Commons Sitting of 18 March 1892

Preamble
The House met at Two of the clock.
QUESTIONS.

  QUARTERMASTERS AND RIDING MASTERS.
  MAJOR RASCH: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary, War Department, whether it would be possible to grant to the senior quartermasters and riding masters, most of whom have been promoted from the ranks for long service and good conduct, the honorary rank of major after 20 years' commissioned service, such as is granted to officers in other branches?
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY, WAR DEPARTMENT (Mr. BRODRICE,): A very few years ago the position of quartermasters and riding masters was thoroughly considered and changes were made which were very advantageous to those officers. The rank of Major was then attached to certain of the more important appointments held by them, which was thought to be more satisfactory than making the rank a mere result of long service. It is not now considered desirable to re-open the question.

  THE CASE OF SERGEANT BOYD.
  MR. SEXTON(on behalf of Mr. FLYNN,): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, in reference to the case of Sergeant Boyd, Royal Irish Constabulary, who admitted at Bangor Sessions, 20th February, that he procured a specimen of the handwriting of an accused woman by getting her to write a "love letter" to one of the policemen in the barrack, whether he is aware that the District Inspector in charge of the case said that the sergeant had acted by his (the Inspector's) directions, and that he (the Inspector) took all the responsibility; and, if so, what steps do the Constabulary Authorities intend to take with regard to the Inspector's action?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. JACKSON,): The Constabulary Authorities report that, as already stated, the sergeant acted on his own responsibility in asking the woman to write what is called a "love letter." The statement of the District Inspector referred to had regard to his direction that a specimen of the woman's handwriting should be obtained.
  MR. SEXTON: The right hon. Gentleman says the statement of the District Inspector had regard to a direction to obtain a specimen of handwriting; but did the Inspector say that legal means should be used to procure the writing? The whole case is this: that the sergeant obtained it by giving no warning of the intention to proceed against the woman.
  MR. JACKSON: I think, certainly, that the view of the hon. Member is the right one, that when the District

  1185
  Inspector gave directions to obtain a specimen of her handwriting, it should not have been obtained on such terms. I may say at once it should not have been so obtained, and there is, in fact, a rule against it. I think no person ought to be called on to do an action that might incriminate that person.
  MR. SEXTON: As this woman has suffered considerably, and was prematurely confined in consequence of the charge made against her, and as her husband has been put to considerable cost in defending her, and the Attorney General has directed there shall be no prosecution, what is to be done in the way of compensation and to satisfy this sergeant and others in the force that such conduct must not be repeated?
  MR. JACKSON: I take it that the object of the hon. Member is to provide against a recurrence of what certainly ought not to have taken place in this case.
  MR. SEXTON: Punish the man.
  MR. JACKSON: I do not think it is necessary to do more than has already been done in the matter. I do not think that it sets up any claim on behalf of the woman or her husband.
  MR. SEXTON: This is one of the typical cases of administration in Ireland we shall have to bring to the attention of the House on the Vote on Account.

  CROPS IN IRELAND.
  MR. BLANE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if his attention has been drawn to the fact that, in the twelve months of 1890–91, there was a decrease of the area under crops in Ireland of about 163 square miles; and, if so, what steps the Government will take to prevent this annual decrease of the food producing area of Ireland.
  MR. JACKSON: I am informed that the decrease in the land under crops in Ireland in 1891 as compared with 1890 was, including meadow and clover, to the extent mentioned in the question.
  MR. BLANE: And can the Government suggest any means to check this narrowing of the area of cultivation?
  MR. JACKSON: Well, Sir, I am afraid that when cultivation does not pay it is not continued.

  REV. G. STEELE, INSPECTOR, EDUCATION DEPARTMENT.
  MR. H. J. WILSON: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether his attention has been directed to a speech delivered at Preston by the Rev. G. Steele, Her Majesty's Inspector for that district, to members of the Church of England, and reported in the Lancashire Evening Post of 22nd February, in which the following passages occur:—
  "If they had a School Board he did not see how or in what manner it would be likely to help them any more than the methods they had already. … He asked why should not the Church, Roman Catholic, and Wesleyan and other denominational schools .… agitate for, or claim a share of, support from the public rates, just as Board Schools did;'
  and whether the speech in question is one which is sanctioned by the regulations of the Department, which direct Her Majesty's Inspectors not to take sides in the denominational and political controversies of their district?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Sir WILLIAM HART DYKE,): The highly condensed report of Mr. Steele's speech from which the words in the question are taken gives, I am told, an erroneous impression of what was really said, and Mr. Steele informs me that his recommendation to denominational bodies to agitate for a share of the rates was withdrawn as soon as made; but I cannot help thinking that, as a public officer who might be called upon to advise the Department concerning the very question which he was engaged in discussing, he committed a grave indiscretion, to which his attention must be called.
  MR. SUMMERS: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what are the regulations of the Department?
  SIR WILLIAM HART DYKE: They are clear enough, providing that an Inspector shall not take such a course as appears in this case to have been taken.

  EXPRESS BANK, DUBLIN—RATE OF INTEREST.
  MR. LEA: I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland

  1187
  if his attention has been drawn to a circular of the Express Bank, with offices at 121, Stephen's Green, and 32, York Street, Dublin, in which the following statements, among many attractive paragraphs, appear:—
  "A promissory note is signed by you for the exact amount of your advance, plus the stamps, and is payable with interest at the rate of 60 per cent. per annum at such time as is therein specified, so that you receive the exact amount, and repay it along with interest calculated at said rate up to period of payment. We have been asked, 'Cannot you have a sliding rate between the bank rate and 60 per cent. per annum rate?' The Director, after an experience of 31 years, says 'No. The National Discount Company and others have tried it and failed;'"
  and whether any legal means exist of preventing such a high rate of interest as this; and, if not, whether the Government can take steps to prevent the enforcement of such a claim for interest, especially in the case of purchasers under the various Land Purchase Acts?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN,): My attention has been called to this circular by the question of the hon. Member. It is a matter in regard to which the public must protect themselves. The law has in recent years placed no limit to the amount of interest which a person of full age may undertake to pay.

  INSANE SOLDIERS.
  MR. P. J. O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary, War Department whether he is aware that the Board of Guardians of Nenagh Onion have received a communication from the Netley Military Hospital, to the effect that John Kelly, a private soldier in the "Connaught Rangers" regiment, who had been a lunatic, suffering from dementis, but who had sufficiently recovered to allow of his being removed, would be sent to the Union Authorities at Nenagh, under the care of two guides, on the 15th March, 1892; whether some other provision could be made in such a case as this, to avoid sending a soldier out of hospital on a long journey at this inclement season, and in so infirm a state that it required two guides to take charge of him; and, having regard to the fact that there is no proper provision
  1188
  available for lunatics at Nenagh Union, will he have inquiry made into this case of John Kelly's removal?
  MR. BRODRICK: The man referred to is a harmless lunatic, and he is transferred to the Union to which he is chargeable under the provisions of the Army Act. His condition was not such as to preclude travelling, and an insane soldier is always accompanied by an escort.

  ARTS AND SCIENCES IN ENGLISH UNIVERSITY COLLEGES.
  SIR HENRY ROSCOE: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will lay upon the Table of this House the Report of the Committee appointed to inquire as to how far the grant of £15,000 to the English University Colleges has stimulated the teaching of the arts and sciences within those colleges, and as to whether such a grant should be increased or otherwise?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN,): Yes; I will lay the Report on the Table.

  SECRETARY OF LEGATION AT WASHINGTON.
  MR. LEGH: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if it is the case that the Hon. M. H. Herbert has been appointed to the Post of Secretary of Legation at Washington; and if the appointment was offered to any Secretaries of Legation serving elsewhere; if not, on what grounds Mr. Herbert has been promoted over the heads of ten Second Secretaries and 14 Secretaries of Legation?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. J. W. LOWTHER,): Mr. Herbert has been appointed Secretary of Legation at Washington, not over the heads of ten Second Secretaries, but of six, two of his seniors having been promoted, one having been offered promotion, which he refused, and one being at present unemployed. Mr. Herbert has not passed over the heads of 14 Secretaries of Legation, as all Secretaries of Legation are on an equality as regards rank, and he will take the lowest place amongst them. In

  1189
  the opinion of the Secretary of State, Mr. Herbert, who has had more than three years' service at Washington, is specially qualified to fill the post, which requires an unusual amount of discretion. Mr. Herbert was in charge of the Legation at a critical period, after Her Majesty's Minister had received his passports, and has for the last year performed the duties of First Secretary to the entire satisfaction of his superiors.

  TRAINING OF THE LONDONDERRY MILITIA.
  MR. LEA: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary, War Department, if it is intended to conduct the training of the Londonderry Light Infantry at Portsmouth this year; whether the training for the last 36 years has taken place always in the City of Londonderry, and been of a satisfactory and efficient description; and, if so, whether he will consider the advisability of reconsidering his decision to take the troops to Portsmouth, at an estimated cost of £2,000; and whether he has received a letter from the Corporation of Londonderry strongly urging the training may take place as usual in the district of Londonderry?
  MR. BRODRICK: The Londonderry Militia is not Light Infantry, but Artillery. It has trained at Londonderry for a great many years. In case of mobilisation it would take part in the defence of Portsmouth, and it is essential that regiments should, from time to time, train at the fortifications they would have to defend.

  PORT GLASGOW SCHOOL BOARD.
  DR. CAMERON: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether the Scottish Education Department propose to order the election of a new School Board at Port Glasgow to fill the place of that which has been declared illegal by the Court of Session?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Sir C. J. PEARSON,): I have nothing to add to the latter part of the answer I gave yesterday to the hon. Member.
  DR. CAMERON: But when will the right hon. Gentleman be able to say what course will be taken to fill the place of the School Board declared illegal?
  SIR C. J. PEARSON: As soon as the matter has received adequate consideration.

  LAGOS TRADE.
  MR. PICTON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether a military expedition from Lagos is in contemplation, with the object of compelling the Egbas and Jebus to open the roads to the interior of West Africa, and to establish a British protectorate over these independent tribes; and, if so, what force it is proposed to employ in this expedition?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Baron H. de WORMS,): There has been no intention of establishing a British protectorate over the tribes referred to; but it is necessary to require them to observe the Treaties they have made respecting freedom of trade, which, in the case of the Jebus, were only very recently entered into. Her Majesty's Government are in communication with the Governor of Lagos, but it would not be in the public interest to make any statement at present on the subject.
  MR. PICTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether negotiation has been tried and will be tried to the utmost possible extent before resorting to violence?
  BARON H. DE WORMS: I cannot undertake to answer any further question without notice; negotiations have been tried.
  MR. SUMMERS: Will the right hon. Gentleman lay copies of the Treaties on the Table?
  BARON H. DE WORMS: I cannot answer that question.

  BOARD OF SANITARY COMMISSIONERS (GIBRALTAR).
  MR. CAUSTON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the effect of the Sanitary Order Amendment Order (Gibraltar), 1891, is to alter the constitution of the Board of the Sanitary Commissioners of Gibraltar, and to deprive the ratepayers and inhabitants of Gibraltar of their former representation on such

  1191
  Board; and whether such Order was put into force without notice to the ratepayers and inhabitants, and without any reasons being given for any change in the constitution of such Board; and, if so, whether the said Order will be withdrawn?
  BARON H. DE WORMS: By the Sanitary Order Amendment Order (Gibraltar), 1891, the number of the members of the Board of Sanitary Commissioners of Gibraltar representing the ratepayers and inhabitants has been diminished from eight to four. The Order was put in force without notice; but the reasons which rendered the measure necessary have since been published in Gibraltar, and it is not proposed to withdraw the Order.
  MR. CAUSTON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how the four Members were elected?
  BARON H. DE WORMS: I have given the hon. Gentleman all the information I have.

  THE MURDERS AT RAINHILL.
  MR. LEGH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the excitement in the district caused by the discovery of the murders at Rainhill, he is in a position to give any information beyond what has appeared in the Press?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS,): No, Sir; I have no information beyond that which has appeared in the Press. Communications have been addressed to the authorities at Melbourne pending the completion of inquiries by the Lancashire police.

  REVISING BARRISTERS AND OVERSEERS.
  SIR WALTER FOSTER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the case of the assistant overseer of Horbling, Folkingham, who was fined by the Revising Barrister at the Revision Court held at Billingborough, in the county of Lincoln, in September last; whether a political agent has any right to ask the overseer for information
  1192
  as to the politics of persons on the overseers' lists; and whether in this case there was any justification for the action of the Revising Barrister in fining the assistant overseer on the statement of a political agent, unsupported by evidence, and without calling on the overseer and assistant overseer for their testimony?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I gather from the newspaper report that in the case of the assistant overseer of Horbling the Revising Barrister deducted 5s. 6d. from the overseer's expenses for neglect in forwarding the lists upon application being made to him for them. The same report states that the assistant overseer was heard by the Barrister in Court in answer to the complaint before the disallowance was made. There is no obligation on the part of an overseer to answer inquiries as to the politics of persons on the overseers' lists.

  POLICE PASSES ON RAILWAYS.
  MR. CUNINGHAME GRAHAM: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the. Home Department if he will lay a Paper upon the Table of the House containing names of Superintendents, Inspectors, and Sergeants of Police who hold a free pass on railways, or on any railway?
  MR. MATTHEWS: Superintendents, Inspectors, and Sergeants of the Metropolitan Police are not provided with free passes on railways, but when travelling on duty a pass is given, for which payment is subsequently demanded by the Railway Company.
  MR. H. J. WILSON: The fight hon. Gentleman has confined his answer to the Metropolitan Police. Can he say what is the practice in other forces?
  MR. MATTHEWS: That is information which should be obtained from the chiefs of other police forces.

  MRS. BEECROFT, OF STOCKPORT.
  MR. CUNINGHAME GRAHAM: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he could see his way to inquire into the circumstances of the charges brought against Mrs. Beecroft, of Stockport, by the police, and on account of which her child has been sent to a reformatory for five years?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I have received a report as to the circumstances of the case of Mrs. Beecroft, of Stockport, and her child. The Magistrates' Clerk informs me that the child was convicted in February last year of stealing a purse, and her father was bound over for her good behaviour. The following month the mother was convicted of receiving a purse, three other charges against her being withdrawn. In the house a quantity of stolen property was discovered by the police. On the 9th of February this year the child was again convicted on her own confession of stealing a purse, which she alleged she had given to her mother. The case was clearly proved, and the Magistrate sentenced the child to detention in a reformatory.

  THE TELEGRAPH STAFF AT MOORGATE STREET.
  DR. FARQUHARSON: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he is aware of the heavy sickness that prevails among the telegraph staff employed at Moorgate Street Buildings, being a higher average by nearly 50 per cent. than in any other office; whether the clerks have frequently petitioned the authorities, pointing out the unsanitary conditions under which they are compelled to eat their luncheon, and praying for time to partake of their other meals; whether this is the only office in the telegraph service where systematic overtime prevails among the senior clerks, who perform duty for seven days a week for eleven months in every year; and whether, having regard to these facts, he will concede the same privilege to these clerks of 20 minutes for meals, already granted to officers in similar offices, abolish systematic overtime, and obtain a report from the medical officer as to the alleged sanitary conditions?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Sir J. FERGUSSON,): I apologise for not being in my place when this question was called, and perhaps I may be allowed to explain that my delay was due to desire not to omit any answer, but notices of these questions
  1194
  only appeared this morning, and considerable reference had to be made. No; I am not aware of such heavy sickness. The whole force employed at Moorgate Street Buildings consists of ten persons, and, except in the case of two who are constitutionally weak, the absence from illness is below the average. The second paragraph of the question I must answer in the negative. Only one petition is remembered in recent years, and that was for leave to obtain their dinners outside—a request which, of course, could not be granted. It is a rule to which no exception is allowed that telegraphists are not to leave the building until their duty for the day is over. This is not the only office where systematic overtime prevails amongst the senior telegraphists; and this must be so whenever, as in Moorgate Street Buildings, an office is open on Sunday. It would obviously be impossible to have a junior in charge on Sundays or at night. But the seniors, indeed, so far from objecting to the overtime, are pleased to get it. For one meal in the day they have already, not 20, but 30 minutes. The seniors would make it a ground of complaint if overtime were abolished, and there is no reason whatever to believe that the condition of the Moorgate Street Buildings is unsanitary.

  EVICTIONS IN IRELAND.
  MR. CONDON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if his attention was directed to the case which was brought before Judge Boyd, on the 10th ultimo, of certain tenants on the Dowling estate, who were evicted for one year's rent, including the hanging gale, and the wife of the evictor put in their holdings at a sum about £100 per annum less than the evicted tenants were paying; how much rent has she paid to the Court during her tenancy; what was the amount due from her on surrendering her title to the Court, on the understanding that her sons would be returned tenants and all arrears wiped out; what is the rent now to be paid by the Messrs. Dowling's present tenants; and what was offered by the evicted tenants?
  MR. JACKSON: The matter referred to comes in no way within the cognisance of the Executive Government. It is in the hands of the Receiver Judge, who presumably dealt with it in his discretion.

  PAPER CURRENCY AND BANK RESERVES.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is his intention in the present Session to introduce any measure for making a change in the paper currency of England or any measure having for its object the increase of banking reserves, in accordance with schemes he has propounded elsewhere?
  MR. GOSCHEN: I am in negotiation with the Bank of England respecting a revision of the existing agreement which exists between the State and the Bank. In the introduction of a Bill relating to the Bank of England I shall take the opportunity of making a full statement with reference to my views and intentions in respect of the matters to which the question of the eight hon. Gentleman alludes.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I do not quite understand. Will that Bill deal with the subjects mentioned in the question or not?
  MR. GOSCHEN: I will make a full statement on that occasion, and the right hon. Gentleman will then see whether the Bill will deal with the subjects mentioned in the question or not.

  THE SOLOMON ISLANDS.
  DR. CAMERON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether it is true that Her Majesty's ships Royalist and Cruiser have recently been cruising amongst the Solomon Islands and inflicting punishment on natives for outrages committed on British subjects; whether any native villages were shelled or burned; and if he would lay upon the Table Papers explanatory of these operations?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON,): No reports have been received of the Royalist or any other cruiser having acted at the
  1196
  Solomon Islands as indicated in the question. The Royalist arrived at Sydney early in December, and was refitting there at the date of the last report from the station.

  THE SHIPBUILDING PROGRAMME OF 1889.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will lay upon the Table a Memorandum on the "Financial Proposals relating to the Shipbuilding Programme of 1889" that will show what modifications require now to be made in the Memorandum of 11th March 1889 (Parliamentry Paper No. 67)?
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: I have directed a Memorandum to be prepared as suggested by the right hon. Gentleman, and will have it laid before the House next week.

  MARKET RIGHTS AND TOLLS.
  MR. PICTON: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he has considered the Report of the Royal Commission on Market Rights and. Tolls; and whether the Government intends to propose legislation based on any of the recommendations of that Report?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE,): I have had the Report of the Royal Commission on Market Rights and Tolls under my consideration. The recommendations of the Commissioners have reference to questions of great importance, and with respect to which there was amongst the Commissioners themselves considerable difference of opinion. I cannot give any undertaking that the Government will be in a position to propose legislation on the subject during the present Session.

  PROMOTION OF SIR EDMUND COMMERELL.
  MR. BRUNNER: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether there has been any precedent for the promotion to the post of Admiral of the Fleet of Sir Edmund Commerell, passing over an officer of long and good service, his

  1197
  senior in the Service; and whether the selection of Sir Edmund Commerell was contrary to the submission of the Board?
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: Promotion to the rank of Admiral of the Fleet is by selection. For many years past the officer so selected has been the senior on the list. Admiral Sir Edmund Commerell was second in seniority on the list, but he had, in my judgment, the most distinguished record of war service of any officer on the active list. He has been five times specially gazetted for distinguished service in the field, has received a V.C., has been seriously wounded, and on several occasions his services have been warmly acknowledged by the Admiralty. He was, therefore, selected to fill the vacancy caused by the death of Admiral Sir Provo Wallis. As regards the second part of the question, I do not know what the hon. Gentleman means. Perhaps he will explain.
  MR. BRUNNER: The right hon. Gentleman will no doubt permit me to postpone my explanation for a day.

  THE FRANCHISE AND TEMPORARY RELIEF.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSON: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that considerable numbers of working men who have been employed in temporary relief works in districts where work has lately failed through the depression of trade will, in consequence, be deprived of their Parliamentary franchise; and whether the Government propose to take any steps in the matter?
  MR. RITCHIE: I do not find from the information received by the Local Government Board that, taking the whole of England and Wales, there is any appreciable number of able-bodied men in receipt of relief from Boards of Guardians on account of their being out of work. There are, so far as I am aware, only two districts in which the number of able-bodied men so relieved appears to be considerable. As regards the question as to the Parliamentary franchise, there is no intention on the part of the Government to propose an alteration of the law under which a
  1198
  person who receives relief as a pauper from a Board of Guardians becomes disqualified for being placed on the register of Parliamentary voters.

  THE TRING MURDERS.
  MR. CONYBEARE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether in the written statement to him made by Eggleton before his execution the convict reiterated that he was knocked down senseless and remembered nothing that subsequently occurred; and whether any, and what, evidence has been submitted to him tending to contradict that assertion?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I must take the opportunity afforded by the hon. Member's question to express my strong protest against being asked in this House to give an answer upon an isolated and selected circumstance which is presented by itself to Parliament apart from a great mass of other facts and circumstances, all of which should be kept in sight if any just estimate is to be formed of the weight which ought to be attached to the circumstance in question. It is impossible that I should in answer to a question adequately present the result of a great body of evidence which has received the close attention of the jury, the Judge, and myself. The hon. Member is aware of the conclusion to which all three have arrived; and I must respectfully decline to enter upon any partial discussion of the evidence.
  MR. CONYBEARE: Perhaps I may be allowed to explain that I only put down this question on the Paper in response to the expressed willingness of the right hon. Gentleman to provide the information. I have no intention to enter into a discussion now, but if I see fit I shall renew the discussion at a later period.

  THE CONTRACT WITH MESSRS. DE LA RUE.
  MR. SUMMERS: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he will inform the House what are the terms of the contract with Messrs. De La Rue for the supply of letter cards?
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSON: There is no regular contract with Messrs. De La Rue for the supply of letter cards, but there is an agreement made with that firm to supply them in packets of ten, and tied in bundles of 100, at the rate of 12s. 4d. a 1,000 if ordered in quantities of 1,000,000 or upwards. The firm stated that they had, to some extent, to work in the dark in fixing this charge, and that they would be willing to re-consider the price on the occasion of a second order. In accepting these experimental terms regard was had to the fact that the manufacture of the cards was troublesome, as they had to be perforated singly, while the gumming and drying each entailed two operations. The ultimate profit to the Post Office is reckoned to be 1s. 4d. a 1,000.
  MR. SUMMERS: Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that this contract has come to an end?
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSON: The contract has not come to an end. It is still existing, but subject to revision upon each order given. We are hardly able to say yet whether the price is too high or not; but we have every reason to believe it is not.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to provide for the Recognition in the United Kingdom of Probates and Letters of Administration granted in British Possessions." [Colonial Probates Bill [Lords.]
MOTIONS.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—FINANCIAL BUSINESS.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I do not think it necessary to enter at great length into the reasons that compel the Government to place this Motion on the Order Paper. I have from time to time kept the House informed of the difficulties we have been in in complying with the law in finishing the whole of the Financial Business before the end of the financial year; and, as the House knows, the Government obtained facilities
  1200
  for carrying on that Business, so far back as the 4th March, The Government, from various causes, have not been able to take full advantage of the time which has been placed at their disposal. I have just refreshed my memory with what took place with regard to the days; and since the 3rd March, when we obtained Morning Sittings on Tuesdays and Fridays for Financial Business, there have been eight Government days—that is to say, Mondays and Thursdays, and Tuesdays and Fridays. Of these, eight days, three, and three only, were wholly devoted to the discussion of the Financial Business which we desired the House to deal with. On the 4th March, the first day after obtaining the facilities a Private Bill occupied nearly half the Morning Sitting. On the 8th March another Private Bill and a short discussion on the Mombasa Privilege Debate occupied the whole Sitting. On Thursday, the 10th March, the Eastbourne Bill, a Private Bill, and an Adjournment moved with regard to the famine in India occupied up to past 10 o'clock at night; and On Friday, the 11th March, when we had a Morning Sitting, a Private Bill and a further discussion upon the Privilege question raised with, regard to the votes of Members of the House occupied till nearly 5 o'clock. And yesterday, as the House knows, there were two Adjournments moved in which very interesting and important questions were raised, but questions which, of course, had nothing to do with the Votes on the Estimates which we asked the House to discuss. The House will, I hope, understand that, I am not at all criticising or complaining of what occurred. I only state facts; and the result of these facts is that, of course, a great deal of time which the Government had a right to expect to be at their disposal for the purpose of their necessary business has, as a matter of fact, been allocated to other business. Under these circumstances, on the last day on which we can deal with the Estimates before the Appropriation Bill is introduced, it is not entirely unexpected and not unnatural, and I hope, not unreasonable, that we should ask the House to give us further facilities for completing our work. This Resolution practically gives the

  1201
  Government time for taking operative Supply at 9 o'clock at night, for continuing after 12 o'clock, and also taking after 12 o'clock, irrespective of the Twelve o'Clock Rule, the Committee of Ways and Means, which has to be taken before the introduction of the Appropriation Bill. I hope we may be able, in the course of the afternoon, to finish the Vote on Account and to finish the Supplementary Estimates; and, of course, if we are fortunate enough to get through that business, that programme shall not interfere with the Debate on the Resolution which stands in the name of the hon. Member for Sutherland with regard to the operation of the Crofters Act in the Highlands. So far as we are concerned, we are very anxious to hear, and disposed to listen to, what the hon. Member has to say upon that subject, and will be ready to give our own views upon it. I beg to move the Resolution.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That at the Sitting this evening Financial Business may be entered on at any hour, though opposed, and be not interrupted under the provisions of any Standing Order relating to the Sittings of the House, and that the provisions of Standing Order 56 be extended to the Sitting this evening."—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)
  MR. SEXTON: The right hon. Gentleman, from my experience of him, is not a man of sanguine disposition, and, therefore, I imagine he can hardly think, after recent Debates in this House, that the Irish Members would be disposed to grant him any exceptional facilities unless he shows them to be essential. The meaning of his Motion is that the right hon. Gentleman is to be allowed to prolong the present Sitting to any hour he pleases, and to force the House to take any business that may be on the Paper. We have had experience of late Sittings of this House, and we had one last night; and the use which the right hon. Gentleman made of that Sitting was, that after he rose and invited me to carry into effect the Notice of Motion which I had previously given, he sat in his place and silently saw me put to silence by the use of an Order of this House, which, if not strained, was certainly severe.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! I do not know to what the hon. Member
  1202
  refers by a "severe exercise of an Order of the House." I must ask the hon. Gentleman to explain what he means.
  MR. SEXTON: The explanation I have to give is that the Rule of the House which forbids a Member to speak twice on a question under Debate with the Speaker in the Chair—a Rule which, to my knowledge, is waived at every Sitting of the House—was put in force in my case.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Gentleman is entirely out of Order, and quite irregular in alluding, as he has done, to what occurred last night. I am in the recollection of a great proportion of those hon. Members now present that when that Amendment was moved I waited and called for a Seconder. The hon Gentleman rose and said he supported the Amendment, and when he sat down I put the Question. Having seconded the Amendment, of course it was impossible for the hon. Member to speak again. When he passed my Chair I expressed my regret that under the circumstances he was not to be allowed to speak again if he wished. He said, as I understood, that he was under a misconception, but added he would rise in his place. When he did rise I told him, I hope courteously, that he was precluded from speaking again. What he means by "an undue exercise of the Rules of the House" I am at a loss to conceive.
  MR. SEXTON: My observations, Mr. Speaker, were not directed either to show the discourtesy of your ruling or to show that you are not perfectly within your technical right, but they were directed to the conduct of the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Perhaps I may be allowed to explain. It was not my fault that the hon. Member was prevented by the Rules of the House from taking part in the Debate when he rose in his place, and I publicly expressed my regret that he was so prevented, and I assure him that that regret was very sincerely felt. It was not my fault.
  MR. SEXTON: I know it is Mr. Speaker, and not the right hon. Gentleman, who has to deal with the Orders of this House. I think it would be a serious matter for us if he had to deal with them. But I hold that I am unquestionably within my right in pointing out that this Rule of the House has recently been frequently waived by consent of the House in favour of the right hon. Gentleman. Scarcely a night has passed that he has not spoken a second time in Debate. I am not arguing against the Speaker's ruling, but I am speaking of the conduct of the right hon. Gentleman. I and my hon. Friends have always agreed to waive that Order in favour of the right hon. Gentleman. Mr. Speaker, I did not intend to convey the least disrespect or discourtesy to you; I was simply explaining that the consideration which we have shown to the right hon. Gentleman was not shown to me. The Motion before us is not to be justified by any reference to what happened in former days whether as regards Public or Private Business. It is a Motion which concerns this evening; if it can be justified at all, it must be justified by the urgency of the financial business which stands on the Paper to-day. The Government have got every penny of money which they need up to the 30th March. The consideration of the business which he asks to take is the financial business of next year. He asks us to vote money which does not become payable until the month of April or May; and that the hours of private Members should be abolished in order to bring forward the consideration of that financial business is absurd. There is not the shadow of ground that can be alleged for this extraordinary Motion; and I shall move an Amendment to insert after the word "Business," the words "relating to the present financial year."
  Amendment proposed, after the word "Business," to insert the words "relating to the present financial year."—(Mr. Sexton.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. CAMPBELL - BANNERMAN (&c.): I am one of those who, differing from many of my friends, have supported the Government hitherto in the demands they made upon private Members for extra facilities for the financial business of the year, and I have steadily endeavoured to do so up to this point of the right hon. Gentleman's proceedings; but I am obliged to part company with him now. As my hon. Friend who has just sat down has pointed out, the so-called financial business before us to-night consists of two separate parts. There is, in the first place, a matter which is urgent—namely, the last of the Supplementary Estimates. Why is there urgency in the Supplementary Estimates? Because all the Votes passed during this year—that is, all the Supplementary Estimates, the Excess Votes, and so forth—must be passed, not only before this financial year closes, but in time for their being embodied in the Appropriation Bill, which must have a certain number of days in order to be passed through its different stages before the end of the financial year. But the Vote on Account, as has been pointed out by my hon. Friend, is not for this year but for next year; and it is quite sufficient for the Government to be put in funds on the 31st of March, in order that they may start with their coffers full on the 1st of April. There is no such urgency relating to the Vote on Account as applies to the Supplementary Estimates. And what is this Supplementary Estimate? I wish to say in the most emphatic way that I thank the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury for the way he has dealt with that particular Estimate in order to meet the convenience of Scotch Members, and realising the fact that this is a Vote on which there would, very probably, be a good deal of expression of opinion—of adverse opinion. But now we have that Scotch Supplementary Estimate coming on after the Vote on Account. Now the Vote on Account might open up every sort of subject, and it will undoubtedly be discussed at great length; and the Scotch Members are to be kept waiting until all hours in the morning—until the Vote on Account, which is not urgent,

  1205
  has been disposed of. In addition to that, there is another Scotch grievance accidentally supervening which is dealt with by the Motion of my hon. Friend the Member for Sutherland, who is bringing it forward this evening, which is a Motion of great importance, and in which we are all much interested. All these inconveniences are owing to this fact—that this Vote on Account has got out of its place, instead of being put after urgent business for the year. I would, therefore, appeal to the right hon. Gentleman whether, even now, he cannot postpone the Vote on Account to some other day—next week or the week after, any day allowing special time for its discussion before the 31st of March? But the Amendment of my hon. Friend hardly meets the case. I think the only solution of the difficulty would be to postpone the Vote on Account till some future day, in order that we may have a full discussion.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Sir, perhaps the House will allow me to begin what I have to say with a personal explanation as to the question raised by the hon. Member for West Belfast. The hon. Member appeared to think—and I am sure he does think—that he has some grievance against me because, unfortunately, as I think, to the interests of the Debate, he was ruled out of Order last night when he wished to make a speech on the subject of the Irish Teachers' Pension Fund. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I, at all events, always listen to him with pleasure, and I am perfectly aware that on that subject he is the most competent authority in the House from the point of view of the opinions he entertains, and I regard it as a great loss to the House that the hon. Member had not an opportunity of expressing those views.
  MR. SEXTON: Why did not the right hon. Gentleman get up and say so? If he had, the House would have allowed me to speak.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Gentleman did not rise at 12 o'clock when the subject came on; he waited until it was nearly half-past 1, and it was then he was ruled out of Order. I confess that at that hour my desire may have been to bring the Debate to a conclusion. Now, Sir, it is true that
  1206
  the Leader of the House and the Leader of the Opposition have always been in the habit of asking the indulgence of the House when they desired to make additional explanations which would not be in Order if the strict Rules of Debate were enforced. But when this is done it is for the advancement of business and for the convenience of the House, and it is only because it is absolutely necessary to the conduct of our business that the Leader of the House and the Leader of the Opposition are allowed a latitude which other Members, however important and distinguished, are not allowed.
  MR. SEXTON: The right hon. Gentleman ignores the fact that he had just invited me to speak.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Gentleman is quite right. I did invite him to speak. I expressed the opinion, which I still entertain, that I should be very glad to hear what he had to say. I would willingly have made an appeal to the House, but the hon. Gentleman himself made no appeal. The usual practice in such a case is for a Member who thinks he has a special claim to have the ordinary ruling set aside in his favour to rise in his place and ask the indulgence of the House. The hon. Member made no such appeal.
  MR. SEXTON: Could I do more than argue, so far as courtesy permitted, the point of Order?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Member confuses two things. He argued that he had a right to speak; he was overruled on that point by the Chair. But he made no appeal to the House to relax the Rules in his favour. He never asked for indulgence. I can assure the hon. Member that there is no man in this House to whom I would more gladly give indulgence than the hon. Member. The hon. Member and I have too long been antagonists in many hard-fought Parliamentary battle for me to entertain any other feeling for him than one of personal regard, and I trust that on his side the hon. Member will entertain no feeling of rancour towards me. Now, Sir, I come to the appeal of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Stirling Burghs. The case of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Stirling Burghs and of the hon. Member for West Belfast

  1207
  is this. They say—"We grant that the Supplementary Estimates must be finished to-night, but then it is not absolutely and legally necessary to finish the Vote on Account—therefore postpone it." Well, Sir, I admitted last night, and I admit again, that the laws of legal stringency in regard to time applicable to the Supplementary Estimates do not apply to the Vote on Account. But, Sir, if the Vote on Account is delayed there will be a Parliamentary inconvenience, and therefore the position is very much the same as if there were absolute legal stringency. Now, Sir, I take up a paper containing the dates on which Votes on Account were taken since the year 1880, and I find this is the state of things. Votes on Account were taken on 8th March, 1880; 6th March, 1881; 24th March, 1882; 15th March, 1883; 20th March, 1884; 16th March, 1885; 19th March, 1886; 21st March, 1887; 15th March, 1888; 22nd March, 1889; 20th March, 1890, and 16th March, 1891. And, Sir, I find on looking back that the view which I take on this question has been taken by a Gentleman who is a very much higher financial authority than I can pretend to be—I mean the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midlothian. In the year 1881 the right hon. Gentleman moved for urgency under the Rules then existing for dealing, among other things, with the Vote on Account. As early as the 14th March in that year the right hon. Gentleman made his Motion. Rules of Urgency had been instituted in order to deal with the obstruction prevalent at the time, and in order to obtain urgency a Member was obliged to get a majority of three to one in his favour, so that to obtain the assent of the House to his Motion the right hon. Gentleman required more than the ordinary Party majority. The right hon. Gentleman beside me (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) informs me that the House in 1881 did not grant the right hon. Member for Midlothian the privilege which he claimed. The right hon. Gentleman, however, obtained a majority of 84, and, speaking as one of the highest financial authorities in the House, this is what he said—
  "I rise in my place as a Minister of the Crown to declare that the Votes in Committee of Supply in respect of Excesses for
  1208
  the year 1879–80, the Supplementary Estimates for 1880–81, Vote I. for the Army, Vote I. for the Navy, and the Vote on Account for the Civil Service and Revenue Departments are urgent, and that it is important to the public interest that the same should be proceeded with without delay."
  Well, Sir, it was important, as the right hon. Gentleman then declared in the public interest, that these Estimates should then have been proceeded with without delay—and they were proceeded with without delay—I am at a loss to understand why the public interest which influenced the right hon. Gentleman should not equally influence us. I am bound to say, owing to the causes to which I alluded in my opening speech, the financial business of the Government, which is practically the business of the country, has been thrown so much into arrear, that I think it is a reasonable and a modest request on our part to ask the House to give us the same facilities to get our business as far advanced as has usually been done on previous occasions. I freely admit that there may be some inconvenience to the Scotch Members, partly because the Scotch Vote is the last, and partly because the Motion of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Sutherlandshire is endangered. Still, the urgent condition of Public Business necessitates our proceeding with this Motion even though it causes that inconvenience.
  MR. ANGUS SUTHERLAND: The right hon. Gentleman has made out no sufficient case of urgency entitling him to deprive the Scotch Members of the opportunity gained by them in the ballot for debating the Crofter Question. The right hon. Gentleman has failed to show any urgency for the Vote on Account, and I see no reason whatever why the very moderate proposal of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Stirling Burghs should not be accepted. I cannot see why the Votes were transposed and the Vote on Account placed in front of the Supplementary Vote. I hope the sense of the House will be taken on this matter, so that a precedent of this kind may not be established without protest.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 91; Noes 187.—(Div. List, No. 41.)
  Main Question again proposed.
  MR. A. SUTHERLAND: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will now consent, seeing he has the right to proceed with his Evening Business after 12 o'clock, to leave out the latter part of the Resolution, which is as follows:—
  "And that the provision of the Standing Order 56 be extended to the Sitting this evening."
  I beg to move that these words be omitted.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out from the word "House" to the end of the Question.—(Mr. Angus Sutherland.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  SIR GEORGE TREVELYAN: The right hon. Gentleman must have felt, when the figures in the Division were announced, that this was one of those occasions upon which a gracious thing might very well be done. It is not even pretended that we can force the hands of the Government by a Division, but this is one of those occasions on which the minority have got a case—a case founded upon reason, and I. think very good reason. What is the change that we on this side ask? It is a change that I fancy to some on the other side would be as convenient as it would be to us. The Government propose a departure—I will not say from an understanding, but from the hopes held out by them some time ago. About a fortnight ago, the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House asked us to take Morning Sittings on Tuesdays and Fridays. I feel certain that the right hon. Gentleman and those sitting beside him will admit that this proposal was met in a spirit of courtesy and consideration by those sitting on this side of the House. No one will fail to acknowledge that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midlothian met in that spirit proposals calculated to carry forward the Business of the House and the general Business of Parliament—a spirit in which I hope such proposals will always be met. But there was, on the other hand, laid down as a condition
  1210
  on this side, that private Members, at this early period of the Session, should not lose the power of discussing questions of general interest. That was freely acknowledged on the other side, the right hon. Gentleman saying, indeed, that in case of great pressure he might require more time. Now, Sir, we maintain that this is not a case of great pressure, and, on the other hand, we maintain that the private Members' business, which it is proposed to-night to push into a corner, is business of a very exceptional sort. It consists of the interests and it concerns the aspirations and the warm hopes of a population which in extent is nearly one - half of Scotland. The crofters have been extremely unlucky during this Parliament. I doubt if they have had one thorough set debate on the subject on which they care most. Parliament has recognised that the matter which concerns them is a matter on which they still ought to have something done. If I recollect aright, there was one debate on the Address and one upon a Motion for Adjournment. But debates of that description are always unsatisfactory, and I think the right hon. Gentleman should recognise that none of those exceptional opportunities have this Session been taken by those who act on behalf of the crofters. Now there is chance of discussing their grievances, and it would really be an act of grace towards the crofters, if the right hon. Gentleman and his followers will let them have their opportunity this evening. There is another set of Members who are seriously inconvenienced. The Scotch Members have been looking forward to this opportunity to have a free discussion on the financial arrangements between themselves and the Treasury. On this point I do not speak as an opponent of the Government, because I personally approve of the Vote which the Government intend bringing forward this evening. It is for that reason quite as much that I desire to hear that subject discussed at a time when the speeches may be listened to and reported. What has the right hon. Gentleman got to say as to why our request should not be granted, and why the hopes of the crofters should be disappointed?

  1211
  It is that the Vote on Account is an urgent matter. The right hon. Gentleman quoted the proposal made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midlothian in 1881. That proposal was defeated, not indeed by a majority; but, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midlothian was only able to obtain 296 votes in support of his proposal, whilst in a full House 212 votes were given against him, that proposal was lost. The right hon. Gentleman himself (Mr. A. J. Balfour) voted in the successful minority; but I do not desire to place much weight on that circumstance. Undoubtedly there was a very strong feeling indeed in the House on that occasion that the Vote on Account was not urgent. The right hon. Gentleman has given us the history of the last ten years with reference to the Vote on Account. In six out of the twelve cases which he cited, that Vote was passed. I would conclude by saying that I hope the right hon. Gentleman will consider the real strength of the case that has been put from this side of the House, and that he will give us some really serious and tangible reason why our request should not be complied with. I am quite certain public time will be saved if he makes this concession, and that the precedence which he gives the Scotch Vote in the afternoon, and the respect which he pays to the Crofters' Question in the evening, will be repaid with interest in the saving of time.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The right hon. Gentleman opposite has appealed to me to give further and stronger reasons for the course which the Government are adopting. I thought, I confess, that I had made out a case, and quoted the very high authority of the right hon. Member for Midlothian, which I could have supplemented by quotations from his speeches, and I gave certain dates during the last ten years on which the Vote on Account has been taken. It may be that one-half of the Votes on Account were taken at a later date, but they were never taken at a date so late that they could not be embodied in the Appropriation Bill. If we do not press this to-day we shall not be able to embody it in the Appropriation Bill. It is rather a long
  1212
  business to explain, but as Friday happens to fall on the very day of the month which it does this year, it becomes necessary to get through this financial business rather earlier in the month than in some other years, and the invariable practice has been that the Vote on Account shall be passed in such time that it can be dealt with by the Appropriation Bill. It has been argued that if we pass this Resolution we shall deprive the crofters of a discussion at 9 o'clock of interesting and important subjects in which they are deeply concerned. But the Crofters Motion is not more than endangered. The discussion on the Vote on Account is a pure innovation. No question was formerly raised upon it except the propriety of bringing forward the Vote on Account at all. We have already discussed the Vote for four hours last night, and surely it may be possible to conclude it with another half hour or an hour's discussion. As to the Scottish Estimates, if these are all finished, as they easily may be, by ten minutes to seven, the Crofters' Motion will then come on. If those assurances are not sufficient I will make it obligatory to allow the Crofters' Motion to come on after the other business is finished.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN (&c.): I am not going to make a speech, but I wish to ask a question of the right hon. Gentleman. This is a matter which really turns upon the urgency of the Vote on Account. The right hon. Gentleman says it is urgent, because if it is not passed to-day it cannot be included in the Appropriation Bill. Is it necessary that the money voted under the Vote on Account should be included in this Appropriation Bill? That is the point. It must, of course, be included in some Appropriation Bill. It must be well known, surely, if there is any legal necessity in the case of a Vote on Account, that the moneys voted in that account must be included in the present Appropriations in Aid.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The legal obligation in the two cases is not identical, but there is a public convenience, endorsed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midlothian

  1213
  and endorsed by the practice of the last ten years, for finishing the Vote on account in time to include it in the same Appropriation Bill with the Supplementary Estimates.
  DR. MACDONALD: I would point out to the right hon. Gentleman that there can really be no saving of time by the pressing of his Resolution, because if the Resolution of the hon. Member for Sutherlandshire (Mr. Sutherland) is not allowed to be brought forward the Scotch Members will discuss the question when the Vote for the Crofters' Commission comes on.
  MR. PHILIPPS: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bridgeton (Sir George Trevelyan) made an appeal to the Leader of the House to give facilities for the Crofters' Vote coming on. I think he made his appeal to the wrong quarter of the House. It is the Liberal Unionist section of the House that can after all decide any question on a Division. I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain) is unable to be present through illness. I notice, only in to-day's papers, that the hon. Member for West Birminghan has accepted the leadership of the Radical Unionist Party in Ross and Cromarty. If there are any Radical Unionists in Ross and Cromarty, or among the crofters generally, they will be more interested in the Crofter Question coming on to-night than with any other business that can happen in this Session of Parliament. I appeal not to the Leader of the House, but to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Bury (Sir Henry James), who is the Representative of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham at the present time as I take it, and I ask him is the Liberal Unionist section of this House going to follow the right hon. Member for West Birmingham, and the right hon. Gentleman having adopted the leadership of the Radical Unionists of Ross and Cromarty the other day, are they going to desert the cause now?
  DR. CLARK: I very much regret that the First Lord of the Treasury will not come to terms in this matter. If he will adopt what
  1214
  we now propose we, on our part, will agree that at 11 o'clock the Debate shall cease, and the Government can then take any Vote they wish. For three years we have been unable to get a discussion on this subject. One year we allowed the Estimates to go through Committee till 3 o'clock in the morning. On another occasion my hon. Friend the Member for Sutherlandshire got a night; but, when the occasion came round, part of it was taken for the Tithes Bill and another part for the Land Bill. The Vote on Account contains the Vote for the Crofters Commission. It would save public time if the right hon. Gentleman were to waive this point and give us two hours for discussion. He has said the old practice was not to debate the Vote on Account. I know it was not. It was the Fourth Party who began the thing, and it is absolutely necessary now, because the Fourth Party are governing us, although their sins are finding them out. The Treasury Bench is now taking up the whole of the time of private Members from the beginning of the Session onwards. I will tell the right hon. Gentleman, if he comes to this compromise, that he will get on with business without having to fight us in this fashion.
  MR. CRAWFORD: The First Lord of the Treasury is entirely responsible for the long discussion on this Motion. He admits that the legal stringency of the Vote on Account is not equal to the legal stringency of the Supplementary Estimates. But he would have expressed the matter more correctly if he had said that in one case there is a legal stringency and in the other there is none. And yet, entirely without necessity, I may say, he chooses to reverse the order of these Votes, and deprive the Scottish Members of the time which was allotted to them several days ago for the discussion of a subject in which they take a very great interest. And unnecessarily and wantonly the right hon. Gentleman brings the Vote on Account into the foreground. He professes to have a precedent, and quotes the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midlothian. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midlothian asked the House for urgency

  1215
  for certain Votes in that year. He did not put the Vote on Account in the first place, he put it in the last place; and he put the Supplementary Estimates in the first place because there was a legal necessity that they should be passed. How did the House deal with the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman. The House did not accept the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman, and so that forms no precedent which binds us at the present moment. The First Lord of the Treasury says the Votes were taken as early as possible. Well, suppose they were, they were Supplementary Estimates, and the Vote on Account came afterwards. As too often happens, the interests of Scotch Members are entirely and unnecessarily sacrificed by this proposal to the transitory convenience of Members sitting on the Government Benches. And, although I fear we have no chance of besting them on a Division; I hope that even now the right hon. Gentleman will see the reasonableness of what I say, and the unreasonableness of wantonly transposing—of wantonly disturbing—the order of these Votes, and that he will give us the Supplementary Votes as desired.
  DR. CAMERON: The right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury surely cannot exactly recognise the nature of I his own proposal. He has told us he had no objection to the Scotch Vote coming on at 9 o'clock. But, if this Resolution is passed, that will not rest upon his will or objection. You, Sir, will leave the Chair without Question put, and my hon. Friend the Member for Sutherlandshire will be precluded from bringing forward his Motion. It is therefore absolutely absurd to hold out the slightest prospect, if this Motion is carried as it stands upon the Paper, of my hon. Friend having the least chance of bringing on his Motion at all. I must put in my protest altogether against the course pursued by the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury. I do not want to repeat what has been said, but, as a matter of fact, the circumstance that the right hon. Gentleman finds himself in this position at the present moment is entirely due to his own mismanagement
  1216
  of business. The right hon. Gentleman tells us there is no reason why this Vote on Account should take more than an hour or a couple of hours to debate. The general Debate last night went on from 8 o'clock on a general question of procedure, but practically the Vote did not come on for debate until half-past 11. The whole of the first part of the night was taken up with a Debate on a point of procedure with regard to the Estimates. I protest that it is the function and duty of this House to be the guardian of the public money, and to ask us to vote £3,000,000 of public money with no more consideration than half-an-hour's discussion, and that for the most part devoted to the composition of the Kitchen Committee is a satire upon the functions of this House. The right hon. Gentleman has admitted there is no legal obligation whatever for passing this Vote on Account to-night. There was no reason whatever why he should not have closed his Supplementary Estimates, had he adopted the course of bringing them on first last night. The whole matter would have been discussed before 12 o'clock, and he might then have gone on with his Vote on Account. But he chooses to flout us by withdrawing the promise that this afternoon should be devoted to Scotch Business. I shall take every means in my power not to aid the right hon. Gentleman to gain one minute of time by his unjust proceeding.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I can assure the hon. Gentleman I have broken no promise.
  DR. CAMERON: No; the right hon. Gentleman has a very diplomatic way of expressing himself. Everyone on this side of the House—every Scotch Member—believed we were to have this afternoon specially devoted to this Scotch Supplementary Estimate.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: That was because every Scotch Member naturally believed we could get through the other business last night.
  DR. CAMERON: That is a matter that was never brought under consideration.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It was yesterday.
  DR. CAMERON: But never before.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The original indication I gave was that Friday should be devoted to the consideration and discussion of the Scotch Vote; but that was conditional on the other business preceding it being carried through.
  DR. CAMERON: There was no earthly necessity for, or reason why, this Vote on Account should have been interpolated before this remaining Scottish Supplementary Estimate. If it were a matter relating to constituencies in Ireland or Wales the right hon. Gentleman would be more cautious. I hope the Scotch Members will do their best, if we go into Committee, to compel their Vote to be taken in its proper place, and the other Vote to be postponed and taken at a later stage of the proceeding.
  MR. ESSLEMONT: I appeal to the sense of fair play of the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury as to whether it is right that the Scotch Members whenever the Business of the House is not sufficiently far forward, should be deprived of a fair opportunity of discussing the Scotch Estimates. I appeal to him on another ground. The right hon. Gentleman has suspended the 12 o'clock Rule, and has it in his power to give what time is necessary for the discussion of that Vote if the House were to sit long enough into to-morrow morning. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman's consciousness for fair play, and tell him that we all understood yesterday, or certainly this morning, that the opportunity was not to be taken from my hon. Friend the Member for Sutherlandshire of bringing on this important discussion on the Crofters' Question. It does happen, Session after Session, that whenever this House gets into a tight place with regard to time, it is neither Wales nor Ireland, but persistently Scotland, which is knocked to the wall for want of time. Was there not sufficient time to have called us earlier together instead of waiting till the middle of February before the assembling of Parliament, with the result of telling us now that there is such a hurry that there is no time for a single Scotch thing to be taken up by this House? At this period of the Session surely it is unprecedented that we should have our
  1218
  time taken from us through no fault of the Scotch Members. In the name of Scotland I protest against such a proceeding.
  MR. MACARTNEY: Hon. Gentlemen opposite are deliberately wasting the time of the House. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bridgeton (Sir George Trevelyan) has made an appeal to the generosity of Members on this side of the House and to the First Lord of the Treasury. I may say the right hon. Gentleman opposite would have been in a better position to make that appeal if he were oftener in his place, and others with him who, by their position, ought to attempt to control the conduct of hon. Members opposite, above and below the Gangway. What took place yesterday? A great portion of the Sitting was thrown away on a frivolous discussion about post cards which was carried on by hon. Members opposite. They knew perfectly well there were important questions coming on, and, in the early hours of this morning a very considerable portion of the time of the House was wasted, with the result that hon. Members were kept here listening to a Debate which eventually the Members below the Gangway declined to carry on. They now appeal to us to show that generosity which they, on their part, should exhibit to the Government and to this side of the House. I hope the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury will stick to his Motion, and will not feel it necessary to exhibit any generosity which, I say, is more than hon. Members opposite deserve.
  MR. MARJORIBANKS: The rebuke to the Scotch Members, which has just been administered, falls with singularly bad grace from the lips of the hon. Member who has just sat down, for he and his countrymen have occupied the time of this House for the past twelve years. On account of the policy of hon. Members who sit on the Government side of the House, the House would not grant the just demands of the Irish people. On this occasion the Scotch Members of the House are taking a leaf out of the book of the Irish Members. They have learned by experience that

  1219
  this House will not attend to the wishes of any nationality unless that nationality asserts itself. And the intention of the Scotch Members is to assert themselves and protest against the action of the Government in robbing Scotch Members on another two occasions of one day; in the one case for a Debate on a subject in which they had taken a great interest—namely, the distribution of money in Scotland in a way in which the Scotch Members do not wish it distributed; and, in the second place, for bringing forward a matter of the greatest importance with regard to the interests of our Highland fellow-countrymen. I think the Scotch Members are now quite right, and I hope they will persist in the course they are pursuing.
  SIR WALTER FOSTER: As an English Member I have been witnessing with some dismay the Scottish Party carrying into their business the same vigour as the Irish Party generally show in this House. I appeal to the generosity of the First Lord of the Treasury to give the Scottish Members the time they want for the discussion of matters appertaining to their country. I certainly think the grievance last night was one which deserved much more consideration and discussion than it did obtain. I read with care the Debate we had before on that £90,000, and I was anxious that we should have some Ministerial explanation or a statement as to how the discrepancy arose. But that was not given. Now, to-day, Sir, when Scotch Members have an important Vote to discuss, and are anxious that the time of the House, which was more or less pledged to them, should be given up to that Vote, the Supplementary Estimates are put in place of it. That, I submit, is not a method of proceeding with the Business which is calculated to soothe the susceptibilities of Scotch Members. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give the Scotch Members the opportunity they desire, and so prevent another national grievance arising.
  MR. A. R. D. ELLIOT: I would point out, Sir, that Scotch Members are Members of an Imperial Parliament, and are, therefore, as much interested in the general Business
  1220
  as the English Members, and they should not therefore stand in the way of the progress of the general Business, so that they may gain some Party advantage against the Government. Such a course is unworthy of Scotch Members. Last night we had to listen to discussions on letter cards, and the question whether teetotallers should be on the Kitchen Committee, and Members had to sit for hour after hour listening to what was little better than mere drivel, every Member of the House not really discussing the matter in hand, but thwarting the Business of the country. We find the Leaders, or those who look upon themselves as Leaders, trying to raise separate feelings, whether Irish, Welsh, or Scotch, against the progress of Business in which Scotchmen, Welshmen, Irishmen, and Englishmen are interested alike, and when such scenes as that of last night occur, it is time that right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench below should speak out. We have had much delay and much obstruction in the last ten years, and I think I remember many occasions when right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Opposition Bench have felt it their duty in some respects to forward the general Business of the House. What have we got to do now? This Vote on Account would have been passed last night, so far as the general sentiment of the House was concerned, but for the wishes of three or four Gentlemen. Why should it not be be passed now? Why should we not get on with the Business we have to do, and get to our Scotch Business tonight? To do so there must be a desire for forwarding Business. I ask right hon. Gentlemen sitting below me to take their fair share in furthering the general Business of Scotland and the country.
  MR. LENG: The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down used a very unfortunate phrase when he said we were having this discussion because an important Scotch question is coming on to-night. It is just the opposite. It is because of the extreme danger that it cannot come on to-night that we are having this discussion. The danger is that the Sitting will be prolonged into the small hours of the morning; and, therefore, many Scotch

  1221
  Members do not take the view of the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken. We do think that our Scotch Business is squeezed into a corner—is unnecessarily postponed. We have had no explanation to-night why the Vote on Account has been placed before the Supplementary Estimates. It would seem the most natural thing in the world that, as the other Supplementary Estimates have been disposed of, this remaining one should be placed before the Vote on Account. I can speak impartially on this question, because I have some notices on the Vote on Accounts. I entirely disagree with the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Elliot) that Votes involving millions of money should be passed over in half-an-hour, for though some questions are of trivial importance others are of great importance. While avoiding anything unseemly in the assertion of national rights, I hope Scotch Members will, more than ever they have hitherto done, stand and act together, and insist that their questions shall not be thrown into the background, as have been too frequently the case.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I cannot help thinking it would be a very great advantage if the House could now come to the practical Business. I have waited to hear the views on this subject of hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House, and I do not think the right hon. Gentleman can do otherwise than feel that the Members for Scotland have reasonable ground for making a charge of breach of faith. There are two things in which they are interested—one is the Supplementary Estimate and the other is the Motion of which notice has been given by the hon. Member for Sutherland (Mr. A. Sutherland). I am quite sure that the right hon. Gentleman will feel that if there were an attempt to force on the arrangements as they stand at present no practical good would be done. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it would not be possible that he should take the Resolution he has now put on the Paper, and so modify it as not to make it impossible under the last words to take the Crofters' Resolution to-night; then we could get on to the Vote on Account. If the right hon. Gentleman will agree
  1222
  when we get to the Vote on Account that Progress shall be reported, and that the second part of the Supplementary Estimates interesting to Scotch Members shall then be taken, I am quite sure the Scotch Members will not abuse the opportunity they have on that Vote. In reference to the Vote on Account, the right hon. Gentleman, I am sure, has seen that it would be possible to take it on a later day; and, I from what he knows of the House of Commons and what I know of the House of Commons, that Vote would go through much more easily than is likely under other circumstances. I think the House will feel that they are delivered from considerable difficulty, and it would possibly be easy to forward the Vote on Account if that course were taken. Under these circumstances the right hon. Gentleman might proceed with the Business on the Paper, omitting the words "Standing Order, No. 56," which are objected to by the hon. Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron) as excluding the Crofters' Motion, and we might amicably go on with the Scotch Supplementary Vote, and have the Crofters' Debate in the evening. I think I will not be saying too much if I say the Vote on Account would not suffer if that course were pursued.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The right hon. Gentleman has made an appeal to me of which I have nothing to complain. The right hon. Gentleman has told us that if the Vote on Account is postponed, we should get on quicker than if we take it at this time; but if we should get it in a shorter time than otherwise, it would be at a more inconvenient time. It is for that reason, and not from a desire to force on the House any particular Business, which is, possibly, objected to by a large section of the House, that I must adhere to my intention of taking the Vote on Account to-night. I am compelled, however reluctantly, to say we must endeavour to do this, notwithstanding the brighter prospects which the right hon. Gentleman holds out if the Vote were postponed. But the right hon. Gentleman made another suggestion in which I should like partially to meet his views. The hon. Member for Glasgow pointed out that if

  1223
  the Resolution is carried as it stands, it would prevent the Crofters' Resolution coming on to-night. I think that might be met by the insertion of the words, "unless the financial business of which notice has been given is previously concluded." If that will conciliate hon. Members opposite, I will move the addition of those words.
  MR. SEXTON: The hon. Member for Roxburgh (Mr. A. E. D. Elliot) treated the House of Commons as if he were a pedagogue, and asked why the Vote was not taken last night. The reason was that it was a Constitutional occasion to challenge the administration of Ireland. There have been many occasions on which we have not received satisfactory replies to our questions, and I shall have to raise them again on the Vote on Account, and it is probable that they will give rise to lengthened Debates.
  MR. CONYBEARE: The House has been taken to task by the hon. Member for Roxburgh (Mr. A. R. D. Elliot) for not having passed the Vote last night, but we hon. Members who have charge of the Public Purse do not approve of voting large sums of money without any discussion. The reason I rise is that I have on other occasions protested against the suggestion that we should pass Votes on Account without consideration of them. The Government come to-day to ask for a vast sum of money, which will last for some months; at the end of that time they will come for another Vote on Account, and they will then say, as they do now, that it is not the proper time to discuss matters arising in Supply; that we must wait till Supply proper comes on. If we accept the suggestion of hon. Members opposite, we shall be driven from all reasonable discussion of the grievances which our constituents desire us to bring before the House till the dog days. In former days Votes on Account were not asked for in this fashion. The Party in power have so mismanaged and muddled the Business that we are obliged to put off all discussion of effective Supply till the hot days of July and August, when Members are exhausted by long attendance, and there will be no effective discussion whatever. Hon. Members on this side
  1224
  have made appeals to the generosity and fair play of the Party opposite; but I think they have seen enough to know that they must not expect generosity and fair play from their political opponents. There are important Amendments down to the Vote, and I would ask if it is reasonable to ask us to forego the clear constitutional right of discussing them in order that a Vote of millions of money may be passed in half-an-hour. Owing to the mismanagement of the Government the House has spent time day after day discussing what Business we are to take, and then we are told we must not object if the time for discussion is cut short.
  MR. COURTNEY: I fear we are losing our time, and perhaps a little of our temper, over this matter. I rise to make a suggestion which will, no doubt, involve some amount of sacrifice all round, but at the same time it may meet the wishes of hon. Members on both sides. We are first to discuss the Vote on Account and any Amendments put down to it. Several hon. Members say it will occupy more than this afternoon; but I think, with their help, we might possibly finish it this afternoon.
  MR. SEXTON: There is not the least chance.
  MR. COURTNEY: It has been laid down over and over again that the first Vote on Account is a Vote which ought to give rise to no discussion, except on matters of pressing importance. It is evident that the Vote must be got, and unless it be urgent matter which cannot be postponed, discussion on several subjects is rather an abuse of power than a proper use of it. Supposing that were done, and the Scotch Vote were taken without discussion on the understanding that the Report of the Vote should be discussed, the Crofters' Resolution would be taken this evening. I understand that the discussion on the Scotch Vote will not be a financial discussion, but one on the policy of the disposal of the money; and if Monday were given to the Report of that Vote it would satisfy the demands of the Scotch Members. Then we might finish the Vote on Account this afternoon, take the Scotch Vote without discussion, and take the Crofters'

  1225
  Resolution to-night. That is a solution of the difficulty; but it will, no doubt, need some sacrifice on both sides.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: After the appeal of the right hon. Gentleman I cannot remain silent. The right hon. Gentleman's idea is that the Vote on Account should be finished by 7 o'clock, and I gather that it is not altogether impossible that hon. Gentlemen will accede to that. If that were done and the Crofters' Resolution came on at 9 o'clock, that might go on, as was suggested by the hon. Member below the Gangway, for two hours. We might then take the Scotch Vote till 1, without very great strain on the attention of the House. We might get the present stage of that Vote, and if that were done I would undertake that the Scotch Business should come on at 10 o'clock on Monday, which would give two hours more. That would give two hours to-night—not unreasonable hours—and two hours more on Monday; and under the Rules of the House the discussion need not stop at 12 o'clock. That would give, at any rate, four hours altogether. If that programme were carried out, the Business would be: Vote on Account till 7 o'clock; Crofters' Resolution 9 to 11; Scotch Vote 11 to 1; finishing Supplementary Estimates, and then taking a Vote in Committee of Ways and Means. Monday—first business, Small Holdings Bill—I would stop that at 10 o'clock—then go on discussing Report of the Estimates. I think the House will see that I have made a concession, and I hope that hon. Members will fall in with it.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: So far as concerns the matter in which I am more immediately interested—the Scotch Supplementary Estimate—I think the proposal of the First Lord of the Treasury would sufficiently meet the necessities of the case. It is not a very convenient arrangement; but admitting, as I have always done, the urgency of the Supplementary Estimates, I, for my own part, should consider that was sufficient. Whether the arrangement as to the Vote on Account is satisfactory or not I express no opinion.
  MR. PICTON: With regard to the Vote on Account, I hope the First Lord of the Treasury will not understand that we pledge ourselves to finish the discussion by 7 o'clock. The Amendment I have to move is one involving life and death, and that within the two months before I should have another opportunity of bringing the matter before the House.
  MR. MORTON: So far as I understand the proposal of the Leader of the House, we are to give up everything and the Government make no sacrifice whatever. So far as we are concerned, we have not wasted the time of the House. It is the Government who have wasted what time has been wasted. Last night they occupied the time by not giving way on the question raised by the Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. Fowler), and it is not right that we should be asked to give up our time in the way suggested.
  (4.38.) Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 217; Noes 122.—(Div. List, No. 42.)
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: With a view of giving effect to the suggestion which was made by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Courtney), I beg to move to amend the Resolution.
  Amendment proposed,
  At the end of the Question, to add the words "unless the Vote on Account be voted before Seven o'clock, in which case the House do resolve itself into the Committee of Supply at Eleven o'clock, without Question put."—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
  MR. SEXTON: I think that requires some explanation. If the Vote on Account is not voted at 7 o'clock, at 9 o'clock the Speaker will leave the Chair, and we proceed. But, if it is voted, what will happen at 9 o'clock?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Crofters' Debate will be taken until 11 o'clock.
  MR. SEXTON: Then what kind of a quandary will the House be in at 11 o'clock? The Member for Sutherland will have moved his Amendment, and the Main Question and the Amendment will both be before the House. Will the Speaker then take his departure,

  1227
  and leave the House with both Questions before it?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I do not rise for the purpose of preventing any arrangement, but I think the House should always be very careful in setting precedents in matters of this kind. If you once pass a Resolution of this kind it becomes a precedent. Without regard to the particular questions raised here, you must remember that this Resolution establishes a precedent in the House of Commons for fixing hours at which particular Votes or particular measures shall be concluded. You say one measure shall be concluded at 7 o'clock, and another taken at 9 o'clock. So far as I know, the House has never yet attempted to do its business in that form. I think there is a good deal of danger in adopting a precedent of this kind, because it would give an excuse to some Government in the future to set to work to fix particular hours for particular measures as a matter of course. I see a very considerable danger, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will consider that there is some risk in establishing a precedent of this kind. I speak entirely without regard to the particular question raised, but it seems to me that to fix a particular hour for Committee of Supply is to deal in a very serious manner with one of the privileges of this House. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues will regard this with a view to the future as much as to the present. It would be very convenient for a Government to be able to use that power but to my mind the proposal is pregnant with serious consequences.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I only proposed this in order to meet the wishes that have been expressed; but if the right hon. Gentleman (Sir W. Harcourt), speaking as he has a perfect right to speak as the representative of those sitting behind him, thinks that on the whole the dangers of course overbalance the advantages I have no desire to press it unduly.
  DR. CAMERON: I see no advantages whatever in the course proposed. The
  1228
  right hon. gentleman comes forward with a proposal which he tells us has been devised for the purpose of letting us have a Debate upon a Scotch question. That proposition is simply a delusion. The result of that will be that the crofter question for which a place was obtained four weeks ago by ballot will be put upon the shelf, and that the Scotch Vote, on which all the Scotch Members are interested, and which involves a sum of £110,000, will be relegated to the latest hour of the night, and may not be reached until 2 or 3 o'clock in the morning. What is that but an insult to the Scotch Members? The Scotch Members should be in a position to give to the country their reasons for assenting to, or dissenting from, the proposals of the Government, and though I intend to support the Government on that Vote, that is no reason why I should assist the Government in virtually stifling all discussion in the matter. I think the Amendment is not only useless, but may land us in a very dangerous position.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Main Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 208; Noes 129.—(Div. List, No. 43.)
  Resolved, That at the Sitting this evening Financial Business may be entered on at any hour though opposed, and be not interrupted under the provisions of any Standing Order relating to the Sittings of the House, and that the provisions of Standing Order 56 be extended to the Sitting this evening.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1892–3.
  VOTE ON ACCOUNT.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  1. Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £3,886,563, be granted to Her Majesty, on account, for or towards defraying the Charges for the following Civil Services and Revenue Departments for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1893, namely:—

  CIVIL SERVICES.
  CLASS I.

  £

  Royal Palaces and Marlborough House

  6,000

  Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens

  15,000

  Houses of Parliament Buildings

  6,000

  Admiralty, Extension of Buildings

  5,000

  Miscellaneous Legal Buildings, Great Britain

  9,000

  Art and Science Buildings, Great Britain

  5,000

  Diplomatic and Consular Buildings

  6,000

  Revenue Department Buildings

  56,000

  Public Buildings, Great Britain

  30,000

  Surveys of the United Kingdom

  40,000

  Harbours, &c, under Board of Trade, and Lighthouses Abroad

  4,000

  Peterhead Harbour

  3,000

  Caledonian Canal

  —

  Rates on Government Property

  90,000

  Public Works and Buildings, Ireland

  40,000

  Railways, Ireland

  30,000

  CLASS II.

  United Kingdom and England:—

  House of Lords, Offices

  7,000

  House of Commons, Offices

  5,000

  Treasury and Subordinate Departments

  15,000

  Home Office and Subordinate Departments

  15,000

  Foreign Office

  6,000

  Colonial Office

  7,000

  Privy Council Office and Subordinate Departments

  2,500

  Board of Trade and Subordinate Departments

  25,000

  Bankruptcy Department of the Board of Trade

  3

  Board of Agriculture

  8,000

  Charity Commission

  7,000

  Civil Service Commission

  7,000

  Exchequer and Audit Department

  10,000

  Friendly Societies, Registry

  1,500

  Local Government Board

  27,000

  Lunacy Commission

  2,000

  Mercantile Marine Fund, Grant in Aid

  —

  Mint (including Coinage)

  10

  National Debt Office

  2,500

  Public Record Office

  4,000

  Public Works Loan Commission

  1,500

  Registrar General's Office

  10,000

  Stationery Office and Printing

  65,000

  Woods, Forests, &c. Office of

  6,000

  Works and Public Buildings, Office of

  8,000

  Secret Service

  6,500

  Scotland:—

  Secretary for Scotland

  2,000

  Fishery Board

  4,000

  Lunacy Commission

  1,000

  Registrar General's Office

  1,500

  Board of Supervision

  1,500

  Ireland:—

  Lord Lieutenant's Household

  1,000

  Chief Secretary and Subordinate Departments

  7,000

  MR. LENG: I rise to move the reduction of the Vote for the Treasury in order that I may enter my protest against the Treasury, and more particularly the Chancellor of the Exchequer, obstructing what the right hon. Gentleman himself declared was the policy of the Government by refusing to give effect to the proposals of the Board of Trade for the reduction of the renewal fees on patents. Late last Session, in Committee of Supply, I directed attention at greater length than I usually address the House on this subject. In regard to the time of the Committee I shall not repeat the details; but I might remind hon. Members that largely in consequence of the wise legislation initiated by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, in making the terms of payment easier and spreading them over the 14 years of the duration of the patent, there has been of late years a large and rapid increase in the Revenue, so that for the year 1890 the surplus of receipts over expenditure was £110,000; but the fees are still higher than in any other
  1232
  country on the face of the globe. In the United States they average only 8s. 5d. a year for 17 years, while in the United Kingdom they are £11 a year for 14 years. In the United States the total sum for a valid certificate of patent is only £7 10s.; in the United Kingdom, for a patent which merely gives a locus standi for a lawsuit, the charge is £154. In the United States the number of applications for patents is double the number, while the patents issued, the income from the fees, and the expenditure, are all more than double those in the United Kingdom. The States also have a Patent Fund of £650,000, while we have no such fund. Last July I quoted letters showing that the fees charged in this country, after the fourth year, cripple the poor inventor, the struggling mechanic, the industrious artizan. Numerous memorials from inventors and manufacturers, largely signed, have been sent to the Board of Trade against this tax on brains. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has assisted in voting money for technical education; while on the other hand by these heavy fees on patents, he taxes those who are applying that technical education in the progress of inventions on which the manufacturing and commercial prosperity of the country largely depends. After I had spoken the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir W. Harcourt) supported my appeal. He observed.
  "These fees are a tax on inventions, which, after all, constitute one of the greatest sources of national wealth, and it seems to me that a more inexpedient tax than this could not be imagined. Inventors, as a class, are poor men, and one result of these high patent fees is that in order to be able to pay the fees they are in too many cases compelled to place themselves in the hands of rich men, who secure the greater portion of the profit of successful inventors."
  Then the right hon. Baronet the President of the Board of Trade (Sir M. Hicks Beach) made a very fair and sympathetic reply. He admitted that the estimated surplus for 1891 was £116,500, but urged that more money would have to be spent on the abridgments of the specifications, and some on the re-construction of the Patent Office. The right hon. Baronet then said.

  1233
  "My view is that we should consider whether a reduction may not be made in the tees charged in the interval between tour and eight years, so as to extend the cheap protection now given for four years to a longer period. I think that what should be done is to make the fees low for a certain number of years, during which the patentee can continue to look about for opportunities to work his patent."
  Now, in reply to a question put by me on Monday last, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said the President of the Board of Trade made no promise that the fees would be reduced. That is a singular version to give of an expression of views by a Member of the Government, the head of an important Department, which I certainly accepted as a promise at the time, and on the strength of which I withdrew my Motion to reduce the Vote for the Board of Trade. Are we to understand that it is a mere "pious opinion" which the President of the Board of Trade expressed, and that what he said did not bind the Government? That clearly was not the view of the right hon. Baronet himself. The President of the Board of Trade showed that he considered he had given a promise, for, according to the Chancellor of the Exchequer's own statement, the President had submitted proposals to the Treasury for the reduction of the fees, which proposals he would not have submitted if he had not considered that the Government were bound in honour to carry them out. I believe that the proposals of the Board of Trade would have been satisfactory to the class of men on whose behalf I mainly contend for this reduction. Those men are the pick of the working classes; men who observe the defects of the machinery amongst which they work, and endeavour to remedy them by their ingenious inventions; men who, after spending their days in the workshops, devote their nights to study, attending technical schools and classes, and endeavouring to work out unsolved problems in mechanics, in chemistry, and in science. How inconsistent it is to tax such men to swell this surplus of upwards of £100,000! Why should the Chancellor of the Exchequer, after granting large sums to advance technical education, show this grinding and obstructive spirit in declining to
  1234
  reduce the tax levied by the Patent Office on those who are technically educated? I think the right hon. Gentleman does not adequately appreciate the importance of the subject. I can assure the Chancellor of the Exchequer, from letters I have received from inventors in all parts of the country, that great interest is felt in the question by large numbers of intelligent men, and that the course taken by the Government is being closely watched. Unless I receive an assurance that the subject will be satisfactorily dealt with, I shall be compelled, however reluctantly, to divide the Committee.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Item, Treasury and Subordinate Departments, be reduced by £100."—(Mr. Leng.)
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN,): The hon. Member is really representing the action of the Treasury in alight which, I venture to think, is not entirely just. He speaks of the obstructive policy of the Treasury. He bases his remarks largely upon a reply I made to a question which he put the other day as to whether these fees would be reduced in the course of the present financial year. I told him that certain proposals had been submitted, but I said no more than that the fees would not be reduced during the present financial year. I will not enter into the general argument which the hon. Member has put, before the House, but the policy of reducing these fees has been accepted by my right hon. Friend, and, as the hon. Gentleman suggested in the question he put the other day, I have also assented to his general policy. But the hon. Gentleman will see—and probably thisishiscontention—that the fees for patents are to a certain extent in the nature of a tax. It is a tax which he wishes to see repealed. But the repeal of taxation and the lowering of fees are general steps that can be taken only under certain conditions; and the granting of relief must of course depend, to a great extent, upon financial considerations. I think the hon. Gentleman will scarcely be entitled to say that it was obstructive policy on the part of the Treasury that

  1235
  they did not assent immediately to taxation being repealed, but waited to see what was the state of the finances. The Treasury in this sense is simply the general taxpayer of the country. What we have to see is that we have sufficient means for carrying out what the House assents to. Whether we can part with a source of income and repeal a tax is a matter which must be carefully weighed when the financial arrangements for the year are made. There is no intention to go back from the general spirit which we have indicated. There is no wish to obstruct the repeal, but it must be dependent, to a certain extent, upon financial considerations.
  MR. WATT: I wish to bring under the notice of the House a fundamental question. I venture to say it is a matter of as great importance as that which the hon. Member for Dundee has raised. The inventors of patents are very much indebted to the action the hon. Member for Dundee has taken during the last Session and this, and what I wish to ask the President of the Board of Trade is, "What is a patent?" Friends of mine outside the House might think I was labouring under softening of the brain after 15 years' connection with patents, and having expended something like £50,000 in relation to patents, when I ask such a question.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! The Question before the House is the reduction of the Vote. So far, the hon. Member's observations are not connected with that Vote.
  MR. WATT: Could I put myself in Order by moving a reduction?
  THE CHAIRMAN: There is a Motion before the House.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I am sorry to interpose in a discussion upon a matter of such importance as that which my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee has brought before the Committee; but it was my intention, when you first took the Chair and read the Vote which is now before the House, to rise at once for the purpose of moving that Progress should be reported. We have had a long discussion to-day upon the course of business, and I regret that the
  1236
  attempts that we made to arrive at an amicable and reasonable arrangement of business for one reason or other failed. We are left in this position: that while the matter of the disposal of this evening has been undoubtedly decided by the vote of the House, yet there is one matter of which this House has still control, and that is whether the Vote on Account should take precedence of the last Supplementary Estimates. Now, we have fully stated our views on this subject earlier in the day. The Supplementary Estimates, the last of which is now before us, have taken constitutional precedence at this time of the year. There is no doubt urgency on legal grounds in passing the Supplementary Estimates. It so happens that the last Supplementary Estimate, which has been kept back by the First Lord of the Treasury on purpose that the Scottish Members should have an adequate opportunity of discussing it, is now the only one which we have to deal with, and it is one certainly which will not be properly dealt with if it is allowed to dangle at the end of the Vote on Account, and to be brought on in the small hours of the morning. The Vote on Account is undoubtedly subject to no such emergency. The Vote on Account refers to the business not of this year, but of next year; and the First Lord of the Treasury, in the course of his remarks, having spoken of the necessity for embodying the amount of this Vote in the Appropriation Bill, I asked him explicitly across the Table whether he could say that it was necessarily legal that it should be embodied in the Appropriation Bill. He could only say there was a great inconvenience in not proceeding with it. The right hon. Gentleman cannot say there is any legal necessity of urgency in regard to the Vote on Account, that there is that urgency on the other Vote. I appeal to the House that on that ground we should have the best hours of this day, and not the worst, for the purpose of discussing a Scottish question of the greatest importance, and which is urgent, and that the Vote on Account should be taken at such other times as the House can find to be convenient. It is for that purpose, and

  1237
  not for any purpose of delay, that I shall conclude by moving that you report Progress, and ask leave to sit again.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Campbell-Bannerman.)
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am almost ashamed to address the House again, as I have nothing to say which I have not said before; and, listening to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, I think he has merely repeated to the Committee what he had formerly said in the House with the Speaker in the Chair. I have endeavoured to prove to the House that it is of great public importance that a Vote on Account should be taken. I shielded myself behind the opinion expressed by the very highest authority on the subject, and I would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to allow us to bring the Vote to a conclusion.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: In the whole of this protracted Debate we have never heard one word from the right hon. Gentleman to explain why the natural order which was always followed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian, of bringing the Supplementary Estimates to a conclusion before taking the Vote on Account, has not been followed in this case. It was the natural order. It is admitted that for the one there is legal urgency, and for the other there is no legal urgency. That is putting the cart before the horse; and the right hon. Gentleman cannot be surprised, if he chooses to have that method, that the locomotion is of a very tardy character. If the right hon. Gentleman put the horse before the cart he would find that our business would go on much more rapidly. I believe even now it would be a very good thing for him to allow the Scotch business to come on in that which is its legitimate Parliamentary place. What the great public inconvenience would be caused by postponing the Vote on Account for three or four days the right hon. Gentleman has not stated. I do not know myself—I do not think he will find it very easy to answer what my right hon. Friend the
  1238
  Member for Stirling has proposed, that the Parliamentary proceedings should be taken in their Parliamentary order. I must say I think there is good foundation for his appeal upon that subject.
  MR. MUNRO FERGUSON (&c.): It was understood some days ago that this Scotch Estimate would be taken on Friday at a convenient hour when there should be a discussion; but the Scotch business has been put out of its proper place, and we have lost the opportunity of having an important discussion; and it appears that we are likely to lose the opportunity of another discussion. This management of Scotch business will no longer be tolerated by the Scotch Members in this House. They will be found as capable as any other section of the House to assert their rights and safeguard the interests of their constituencies.
  DR. CLARK: If the First Lord of the Treasury could only have told us that he had something to say, instead of saying that he had nothing to say, he might be able to get on with the business. The right hon. Gentleman has not told us why this unusual course has been taken.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I did not happen to be in the House when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Stirling was speaking, and did not know of that point. As to why this course has been adopted, I wish to say, in reference to that that I have always stated during the whole week and in the hearing of hon. Gentlemen opposite, that it would be a highly inconvenient course if we were to take the Supplementary Vote before the Vote on Account, and no individual Member ever said a word of protest against it.
  DR. CLARK: The right hon. Gentleman's statement is, to some extent, satisfactory; but still he does not say why this should be done. This Estimate should have been taken last year; but, in order to wind up the Session earlier, it was postponed, and now it is to be taken in the morning instead of in the evening at a convenient hour. This is a new policy brought forward by the Government, and they must expect that it will be opposed by a large section of the Scotch Members

  1239
  There is no reason in the world why this Vote on Account should be taken to-night. I do not think such a course as has been taken will tend to facilitate Public Business when the right hon. Gentleman has no reason whatever to give for the course—not a single legitimate decent argument why this Vote on Account should have preference.
  MR. MARJORIBANKS: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that it is because the Scotch Members feel that they have not received that courteous and considerate treatment which they think they had a right to expect from the right hon. Gentleman that they have found it necessary to make themselves not altogether pleasant to the right hon. Gentleman this afternoon.
  MR. A. SUTHERLAND: The right hon. Gentleman has not announced any reason or advanced any argument whatever why this transposition of the Votes should have taken place. It was the expressed intention of the Government to have taken the Supplementary Vote last night if possible. It is perfectly plain, that from the state and condition of the House at the present moment, that more interest is taken in the Scotch Supplementary Estimate than in the Vote on Account, because there are more Scotch Members present; and I think that, after the curtailment of time that has taken place, it would be very injudicious of the Government to further curtail the time at the disposal of the Scotch Members.
  MR. D. CRAWFORD: I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury did not know that the question we had been pressing upon him when the Speaker was in the Chair was why the Vote on Account had got precedence of the Scotch Supplementary Vote. However, he appears now to have that point brought home to him, and I think the answer he has given is a very regrettable answer, because, although I am sure it was not intended by him, it is an evasive and a disingenuous answer. He said a few days ago that he proposed to set down Scotch Votes for today; but at the same time intimated that the Vote on Account was to be
  1240
  taken, and I say that is a disingenuous answer. The essence of the arrangement was that Scotch Members were to have an allotted time for the discussion of the Vote in which they take so much interest. It was not the essence of the arrangement that the Scotch Vote was to be postponed till after the Vote on Account. No honest man can say that that was the meaning of the arrangement which was proposed by the right hon. Gentleman and which was accepted by us, and I do not think that this is a thing which the right hon. Gentleman would seek to press upon anyone except his own countrymen. Last year we were promised ample time for discussion, and now the time is taken away from us. It is a very great injury and a very great injustice, and certainly will not in the long run be calculated to save time or to advance the interests of the Government.
  COLONEL NOLAN: It is important to take the Scotch Vote first, because, if the money is given to Scotland in relief of local taxation, we will then protest against the action of the Treasury in voting money for the Irish teachers in Ireland in spite of our resistance. We want to know what is to be done with the Scotch money before we discuss the Irish Estimates.
  DR. CAMERON: If the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House will look at his own answer to the Member for the Stirling Burghs on Monday last, he will see that, however he may have guarded himself, it was a fair deduction on our part to assume from his answer that this afternoon was to be devoted to the discussion of this Scotch Vote. I have consulted the Times and read his answer. It is perfectly true he did not say absolutely that the day would be assigned to Scotch Members. He guarded himself at the end of his statement by making the arrangement conditional upon the progress of Public Business throughout the week, but he did not make the Scotch Vote to-day depend upon the passing of the Vote on Account last night. He said nothing about that.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Read my answer.
  DR. CAMERON: Unfortunately I have not brought the library file of the Times with me.
  DR. CLARK: Here is what the right hon. Gentleman said:—
  "On Thursday the Government will take the Vote on Account, and on Friday they will take the Scotch Vote for Education."
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Read on.
  DR. CLARK: That is all.
  DR. CAMERON: The right hon. Gentleman now says that he is departing from the arrangement because it is obviously to the convenience of the House. What is his reason—sic volo, sic jubeo. There is no other reason that I can see. When the right hon. Gentleman has longer experience of his office, he will see that this is not the best way of getting business through this House. It is nothing less than an insult to the Scotch Members. We do not ask them to give up Government time. Let him consult those who have gathered here to-day in expectation excited by his own words.
  MR. HUNTER: The Scotch Members were brought down this afternoon at the invitation of the right hon. Gentleman expressly to discuss a most important question affecting Scotland. It is quite true the right hon. Gentleman qualified his statement by the language of a general condition; but this condition must be construed according to the reasonable practices of the House, and I venture to say that, with the exception of the right hon. Gentleman, no Leader of this House would ever construe promises in the manner in which he has done. It is impossible to carry on the business of this House, if promises deliberately made are to be cast aside at the whim of the right hon. Gentleman. He casts us aside because we have only 70 votes; if we had 500 he would not do it. The people in Scotland are taking note that the treatment they are now receiving is only consistent with what they generally receive at the hands of a Tory Government, by whom Scotch business is either pushed into a corner or taken in the early hours of the morning. The Scotch people are getting an object-lesson as to the necessity of some arrangement by which Scotch Members may transact their business without the incubus
  1242
  of the right hon. Gentleman. If he desires to make any progress let him come at once to the business of the afternoon.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 127; Noes 202.—(Div. List, No. 44.)
  Question again purposed, "That the Item, Treasury and Subordinate Departments, be reduced by £100."—(Mr. Leng.)
  Mr. WALLACEmoved, "That the Chairman do now leave the Chair," but the Chairman being of opinion that the Motion was an abuse of the Rules of the House, declined to propose the Question thereupon to the Committee.
  Question again proposed.
  COLONEL NOLAN: I beg to move the reduction of the Vote by £100. The Treasury has been very deficient in affording us information in supplying documents or in making any calculation with regard to this sum of £90,000, which was voted at 2 o'clock in the morning, after most of the Members were away. They first made a set of calculations in 1879, then they made another set of calculations, and, at the end of last year, they made still another set of calculations. I think that is a very gross case of bungling on the part of the Treasury. The second point is, that, having made these calculations, they rushed the Vote in the House of Commons, and, when asked for their calculations, said they were not yet made out. They have been asked in what mode the calculations were made, and they have not been able to supply the information. The whole allotment of the £90,000 has been grossly bungled by the Treasury. They have not been able to put any Papers before us to enable us to check this calculation either by ourselves or to submit it to some actuarial examination. It would be a good thing to reduce this Vote by £100. It would make the Treasury more careful in future. And if they take power to allot the money to Ireland after consultation with the Irish Members, they will see they have been doing wrong, and will put it next time in a more businesslike manner.
  SIR WALTER FOSTER: I beg to support the Motion of my hon. and gallant Friend to reduce this Vote. I am supporting the hon. Gentleman's proposal for a reduction of the Vote because I think we have had nothing sufficiently satisfactory in the way of explanation.
  MR. MORTON: I do not think the Chancellor of the Exchequer has given a satisfactory answer. I have taken some interest in the matter of inventions, and last year the President of the Board of Trade (Sir Michael Hicks Beach) promised a deputation which waited on him more than was asked; but I understand the Chancellor of the Exchequer refuses to allow him to carry out what he promised. I hope the hon. Gentleman will go to a Division unless he gets a promise from the Treasury that the President of the Board of Trade will be allowed to fulfil his promises. As I understood the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he said that it was possible that something might be done some day, but at present the Treasury refuse to sanction it. I think we are entitled to some definite statement from the Treasury as to what they intend to do.
  MR. LENG: To a certain extent the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer modifies the statement he made on Monday last. To that extent I am glad to accept it, but the right hon. Gentleman is not sufficiently definite as to the time when that which he admits is the policy of; the Government is to be carried out. The plans submitted to the Treasury by the President of the Board of Trade would be satisfactory to the poor inventors, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will make such representations to the Treasury that in the incoming year effect will be given to them. I hope the right hon. Gentleman is in a position to state that the policy he announced last June will be carried out; if not, I shall be compelled reluctantly to divide the House.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS BEACH: I was not in the House when my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer spoke, and so am not aware of what he said. But I can assure the hon. Gentleman that
  1244
  something will be done in the matter during the coming year, and no effort shall be wanting on my part to carry out what he desires.
  MR. LENG: After the statement of the right hon. Gentleman I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  MR. SEXTON: The hon. Gentleman has received a satisfactory reply from the President of the Board of Trade, but the hon. and gallant Member for Gal way (Colonel Nolan) has moved to reduce the Vote for an equally cogent reason. He addressed himself to the Secretary to the Treasury. I know the outlines of the case to which he referred, and in one way or another we will debate it in the House. There is another question I should like to refer to, and that is the responsibility of the Treasury for giving information to the House; and this is so important that I give notice that I shall, on the Appropriation Bill, raise my voice against the scandal of this appropriation of £90,000. I want to know if we are going to have the necessary information. The salary of the right hon. Gentleman for two months is before the House, and we are entitled to inquire if he performs his duty. He is not performing his duty to the House. On the 29th February, when this Vote was in Committee, we made certain demands for information, and the Vote was closured, but the postponement of Report till the 14th March indicated the intention of the Government to obtain that information, if obtainable. We asked who was the auditor who made the valuation in 1885. We are entitled to an answer. It was admitted that it was the same person who made the valuation in 1890, but his personality was not revealed. I have made the discovery of this man of genius, but I should like my research confirmed. In this Vote there is a sum for the Superintendent of the Teachers' Pension Office, Ireland, and the gentleman who holds that office is also principal and actuary of the War Office; he gets £900 from the War Office, and £200 from the Teachers' Pension Office. I find also a sum of £60 for assistance in preparing the quinquennial valuation of the Teachers' Pension Fund. Now, we have this genius revealed; he is the

  1245
  principal and actuary of the War Office. I think it would be desirable to keep him at the War Office. It is his bungling which necessitates this Vote of £90,000, and at the proper time I shall move to reduce his Irish salary by £30. This gentleman and these clerks, having daily care of the Pension Fund, made an error of an enormous sum in the valuation, which is only now found out. The argument of the right hon. Gentleman is that in 1885 there was not sufficient experience. This gentleman had had five years' experience when he made the valuation, and has been in charge of the office every day since then. I challenge the Administration to produce such an exhibition of incompetence and neglect as that a man should have been seven years in discovering a mistake that he made in 1885, and we ask for his removal from that office. Why has no balance sheet been supplied? Are the Irish Members entitled to no information? I ask that the Report be laid upon the Table so that we can see how this man performed the extraordinary financial somersault which produced a surplus in 1885 and a deficit in 1890, and showed that the fund had gone back £380,000 in five years. If he had told the Treasury that the fund was in low water we should have been saved £90,000; but the Treasury, knowing nothing of this, saw a lump of Irish money lying around, and very naturally seized it. I ask for that Report, and I shall use all my energies and all the Forms of the House to prevent progress being made with the Appropriation Bill until this Report is laid on the Table. I also claim that we should have the Report of the three actuaries who have enabled the Treasury to say that they are assured that there is a deficiency in the fund of £190,000; and if these Reports are not presented, I shall contend that the Government is trifling with the House.
  SIR JOHN GORST: The hon. Member has had the fullest information that we are in a position to give him, and it was impossible for the actuaries to examine into the whole of this matter and present their Report before the 31st March. The Government undertook to see what information could be got before the Vote was taken,
  1246
  and adjourned the Report for a week in order to enable us to obtain information which would justify us in saying that this fund was insolvent. The actuary reported one state of things in 1885 and another in 1891, and it is necessary to have an exhaustive inquiry as to whether this fund is solvent or not? I have endeavoured to comply with the demands of the hon. Member, but it is quite impossible to lay on the Table the two Reports which are actually sub judice, and are now being examined by the actuaries. Still, I can assure the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Sexton) that the moment this examination is concluded I will lay the Reports on the Table.
  MR. SEXTON: The right hon. Gentleman has described this examination as sub judice, but an assurance has, I take it, been given by the actuaries that the fund is insolvent. Where is that Report, if it was in the form of a Report?
  SIR JOHN GORST: That assurance was the result of a letter I wrote with the object of supplying information which the hon. Gentleman desired. The hon. Gentleman wanted to be assured that there really was a deficiency, and with a view to meet him I put it to the actuaries who are conducting the examination—"Assure me, if you have got far enough in your investigation to know, whether there actually is a deficiency." The assurance I have received from the actuaries is practically set down in the Paper. "The Treasury are assured that there is a deficiency of at least £190,000." I am not an actuary, and I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is either, but he seems to think that a preliminary Report is impossible. I can only say that the Chairman of this Committee of Actuaries told me that he was able to say, from the investigation he had already made, that he had no doubt whatever that there was a deficiency of £190,000 at least. He could not say whether it was more, but that was the minimum deficit. I am perfectly well aware that this is a very meagre and insufficient Report on a very important matter, but I put it as the best Report I could give. I have stated the facts of the case very much as I stated them the other day,

  1247
  perhaps a little more precisely and more carefully, and I have given the assurance received from the Committee of Actuaries that the deficiency does really exist. At the present moment it is impossible to give any further information, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the Irish Members shall have the fullest possible information on this subject as soon as this Committee has concluded its investigation and made its Report on the two Reports in question.
  MR. SEXTON: And what about the money taken?
  SIR JOHN GORST: There is no doubt there is a deficiency, but I should be out of Order now if I discussed the disposal of the money. I must confine myself to the particular branch of the question which is before the Committee. Every effort will be made to lay before Parliament the most detailed information so soon as this matter has been considered and reported upon by the experts, and so soon as the Treasury have complete detailed information which ought to be laid before the House.
  COLONEL NOLAN: The extraordinary part of this is that the idea of obtaining this £90,000 must have been conceived by the Treasury four or five months ago, but since that time the actuaries have made no Report whatever to place before this House. If the actuaries have made a Report, why cannot we have it? If they have not, why has the £90,000 been taken? I am bound to assume that this actuary knows nothing whatever about the matter, or he may know and still be subservient to the Treasury and come to any conclusions they wish. In any case we ought to have this Report, and we have still a chance before the Appropriation Bill.
  MR. CONYBEARE: Can we have the name of this celebrated actuary? I sympathise with the desire of hon. Members that Ireland should be relieved of the services of this gentleman, but I object to English administration being left saddled with the individual. If this actuary received £900 a year, then that is exactly £900 a year more than he is worth. If he has made
  1248
  such a muddle in reference to an Irish Fund, he will do a similar thing in War Office business some day.
  MR. BLANE: My hon. Friend has done some service in discovering that the actuary whose error has given rise to all this inconvenience is a pluralist. It seems that under successive Governments he has been allowed to multiply his offices, and being engaged on War Office pensions is allowed to work for the Irish Education Office, and fails in a calculation that any accountant's clerk in the City would successfully undertake. Not only is he inefficient, but it seems he is allowed two assistants to do the work, and now we are to have further expenditure on account of a committee of experts to correct the errors made by the actuary. Public service is done by drawing attention to these matters, because large as this Vote is, the transactions at the War Office are, I suppose, still larger. The actuary, however, continues his services, and his errors remain undiscovered for years, until a Government Department has to get a committee of actuaries to help it out of the muddle it has got into. A disgraceful state of affairs is disclosed.
  Mr. A J. BALFOURrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put;" but the CHAIR-MAN withheld his assent, as he thought the Committee were prepared to come to a decision without that Motion.
  Question put, "That the Item, Treasury and Subordinate Departments, be reduced by £100."
  (6.50.) The Committee divided:—Ayes 118; Noes 194.—(Div. List, No. 45.)
  It being after Seven of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his report to the House at Nine of the clock.

  EVENING SITTING.
  Committee report Progress.
  And, in pursuance of the Order of the House this day, Mr. Speaker left the Chair without Question put, and the House again resolved itself into Committee of Supply.

  ORDER OF THE DAY.

    SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES. 1892–3.
    VOTE ON ACCOUNT.
    Considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £3,886,563, be granted to Her Majesty, on account, for or towards defraying the Charges for the Civil Services and Revenue Departments for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1893."namely:—[See page 1228.]
    DR. CLARK: I should like to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has done anything in reference to the question of mining royalties in Wales? He was to see some of the hon. Members on this side of the House, and make some arrangements by which royalties should be paid on net results, and not upon gross. As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, a meeting of the Mining Section of the Associated Chambers of Commerce last week came unanimously to a resolution in favour of the principle of mining royalties being paid on the net and not on the gross results. I believe that several hundred licences for gold mining in Wales have been issued, but work is only carried on in two mines, and this is because the industry is so heavily handicapped, and prevented from natural development through the practice of the Crown exacting royalties on gross results, and this does not pay with low grade ores. Has the right hon. Gentleman made any inquiries on this subject?
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN, St. George's,): I do not think it would be respectful to the Royal Commission appointed for the consideration of this question if I were to express an opinion before receiving their Report. I shall not be prepared to deal with the question in any way until I have seen this Report. Meanwhile, my mind is perfectly open on the subject, and I shall be ready to consider any recommendations for the development of the industry.
    MR. PICTON: I have to call the attention of the Committee to Vote O in Class V., Colonial Office, on which I shall move a reduction.
    MR. MACNEILL: On a point of Order, and to avoid subsequent difficulty, may I ask, Mr. Courtney, if you have ruled that an Amendment being put to one item prevents our discussing an earlier item in the Votes? I ask this because I am desirous of discussing Item 4—the salary of the Home Secretary—with reference to the executions yesterday morning.
    MR. PICTON: On the point of Order, Sir, may I ask, have you not on previous occasions ruled that on a Vote on Account it is not necessary to adhere strictly to the order of the Votes?
    THE CHAIRMAN: After entering upon one item the Committee cannot go back to a former item. The hon. Member is not bound to give way.
    MR. SEXTON: On the point of Order, Sir. No doubt some hon. Members have Notices to reduce items in the Vote on Account; but does your ruling import that a Member who desires to move an Amendment to an item preceding that as to which Notice has been given is not entitled to do so?
    THE CHAIRMAN: If an hon. Member wishes to raise a question in reference to an item preceding that to which Notice has been given he will rise to bring that question before the Committee; but, the Committee having entered upon an item, discussion cannot go back again.
    MR. P. W. PRITCHARD MORGAN: Having regard to the fact that the hon. Member for Caithness had introduced a subject on which I desired to speak, am I debarred from speaking because I did not happen to catch your eye in taking my hat off?
    THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! The hon. Member did not rise.
    MR. PICTON: It is a matter of great regret to me if I, by intervening, prevent hon. Members from bringing forward subjects they consider of importance to the country; but this matter to which I have to refer is a matter of life or death to a number of half-

    1251
    -civilized or barbarous people dependent upon Imperial rule. I have for a considerable time waited for the opportunity of bringing the subject before the attention of the House, and really I do not conscientiously think I should be justified in giving way now that the opportunity offers. It is, I suppose, well known to Members of this House, who have given attention to Colonial subjects, that Zululand, annexed to the Empire some years ago, has been recently re-settled by being mapped out into a number of districts. One of these is called Ndwandwe, and is the north-eastern district of this Colony—if so it can be called—at any rate, this dependency of Great Britain. Since the wars which devastated the country, the people of the district of Ndwandwe have gradually been settling down into a tolerably peaceful mode of life; but this is now to be changed, or so it appears from the information we have, owing to the determination of the Colonial Office to send back to this district the Chieftain Usibepu, who, for years past, has been the cause of much disturbance and bloodshed. It is believed by those who know the country best that if this man is sent back there will be recurrence of bloodshed, and an inter-tribal war is absolutely certain. In reference to this point, I ask the patience of the Committee while I read one or two extracts from contemporary publications, for in this way I shall best indicate what is the state of local public feeling on the subject. First, I quote from the Times of Natal for 28th January, and this paper I take to be not so much the exponent of native interests as a paper which takes generally a sensible view of what is expedient and practicable in the interest of the Empire in South Africa. The Times of Natal says—
    "The return of Usibepu to the northern part of Zululand will, if carried out, add one more to the long list of blunders in Zululand. The fact that Usibepu's people and the Usutu tribe are inveterate enemies is too well known to need recapitulation."
    The article goes on to say—
    "Zululand is now in a peaceful and prosperous state, and it is difficult to believe that the Governor of Zululand will permit an act which will, without doubt, disturb the peace, and set Zululand in a blaze. …. The white
    1252
    communities in Natal, the Transvaal, Free State, Swaziland, and Zululand will unanimously oppose an act which is bound to affect them. Fighting cannot take place in Zululand without its influence being felt in adjdining countries.
    The writer of the leading article goes on to show how in various ways the return of Usibepu to this northern district will have a very detrimental effect on the peace of the country. Then I turn to the Daily Independent, published not in Natal, but in Cape Colony, at Kimberley. There I find, under date 20th January of the present year—
    "It seems hardly credible that the Chief Usibepu is to be restored to Zululand by the powers presiding over that country. Yet the statement is made on apparently good authority. For some reason, which it would be difficult and perhaps not altogether edifying to fathom, this Chief has always been a favourite with the Native Department in Natal. …. If Usibepu goes back into Zululand there will be fresh disturbances in that country. That is as certain as it is that putting a light to gunpowder will cause, an explosion."
    Now, I do not know that the Independent has any special attachment to a sentimental policy as regards the native population. Next let me quote a letter published in the Natal Witness for 27th January, written by Mr. R. C. Samuelson, the son of a Norwegian missionary, and who knows Zululand well, and has had ample experience of the Zulu people. In his, letter Mr. Samuelson says—
    "I have now and again heard from Zululand natives that the Imperial Government is minded to return Chief Usibepu to the Mandhlakazi District (this is another name for the north-eastern district of Zululand), and my only reason for crediting such a monstrously mad intention is the fact that the paid Chief has already on several occasions been privileged and allowed to do what no one else would be permitted to do by the mostcareless and thoughtless of Governments. To return Chief Usibepu to the said district is throwing fire into a powder magazine. There is such a bitter feeling entertained by the whole or most of the Zulu nation against the said Chief, by reason of his being the leader of the party which has been the cause of the death of a member of almost every Zulu family, that the only way, and the most merciful way, is to keep Chief Usibepu in the Reserve, either where he now is, or nearer to Natal."
    No doubt much may be said in defence of Usibepu, and as much in accusation of the family of Cetewaye, to whom the Chief is distantly related—their great grandfathers were cousins,

    1253
    I believe—and to which he is in some respects a rival. Much may be said on either side; but if we had any regard for Usibepu, we should be anxious to keep him out of the country, where he is almost certain to be killed. The writer of the letter I have quoted speaks of Usibepu as being generally mischievous, and as having caused the death of a member of almost every Zulu family, and this might be thought to be the language of a partisan, and therefore not to be trusted; but here I find the same thing clearly set out in a Blue Book for 1884. In a despatch to Sir Henry Bulwer in August of that year Lord Derby said the condition of Zululand since 1879, the year of annexation, had been one of chronic war, often provoked by this Chief acting on his own responsibility; that Her Majesty's Government had never entered into any engagement to aid or defend him, and that all he was entitled to was an asylum in the Reserve; but that it must be clearly understood that that position of safety was not to be abused, and that attempts to make it a basis for acts of retaliation must be checked by removal from the Reserve. Well, the Chief did make it a basis for a policy of retaliation against his enemies. Of course this despatch of Lord Derby was written a long time ago, but I mention it to show that at that time Lord Derby held very much the same opinion as that expressed in Mr. Samuelson's letter that Usibepu was the cause of much trouble among the people. In 1879, at the time of the English invasion, the tribes with whom Usibepu had had prevailing influence were suffering from his turbulence and breaking away from him, and this is to be borne in mind, because it is urged that the Zulus in the north-eastern corner of Zululand are blood relations to Usibepu and therefore attached to him. That is not the case according to the best information I can obtain. Even in 1879 Usibepu had upset the peace of his tribe by his turbulent temper, and from that time to this the Mandhlakazi tribe attached to him by ties of blood have remained hostile to him. I shall have to quote the words of Commissioner Osborn, of whom I desire to Bay nothing disrespectful, for I have no
    1254
    doubt he endeavoured to do his duty to the country, and to the native races according to the best lights he had. But I think there is much evidence to show that he did cherish certain prejudices with regard to the natives which he manifested in a way which is not quite consistent with what many of us consider the highest Christian policy. There is much evidence to show that he scarcely realised, to the extent that might have been expected from the Representative of this country, our responsibilities to these people. But I call Commissioner Osborn as a witness in support of my contention that it is in the highest degree impolitic and mischievous, and from my point of view wicked to send back to the country a man who has been the cause of so much disorder there. In the Colonial Papers, C 4980, page 126, under date 15th November, 1886, we find Mr. Osborn says—
    "The Zulus ask that Usibepu may not be permitted to return to his territory. This is a very important question.…. But for the restraining hand of the Government Usibepu would, without loss of time, return to his country and resort to fearful retaliation on the Usutu (representing Cetewayo's special following) for their conduct in bringing the Boers against him."
    Now I have nothing to do with the question whether they were right or wrong in bringing the Boers against him. I do not enter into the quarrels of the natives. I deal with the policy of the Imperial Government, which ought to be in favour of peace. They ought to choose such means and measures as will keep the people in quietness. Now, even on Mr. Osborn's showing, Usibepu was not the man to preserve the peace of the country. From Lord Derby's Despatch and from Mr. Osborn's letter we learn there was a prevailing opinion that if Usibepu were permitted to return it would lead to disturbance. Well, he did go back in 1887. Having been for some time an exile in the Reserve territory, as noted in the Despatch from Lord Derby, Usibepu was restored by the same Commissioner Osborn whose words I have quoted, but, of course, with the authority of Sir Arthur Havelock, his superior, and much bad blood was caused. Sir Arthur Havelock wrote on 8th January, 1888 (C 5331)—

    1255
    "From the whole tenour of the information which reached me I was reluctantly compelled to think that more care and greater consideration and discretion might have been exercised in arranging Usibepu's re-settlement.… Recent news from Lower Umfaloo is disquieting. Somkali, the principle chief of the locality, is reported to have been collecting his followers, and to have sent them to join Dinizulu (the son of Cetewayo). Fear of Usibepu is probably the motive in this case.…. It has been made clear to me that the risks attending the return of Usibepu were underrated. Great vigilance, discretion, and forbearance are needed to avert trouble. When his re-settlement has been arranged his presence in his location will, I still think, act as a salutary check on any possible disorderly or disloyal action on the part of the Usutu chiefs. It is to be gathered from circumstances that have transpired—and it is the opinion of those who have most closely observed the recent recrudescence of trouble in Zululand—that the animosity of the Usutu party, and such designs as they may have, are directed against Usibepu personally and not against the Government, except in so far as they believe the Government to be supporters against them of Usibepu."
    So, we find, it was Sir Arthur Havelock's opinion then that so far as he could read the information he had, the Cetewayo section were not disloyal to the British Government, but that their animosity was against Usibepu. That was in 1887, and what followed? In June, 1888, the next year, in this very district of Ndwandwe, Usibepu and a number of his followers fell upon the chief Musutwana and savagely murdered him, together with several of his followers and women. Sir M. H. Gallwey, the Attorney General, writes under date 12th November, 1888 (C 5890, page 350):—
    "Usibepu preferred to incur the displeasure of the Government and to disobey their orders and to take his revenge and have it inflicted by his orders in his presence rather than wait to see the trial and sentence of these people who murdered two of his men in March last, and who had been handed over to Government and were since tried and are now under sentence of death."
    I have omitted reference to the fact that two of Usibepu's men were murdered previously. I only want to show the turbulent character of the man who would not wait to see justice done at the hands of the Government, but carried out vengeance with his own hands. Almost immediately afterwards, on 23rd June, Usibepu was attacked by some 4,000 Usutus, routed, and driven into the Reserve.
    1256
    There have been three distinct attempts made to force this man upon the northeastern district, and in each case they have been followed by disorder, war, and sanguinary feuds. From 1879 to 1882, after the annexation of the district, he was one of the 13 kinglets, commonly called in Natal the "Kilkenny Cats," whose only object seems to have, been to disturb and injure each other, He was restored in 1883; then disturbances took place, and he had to be expelled in 1884. In 1887 he was, for the third time, restored. Then the murders and fights took place to which I have just referred. I should like to call the attention of the House to the evidence of a man who has been regarded as on the whole highly disinterested, and that is the trader Moore, who has been praised by the representative of the Imperial authority as a highly trustworthy authority, On 29th November, 1885, he wrote—it was after the expulsion of Usibepu, and before the final attempt to restore, him—that the country was settling down, that is Zululand generally, and especially Ndwandwe. But he adds—
    "I notice that the Mercury"—that is another paper of Natal—"advocates the re-instatement of Usibepu. I cannot coincide with that unless England would like finally to get rid of him. If she re-instates him a body of troops must be left with him. He would have to be guarded night and day, and the country would again be in a ferment."
    And he goes on to advise that Usibepu and all his own military retainers and supporters should be kept in the Reserve. I do not think anything has occurred since to show that trader Moore was wrong in his prediction. In 1887 Usibepu returned to his country, and was restored by Mr. Osborn, the Resident Commissioner, with the authority of Sir Arthur Havelock, and much ill-feeling was the result. I do not wish to occupy any more of the time of the Housed I think I have a fair testimony, not from the mouths of ex-parte witnesses, but from the mouths of respected and trusted representatives of the Imperial power in that country, to show that Usibepu has been persistently for years past—ever since the country was annexed, in fact, to the Empire—he has been the constant

    1257
    cause of outrage, of mutual strife amongst the clans, and of bloodshed. Surely the Imperial power has a sacred duty to these poor, uneducated, or, at best, half-cultivated people. We know what is necessary for social life; we know the principles upon which social security must depend; but instead of following out these lofty Christian principles that we profess to have drunken in with our native air, we condescend to intrigue with rival chieftains, and set one against another. I think that policy is totally unworthy of a Christian nation. The poor people of this district, who are much less numerous than they used to be, are immediately under the shadow of the Imperial power. They have no strength of themselves to give resistance to the Imperial power. They have strength enough to fight amongst themselves, and murder each other and cause disturbance. With the view of eliciting some statement from the Government on the subject, I beg to move that the whole Vote—but with special reference to the Colonial Office Vote—be reduced by the sum of £100.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Item, Colonial Office, be reduced by £100."—(Mr. Picton.)
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not rise to deal with the speech which the hon. Gentleman has delivered on a subject as to which he feels deeply and upon which he has clearly bestowed a great deal of care; but I would most earnestly point out to the Committee that, according to the ruling of all the great authorities upon the procedure that regulates our Debates, it is not a convenient course to raise great questions of policy upon the Vote on Account, when that policy can be more properly discussed upon the ordinary Estimates. [Mr. PICTON: It will be too late.] The hon. Gentleman is influenced by the best of motives, but if the practice which the hon. Gentleman has pursued on this occasion were followed through all the Estimates it would clearly take as long to discuss a Vote on Account as to discuss the 100 and odd Votes which are required to deal with the Imperial expenses; and I would, therefore, earnestly press on the Committee the desirability of bringing
    1258
    this Debate on the Vote on Account to a conclusion, and of coming to the discussion of the Supplementary Esti mates. It is a new practice, and an inexpedient practice—a practice which I am sure I think the sense of the House ought to check—to raise these very large questions of policy on a Vote on Account; and I beg the hon. Member and other hon. Members not to pursue the course which unfortunately has been pursued by the hon. Member on the present occasion.
    MR. PICTON: Perhaps I may be allowed to say that I should be very sorry to refuse to yield to the right hon. Gentleman, if I felt I could, conscientiously do so; but, as I have already pointed out, the Vote is for about two months, and in the course of these two months there may be streams of bloodshed in that country through this insane policy of the Government. It is because of the danger we incur by postponing the consideration of this subject for two months that I am very anxious that the opinion of the Committee should be taken on it.
    MR. OSBORNE MORGAN: There is no doubt but that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House is quite right in what he has said as a general rule; but this is an exceptional case. Within two months it is more than probable, if the present policy is persisted in, Zululand will be deluged with bloodshed; and I cannot but think that, under the circumstances, my hon. Friend has made out a good case for departing from the general rule, and, therefore, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able at any rate to give some answer to the speech of my hon. Friend.
    THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Baron H. de WORMS,): I shall express no judgment on what may be the motive or intention of the hon. Gentleman in bringing forward this question, and I am sure I am expressing a view shared by the whole of the Committee in stating that the hon. Gentleman has put his case most fairly before the Committee, and without exaggeration or Party feeling. If the hon. Gentleman were correct in his premises,

    1259
    undoubtedly his conclusion would be justified; but I think I shall be able to show in a few words that there are no grounds for his apprehensions. I was glad to see that the hon. Member did not allude to a pamphlet which has been widely circulated amongst the Members of this House, and on which I cannot help thinking the principal and main charge against Her Majesty's Government rests. In common with many Members of this House I have received a copy of this pamphlet from Miss Colenso, the title of which is called Fresh Troubles in Zululand. I was glad to observe that the hon. Member said that the condition of Zululand is peaceful and prosperous. [Mr. PICTON: Most peaceful.] I am able to confirm on the best possible authority that the condition of Zululand is absolutely peaceful and prosperous. The Revenue has been steadily increasing since the annexation. There is now a balance of more than £20,000 to the good. The hut tax is paid regularly. There is very little crime—in fact, no serious crime whatever. Now, I ask in what way can such a statement as is made and contained in Fresh Troubles in Zululand be justified? This circular was sent to every Member of the House of Commons; on the margin is written, "For consultation on 17th March." It contains translations of letters in the Zulu language, and nobody can doubt that this circular in English will be translated into the Zulu language and transmitted to Zululand. If trouble ensues in Zululand, though it is now in a most peaceful condition, it will be in a great measure due to the action of persons like Miss Colenso, who act with the freedom and recklessness of absolute irresponsibility. I had occasion last year to speak of the course pursued by Miss Colenso in severe terms; and in the responsible position which I have the honour to occupy in this House I repeat that condemnation of her action, and do not hesitate to affirm that documents such as she has circulated here to-day, when transmitted to Zululand, are more likely to bring about trouble there than any possible action of Her Majesty's Government. I think that I shall be able to show
    1260
    to the satisfaction of the hon. Member and of the Committee that the statements set forth in this circular are utterly misleading, and, more than that, absolutely untrue. In the first place this circular states—
    "The two letters appear to me to represent a serious situation. They show fresh evictions of the rightful inhabitants of Northern Zulu-land"—the district to which the hon. Member refers—"in favour of Usibepu's people—i.e., they show Mr. Osborn still adhering to the policy he has pursued since 1880—the hateful policy of setting tribe against tribe; of forcing Usibepu, as an authority, into a district which detests him; a policy which must result in many murders, judicial and others; and which means the expulsion or extermination of a large portion of the inhabitants. My latest information is a report from European sources in Natal that Usibepu's people are gathering together to go north, and that Usibepu goes with them. Usibepu is quietly at Eshowe."
    This is absolutely without foundation. The information received at the Colonial Office, and which is certainly derived from an authority quite equal to that from which this irresponsible statement is derived, as recently as the 7th of this month, is as follows:—
    "It appears that not a single eviction has taken place, nor will any eviction be necessary, if the Usutu people affected by the location boundaries abide by the arrangements made for their own benefit by the Commission in September last. Usibepu is quietly at Eshowe."
    Judging, however, by the fact that a rumour of Dinizulu's return was persistently spread in Zululand, and that some of the Usutu party showed a disinclination to accept the authority of the British Government, it was feared that they were being encouraged to reject the logic of accomplished facts in the hope of again establishing the Zulu Kingdom under Dinizulu. Her Majesty's Government denies that Mr. Osborn is antagonistic to the Usutu party; but, in any case, that accusation cannot be brought against Colonel Cardew; and they must decline to accept the statements of irresponsible persons, who are not even resident in Zululand, in preference to their own responsible officers. I need not say that that information was derived from a source in which Her Majesty's Government are justified in placing every confidence. As a matter of fact, there is no present intention of restoring Usibepu to the territory which he has left, [Mr. PICTON: Or his retainers?]

    1261
    No; I can only refer the hon. Gentleman to an answer I gave a short time since to a question put by the hon. Member for Rugby. He asked me distinctly whether, speaking of the Secretary of State's letter, dated 17th January, 1892, in which it was stated that his Lordship had recently intimated, not for the first time, that he was not prepared to entertain the restoration of Usibepu to the Ndwandwe district, he had now any intention of restoring Usibepu or of allowing him to return to that district; and if, before restoring him or allowing him to return, sufficient notice would be given to afford an opportunity of the subject being discussed in Parliament. The answer I gave on the 15th February to this question was—
    "In reply to the first paragraph of the hon. Member's question, I have to say that the Secretary of State has not changed his intention with regard to Usibepu since the date of the letter of the 7th January, to which the hon. Member refers."
    I was then asked a further question as to the attitude of the Secretary of State in July, 1887, with respect to the restoration of Usibepu, and in answer I said—
    "I cannot add anything to the answer I have given. The Secretary of State is not aware of any change of policy, and since the date of the letter referred to, the 7th January, no change has taken place."
    MR. CUNINGHAME GRAHAM: Will the two Chiefs who were supposed to be adherents of Usibepu be restored?
    BARON H. DE WORMS: I do not think the question arises. The question before the House is as to Usibepu.
    MR. CUNINGHAME GRAHAM: Turn from that question.
    BARON H. DE WORMS: No. Usibepu is the only person to whom this discussion relates. I do not think anything could be clearer, more distinct, or more categorical, than the statement I made on behalf of my noble Friend the Secretary of State. I have nothing to add to that statement, and therefore I can only say that the whole question raised by the hon. Member for Leicester seems to me to be based
    1262
    on false premises put forward in the circular to which I have referred, and which I cannot condemn in sufficiently strong terms; and I hope the assurance which I have given to the hon. Member will sufficiently prove to him that no change of policy has taken place; that there is no present intention of restoring Usibepu to the territory which he has left; and that, therefore, the fears of the hon. Member are not justified by fact, and have grown out of information given by irresponsible persons.
    MR. PICTON: Would the right hon. Gentleman say if the six or seven hundred military retainers who were associated with Usibepu are going back to the Ndwandwe district?
    BARON H. DE WORMS: I can say that there is not the slightest present intention of restoring Usibepu or any of his followers.
    DR. CLARK: I think the answer of the right hon. Gentleman is very satisfactory as far as it goes, but I think he is scarcely accurate in his facts. In 1886 Sir Henry Holland, the Secretary of State, now Lord Knutsford, made a similar statement in reference to Usibepu, that there was no intention on the part of the Government to restore him; but, unfortunately, in 1887 or 1888 he was restored. Then you had civil war, and Usibepu had to be taken out of that district of Ndwandwe and is now in the Reserve where I hope he will be kept. I do not know what the source of that statement is in reference to the Zulus, but I do not think it is accurate. I believe the Zulu people are as law-abiding a people as any people in the word; and if you do not interfere with them, and allow their Chiefs to rule them, you will have no trouble at all. I have not seen this circular of Miss Colenso's that the right hon. Gentleman has replied to; but what I want some information about is a despatch I saw from John Bramston in December 1891, in reference to this territory. In this special district there has been a Commission appointed, and you are going to turn the adherents of the King's party out of 22 kraals or villages,

    1263
    and you are going to turn the followers of Usibepu out of 56 other villages, and you are going to move them from one district into another, and you are re-partitioning them and making a new arrangement. The feeling of attachment to the soil, and the place where they were born, is very strong among the people in Zululand; and trouble may be caused by removing the inhabitants of 56 villages of Usibepu, as is intended, to the territory of a brother of Usibepu, who was loyal to Cetewayo and the National Party in Zululand, and killed by his brother in 1883 during the "Kilkenny Cat" fights. Usibepu, who is an able and brave man, a man with considerable force of character and intelligence, was carving out a position for himself, and he would have replaced Cetewayo and the whole family of Cetewayo by a new dynasty; and yet, even in this very territory, the people are quite content, and you are going to disturb them by clearing away 56 of the villages on one side and 22 on the other. And what is the need of it? Mr. Bramston says—
    "It is believed that of both classes a certain number of kraals will prefer to konza to (recognise) the local Chief or head man rather than move."
    That is not the way to make Zululand prosperous and get your hut tax paid. This is simply the way to meddle and muddle. This new policy has returned with the return of Mr. Osborn. Have the Government got no wise statesmanlike policy to carry out there? Are they going to carry on a hand-to-mouth policy with Usibepu, or are they going to do something to settle matters finally there? As I said last year, and as I say again now, I think the only wise course to adopt in order to settle the question is to get Zululand outside the hands of the Colonial Office altogether. The great bulk of the Zulu people are in Natal now. They are troublesome in Natal, and may cause trouble there. The best thing to do is to get the Zulu people back again into Zululand, where there is plenty of land for everybody. Let the district of Natal comprise the whole of Zululand. I have no confidence at all in Downing Street. They
    1264
    do one thing to-day and another tomorrow. It is this policy of drift, of blowing hot and cold, that has done all the harm in Zululand, and that has decimated the Zulu people. While you keep these three Chiefs in St. Helena you will prevent a settlement. Why cannot you do what I urged last year—send the three Chiefs back to Zululand under certain conditions? I believe if you do that, and get someone to loyally carry out your wishes, you will have no trouble at all. Miss Colenso is here fighting for the cause of the Zulu people, the same people as her father fought for. Well, Sir, I say that while you keep Dinizulu and his two uncles and the other Chiefs there, you will prevent any settlement. Why do you not do what I advocated last year—send back the young King and Usibepu under certain conditions; and if you do that and have someone there loyal to you, to carry out your wishes, there will be no trouble at all, especially if you are going to give responsible government to Natal. All the trouble would then cease, and Miss Colenso would resume her labours at Natal and cease to trouble the Colonial Office. Now as to the grounds of economy. The three men were a hat—well, not a hat, it was rather a ring—to show that they were men and married men. Their rings or hats were worn out, and they wanted to get them replaced, and with their ideas, the refusal to provide new ones helps to keep up the irritation. I hope and trust that the right hon. Gentleman and his Colleagues in the Government will look at this question from a statesmanlike point of view, and will come to a settlement of the matter at the present time, especially in view of the fact that responsible government is going to be given to Natal.
    MR. OSBORNE MORGAN: I am glad the right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies has had the opportunity of making the statement which he has made on the part of the Government, but I must say a word or two about his remarks concerning Miss Colenso. It may be possible that

    1265
    Miss Colenso has indulged in a certain amount of exaggeration; but we must remember that she acts from the highest philanthropic motives. I have never known a more generous or disinterested woman in my life. She is, moreover, carrying out the trust bequeathed to her by her father, a man who devoted—nay, sacrificed—his life to these poor Zulus. Indeed, I would go further and say that I think it is desirable, in dealing with Colonial matters, that there should be somebody who really understands the natives, and who is willing to take upon himself or herself the task of helping to enlighten this House from their point of view. In fact, we are all too apt to look at these questions through official spectacles. At the same time I thank the right hon. Gentleman for saying that Usibepu is not to be sent back. He is a dangerous man. He is a man of great force of character, and, above all, he is a bitter opponent of the Usutos, who naturally look on Cetewayo's son very much as the Jacobites regarded their "King over the water." But I go further, and say that his followers are imbued with the same spirit, and that if they are sent back to the north-east part of Zululand there will be a war of vendetta. I am very glad, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman has promised that neither Usibepu nor his adherents will be sent back. But, at the same time, I am bound to say that my hon. Friend (Mr. Picton) had a perfect right to bring this matter before the Committee. Having said that, and having had the explanation from the right hon. Gentleman, I should, suggest—of course, my hon. Friend will take his own course—that he need not press this matter further. I would also mention one other point, and it is this: whether it would not be possible now, after two or three years have passed, to re-consider the very severe sentence which was passed on Dinizulu?
    MR. PICTON: Before I withdraw my Motion I would just like to say this one word. Let us have a clear understanding. I understood the Under Sectretary of State to say distinctly that the Government have no
    1266
    intention of sending back Usibepu to the north-eastern district of Zululand, nor have they any intention of sending back his military retainers. There are some 600 or 700 of them, I believe. I understand him to say that there is no intention of sending them back or allowing them to go back.
    BARON H. DE WORMS: Hear, hear!
    MR. PICTON: Very well. Then, so far as I am concerned, I am content to withdraw the Motion. But just one word more about the criticisms passed on Miss Colenso. I must say, as my hon. Friend has well said, that that lady has inherited from her father, a man of missionary, of apostolic spirit, his feeling of enthusiasm for these people. Well, if the right hon. Gentleman is correct, and if she has made some mistake in her authorities, was it right of him to speak of her devotion to these people in the way in which he did speak of it. I do think, Sir, that it was scarcely the right thing for the Under Secretary of State to do.
    BARON H. DE WORMS: I only wish to say a word in reply to what has just fallen from the hon. Gentleman. I do not reflect in any way on the motives or the objects of the lady. All I said was that I thought her action was ill-advised. This is not my view alone; but it was held also by Gentlemen who have filled the same office before me in other Administrations.
    MR. WEBB: It is not our fault that we have to discuss this subject at this time: I wish to protest against the language used by the right hon. Gentleman concerning Miss Colenso. Her action has been characterised as reckless; but if the assumptions of the right hon. Gentleman were carried out, no one but officials would be allowed to take part in the Government of dependencies. It has been our sad experience that in dealing with these countries officials have been invariably inclined to back up an aggressive policy; and that whenever abuses

    1267
    have been laid open and this Parliament has been called to its duty, it has generally been done by outsiders who have had no official connection with the Government. Unfortunately, we Irishmen have too much reason to know this in our own experience. A person like Miss Colenso is often likely to be more accurately informed than officials in such matters, and instead of blaming her I think the whole nation is under a deep debt of gratitude to her. It is, however, satisfactory to have had the assurance which we have had from the Under Secretary of State. But with the map in our hands, and our knowledge of the manner in which the country is being chopped up and divided among various tribes, we cannot but regard the position of affairs as extremely dangerous. We trust that matters will go on well, but we are not entirely satisfied. I would ask the House to remember the opinion of the Bishop of Zululand with regard to the present condition of things. Hon. Members will find it in the London Guardian of 24th February. In it he pointed out that we broke up the old laws, customs, and arrangements of these people, and put nothing in their place. The assurances we have had, however, from the right hon. Gentleman are to a certain extent satisfactory; but as regards Miss Colenso, nothing will persuade the philanthropic people of this country but that her action has been for the best for those people and also for the honour of this country. I agree with my hon. Friends regarding the treatment of these poor men at St Helena. We believe that it has been, and is, in many respects, harsh and unnecessary, and we all hope they will soon be sent home and used as a means of good to their own country instead of embittering feeling by their continued detention.
    MR. COBB: I wish to make sure, Sir, that there should be no mistake about the statement which the right hon. Gentleman has made. He was good enough to refer to a question I asked him on 15th February as to the return of Usibepu, and he said quite
    1268
    clearly then that there was no, idea of his return. But I asked him also whether the exclusion of. Usibepu would extend to the men who had acted solely under his orders, and, the reply of the right hon. Gentleman was—"The answer to the Second paragraph of the question is in the negative"—meaning, as I understood, that he would not pledge himself then that the exclusion of Usibepu would not extend to his followers. I understand now that it will include the exclusion of his followers. If I am not right in that opinion, perhaps we shall have it quite clearly stated now.
    MR. CUNINGHAME GRAHAM: There is one question I should like to ask, and that is—as to the refugees at St. Helena?
    BARON H. DE WORMS: The action taken by Miss Colenso, and others who share her views, is not to the advantage of the refugees, and Cannot forward the views which they entertain as to their return. I explained to the hon. Member for Leicester that we could not recognise the position assumed by the friends of Dinizulu, that he would be able to return to Zululand as King. I must remind the hon. Gentleman that Zululand is annexed to the British Crown. So long as mete is this talk, about Dinizulu and, the Kingship, so long is it imperative that he should not be allowed to return.
    MR. PRITCHARD MORGAN: I wish to call attention to the separation of Northern and Southern Queensland.
    THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! The question is that the Amendment, by leave, be withdrawn.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    Original Question again proposed.
    DR. CLARK: I wish to get some information about two little conflicts we have hair in Pahang. I am told that the cause of the trouble is that since we annexed, or, rather, took Pahang under our Protectorate, the natives: have been losing their lands. They are being dispossessed in favour of European

    1269
    Companies and the Chinese. I do not know whether that is true. I want to know the cause of the troubles; whether the Sultan is on our side, and if the troubles will soon pass away?
    BARON H. DE WORMS: The troubles, as the hon. Member has inferred, are very trifling, and will soon pass away.
    MR. PRITCHARD MORGAN: I wish to call attention to the desire of the people in the northern part of Queensland to have the Colony divided into two parts. The matter has been ventilated in the Legislative Assembly in Brisbane. Sir J. Griffith and Sir T. McIlwraith both expressed a desire that the Colony should be divided.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I would ask you, Sir, whether it is in Order to raise a question of this kind, which does not come upon the Vote at all, and over which the Colonial Secretary has no power at all?
    THE CHAIRMAN: I was watching to hear how the hon. Member would connect this with the Colonial Office, but so far as he has gone it is merely a domestic question in Queensland.
    MR. PRITCHARD MORGAN: With great deference I submit it is a question which would come within the province of the House, as the Home Government alone has power to separate the Colony into two or more parts.
    THE CHAIRMAN: I am not aware that the Colonial Office has been approached by the Government.
    MR. PRITCHARD MORGAN: With great respect I venture to assert that the Colonial Office has been approached.
    BARON H. DE WORMS: Only in the form of a representation made to the Secretary of State. In the event of matters assuming a tangible form the matter would have to be dealt with by Bill, which would be subject to the veto of the Crown. No such step has taken place.
    MR. PRITCHARD MORGAN: That being so, I take it that I have a right to ask whether it is the
    1270
    intention of the Government to accede to the request of a very large proportion of the people?
    THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman is not entitled to proceed upon that topic. If the Colonial Office had been formally appealed to to take certain action and had declined, then the conduct of the Office could be discussed; but a domestic question of this kind cannot be discussed.
    MR. MORTON: I desire to call attention to Vote 23.
    MR. PRITCHARD MORGAN: With great respect I submit that the course of debate is one almost unprecedented in the House.
    THE CHAIRMAN: It is not the function of the hon. Member to discuss this matter. Has the hon. Member anything to say on this question?
    MR. MACNEILL: Am I justified in asking the Colonial Under Secretary a question as regards the taking of land in the Falkland Islands? The right hon. Gentleman will recollect that I brought rather a serious charge in regard to the management of the lands of the Islands. The people alleged that they were being kept out of the land. They wanted security of tenure. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman can give the Committee some information on the subject.
    BARON H. DE WORMS: I have not received notice, and I can only give the answer which I gave to the hon. Gentleman on the 18th February. I have received no information since that answer.
    MR. MACNEILL: I raise this question, as the answer was not so full as I wished.
    BARON H. DE WORMS: It would be impossible for me to amplify it without drawing largely on my imagination. The hon. Member asked me—
    "Whether the Secretary of State for the Colonies has received several Petitions and Memorials from the inhabitants of the Falkland Islands urging that as the leases of Crown lands for gracing purposes are now

    1271
    falling in, provision should be made that no individual or company should hold land exceeding a certain definite limit; whether he can inform the House of the circumstances tinder which an Ordinance was passed by the legislative Council on the 9th September, 1890, authorising the sale of certain lands; what was the constitution of the Council on that occasion; and whether, having regard to the fact that the present Governor, Sir R. Goldsworthy, possesses the confidence of the Colonists, the Secretary of State for the Colonies will grant the inquiry which has been so frequently demanded into the administration of the affairs of the Falkland Islands?"
    My reply was—
    "The Secretary of State has received one Petition, but not several Petitions, from certain inhabitants of Stanley in the Falkland Islands, alleging that the holders of leases of Crown lands for grazing purposes are occupying more land than is comprised in their leases, some of which are falling in, but are subject to rights of renewal, and praying that such surplus land may be secured for the benefit of Colonists other than the existing lessees. The object of the Ordinance, which was passed on 2th December, 1890, was to enable the Government to sell to the Falkland Island Company certain lands, of which they were lessees at the rate of 3s. per acre, instead of 4s. per acre, the rate fixed by a previous Ordinance as the selling price of country lands. The Council consisted pf the Governor, the Colonial Secretary, the Colonial Surgeon, and two unofficial members, Messrs. Cobb and Felton. The statement of the hon. Member in the concluding portion of his question, that the Governor possesses the confidence of the Colonists, disposes of his suggestion that an inquiry into the administration of the Colony is necessary."
    MR. MACNEILL: I would like to ask one question of very serious interest. The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well my opinion that these lands are sold to a Monopolist Company at 3s. per acre, whereas they are sold at 4s. an acre to others. The right, hon. Gentleman knows that two-thirds of the Council are official members, and the gentleman who is not an official member is a member of this Falkland Islands Land Company, which enjoys a monopoly. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies a question in reference to this matter. I would ask him whether Lord Knutsford has signified that this Ordinance is simply a packet transaction? I know the weight of what I am saying, having regard to the responsibility of my position. I am responsible to my constituents—I am responsible for my own honour—
    1272
    in any charge I make. I state, from information that has come to me, and from information in possession of the Colonial Office, that this monopolist Company has endeavoured to take the land from these people, and that the late Governor gave the monopolist Company this land. I move a reduction of the hon. Gentleman's salary by £50, with as much for two years. I have brought this matter before the House and have received no satisfaction. The people of those Islands are in great want and misery, they have an ample opportunity, if only permitted, of working out their land and of truly earning an honest livelihood.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Item, Colonial Office, be reduced by £50."—(Mr. MacNeill.)
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I would like to point out the position in which we stand. It is absolutely necessary to finish this Vote and to finish the Scotch Vote to-night, I do not deny that the hon. Member who has just sat down (Mr. MacNeill) has raised a question of considerable interest. I do not object to that, and I am certainly not going to say that he has raised it in the way of obstructing in any way the proceedings of the House. I hope the hon. Gentleman will accept that disclaimer on my part.
    MR. MACNEILL: Do not make the suggestion about obstruction.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not make any such suggestion.
    MR. MACNEILL: I hope not.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Vote on Account may be interrupted even by matters which are in conformity with the strict Rules of Order, although not in conformity with the propriety of Debate in this House.
    MR. MACNEILL: I have done nothing wrong, and I shall not be lectured by the right hon. Gentleman.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It is possible for us to go on not for one or two hours but for weeks upon every subject on which discussion might arise; at the same time it is perfectly impossible on those principles to get through, any business at all. Business of far greater importance still awaits our discussion

    1273
    this evening, and must be decided before we part to-night or to-morrow morning. Under these circumstances, though I am very reluctant to do so, and would like, so far as I am concerned, to absolve myself from all responsibility in the matter, I beg to move that the Question be now put.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The question is one with regard to which I would invite hon. Members to consider their own position. It must be obvious to hon. Members that there are serious questions on this Vote on Account which hon. Members would be debarred from raising if any hon. Member rakes up anything which lurks in some corner of his memory. Though I do not propose to put the Question to the Committee, I shall be compelled to put it if this course is persisted in.
    MR. SEXTON: I have listened with care to the judicious and carefully-worded appeal which has been addressed to the Committee, and I fully appreciate the importance of what you, Sir, have said. It would be not only extremely difficult but practically impossible to discuss the Vote on Account without any regard to the convenience of the House, or the time that we are to devote to other things urgent and necessary. I submit that my hon. Friend (Mr. MacNeill), in the brief observations which he made, did not lay himself open to such language from the First Lord of the Treasury. But I am delighted to find that he disclaims having meant to convey any offence. I make no complaint generally of the tone and substance of the speech, although it is open to some slight comment. The moral to be drawn from the speech of the First Lord of the Treasury is not so much that the discussion on the Vote on Account is inconvenient, but that the Vote on Account is a novel and indefensible mode of procedure. When I first came to this House, twelve years ago, the Government were content to take Supply in the usual form. They obtained their money in regular course, and by ordinary discussion. The whole thing is a matter of arrangement, and if the Government had done what they should have done a little earlier, it would have been
    1274
    possible to have taken Supply in the ordinary course. It is rather hard, after the Government have grossly mismanaged their business, to find that all other questions on the Vote on Account must be left out, and that the Government will not allow hon. Members to take the first opportunity that arises for bringing up these questions. But I would advise hon. Members to limit themselves to-night to what is necessary and urgent. I have now made up my mind, seeing the Scotch Members have been so much put in the background, that I shall deal with these questions on the Report of Supply.
    MR. MUNRO FERGUSON: The position of the Government is indefensible on this occasion.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The Question now before the Committee is the reduction of the Colonial Post Office Vote.
    MR. CONYBEARE: I desired to raise the question with respect to the administration of Sierra Leone. I would point out to the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury that I am perfectly willing to give up my right to bring forward a discussion on a matter of that kind now if he will undertake that we shall have a reasonable opportunity at some later period of discussing this matter. Unfortunately, those Votes on Account are run through Session after Session, and the discussion is not brought on until the end of the Session, and then we are told it is impossible to give any attention to these matters. That is the reason why we have, on the other hand, on other occasions found it necessary to claim our rights from the beginning. I claim that we should have a proper opportunity, if not to-night, at some later period, when we can properly discuss these matters and bring them properly forward. While forgeoing our rights on this occasion we shall have a claim on the consideration of the right hon. Gentleman in the future.
    SIR JOHN SWINBURNE: I would ask the right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for the Colonies whether he is aware that the shareholders in the

    1275
    Council of the Falkland Islands are shareholders in this great land monopoly—a great landed company which holds these islands year after year?
    BARON H. DE WORMS: I can give no information on that point.
    MR. MACNEILL: I have raised this question thoroughly in earnest, and in the interests of the people of those islands; and if there was a shadow of an imputation—
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: There was no such imputation.
    MR. MACNEILL: I am glad to hear there was no such imputation against my bona fides. I always desire to consult the wishes of the Committee, and I will, Mr. Courtney, accede to your suggestion and withdraw my Motion, because I esteem you very highly, both personally and officially.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Original Question again proposed.
    MR. MUNRO FERGUSON: I would like to ask the First Lord of the Treasury who is charged with the interests of Scottish agriculture on the Board of Agriculture since we lately lost Sir James Caird? Some resolutions have been passed by the Highland and Agricultural Society in favour of having some representation of Scotland at the Board of Agriculture. We have a most important Bill now before the House with reference to small holdings, and there are some provisions of that Bill which would never have been introduced by anyone who had a knowledge of agriculture in Scotland. I would like to know who has charge of the interests of Scotland at the Board of Agriculture?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: My right hon. Friend the Minister for Agriculture is not in his place in the House to-night, but, in his absence, I shall endeavour to give the hon. Member a satisfactory answer. I received a Petition from the Highland and Agricultural Society of Scotland, of which I am a very old member myself, with regard to the representation of Scotland on the Board of Agriculture, and I ventured to point out to that Society that
    1276
    the Board of Agriculture was not a Board in the ordinary sense of the word, that it was only a Board in the sense in which the Local Government Board and the Board of Trade are Boards; it is not managed by a Committee on which there are representatives, but that it is managed by a single Minister, who is responsible directly to Parliament. If there were Scotchmen on the Board because of their being Scotchmen, and on account of their knowledge of agriculture, the responsible Minister of the day would be obliged to look at agricultural matters through their eyes, and through their eyes alone. As the constitution of the Board stands at present the Minister for Agriculture may be a Scotchman, an Englishman, an Irishman, or a Welshman, and it would be his business, as responsible to Parliament for the Agriculture of England, Scotland, Wales, and Ireland, to take the advice of those persons best qualified to give him advice upon the special circumstances with which he has to deal. I do not think the Board would be better constituted if they had a subordinate official supposed to represent Scotland in regard to agriculture. I can assure my hon. Friend that the Minister of Agriculture has the interest of Scotch agricultural, matters fully at heart, and has at his disposal the best advice with reference to any matters affecting agriculture in Scotland, or England, Wales, or Ireland which may at any time arise.
    MR. MORTON: The matter to which I wish to call attention, and of which I have given notice of a reduction of the Vote in regard to, is the contract for the Report of the Parliamentary Debates and Proceedings. I called attention to this matter on the 16th of July of last Session, and we had a Debate more or less important at that time on the matter; but I regret very much, considering the position we were in then—namely, that the contract was to come to an end, and that the Government were bound under the special circumstances to find a further contractor—I am sorry that more interest was not taken in the matter at that time, because we could have considered it, perhaps, better then than we can do at the

    1277
    present moment, the hands of he Government being at the time quite free and unfettered with regard to the contract. My attention has specially been called to this matter by the terms of the contract. When we were discussing the matter last year the Financial Secretary to the Treasury said—
    "The Government will, of course, invite further tenders, and will endeavour to select some firm who, as far as we can judge, is perfectly competent to perform the work in a satisfactory manner. Beyond that it is quite impossible for me to give any pledge in the matter."
    I do not wish to say anything specially against Renter's Company, who have undertaken the contract, nor to contrast that company with the preceding company which did the work; but what I wish to say most distinctly is that, as far as I can understand, this company is not very likely to do the work in such a satisfactory manner as was stated by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. They have taken the contract at £200 per volume, and I believe the Government purchase, besides that, 100 sets at five guineas per annum. So far as I can understand, and after consulting with what may be considered the views of experts, I am told distinctly that this work cannot be produced for less than £350 per volume, and therefore, if that work, which costs £350 per volume, is only paid for at the rate of £200 per volume, someone must suffer. In the common language it is said there is a species of sweating going on. As far as I can understand, at the present moment, with one exception, the old staff who used to do the work have refused to do the work on the terms and conditions laid down by the present Company, and it is undertaken by other men, who have to work such a number of hours, 12 or 14 hours per day to get the work done, that we are perhaps quite right in saying it is a species of sweating. I see by the terms of the contract, and I give that, of course, as my reason for bringing this forward to-night—and I may mention it is a matter of urgency—I see by the terms of the contract that it is taken nominally for three years;
    1278
    that the contract may be brought to an end at any time on certain conditions; and also may be put an end to at the end of the Session by cither party giving a month's notice without any reasons whatever. Therefore, we are in this position—if the Committee chooses, this contract may be put an end to at the end of the present Session without in any way breaking the terms or conditions of the contract. So far as I am personally concerned, I object to the system of contracting altogether in this way. I have carefully read the evidence taken by the Committee in 1888, and, strange to say, the conclusion the Members of that Committee came to, with the exception of the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool, was entirely in favour of the work being done by ourselves instead of being contracted for in the manner which now prevails. There has been a complaint made which I should like to have some explanation in regard to. It is said that when particulars were issued for the tenders, it was practically understood that there should not be advertisements allowed on the daily issue. As a matter of fact advertisements are now issued. I noticed on the covers of one of the issues an advertisement commencing on one side "Notice, Buffalo Bill," and on the other side an advertisement with regard to Irish whiskey. Some of the parties who tendered for this work complain that they understood, as I believe everybody understood except those contractors who got the work, that they were not to be allowed to advertise on the covers of these daily issues. That is a matter, I think, we have a right to demand an explanation in regard to, because, it might happen that a tendering contractor might be told of this question of advertising on the covers before he sent his tender in, and that would of course allow him to send in a lower tender than other parties. I would ask the Government to appoint another Committee to consider on a very early day in this Session, the question of this reporting altogether. The feeling is, I think, against our present system so far as I can understand, and I believe we are

    1279
    the solitary country which adopts this system of reporting by contract. In nearly every other case it is done by the House, and copies are issued to the Members. I would ask the Government to consider whether they will consent to the appointment of a Committee to re-consider this question altogether during the present Session, so that, if the House likes, they may terminate the present contract at the end of the Session, and make a different arrangement altogether. I daresay I shall be met with the answer that another arrangement will cost a little more money; but, to have the work done properly, I am willing to consent, so far as I am personally concerned, to the spending of a little more money. And there are other items of printing on which we could make a saving, so that we could meet the additional expenditure in that way. I move the reduction of the Vote by £50, and would ask the Government for particulars with respect to the advertising, and whether they will consent to have the Committee re-appointed to reconsider the whole question of the Parliamentary Debates?
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Item for Stationery and Printing be reduced by £50."—(Mr. Morton.)
    THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Sir J. GORST,): The advertisement of tenders for the contract in this case was exactly the same as in previous years. The contractor is only bound to provide the daily issues without covers, but there is no prohibition, either expressed or understood, to prevent him, if he likes, putting covers on the issues, and if he does that he may put advertisements on the covers. The present contractor does exactly what the previous one did without any objection being made. I can assure the hon. Member there has been no favouritism in the contract, that no notice was given to any contractor to tender for the contract, and they were all allowed to do what they liked. I would also assure the hon. Member that there is no sweating of any kind.
    1280
    This contract is like all contracts made by the Government. There was a Resolution past by the House last Session, and, before the present contractor took the contract, the Comptroller of Stationery informed him that he would have to perform certain things, and received from him the assurance that the spirit of this Resolution should be complied with.
    MR. MORTON: Does that apply to the reporters?
    SIR J. GORST: The contract is nominally for three years, as the hon. Member has pointed out, but it can be terminated for cause shown at the end of any Session by giving one month's notice. More than that, the contract specifies that the work shall be done satisfactorily, and if the Controller of the Stationery Office is of opinion that the contract is not satisfactorily performed, and that the contractor does not comply with the assurances he has given and the understanding under which the contract was entered into, the contract may be put an end to at any time. The hon. Member complains of the reporting. I have not received a single complaint from any hon. Member as to the way the reporting is done.
    MR. MORTON: It is the system of reporting that I complained of.
    SIR J. GORST: It seems to me it is rather early—little more than a month—to judge of the way in which the contract is carried out, and it is somewhat premature for the House to appoint a Committee to consider the question. I would suggest that we should wait until we have had a little more experience of the present system, and if then it is ascertained that it is the general feeling of the House that a Committee should be appointed to consider what should be done in future Sessions, I am sure such a wish would be favourably considered by the Government. But I think it would be rather premature to appoint a Committee at the present moment, and the Government cannot consent to such a course.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: Nobody can deny that this is a matter which it was absolutely necessary to bring before the

    1281
    House, as there are objections to the present system. On the Committee on Reporting I voted against an official Report, but I have since modified my opinion, and I think it is most desirable that there should be some sort of official Report. When the Committee had reported it was arranged that the then Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Jackson) should put out contracts in order to obtain a firm ready to accept the conditions. At that time the Hansard Union was anxious to issue a large amount of shares, and they took the contract gratis. As I said then, the right hon. Gentleman ought to have known perfectly well that a firm does not agree to do work gratis without hoping to get back the money it loses in some other fashion. What was the result? The result was that the firm of Macrae, Curtis, and Co. and other firms were converted into the Hansard Union; they brought out a vast capital; and the conclusion of the matter hon. Members can read in the papers. But this is still sub judice.
    THE CHAIRMAN: That is really not relevant to this Vote.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: I was taking this as an example of what the Government have done. I will come to the present history now. They have done the same thing on the present occasion, and have taken the lowest contract that was offered, and did not trouble themselves to consider whether Messrs. Reuter could do the work for the money. They said: "Messrs. Reuter are ready to do the work at £200 a volume; other firms are not ready to do it for less, and so we will give it to Messrs. Reuter." Messrs. Reuter are not printers; they should have given the contract to a printer, and in selecting the printer they should have done one of two things—they should have asked some well-known printers what they would do the work for, or they should have estimated the cost, which they could easily do, added the trade profit, and given it to some respectable printer. My hon. Friend has made some complaint as to the advertisements, and the right hon. Gentleman said that Messrs. Reuter
    1282
    may put on a cover or they may not; the are not obliged to do so. The contract says—
    "The first edition shall be issued in daily parts, stitched, without covers."
    Messrs. Reuter, therefore, have no choice. One of the most prominent printers in London—I do not wish to give the name to the House, but I can toll hon. Members privately — was anxious to know whether this "without cover" proviso meant that advertisements were not to be allowed. They sent their representative to the Stationery Office to ask if that were so. He was officially told at the office that that was the meaning of the proviso. Now, of course, they had to contract under very different conditions to Messrs. Reuter, who, as soon as they had obtained the contract, were allowed to put on this cover with advertisements. Taking the number of advertisements in the "Debates" already issued, and the prices for them, it makes a difference of about £1,500 per annum; a very important matter. I say the principle firms in the Metropolis were unfairly treated when they were officially told that they might not have advertisements, while Messrs. Reuter were allowed to have them.
    SIR J. GORST: No complaint in the sense indicated by the right hon. Gentleman has reached the Treasury. I hear of it for the first time this evening, but if the complaint is made officially to the Treasury, I will certainly inquire into it.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: What would be the gain to the firm now that the contract has been made? They would be marked men. Will the Government annul the contract, and allow a new one to be made? I pledge my word that the firm I have referred to is one of the first and most respectable firms in London, but I do not think they would approve of going to the Treasury and making this complaint unless it is to be understood that they are to gain something by so doing.
    SIR J. GORST: I think, Sir, an accusation of so grave a nature should not be made unless the hon. Member is prepared to give the Treasury the name of the firm in question.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: Well, Mr. Courtney, the real fact is that the firm asked me not to give their name, but I will communicate with them, and no doubt they will consent to my giving it. It is desirable that we should pay a fair price for this work; I think my hon. Friend puts it too high when he suggests £350 a volume, but I assert it cannot be properly done at £200 a volume. The result is that it is badly done. Messrs. Reuter have at present in the Gallery a sort of superintendent and six reporters, who have to report a great deal more than the Times does, but the Times has 14 reporters. The House will, therefore, be able to judge whether Messrs. Reuter are doing the work efficiently when then have only six reporters, while the Times, which does less, has 14. When the report has not to be written out the same night it is not necessary for the reporters to succeed each other so rapidly as they do on a daily paper; but I am given to understand that these reporters have not the material time to write out themselves their shorthand notes fully, and, therefore, they have to hand them over to other people to transcribe. Anybody who knows anything about shorthand knows that when one man reports in shorthand and another writes it out, it is extremely likely that there will not be a very accurate report. Besides, we want in this House, reporters who will put our observations into decent English, for it often happens that our nominative and our verb are a little disconnected, the speaking in the House being frequently of a conversational character. If hon. Gentlemen will follow the speeches carefully they will find that there are certainly not six members in the House who, if reported verbatim, would be found to be speaking very good English. Therefore, we require very superior reporters in the Gallery. My chief complaint, however, is that the contract was given to Messrs. Reuter at all. What are Messrs. Reuter. A company has no soul so I can speak freely of them—they are a company.
    1284
    This company is a news agency company, which has added to its news agency a large advertising business. It is in connection with two other agencies—Woolf's Agency and the Havas Agency, and exchanges news telegrams with them. Both these agencies are subsidised, the former by the German Government and the latter by the French Government, and they have to submit all the news they send out to the censorship of their respective Governments. They are what Prince Bismarck called "reptile organs." It is easy to understand, therefore, that Messrs. Reuter, with these connections, and desiring to push their business, think it advantageous to be called the official reporters of Parliament. It is a great mistake, in order to avoid paying a fair price, to give the reporting to Messrs. Reuter, leaving them to make up what they lose on the reporting by the advantage of being called the official Parliamentary reporters. Under these circumstances I hope we shall receive some more satisfactory reply from the right hon. Gentleman. I do not much read my own speeches, but I have heard hon. Gentlemen complaining bitterly of the way the reporting is done, and I can say—knowing something of the business—that with this number of reporters it cannot be well done. I urge the right hon. Gentleman to look thoroughly into the matter, with a view to deciding, when the reporting has gone on for a month or two, whether the contract shall be terminated at the end of this Session or not.
    MR. MACLEAN: It seems to be the general feeling that some more satisfactory method of reporting the proceedings should be adopted, and I was very glad to hear from the Secretary to the Treasury that the Government is disposed to make further inquiry into the matter. I hope a definite pledge will be given that a Committee shall be appointed before the end of the Session to consider it. I will not go over the ground which has already been covered, but with respect to the question of sweating I would point out that the terms of the contract are—

    1285
    "The contractors shall have at all times when either House is sitting representatives in attendance capable of reporting in full when necessary; but, subject to this condition, they shall be at liberty to obtain their reports from such sources as they may think most convenient."
    That means that they can take the greater part of their report from the daily papers. Messrs. Renter are not bound—as one would expect—to maintain a staff of ten reporters of almost uniform excellence, but they may have ten men of different degrees of skill in reporting, and if they are at any time in a difficulty they can save themselves trouble by appropriating the reports of the Times or any other paper. With respect to the advertisements, I think the Treasury is adopting a moan and very shabby line in trying to save expense by allowing advertisements to be connected with official publications. I am sure the country would not grudge the expenditure of any proper sum of money to ensure that the reports shall be made in proper and decent form. But if we are to go on saving expense by advertisements, we shall soon have a hoarding covered with posters round Palace-yard, and Westminster Hall filled with costermongers' barrows for the sale of apples and oranges to Members of Parliament. I hope the Government will take a more magnanimous view of their duties in this respect, and not try to save a paltry sum by allowing these advertisements, which interfere with private trade and enable men to tender lower than other firms, and get work which they have not the proper means to carry out.
    MR. SEYMOUR KEAY: There is only one point I would like to refer to. I do not know whether the same system obtains under Messrs. Router as under Messrs. Hansard, but in communications I had with the latter firm I found that the contract for the reports in this House only provided that Members' speeches should be reported at one-third of their length. There was an explanation added that Cabinet Ministers and others, at the discretion of the reporters, were to be reported fully. It appears at the same time that, with regard to the Debates in the House of Lords, the contract was so worded that they had
    1286
    to give verbatim reports. It appears to me that there is an anomaly here, and I cannot see why, when public money is expended on the reports, a contract should be entered into whereby the speeches of Members of this House are only reported at one-third their length, while speeches in the House of Lords are reported verbatim. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will look into this matter.
    MR. MORTON: I do not desire to take up the time of the House, but I think I may reply to some of the observations of the right hon. Gentleman. He said I implied that the work of reporting was done badly. I did not say anything of the kind. I did not object to the way in which the work has been done, but to the system of reporting by contract at all. As to the advertisements it is clear by the contract that there are to be no advertisements. The contract provides for the issue of the Debates without covers, and covers have been allowed. Another part of the contract says that the contractors are not to connect this reporting with any other business; but, surely, the advertising is a different business altogether. The hon. Member asks me to read—
    "The contractors shall carry on their business as official reporters to the Houses of Parliament separately and altogether distinct from their general reporting and other business."
    I say the advertisement business is another business, and has nothing whatever to do with reporting the Debates of Parliament. I think the House is very nearly agreed on the matter, and I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to tell us distinctly whether he will consent to the appointment of a Committee in a reasonable time, so that their Report may be considered this Session.
    SIR J. GORST: If there should be a general wish on the part of the House for the appointment of a Committee the Government will consent to it.
    MR. HENEAGE: I hope a Committee will be appointed, for I have seen nothing more disgraceful than the difference between the speeches as they were made in the House and the speeches

    1287
    as they are reported. Last Session I never had to correct a speech, but this Session I had to go to Messrs. Reuter's chief, and I told him that I looked upon the report of my speeches as a perfect libel. The answer he gave was that he could not help it; it was not his fault; the old staff had refused to do the work, so he was compelled to engage an entirely fresh staff who were new to the work.
    DR. CLARK: I should like to ask if the contract only changes the name and not the system? I am informed, from a very good source, that Messrs. Macrae, Curtis & Co. are still doing the work.
    MR. KELLY: I would like to ask whether to this Committee would be referred the large question whether the reporting should be official or not? In Colonial Legislatures the reports are official reports, and each Member is reported verbatim. I do not think the public would gain much by having verbatim reports of the House of Commons. Many speeches of leading Members are reported verbatim in the daily papers, and I understand that the charge against Messrs. Reuter is that their reporters check their notes by these reports. There is no piracy in that. I can only say that as far as my experience goes I have been reported shortly this Session, though I do not complain of that. I cannot say that in my judgment the reporting by the present reporters is bad compared with that of other reporters. In my opinion, the reporting as at present done is vastly superior to that under the old system.
    MR. MORTON: On the understanding that there is a general wish for a Committee, and that the Government recognise that wish, I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    Original Question again proposed.
    DR. CAMERON: The other day I asked a question with respect to the most unsatisfactory state of matters in the Sheriff's Court in Airdrie, on the subject of which a Memorial has been addressed either to the Secretary for Scotland or to the late Lord Advocate by the local Faculty of Pro-
    1288
    curators. I asked, also, whether any further complaints had been received, since last Session, and I further asked what provision existed under the law of Scotland for the removal of Judges of Inferior Courts who had abused their office? The right hon. Gentleman (Sir C. J. Pearson) mentioned the Statutes which refer to the matter. Now it appears to me, when such charges are made by such a responsible body as the local Society of Solicitors—and I think the right hon. Gentleman will admit it—that a fair prima facie case is made out for an inquiry by the Judges. But the question arises, who is to set the Judges in motion? Must a discontented suitor apply to the Judges, or should application be made to the Secretary for Scotland or to the Lord Advocate? It appears to me the proper policy for the Secretary for Scotland to retain the power in his own hands, and that he should not leave it to outsiders to bring charges against the administration of justice. I wish to know who is the proper agent? Has the Lord Advocate nothing to do with it? Has the Secretary for Scotland nothing to do with it? Are these solicitors to go on holding meetings, and are they to get up another agitation? I will not mention the nature of the accusations mentioned in the Memorial against the Judge in question; but the right hon. Gentleman will find in the judicial statistics a table which shows the delays in the various Sheriffs' Courts between the close of the evidence and the delivery of judgments, and he will find that the instances of delay in the Sheriffs Court at Airdrie of more than 14 weeks is greater than are to be found in the aggregate in all the other Sheriffs' Courts in Scotland. The case, of the greatest delay was 160 weeks, whereas in no other Court was the delay more than 60 weeks or one year.
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Sir C. J. PEARSON,): It is not easy to discover what the complaint is against the Secretary for Scotland which the hon. Member has brought before the House. In the first place, let me say that the answer I gave will not bear the interpretation which he puts upon it. The answer I gave was that my

    1289
    predecessor received a Petition from the Procurators practising in the Airdrie Court; but I am not aware that that Petition was ever before, the Secretary for Scotland. My predecessor, on investigation, found that there was no case for a public inquiry, and so refused the petition. The Statute provides that a Sheriff Substitute is removable by the Secretary for Scotland, and by him alone, upon report from the two heads of the Court of Session. The Statute does not provide any special procedure which must be followed in carrying out the removal; but I am not aware that it is incompetent for any litigant or for any public body, such as the Procurators of the Court, to bring complaints before the Secretary for Scotland. The Statute suggests the Secretary for Scotland as the proper person to whom complaints should be addressed. I do not say this is the only method, but it is one of the methods. I believe there is only one case in which the Secretary for Scotland has been invoked, and that case is still under consideration. It only came up a few weeks ago, and it is quite a recent matter; therefore I shall not enter into it. The other matter referred to was the delay in the Sheriff's Court at Airdrie. I am not aware that any special complaint has been made of this, though I will admit that the judicial statistics do show, I think, in one case, a delay which is on the figures undue; but one is quite aware that these delays, as scheduled, require to be investigated in each case in order to find what the cause of delay was, and whether it was not proper and even necessary.
    MR. D. CRAWFORD: I am sorry to say that for two or three years past the number of complaints I have received on this subject has been more numerous than agreeable; but hitherto I have declined to bring the matter before the House, as I hoped that it might be settled in a more suitable manner and without undue publicity. It is very undesirable that the conduct of a Judge should be canvassed before the House of Commons; but I must say I think the Lord Advocate and the Government have treated these complaints
    1290
    too lightly. It is impossible for the Government to disclaim all interest in, and responsibility for, the administration of justice in that part of Scotland, as the right hon. Gentleman appears to do.
    SIR C. J. PEARSON: No; I do not.
    MR. D. CRAWFORD: I am glad I interpreted the right hon. Gentleman wrongly. I offer no opinion on the justice of the complaints which have been made; but I am sorry to say, distasteful as it may be, that confidence in the administration of justice in that part of Scotland is for the time completely undermined and destroyed. The position of the Sheriff in Scotland is one of great importance and responsibility, and I am happy to say that it is a unique case in which the relations of the Sheriffs and those amongst whom they administer justice have not been good. But in this case things have unfortunately come to such a pass that I do not think this Judge, supposing he can clear himself—which I hope he can—has anything to gain by an attempt to hush it up. I think the Government or the Secretary for Scotland ought to undertake an inquiry.
    SIR C. J. PEARSON: I stated that the Secretary for Scotland is in course of doing so.
    MR. D. CRAWFORD: I thought that inquiry was limited to some particular instance.
    SIR C. J. PEARSON: It is.
    MR. D. CRAWFORD: That inquiry is not what I refer to, and would not in the smallest degree satisfy the demands that have been made. The predecessor of the right hon. Gentleman on that Bench has placed this Judge where he is, and I think it is the duty of the Secretary for Scotland to take the advice of his Law Officers when a complaint is made that justice is badly administered, and if the Judge is guilty to remove him. It is the duty of the Government to inquire whether these allegations are true for the satisfaction of the people amongst whom this Judge administers law. It is a case that urgently calls for inquiry, and that inquiry must be instituted by Government.
    DR. CAMERON: I understand from the right hon. Gentleman that this Memorial has been received either by the Lord Advocate or by the Secretary for Scotland. It matters not which, but if the Secretary for Scotland were in his proper place—namely, in this House—there would be no possibility of his remaining in ignorance of matters to which the attention of the Lord Advocate or of the Government was directed by questions in this House. I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that inquiry is to be made by the Secretary for Scotland through the agency of the Judges of the Court of Session.
    SIR C. J. PEARSON: No; I said that complaint had been made and was under the consideration of the Secretary for Scotland, and that he is deciding whether he shall make an inquiry.
    DR. CAMERON: Will the Secretary for Scotland look into this Memorial making very grave allegations against the Judge in question? I know and have known all about it; but I have abstained, and my hon. Friend the Member for Lanark (Mr. Crawford) has abstained, as long as possible from moving in the matter. Since the Memorial of the Faculty of Procurators the Lord Advocate has told the that various further complaints have been received with regard to the Judge in question; but these are minor complaints of private individuals, and entirely behind in point of seriousness the complaint brought by the Faculty of Procurators. It is the duty of the Lord Advocate not to stand on his dignity and say that he has nothing to do with it, or that the Secretary for Scotland has nothing to do with it, but to take care that the Secretary for Scotland does know about the matter, and give him an opportunity of judging whether these statements are not of sufficient importance to justify a full and complete investigation.
    MR. ESSLEMONT: A few days ago the Lord Advocate, in answer to a question of mine, said that the Burgh Police and Health (Scotland) Bill, in which the Scotch people take great interest, would be introduced in the course of a few days. [Mr. A. J. BALFOUR:
    1292
    Hear, hear!] The Leader of the House says "Hear, hear," but more than a few days have elapsed since that promise was given.
    SIR C. J. PEARSON: Only an hour or two ago I handed in a Notice of this Bill.
    COLONEL NOLAN: On this matter may I mention the question of the Irish Fishery Board, and ask the Government whether they will consider the constitution of that Board? It is a question whether a more popular spirit might not be infused into that Board, or whether its constitution should not be altered, so as to more closely resemble that of the Scotch Fishery Board.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: There is a difference between the cases of Ireland and Scotland, as there is a difference between the Irish and Scotch Boards, but I will mention the matter to my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland. I hope the House will now be content with the discussion that we have had and will proceed with the business.
    MR. MUNROFERGUSON: I hope the Lord Advocate will give us some assurance that the addition of one Scotch Fishery cruiser is not intended as a final measure. There will not be sufficient protection for the Scotch Fisheries until three or four cruisers steering at least 12 knots an hour are placed in Scotch waters, each having a steam launch.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The question is one not so much for the Scotch Office as for the Admiralty. The hon. Gentleman will see that if four cruisers were placed in Scotch waters and the same percentage were given to England and Ireland, this would entail a very large increase in expenditure. However, the matter shall have careful consideration. I think we have now had a full debate, and I beg to move that the Question be now put.
    (11.55.) Question put, "That the Question be now put."
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 162; Noes 91.—(Div. List, No. 46.)
    Original Question put accordingly.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 188 Noes 66.—(Div. List, No. 47.)

    CIVIL SERVICES.

      CLASS VII.
      2. Motion made, and Question proposed,
      "That a sum, not exceeding £110,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1892, as a Grant in Aid of Local Rates in Scotland."
      MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I venture to make a suggestion, not in any controversial spirit, but to meet the convenience of the House, and it is this: that if the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury would promise to interrupt other business on Monday at 10 o'clock, or at some other and earlier hour, in order that the Debate on the Report stage of the Scotch Equivalent Grant might then be taken, I think there would be no objection to this Vote passing now without any discussion. I am not of opinion that the discussion will be a very protracted one. At the same time, as the House sat very late this morning, considering the advanced hour which we have now reached, and having regard to the fact that this is a matter of very great gravity to Scotland, it would be convenient to the Scotch Members and conducive to the rapid progress of business if my suggestion were adopted and this question were entered upon at an earlier hour.
      MR. A. J. BALFOUR: May I put a question to you, Mr. Courtney, upon a point of Order? Could the order of Supply on Report he made to differ from the order in which the Votes in Supply were taken—in other words, could the Report of the Vote on Account be put after the Vote of the Supplementary Estimate for the Scotch Equivalent Grant?
      THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Mr. COURTNEY,): The rule would be that the Report of Supply would follow the order in which the Votes were granted in Committee. Of course, by consent the order might be varied.
      MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am anxious to meet in every way the views of the Scotch Members, and I should be quite ready to interrupt the discussion of the
      1294
      Small Holdings Bill at 10 o'clock on Monday night; then to take the Scotch Vote. But certain considerations must not be left out of view. The hon. Member for West Belfast desires to make a statement on the Teachers' Pension Grant.
      MR. SEXTON: Yes, on the Appropriation Bill.
      MR. A. J. BALFOUR: On Second Reading?
      MR. SEXTON: Yes, I think that would be the most convenient stage.
      MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Very well then, Sir, that removes the difficulty But, Sir, I think it ought to be understood that if the Scotch Vote is taken at 10 o'clock it should be finished at 12 o'clock, in order that we should go on with the Vote on Account; or that if the Scotch Debate goes on longer, there should be no discussion on the Vote on Account. On these conditions I shall assent to the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman. Otherwise there seems to me to be no use assenting to the arrangement if we are only going to transfer the burden to Monday evening. If the House will agree that Scotch business should go on between 10 and 12 o'clock, and the Debate on the Vote on Account be taken at 12 o'clock, I shall offer no opposition.
      MR. SEXTON: That arrangement is decidedly monstrous, and would not meet with the general consent of the House.
      MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Gentleman refuses to fall in with the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Stirling Burghs. It is within his power to insist upon the Report of the Vote on Account being taken before the Scotch Vote. In these circumstances, there is no alternative for the Government but to go on with the Scotch Vote to-night and to take the Report on Monday.
      MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Surely there may be some way of avoiding renewed disputation. Some of my friends are resolved, if ray right hon. Friend perseveres with the Vote, to move that the Chairman should report Progress. That I should be sorry to see. I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman what magic there is in 10 o'clock? Could we or he not steal

      1295
      a little more time before 10? Could he not interrupt the Small Holdings Bill during the dinner hour? That would satisfy the requirements of the case.
      MR. SEXTON: If we knew when the right hon. Gentleman would be willing to report Progress on the Small Holdings Bill we should then be able to say whether there would be sufficient time left for the discussion of the other two subjects.
      MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Ten o'clock is the hour ordinarily selected by the Government on those occasions when they consent to cut short the Debate upon the main business of the night, and I should hope that some arrangement might be come to by which both subjects might be taken between 10 o'clock at night and 1 o'clock in the morning.
      MR. BUCHANAN: Surely the right hon. Gentleman might make some allowance for these two discussions. There is no particular urgency for the Small Holdings Bill. It will probably occupy more than one Sitting. The other two subjects—the Irish Vote and the Scotch Vote—owing to the circumstances in which we are placed are undoubtedly urgent, and must be taken on Monday. The Scotch Members have now only the alternative of discussing the Vote after half-past 12 to-night or after 12 on Monday, and I do not think that is a fair alternative.
      MR. A. J. BALFOUR: If there is an understanding that the Second Reading of the Small Holdings Bill should be taken not later than Thursday night and be then concluded I will be glad to stop the discussion on Monday night at 9 o'clock. If that is the understanding I will be glad at once to come to that arrangement.
      MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: May I venture to hope that our modest little Scotch Vote may be allowed to creep in before the larger Vote on Account? It is only right it should resume its proper place.
      MR. SEXTON: I have no doubt the "modest little Scotch Vote" will have considerable debate expended upon it which may extend through the whole evening, If the Vote on Account is taken first I think I can undertake
      1296
      that so far as the Irish Members are concerned the discussion will conclude by half past 10.
      MR. HUNTER: Very grave questions arise in connection with the Scotch Vote. There is the question of Scotland's contribution, as to which, the Government for two years have promised a Committee of Inquiry. We shall contend that the sum allotted is inadequate and inefficient, and there is also a serious question as to the distribution between counties and burghs in Scotland; and lastly the question of applying money taken from the pockets of the working classes for the relief of rates. These are serious questions for the consideration of which the time proposed to be allowed is totally inadequate.
      MR. ESSLEMONT: I quite agree that the time will be insufficient and anybody must admit that the Scotch Members have not justice allowed them in the proposed arrangement. We ought at least to have some elasticity allowed, and if we get to the discussion at half past 10 we ought at least to be allowed to go on until 1 o'clock.
      MR. A. J. BALFOUR: On Report you can do so.
      MR. ESSLEMONT: The hon. Member for Belfast expects that the Irish discussion will close at half-past 10, and I suppose some compromise of the kind is the best that we can expect under the circumstances. But I should have thought the right hon. Gentleman might have gone a little further, agreeing to stop the Small Holdings discussion at 8 o'clock, the dinner hour. Then immediately afterwards, at, say half-past 8, the hon. Member for Belfast might proceed with the Irish discussion which, if closed at 10 o'clock, would give a little more time to the Scotch Business.
      MR. MARJORIBANKS: I hope my hon. Friends will agree to the proposal made. The hon. Member for Belfast agrees that the Irish question shall only occupy up to half-past 10 on Monday, and it is quite evident we shall be in a much better

      1297
      position than if we begin at 25 minutes to 1 to-night. Report of Supply will not be stopped by the 12 o'clock Rule, and we shall be free to carry on our discussion until 4 or 5 o'clock in the morning. We shall have a far better position on Monday night than we have now.
      MR. SEXTON: Of course I can only undertake to facilitate Business so far as my personal influence goes. I will do everything in my power to carry out the arrangement.
      DR. CLARK: The hon. Member for Merthyr (Mr. Pritchard Morgan) endeavoured several times to speak on a question in which he is interested, and now he has gone home highly indignant. Other Gentlemen who have now left the House may have questions to raise and may put down Amendments for the Report stage. If the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House (Mr. A. J. Balfour) had accepted the proposal made earlier in the evening and had given the Supplementary Vote its proper position, we should not have been in this difficulty. The best way out of it is, I think, to postpone the Small Holdings Bill to another day. The Government have appropriated extra time and when we propose terms they will not recede from their technical rights. But if they insist on technical rights, so can others, and we shall not have much harmony in the conduct of business. The Government have conceded nothing to us. We looked for the opportunity to have this question discussed. It was postponed last year. At the last moment we are given the choice of discussion now or after midnight some other time. This is not the way to facilitate business. Give us a decent time to discuss a matter vitally affecting Scotland and we can come to terms. As it is we shall find when we enter upon Report of Supply that a number of Members who have now gone away will raise questions leading to discussion, and Scotch Members will be in a worse position than they are in now. I think the Government ought to concede something. Financial matters are pressing, but that is not the case with the Second Reading of the Small Holdings Bill. I beg to move to report
      1298
      Progress. It is ridiculous, it is preposterous, that we should at this time decide a Vote which so vitally affects the interest of Scotland. We are in a minority, and we may have this forced upon us by English votes against our wishes; but we can protest, and do so protest. The course you are pursuing lends encouragement to the desire to have Scotch questions settled by Scotchmen on Scottish ground—not here, where English votes thrust measures upon us. Do you wish us to remain in an Imperial Parliament. [An hon. MEMBER: No] I am glad to hear that. Probably, then, we shall make ourselves objectionable, and shall be doing good work. I beg to move, Sir, that you do report Progress, in order that right hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench may be induced to give some answer, and indicate some reasonable course.
      Moved, "That the Chairman do report Progress—(Dr. Clark); but the CHAIRMAN, being of opinion that the Motion was an abuse of the Rules of the House, put the Question thereupon forthwith.
      (12.40.) The Committee divided:—Ayes 51; Noes 166.—(Div. List, No. 48.)
      Original Question again proposed.
      MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I voted with the Government in the last Division, against a great number of my colleagues from Scotland on the ground that I understood the Government were willing to secure for Scotch Members ample discussion of the Vote on Report stage on Monday, the Government agreeing that the Report stage shall be entered upon about half-past 10. That is the understanding, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman—if I may use an expression he and I, as Scotchmen, understand—I hope he will "homologate" that arrangement, and that it will be accepted and endorsed without further dispute.
      MR. A. J. BALFOURThe right hon. Gentleman has put the arrangement in an explicit form. Of course, the arrangement depends not upon the Government alone; hon. Members generally must assist is carrying it out. The arrangement in

      1299
      this: that we take the Vote now without further discussion; that on Monday we take as first Order the Small Holdings Bill; that the Debate on that Bill shall be adjourned at 9 o'clock on Monday—("Dinner hour")—well, say, the dinner hour. Immediately after that we take the Report of the Vote on Account. Discussion on this shall stop, so far as the general sense of the House goes, though of course the Government cannot do more than use their influence—so far as we have anything to do with it, the discussion shall stop at half past 10. The Scotch Members may then begin their discussion and carry it on to such hour as they please. Then on Thursday, on consideration that the Government give up half the night on Monday, which would otherwise be devoted to the Small Holdings Bill, there is an understanding that that Bill shall be read a second time. Of course, it is understood that the Report stage of the Vote on Account finishes at half-past 10 on Monday.
      MR. WALLACE: The First Lord may say he will use all his influence to secure the commencement of the Scotch Debate at half-past 10, but I question whether the Government have sufficient influence to enable them to carry out their beneficent intentions towards us. It may be possible to procure the commencement of the Irish discussion at 9 o'clock, but I question very much whether it is within the power of the First Lord, except by the use of the Closure and the permission of the Chair, to secure the termination of such a discussion in an hour and a half. We have had a clear statement from prominent Irish Members that they consider one of the subjects to be discussed of deep importance; and from our experience we may well doubt whether it is possible, with the best intentions, and even with the support of the Government in the direction of brevity, so to compress the discussion that it shall terminate within the time mentioned. I think if the Small Holdings Bill were deferred there would be some hope of both the Irish
      1300
      and Scotch discussions being got through in a reasonable time, but in the present offer I see no hope whatever of the Scotch discussion beginning earlier than at the hour we very nearly had the unfortunate chance of launching upon it this morning. Unless I have some more hopeful, more probable arrangement stated from both sides of the House, I shall reserve to myself, if I can procure your consent, Mr. Courtney, the right to move another dilatory Motion.
      Original Question put, and agreed to.
      Resolutions to be reported upon Monday next.
      Committee to sit again upon Monday next.

    WAYS AND MEANS.
    Considered in Committee.

    1. Resolved, That, towards making good the Supply granted to Her Majesty for the service of the years ending on the 31st day of March, 1891 and 1892, the sum of £510,943 2s. 3d. be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.

    2. Resolved, That, towards making good the Supply granted to Her Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1893, the sum of £13,041,563 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.

    Resolutions to be reported upon Monday next.
    Committee to sit again upon Monday next.

    SUPPLY.—REPORT.
    Resolutions [17th March] reported.
    CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, 1891–2 (SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES).
      CLASS VII.
      1. "That a sum, not exceeding £10,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1892, as a Grant in Aid of the Expenses of the Royal Commission for the Exhibition at Chicago, 1893."

      REVENUE DEPARTMENTS.
      2. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course

      1301
      of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1892, for Remuneration to Collectors and Assessors of Taxes in the Inland Revenue Department."
      Resolutions agreed to.
      3. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £120,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1892, for the Post Office Services."
      Resolution read a second time.
      COLONEL NOLAN: I beg to move the reduction of the Vote by £30,000. I would rather move to increase it by £4,000, but that the Forms of the House will not allow. There is included in the Vote £75,000 for the increase of the salaries of postmasters in England, exclusive of London; but for the increase of postmasters in Ireland, excluding Dublin, the amount allotted is only £4,000. The division is altogether disproportionate. Looking at the geographical area, England is double the size of Ireland, and this is one of the things to consider. But we have also to take into consideration the extent of the districts, the distances the mails have to be transferred, and the concentrations of population. Taking all things into consideration, the larger and richer country may be allowed ten times as much as the other; but I do not think there should be such an enormous difference as 19 times as much. There has been an outcry from the Irish postmasters that their salaries are inadequate, and yet the Postmaster General takes the occasion to make the disparity between the two countries so much the greater. The increase to Scotland of £12,000 is about a fair proportion, but the rise in Ireland is most inadequate, and it will create a great deal of annoyance. The number of letters is not the only test, for the conveyance of many or few makes no great difference. I am at a loss to know why this difference of one to 19 is adopted. I believe the Chancellor of the Exchequer contends that the proportion of taxation is one to eleven, though we claim it is an eighth. However, I will not at this hour go into that question. I am quite sure that the postmasters of England are a hard-worked
      1302
      class, and I do not deny that they are entitled to the increase; but I must insist that the Irish postmasters can fairly claim a larger proportion than this £4,000.
      Amendment proposed, to leave out "£120,000," and insert "£90,000."—(Colonel Nolan.)
      Question proposed, "That '£120,000' stand part of the Resolution."
      THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON,): I did not in Committee contend that the number of letters was the only test of work done; all the transactions in the office must be considered. The hon. and gallant Gentleman is in error in supposing that Ireland gets less than a fair share of postal expenditure. As a matter of fact, Ireland receives 30 per cent. more, in proportion to her contribution to the Revenue, which is 6 per cent., as compared with 10 per cent. from Scotland, and 84 per cent. from England.
      MR. BLANE: Scotland, with a small population, gets three times the amount given to Ireland, but it cannot be contended there are three times as many letters passing through the Scotch offices. I do not begrudge the amount to Scotland, but I do say that the amount of increase allotted to Ireland is insufficient. I know that Irish postmasters have often, in the discharge of their duties, to incur very considerable personal expense. You give £4,000 to 4,600,000 people and £12,000 to Scotland with a smaller population and a smaller number of letters, with also greater facilities for transit than we have in Ireland. That I say is not sound sense. The Postmaster General might be a little more generous to Ireland. The postmasters in country towns in Ireland supervise the post offices in their districts, and have very arduous duties to perform. I would appeal to the Postmaster General to say whether there cannot be a better division of this Vote. It is with great reluctance we bring these things under the notice of the House; but we are sent here for that purpose. The Postmaster General alleges that 84 per cent. of the whole earnings of the Post Office comes from England,

      1303
      10 from Scotland, and 6 from Ireland. But, if we take the proportions given by the Postmaster General, the number ten does not represent so much as the number six. Having regard to the fact that our postmasters in Ireland travel over large areas, and supervise a large number of offices, and are entitled to have large pay, they are not fairly dealt with; and, even upon the estimate of the Postmaster General, £4,000 is not sufficient for them. We should get in the same proportion as Scotland, and at present the amount that goes to Scotland is more than double what we get. I would ask the Postmaster General to re-consider this division as between Irish and Scotch postmasters, for at the present time it cannot be pretended that it is an equitable distribution.
      Question put, and agreed to.
      Resolution agreed to.
      4. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceed-in £47,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1892, for the Post Office Telegraph Service."
      Resolution agreed to.

    ARMY (ANNUAL) BILL. (No. 223.)
    Read a second time, and committed for Monday next.
    SHORT TITLES BILL [Lords.].
    Read the first time; to be read a second time upon Thursday next, and to be printed. [Bill 227.]
    EVIDENCE IN CRIMINAL CASES BILL [Lords].
    Read the first time; to be read a second time upon Thursday next, and to be printed. [Bill 228.]

    TRADE AND TREATIES.
    Copy presented,—of Seventh Report of the Trade and Treaties Committee, with Appendix containing Translation of the French Customs Tariff Law of the 11th January, 1892, showing the Duties now leviable under the New General and Minimum Tariffs of 1892, and those levied under the Conventional
    1304
    Tariff of 1882 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

    TRADE AND TREATIES.
    Copy presented,—of Ninth Report of the Trade and Treaties Committee, with Appendices containing Translation of the Tariffs annexed to the Treaties between various Central European Powers, comparing the new Rates of Duty with those hitherto leviable in each of the Countries concerned on Importations from the United Kingdom [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
    RAILWAY AND CANAL TRAFFIC ACT, 1888.
    Copy presented,—of Rule made by the Board of Trade extending the period within which objections may be lodged against the Revised Classifications of Merchandise Traffic and Schedules of Maximum Rates, Tolls, Dues, and Charges, which have been submitted to the Board of Trade by Canal Companies in compliance with "The Railway and Canal Traffic Act. 1888" [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
    ARMY (TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF SERVICE).
    Address for "Return showing the Estimated Cost to the United Kingdom, and to India, of carrying out the recommendations of the Committee on Terms and Conditions of Service in the Army."—(Mr. Bartley.)

  MOTION.
  MERCHANT SHIPPING ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Howell, Bill to amend the Merchant Shipping Acts, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Howell, Mr. Joseph Chamberlain, Mr. Staveley Hill, and Mr. Knox.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 229.]

  MOTION.

    ADJOURNMENT.
    Motion made, and Question, "That this House do now adjourn,"—(Sir John Gorst,)—put, and agreed to.
    House adjourned at twenty minutes after One o'clock till Monday next.