CLASS I.

HC Deb 01 August 1893 vol 15 cc1011-74

Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £113,710, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1894, for Surveying the United Kingdom, and for revising the Survey, for Maps for use in proceedings before the Land Judges in Ireland and the Irish Land Commission, publication of Maps, and engraving the Geological Survey.

MR. R. G. WEBSTER (St. Pancras, E.)

said, the Ordnance Survey involved questions not only affecting the geographical aspects of the country, but was important in connection with agricultural interests, and especially the transfer of land. A year ago a Departmental Committee was appointed to deal with the question, and it was presided over by the hon. Baronet the Member for Tewkesbury (Sir J. Dorington). It had made some very important recommendations, and to a few of them he desired to draw the attention of the Committee. One was that it would be wise to expedite the completion of the new revised one-inch map, with or without shading. Now, it was the case in regard to that map that at the present time there were some parts of the United Kingdom as to which the map was at least 30 years out of date, and he believed that by the expenditure of a few hundred pounds it would be possible quickly to bring it up to date. If that were done it would be of incalculable advantage to pedestrians and cyclists, as well as to all interested in parochial matters. Again, it would be a very useful arrangement if Parochial and other Authorities would from time to time send to the Ordnance Survey information respecting the new roads made in their districts, as that would help to keep the maps up to date. Another suggestion well worthy of consideration was that the maps might be printed on paper of not too stout a character and in a form in which they could easily be placed in one's pocket, and a further good suggestion was that a new military map in colours, with contours and shading, should be produced as soon as possible. He might, indeed, enumerate a vast number of these very useful suggestions; but, as the Chairman of the Committee was present, it was hardly necessary to do so. Speaking for himself, he would suggest the desirability of issuing a handy index in the shape of a small outline map showing the position of each street, together with a small descriptive handbook explaining the signs used on the map, whether for hill-drawing or for artificial features. It was to be regretted that many of these maps could not be purchased in London, and much inconvenience arose from the fact that the public did not know where to obtain them. The system of publication in this country was not so accurate as in France and Germany; and he thought it was desirable, having in view the interests of education, that the maps should be absolutely accurate and, as far as practicable, up to date. Another point was that, owing to the rapid changes in the Department, there was not sufficient continuity in the production of the maps, and it was desirable that the changes in the Ordnance Survey should not be so rapid as they were at the present time. Some officers, at any rate, should be kept in the Department to see the completion of the work which they had commenced. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Department would realise that the time had come when some better system should be introduced.

* SIR J. DORINGTON (Gloucester, Tewkesbury)

said, that two years ago a long discussion took place in the House on the demerits of the Ordnance Survey, and in consequence of it the right hon. Gentleman who was then President of the Board of Agriculture appointed a Departmental Committee to inquire into the matter. On that Committee he (Sir J. Dorington) was associated with the hon. Member for the Gorton Division of Lancashire (Mr. Mather) and the hon. Member for the Eccles Division (Mr. Roby), who had evinced great interest in the question. The first point to which the Committee directed their attention was to how it came about that the survey had proceeded so slowly. The survey had been in progress since the end of the last century, and it was not finished yet. That naturally struck the public as a very grave fault; but investigation had shown that it was hardly fair to accuse the officials of being slow, for although the work was begun last century, practically a new department of work had been taken up since 1855. Everything done as to map-making before that time has been set aside, and a new series of maps had been created, the work in connection with which was very nearly complete. The 25-inch maps for Lancashire and Yorkshire would be completed next year; the maps for Scotland would be finished by 1897, and a large proportion of the work for Ireland had also been concluded. The survey of the whole country for the six-inch map was also nearly finished. He thought that the Ordnance Survey could not be accused since 1855 of having been dilatory in its work. It had no doubt spent a large amount of money, but the work to be done was very great. It was generally supposed that on the Continent cadastral maps were produced by the Government and were accessible to the public. In France the cadastral maps were not a Government production at all, and they were, besides, very inferior at the present time. If this country was compared with France, where the estimated cost of the proposed new cadastral survey was £10,500,000, without any cost of publication, it would be found that the corresponding cost for England, including publication, would come to £7,278,000. Since 1857 this country had spent £5,326,000 on the work, and had for this money produced and nearly completed a 25-inch, a six-inch, and a one-inch map, in addition to the large Town Maps, and thus they were a long way below the figure which the country might have fairly expected to be spent, judging from the French example. He recommended this comparison to the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Next he came to the general character of the work. Two years ago great fault was found in many respects with the character of the work. The Committee inquired into that question, and he thought that the complaints as to defects were almost entirely due to want of revision, and sometimes to misconception as to what maps ought to contain. The hon. Member for St. Pancras seemed to think that the foreign maps were better than our own; but he was satisfied that our maps were not inferior either in execution, in the character of their delineation, or in any particular to foreign maps. On the contrary, he thought that on the whole they were superior, though he admitted that occasionally they came across a foreign map which showed features of remarkable excellence, and which this country might very well adopt, supposing we were to start afresh. But it was undesirable to introduce into one series of maps new styles of workmanship, however good they might be deemed to be, because the result would be that one part of the set would not correspond with the rest. Several witnesses examined before the Committee testified to the excellence of the work done by the Ordnance Survey. Sir Archibald Geikie, the head of the Geological Survey, who had a good deal to do with maps in connection with the work on which he was engaged, said the general excellence of the Ordnance Survey maps was a constant subject of remark, and he could hardly conceive a survey more technically accurate than ours. General Walker said the maps were much superior to those of the Indian or of any Foreign Government, as regarded colour, topographical delineation, and other particulars; and Mr. Crook, a well-known authority on maps, was equally emphatic in his approval in some respects, especially with regard to the hill-shaded maps of Scotland, which could not, he averred, be equalled, while while a distinquished Frenchman, General Derrécagain, Director of the Geographical Department in France, also uttered a high eulogium on the work of the Ordnance Survey. "But," he added, "the want of revision threatens to destroy the fruit of so much labour." This evidence was surely sufficient to prove that our maps were of a very excellent character in regard both to accuracy and beauty of delineation. Almost the sole fault was that we were behindhand in the matter of carrying on a systematic revision, and in keeping the maps corrected up to date; and in regard to the one-inch map the Committee had made a recommendation, which he was glad to know the Minister of Agriculture was willing to act upon, with the result that with a comparatively small expenditure of money the blot would be removed within four years. In France and Germany more attention was paid to the smaller maps, and arrangements were made by which the whole of the country was regularly gone over once in 10 years. Something of the same kind ought to be done for this country, and legislation to secure that end might fairly be asked from the Government in this connection. The revision of the larger maps was a matter of very much more importance, and one that involved much greater expense. The immense expenditure on the very large maps was wholly thrown away unless they were kept closely up to date. The one-inch maps needed very little revision as regarded their main features, but the large scale maps became in a very short time absolutely unlike the districts they were supposed to represent. In the north of Lancashire and Yorkshire the six-inch maps which were issued between 1840 and 1850 were now so entirely out of date that no revision was possible, and an absolutely new survey was needed. The most important point of all financially, and a very important point in other respects, was with regard to what were called the Town Maps. He did not think it was generally known that, in addition to those maps which were of general interest, the 25-inch, the six-inch, and the one-inch maps—a very large map on the scale of 10 feet to the mile was produced for towns having a certain population. He believed those maps had been the bane of the Ordnance Department. It was they that had made the survey so immensely slow, because the Ordnance Department had been buried in the masses of these Town Maps, which had not only swallowed up an immense amount of time, but had necessitated the expenditure of an immense amount of money. If the maps were very largely used nothing need be said about this; but, as a matter of fact, there was hardly any sale for them. A sheet costing £60 or £70 to make produced 2s. 3d. a year by its sale. He thought that the advantages derived from these maps were altogether disproportionate to the cost. The Committee of which he had the honour to be Chairman were practically unanimous in thinking that maps which were so essentially of local interest ought not to be entirely made and maintained at the cost of the Ordnance Survey Department. He did not himself think there would be any considerable opposition in the towns to some changes being made in the present method of production of Town Maps as suggested in the Report of the Committee. One of the gentlemen (Mr. Crook) connected with the towns stated in evidence before the Committee that he had a plan by which localities and private persons who wanted these very large scale maps would pay the cost of revision, and said that the maps were practically useless unless something was done to them every year. Sir George Leach, in his evidence, said that Borough Surveyors must keep their maps up to date, and that, in his opinion, the expense of revision might be charged to the towns. The Department had never touched one of these maps since they were made, and they were consequently hopelessly obsolete. The City of Glasgow at the present time was having a new 12-inch survey made for it, because its old Ordnance map was useless; and two publishers in Edinburgh each published a map of that city, one on a 15-inch scale, the other on a 6-inch scale, which were bought by the public, whilst the Government maps were no longer purchased, because they were regarded as obsolete. The Surveyor of Eastbourne, in his evidence before the Committee, spoke to much the same effect as Sir George Leach. The Surveyor of Manchester said— It is the duty of the State to do it. Later on he was asked this question— It should take the form of legal obligation on you to keep up your map and to send tracings to Southampton? to which he replied in the affirmative. Asked whether the cost would be large, he replied— I think £500 per annum would cover the cost. For a town like Manchester this would not be a very serious expenditure, and they would obtain maps really more useful to them year by year than at the present time. If the Government saw their way to carry out the recommendation of the Committee on this subject he thought they would secure sufficient funds, without further charge on the country, to do all those things which the country certainly called for in reference to the completion of maps that were of general interest. The Committee thought that it was necessary to complete the hill-shading throughout England. The work which had been done in this respect in Scotland, Ireland, and the North of England was wonderfully beautiful, but the process of engraving was very slow. He understood that Sir Charles Wilson, when he gave his evidence, said he could not promise to get the hill-shading completed before the year 1910; but he had now been able to secure the services of two other skilled engravers, with the result that he thought he would be able to expedite the work very considerably. He (Sir J. Dorington) would be pleased to show any hon. Member three or four copies of the outline map of England which he had in his possession, in which very excellent hill-shading had been superimposed by photo-zincography, which closely approximated to the process of heliogravure, by which the Austrian maps had been so rapidly produced. He admitted that the Austrian map was not very beautiful, and he did not think Englishmen would be proud of their maps if they were done in the same way. Unless, therefore, we could produce a better result than the Austrians had produced, he did not think a process similar to their's ought to be adopted; but if by means of some improvements it was possible to produce a closer approximation to the results at present obtained by engraving, he thought it would be highly desirable. The examples of the photo-zincography he had with him were very satisfactory. An hon. Member had referred to the desirability of having cheap maps. In consequence of the recommendations of the Committee, a very creditable specimen of an Ordnance map which could now be sold at 6d. a sheet had been produced. The question of footpaths was largely exciting the minds of those who took an interest in this subject. In many cases footpaths were shown on the maps which were really not footpaths at all. Since he came into the House he had heard a very amusing illustration of this. An hon. Member stated to him that his estate had a considerable number of rabbits on it, and that the paths made by these rabbits were marked on the Ordnance sheet as footpaths, with a note at the bottom of the sheet stating that the appearance of a footpath on the map did not prove that it was a public footpath. Of course, it was not the business of the Ordnance Surveyor to judge whether a path was of a private or public character, and all footpaths ought to be laid down, but care should be taken not to mark as roads tracks which were only temporary, or which were not roads at all. The recommendations of the Committee resolved themselves practically into three heads—namely, those that could he carried out by the Department, those for which Treasury sanction must be obtained, and those which necessitated legislative action. The Department could deal with the question of footpaths and the characteristics of roads. He thought the Committee had made a good recommendation as to the roads. Formerly, when turnpike roads existed, they were clearly shown on the maps, and there was a distinct meaning attacked to the term "main road." Since the disappearance of turnpike roads, however, there had been no means of judging what was a first-class and what a second-class road. The Committee had laid down the rule that a well-metalled road 14 feet wide on which two carriages could go abreast, or pass easily, should be regarded as a first-class road, whilst a well-metalled road less than 14 feet in width should be regarded as a second-class road. They had defined a well-metalled road as meaning a road capable of being travelled over at a high rate of speed all the year round. Roads inferior to these were again to be divided into two classes by distinct characteristics. These Rules would, he believed, lead to a much clearer marking of roads on the Ordnance maps. The quarter-inch map had been the occasion of a good deal of fun in the public Press. A more amusing letter on a geographical subject than was written last year he never read; but on inquiry into the question he found that the map did not deserve all the animadversion which had been directed against it. The engraving of the map was an excellent piece of work; but the map itself was not very correct, because it was founded on an obsolete map, the old one-inch. This was clearly stated at the bottom of the sheet. It was not originally intended to be published. It was first used for the purposes of a Public Department, and then it came into the hands of the public; but he did not think any blame could be attached to the Department in the matter. The map did not need much correction, and whenever the new one-inch map was completed it would be very easy to re-issue the quarter-inch map in a thoroughly creditable condition. These were the main points which required the attention of the Department. As regarded the Treasury, it was for them to settle what maps were to be produced—namely, the original standard map, the cheap map, and the coloured map. The coloured map was asked for by the War Office, and in some parts of England it would have a ready sale. There was no reason why it should not be produced, and he hoped that directions would be given that the Survey Department might undertake it. If the Department were too busy, there was no reason why the map should not be produced by contract by one of the map publishers, as the Carte Vicinale was produced in France. Another important point was as to the supply of paper for map-making. The Committee found that serious trouble had arisen from time to time owing to the Ordnance Survey not purchasing their own paper, but being obliged to get it through the Stationery Office. It was right that the Stationery Office should supply all the paper required in the Public Departments for writing purposes; but here they came to the very implement with which the Ordnance Survey had to conduct its art. He thought most distinctly that those who required this paper for the proper production of their maps should have absolute control over the purchase and selection of it. They bought their own telescopes, microscopes, theodolites, electrical machines, and so forth; and why, therefore, should they not buy their own paper for map-making? It was their technical material. He was satisfied the Ordnance Survey were constantly hampered by the purchasing having to be done by and through the Stationery Office, and he hoped the Treasury would agree to the recommendations of the Committee on the point. The addition of more contour lines would add considerably to the value of the maps, and also to the cost, and that was distinctly a Treasury matter. The Committee had given the cost at which this could be done, dividing it into several classes. They had stated what class should be taken first, and he hoped that when the finances of the country were in a flourishing state some means might be found of carrying out that recommendation. Lastly, the recommendations of the Committee went into matters on which legislation was necessary. They thought it desirable that there should be legislation to require an arrangement in regard to maps similar to that which applied to books—by which a copy of every book printed in the country was supplied to the British Museum and to the libraries of Oxford and Cambridge. That Public Authorities should be required to give notice to the Survey Department of all alterations that were made in their respective districts. That was done now in regard to railways; but as regarded almost every other class of works, there was no obligation on any- one to give information, and no information was afforded. Great unnecessary expense was, therefore, caused in revision, because the Surveyors did not know where to look for the changes and alterations which were to be noted in their maps. These were the main inquiries in which he had taken a part. The matter was one of very great interest. He and the gentlemen associated with him had taken a great deal of pains in carrying out the inquiries, and he begged to thank his colleagues for their valuable co-operation. They had, he hoped, done very useful work, from which they already saw that good results were accruing.

* THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. H. GARDNER,) Essex, Saffron Walden

said, that the Committee ought to feel much obliged to the hon. Baronet for the extremely lucid speech he had made upon a subject with which he was so well qualified to deal. He (Mr. Gardner) wished fully to endorse every word that the hon. Baronet had said in praise of the Committee over which he had so ably presided. The Committee which was appointed by his (Mr. Gardner's) predecessor in Office had, to his mind, done most useful work; and if the Ordnance Survey of the country should be improved in the near future, it would be to the admirable Report of that Committee that the credit would be mainly due. If that was the case, the value of the Report of the Committee being recognised by, and admitted by, everyone acquainted with the subject, the Ordnance Survey must be very much gratified by the Report of the Committer as to the value of the maps they had prepared. There could be no doubt that, compared with foreign countries, we had held our own, in the matter of Ordnance Survey, in the efficiency and accuracy of the maps. The Government agreed in the great majority of the recommendations which the Committee had made, and in many instances they had already directed them to be carried into effect, whilst in other instances they were prepared to do so on the first convenient opportunity. They proposed to carry out the recommendation as to the classification of roads, also that as to the revision of Welsh names on the maps, and as to the improvement of indicesand catalogues. The hon. Baronet had made a special point as to the collection of information from Local Authorities, and he had to say in reply that he had given instructions for the issue of Circular Letters inviting the Sanitary Authorities to give information as to new highways and roads in their districts, and as to any alterations in the existing highways and roads. He hoped also to secure the assistance of the Board of Trade in giving information with regard to the opening of new harbours, docks, piers, and so forth—information which that Department had already been in the habit of supplying with regard to railways and railway stations. With regard to the Ordnance Survey being allowed to control its own supply of paper, he believed that the adoption of the recommendation of the Committee would be distinctly advantageous. That was a matter, however, upon which the Stationery Office ought to be consulted, and he was consulting them now. The hon. Baronet had referred to the hill-shaded one-inch map, and in regard to that he (Mr. Gardner) was able to make a more or loss satisfactory statement. It would be completed by the year 1900 by engraving or photo-zincography. It had been arranged to complete the engraving by 1910; but he was informed that, in consequence of their success in training new engravers, they could be completed before the end of 1902. The hon. Baronet had spoken about a coloured one-inch map. As the hon. Baronet was aware, the primary purpose for which such a map was required was a military one, and it had been necessary to consult the Military Authorities with regard to it. They had every desire to co-operate with the Military Authorities, and had offered to prepare a special sheet of the one-inch map should those Authorities desire it. As to the insertion of additional contours, considerable expense would be involved in carrying out the suggestion. In regard to the revision of the one-inch map, the six-inch map, and the 25-inch map, the one-inch map, it would be admitted by everyone, occupied the first place, and the recommendations of the Committee with regard to it had been received in time for the Estimates this year. It was intended, having obtained the sanction of the Treasury, to carry out the revision of that map within the time the Committee had named. That map, including South Lancashire and South Yorkshire, would be completed at the end of 1896, and all sheets representing a survey more than 15 years old would be revised by the same date. Then he came to that which would require the greatest expenditure—namely, the recommendations of the Committee as to the cadastral, or 25-inch, map. The matter had already been referred to, and the statement had been elicited from the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he was not in a position to give them a Supplementary Vote for £16,000. It would be remembered that at the time the Estimates were prepared the Government were not in possession of the recommendation of the Committee, as was the case in regard to the one-inch map. But even as it was, they would be able to commence the revision in 1894–5, and, if they were in a position to give effect to the important recommendations of the Committee with regard to the large Town Maps, on which the hon. Baronet had dwelt with much force, he hoped they would be able to commence the revision of the 25-inch map this year. With regard to the 10-foot Town Map, they had not yet arrived at a final conclusion. But his opinion was that they were bound to give priority to the 25-inch map, and hon. Gentlemen who took an interest in the subject would admit that in the allocation of the funds at their disposal they ought to have regard to the general utility of the maps. In the revision the maps of less importance must stand aside. He thought he had said enough to show that the Department and the Government recognised to the full the value of the work done by the Committee and of the Report which had been placed in their hands, and were availing themselves as far as possible of the Committee's advice. Moreover, as he had indicated, they saw their way to accelerate the revision not only of the one-inch, but of the cadastral map. The hon. Gentleman spoke about keeping maps up to date. Well, they were not able to do that yet; but when they had a map brought up to date, as he believed they would in 1896, he was sure anyone in charge of the Department would feel obliged to do all he could in order that the map should maintain its excellence for the future. Before sitting down he wished to make a remark as to the popularity of the Survey Service. Some doubt had been thrown upon the popularity of the Service; but he was informed on the highest authority that the Service was in every way popular. The work was as much military now as it ever was, and the officers who belonged to it were perfectly satisfied with the Service.

* SIR H. MEYSEY-THOMPSON (Stafford, Handsworth)

endorsed the view that the Survey Service was popular, and bore testimony to the civility and patriotic spirit of the officials connected with it. It was complained that the 25-inch maps relating to some parts of the country had been prepared so long ago that they were out of date; but he had a much stronger complaint to make in regard to the part of the country with which he was connected, and that was that the 25-inch map had never been published at all. For the important Counties of Lancashire and Yorkshire the map had not been prepared. The hon. Member for Tewkesbury had tried to console them by saying that the work had been cheaply done as compared with other countries, having only cost some £5,000,000 or £6,000,000. That statement did not satisfy Yorkshire at all. They had paid their full share of the £5,000,000 or £6,000,000, and, so far as this map was concerned, they had got nothing whatever for it.

MR. H. GARDNER

said, the field work of the map for Lancashire and Yorkshire had now been completed, and the map would be issued shortly.

* SIR H. MEYSEY-THOMPSON

was very glad to hear it. He had made inquiries in the matter, and the information supplied to him was certainly not similar to that which the right hon. Gentleman now afforded. He did not understand why it was that the survey of these important counties had been left so long incomplete. The work was begun 40 years ago, and notwithstanding that the County of Sutherland had been completed in 1875, Lancashire and Yorkshire were still unfinished, although he would undertake to say that for one land sale in the former county there were 1,000 in the two latter. He hoped the predictions of the President of the Board of Agriculture would be realised.

MR. HANBURY (Preston)

said that, so far as this discussion was concerned, there were a great many questions still undealt with. The Chairman of the Committee (Sir J. Doriugton) and the President of the Board of Agriculture had both confined themselves to the question as to whether the maps of the Ordnance Survey were good or bad, and all agreed that, as a rule, they were good. But the real question in connection with the Vote did not arise out of that fact at all. What they had to complain of was, that although some £200,000 a year was spent on the Service, the maps, good as they were, were so much out of date that for a great many practical purposes they were of no use at all. What they wanted to ascertain from the President of the Board of Agriculture was, why was it that there had been so much delay in producing the maps of Lancashire and Yorkshire, and why were the maps, generally, so much in arrear? Was the President of the Board of Agriculture going to carry out the recommendations of the Select Committee, that the survey should be completed very rapidly, and then that the whole work of the organisation should be revision? If so, was the present organisation a proper one for revision? It might have been a good one for survey; but it was clear that in the future, if the recommendations of the Committee were carried out, the work that would have to be done would be of a totally different character to anything done in the past. And what it was desirable to get at was not so much the excellence of the maps, but the whole organisation of the survey system. With all the Commissions and Committees which had sat on the matter no one had yet had a free hand, and had been able to deal with the whole question thoroughly. A Lancashire Member two or three years ago carried a Resolution in the House for the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the whole subject; but to his astonishment he found that, instead of a Select Committee having been appointed, they had had that most miserable of all inquiries—a Departmental Committee with a very limited Reference. Instead of being called on to deal with the whole question of the organisation of the survey, the Committee had a few questions only submitted to it with regard to the improvements to be effected in the maps. The result was that with regard to this complicated Vote, which was partly a Military Vote and partly civilian, partially connected with the Board of Agriculture, partially dependent on the goodwill of the Stationery Department, and altogether dependent on the goodwill of the Treasury, they had no information as to the organisation of the survey. The Committee, it seemed, had not gone into the question of organisation, but had determined to cut the work to suit the organisation. Two or three of the recommendations of the Committee were that certain work should be removed from this highly-paid Body. It was suggested for example, that the town lands should be taken away from the Department altogether; that certain maps should be prepared by contract, and that information should be sent in by Local Authorities for the alteration of maps. It seemed to him that to carry out these suggestions would be to destroy the responsibility of the Ordnance Survey, and he hoped that the large towns of the country would be consulted in the matter before anything was done. There was, no doubt, something to be said on both sides; but at first sight it did not seem clear why the owners of property in towns should not have their property surveyed on the larger scale, and be entitled to the same advantages from Government maps as the owners of property elsewhere. The right hon. Gentleman opposite would have to consult a good many towns before consenting to an arrangement which appeared to him to be a very unfair one. He was not sure what the object of this survey was. In 1880 pressure was put on the Government to establish a Land Registry, and it might be that the survey was in some way connected with that idea, and for the purpose of land sales. With regard to the maps drawn on the scale of four miles to the inch, there was a good deal of grumbling that for military purposes they were of very little use indeed, inasmuch as they did not distinguish between a main road and a mountain footpath. The Committee had made certain recommendations with regard to the larger employment of Engineers in future, but no information had been vouchsafed as to how far those recommendations were to be carried out. The Committee spoke strongly on the subject, because they said that for many reasons it would be in many cases preferable to employ Engineers more largely. There was nothing to show that the Committee bad gone thoroughly into the matter, but it was important to know what in future would be the cheapest manner in which to carry on the survey? The Civil assistants complained that they had not had justice done to them, and he proposed, later on, to call attention to that matter. He would ask now, in view of the fact that the survey was all but completed, and that the work in future would be mainly revision, whether it was intended still to keep on the Royal Engineers, or whether it was proposed to employ merely Civil assistants for that purpose? He had been sorry to hear from the President of the Board of Agriculture that, at any rate with regard to one of the most important recommendations of the Committee, he did not propose to carry it out. The Committee distinctly stated that if this revision of the 25-inch map was put off beyond the present year it would cost a great deal more if done in any future year than it would if done this year. They stated that if the work were commenced this year, it could be completed in 10 years for £630,000, but that the expense would be much greater if delayed for a single year. Considering the large expenses that had been incurred already by the fact that the Treasury had not found adequate funds from year to year to do the work thoroughly, it seemed to him a foolish policy that, in spite of the strong recommendations of the Committee, the Government refused to find money this year, knowing very well, from the Report of the Committee, that the cost would be enormously enhanced if the work was driven over to another year. The one-inch scale map was the one most used by both the Civil and Military Authorities. The condition of that one-inch map was very remarkable; and although the right hon. Gentleman had given some sort of a pledge that this work would be properly revised in four years, it must be remembered that he had the Treasury to deal with.

MR. H. GARDNER

The Treasury have sanctioned it.

MR. HANBURY

said, he was glad to hear that, and he hoped the work would be carried out, because to his mind it was the more important map of the two, and at the present moment things were in a scandalous state considering the amount of money that had been spent. He was afraid the right hon. Gentleman was a little too sanguine in thinking that work which had been so grossly neglected in the past would be completed in four years. What was the present position of the one-inch map? The survey connected with the old series was completed in 1844, and had never been touched since. The new one-inch scale for Lancashire and Yorkshire was based on the six-inch survey that took place between 1840 and 1857, and had never since been revised, and for the rest of England it was based on the 25-inch maps and rested on surveys made from 50 years ago up to date. The whole condition of the survey was, therefore, in a very unsatisfactory condition. The Departmental Committee was strongly impressed by the fact that the great cost of the survey in the past had been owing to the fact that the Ordnance Survey had been stinted by the Treasury, and had not had an opportunity of doing the work quickly, and they therefore suggested that in future some check should be put on the Treasury, and that the Director General of the Ordnance Survey should state at the beginning of every year whether the sums allowed him by the Treasury for the 25-inch and one-inch surveys were sufficient. That was an important recommendation, because there could be no doubt whatever that work of this kind would be much more economical and better if it were done thoroughly, and not dawdled over. It was no good the Treasury handing over a few thousands this year and a few next. It was better to do the work thoroughly, and have the cost finished once for all. One striking feature was that while these maps were made at such a great cost, very few of them were bought. Of course, if there was a larger sale it would go a considerable way towards paying for the cost of their production. In Ireland these maps were largely used, and by legislation their use was made compulsory for many purposes, such as the basis of valuation for local and Imperial taxes and dealings with land, boundaries between counties, parishes, and so on. Why could not this practice be also followed in England? In this country, when anybody wanted a transfer of property, or the survey of a town was needed, private surveyors had to be employed at great expense to make up the maps. Would it not be better to have a system by which the maps prepared by the Ordnance Survey should be recognised as having legal authority in the same way as in Ireland? As to the sales of maps, although there had been an increase in the number of maps published, the sales showed a very small increase indeed. Practically, there was only one agent—Stanford—who had a stock of the net value of over £43,000, and that stock had nearly doubled in five years. He questioned whether the system of appointing practically only one agent was a judicious system, especially as this agent had his own maps to sell, out of which he would probably make a larger profit. Under the old system there were 142 agents scattered over the country, who received a commission of 25 per cent.; and even in those days, when fewer maps were published, the number sold was larger, or, at any rate, as large as those sold under the present system. With regard to the Stationery Office, it was advisable, as his hon. Friend behind him had said, that this Ordnance Department, just as it bought technical instruments, should have the control of its own paper, as it best knew its own requirements. This Department was already sufficiently hampered by the Treasury—probably also by the War Office—and, at any rate, they should give it a free hand so far as the Stationery Department was concerned. He saw that in this Survey Vote other things were charged which had nothing whatever to do with the survey. This process of photo-zincography, by which ancient manuscripts and black letter prayer books were copied, was charged in the expenses of the Ordnance Department. These matters should be kept distinct, so that they might know what the work of each separate Department cost. The answer of the President of the Board of Agriculture was quite insufficient, and they wanted to know from him, in the first place, whether he was satisfied with the organisation of the Ordnance survey Department; secondly, whether the Survey work could be done more rapidly than in the past; thirdly, when that work would be completed; and, when the work of revision commenced, whether the existing organisation of the Survey Department would be proper and adequate for the work?

MR. CHAPLIN (Lincolnshire, Sleaford)

As I am responsible for many of the objections raised by my hon. Friend to the Committee which was appointed to examine into this matter, and as I am solely to blame, if blame there be, for the character of that Committee, perhaps I may be allowed to follow my hon. Friend at once. I should desire to preface what I have to say by expressing my hearty sense of the work which has been performed by that Committee, and I entirely endorse everything upon that point which has fallen from the right hon. Gentleman, and express my own admiration for the great diligence and great ability of the Members of that Committee, who performed what I have very little doubt will be a useful and valuable public duty. My hon. Friend objects to the character of the Committee, which, he says, took the form of that most miserable of all things—namely, a Departmental Committee. He objects, also, as I understand, to the Reference, because this Committee was not desired to inquire into the organisation of the Survey Department. As to the character of that Committee, my hon. Friend will, perhaps, remember that the hon. Member for Eccles, on the second night when Parliament met, was successful in passing, without notice, a Motion for the appointment of a Select Committee with regard to the Ordnance Survey.

MR. ROBY

Not without notice; it was on the Order Paper.

MR. CHAPLIN

Yes; I admit it was on the Order Paper. It was passed on the second night of the meeting of Parliament. I was always of opinion myself that for the effective examination of a question of this kind it would be infinitely more desirable to have a Departmental Committee on which experts thoroughly acquainted with the matter could be employed than any other kind of Committee; and on submitting these views to the hon. Gentleman he concurred with me, and the Committee was appointed in that manner. With regard to the Reference, surely it is wide enough. It states that a Departmental Committee be Appointed to inquire into and report on the present condition of the Ordnance Survey. That seems to me to embrace all the points necessary, and as to the objection that it failed to inquire into the organisation of that Department, I am aware that that duty was expressly omitted for the reason that, in my humble opinion, no examination or inquiry into the organisation of that Body was necessary at all. I have had some opportunities of knowing the work that has been performed by that Body. I always thought their organisation was excellent, and the work they did was even better. The great difficulty the Ordnance Survey has always had to contend with has not been anything connected with their organisation, but with the want of funds at their disposal. They have been called upon during the last few years, when the Estimates were largely reduced, to perform work for which the funds were absolutely and altogether inadequate. That is why the practice of revision was obliged to be abandoned, and why it fell so greatly into arrear. As regards the organisation of that Body itself, I venture to express my humble opinion that very little reform is needed in that respect, and more particularly I desire to say that I should regret to see the military character of that establishment further altered or limited in any degree. The Committee will remember that I took an opportunity of raising this question on the 29th May last, because, as has been properly pointed out by the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Hanbury), there are statements in the Report presented by those gentlemen to the effect that oven if the work of revision be delayed for a single year from the present time the ultimate cost of performing what is absolutely necessary work, which must be done sooner or later, will be very materially enhanced or increased. It is too late now, of course, for that work to be done in the present year. I was in hopes, by calling attention to it so early as the 29th of May, that possibly it might have been done. The Government deluded otherwise, and the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer declared that nothing would induce him to consent to a Supplementary Estimate for the purpose. But the longer this work is put off the more expensive it must become, and I confess I was very glad indeed, during his speech, to hear the encouraging statement made by the President of the Board of Agriculture that there vision of the one-inch map is provided for. I understand that work has already begun or will be commenced directly, and that, in the opinion of the Department responsible, it will be completed within the time that is recommended by the Departmental Committee. Then we come to the revision of the maps on the 15-inch scale, and with regard to that part of the work we understand that, the Government are not in a position to undertake that work this year chiefly for the reason that the Report of the Committee was not received in time when the Estimates were being prepared. But in any case, I understand the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to begin this work in 1894, and then he told us something further—namely, that if, after consideration, he should find himself in a position to give effect to the recommendation with regard to the Town Maps on the 10-feet scale, then he would be enabled to undertake the revision of the 15-inch maps during the present year. Of course, the towns may have something to say on that point, and my hon. Friend has already expressed the objection be would be prepared to raise on the part of the borough he represents to any course of that kind. What I should like to say, and did not quite clearly catch from the right hon. Gentleman, is this: that supposing the towns do object—and upon consideration he thinks it unadvisable (upon which I am expressing no opinion) to limit in any way the work now being done for the towns—am I to understand the Government still intend to carry out the second main proposition of the Departmental Committee in the year 1894? because that is an operation which we know from the Report of the Committee is very large and will probably be of a very expensive character. It is referred to in those terms— It has been shown in a previous paragraph that some of the 25-inch plans date from 1855, and have not been revised since. We have received evidence of the great cost that will be entailed if the plans of the Ordnance Survey are allowed to remain for too long a period without revision necessitating in some cases almost a re-survey. And then they go on to say it is evident this revision should be commenced without delay; and that they have the evidence of the Director General that if the revision of Great Britain is begun next year, it can be completed at an extra expenditure of £630,000. Then I understand the Government are prepared to undertake that very important recommendation of the Departmental Committee beginning in the year 1894, unless they find themselves enabled to begin it sooner by limiting in some respects the work which is being done in regard to the towns. That is a very satisfactory statement.

MR. H. GARDNER

did not wish the right hon. Gentleman to misunderstand him. Under the existing Vote there was sufficient to enable them to begin the work.

MR. CHAPLIN

Under the existing Vote! This paragraph in the Report requires a great deal of explanation. Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to be able to carry out with the existing Estimates some of the work recommended and which the Members of the Committee state will cost £630,000 to complete?

MR. H. GARDNER

was understood to say it was a question of time.

MR. CHAPLIN

That is a very important point. This deals with the whole question of revision. The whole vital object in carrying out a reform of this nature, as I understand it, is this: that the revision should be carried out at a period not later than 15 years. Now I really must ask the right hon. Gentleman for a clearer understanding on this point. If he is only going to proceed with this most important work on the existing Estimates, and unless he can guarantee to us that the Treasury are prepared to give him further assistance in the future, how long will it be before the necessary work is completed? We shall go on until the crack of doom. The right hon. Gentleman has considered this very material point, and perhaps he will be kind enough to tell us when he expects to complete this necessary work under the existing Estimates? I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not imagine for one moment that in pressing him upon this point I am desiring to do anything whatever in the nature of a Party manœuvre. Nothing could be further from my mind. I know this work ought to be done on the grounds of economy, policy, and expediency, and every day it it postponed the cost will be greater. I know, also, it cannot be abandoned unless all the millions of money that has been spent on these maps in the past is to be absolutely thrown away. What I want to do is to help the right hon. Gentleman to make a raid on the Treasury for this purpose, because, unless the Treasury comes to his assistance, and gives him the moans of carrying out this most important reform, it will not be carried out, and all these vast sums of money will be thrown away. That is very distinctly the position in which we are placed in this matter. I am delighted to sec the Member for Eccles (Mr. Roby) sitting behind the right hon. Gentleman, because I have no doubt he will be able to fortify him in this matter, and give him further assistance in the object which I have in view. When I was responsible in the position held now by my right hon. Friend there were no bounds to the energy of the Member for Eccles, who made most able, powerful, and convincing speeches on the subject, and picked me up on every possible occasion, urging mo to make attacks upon the Treasury for this excellent purpose. These attacks I have made at different times, with more or less success—less rather than more—and I am very anxious that the right hon. Gentleman should occupy a more favourable position. There is plenty of time to consider it, because the work cannot be proceeded with on the scale that is recommended, at all events with the existing Estimates, during the present year. But I do hope, supported by gentlemen on that side of the House as well as on this, who really take an interest in this question, who have studied it, who know its importance and the mischief going on now, that my right hon. Friend will have the courage before this Debate has concluded to give us an undertaking that, at all events, next year the Government will proceed with this most important part of the recommendations of the Departmental Committee in accordance with the recommendations they have made.

MR. MATHER (Lancashire, S.E., Gorton)

thought the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Hanbury) had been sufficiently answered by the Minister for Agriculture in reference to his criticism as to the composition of the Departmental Committee. They had to cut according to their cloth. As to the Reference, it was necessarily rather a narrow one, and would not justifiably have taken the Committee over the ground the hon. Member for Preston desired should have been covered. As to the organisation of the Ordnance Survey, it had grown up like the British Constitution itself. It was a conglomeration of anomalies, but yet in the main it worked well, and certainly its officials were not open to the charge of incompetency in their work. The Departmental investigation into the position of the Ordnance Survey was due in a great measure to a correspondence drawing attention to the matter which appeared in The Times newspaper; and though that corre- spondence was not couched in terms complimentary to the late Government or the late Minister for Agriculture, still, the Departmental Committee, of which he had had the honour of being a Member, based their inquiries on the lines laid down by these critics. The Committee had had some of those critics before them under examination. It was probable that the Report which the Committee had furnished would not be satisfactory to those gentlemen, but it was the best possible Report which they could have made under the circumstances. The Committee had recommended to the Minister for Agriculture the completion of the one-inch map in the best and speediest manner. They had been told by the Director General that the map would be completed in 1910. That was not owing to a want of zeal in the Department, but was due entirely to the difficulty of preparing the engraved plates with bill features. Those plates were really works of art and too good, he thought, for the purpose. The Committee had taken great pains to ascertain whether there was not a process for the production of the maps with bill features more rapid and much cheaper than the present process of engraving on copper plates. They had discovered this process in helio-gravure (sun-engraving). They had it in evidence that the Austrians found it five times as quick and four times as cheap to produce a plate by this process. If it could be used the one-inch map, with bill features complete, would be finished in three or four years, instead of 16 years, and the money saved would go to the credit of the revision of the 25-inch map, for which £630,000 were required for the next 10 years, or £60,000 a year. The Committee also recommended the abandonment of the 10-feet Town Map, as at present produced. This was a great and growing expense. It had cost about £630,000 to produce 14,000 plans, and most of them were now obsolete. As towns increase in number up to 4,000 inhabitants and extend in area, the work of the revision of these maps was enormous. The Committee, therefore, proposed to bold fast the work already done, but for new maps and revision of the old maps to throw a great portion of the work and the cost on Town Authorities, making the Survey Department responsible to Parliament for the supervision and accu- racy of the work. At the Department a Town Map should always be kept up to date from information received from the town and checked by the Department. From this a copy could always be produced for the town, or it might be published at the expense of the town at cost price, and all the copies might be kept by the town. Information as to such maps would be given in the Reports of the Survey Department each year. This would save a great expense to the Department, and the saving would go to revision of all the maps, for which the Committee asked so large a sum. Then, again, the Committee had recommended the extra contouring on the maps to show the nature of the country for military, engineering, and water supply purposes. This might be carried out to any extent and to any degree of precision. But the cost for even a reasonable increase of contouring up to 1,000 feet and afterwards, and with long intervals of elevation, say 250 feet, would be about £330,000, though instrumental and water levelling were mixed. If they began where the contouring was now left off—namely, 1,000 feet elevation, and carried the contouring by water-level only to the tops of the hills at intervals of 250 feet, the cost would be £23,000. This should be done as soon as possible, and the remainder as the money could be obtained. These were the three essential changes in procedure the Committee advised, involving the disposal of present sums voted by Parliament and the extra sums required. Many complimentary words had been said of the Committee for the manner in which they had discharged their task, and he wished to say that they had got much assistance from officials of the Ordnance Survey. He thought they should also record their opinion that the Ordnance Survey was controlled by men of great scientific knowledge and zeal, who were very earnest in their work. If the Department had only sufficient money at their disposal he was sure they would keep the Ordnance Survey under constant revision and in as high a state of efficiency as any Ordnance Survey in the world.

* MR. FREEMAN-MITFORD (Warwick, Stratford)

said, he would urge on the Treasury the absolute importance of not grudging the money which was necessary to go on with the 25-inch survey, for if they did so they would have reason to regret it in the future. There was one remark which fell from the Minister for Agriculture which he confessed he heard with some regret. The right hon. Gentleman said, with regard to the question of allowing the Ordnance Survey to find their own stationery, that the Stationery Office would be consulted on the subject. The Stationery Office had been consulted on the subject time out of mind. He could answer for it to the right hon. Gentleman that during the 12 years he had been connected with the Office of Works the heads of that Department were continually besieging the Stationery Office on the subject. Twelve years it went on—two years longer than it took to take Troy, and yet they got no victory over the Stationery Office. It was most important in highly technical work of this kind that the Director of the Ordnance Survey should be his own master. The Stationery Office was a Department admirably conducted under the present Controller, but it was not omniscient; and, in these matters, which involved an immense amount of technical knowledge, it was not too much to say that the Ordnance Survey were hampered and crippled by not being allowed a free hand. To the Stationery Office paper was paper, pens were pens, and pencils were pencils; but the draughtsmen and surveyors of the Ordnance Department had to deal with very difficult and crabbed processes, and unless they had the materials exactly requisite for their purpose they were very much hampered in their work. He hoped, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman would give the Committee a more satisfactory assurance than that the Stationery Office would be consulted. He was quite sure that if only the Minister for Agriculture and the Secretary to the Treasury put their feet down no more would be heard of the matter.

COLONEL NOLAN (Galway, N.)

said he wished to know when the 25-inch survey of the County of Galway would be published? He had been informed that the old Ordnance Survey was out of date, and that the new one was much needed. He had been very much struck by the speech of the hon. Member for Gorton, who had given the Committee very useful details; but, really, if what the hon. Member had said was true he ought to have moved a reduction of the Vote. The hon. Member said that there were two processes for the production of the maps; that one process would take up one-fifth less time and cost one-fifth less, and yet that the other process, the slow and the costly one, had been adopted. What was the use of a map which they would not be able to see till 1910? The other process might enable them to see the map before the present Parliament was ended. He advised the Minister for Agriculture to go on with the 25-inch map, for it was a most useful map. The one-inch map was good enough to hang in a hall and point out this place and that place, but one could not find his way along a road with it.

* MR. H. GARDNER

said, that the re-survey of four counties in Ireland—Clare, Galway, Kerry, and Mayo—for the 25-inch map was in progress. The hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Hanbury) seemed to desire that the Director General of the Ordnance Survey should make some sort of a yearly attack on the Treasury. Any hon. Member who had had experience of Office would know that that would be placing the Director General in a very peculiar position.

MR. HANBURY

said, the recommendation of the Committee was that the Director General should be allowed to state whether the Treasury allowed him sufficient money to enable him to carry on his work.

MR. H. GARDNER

said, it was the business of the Director General to report to his Departmental Chief, and not to make a separate Report as to whether his recommendations had been carried out by the Treasury or not.

MR. HANBURY

said, they knew from the statement of the Committee that the great cost of the survey had been to a large extent due to the fact that the Treasury had not for years placed sufficient funds at the disposal of the Department; and, therefore, the Committee recommended that in order to prevent that in the future it should be placed on record whether the Director General had got sufficient funds or not.

MR. H. GARDNER

said, he thought the Committee would agree with him that it was the duty of the head of the Department, and not a subordinate officer of the Department, to bring the matter before the Treasury. What the hon. Gentleman wanted was that a subordinate officer should report to the House, which was the business of the head of the Department, who was responsible to the House and the Government. The hon. Member for Preston had also made some remarks on the subject of the agency for the maps. The contract with the present agent had not yet expired, and it was impossible for the Department to break it. Mr. Stanford, the agent, had, however, appointed 125 sub-agents, so that there was every reason to hope that the maps would be more widely distributed over the country. With regard to the remarks of his hon. Friend the Member for Gorton, the Department had taken the recommendations of the Committee into consideration, and were making experiments to see whether the new process of producing the one-inch maps was cheaper and more expeditious than the old. With regard to the 25-ineh map, it would be the duty of the Government to press this matter upon the Treasury when the Estimates for the ensuing year were prepared; and, in any case, it would be possible to do something even without an increased Vote.

* MR. BARTLEY (Islington, N.)

said, that the whole burden of the song of the right hon. Gentleman seemed to be that the country could not possibly afford the sum of £16,000 to complete the survey, as recommended by the Committee. While they were debating these matters, it seemed a strange thing that the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not appear in the House. It seemed to him that the right hon. Gentleman was not treating the House with proper respect, and that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should have been there to answer questions. The President of the Board of Agriculture had said that in former years there were surpluses. Well, no doubt there were surpluses; but finances were managed by the late Government in a different way from that in which they were managed by the present Government. They were not likely, so long as the present Government remained in Office, to have any surplus, although they were able to give the sum of £500,000 to Ireland to carry on Home Rule. He wished to say a few words about completing the sur- vey. The Minister for Agriculture had agreed with nearly all the recommendations of this Committee, but all he said was that he did not know when he would be able to carry them out, but that he hoped to begin next year, out of some savings he anticipated to secure on some items of the Vote. The burden of the song of the right hon. Gentleman was that there was no money, and that the recommendations could not be carried out at present. It seemed to him that the carrying out of the survey was a thing that they ought to complete at the earliest possible date. He wanted to know how long the 125 local agents, who had been referred to to assist in selling the maps, had been appointed, because they had only just heard of these agents, and he thought they could only have been appointed since the Committee sat. The fact remained that until that Committee sat the whole monopoly of the sale of the maps was in the hands of one publisher, who had a lively interest in the sale of his own maps. Another matter which he thought was most unsatisfactory was the paper on which the maps were printed. The proper quality and the texture of the paper was esentially a technical thing, and it was impossible to think that the Stationery Office could arrange for the supply with manufacturers as well as the Director of the Survey. It came to this—that a large Department like the Ordnance Department was so completely tied up by red tape, not only on the part of the Treasury, but on the part of the Stationery Office, that it could not select the paper on which the Ordnance maps were printed. The survey was hampered on the one side by the Treasury, and on the other side by the Stationery Office. He did not see why the whole of the Stationery appointments should be given to military men, and he asked for an explanation as to the great sum charged for postage of letters and parcels, which amounted to £1,100 a year. There was also the item of £1,200 for medical bills which required explanation. In conclusion, he moved to reduce the Vote by £100 in order to obtain information on this point.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £143,610, be granted for the said Service."—(Mr. Bartley.)

SIR F. EVANS (Southampton)

said, he wished to call attention to the position occupied by the temporary Civil assistants. It was true that when they were first engaged it was not believed that they would be employed, except during a small space of time, and they were given employment suitable only for temporary offices; but, as a matter of fact, they had remained in the employment ever since, and they asked that their services should receive recognition in the direction of superannuation, in like manner as the class denominated permanent Civil servants. They did precisely the same work, and received the same scale of pay, and when they retired they did not get the superannuation accorded to the permanent Civil assistants; and although it was true that they received some sort of gratuity on retirement, it was very small indeed. He hoped that the Minister for Agriculture or Financial Secretary would give to those men, who were very deserving servants of the State, the small extra allowance to which he was sure they were entitled.

* THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Sir J. T. HIBBERT,) Oldham

said, that this class of Civil assistants numbered some 1,300 persons, and they were engaged on the terms that they were not to be pensioned. They received the same wage and did the same work as the permanent Civil assistants, who in 1871 numbered nearly 900, but had since been greatly reduced to the number of 300, and he supposed that eventually they would have nothing but Civil assistants who would not be entitled to pensions. The Treasury had always answered any applications for pensions of the temporary Civil assistants that the terms of then-contract did not include anything in the nature of pensions. So far as the engagement was concerned, these men certainly did not appear to have any right to expect pensions; and considering that the work which they did when first engaged was not of a permanent kind—though he admitted that, to a certain extent, it had become more permanent—the Treasury were not prepared to make a change to the extent which the temporary Civil assistants desired. He was, however, anxious to meet, if possible, to a moderate extent, the very strong wishes expressed by his hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, and in the Memorial which had been sent to the Office by the men themselves. In December last his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Agriculture forwarded to the Treasury a letter in which he, to a certain extent, took up the cause of the temporary Civil assistants, and quoted the opinion of the Director of Surveys upon the question of pensions. The Director of Surveys drew attention to the fact that 50 or 60 of these men were doing responsible work in the position of superintendents, and he expressed the opinion that some distinction might be drawn between their case and that of the rest of the temporary Civil assistants. The Treasury were disposed to adopt that view by agreeing that from 50 to 60 of the men of that class who were now in the responsible position of superintendents, and who possessed exceptional technical ability, and had performed long and faithful services, should be added to the number of permanent Civil assistants. He trusted that this concession would satisfy his hon. Friend. With regard to the remarks of the hon. Member for North Islington (Mr. Bartley) as to the Treasury and the Stationery Department, he would ask where would they be financially if the Treasury did not control the different Departments? The great demands made upon them, and which they had allowed, had only been met by an addition to the Income Tax; but if all control were given up they would very soon find that an addition of a shilling or two would be necessary to meet all the demands which would be made upon them.

* MR. BARTLEY

said, it was not the control which he wished to get rid of. What he said was that the red tape of the Treasury prevented many things from being done which ought to be done.

SIR J. T. HIBBERT

said, the Treasury did good work in the interests of the State and of the people of this country. He would be quite prepared to consider whether some arrangement could be made whereby the Department of Agriculture might purchase the paper required for the particular purpose which had been alluded to. With respect to the item for medical expenses, the staff of the Ordnance Survey, like that of other Departments, had medical assistance given. The tem- porary Civil assistants were not of sufficient standing to be promoted to the higher ranks.

MR. JACKSON (Leeds, N.)

I should like one word on one or two of the points that have been raised, and I may say at first that I do not agree with the Member for North Islington (Mr. Bartley) in his criticisms of the Stationery Office and its action in connection with the Ordnance Survey. My right hon. Friend, if I may venture to warn him, should be very cautious about giving way to the demands that may be made, from time to time, for what is little less than breaking up in its component parts the work done by the Stationery Office. The work done by the Stationery Office is very important, and has led to great economy. It has concentrated in one Department the buying of certain stores which are used by other Departments. But I think the point that requires consideration is this—In the case mentioned a particular kind of paper is required. Now, I do not understand that the Stationery Office would ever object to supply any Department with any kind of paper that they could prove was necessary for their Department. The Stationery Office concentrates in one Department the purchasing of certain stores, and concentrates in the hands of certain expert officers the finding of the best markets for these stores. But I do not understand it to go further than that, and I should be very much surprised indeed to hear the Director General of Surveys had made an invoice on the Stationery Office for a particular kind of paper for his Department, and that the Stationery Office had refused to supply it. I look upon the Stationery Department as the Department that makes the purchase. The orders are sent in by the particular Department to the Stationery Office, which executes in the best and cheapest way the orders necessary to give the Department the particular kind of stores it requires. I remember one instance which confirms this view. While I was at the Treasury a question was asked about paper called "loft-dried paper" for the War Office. Some of the officers of the Stationery Department believe that this loft-dried paper, which was a very expensive kind of paper, was unnecessary for the particular purpose for which it was required. The Stationery Office, however, said—"It is our business; the War Office say they must have this paper, and we have no option but to supply it." Therefore, I do not understand that the Stationery Office, in this particular case, would in any way act in the sense which the Member for Islington thought they might act as in any way checking the Ordnance Survey Department in getting a particular kind of stores they found necessary. Certainly, if there was anything of the sort I should concur with my hon. Friend, and say that would be exercising control by the Stationery Office and by the Treasury which I think has not been the practice, and which I think could not be defended. The particular Department is the best judge of what is necessary in a technical matter like this. They ought to have the paper they desire, and I think it very desirable that all the purchases of paper should be made by one Department, great economy being effected thereby. If you once give way on this principle, you will have the Post Office wanting to buy their own telegraph forms, and you will have every Department wanting to go back on the old system of making their purchases in their own way, which will be a step in the wrong direction; and I hope, therefore, the Secretary to the Treasury will not yield too easily to demands of that sort that may he made upon him. I should like to say a word about the map agency. The map agency is at present in the hands of Messrs. Stanford, and was given to them after careful inquiry by a Committee. They recommended that, in the interests of competition and publicity, tenders should be invited, and, Messrs. Stanford's tender being the highest, it was accepted for a period of years. It may be that that system is not as good as the system which preceded it; but my recollection is that the figures of sales will show that under the present arrangement the sales have increased considerably over what they were under the system which previously existed. I do not think the present contractors are so enamoured of their contract that they will be difficult to deal with by the President of the Board of Agriculture if he has satisfied himself that some other system would be better, or would rather revert to the old system, and give everybody a commis- sion to sell the maps for the Department. But I think the matter should he carefully considered before any alteration is made, and before we go back to a system which has been discarded after most careful inquiry, because I believe that the facts and figures would show that under the present system there has been a considerable improvement. What is wanted is that some system should, if possible, be found by which the public shall know where to gel a particular map that they require. I believe that attempts have been made by means of the Post Office to circulate information, and it is within my own knowledge that the present contractors Largely circulate their lists of maps, and that they go to a very considerable expense in advertisements and various ways to try and make the public understand where they can get all these maps; and certainly I have had, within the last week or two, a considerable number of publications which give very full information, and I doubt very much whether you will find a better system, because you deal with a firm who understand their business thoroughly from beginning to end; and I am not at all certain you would find it an improvement to establish local agents here and there who might sell half-a-dozen maps in the year, and have very little interest in the matter, while the self-interest of the firm under the present arrangement is to try and increase the sale of these maps as much as they can. They pay a large sum annually for the privilege of selling these maps, and certainly it is to their interest to sell as large a quantity as they can. I should like to say one word on a matter as to which there is, I think, some misunderstanding, and that is as regards the recommendation of the Committee that the Director General of the Ordnance Survey should have the right to make some sort of a Report. If I understand the matter, I think the right hon. Gentleman put it a little higher than it should really be put. If the recommendation were intended to have this effect—that the Director General of the Ordnance Survey should criticise the action of the Treasury, and should be set up, as it were, as a separate authority, or in opposition to the action of the Treasury, then I should say that no system of that kind could work satisfactorily; and I think it very undesirable, either in the interests of the Director General or of the Treasury, that there should be any such system adopted. But I do not so read the recommendation, because, as I read the recommendation, the object of the Committee appears to have been really to fix responsibility upon the right shoulders—that is to say, that Members of this House, when they came to discuss the Estimates, should be able to see from the Estimates themselves whether the work was being carried out in the manner in which it had been indicated that the work should be carried out. They say— We recommend that the state of revision of the Cadastral Survey and one-inch map he entered in the Annual Report and Estimates of the Director General of the Ordnance Survey under separate headings; and, further, that this officer should distinctly state whether he finds the sums provided are what are necessary for and keeping up the revision of the cadastral and one-inch maps at the intervals for which they are arranged. Let me put the matter in this way:—Here we have two separate subjects for which money is required. There is an Estimate for each separate subject on the question of the time that is to be occupied, and there is an original Estimate as to cost. What I venture to say is that it would be of great advantage to Members of this Committee if they were able to see from the yearly Estimates whether the original Estimate, both as regards money and time, was being carried out by the work that was being done. That would be what I will call a yearly progress Report. Let us assume, if I may, what seems to be very unlikely—namely, that the Government should take up the revision, which is to cost £630,000. As I understand this recommendation, what would meet the case would be this:—There should be an original Estimate both as regards cost and the period of years; that each year the amount should appear in the Estimates of the expenditure alongside the amount already expended, and a little table showing the number of years it had to run; or, in fact, as I have already described it, a progress Report of the year showing whether the original Estimate was being carried out in due course or not. That would give Members of the House a great deal of information, and of course if they do not choose to make use of that information they have no longer reason to complain. As I understand, the difficulty hitherto has been that although certain promises have been made from time to time, and certain Estimates both as regards time and cost made with regard to particular divisions, there is nothing on the Estimates which will tell us at a glance whether these Estimates have been adhered to, or the promise previously made kept or not. I think there might be some improvement made in the form of the Estimate in that respect, and it would have this very good effect—and I think this is due to the Director General of the Ordnance Survey—that Members of the House would not blame him if he were not at fault. If it is the fault of the Treasury, the Treasury does not refuse to accept responsibility, nor can it decline to accept responsibility for having refused to give money to carry out the particular work; and, clearly, the responsibility ought to rest upon the Treasury and not upon the Department, if it had riot any money given to it. I am not raising the question whether the Treasury should be more or less liberal. I say that recommendation by the Committee would make it clear to Members of the House where the responsibility lay; and I think it is due to the Director General of the Survey that that should be made clear, and that the responsibility should rest upon the right shoulders. I should like to say just one word with regard to revision. The President of the Board of Agriculture has held out certain promises that he will take into his most favourable consideration the question of the revision, but that, as he understood that it would cost some £630,000, he could not induce the Treasury to assent to the work being commenced during the present year unless funds for the purpose could be obtained out of economies effected in other branches of the Department. I hope that the hon. Member for Manchester and the hon. Member for Eccles will thoroughly understand that the Government distinctly decline to make any promise to spend this sum upon this very necessary work. They decline even to put £16,000 on the Estimates which is necessary to begin this work, the Government leaving themselves perfectly free either to undertake it or not in future as they like. If the right hon. Gentleman does succeed in effecting economies in the other branches of the Department I should like the right hon. Gentleman to give the Committee some estimate of the time that it will take to complete the revision, unless this additional money is given by the Treasury.

* MR. BARTLEY

said, his right hon. Friend did not agree with him about the paper, and the right hon. Gentleman said it ought to come through the Stationery Office, unless experience showed that the Stationery Office did not supply it as wanted. He thought the right hon. Gentleman had not read the Report of the Committee on which his (Mr. Bartley's) remarks were based. The Committee stated— The Ordnance Survey does not purchase its paper, but obtains it through the Stationery Office. It appears in evidence that, while the Stationery Office is anxious to meet the wants and requirements of the Ordnance Survey, there is necessarily a difficulty in conveying to manufacturers the description or special wants and requirements through the medium of a second Department. At times this difficulty has led to the supply of paper unsuited for the work, and to difficulty in getting paper for experimental purposes. At present, and for the last two or three years, the Ordnance Survey has been fairly satisfied with the paper which has been supplied to it; but there is no security for the continuance of this condition. … While we fully recognise the advantage of using the agency of a single Department like the Stationery Office in procuring supplies of an ordinary character for all Departments of the Public Service, we do not consider such agency of equal advantage in the purchase of articles of a special and technical character. The Ordnance Survey Department already purchase their own instruments, photographic machinery, metals, glass, and other technical materials, and we think very properly so. We would add paper and other printing materials for their maps, as being also technical material. On these grounds, and bearing in mind how vitally the quality of the paper supplied affects the Survey maps, we recommend that the conditions of the paper supply for maps should be re-considered, and the Ordnance Survey should be allowed to control its own supply.

MR. JACKSON

said, he did not wish to be misunderstood, and if that were the opinion of the Committee he should differ from the Committee, because he thought it most undesirable that the duty of supplying paper should be split up among the various Departments. The difficulty mentioned could be very easily got over. The Director General should obtain a proper sample of the paper he required, and should insist upon the Stationery Office supplying him with the particular description of paper.

SIR J. T. HIBBERT

said, that the paper required by the Department was certainly of a peculiar character, and not comparable to the ordinary paper supplied to the other Government Departments. He would appeal to the Committee to allow the Vote to be taken at once, seeing that it had been discussed in a very interesting manner for upwards of three hours?

MR. CHAPLIN

had no desire to prolong the discussion, but he thought the President of the Board of Agriculture would see that they had a right to expect answers to the two specific questions which had been put to him, and to which, up to the present, they had had no semblance of an answer. The Committee now knew that the Government declined altogether to be bound by the recommendations of the Committee with regard to the revision of the map of the 25-inch scale. The hon. Member for Eccles, who had always pressed that revision upon the late Government, had not a single word to say for the purpose of inducing Her Majesty's present Government to undertake the work. For the third time he wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Agriculture, assuming that the proposed economies were effected, within what time the revision of the large map would be completed?

MR. H. GARDNER

said, he had already twice explained the position of Her Majesty's Government in the matter. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated that he could not propose a Supplementary Estimate for the purpose of carrying out the revision; and, therefore, that revision could only be commenced in the event of funds being obtained by means of economies.

MR. CHAPLIN

I must say that, considering the right hon. Gentleman has had from the 31st of December of last year until the 1st of August of the present year, I think he ought to have come to some understanding with the Treasury as to whether they will provide this necessary sum of £16,000 for commencing the work in the year that is to come. In the event of the Treasury refusing their assistance, can he give the Committee the slightest idea what time this work will take? This being a question of an important character, I would press the right hon. Gentleman for an answer.

* MR. ROBY (Lancashire, S.E., Eccles)

said, as the right hon. Gentleman had made a reference to him, he might be allowed to occupy a few moments. He wished to say that the Report was not signed by him. But he did not, on that account, wish to divest himself of responsibility. With the general tenour of the Report he thoroughly agreed. He remembered only one point, and that of no great consequence, on which he disagreed with the recommendations. It was perfectly obvious that in the present state of finance the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not been easy to approach on the subject, and he (Mr. Roby) thought it would be the wiser course for the right hon. Gentleman carefully to go over the whole plan suggested, and see in the course of the next few months what could be done in the way of economy when he had considered the whole of the recommendations of the Committee. But, if nothing more satisfactory was produced next year, he should be prepared to join in pressing the importance of the work upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He agreed entirely with what the late Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Jackson) had said, that it seemed quite possible, in the limit of ordinary working of Departments, that the Ordnance Survey should get the sort of paper they required for their work. The difficulty was not in getting the particular paper they required at a particular time, so much as getting it uniformly for a number of years. With regard to the agents, he (Mr. Roby) did not think hon. Members who had spoken were aware of the real difficulties of the matter. There were two—one, the actual ignorance of the public as to the way of specifying particular maps they required; and the second, the enormous stock of maps it was necessary for any proper agent to keep—from which the public might select what they wanted. There was more difficulty about it than appeared at first sight. He did not think present difficulties were in the smallest degree due to Mr. Stanford's desire to sell his own publications in preference to those of the Ordnance Survey. He believed Mr. Stanford was interested in the survey, pecuniarily and otherwise, and that there was not the smallest ground for the suggestion that any delay or want of sale of the sheets or maps was due to competition between Mr. Stanford and other publishers. As to what had been said by the Member for Preston touching the Select Committee, that had been dealt with by the late Minister for Agriculture (Mr. Chaplin), who preferred a Departmental Committee. He (Mr. Roby) thought some inquiry should be made into the question of organisation, and for that a Select Committee would have been the better body. He rejoiced that the question of Ordnance Survey had arrived at such a position that a large number of the Members of the House and of the public had a better knowledge of what could be, and should be, done, and were, therefore, likely to press for a speedy fulfilment of what had been promised on the subject.

MR. CHAPLIN

said, he had to apologise to the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down for the inaccuracy which he had made. He had so many letters from the hon. Member on the subject, that he fell into the error of believing that what was said privately had been said publicly. He had the Report, which coutained a paragraph in which the Committee, stating that they were deprived of his assistance in drawing it up, added that he had communicated his views.

MR. ROBY

Hear, hear!

MR. CHAPLIN

said, he was sorry he could not get a better answer from the Government upon this question as to the recommendations. He was greatly disappointed in the hopes he had entertained upon the point.

* MR. GIBSON BOWLES (Lynn Regis)

said, he wished to direct attention to the question of control. He wished to know how the service had been handed over to the Agricultural Department, instead of coming under the Stationery Vote? There was a sum of £14,000 involved in this. As in the ease of the Parliamentary Debates, there was no one to see how the publication was carried out. He admitted that the Minister of Agriculture knew a great deal about mangold-wurzel; but he could not be sup- posed to have this question of publication under his supervision. The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Mundella), however, knew all about publication. He had now a new publication, with advertisements, and posted in an official cover, and it was clear, therefore, that publication could easily be done by a Government Department. Another matter was that he saw in this Vote the first of along series of pluralists; and he intended to challenge all of them. Most of the Civil assistants got no pensions even when their work was done, while others got pensions while the work was going on. One man got an allowance from the Inland Revenue as an Inspector of Income Tax. There were altogether, he found, 454 pluralists, many of whom were men on the Army Fund. There were 27 superior officers. Some of these gentlemen were occasionally employed as Inspectors of Art Schools. He thought they had some right to explanation with regard to this extra pay. He found that there were cases of men having pay for one office, and for a second office and a third office, while only attending to the third office. He must enter an earnest protest against this. Perhaps the Minister for Agriculture had not concentrated his attention upon the question; he certainly had not condescended to make any statement. It would appear that Major-Generals and Colonels were employed on double pay. These maps, he would point out, were of the greatest assistance and benefit. One small detail he would suggest. It was that the smaller scale maps should be printed on thin, tough paper, when he thought the cyclist and rider and pedestrian would find them of great benefit.

MR. DUNBAR BARTON (Armagh, Mid)

said, he would like to ask the attention of the Government to the maps in connection with Ireland. In Ireland there were such schemes as that of Laud Purchase, and he thought they should have smaller maps—maps which would be convenient, and which would be in every respect worthy of use. He thought this work should not be behindhand in Ireland. Four counties had been selected for favour, as it seemed to him, in the turning out of the map; but the whole country was interested, and he would ask for some explanation.

MR. H. GARDNER

was understood to say the map on the one-inch scale would be ready in a very short time.

Question put, and negatived.

Original Question put, and agreed to.

2. £16,024, to complete the sum for Harbours in the United Kingdom and Lighthouses Abroad under the Board of Trade.

MR. HANBURY (Preston)

said, he only rose for the purpose of getting some information from the President of the Board of Trade in regard to these harbours and lighthouses. He wished to know why certain works should be kept up as special harbours, and also why certain other items should come under the heading of special lighthouses? He had all the more reason for putting the question and getting some definite information, because it was this Vote in regard to Harbours which had most frequently led Ministers astray. If they took Dover Harbour, there was a Vote for £100; but they did not know what it was for. Dover, he admitted, was a peculiar case, and a very expensive one. £40,000 had been expended on the district, notwithstanding that a, large and important harbour was to be built. There was a question of convict labour, and a prison existed at the present time. It was not unreasonable that they should require definite information.

THE CHAIRMAN

I must point out to the hon. Member that there is no money in this Vote in connection with the subject he alludes to.

MR. HANBURY

said, Dover was an item in the question of expenditure. He wanted to ascertain what was to be the result of this expenditure of £40,000? He would use this as a warning to show the Government that they should not enter on the same course in regard to the other items of this Vote. Dover came under the same heading. He thought they should have some explanation on the subject.

* MR. GIBSON BOWLES

said, he would like to ask a question as to the works at Spurn Point. How were those works going on now? They should know what advantage they were, and what it was intended should be done with them. Personally, he knew nothing about them; but they should have some information. Then, regarding the harbours, he was anxious for information. He took the case of the Harbour Master of Holyhead. The Committee knew what the duties of a Harbour Master were; and he thought the proper man for a, position of that kind was some old master of a merchantman, who wanted to soothe his declining years with a salary of £100 a year. If they had men like that they would be certain to have good Harbour Masters. [Cries of "No!" Well, they would, in such eases, have a man with a practical knowledge of the work that was required of him, and not a man who was above doing the work; and, besides, they would have him doing it at a salary much lower than they could get an unpractical man to do it for. They had, in the ease to which be alluded, a Harbour Master at a salary of £350, who also received £370 as a retired Commander of the Royal Navy. He did not know the gentleman's name—it was not given in the Papers before him. But his opinion was that the work could be done for £80. He found that there was an assistant Harbour Master, who probably did most of the work, at £70 per annum, and that explained why he said the work could be done at the smaller sum. He wanted to know why the Harbour Master was paid this large sum? By their doing so, the position became a prize for those who had the influence and interest of the great—a Minister or someone of that class—and he would really like to hear how it was that there was such a system of pluralism in the Department of the Board of Trade.

MR. MACARTNEY (Antrim, S.)

said, he could not agree with his hon. Friend in all the strictures he had passed on the harbour authorities at Holyhead. He was not acquainted with the present Harbour Master, but he had known the late Harbour Master; and though not so well qualified to form an opinion on questions affecting the sea as the hon. Member for King's Lynn, he did not think that anyone connected with a vessel driven into Holyhead by stress of weather would say that the late Harbour Master was not qualified to perform his duty, and did not perform it in the most assiduous and careful manner. Up to almost the last moment of his last illness he performed his duty in the most able and energetic manner. With regard to lighthouses abroad, about two years ago the Government were obliged to strike off a considerable sum on account of leakage in the paraffin oil cisterns in those lighthouses. Attention was called to the matter, and he should like to know if an effort had been made to rectify the condition of the cisterns?

MR. MUNDELLA

(who was very indistinctly heard) was understood to say that the Harbour Masters to whom reference had been made were on the retired list. With respect to lighthouses generally, he was able to inform the Committee that they were now in a most perfect state. They were visited every three months by very competent officers, to the great satisfaction of one of the most experienced navigators of the country—Admiral Sir George Nares. He had received Reports from Inspectors during the past few days, which declared that the lighthouses were in a condition which left nothing to be desired. As to Dover Harbour, the whole question had been settled a few years ago by an Act passed by Parliament, which transferred the harbour to new Commissioners. With regard to Holyhead Harbour, it was a station for Her Majesty's packets, both Irish and British, and a considerable sum of money had been spent on it. It was maintained in a state of great efficiency, as it was necessary that it should be. He failed to see why, because the Harbour Master happened to be a pensioned officer of Her Majesty's Navy, he should be debarred from taking service of this kind. Harbour Masters were frequently appointed from the Mercantile Marine. He protested against the use of the word "job" in connection with this appointment.

MR. A. C. MORTON (Peterborough)

considered the statement of the right hon. Gentleman as to Harbour Masters unsatisfactory, and thought that if the right hon. Gentleman was afraid of the word "job" he would not get on very well with the Radical Party, for there was not one job but hundreds and thousands perpetrated in connection with the Civil Service, and these it was necessary to take every opportunity of bringing to light. He should not so much object to retired naval officers having the appointments of Harbour Masters if what the right hon. Gentleman had said as to the abilities of these gentlemen was correct. Looking at the way in which we lost Her Majesty's ships, he should think that to belong to the Royal Navy was about the worst qualification for a Harbour Master. He noticed that whenever an officer of the Army or Navy retired from active service other employment was found for him, very often in other branches of Her Majesty's Service; but he could assure Members that as they had to depend on outside votes for their seats in that House they would have to do something for the men of the Army and Navy as well as for Generals, Commanders, and so forth.

An hon. Member: You do.

MR. A. C. MORTON

said, they did very little for them except offer them the workhouse. There was no reason to believe because a man was a Commander in the Navy that, therefore, he-would make the best Harbour Master. With regard to the money voted for works at Spurn Point, he trusted that it would not be devoted to other purposes. He had pointed out many cases where money voted for one purpose was spent on another.

VISCOUNT CRANBORNE (Rochester)

thought it was much to be regretted that the hon. Member who had just sat down had taken the line he had in regard to giving employment to retired officers of the Army and Navy. The hon. Member seemed to think that this country was under no obligation to the gallant officers who served us in time of war—and, indeed, in time of peace. The hon. Member was not ashamed to make reference in the House to the terrible loss of the Victoria.

MR. A. C. MORTON

said, he did not make reference to that loss especially, but to hundreds of losses and accidents.

VISCOUNT CRANBORNE

But the hon. Member had sneered at the Naval Service in connection with the loss of the Victoria. They all knew that that ship was lost by a terrible mistake on the part of a very gallant officer; but that the hon. Member should think it his duty as a Member of the House to sneer at the great Naval Service of the country, of which they were all so justly proud, in order to give point to a miserable little attack on an item in Committee of Supply showed that he grossly misconceived what that duty was. He (Viscount Cranborne) was pleased to think that a post like the Harbour Mastership of Holyhead Harbour should be given to a retired naval officer. It was a saving to the country to begin with, because they did not give him as much money as they would have to give an officer who did not enjoy a pension. Besides that, it was a proper thing that, wherever it was possible, those places should be given as a sort of reward in their old age to those who had served their country in either of the great professions. The hon. Member was altogether wrong in thinking that this system was not carried out in all the ranks of the Service.

MR. A. C. MORTON

said, he had made applications for work for old soldiers, and he knew that the Government did not give the same consideration to these people that the)' gave to retired officers.

VISCOUNT CRANBORNE

said, he know the Government did not find work for all old soldiers, any more than they did for all old Commanders of the Navy; but they did find work for old soldiers, and every year it was more and more the practice of the Government to take advantage of what opportunities they had of supplying work for old servants. Not long ago, in connection with the Post Office, a reform was carried out by which a large number of small appointments, which used to be jobbed by Members of Parliament, being in their gift, were given to old soldiers.

MR. DUNBAR BARTON

said, he must deprecate the attack which had been made on the Harbour Master of Holyhead. The hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Morton) said he did not know anything about this gentleman, and yet he asked the President of the Board of Trade to give proof that he was the best man for the post. The onus of proof surely rested upon the person who attacked an absent man. It was not the duty of a Minister to defend every man in the Service. He (Mr. Barton) could only say, as an Irish Member travelling backwards and forwards through Holyhead very often in the year, that he had never heard any complaint of the Harbour Master. So far as he knew, the arrangements at that harbour bad never met with criticism.

* MR. GIBSON BOWLES

said, he had attacked not the official, but his salary.

MR. DUNBAR BARTON

said, the hon. Member had implied that his appointment was a job—that he had been selected because of his connection with a high family. This Harbour Master had the highest character for efficiency, and it was not fair to attack him without some reasonable ground.

* MR. GIBSON BOWLES

said, he had not stated that it was a job—and he had not intended to imply that. What he had intended to say—if he had not done so—was that if they attached too large a salary to the post it was calculated to breed a job.

MR. DUNBAR BARTON

said, he was glad they had heard a distinct disclaimer from the hon. Member of any intention to attack the Holyhead Harbour Master.

MR. A. C. MORTON

said, he had made no personal attack on the gentleman in question. He had only referred to the principle involved in the appointment. It was nonsense to say that any attack had been made on the Harbour Master. No doubt, when the hon. Member (Mr. Barton) was crossing backwards and forwards between England and Ireland the Harbour Master looked very well after him.

MR. DUNBAR BARTON

said, they had at Kingstown Harbour a, gentleman who had been in the Royal Navy. It was only right to point out that they had in these harbours men-of-war, troopships, and Revenue cutters; and it might, under such circumstances, be important to have a naval man in charge of the harbours.

* MR. GIBSON BOWLES

said, he wished to protest against the system of putting lights under the Board of Trade. They had in the Trinity House a body admirably fitted to look after these things—

MR. MUNDELLA

said, that to transfer the lights to the Trinity House, as the hon. Member desired, would require an Act of Parliament.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES

said, he should be satisfied if the right, hon. Gen- tleman would promise him to bring in a Bill for the purpose next Session. He wished to know if the lights at the Bahamas and at Sombrero, and other foreign stations, were now correct?

MR. MUNDELLA

replied in the affirmative.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES

complained that there was not a single light in the Bed Sea.

MR. MUNDELLA

They are not under me.

THE CHAIRMAN

said, that that question did not come under the present Vote.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES

said, he was pointing out that if they had lights under the Board of Trade in foreign parts the list ought to be revised.

THE CHAIRMAN

It is irregular to discuss what is not under the Vote.

* MR. GIBSON BOWLES

Very well, then if I am not allowed to discuss the matter I will move the reduction of the Vote by £1,000.

MR. MUNDELLA

appealed to the hon. Member not to do that.

MR. MUNDELLA

I can give the hon. Member no kind of explanation as to these lights. They are not under me.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES

I say the right hon. Gentleman should not have the lights under him. I will not press the Motion.

MR. MUNDELLA

said, that with respect to the Trinity House, he was glad the hon. Member thought so highly of it. There were distinguished men on that Board, who had belonged to the Navy as well as to the Mercantile Marine.

Vote agreed to.

3. £24,800, to complete the sum for Peterhead Harbour.

VISCOUNT CRANBORNE

said, the point he wished to raise was a comparatively small one. The sum asked for this new harbour stood at much the same figure as it did last year, and was ridiculously small when compared with the total Estimate, which was over £700,000. At that rate, and taking into account the sums already voted for the purpose, the harbour would not be completed for 17 years. That appeared to be a very uneconomical method of proceeding. If the work was worth doing at all it must be worth doing in a shorter period. It was called a harbour of refuge, but that implied urgency, and here was an attempt to postpone the urgency for 17 years. Private Members had a right to criticise the Estimates; they did so for the purpose of saving money, and he thought this was a case in which the Civil Lord of the Admiralty should offer some explanation. It certainly seemed to him that a very uneconomical method was being pursued.

THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. E. ROBERTSON,) Dundee

said, the intention of those who were responsible for this enterprise was that the money should be spread over a number of years. This was a harbour to be built mainly by convict labour. It was set on foot some eight or nine years ago. The sum asked for this year was about the same as the sum voted last year, when the Government of which the noble Lord was a supporter was in Office. Year by year this quota had been asked for by successive Governments and voted by the House. The procedure was the same in each case. He hoped the noble Lord would be satisfied with this information.

VISCOUNT CRANBORNE

said, the explanation of the hon. Gentleman did not satisfy him, and he must protest against this policy on public grounds. No doubt it had been the practice of Parliament not to allow convicts to use their labour in a remunerative way; but he did not see why convict labour, like other labour, should not be applied to what paid best. They should have more equality than now prevailed. He was not attacking this Government specially, but the policy pursued by it, and by its predecessors. This great mass of men cost a great deal of money, and Governments deliberately said that they would not use the labour of these men in a remunerative way. That was imposing a heavy burden on the public. It seemed a most extraordinary example of the want of moral courage on the part of successive Governments, and exhibited in the most naked manner the weakness of the representative system. Money was being expended rashly while this system prevailed; and the time had come for the taxpayers to insist upon relief from it.

THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. H. H. FOWLER,) Wolverhampton, E.

said, he must protest against the remarks of the noble Lord with regard to economy, which would make it appear that the House had been wrong, and that they were not for years past treating the taxpayers fairly. He challenged him to put down a Motion in order to test the question whether the House of Commons would rescind what successive Liberal and Conservative Governments had done, and would be prepared to bring convict labour into competition with free labour. As one who had had something to do with the commencement of this particular work, he owned that it was with considerable reluctance He yielded to this harbour being started. He thought that Dover or Galway had stronger claims than Peterhead—the Irish Members had a strong opinion, and the Scotch had a strong opinion also. The result, however, was that the Government of that day decided in favour of Peterhead. No blame whatever was attachable to the Government in thus carrying out a policy determined upon in 1885, and carried out, up to the present time, without question; on the contrary, it was a clear duty to carry out the policy sanctioned by Parliament. They were pledged to Peterhead, and they must carry out the work. He did not think there was any unnecessary delay; they were proceeding just as the late Government did. So far as the Government was concerned, the noble Lord could bring forward the general question, and submit it to the House. In the meantime, he failed to see where the objection applied, for, as he had said, they were but carrying out the policy already sanctioned by Parliament.

COLONEL NOLAN (Galway, N.)

said, he had always favoured Galway in preference to Peterhead; and, much as he admired the Prime Minister, he thought it was a blot on his escutcheon that the right hon. Gentleman rescinded a promise of the Conservative Government, and sent the convicts not to Galway but to Peterhead. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board was right, in saying the Scotch Members were in favour of Peterhead; but the Irish Members were unanimous for Galway. The Government really ought to build one or two harbours in Ireland, where they were very much wanted. If the Scotch Members wanted harbours he should vote with them, and he was sure they would support his view as to the absence of harbour accommodation, and the necessity for something being done to provide it.

* MR. STUART-WORTLEY (Sheffield, Hallam)

understood this work was being-done by convict labour.

SIR J. T. HIBBERT

Mainly.

* MR. STUART-WORTLEY

said, according to his experience, a clear distinction had always been drawn between employing convict labour for public works for the State and employing, or allowing to be employed convict labour on commodities for sale in the open market to private purchasers. He claimed a reserved right for the State to employ convict labour for national works. He wished to know what prospect there was that they would continue to have in Scotland a sufficient force of convict labour for the prosecution of these works, because in Scotland, as in England, happily there was a most satisfactory diminution in the numbers of the convict population.

MR. BURNIE (Swansea, Town)

said, he would like to see provision made for pushing on harbours both at Peterhead and Galway; but he protested against the work being done by convict labour whilst there were thousands of honest and capable workmen unemployed. In constructing these harbours and giving employment to the deserving they were discharging a duty to commerce and humanity; and the money would be well spent and abundantly returned to the nation.

SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

said, that when this subject was last under discussion the Civil Lord of the Admiralty made a rather severe attack on him for venturing to criticise the Vote, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer developed the attack by accusing him of violating the ordinary practice of Members of past Governments. It was said on that occasion that this was a Vote for which the Admiralty was responsible. Indeed, it was described as his Vote, for it was said that lie was responsible for it as Civil Lord of the Admiralty in the late Government, and that, therefore, his action in criticising if was unusual and unprecedented. He traversed all those statements. It was not an Admiralty Vote; it was not a Vote for which the Civil Lord was responsible; it was a Treasury Vote. The policy had been decided on by the Government, and all that the Civil Lord was responsible for was the administration of the sum which was voted by the Treasury. Therefore, in his remarks he had been neither out of Order nor following an unusual course. He quite agreed with the dictum laid down by the Prime Minister that it was not unusual or contrary to Parliamentary procedure for a Member of a past Government to criticise when his Party had gone out of Office a Vote which had been passed sub silentio. He admitted that, it would be a different thing if a Member of a past Government had defended a Vote by a speech in the House, or supported it in the Division Lobbies, and criticised it afterwards under another Government. So much in the way of justification for the course he had taken on the previous occasion. With regard to the Vote itself, he maintained that the policy under which only £29,000 a year was spent on such works as harbours of refuge was an unfortunate and wasteful policy. It had been clearly established that, in the construction of great public works as in that of ships, it was bad to extend the work over a long period of time, and that the more quickly it was done the more economically it was done. To spread the construction of a harbour over 17 or 18 years must involve great waste. The President of the Local Government Board had made a remarkable statement on the subject of Peterhead Harbour. The right hon. Gentleman practically admitted that in 188o, by the Government of which he was a Member, contrary to the opinion of many persons, himself included, the claims of Peterhead were put before those of Dover and Filey under pressure from Scotch Members.

* MR. H. H. FOWLER

The hon. Gentleman has misconstrued what I said. I said that the Government proposed a Vote of £1,000 for a preliminary survey at Dover; but the House did not sanction the commencement of the work. It was the action of the House of Commons, and not of the Government of which I was a Member.

SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT

said, that the right hon. Gentleman had now raised a new and separate question. The right hon. Gentleman stated before that the claims of such important places as Dover and Filey for harbours of refuge were put on one side, contrary to his judgment, in favour of Peterhead, in deference to pressure from Scotch Members.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

By the House of Commons.

SIR E. ASHMEAD - BARTLETT

said the Government must have been half-hearted, or else, with the majority of 100 which they then had in the House, they could easily have carried the Vote. Then, again, the Government, according to the right hon. Gentleman, only proposed to devote £100 for Dover. That reminded him of the £4,000 or £5,000 they proposed to devote on Gibraltar. The right hon. Gentleman had further told them that the works at Peterhead were being conducted at an enormous cost. Another instance of the judgment and economy of the past Government. He wished to ask the Civil Lord of the Admiralty whether Peterhead Harbour was likely to be completed for the Estimate settled on before — namely, £437,000; and, as something like a third of that amount had been spent, he wished to know whether a third of the work had been done? He also wished to know whether the work would be completed in the time appointed, of which 17 years had yet to run; and whether the Civil Lord of the Admiralty was satisfied with the way in which the work was being executed, and with its progress?

MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER (Belfast, W.)

said, the only justification for the expenditure of public money was that it was spent on some work of paramount importance. But it was now suggested that Peterhead had no claim on the nation, and the President of the Local Government Board had admitted the paramount necessity for a harbour at Dover—a fact which was obvious to everyone who had considered the matter. It would seem to be the policy of the Government that public money should be spent only on one harbour at a time; and as it had been shown that the harbour at Peterhead could not be completed before 17 years, he wished to know whether that period must elapse before the construction of a harbour at Dover was commenced? There was absolutely no military harbour between Portsmouth and the mouth of the Thames, and from the mouth of the Thames to the Humber. All military and naval authorities agreed that a harbour at Dover was an absolute necessity. Why Peterhead, which had nothing to do with a military harbour, had been undertaken he was at a loss to conceive, for he could hardly accept the statement of the hon. Member for Ecclesall that it was undertaken solely on the ground that the Scotch Members had pressed for it.

SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT

I did not say so. I quoted the President of the Local Government Board as having said so.

MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER

said, that if the President of the Local Government Board had made the statement he was bound to accept it; though, personally, he was inclined to believe that there must be some stronger motive for the selection of Peterhead. But if there was a necessity for a harbour at Peterhead, there was an infinitely greater necessity for a harbour at Dover; and he thought that work should be at once commenced. It was admitted there was a paramount necessity for a harbour at Dover, totally independent of what was being done there by private enterprise. We had spent £60,000 upon a convict establishment there; and were we to wait 17 years before beginning the work which had been initiated by that expenditure?

THE CHAIRMAN

Order, order! The hon. Member is not in Order. The Vote for Dover Harbour is not now before us.

MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER

said that Dover had been referred to by every Member who had spoken so far. All he wished to urge was that half of the Vote before the Committee should be spent on a harbour at Dover, which was a pressing necessity in the interest of the United Kingdom.

MR. E. ROBERTSON

said, all the questions raised on this Vote were settled deliberately by two Committees 10 years ago. But the hon. Member who had just sat down was a new Member of the House, and always eager to convey information to the House. It was a very remarkable thing that opportunity should be taken to raise these questions again in this busy Session. He would not, therefore, go into irrelevant questions. As to the number of convicts available at Peter-head at the 31st of March last it was 303. The hon. Member for Ecclesall was entirely mistaken in stating that the Admiralty were not responsible for the Vote. The matter had been settled by agreement between the Admiralty and the Treasury.

SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT

The Admiralty only administered the amount. The amount was fixed by the Treasury.

MR. E. ROBERTSON

said, the Engineer-in Chief of the works framed the Estimate; the Admiralty settled it in communication with the Treasury, and the Member of the Board of Admiralty responsible was the Civil Lord, an Office which the hon. Gentleman himself had filled in the late Government. Therefore, year by year the hon. Gentleman, with a due sense, he hoped, of his own responsibility and a due sense of the responsibility of the Admiralty, fulfilled the duty of proposing this Vote which he now criticised.

SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT

The Admiralty did not propose it. It is a Treasury Vote.

MR. E. ROBERTSON

It is a Treasury Vote for which the Admiralty is responsible.

SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT

For only its administration.

MR. E. ROBERTSON

said, the Vote was a, yearly Vote, and the Civil Lord of the Admiralty for the time being was responsible. The hon. Member for Ecclesall had also asked him how much of the work at Peterhead had been done. His answer was that the hon. Gentleman would find the information he asked for, up to 31st March of last year, in a Report he himself had issued as Civil Lord in 1892. Since then not much progress had been made with the works. As far as he knew, the amount of work done was in proportion to the amount of money spent, and there was no reason to believe that the original Estimate would be exceeded before the harbour was completed. He thought these were all the relevant points that had been raised. [COLONEL NOLAN: GALWAY.] He had great sympathy with Galway. He did not know whether there were convicts at Galway, but there were at Peterhead; and Parliament, in its wisdom, had ordered the employment of these convicts on the public works. He did not think that Galway was involved in the Vote, and perhaps the gallant Member would bring up the subject, on another Vote.

MR. J. LOWTHER (Kent, Isle of Thanet)

said, the hon. Gentleman had thrown a challenge across the floor to the lion, and gallant Member for Galway to seek another opportunity for discussing the question of a prospective harbour at Galway. The President of the Local Government Board had also challenged the noble Lord the Member for Rochester to bring forward a specific Motion— a Vote of Censure the right hon. Gentleman called it—raising the question to which the noble Lord had so ably referred—namely, the employment of convict labour. It was perfectly safe for Members of the Government to throw out these challenges, considering the monopoly of the time of Parliament which the Government possessed. No opportunity would be given to hon. Members to raise these questions; and if by any chance they were raised, hon. Members would very soon be gagged. He agreed with the President of the Local Government Board that the question of the employment of convicts by the State upon harbour works had been settled a good many years ago; and he was bound to say, in all candour, that he did not share some of the views of his noble Friend the Member for Rochester as to the employment of convict labour upon works when that labour would enter into competition with the labour of free workmen. He agreed that the making of mats by convicts below market prices was bringing convict labour unfairly into competition with the free labour of the country; but there wore other works, such as the construction of harbours, which could be done with more economy by convicts, and he thought it was perfectly right to employ convicts on such works. But when convict labour was employed on public works it should be employed economically—that was to say that, at any rate, a sufficient number of convicts for the works should be employed. He understood that the number of convicts employed at Peterhead was not sufficient. Was that because there were no more convicts available for the works in Scotland?

SIR J. T. HIBBERT

Yes.

MR. J. LOWTHER

said, he was glad to know that Scotland was so free from crime that it had but few convicts. There was, however, no law to prevent the employment on these national works at Peterhead of convicts from other parts of the United Kingdom. He agreed with the right hon. Gentleman that it would be undesirable to supplement the convict labour at Peterhead with free labour; but there was no reason whatever why the work there should not be more expeditiously carried on without in any way departing from the general principle already laid down, and under which those works had hitherto been conducted. The harbour at Peterhead had been undertaken, because, in the opinion of Parliament, fortified by Reports of Committees and Commissions, it was a Treat national work. He was inclined to think that another part of the coast would have been more properly chosen, but the Chairman had pointed out that that was scarcely within the purview of the present discussion. He would merely draw attention to the fact that differences of opinion did prevail as to the selection of Peterhead Harbour, and that it was not by any means unanimous. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. H. H. Fowler) had lifted the veil, and had revealed certain occurrences of the inner ring of political life; at any rate, the right hon. Gentleman had revealed and brought back to his recollection certain facts which accounted for the selection of the site, contrary to the opinion, he believed, of the great majority of experts, amongst whom, as his hon. Friend reminded him, might be included the great mass of the naval authorities of this country. The hon. Member who last spoke, following to that extent the lead of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board, complained of what he spoke of as the practice adopted by successive Governments with regard to the allocation of certain special sums amongst them of rather under £30,000 annually for this purpose of Peterhead Harbour. They had heard a good deal too much during the present Session of what was known as the tu quoque argument. He thought that both Governments were wrong, and that larger sums should have been allocated for carrying out an urgent national public work. Whatever might be said of previous Governments, it was no excuse for their successors following au equally indefensible course, and it was desirable that a protest should be entered against this practice. In his opinion, both the last and the present Governments were wrong in the course they adopted.

THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Sir U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH,) Lancashire, Clitheroe

Hear, hear!

MR. J. LOWTHER

said, the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty wished for the honour of endorsing those sentiments. The right hon. Gentleman felt that the Treasury had a fatal tendency to adopt very much the same course, as he (Mr. Lowther) had no doubt the right hon. Gentleman's applications in regard to national works had been disregarded.

* SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH

Quite the contrary.

MR. J. LOWTHER

said, that was the experience of all those before the right hon. Gentleman who had held the Office the right hon. Gentleman now held. He was bound to say, however, that it was necessary for the Treasury to curtail the Estimates and keep them within reasonable limits and to disappoint the expectations of Departmental Representatives. But the point lie wished to urge, he hoped, would be treated as above mere Party questions. When a great national work had been decided upon by Parliament, upon the authority and on the recommendations of strong Committees and powerful Commissions, the House of Commons Representatives should insist upon the work being duly and diligently conducted, not pressed forward with undue haste, without regard to legitimate conditions by which all works of this kind were surrounded, but that successive Governments and succeeding Parliaments should carry out the work in a comprehensive manner. What he feared was that the work had been peddled and muddled away in a manner that was discreditable to this country. He did not wish to enter into other matters, as possibly he would have further opportunities for so doing; but he wished to call attention to what he regarded as a disregard by the Government of their duties to improve the means of saving life. A Royal Commission was appointed to consider the means of saving life at sea, and he hoped the Government in framing their Estimates for another year would disregard the evil precedents they had lent their countenance to this year— that they would cast aside both the precedents and the tu quoque arguments they had favoured them with to-night, and would set about improving the means for the saving of life at sea.

* The SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Sir J. T. HIBBERT,) Oldham

said, the right hon. Gentleman in one of his remarks referred to the number of convicts employed at Peterhead. There was no doubt the number of convicts in Scotland was being decreased, and this had been going on for several years past. In his opinion, the question would soon arise whether the work at Peterhead should not be carried on more speedily than hitherto, and whether some other labour should not be sought to carry on the work. No doubt the undertaking was instituted for the purpose of employing Scottish convicts, and great difficulties might exist as to the employment of other convicts; but, at the same time, whether those difficulties were great or small, he admitted there was a case for inquiry as to whether there should not be an additional number of men put on the work. And now might he appeal to the Committee to allow them to take this Vote?

MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER

said, he wished to say a word or two by way of explanation. The hon. Member the Civil Lord (Mr. E. Robertson) had taunted him with being a new Member, and not aware of the facts as to how the works at Peterhead originated. He was quite aware of the fact that Peterhead Harbour was decided upon some 10 years ago, and since then he had inspected four of the French harbours, three of which had been originated and constructed within the last 10 years. That was the reason why he had contributed this small amount of information to the Committee.

MR. TOMLINSON (Preston)

said, (hat under Head 2 of this Vote, it appeared that an additional sum of £13,920 was taken for the maintenance of the convicts; and lie wished to know whether that represented the cost of the employment of the convict labour, and that the £29,800 in the Vote really represented the cost of free labour?

MR. E. ROBERTSON

Yes.

MR. TOMLINSON

said, it was suggested in some quarters there was a difference of opinion in Scotland as to what part of the work ought to be completed first. As He understood, the greater part of the expenditure had been incurred in constructing the south breakwater; and that if the same amount had been expended upon the north breakwater instead, that now they would have had a harbour that would have been useful. He wished to know whether the engineering plans had been altered during the progress of the works; whether the engineer had been consulted; and whether it would not be possible to proceed with the north breakwater and defer the construction of the south breakwater?

MR. E. ROBERTSON

said, the question referred to by the hon. Gentleman had been raised very recently, but the engineer had not yet expressed an opinion upon it. He would take care the hon. Gentleman should be put in possession of it when it was given.

* ADMIRAL FIELD (Sussex, Eastbourne)

said, that if He understood there was any opposition to the harbour being made, or to its being where it was, he did not sympathise with that opposition. All naval men accepted a harbour of refuge wherever they could obtain it. He well remembered the Bill being brought in for the construction of the harbour in 1886, and the then Civil Lord was now Governor of New South Wales. But he mainly rose to point out to the Secretary to the Treasury that as he understood the convicts were to be withdrawn from Portsmouth there was an opportunity for reinforcing the establishment at Peterhead and pressing forward the work. He thoroughly agreed that more convicts should be employed upon the works. For the construction of breakwaters convict labour was the best that could be obtained, because it was impossible to construct breakwaters under contract. The best break water in the world—that at Portland—was entirely constructed by convict labour. Observations had been made by the hon. Member for Belfast (Mr. Arnold-Forster) with reference to Dover, and he heard the right hon. Gentleman say that the House of Commons refused to assent to the grant. He (Admiral Field) remembered that Opposition, the Leader of which, unfortunately, was Sir Robert Peel, and he remembered it the more strongly because he believed he first spoke on that question in this House by challenging the right hon. Baronet. But the Government were to blame in the matter. Why did they give in—why were they so half-hearted in the matter? The Government allowed the House to go without Leaders, and, therefore, the House followed the right hon. Baronet, and voted for a miserable Motion that they wore all smarting for now. Not only this Government, but past Governments equally, had failed in carrying out their duties respecting the making of Dover Harbour what it ought to be—a man-of-war harbour and a torpedo station. [Crics of "Order, order!"] He was not out of Order; and if he was he hoped hon. Members would be merciful to him, because he did not often transgress. If a Division were taken he should cordially support the Vote. He should like to have a harbour at Filey as well; but, as a sailor, he was satisfied with what he could get out of this or any other Government.

MR. W. WHITELAW (Perth)

said, he gathered from the Debate that both Parties agreed that more convict labour ought to be employed at Peterhead. He would point out there was a limit to convict labour, and that limit was to be found when the limit of accommodation at Peterhead Prison had been reached. He would, therefore, ask the Government to take care that when more convicts were sent to Peterhead in order to take part in the work of building the harbour, more were not sent than there was room for in the prison. He said this, because the majority of the Scottish prisons were at the present time, generally speaking, overcrowded. At present Peterhead Prison was not one of those, and he hoped it would be allowed to remain so; but that, if any addition was to be made, it would not be such as to make it possible this prison would become overcrowded like some others.

Vote agreed to.

SIR J. T. HIBBERT

said, it was stated the Government would be willing to report Progress about half-past 10 o'clock if satisfactory progress were made. Might He ask that the next Vote —that for the rating of Government Buildings—which was not a contentious Vote, might be taken?

MR. HANBURY (Preston)

said, the Vote was an important Vote, and would take alone half an hour.

MR. J. LOWTHER moved that the Chairman report Progress. The general understanding was that at about half-past 10 o'clock Progress should be reported. It was quite true the Prime Minister, who, of course, was privileged in matters of this kind, introduced some qualifying words with regard to satisfactory progress having been made; but he thought if the Prime Minister had been with them that evening he would have agreed with them in considering that extremely satisfactory progress had been made in Supply, and would have come to the conclusion that the Committee had devoted itself attentively to Supply. But what he desired to protest against was that the Government should qualify the concession, if he might so call it, that they made by any condition as to what in their judgment might be satisfactory progress. He was driven to say that the experience of last night must be regretted, and that a repetition of it should be avoided. [Cries of "Question!"] He thought it was a very practical question, and it was a question which concerned them at this moment, and was whether a mistake made last night—

The CHAIRMAN

I must say the right hon. Gentleman cannot discuss the proceedings of last night.

MR. J. LOWTHER

said, of course he would not do so; but he thought that the Government must have satisfied themselves that the conditions put forward by the Prime Minister had been fulfilled".

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. J. Lowther.)

SIR J. T. HIBBERT

thought the right hon. Gentleman was mistaken as to the arrangement. The Vote that came next had always been taken as an uncontentious Vote.

MR. HANBURY

It is a most important Vote.

SIR J. T. HIBBERT

could not understand what there was contentious in it, and he should have thought that hon. Gentlemen opposite would have allowed them to take it. He had been anxious to meet hon. Gentlemen from the first, and he hoped they would adhere to the spirit of the arrangement entered into.

VISCOUNT CRANBORNE (Rochester)

thought the Government could not have realised the importance of the next Vote. He should not be in Order in discussing it, but he could say there were one or two items that were included in it for the first time, one being with regard to the rating of Diplomatic Buildings. Further, the Irish Question cropped up in the Vote; for there was an item respecting the Irish Constabulary which was likely to take some considerable time. The right hon. Gentleman said they had not treated him fairly.

SIR J. T. HIBBERT

I said 'not in the same spirit.

VISCOUNT CRANBORNE

said, the spirit of the Opposition was the same as that of the Government. He was not present during the discussion on the Vote on the Ordnance Survey, but with regard to that discussion the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board admitted that an important point was raised that called for a reply in a speech that dealt with every branch of the subject. Under those circumstances, he thought they were not exercising any undue licence in considering the question, and arguing it in the interests of the British taxpayer.

Question put, and agreed to.