in the gaol, and I think it is one that ought to be inquired into. I am not going to accept the bare statement of any prisoner, but I know, from my own experience of prisoners in Ireland, that cruelties are perpetrated of which no one ever hears in consequence of that sort of freemasonry which is known to exist among the prison officials. This man, whose name is Harrison, was removed from Chatham to Millbank, and he states:—
  "I saw the dynamitards there and they complained bitterly of their penal cells. The two who were last convicted—Gallagher and Hawkins—are only allowed a quarter-of-an-hour's exercise daily instead of an hour. and they feel the deprivation keenly. Our food consisted of skilly, soup, potatoes, bread, and sometimes meat, but it was very tough and gristly meat, strongly reminding one of cat's food. The food and general treatment of prisoners has been so bad that several cases of insubordination occurred. I will give an instance of some of the treatment. There was one man in a dying condition over whom a pail of water was thrown as a remedy, with the result that he had to be removed to the infirmary and his-parents sent for, so critical became his condition. But he eventually recovered."
  Here we have complaints of the quality of the food and the condition of the cells, and we are told that several cases of insubordination had occurred. This is what might be expected under the circumstances, as it very seldom happens in well-conducted prisons that revolts take place. Harrison goes on to say—
  "On another occasion, in the cell next to mine, I heard two officers go in and beat a prisoner unmercifully with their staves. It was something terrible, for I could hear it was his poor head they were hitting. I have not seen him since. He is either in the Infirmary or dead. I stopped in my cell about two hours after that, but I never heard him move, and I determined to let the world know of it when I got out. I believe a special inquiry has been held recently into the charges alleged by prisoners, but what has been done, or whether anything has been done, I cannot say."
  That was a case which occurred in Mill-bank, and I think it is one deserving in-

  341
  vestigation by the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary. Harrison also makes charges against the chaplain which I hope are not true, for a prisoner has the right to look to the chaplain for encouragement and sympathy. One chaplain said to him, "You are like the rest of them that want to turn the world upside down," and did not give him encouragement; whereas at Wormwood Scrubbs the chaplain advised him that if he observed the rules, and conducted himself well, he might get out of prison before the completion of his term. There you have the contrast between the sympathetic chaplain who does his duty, and advises the prisoner to observe the rules and to regain his liberty, and the chaplain who offers no word of consolation, but, priding himself on being an old, true-blue Tory type of man, permits himself to carry his political opinions into the gaol, to the irritation of political prisoners, with whose political sentiments I have yet to learn that the rules allow interference on the part of the chaplain. The same man says that he was three months at Chatham without having received a visit from the chaplain at all. The chaplain, as soon as the prisoner is classed, ought to be the first to go and see him, and when he does go it ought to be to console and encourage, and not to gibe. If Mr. Harrison's statement is true, not only did the chaplain at Chatham annoy him, but he neglected a plain duty, which was to have gone and seen the prisoner as soon as he was passed. It rests with the prisoner himself, as soon as he is passed, to say to what denomination he belongs. As soon as he does that a card is put upon his door, and it is the business of the chaplain to see him as soon as possible. If this chaplain has failed to do his duty, I hope he will be called to order for his misconduct. If you cannot make him fulfil his duty-in this prison of Chatham, which the criminal classes recognise as a hell upon earth, at least you can get some other clergyman who will realise the responsibility of his office. I think experience shows that a case has been made out for impartial and thorough investigation into the prison system. It should be seen that men who find themselves in prison, often as much from their misfortunes as their faults, are not worried and interfered with, but are treated as kindly
  342
  as possible. I hope the Home Secretary will see the advisability of having some Commission to inquire into the various charges which arise all over England; and if the right hon. Gentleman has not the information now, I trust he will be able to give us some information to-morrow, as to the allegations respecting Millbank Prison.
  DR. TANNER: Sir, before the right hon. Gentleman replies, I take this opportunity of emphasising the remarks made by my hon. Friend. It was only last Friday that I addressed a question to the right hon. Gentleman on the subject, and it is really most extraordinary that Her Majesty's Government have done nothing in this case. I cannot understand how the right hon. Gentleman can feel satisfied himself with the answers which he gives on the information supplied to him, and I believe that if he made thorough examination into the matter he would not remain satisfied. I asked him about the Warder Mitchell, who assaulted another delirious prisoner; and if you find such a case of gross inhumanity as to insult a poor man who was suffering from delirium, I think it ought to be inquired into, and matters not allowed to remain as they now are. The right hon. Gentleman was not perfectly certain whether Mitchell would or would not be present.
  MR. MATTHEWS: I did not say so.
  DR. TANNER: I did not understand that at the time. But it shows the great use of pressing these questions, for each time we get more definite information. I know that the right hon. Gentleman is proverbially courteous in this House, and I acknowledge courtesy whenever I meet with it. Will the right hon. Gentleman take into consideration the suggestion of the Inspector, Captain Wilson, whose counsels, from his official position, certainly cam-weight I think the country requires an answer, and I hope the Government will be able to clear themselves from the charge of sheltering people guilty of inhumanity of the worst possible character. I should also like to have some | information as to the prisoner Daly, for, as a medical man, I cannot understand how it came to pass that a medicine like belladonna, which is a strong poison, was administered in such large doses as appears to have been the ease. It appears

  343
  to me that there must have been something radically wrong in the treatment of Daly. If there is such laxity in regard to the dispensing of medicines in Her Majesty's prisons it is easy to stretch matters still further, and have prisoners actually killed with other piosons. I think the circumstances of this case should be thoroughly inquired into.
  MR. MATTHEWS: I cannot complain of hon. Members raising questions of this kind as to the conduct of prison officials, as I believe that nothing is more calculated to keep these officials up to the mark than the application to them of this constant watchfulness on the part of hon. Members. I think it best not to enter into the case of the man Daly in any detail, as the case is still under investigation by the Visitors of the prison, whose Report, I hope, will be full and searching. I beg to postpone any observations I may have to make upon the case until the Report comes in. This much I may say, however, that I have allowed the Visitors an absolutely free hand, having left them to pursue their investigation without the slightest control on my part. There can be no-doubt that the task of the prison warders is not an easy one, from the very nature of their duties, for they are constantly being provoked and irritated by prisoners who resistprison discipline as much as they can, and I do not say this to censure such prisoners, as it is very natural on their part to resist so far as they can. The duty of the warders is disagreeable, and necessarily disagreeable, and there is no doubt that the men are constantly in a state of irritation, and that being so, it is necessary that the Prison Authorities should keep a watchful eye upon them to see that the great power which, from the very necessity of the case, is exercised by them is not marked by cruelty. When the hon. Member for Bethnal Green, however, makes the case at Strangeways Gaol illustrative of the charge that the Prison Commissioners shrink from inquiry and try to hush up these matters, it appears to me that the accusation is utterly unwarranted by the facts. What did the Commissioners do? I hold in my hand an enormous mass of evidence collected by them. This shows that they held a most careful inquiry in the hospital ward to find out the
  344
  real facts of the case; and, as the result of their investigation, the man Mitchell was put on his trial. That, surely, was not trying to hush the matter up, or an endeavour to cloak the guilt of a warder !
  *MR. PICKERSGILL: Their hands were forced by the verdict of manslaughter returned by the Coroner's Jury.
  MR. MATTHEWS: I would point out that before that verdict was returned the prison officials had inquired into the circumstances attendingGatcliffe's death, and the matter had been put into the hands of the public prosecutor. The hon. Member felt—and, of course, I feel still more—embarrassed by the verdict of the jury, but the hon. Member must not make that verdict the foundation for charges against the Prison Commissioners, who were not responsible for the result of the trial. It 'is not proper that I should comment on what the jury thought fit to find or on what the Judge thought fit to say. The hon. Member has, with some force, put before the House the points which operated on my mind in considering this case. I considered the case over and over again to see if there was any other direction in which an inquiry could take place, but the evidence of the doctors who attended the man Gatclifie from half past 5 to 6 o'clock on the evening of the 22nd November—that was the evening before his death— was conclusive that when they then examined the deceased the injuries of which he ultimately died were not visible. The Prison Commissioners endeavoured, as far as they could, to ascertain all that had taken place on the 22nd November. I hope I shall not be accused of neglecting to say everything that might be said, but when dealing-with the case of men over whose heads accusations are hanging, though it is necessary to say something, I cannot go further than that the most careful investigation has failed to bring forth any prima facie evidence on which a charge of undue violence can be brought against any other person. Under the circumstances what other public inquiry is possible? If I could have seen a prima facie case of misconduct against any other person, that case would certainly have been brought forward. It was not my fault, still less that of the Prison Commissioners, that

  345
  no one has been convicted. The Prison Commissioners displayed the utmost zeal in the case. The greater part of the mass of papers I hold in my hand is made up of Reports by the Commissioners, and they have certainly done their best to investigate the case, as well as to find out the history of Gatcliffe, the time his drinking habits began, and all other circumstances connected with him down to the time of his death. Chapman was the hospital warder in charge of the room it was not an association room, but a hospital ward, and Gatcliffe was put into it because he had incipient delirium tremens. Two other persons in the ward, Dukes—who has since been executed—and Chad wick-were examined over and over again by the Prison Commissioners. They were put into that ward because it was thought that both men might commit suicide if they were not watched. The conclusion of the Prison Commissioners was that Chapman was responsible for an undoubted irregularity -namely, putting on a strait waistcoat twice in the course of the 21st of November upon Gatcliffe. without the positive instruction of the medical officer, which was the rule of the prison. Chapman has been dismissed, and neither he nor Mitchell, the warder. will again be employed in the Prison Service. Of the personal medical qualities of Dr. Braddon I cannot speak too highly. He is a man of very great eminence, a man of perfect humanity, and I desire to say not a word in the way of censure on Dr. Braddon. The Prison Commissioners felt, however, that Dr. Braddon was not able to give that undivided attention to the medical care of the prisoners that was desirable. He was a gentleman who came in under the Act of 1887, and he was allowed to continue his private practice and to pay only occasional visits to the prison during the course of the day. It appeared to me and to the Commissioners that this case showed that a closer and more concentrated attention on the part of the chief medical officer was desirable. Therefore, we determined to substitute a permanent medical officer in the place of Dr. Braddon, and we hope that change will conduce to the satisfactory medical treatment of the prisoners. One other officer has been dismissed, Rappley, the day warder, who was in charge during the hours of daylight both on the 21st and the 22nd
  346
  November. Rappley, with the assistance of two of the prisoners in the room, put a strait waistcoat on Gatcliffe on two occasions on the day of the 23rd. Rappley's excuse was that he was carrying out the course of practice which he had known to be made use of before when patients were noisy. and Gatcliffe was undoubtedly noisy and mischievous. Hon. Members compel me to say that after the acquittal I did look round to see whether anyone else was responsible. I am, however, bound to say that, after making the utmost inquiry into all the circumstances of the unfortunate affair, I have been unable to discover even a prima facie case against Rappley, and the testimony of the medical men, which goes up to the final circumstances in the case, certainly acquit him of any blame in connection with the mans death. I must say, at the same time, I cannot agree with Rappley's conduct after the event. I believe there was a deficiency of straightforwardness in his account of the blows inflicted by Mitchell and others in the ward, and he has been discharged from further service in the prison. The Governor of the prison has not escaped. I believe it will not be denied that he is a most humane man, thoroughly desirous of doing his duty towards the prisoners under his charge. I believe the Governor has the respect and goodwill of all the magistrates who commit prisoners to his keeping, and I believe that will be found to be the feeling entertained towards him in the locality generally. At the same time I thought it right to direct that that gentleman should be severely reprimanded for what I consider a want of sufficient supervision. I have stated that in the House already, in answer to the many questions which have been addressed to me. I do not mean to say that the Governor was responsible for the ultimate injuries sustained by Gatcliffe, but there was a deficiency of supervision in regard to the strait waistcoat. It was in a place where it ought not to have been, namely, under one of the beds in the ward. It ought to have been in safe custody. where it could not have been got at without the knowledge of higher officials than the warders. The Governor, however, was not responsible for the character of Mitchell, who was employed as a hospital

  347
  warder. He was always regarded as a quiet and kindly disposed man. He was formerly a colour-sergeant in the Army, and had testimonials of the highest kind. I cannot agree with the hon. Member for Bethnal Green (Mr. Pickers-gill) that oases of violence to prisoners are on the increase. When we look at the. extent and character of our prison saystem we must be prepared to find eases of misconduct on the part of warders now and then; but I think, under all the circumstances, the hon. Member will find that the number of such instances is extremely small. As regards what has been said by the hon. Member in reference to the Visiting Commissioners I must also disagree. I regard the Commissioners as a most admirable Body. The Visitors display commondable watchfulness and control in these matters, and spare no effort to check any. abuse of power either on the part of a warder or a Governor of a prison. I am convinced that they discharge the duty devolving upon them conscientiously and well. I do not know that any better system could be substituted for that which is at present in force in this respect. It is the duty of the Visitors to visit every prisoner, and if any complaint is made as to the maltreatment of a prisoner it is the duty of the Visitor to investigate the complaint, and to bring any official before him for the purpose of enabling him to arrive at the facts of the case. I cannot conceive any better system of discovering and punishing cases of maltreatment. I am not going to say that any warder or any Governor is not liable to make mistakes, but I do say this much, that the hon. Member who introduced this matter has not brought forward the slightest foundation to support the charge that the Prison Commissioners in this case neglected to discharge their responsible duties. My experience of them is that they do their utmost to prevent any undue exercise of the powers entrusted to prison officials.
  MR. COSSHAM: I would impress upon the right hon. Gentleman the importance of thoroughly probing each case that comes to the front, so as to carry out the spirit of the law which has made the punishment inflicted less vindictive than it used to be. I think the punishment of imprisonment is quite
  348
  enough to inflict on any man without adding to it by treating the prisoner vindictively. All vindictive punishment tends to harden prisoners. Our object should be to lead them into the paths of virtue rather than to drive them back into the paths of vice. I am glad the right hon. Gentleman has given so much personal attention to this matter, and I hope that all cases of the kind will receive his personal investigation.

  GOVERNMENT FURNITURE CONTRACTS.
  MR. CREMER: I should like to ask the First Commissioner of Works (Mr. Plunket) a question I have already addressed to him on two or three occasions in regard to the system of supplying the Government with furniture. I think that last year the right hon. Gentleman promised that the contracts for the supply of furniture in Government offices should be thrown open instead of being left in the hands of two or three privileged firms in the Metropolis. I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether that promise has been redeemed? I feel under deep obligations to the right hon. Gentleman for having kept the promise he made to me two years ago in regard to Kew Gardens. I pressed on the right hon. Gentleman, two or three years ago, the necessity of providing light refreshments to the public who frequent Kew Gardens. I am glad to say he took the hint, and has provided an admirable establishment of the kind in the gardens. I wish now to ask him who it is who provides the seats in our public gardens, and what becomes of the revenue derived from the letting of such seats?
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. PLUNKET,): As to the hon. Member's first question the pledge I gave last year was that the name of any respectable firm which was sent to the Office of Works should be put on the list of those invited to tender. I now repeat that pledge; some additional names have since then, I believe, been put on the list, and if the hon. Member will submit to me the names of other firms I shall be glad to add them to the list. As to the chairs in the parks the money received from letting them is regarded

  349
  as extra receipts, and paid into the Exchequer.
  MR. CREMER: Will the right hon. Gentleman have any objection to inserting advertisements in the ordinary newspapers for tenders for furniture contracts?
  *MR. PLUNKET: One objection is that we have found by experience that if that system be adopted tenders are received from a number of firms that we know never will be able to carry out the contract.
  MR. MORTON: I should like to impress on the right hon. Gentleman the fact that he ought to advertise for tenders of this sort. It is well-known that the system of asking tenders from certain firms does not enable you to get fair tenders. I know, in connection with my own business, that very often arrangements are made between the various parties, and the tenders are sent in accordingly. A few years ago it could be told with almost dead certainty who were to get certain tenders, simply because an arrangement was made between the people on the list. Until you get independent persons to tender in the ordinary way you cannot get a fair system of tenders.
  Question put, and agreed to.

SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES, 1890–91.
Considered in Committee. (In the Committee.)
SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES, 1890–91.

  CLASS I.
  1. Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £31,725, 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 Expenditure in respect of Royal Palaces and Marlborough House."
  MR. A. O'CONNOR: This being the first Vote of the Civil Service Estimates, I desire to ask a question, which has reference not only to this particular Vote, but to a number of other Votes in different Classes. The Vote which has just been put from the Chair includes the Royal Palaces, which previously were dealt with in a separate Vote, and also Marlborough House, which was also treated separately. The Go-
  350
  vernment propose in this case, as in a great many others, to take a lump sum for a number of different Services. It seems to me that a Department which obtains this complex Vote will be in the position of having a very much larger balance probably than it had before. It may have a balance on a single Vote equal to what would have been the balances on the two combined Votes in previous years. That will give them a very much freer hand than they ever had before, and will diminish pro tanto the Parliamentary check over the Estimates. I wish to know whether the Government propose to treat this lump sum as a single Vote belonging to the entire Service, or whether they will be compelled to surrender any unexpended balance on the several items? If, for instance, they have an unexpended balance on the Royal Palaces Account, will they be compelled to pay that into the Exchequer, or will they be at liberty to expend it on Marlborough House?
  MR. JACKSON: My right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Treasury said, on a previous occasion, that it was the intention of the Government to take the opinion of the Public Accounts Committee as to what steps should be taken as regards the balances—whether the items under each sub-head should be treated as separate Votes and the unexpended balance be repaid in to the Exchequer, or whether the balances should be available to be transferred from one sub-head to another. There are obvious advantages in there being the power of transfer, but the Government have no desire to act in any way contrary to the opinion of the House and of the Public Accounts Committee. The continued control of Parliament may be secured in one of two ways. One plan is that the Comptroller and Auditor General should report, in his Annual Report, any case in which one of the sub-heads has been exceeded. The rolling of the Votes into one was not suggested with any desire or view to obtain a larger power of transfer than at present is possessed, but there are advantages in putting two or three Votes of a like character together. As the Committee knows, the margin -necessary to avoid Supplementary Estimates is increased in degree and in extent according as the Votes are numerous, and no doubt a

  351
  reasonable consolidation of Votes with the power of making a transfer of balance arising on one sub-head to defray a deficit arising in another sub-bead does tend, and will tend, to diminish the total amount of money which any Government would have to ask for. The Departments are very much opposed to having to come to Parliament for Supplementary Estimates, and I think that to put Votes together will tend in the direction of both economy and control. But the matter will shortly be considered by the Public Accounts Committee, and we shall be guided very much by the opinion they express as to the course to be taken. If it is deemed sufficient that the Comptroller and Auditor General should report every case of excess of expenditure on any subhead it will be possible, either by an alteration of the law or by some regulation or instruction, to guard against the balance under one sub-head being appropriated under another sub-head.
  MR. A. O'CONNOR: The Committee will appreciate the care with which the hon. Gentleman addressed himself to the point which I have raised, but I confess that his answer does not appear to me to be at all satisfactory, and that for more than one reason. We are asked to vote a lump sum, and are not told specifically how that sum is to be appropriated. We are told also that the matter has been referred to the Public Accounts Committee. Is the Public Accounts Committee in such a condition that it can direct how the sums of money voted in Committee of this House are to be appropriated? That is a function never contemplated for the Public Accounts Committee, and how it is to derive power to give such directions I do not know. As a matter of fact, the Public Accounts Committee has, in a special Report to the House, refused to arrogate to itself any authority to direct, or even to advise, with regard to the mode in which the Votes are to be submitted to the House of Commons. It is concerned only in the appropriation of public money after the money has been spent. We are in this difficulty, that if the Public Accounts Committee adheres to the Report which it made about a fortnight or three weeks ago, the House will have referred a matter to an Authority which declines to answer, and
  352
  we shall be in the position that we shall have voted away sums of money for aggregate Services without any assurance whatever that the balance saved on one Service will not be devoted to some branch of the Service that was possibly never mentioned in the Estimates at all-I had hoped we should have some specific assurance from the Secretary to the Treasury that Votes were consolidated, for convenience of procedure in Committee, but that for appropriation purposes each sub- total would be confined to the Services for which it was specifically obtained.
  MR. JACKSON: I am sorry I did not make it clear to the hon. Gentleman and the Committee, but it was my intention to give that assurance. I am prepared, if it is desired, to come under a pledge that the surplus under one of these subheads shall not be devoted to the purposes of another sub-head.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I do not, quite understand whether the hon. Gentleman does come under that pledge.
  MR. JACKSON: If the Public Accounts Committee adhere to their position.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: If they adhere to the view that it is ultra vires, then the pledge that the hon. Gentleman has just given holds good? [Mr. JACKSON: If it is desired.] I do not precisely know how far the wish of hon. Members now present in the House will be considered to be the desire of the House. [Mr. JACKSON was understood to dissent.] Then we must go further. I was going to commence my holiday to-day, but the First Lord of the Treasury was good enough on Friday to give a sort of personal invitation to me to come hero to -day and aid him in the transaction of business. Considering the great courtesy of the First Lord of the Treasury, and how anxious I am to oblige him so far as I possibly can, I have come here to aid him in carrying on business, though, perhaps, not in the way he desires—I have come; here to look at the Votes in a deliberate, calm, impartial, and economical fashion. This Vote has always provoked a good deal of discussion. It divides itself into three different heads—into Palaces in the personal occupation of Her Majesty, Palaces partly in the occupation of Her Majesty, and Palaces not in the occupation of Her Majesty. In the case of

  353
  Buckingham Palace, I find a large expenditure on the Royal Mews. That has always been objected to, because we never understand why this vast expenditure is to take place in these Royal Mews considering that Her Majesty is seldom in London. Then I do not understand why we should pay so much in respect of St. James's and other Palaces not in the occupation of Her Majesty. A large number of persons have apartments there; but the very least that can be expected of them is that they should keep up their apartments, and provide their own fuel and light. Again, when structural alterations are made in any of the Palaces I do not see why they should be made at our expense. I find that £2,754 against £1,984 last year is asked for Kensington Palace. I should think the best thing to do is to clear that Palace away. It is in a miserable condition at present, and it must cost a great deal to keep it in repair. There are two good ways of dealing with the palace: one would be to clear it away, and the other to let it for a large restaurant for instance—of course, I should advocate that it should be a temperance restaurant. By the adoption of the latter plan we should get a rent for the Palace, and it would be used with advantage to the public. It has been suggested that it should be converted into a picture gallery, but it is too much out of the way for such a purpose. If it were swept away, the grounds might, with advantage, be thrown into Kensington Gardens. Hampton Court Palace is a, People's Palace, and therefore I do not complain of the expenditure there, but we have got the Hampton Court Stud House. I should like some explanation about that. I have asked for many years what becomes of the foals. We expend money on stallions. I presume these animals have progeny, and that the foals are sold. We do not, however, get a farthing for any of the foals. Then we get the Kew Palace and buildings upon Kew Green. Now, I have never yet discovered what Kew Palace is. I have been often to Kew, and there I have seen a dead wall, over the top of which you may see part of a wretched looking house, which we understand to-be Kew Palace. Who on earth lives in Kew Palace?
  *MR. PLUNKET: Nobody.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: Well, then, we have it on official authority that nobody lives there, and here we have this year £1,420 and last year £720 expended upon a place where nobody lives — a wretched, ramshackle place where, I believe, George III. lived while he was insane. At all events, it is a house of no use to any human being, and it is really ridiculous that it should continue to occupy land and prevent other persons from availing themselves of building leases there. Then we have a long list of houses and expenditure upon them for maintenance and repairs, and I believe every one of these houses has been lent to some lady or gentleman who occupies it. But if Her Majesty allows these houses to be occupied rent free, at least, I think, the occupants might be required to keep the houses in repair. The amount is not large, but the principle is one upon which I think we ought to register a protest. Here are buildings the use of which Her Majesty does not require, the maintenance of which costs £7,617. Now, in view of the fact that as I have said this is unnecessary expenditure against which we ought to register a protest, I beg to move a reduction of the Vote by £5,000.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum not exceeding £26,725 be granted for the said Service.—(Mr. Labouchere.)
  MR. MORTON: In connection with—
  Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and -40 Members being found present,
  *MR. MORTON: I have been sent here to secure economy in the public expenditure. I do not intend to say a word against Her Majesty or against the Royal Family. But my attention has been particularly drawn to the item in this Vote for Light, Fuel, and Water. Surely these things ought to be paid for out of the allowances we make to the Royal Family? Now, I understand that the allowance to Her Majesty includes the maintenance and repair of Buckingham Palace and the other Palaces used by Her Majesty; but I take it it also includes new works unless they are required for the benefit of the nation. I find in connection with Buckingham Palace there is an item of £270 for fuel, light,

  355
  water, and household articles. Why should we pay that? Why is it not paid out of the Royal allowance. Again, there has been an expenditure of £500 on some sanitary works at Pimlico Mews. Is there any occasion for keeping up those mews, seeing that they are never used by Her Majesty? Certainly by-and-bye we may have a Monarch who may make use of them; but until then they might be let, and I would suggest that if they were let to Mr. Barnum on the occasion of his next visit to this country a considerable sum might be realised for the benefit of the Public Exchequer. Now I come to Windsor Castle. Under the item for wages, I find that a labourer is paid a guinea a week, and that a turncock, in addition to receiving £1 8s. a week, gets an annual allowance of £8 for acting as rat-catcher. Why is not this paid out of the general allowance? I had supposed that the new drainage system in London had got rid of all the rats. There is a further payment of £10 a year to a rat-catcher employed at the Albert Memorial Chapel. I am not complaining of these amounts, but I do think they should be paid by Her Majesty out of the allowance made her by the nation. Now, I want to know who occupies the White Lodge, Regent's Park? On the general question, I must say I do not think that all these Palaces are required. Surely it is not necessary to keep up both Buckingham Palace and St. James's Palace. Buckingham Palace might be handed over to the people, who could hold their meetings there instead of at Trafalgar Square. It is of no use to Her Majesty, and therefore in the interests of economy, we might very well get rid of it. Kensington Palace might also be got rid of, because it is of no use to Her Majesty. I do not object to Her Majesty having several Palaces if only they are used by her. The London County-Council are looking out for a building in which to meet, and, seeing the central position of this building, I think it might be a very desirable building in which they should meet for the transaction of their business. I want some information as to Hampton Court Strudhouse, Kew Palace, the Military Knights' House at Windsor Castle, Holyrood Palace, and Marlborough
  356
  House. At Kew last year we spent £700 on an empty house, and this year we are asked to spend another £1,400. I hope that in the interests of economy that Vote will be withdrawn, and that old Palace got rid of altogether. Then, why are the Military Knights' houses at Windsor kept up out of the public money? This expenditure does not appear to me to be for the good of the nation. For Holyrood Palace there is a Vote of £1,366, of which £700 is for maintenance and repairs. Now I do not object to this Vote, but what is going to be done with the money? When I was last at Holyrood I found it in a wretched condition; it did not look as if anything at all had been spent on it. Indeed, it is generally complained in Scotland that the public buildings are sadly neglected by the British Parliament. I do not know why that is so; perhaps it is because Scotland is so far away. No doubt when the Scottish people get Home Rule. they will take better care of these old Palaces. I hold that Holyrood should be kept up; and I hope to hear how this money will be spent. In regard to Marlborough House, I am told there is a bargain with the Prince of Wales similar to the one made with the Queen. I, therefore, do not think the nation ought to pay for new works there, such as alterations to the steward's room. The Prince of Wales should pay for these things out of his allowance. Again, the people who occupy these Palaces should pay for their own coals and light and water. So long as the present system is allowed to exist you will never get real economy. If the Royal Family have not a sufficient grant allowed them at present to do so, then on another occasion sufficient money should be granted to them in order to meet all these items of expense, instead of the Government coming to Parliament and asking the taxpayers to pay the bills. It is in the interests of economy that an arrangement such as this should be put in force. Finally, let me point out that when these Votes are laid before the Committee, we are allowed to criticise them, but we are never allowed to reduce them. They are forced through the House of Commons without regard to our criticism. Unfortunately, the Government

  357
  make the passing them a question of confidence, and consequently the supporters of the Government are obliged to vote them, whether they like it or not. I think the Liberals are as bad in this respect as the Conservatives when they are in power. The Committee ought to be able to reduce these Estimates regardless of Party allegiance, and an adverse vote ought not to affect the Government. Until you can discuss the Votes under these conditions, you will never get economy practised in any Department. I see there is an item for Insurance, Tithe Rent-Charges, &c. Now, we have been told that tithe is a religious payment; then surely the Royal Family might set the people a good example by paying their own tithes. I do not think the Palaces ought to be occupied by Royal favourites; but if they are, then these tenants should be made to keep the premises in repair at their own expense in the same way that other tenants for life are bound to hand over houses to their successors in good repair. Clergymen who occupy vicarages are bound to do this; then why should not friends of the Royal Family, who are allowed to occupy these Palaces, be compelled to do a similar thing? It is our duty to endeavour to induce this Parliament to secure greater economy in these Votes; and I warn the Government that if they do not, we may presently get a new Parliament which will make greater changes than they may dream of. Personally, I should prefer these changes to be made gradually, and, therefore, I ask this Committee to make a beginning. It is easy to spend other people's money; but when a man has to spend his own, he generally endeavours to do it in the most economical manner. It seems to me that the expenditure of this country is increasing from year to year, and we ought, wherever we can, to practise economy. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to assure us that in future the works coming under these Estimates will be put out to tender, as it is a well-known fact that where the present system is carried out, the tradesmen arrange among themselves who shall get the contract—that, in point of fact, there is what is known as a "knock out" amongst them, the only possible check upon which would be the issue of ad-
  358
  vertisements inviting tenders from every one desirous of doing the work. This is the method pursued by nearly all other authorities, and has been found to work well in practice. I must apologise for having kept the House so long. I have done so solely in the interests of economy, having been specially pledged on that subject to my constituents.
  MR. PICTON: I am altogether opposed to any increased expenditure on this Vote, as I think the incomes possessed by those who occupy the Royal Palaces ought to suffice for the outlay required upon them. The increase does not arise on Palaces in the occupation of Her Majesty, but on the other two classes, namely, Palaces partially in Her Majesty's occupation and Palaces not in the occupation of Her Majesty. On some of the Palaces in Her Majesty's occupation there are large reductions. For instance, the amount required for Windsor Castle is reduced from £6,800 to £6,325; but when we come to other Palaces, we find the result to be the other way. Surely we ought to have some explanation of the increased expenditure now asked for, especially in regard to such charges as are made for the supply of fuel and water to those who occupy these Palaces.
  MR. H. COSSHAM: Many of the items that appear under the head of this Vote are so in. significant and trivial that they may almost be characterised as petty. I think that the only ground on which we can be asked to defray these charges is where they contribute to the benefit of the general public; but it can hardly be for the advantage of the public to maintain a number of Palaces which they are unable to use. I call on the Government to see that something is done that will enable a proper use to be made of these Palaces. Whether the Motion of my hon. Friend is the right one I am hardly prepared to say. I do not think some of these items are calculated to deepen respect for existing institutions, for I observe that they include money for ratcatchers, bellringers, fuel, and so forth. I think it is the plain duty of the Government to get rid of this expenditure and to economise.
  DR. TANNER: I will not follow my hon. Friend into details, although most of his remarks are sensible ones. In view of the progress of the age, I think a good many of these medieval remnants might be done away with, and common-sense opinions made to prevail. Really, as one who has had the disadvantage of listening to these recurring debates year after year, I think something might be done to adopt proper phraseology in describing the duties of certain people. But I rise for the purpose of eliciting information with respect to a series of items which have cropped up again this year in connection with the Royal Palaces. I observe an item relating to sanitary work. Tear after year I have been trying to get other medical men in this House to give proper attention to this subject with the view of effecting some useful economy. Each year we have this item of sanitary works. The Royal Mews, Pimlico, sanitary works, £500; White Lodge, Richmond Park, £250; St. James's Palace, not in the occupation of Her Majesty, £500; Kensington Palace, £755; Kew Palace and buildings on Kew Green, £475. For "works and alterations of a minor character"—it does not say whether these are sanitary or not—there is a sum £500. I should not SO much object to this expenditure if it were brought on one year, but we have it coming up year after year, and I think it is throwing away money not by the hundreds, but by the thousands, and we have this wasteful extravagance when, week after week and month after month, there are poor starving wretches coming into this City. The hon. Member for Peterborough was right in insisting that there should he satisfactory tenders for this work; and we know that if, under a system of tenders for the work, you had this constantly recurring expenditure, you would have someone whom you could hold responsible. I really press the right hon. Gentleman whether this is not a matter to which some remedy could be applied? I admit that these old Palaces require to have adapted to them from time to time recent sanitary improvements, but I certainly think that should not involve the necessity of a large annual charge. A good deal of money
  360
  has been spent on Pimlico Mews, a place for the housing not of men, but of horses. Farther, some of these Palaces are not occupied by Her Majesty, but by a number of pensioners. And this I would say, that when you are incurring this expenditure, you certainly ought to enter into some good and satisfactory contract. I certainly should not think I was doing my duty if I did not rise to obtain some explanation of this expenditure. Why have these alterations been made? Because of disease or infection, or merely in consequence of speculative opinions offered by advisers? I should like to know what reasons the right hon. Gentleman has to advance in connection with these matters.
  MR. DILLWYN: There is one point I should like some special information upon. What is the use of Kew Palace? Is it used by pensioners, servants, or caretakers? I think we ought to have a specific answer upon that point before we are called upon to spend more money on an old, useless, and rotten Palace.
  MR. PLUNKET: I hope the hon. Member for Fermanagh will not think me unreasonable if I now interpose between him and the House in order to reply to the questions which have been addressed to me. An hour has already been spent in discussing this particular item, and the Committee do not appear to be getting much "forrarder." Underlying the whole of the questions which have been put to me is the assumption that the Palaces we maintain ought to be only personally in the occupation of Her Majesty. Now, when this question came up last year I explained the whole case. The fact of the matter is that all these Royal Palaces and houses for which we ask a vote to be taken in this House were formerly provided for out of the Civil List. What happened? The view taken at the commencement of the reign of William IV. was this: that it would be better, in future, that these Palaces should not be provided for out of the Civil List, but should be borne by the Votes of Parliament. And the way that came about was because a very strong and influential Committee which sat to consider this very question of the Civil List at the beginning of the reign of

  361
  William IV. recommended that a great number of other expenses which had fallen under the Civil List should be transferred to, and undertaken by, the Votes of Parliament. That recommendation was made in 1831. And, accordingly, these Royal Palaces were placed under the Surveyor-General in 1831 in consideration of the reduction of the Civil List from £1,200,000 to £500,000, or more than one-half. That method of dealing with these charges was re-considered at the commencement of the present reign; and the Committee on the Civil Lists then, as always appointed on the accession of a new Monarch, reported strongly in favour of continuing the arrangement of 1831. They said that the change had worked extremely well and economically. The Report of the Committee of 1831 contains a schedule setting out the charges which had been formerly borne by the Civil List, and which were to be transferred to Parliament under the arrangement I have described; and amongst the charges there set out are the expenses of the Office of Works in regard to all these Palaces. Parliament, in fact, undertook to provide for the maintenance and repair of all these palaces.
  *MR. MORTON: Does that apply to fires, fuel, and lighting?
  *MR. PLUNKET: Yes, Sir, all that. Everything for the up-keep of the Palaces. I hope, under the circumstances, hon. Members will not expect me to go through all the cast's to which allusion has been made. There are two cast's, however, which I must deal with, as a certain amount of misapprehension seems to prevail with regard to them. One was mentioned by the senior Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere), and with regard to that I am specially anxious that this misapprehension should not prevail. The hon. Member referred to the Palace at Kew. It is the duty of the Office of Works under the arrangement I have mentioned to keep up not only that Palace, but also Cambridge Cottage, which is in the occupation of the Duke of Cambridge, and Church House.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: "Church" House?
  *MR. PLUNKET: Yes; that is merely the name of the place. It is not attached to a Church. The item for sanitary improvements, to which attention has been called, is connected with these buildings, and not the empty Palace. The Local Authorities of Kew have initiated a new system of drainage there, and, as a result, it has been found necessary to undertake these works. As to the alterations at St. James's Palace, they have become necessary owing to the decease of the Duchess of Cambridge, who was the last occupant of the Palace, and the necessity for putting the building into a condition to receive a new occupant. That new occupant will be Prince Albert Victor. I wish it to be understood, however, that the expense which has been incurred in preparing the Palace for Prince Albert Victor is no more than would have been necessary if the new occupant had been anyone else. There must be considerable additional outlay on alterations owing to the circumstances that the son of the Prince of Wales is about to occupy the Palace: but all this additional outlay will be borne by the Prince of Wales. The hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Picton) has complained of a matter to which one or two other Members have adverted, namely, the item for fuel. They say, "Why do you not make these personages pay for their own fuel?" and one hon. Member even went so far as to say that Her Majesty should be required to pay for fuel out of the Privy Purse. Well, as a matter of fact, Her Majesty and the other personages in question do pay for the fuel they use out of their private means. The items charged in the estimate for fuel are simply in relation to coal used for heating apparatus, and similar purposes, in the public parts of the Palaces. Then the hon. Member for Mid Cork asked me about sanitary repairs in connection with the Royal Mews.
  DR. TANNER: I did not refer to the Royal Mews at Pimlicoalone. I referred to a long list of places where sanitary repairs had been made.
  *MR. PLUNKET: I understood that. I would point out that the Royal Mews is on the schedule I have referred to. There is permanent accommodation there for 230 persons, besides a large number

  363
  of horses; and the works carried on there have been such as have been rendered necessary by sanitary considerations. The outlay was not one which it was possible to reduce. Every one of the sanitary works—which are now going on, and which I hope will soon be completed—have been undertaken with great reluctance by myself, and still more reluctantly acceded to by my hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury. We only undertook them because they were absolutely necessary. I hope the Committee will think that I have given sufficient answer to the questions addressed to me.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I would draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that when we entered into the arrangement at the commencement of the reign of Her Majesty no sort of arrangement was made to maintain these Palaces. What we did was to relieve Her Majesty altogether of the obligation of maintaining them: and, if that had not been the case, why should it be necessary to submit the Vote to Parliament and to ask hon. Members from year to year to sanction these items? It is absurd to suppose that we are under an obligation to the Sovereign to maintain houses which are absolutely unnecessary. As to the £1,700 charged for Church House and Cambridge Cottage, the right hon. Gentleman says the outlay was necessary, as new drainage works were being carried out by the Local Authorities; but I have had quite recent experience of connecting houses with drainage systems and am in a position to say that the expense in the case of a single house should not exceed £10 or £20. But we have heard of these drainage charges before from the right hon. Gentleman's predecessors. I know my old friend the drains. The Government are always getting houses connected with them at enormous expense. As to the charge of £152 for heating this deserted Palace at Kew, this amount represents 140 tons of coal, which would never have been used in one house. As a matter of fact, this money is absorbed by a number of sponging drones. They get something, in all probability, out of these sanitary works also; and I protest altogether against such payments and against
  364
  keeping up these unnecessary establishments.
  Mr. W. REDMOND: The right hon. Gentleman asks the Committee to believe that the Crown would not recommend this expenditure if it were not absolutely necessary, and he also spoke of the reluctance of the Treasury to authorise such expenditure. I am sure there is no Member here who would for a moment insinuate that the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works or the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury have authorised the expenditure of this large sum, knowing that it was unnecessary. What we complain of is that Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench are themselves duped and hoodwinked by others. I do not suppose they have gone over all these Palaces to see what was necessary to be done. We all know that there are no people more likely to bring about a job than builders and contractors; and when we find that year after year large sums of money are asked for putting various buildings into a sanitary condition, and that notwithstanding such expenditure they never seem to be in a sanitary condition, I think we have legitimate cause for complaint. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Plunket) gave us an interesting account of how the maintenance of these Palaces came to be thrown on the country. No doubt all he said was true, but it did not at all go to prove that it is either necessary or advantageous that thousands of pounds should be spent every year in maintaining Palaces in which nobody lives. I believe the Queen does sometimes go to Buckingham Palace; but she never goes to Hampton Court, or Kew, or St. James's Palace, and there are a variety of other buildings of the kind to which the members of the Royal Family never go. I say it is in the interest of the Royal Family that expenditure of this kind should not be allowed. There is, undoubtedly, a strong feeling throughout the country that it is monstrous for Parliament to be called on year after year to spend £36,000 in maintaining buildings which absolutely serve no purpose at all. Only the other day an appeal was made to the generosity of the country to provide money for the equipment of the Volunteers. I am not

  365
  very much in favour of warlike preparations of any kind myself, but I say that if you are to have Volunteers they ought to be effectively equipped. Why cannot the large sums of money which are wasted on the maintenance of uninhabited Palaces be spent on the equipment of the Volunteer Force, and in helping to provide batter houses for the unfortunate poor people of this City? When one walks through the streets of this town, even under the very shadow of the walls of this House, and finds them filled with unfortunate wretches who are half starved and at the last stage of misery, it does seem a monstrous thing that money should be squandered in this way. Nobody on these Benches objects to spending what is necessary and proper in maintaining Palaces for the Queen, but we do object to spending money on houses which are never used at all. We believe that the Government Officials are humbugged by contractors. Are there no means by which a satisfactory conclusion could be arrived at as to whether this expenditure is necessary or not? I am certain that if an investigation could be made, it would be found that a great part of the expenditure is unnecessary.
  *MR. MORTON: I am sorry to detain the Committee; but I do not thoroughly understand this Vote, and the right hon. Gentleman has left several of my questions unanswered. One of them related to the Estimate of £1,165 for furniture. another to repairs at Holyrood Palace, and another to public tendering. I am glad to hear that these buildings belong to the nation, because, when we get a more democratic Parliament, we shall know what to do with them, and that with very little trouble. The right hon. Gentleman has said that one of the houses at Kew is occupied by the Duke of Cambridge. I object to public money being provided to keep up a cottage for the Duke of Cambridge. His Royal Highness reccives a large allowance from this House, and a large salary, and he is the last person in the United Kingdom who ought to call on the House of Commons for money, for a house. furniture. fuel, or anything of the sort.
  MR. PICTON: I really must press for an answer to some questions I asked the right hon. Gentleman. Surely it is of some consequence to the Com-
  366
  mittee to know why the expenditure on the Palaces in the present occupation of Her Majesty has not increased, whilst that upon Palaces not in the occupation of Her Majesty has increased. Again, I want to know why it is that the cost of keeping up Kew Palace is precisely double—£1,420 instead of £710? I admit it is very humiliating to have to discuss these matters in a Committee of the whole House, but the right hon. Gentleman ought to remember that the annoyance arises from an increasing discord between the feeling of the ago and the customs manifested in these Estimates. The feeling is more for spending money in public needs and not on old-fashioned institutions which do no good to anyone. Public feeling has not shown any tendency to object to reasonable expenditure for the comfort, and state, and splendour of the Court. What public feeling does object to is spending money on old buildings that are of no good to anyone in the world. I really think if hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite knew the true interests of the institution which they always boast of defending, they would offer some proper explanation of this expenditure.
  MR. PLUNKET: I really think we ought to have some regard to the proportion of things and for the time of the House. Hon. Members opposite have occupied an hour and a half of public time in discussing such questions as whether it is necessary to have ratcatchers and turncocks at the Royal Palaces. I am anxious to afford every information of an important character that is asked for, but it is too much to occupy the time of the Committee for so long upon subjects of trifling importance. The expenditure on Palaces has nothing whatever to do with whether or not the Palaces are in the occupation of Her Majesty. The hon. Member for Peterborough asks for information as to the expenditure on furniture. £700 has been expended for furniture for St. James's Palace, which is used for public purposes, and £300 in improving the entrance to the Picture Gallery at Hampton Court, in. order to make it more commodious, and, therefore. more adapted for the enjoyment of the people who visited the

  367
  gallery. Thus £1,000 is at once accounted for.
  MR. CREMER: I hope the hon. Member for Northampton will press his Motion to a Division, not because we wish to waste the time of the House in discussing questions of ratcatchers or the other trifling matters to which the right hon. Gentleman has alluded, but because we are anxious to register our votes, in the name of the people who have to pay, against the expenditure of £36,000 for the maintenance of seven residences for the very few people who inhabit them. It wa3 my painful duty early one summer's morning not many years ago to walk through St. James's Park, and I counted on and around seats within 300 yards of Buckingham Palace 27 poor creatures huddled together trying to keep themselves warm in the morning air. Each of them looked as if they were on the verge of starvation. A policeman came along and roused them from their miserable slumbers. A more wretched spectacle I never saw! As I stood and looked at these poor creatures and then at that enormous building—Buckingham Palace—in which no one save the hangers on had resided for five months at the time I witnessed that spectacle, I asked myself, and the people who have to pay this money ask themselves, whether this is a specimen of the civilisation of which we boast in the 19th century. It is not necessary, however dignified and exalted the occupant of the Throne may be, that he or she should have seven residences. It is to protest against this waste of public money and against the glaring anomaly to which I have just made allusion that I shall follow the hon. Member for Northampton into the Lobby. There is just one question I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman, and which he has, I am sure, not purposely evaded. It was the question I addressed to him earlier in the sitting. It is why the Department over which the right hon. Gentleman presides with so much dignity, and I believe in the main usefulness, does not think it worth his while to issue public tenders for furniture? It is well to say that any respectable firm can, by making application, get its name put on the list; but I have not yet been able to learn that firms, who may get put on the
  368
  list, ever know when furniture is required in any Government office. If they do not know that, how is it possible they can tender? If there was a disposition to do so, it is very easy for the Department to issue through the public Press tenders indicating that a certain quantity of furniture is required by a given date, and that the Government are open to receive tenders. Then there is an item of £4,325 for repairs. Will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to say whether those repairs and alterations are done by contract—whether tenders are invited for the work, or whether the work is confined to a few firms who arc thus able to arrange matters amongst themselves? It is quite an understood thing that privileged firms do occasionally enter into arrangements, and that, in consequence, the public-suffer. A system of open tender would put an end to this sort of thing.
  DR. TANNER: I merely rise to ask the right hon. Gentleman to give his attention to the one point which I raised earlier in the evening, and that is as to the sanitary works at the Royal Mews, Kensington Palace. Were the works undertaken under medical advice? Then in the matter of insurance. Some of the Palaces are insured and others are not. What is the reason of this?
  MR. NORRIS: I cannot but think that this subject has been entirely exhausted. I have endeavoured to do right by sitting out the discussion, and I think that every phase of the Vote has been fully discussed. I hope the hon. Member for Northampton, with whom many of us agree in many points, will not put the Committee to the trouble of a Division.
  MR. PLUNKET: The sanitary works were, in many instances, rendered necessary by medical reports. The drains were in the worst possible condition, and money was absolutely required to be spent. As to insurance, my impression is that the persons occupying the houses pay the insurance, but I will make further inquiries on the point.
  *MR. CREMER: I have put two questions of considerable importance to the right hon. Gentleman.
  *MR. PLUNKET: I have answered them twice already. As regards furni-

  369
  ture, I have said we are willing to put any respectable firm on the list who choose to apply; and as to tenders we do invite tenders where the work to be done is sufficiently great as to make it wise to do so. Many of the works are extremely small, and they are executed by contractors we specially employ.
  (10.55.) The House divided:—Ayes 61; Noes 159.—(Div. List, No. 40.)
  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  2. Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £78,775, 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 Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens."
  MR. PICKERSGILL: I rise to move the reduction of this Vote by £701 in respect to the maintenance of Hampton Court Park. This Motion is a hardy annual, but I hope that this is the last year in which it will be necessary to bring it forward. The argument in favour of the proposition which I am about to submit to the Committee is so strong that if it were not for one's experience upon other matters, it would be surprising that it should have been necessary to reiterate it so frequently to the Committee. Hampton Court Park comprises an area equal to that of Kensington Gardens and Hyde Park combined; it is in the midst of rural scenery; it is public property, and yet from this public property the public are absolutely excluded, the enjoyment of it being reserved for deer and horses, and some 90 favoured families in the neighbourhood who pay a guinea a year for the privilege of possessing a key. This matter was very strongly pressed upon the attention of the right hon. Gentleman last year in Committee, and he then said that he had not had that amount of public pressure brought to bear upon him to enable him to overrule the natural reluctance of the Treasury to add to the expenses of the Park. Now, if he would only specify the precise character and degree of the pressure to which he would succumb, I should be glad to take my share in the application of the necessary stimulant. But seriously I
  370
  do think that since he spoke in March last, he has had brought before him, in a manner it is impossible to dispute, strong evidence of the existence of a large body of public opinion in favour of throwing open the Park to the public. I have had sent to me a copy of a local newspaper suggesting that this matter should be brought forward and strongly urged again this year, and from the tone of the leaders I gather that this newspaper is of a distinctly Conservative complexion. In this paper I find an account of a deputation which in August last waited upon the right hon. Gentleman and urged him to consent to the opening of the Park to the public, and this deputation certainly carried with it a considerable amount of public weight. It included the Mayor of Kingston and representatives of other Local Bodies in the neighbourhood, and they suggested that the public should merely have permission to cross the Park along the footpaths which already exist; and that, in fact, the privilege which is now monopolised by a few favoured residents should be shared by the public at large. The right hon. Gentlemen has always strongly insisted upon the expense that would be involved; but I see that the responsible members of this deputation assured him. that, so far as one item of expense was concerned, he need be under no anxiety, as they would guarantee on the part of the locality the expense of four self acting gates giving access to the Park. The right hon. Gentleman has had, then, some of the pressure he last year said was wanting, so one ground of objection is removed. The other day he was asked a question as to some changes made in the administration? of the Park, and I understand he told us that the deer hitherto maintained there were about to be replaced by horses or foals—and, as an hon. Member suggests, cattle—and we were also told that grazing would be let to the Master of the Horse at a net gain to the Exchequer of £600 a year. Now, whether it is £100 or £600, I think the suggestion of a net gain to the Exchequer as the result of the operation is rather calculated to raise a smile, because surely the nominal transfer of the amount from one public official to another—from the Master of the Horse to the First Commissioner of Works—can hardly be regarded as a real source

  371
  of public revenue. This consideration, I think, may be omitted. As I understand, the demand put forward by the people resident in the locality, all they desire is to be permitted to cross the Park, and therefore if their right, as I shall put it, can ho conceded, and at the same time the grazing can be let to the Master of the Horse, well and good but if it becomes a question whether the enjoyment of the Park by the public, or by the horses and cattle, is to be first considered, I, for one, maintain that the interest of the public ought to have the first place. This is a public Park; it is public property; and it is surely little short of scandalous that it should practically be only available to some 90 favoured families. It is a. matter which year after year has been pressed upon the First Commissioners and it is clearly a concession, if you choose to call it a concession, which must eventually come. I cannot but think the right hon. Gentleman would be well advised to make the concession at once with a good grace. For these reasons, which are not new, which I regret to say it has been necessary to urge year after year, I beg to emphasise my protest by moving the reduction of the Vote by £701.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a reduced sum of £78,074 be granted."
  MR. PLUNKET: The grounds upon which the hon. Member brings forward his Motion this year are somewhat different from those on which it was formerly brought forward. Hitherto it has been considered as a grievance which ought to be redressed that, whereas the public paid for the maintenance of Hampton Court Homo Park, they were not admitted to the enjoyment of it. Well, I need not traverse that argument, because, as I will explain, that state of affairs no longer exists. But I think there is, generally, some misapprehension as to the real state of the case. It is generally supposed that this has been, at some time or other, a Park open to the general public; but, that the public have been excluded from a right they formerly enjoyed. That is a misapprehension altogether. The Park
  372
  has never at any time been thrown open to the public; it has always been reserved for the stud of half-bred horses belonging to Her Majesty; and there is a stud lions there which we are obliged to maintain, which we cannot legally dispose of or destroy. The question presents itself, whether the character of the Park is or is not to be changed: whether, apart from any grievance, it is a Park that should be thrown open to the public. It must, I think, be admitted that in this particular place the exclusion of the public from the Park is not, at the worst, such a serious deprivation, as it might be in another place, for the public have at hand the grounds and gardens of Hampton Court Palace and Bushey Park on the other side of the road. The hon. Member has said that a few favoured individuals are admitted to the enjoyment of the Park; but I believe the only persons are those resident in Hampton Court Palace, and a few others, who pay a guinea a year for a key of admission. Then the hon. Gentleman has referred to my observation on a former occasion, when I said that no great pressure had been put upon the Government to induce them to make the change, and he has mentioned a deputation which did me the honour of waiting upon me last autumn. Well, the deputation was one from the immediate neighbourhood of Hampton Court Palace, from Kingston and adjoining places, and they certainly stated, with great propriety from their point of view, a strong desire that the Park should be thrown open. But then it must be remembered that, if thrown open at all, it must be in obedience to the demand of the public generally: because if it is no longer used for the purposes to which it is at present devoted, it must be maintained entirely at the public expense. It is quite true that up to the present time the public have been saddled with such maintenance: but by the arrangement I have mentioned, by the abolition of the herd of deer which were the source of some expense to the nation, this item will disappear from the Estimates, an item of £150 a year, and ether small sums, making, I think, about £200. Not only that, but in consideration of the fact that there will no longer be deer there, there will be an increased rental for grazing of horses

  373
  of about £500 or £600, so that we shall now actually have a small profit on the Park. It must further be said that the expenses the deputation said they were willing to undertake if the Park were thrown open is bat a small part of the expenses that would be incurred. It would be necessary if the public were permitted full enjoyment of the Park that additional expense should be undertaken for footpaths and perhaps roads and for management and police. Under all the circumstances, the Government have come to the conclusion that it would be better to keep the Park in its present condition, but that the public should no longer be called upon to provide for the maintenance, and that the item should disappear from the Estimates.
  DR. TANNER: The right hon. Gentleman will remember that a question was put to him in reference to the grazing. I should like to ask what amount will be realised from the lettings, and will they include grazing, for cattle as well as horses? I should also like to know how the income will be expended; whether it will go to the relief of those who have hitherto borne the cost of maintenance?
  MR. PLUNKET: The grazing will be mainly for the purpose of the stud establishment. I am not aware how far the Master of the Horse may think it desirable to include the grazing of cattle. As to the money derived from the letting that goes into the Exchequer as a set-off against expenses in a general way.
  (11.25.) The Committee divided:—Ayes 67; Noes 142.—(Div. List, No. 41.)
  Original Question again proposed.
  MR. PICTON: I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman about certain enclosures in Regent's Park which have been made during the past year. I do not say that they are not justifiable, because, probably, they have been made in order to allow the grass which has been destroyed by excessive traffic to grow again; but I want to know if, when the land is again covered with grass, the enclosures will be thrown open for the perambulation of the public? Otherwise, the enjoyable area of the Park will be considerably reduced.
  MR. CAUSTON: What are the present arrangements with regard to games being played in the Royal Parks—games such as lawn tennis, and cricket, and football? Cannot more facilities be given for the people to indulge in these games in the Parks? Surely a portion of Hyde Park might be set aside for that purpose. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give the Committee some information on the subject.
  MR. CREMER: A portion of the land at Kew Gardens has been railed off, and the public thereby excluded from it. I should like to know why, and I should also like to know what is the cost to the British taxpayer of keeping in repair the building which stands within the enclosure, and which is said to have formerly been a Royal residence?
  MR. LABOUCHERE: How many houses are there at the disposal of the Crown in Kew Gardens? Does the present Director live in one?
  *MR. PLUNKET: Yes.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: The other day I asked a question as to the widening of Knightsbridge Road, for which purpose a portion of the Park is to be used. No doubt it will be a considerable advantage to the public. But some years ago, when Mr. Ayrton brought in a Bill with a similar object, it was thrown out by the House. Now, while I do not object to the improvement being carried out, I do think it is doubtful whether the land should be taken without first passing a Bill through the House for the purpose; because if you can give a small portion of the Park away without the assent of Parliament you can equally well give away a large part of it. Would it not be better for the right hon. Gentleman to bring in a Bill order to carry out this useful scheme?
  MR. PLUNKET: I hope hon. Members will excuse me if I only make a brief reply. With regard to what has been called an enclosure in Regent's Park, it consists merely of palings which anyone can step across; the fact of the matter being that the grass has been completely worn away. If hereafter it can be done I shall be glad to have the palings removed; but I can-

  375
  not give an undertaking until I see how the grass turns out. With regard to the question of games in St. James's Park and the Green Park, it is obviously impossible to entertain the idea. In Regent's Park a considerable amount of ground is devoted to this purpose, and I am afraid that the Government cannot go beyond what has been done there. The question with regard to Hyde Park has been considered again and again; but, with the best wishes to provide the public with ground for games, the conclusion I have come to is that, considering the immense amount of traffic, the public meetings, and the reviews of troops, we cannot provide space for cricket or football. I regret that I cannot give an answer with regard to the enclosed space in Kew Gardens; but if the hon. Member will put down a question I will endeavour to get the necessary information. With regard to the question referred to by the hon. Member for Northampton, it is true that Mr. Ayrton brought in a Bill when he made what was in some respects a somewhat similar proposal, but in other respects the cases were entirely different. In the former case the proposal was to take a considerable amount of ground, and a very considerable advantage would have resulted to privats individuals; in the latter case only a very small amount of the Park was required for what would, I think, be a public improvement. Under these circumstances, I was prepared to entertain the proposals of the Vestry—they seem, however, to have dropped the matter, I believe, because the London County Council refused to join them in the expense of making the desired changes.
  MR. SEYMOUR KEAY: I am quite a novice in Supply, and therefore I will venture to ask a few questions with regard to the Vote under consideration, but I will not detain the House long. Now, I notice there is a item of £1,140 for the department of the Ranger at Richmond Park, and of this there are no less than £669 charged for the salaries of the Ranger himself, a Deputy Ranger, of a superintendent under the Ranger, and of an assistant superintendent under the Ranger, as
  376
  well as for a bailiff of the Royal Parks. I move to reduce the Vote by £669, and I want to know what are the duties of these officials What does the Ranger do? I have never seen any ranging going on, although I lived near one of the Parks at one time.
  MR. PLUNKET: The bailiff has the management of all the Royal Parks. The Ranger and his assistants have also considerable responsibilities. Amongst others, they have the charge of the herds of deer, and of the gate lodges and lodge-keepers.
  MR. MORTON: Who is the Head Ranger? Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us that?
  *MR. PLUNKET: The Duke of Cambridge.
  MR. MORTON: I want a little more information as to the expenditure on these Parks, and I hope that the Government will not object to give it. There is a sum of £142 for incidental expenses. What is that for? I find, further, that the expenses for St. James's, Green Park, and Hyde Park are lumped together, and that the items are not set out separately and in sufficient detail to enable hon. Members to check or compare them. Further than that, I find there is an allowance to the Superintendent under the Ranger of £96 in lieu of fees. I object to the fee system altogether. I think we are entitled to further details-of this item. Another official gets £20 in lieu of fees. What is the meaning of that? I should like to point out that the Head Ranger, the Deputy Ranger, and the Superintendent under the Rangerare military officers.
  DR. TANNER: My hon. Friends around me have good cause to complain that the new arrangement of the Estimates by the Government has increased the difficulty of dealing with these questions, and I think we have just cause of complaint on this head. I know hon. Gentlemen opposite do not complain because they are not allowed to speak on the Estimates. Now, I want to know something about the chairs which are stacked in a great heap near Kensington Park. What is done with the money realised by letting out these chairs? Is it applied to keeping them

  377
  in repair? As to games being played in the parks, I noticed when I was at Darlington the other day that, in the small park there, boys were playing at football. Surely, then, a portion of such a huge park as Hyde Park should be devoted to such a purpose.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  It being Midnight, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
  Resolutions to be reported to-morrow, at Two of the clock.
  Committee to sit again to-morrow, at Two of the clock.

SOUTH INDIAN RAILWAY PURCHASE BILL.—(No. 195.)
Considered in Committee; Committee report Progress; to sit again to-morrow, at Two of the clock.

MERCHANT SHIPPING ACTS AMENDMENT (RE-COMMITTED) BILL.—(No. 200.)
Order for Committee read.
SIR R. N. FOWLER: I object.
*MR. HOWELL: There are several Amendments on the Paper which have been agreed to, and the House must go into Committee to dispose of these, and then report Progress.
MR. PARKER SMITH: I would ask the hon. Gentleman whether he agrees to the other Amendments on the Paper?
*MR. HOWELL: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade can state whether arrangements have been made.
*SIR M. H. BEACH: I would ask the hon. Member to withdraw his objection for the present, and allow the Amendments agreed upon to be taken, and the remaining Amendments can be discussed at a later stage.
SIR R. N. FOWLER: I withdraw my objection, Sir; but hon. Members opposite will remember that a good many Bills emanating from this side are objected to, and they cannot be surprised if we object to their Bills in return.
Bill considered in Committee, and Amendments made; Committee report Progress; to sit again to-morrow.

POOR LAW (IRELAND) RATING BILL. (No. 149.) COMMITTEE.
Order for Committee read.
MR. SEXTON: I have no objection to the principle of this Bill, but it requires certain Amendments.
MR. DE COBAIN: There are Amendments on the Paper to meet the case.
MR. SEXTON: The hon. Member's Amendments are not sufficient.
Committee deferred till Monday, 28th April.

METROPOLIS MANAGEMENT AND BUILDING ACTS (AMENDMENT) BILL.

  (No. 132.) SECOND BEADING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. H. W. LAWSON: We do not object to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Sussex, if he will allow the Bill to be read a second time.
  *MR. M'LAREN: I object.
  MR. JAMES STUART: I hope the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his objection.
  *MR. M'LAREN: There are two Scotch Education Motions down for discussion, and if we are to discuss these Bills at any length we will not reach those Motions. But I will not press my objection.
  Second Reading deferred till Monday, 14th April.

COMMISSIONERS FOR OATHS ACT (1889) AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 15.)
Read a second time, and committed for Friday, 18th April.
MOTION.

  EDUCATIONAL ENDOWMENT (SCOTLAND) (REDHYTHE BURSARIES, &c, FORDYCE).
  SIR C. DALRYMPLE: I have to move—
  "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying Her Majesty to withhold Her consent from that part of the Scheme of the Educational Endowment (Scotland) Commissioners for the management of the Endowments in the County of Banff, known as the Redhythe

  379
  Bursaries, George Smith's Bounty, and the Stuart Mortification, which consists of and is contained in the following words of Section 26 of the said Scheme (that is to say), 'or with the consent of the Governors at any School where higher instruction is efficiently given which the bursar could attend while living with parents or relatives.'"
  In making this Motion I have to state that I have no connection with the locality to which the scheme refers, and have only taken it up on public grounds, with a view of carrying out what was the original view of the Scotch Education Department before that Department was influenced by certain representations made by those who are interested in the locality. The Motion proposes to restore the scheme to the form in which it stood in 1888. There is no question as to the benefit conferred by these bursaries, which were formerly bestowed by patronage, being now extended to the whole county. They are to be open under the scheme to the whole county for competition by students in Banffshire, the one point at issue being whether the parish of Fordyce, which is the original locality of the scheme, should be deprived of the advantage of having the bursars educated there. The Motion I propose is only a, small modification of the scheme, and the effect of the deletion of the words objected to will be that while the benefits of the bursaries are to be extended to the whole county the advantages of education shall not be withdrawn from the parish of Fordyce.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying Her Majesty to withhold Her consent from that part of the Scheme of the Educational Endowment (Scotland) Commissioners for the management of the Endowments in the County of Banff, known as the Redhythe Bursaries, George Smith's Bounty and the Stuart Mortification, which consists of and is contained in the following words of Section 26 of the said Scheme (that is to say), 'or with the consent of the Governors at any school where higher instruction is efficiently given which the bursar could attend while living with parents or relalives.'"—[Sir Charles Dalrymple.)
  MR. J. A. CAMPBELL: I cannot but acknowledge the moderation with which the hon. Baronet has introduced this Motion. He has refrained from introducing a Motion which would
  380
  involve the rejection of the scheme as a whole, and has merely dealt with one point which has already caused a good deal of discussion in the North. There has been a difference of opinion as to whether the bursars under this scheme should be required to attend school at Fordyce. It appeared to the Commissioners that the competition for the bursaries ought to be thrown open to boys from all parts of the county. It was, therefore, considered reasonable that the Governors should be empowered to dispense with the condition of the bursars all going to Fordyce for their education. On that point there was some difference of opinion; but the Commissioners thought the preponderance of argument was in favour of this extension of power to the Governing Body.
  MR. HALDANE: I would ask the House to pause before assenting to the proposal of the hon. Baronet. It is worthy of attention that the local opinion not only in the county but in the burghs is not entirely favourable to this suggestion of extended competition. We know that the Commissioners have made considerable inquiry in the locality, and have the advantage of much information which hon. Members have not been in a position to obtain. Moreover, hon. Members for the county and burghs connected with the scheme, acting on representations made by their constituents, are favourable to the scheme. I think, therefore, the House would do well to pause before overthrowing the conclusions at which the Commissioners have arrived.
  (12.30.) The House divided:—Ayes 104; Noes 75.—(Div. List, No. 42.)
  Resolved, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying Her Majesty to withhold her consent from that part of the Scheme of the Educational Endowment (Scotland) Commissioners for the management of the Endowments in the Comity of Banff, known as the Redhy the Bursaries, George Smith's Bounty, and the Stuart Modification, which consists of and is contained in the following words of Section 26 of the said Scheme (that is to say), "or with the consent of the Governors at any School where higher instruction is efficiently given which the bursar could attend while living with parents or relatives."
  To be presented by Privy Councillors.

ACCIDENTS (FACTORIES, RAILWAYS, AND JUNES.)
Address for—
"Return showing (i.) in the case of Factories and Workshop?, the number of Accidents which were reported to the Inspectors in the year ended the 31st day of October 1880, under Section 31 of 'The Factory and Workshop Act. 1878,' as having happened to persons employed in Factories and Workshops under the Act, distinguishing between fatal and non-fatal Accidents, giving separately the numbers for Factories and Workshops and the nature of the various employments in which the Accidents occurred, and stating the numbers of the persons employed in all Factories: (i.) in the case of Railways, the number of Servants of Railway Companies reported daring the year ended the 31st day of December 1889, under Section 6 of 'The Regulation of Railways Act, 1871,' as having met with Accidents caused by the travelling of trains or the movement of vehicles used exclusively upon Railways. and also the number of Servants of Companies reported during the same period under the same section as having met with Accidents in which the movement of vehicles used exclusively upon Railways was not concerned, distinguishing between fatal and non-fatal Accidents, classifying as far as possible the occupations of the Servants of Companies killed and 'injured. and stating the number of the Persons employed by such Companies; and (ii.) in the ease of Mines, the number of Accidents in the year ended the 31st day of December 1889 to persons employed in Mines, under 35 and 30 Vic. c. 77, and 50 and 51 Vic, c. 58, of which notice has been received by the Inspectors under Sections 11 and 35 of those Acts respectively distinguishing between fatal and non-fatal Accidents, specifying the class of the Mines in which the Accidents occurred, and the number of persons employed in each class of Mines during the year."—(Sir William Plowden.)

ORPHAN HOSPITAL SCHEME, EDINBURGH.
MR. W. M'LAREN: I am sorry to have to detain the House at this hour; but unfortunately this is the last opportunity I shall have for bringing this scheme before the House, and it becomes law if not rejected before April 11th. The Government, or the majority of its Members, have already voted to-night in favour of altering another scheme of the Commissioners, and I sincerely trust that they will at least leave this an open question, and will not appoint their Whips to act as Tellers against my
382
Motion. This is a matter of great importance to a large number of orphans in Edinburgh, and it is a subject on which the citizens of Edinburgh feel very deeply. It should not be called a hospital, the name is misleading; it is really an orphan home, and one of the best managed institutions in Edinburgh, It is not an old endowment absolutely; it is fully up to the requirements of the present time. It is true the original endowment dates from 150 years ago; but the endowment has gone on increasing, such satisfaction has the management given the people of Edinburgh, that for the last few years the capital has been largely increased by bequests and donations. I may say that in the attempt to upset the present management the Commissioners are opposing the wishes of donors still living who are perfectly satisfied with the present management. Since the Charter was granted in 1742 this has been a distinctly charitable and not an educational institution, in so far as charity and not education has been the standard for admittance: and it is one of the objections to the scheme of the Commissioners that under the new constitution it will become almost entirely an educational institution, the charitable element being almost eliminated. The existing management is conducted on the principle of providing destitute children with a, home, giving them also instruction in reading, writing, arithmetic, and other subjects; but the destitution is a necessary element in the recipient of the charity. But under the new scheme it is provided that there shall be an educational examination. The capital value of the institution is E78,000, the building standing at something like £20,000; or I believe it is worth a good deal more now: it cost that amount to build many years ago. The Governors have found, on following out the career of the children, that not more than 1½ per cent. of the children taken care of in this institution have turned out badly in later life. I doubt if any institution can show such an extremely satisfactory result. The institution contains both boys and girls; it is not conducted on the monastic system, it is really like a well managed home, with all the comforts of home and the training that home life gives a child.

383
The managers have circulated a statement in which they say the hospital was founded and has been extended solely on charity; it is unique in character; and the only qualification required is that a child is destitute, and therefore a proper object of charity, no inquiry being made into its state of knowledge. The 25th section of the new scheme upsets all this, and provides that the hospital itself shall be closed, and that children only shall be admitted to the foundation when he or she has passed an examination in the standard suitable to the ago of the child. Such a qualification will be required from every child before any benefit is received; and when there is a greater number of candidates than there are vacancies, which is almost invariably the case, the managers on selection are to have due regard to the merit of examination. It is perfectly clear that this will throw open the endowment not to the class for which it was intended, but to the children of parents who, having been well to do, were able to give their children a better education, and these, of course, will secure the exhibitions. The desire and intention of the founder, and of all those donors who year by year have added to the endowment, would cease to be respected, the institution will cease to be charitable, and will become educational. There is no need under the Endowments Act that this should be so; the 16th section of that Act provides that in framing schemes the Commissioners, in making selection of those eligible for the benefit of an endowment, may provide for examination or in such other manner as they may determine. Besides, this is not primarily an educational endowment. Another great point of objection is the compulsory closing of the hospital. The whole Governing Body is to be swept away, and a new Governing Body appointed of 15 members, eight to be elected by contributors and seven by the representatives bodies of Edinburgh—the School Board, the Town Council, the Medical Profession, the Legal Profession, and so on. This is a good enough constitution, no doubt; but it provides a new set of Governors under the new scheme, and there is no reason why a new set of Governors should not manage the hospital as they may think fit, to close it or to
384
keep it open, but I object to the compulsory closing of the hospital in five years. The Town Council have petitioned against it, and so have 22,000 of the inhabitants of Edinburgh. A week ago the Governors held a meeting, and a resolution in favour of closing the hospital was only carried by the casting vote of the chairman. Therefore, I may say that half the Governors are in favour of keeping; it open, and but for the accidental absence of Sir William Muir the vote would have been in favour of keeping the hospital open. The opinion of this gentleman is entitled to weight, and he has urged his views very strongly. We want to leave this matter optional, and I do not think the Government should object to that. I do not wish to detain the House unnecessarily; it was necessary to make this explanatory statement, and I hope I have been brief. My objection really lies at the root of the scheme, and therefore I propose to vary the terms of the Motion as I have given notice of them, and to ask the House to object to the Whole scheme.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying Her Majesty to withhold Her consent from the Scheme for the administration of the Orphan Hospital (Edinburgh)."—(Mr. Watter M'Laren.)
THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. P. B. ROBERTSON,): I do not desire to canvass the arguments addressed to the House by the hon. Member for Crewe. I do not doubt that the scheme of the Commissioners is one which would have conferred very large educational advantages on a deserving class of persons; but one cannot shut one's eyes to two facts—in the first place, that the scheme constitutes a very material departure from the existing organisation, and probably from the intentions of the founder of the charity; and, on the other hand, that that change has not commanded that general assent which alone would entitle it to absolute Parliamentary confidence. Looking to these facts, I do not propose on the part of the Government to offer

385
any opposition to the Motion of the hon. Member. I rejoice that he has had the courage of his convictions, and has departed from a Motion which would have embarrassed the charity without pointing out a clear path for its further development. While the Government assent to the Motion, I desire to add that that implies no want of appreciation of the very carefully considered scheme of the Commissioners; but merely, on the whole, that there is a general conclusion arrived at that the existing benefits are greater than those proposed to be conferred by the Commissioners.
MR. C. S. PARKER: I think the House has reason to complain that at the last moment the hon. Member for Crewe has withdrawn his Motion to amend the scheme, and has moved its rejection. I regret also that the Government are a consenting party to this, if they did not even prompt the change.
*MR. J. P. B. ROBERTSON: I first learned that the hon. Gentleman intended to alter his Motion about an hour ago from the hon. Member himself.
*MR. C. S. PARKER: I apologise for having supposed, if it be not so, that the move originated on the other side of the House. The alacrity with which 'the right hon. Gentleman welcomed it suggested that idea. But the chief point to which I ask attention is this: the Lord Advocate represents the Education Department, by whom the Commissioners' proposals have been responsibly considered and approved. Yet, on the three last occasions when their schemes have been attacked he has lent his aid to their opponents—twice silently, without a word of explanation, and now this third time not upon the merits, but simply on the ground that in Edinburgh popular opinion is divided. It is true the Town Council and others have petitioned against the scheme as it stands. But only a few years ago, when a Commission, on which I had the honour to serve, looked into the question, public opinion in Edinburgh, and generally in Scotland,
386
ran strong' against the system of keeping children together in hospitals, as against boarding them in separate homes; and the old Governing Body of the hospital, representing the subscribers, still support the proposed reform. The majority of them in favour of selling their building is small: but the feeling still prevails that even for orphans some kind of family life is preferable to collecting them within the walls of one large institution. The Governors also urge that, when they can educate the orphans free of cost in public schools, they are no longer justified in going to the expense of a separate teaching staff. I must add a word on the only other point raised by the Motion as entered on the Notice Paper, the mode of selection for admission. The scheme does not enforce competition, it only requires some examination suited to the children's age, and if they have been at school some "due regard" to their good con-duet, regular attendance, and satisfactory progress there. The measure of this regard is left to the discretion of the Governors. The children must all be fatherless and "needful." And there is nothing to prevent avowed preference of those who have lost both parents, or who most require help. I think it reasonable and right that in choosing among the needy some preference should be given to the deserving. I cannot, therefore, vote against examination and due regard to proficiency and character. If the hon. Member would confine his Motion to leaving the Governors free to sell or keep their building as they may find best, I would support that. But he seems to have made other terms with his allies; and against entire rejection of the scheme, compelling the Governors to continue the hospital system, I must protest.
MR. J. A. CAMPBELL: I wish to say, on behalf of the Commissioners, that they do not agree with the view that this Orphan Institution is not a Hospital. They consider that it has all the defects of the hospital system, inasmuch as a large number of children are kept there with very little intercourse with the outside world; and that the objections which

387
were so forcibly urged against the hospital system by the Commission on Endowed Schools and Hospitals, which reported in 1875, apply to this institution. The recommendation of that Commission was that the children in ordinary hospitals should be boarded out in families, and that in the case of orphans for whom boarding out was not considered suitable, there should be cottage homes provided, but not with so large a number of residents as would interfere with the domestic character of the home. The Commission felt that this orphan hospital was not a home, and that what was desirable for these orphans was that they should be placed in cottage homes, in so far as that could be carried out. I wish to say so much in defence of the scheme of the Commissioners.
MR. HALDANE: I wish to call the attention of the House to the extraordinary position taken up by Her Majesty's Government. This is the third of these schemes which has been rejected by them. Only a few minutes ago we were discussing another scheme prepared by Commissioners acting under an Act of Parliament for which Her Majesty's present Government at all events are constructively responsible, and carrying out a policy which they have sanctioned, and the Lord Advocate, without a single word and without any warning, went into the other Lobby and throw overboard the scheme of the Commission. We are aware that the head of the Commission is a Conservative nobleman, who is not altogether popular in all sections of his Party; but I recognise him as a man of great ability, and a man for whose opinion I have the greatest respect, as I have also for that of the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. J. Campbell). But I do think we have cause to complain that the decision of Lord Balfour of Burleigh and of the hon. Gentleman should have been overthrown on the last occasion without any word or without any warning, and on this occasion by a more general statement, which, if it comes to anything at all, goes to impugn the principle which underlies the Act of
388
Parliament. I do not know what occult influences have been at work with the Lord Advocate, or what outside pressure has been brought to bear upon him; but this I do know: that it is a very extraordinary circumstance that in this House the work of one of the best Commissions that has sat in Scotland for many years past should be treated as it has been treated by the Government.
Question put, and agreed to.
Resolved, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying Her Majesty to withhold Her consent from the Scheme for the administration of the Orphan Hospital (Edinburgh).
To be presented by Privy Councillors.

ORPHAN HOSPITAL SCHEME, EDINBURGH.

  RIGHTS OF WAY (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Buchanan, Bill to confer on County Councils in Scotland the power of maintaining and protecting Rights of Way, and otherwise to amend the Law relating to Rights of Way in Scotland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Buchanan, Mr. Bryce, Mr. Asher, Mr. Donald Crawford, Mr. Shiress Will, Mr. Munro Ferguson, Mr. Birrell, Mr. Esslemont, and Mr. Caldwell.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 215.]

  RIGHTS OF WAV (SCOTLAND) (NO. 2) BILL.
  On Motion of Sir Charles Dalrymple, Bill to enable County Councils in Scotland on a report by the sheriff to sue actions of Right of Way, ordered to be brought in by Sir Charles Dalrymple, Mr. James Campbell, Mr. Arthur Elliot, Mr. McLagan, and Mr. Mark Stewart.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 216.]

LAND PURCHASE (IRELAND) (NAMES OF LANDOWNERS.)
Return presented,—relative thereto [ordered 31st March; Mr. John Morley]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 115.]

EDUCATION (PRIMARY INSTRUCTION IN PARIS).
Return presented,—of Letter from Sir B. Samuelson, Baronet, M.P., concerning Public Primary Instruction in Paris [Address 31st March; Sir William Hart Dyke]: to lie upon the Table.
House adjourned at One o'clock'