Commons Sitting of 17 March 1893

Preamble
The House met at Two of the clock.
EAST LONDON WATER BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  MR. JAMES STUART: I rise to move that this Bill be read a second time this day six months. I do so on behalf of colleagues, many of whom represent districts affected by this Bill, and also on behalf of the London County Council, which, by a resolution passed on the 7th inst., negatived a proposal not to oppose this Bill. This Bill is opposed not because of any minor detail which can be amended in Committee. No doubt it contains many important details to which we very much objected, and some of which have been very imperfectly met in the statement sent round by the promoters to-day agreeing to certain modifications. But I oppose the Bill because of its substance and its essence. The Bill proposes for certain purposes to raise an additional capital of half a million by Debenture Stock of the East London Water Company, and it does that on the eve of the issue of the Report of the Royal Commission which was appointed specially to determine certain very important questions with respect to the water supply of London. We say that at this moment there are only two considerations which could possibly be urged in favour of the
  360
  Second Reading of this Bill. The first is that its provisions do not in any way traverse in any sense the matters with which the Royal Commission has to deal, and the other is that there are special circumstances in connection with the East London Water Company so peculiar and so urgent that the Report of the Royal Commission may very well for a moment be set aside. I shall contend, in the briefest possible manner, that in no sense does either of these conditions exist. In the first place, the Bill directly, in every particular in which this £500,000 is to be applied, cuts clean across all the points with which the Royal Commission has to deal. The Bill proposes an enlargement of the capital of the Company at a moment when the consideration of its financial relations with the public are in concern, and it proposes that the capital shall be spent in one of three directions—in finding a greater supply of water either from the Thames or the Lea, or from wells. Every one of these points is before the Royal Commission at the present moment. I know that the East London Company do not say in the Bill from which source they intend to take the supply; they merely ask for this money in order to strengthen their hands, and it is therefore not possible to say beforehand at what point they desire to extend their undertaking. In order to secure support in Hertfordshire they have indicated that they do not intend to ask for power to make any more wells in that county. I should like to call attention to the evidence given on behalf of this Company before the Royal Commission. One of their witnesses stated that 9 millions more gallons a day could be pumped from existing wells in the valley of the River Lea without adding a single well. But it was also proved that by abstracting water from the chalk at a lower level the whole district would be actually denuded of the water necessary for keeping a due supply in the River Lea. Every one connected with the East End of London knows the terrible condition to which the Lea has been reduced, and therefore an undertaking not to sink any more wells amounts to very little in this matter. The question of the sinking of new wells is one of the most important points on which the Royal Commission will have to

  361
  report. Similarly with respect to taking water from other sources, there is nothing so urgent as to make it, necessary that this Bill should be pushed forward at the present moment. In the paper which has been circulated there are hints that we may have a cholera epidemic in the East End of London; I do not think that such hints are worthy of a public company. But, after all, what are they worth? I will show the House presently; but before I do so I will deal with another point. A suggestion is made that the Company require more storage power. Is the East London Company in a peculiar or backward position in this matter? I find that while the average supply in London in 1891 is 32 gallons per head per day, the supply by the East London Company is 35·90 gallons, or close upon 36 gallons per head. In the year 1892 the population supplied by the East London Water Company was 1,184,000 persons; since then it has gone up fully 20,000 persons, while in the same period the supply per head has risen to 37 gallons per head per day. Again, while the total storage of the other Water Companies is equivalent to 7·9 days' consumption, the storage of this Company is equal to 14·9 days' consumption. That being so, there is no case for that urgency which alone can be a reason for pressing the Bill through the House of Commons immediately before the Royal Commission reports upon the whole question. Let me point out what the position really is. This company wants power to borrow £500,000. They say it will not raise the market price of the shares. I very much doubt that. If it is to be borrowed at 3¼ per cent. and well applied, the dividend on the existing shares will soon be augmented, and this will occur at the very moment when the people of London, through the County Council, may be proposing to acquire the undertaking. A more important thing than the quantity of the water supplied by this company is the quality—that has more reference to the cholera epidemic, as to which they hold out such an unworthy threat. The Royal Commission will report as to what sources of supply are to be condemned, and what sources are to be encouraged. The expenditure now proposed runs the risk of being condemned; and, therefore, if the Bill

  362
  passes, London will have to face the purchase of the company's interest with a dead limb. I, therefore, ask the House not to send this Bill to a Committee, and thereby put the ratepayers to heavy expense in opposing it.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out, the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."—(Mr. James Stuart)
  Question proposed, "That the word ' now ' stand part of the Question."
  Mr. WOOTTON ISAACSON Mr. WOOTTON ISAACSON moved, "That the Debate be now adjourned," but Mr. SPEAKER being of opinion that the Motion was an abuse of the Rules of the House, declined to propose the Question thereupon to the House.
  Debate resumed.
  MR. BOULNOIS: I desire to say a few words on behalf of the minority in the London County Council, who when this question was discussed raised no objection to the Bill being opposed, but held that the opposition should be offered before the Select Committee. Let me state how this matter stands as regards the London County Council. Hon. Members of this House have, no doubt, read the statement which has been circulated on behalf of the London County Council against the Second Reading. Accompanying that statement is an elaborate exposition by the Parliamentary agent of the County Council. One would imagine, from the observations which fell at the outset of his speech from the Hon. Member for Shoreditch, that the County Council had decided to oppose the Second Reading of this Bill on the grounds set forth in the circulated statement. But the County Council when it decided to take that action had before it the Report of the Parliamentary Committee, which stated that they had had under consideration a Petition from consumers of the Company's water, strongly objecting to Clause 17, which imposes a penalty on persons fixing and using water-fittings which have not been stamped by the Company. The Committee also stated that they had had before them a letter from the Company to the effect that it was not intended that the clause should have any retrospective effect, and that it could be

  363
  amended in Committee so as to make that perfectly plain. But they had come to the conclusion that that clause and other circumstances justified further opposition, and therefore recommended members of the Council who were also Members of the House of Commons to oppose the Second Reading. The Report of the Parliamentary Committee of the County Council in fact contains not one word in reference to the matters dealt with in the speech of the hon. Member for Shoreditch, and not one word against the principle of the Bill. We are told by the hon. Member for Shoreditch that the real ground for opposition of the County Council is that the Report of the Royal Commission has not been issued. I will undertake to say that the real ground is that the County Council never loses an opportunity of making an attack upon the Water Companies with a view to depreciating their Stock. The London County Council casts its eye upon the property of the Water Companies as it has on other property in the Metropolis. It thinks that by depreciating the property of the Companies it will one day be able to acquire it for next to nothing—as it looks forward to being able to purchase the tramways at the price of old iron. I hope we shall hear something this morning from the President of the Local Government Board, who, to my mind, will incur great responsibility if he supports the London County Council in preventing this Bill from going to a Committee upstairs. The statement made by the East London Water Company refers to the danger of cholera coming to this country, and the supply of water being inadequate for the inhabitants of the Metropolis during the visitation. Well, over and over again the Local Government Board has made representations as to the insufficiency of the filter beds and reservoirs in London, and the Board fear that none of the Metropolitan Water Companies have a sufficient reserve of water. The hon. Member for Shoreditch thinks that 14 days' supply is sufficient. There may be two opinions about that. For my part I question whether in the summer time, when people are using large quantities of water, 14 days' supply is sufficient for the Metropolis. I do ask
  364
  the House to pause before summarily rejecting this Bill on the flimsy pretext referred to by the hon. Member for Shoreditch. As a matter of fact, the London County Council are trying to make it impossible for the Companies who cater for the wants of London to carry out their obligations; but so long as Parliament imposes these obligations I hope they will give fair play to the Companies, and instead of snuffing out their Bills at the outset will allow them to be considered upstairs in the usual manner.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS (Mr. MELLOR,): I hope the House will pardon mo for intervening thus early in the Debate; but I have only a few words to say. It is not necessary for me to dispute anything said by the hon. Member for Shoreditch, nor, on the other hand, will I dispute what has fallen from the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, because the point I wish to press on the House is that it will incur considerable responsibility if it refuses at this early stage to send the Bill to a Committee upstairs. I think it is quite possible that the promoters of the Bill are unreasonable, and are asking for more than they have a right to ask for; but, on the other hand, I think there is considerable force in the contention made that after all there should be a sufficient supply of water for these populous neighbourhoods, and that the object of the Bill is to provide that sufficient supply for a very large district; and, further, that if an outbreak of cholera occurs, and the supply of water in the district is shown to be insufficient, grave responsibility will rest upon those who reject the Bill. These are all matters for consideration in Committee. The very object of the institution of this tribunal of Select Committee is that facts can be ascertained which on Second Reading cannot be put before the House. A Committee would hear the evidence and find the preamble proved or not proved in the ordinary way, and would then go through the details. I intervene now in order to express a hope that that is the course which will be taken on the present Bill. It is by far the most satisfactory course. If it should turn out that the County Council are right, then the Committee will reject the Bill. If, on the other hand, the

  365
  promoters are right, the Bill will go through; but I cannot help thinking that the probable result of the contest, if the Bill goes before a Select Committee, will be that the Committee will suggest a reasonable compromise between the opposing interests, and that some short Bill may be approved and passed through Committee, and ultimately passed through Parliament in the ordinary way.
  MR. BANBURY (: The hon. Member for Marylebone has stated that the opposition of the County Council is based on Clause 17 of the Bill. Now, I am authorised by the Company to say that they are practically prepared to withdraw that clause altogether. That was a clause enabling the Company to stamp all the fittings in their district. It was never meant to be retrospective, and I must say I consider it rather to the advantage of the consumer that the fittings should be stamped. It is against the jerry builder who puts bad fittings into houses. It also prevents waste. But the Company are perfectly prepared to withdraw that clause altogether. Something has been said about a constant supply of water, and on that point I may say that the East London Water Company was the only Company that originally complied with that provision in the Act which bears upon a constant supply; and at the present moment the whole of its district, with a small exception, has a constant supply. The London County Council have sent out a Memorial, a copy of which I received this morning, setting forth the reasons why this Bill should be rejected on the Second Reading. The second paragraph says that—
  "It seems tolerably clear from the Bill itself that no immediate or imperative necessity for the expenditure of capital upon works properly chargeable to revenue exists."
  Now, are the County Council not aware that there exists a Government official appointed by the Board of Trade—Mr. Stoneham—whose duty it is to see that the Company charge what they ought to capital and what they ought to revenue; and the Company cannot pass their accounts to their shareholders unless this official authorizes them to do so, having seen that the proper amounts are charged in the proper way. I do not think it is necessary to interfere on that score when there is a Government official who is
  366
  able to do so. The next paragraph says—
  "The Company was asked more than a month ago on behalf of the County Council to define the various works on which they consider expenditure immediately necessary, to give an estimate of the amount required for those works; and subsequent applications have been made to the Company for information, but up to the present time they have declined to state whether the works contemplated are in respect of the River Thames, the River Lea, or streams underground."
  That statement I am informed is entirely incorrect. On the 2nd March, the Company supplied a statement to Mr. Cripps, the Parliamentary Agent to the London County Council, giving the following information:—
  "A rough estimate of expenditure on additional storage reservoirs on the Company's land in extension of existing reservoirs to meet increasing demands, £150,000."
  And I may say here that General Scott, the Water Examiner appointed by the Government, an engineer officer, has advised the Company to erect these additional reservoirs. He says the Company has the laud, and that if they erect these additional reservoirs there will be no occasion to fear any deficiency of supply. The next item is—
  "Additional filter beds £30,000, engines £45,000, extension of wells and duplication of pumping machinery, £60,000."
  As to the extension of wells, I am authorised by the Company to say that no wells will be sunk in Hertfordshire—
  "Extension of main service for seven years, £140,000; extension of high service reservoirs, £25,000; general purposes of undertaking to which capital is properly applicable, £50,000."
  That, I think, shows that the County Council cannot have studied this question very well when they sent out this paper, because the information they required was already given to them a fortnight ago. Then one of their reasons for moving the rejection of the Second Reading is, that on the 30th April, 1892, the Company stated to the Royal Commission—
  "The Company submit that after making every allowance for a possible increase of supply within their district, they have shown their ability to furnish water adequate in quantity, and excellent in quality, for a period of 40 years with a large surplus margin."
  Some people seem to think that if you want water all you have to do is to turn on the tap. The London County Coun-

  367
  cil apparently are of that opinion, because what the Company meant was not that they had already for streets that were not yet made, and houses that were not yet built, mains and pipes, and engines to pump up water, but that if they had capital to lay their mains and pumps, and provide pumping power, they had plenty of water to pump into the houses. It is impossible before a district is laid out, or houses are built, to have everything prepared for laying water on. It is absolutely necessary that in an increasing district the Company should have the powers they seek. In order to show the way in which the district is increasing, I will quote some figures. In 1881, the population of Walthamstow was 21,715; in 1891,it was 46,000. The population of Wanstead was 5,000, and it is now 7,000; the population of West Ham was 128,000, and it is now 240,000. In 1881, the districts the Company are seeking additional capital to supply had a population amounting to 200,000, whereas now it is 364,000, or an increase of 164,000. The whole of this district is outside the area of the London County Council, which is, I think, rather an important point. The hon. Member for Shoreditch said something about enlargement of capital, but it must not be forgotten that powers are sought to raise Debenture Stock and not ordinary capital, that it will be raised at under 3¼ per cent.—which is a low rate of interest— and that it will be issued to the public. With regard to the purchase of the companies to which the hon. Gentleman referred, I should like to call attention to Sir Thomas Farrer's remarks before the Labour Commission, in which he said he had completely changed his views as to the London County Council purchasing the company's undertakings.
  MR. BENN: I am sure that the London County Council would not oppose this Bill for a moment if such a course would be in any way likely to endanger the supply of water to the East of London. I think the best evidence on this question is to be found in the statement of the company itself. On the 30th April, 1892, the company summarised their position to the Royal Commission in the following way:—
  "The company submit that, after making every allowance for a possible increase of supply
  368
  within their district, they have shown their ability to furnish water, adequate in quantity and excellent in quality, for a period of 40 years, with a large surplus margin."
  That is not a statement by the London County Council but by the company, and in order to show that the evils feared by the Chairman of Committees are without foundation, I will quote the statement made by the engineer to the company with regard to the very district to which the hon. Member for Peckham has just referred. Mr. Bryan, engineer to the company, said before the Commission—
  "As regards the future, you will observe that our increase is now very minute compared with what it was live or six years ago, and not only that, but the increase is all in the Essex district. The average population per house in the London district is about 7·62. In our Essex district it is only 6·l. Consequently, the whole of our increase must be in the Essex district in the future, all the sites being built on within the area of the London district. I have taken 6·1 people per house, and I have made an estimate on that."
  The Chairman asked — "In your supply last year, did you include uninhabited houses?" "It would include them," said the engineer. Further on, in reply to a question as to whether the company could produce more water if required, the same engineer said—"We take from about 1,750,000 to 2,000,000 gallons of water a day from the springs at Hanwell, and we can get 3,000,000 gallons a day, but we are not doing so." I am sorry that the Member for Marylebone taunted the London County Council with its motives. I may say, in reply to the hon. Member for Peckham, that we do not base our opposition on Clause 17. We accept the statement of the company—that they are prepared to abandon the clause, and we are glad of it. But now, on the eve of the issue of the Report of the Royal Commission, to add this financial burden to the purchase, which must come sooner or later, we say is very unfair. We, therefore, press the opposition to the Bill to a Division, and we hope the House will support us.
  MR. HUNTER: I beg to move that the Question be now put.
  MR. SPEAKER: I have no means of knowing whether it is a fair proposition or not to put to the House that the Question should be now put. I think that hon. Members might with advantage compress their observations, but I cannot say that the Debate has been so unduly

  369
  prolonged as to justify putting the Question.
  MR. ABEL SMITH: As my constituents in East Hertfordshire are deeply interested in this question, I beg to say a word. We find in Hertfordshire that our streams and springs are reduced in their flow. We think that the inhabitants of East Hertfordshire ought to have the first use of the water, and we cannot spare any further supply to London. The whole question has been referred to a Royal Commission, which is about to report, and I think we ought to await their decision before anything is done. I had intended to offer opposition to this Bill, but, as important concessions have been made, it is no longer necessary to do that.
  MR. WARNER: In Essex the opinion is that this Bill is thoroughly bad. I have absolutely no connection with the London County Council, and I am a member of a Body which is very often opposed to it— namely, the Essex County Council. I can assure the House that the feeling throughout the Essex part of the district is even stronger than it is on the London County Council itself. I have been connected with that locality all my life. I can tell the hon. Member for Peckham that this Bill will not interfere with jerry-builders in any way, and as it will not benefit the ratepayers, but will only benefit the Company, I hope the House will reject it.
  MR. WOOTTON ISAACSON: As an East End Member, I have some claim to say a few words with regard to this Bill. In my own district, being in daily touch with my constituents, I feel that this Bill is very premature. It is premature, because we are all looking forward to the Report of the Royal Commission to say what is to be done in the East of London in order to give that densely populated district a constant supply of water. We desire to see the old-fashioned water butt done away with, and I do not think we shall be doing our duty if we support a Company which is trading in an everyday commodity, and paying dividends of 8 to 10 per cent. The Company, of which the hon. Member for Peckham is a Director, pays 8 per cent., and I think that, for a commodity of which we require the daily use, is an immoral
  370
  dividend. I maintain that if these Water Companies were conducted on a different principle the poor people would get their water cheaper, and would also obtain a much larger supply. But I will not oppose the Bill. I would rather follow the advice of the Chairman of Ways and Means, and let the Bill go before a Select Committee, if it is not possible to withdraw it in order to await the Report of the Royal Commission. I would rather see the Bill deferred for another month until we obtained the Report of the Commission. If it is not convenient to do that, I will go with the Chairman of Ways and Means and support the Second Reading, in the hope that it may be possible to so alter the Bill in Committee that the poor may derive some benefit from it.
  MR. W. LONG: I do not wish to intervene for more than a moment between the House and the Division. On the contrary, I would respectfully urge that after all that has been said on both sides the question should be at once disposed of, and we should proceed to the public business of the evening. Before doing so, however, I must express regret at the fact that the hon. Member for Somerset thought it right to level charges at the head of this particular Water Company, a course which was, I am glad to say, not adopted by the hon. Member who moved the rejection of the Bill. May I bring the House back, before it goes to a Division, to the ground occupied by the Chairman of Ways and Means? It is the case, if we accept the assurances of this Company, that they require more capital in order to supply the demands of the district in the area over which they have the supply of water. It is suggested that we should wait for the Report of the Royal Commission. May I remind the House that, the Commission will only report on two points—namely, the quantity and quality of the water. The purchase of the undertakings of the Company by the public will still have to be inquired into, reported on, and settled. As the Chairman pointed out, it will be a serious thing for the House at this stage to take the unusual course of refusing to allow the Bill to go to a Committee upstairs where the objections to it can be heard in detail, and where there will be

  371
  ample power to alter or reduce the demands of the Company. I hope we may now go to a Division.
  COLONEL HUGHES: If the hon. Member who moved the rejection of the Bill had followed the advice tendered to him from his own side it would have been unnecessary for the House to interfere. But notwithstanding that advice a Division is to take place. The right hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Ways and Means stated that the Committee upstairs would decide what amount of capital is absolutely necessary. This £140,000 is only to supply new mains during the next seven years. Surely we are not going to deprive these extensive districts that adjoin the borough I represent of the water they want or prevent this Water Company from fulfilling its obligations until some new arrangement is made. The Great Eastern Railway, owing to its admirable service of trains, has brought about an enormous extension of West Ham. New streets are being opened up every year, and it is impossible to say that the County Council is to control not only London, but also Essex. If a majority of Irish or Welsh Members are to represent Ireland or Wales, surely a majority of the Metropolitan Members should represent the Metropolis. Lot the Bill go before a Committee, and I am sure every point in it, whether as to capital or anything else, will be well considered.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 152; Noes 176.—(Division List, No. 32.)
  Words added.
  Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.
  Second Reading put off for six months.

ERRATUM.
MR. CAINE: I beg to call attention to a mistake which was made in the numbers of the division on the Liquor Traffic Local Veto (Wales) Bill on Wednesday last. The numbers given were:—Ayes, 281; Noes, 246. The actual number of the Noes was 245, making an addition of one to the majority then shown.
MR. SPEAKER: I will take care that the matter is attended to.

QUESTIONS.

  HABITUAL INEBRIETY.
  DR. CAMERON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the Departmental Committee appointed some time since to investigate the subject of Habitual Inebriety has completed its inquiries; and when its Report is expected?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. ASQUITH,): The Committee on Habitual Inebriety have concluded the taking of evidence, and are now engaged in the preparation of their Report. I understand that it will in all probability be presented by Easter.

  SOLICITING ALMS FOR STRIKERS.
  MR. SCHWANN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, with reference to the case of Henry Brierley, mentioned in The Manchester Guardian of 8th inst., who was locked up for parading the streets of Manchester with a brass band and soliciting donations from passers by, and discharged on giving an undertaking not to commit the alleged offence again; whether he is aware that Brierley is the Chairman of No. 5 District of the Amalgamated Card and Blowing Room Operatives Association, and that he, and several other officials of that Association, were collecting funds for the men who had been locked out; is it an offence for English operatives to collect voluntary contributions in the manner described, when it is not alleged that any riotous conduct took place or obstruction was caused; and is he aware that on the 1st May traffic is suspended for several hours throughout the busiest portion of the city by a May-day procession of vehicles and horses, and also on Whit Monday by processions of school children, and that a few months ago a huge procession paraded Manchester to collect subscriptions for the Lifeboat Fund, which started from the Town Hall, and was marshalled by the City Police; and whether there is any reason why some latitude should not be given to proceedings like those referred to in the first paragraph, in the exceptional circumstances at present existing in the cotton manufacturing district?
  MR. ASQUITH: I find upon inquiry that the facts are as stated in the first two paragraphs, except that Brierley was not locked up but released on bail. As to the third paragraph, begging in a public place is an offence under the Vagrancy Act, and the Magistrate was of opinion that in soliciting money in the streets to be shared by himself and others Brierley had committed this offence. As to the fourth paragraph, I am informed that traffic in Manchester is not suspended on May Day, but that it is suspended on Whit Monday. The facts as to the lifeboat procession appear to be as stated by my hon. Friend. The Mayor has power under a local Act to suspend traffic in Manchester on special occasions. As to the fifth paragraph, an application was made on the 28th February by an Operatives' Association to the Watch Committee for permission for their members to go out begging with a brass band on Saturday. The Committee refused to comply with the application on the ground (as I am informed by the Chief Constable) that such proceedings not only obstructed the traffic and frightened the horses, but that it would be impossible to tell whether the band and the persons collecting were properly authorised by the Association, or to secure that the money subscribed would be applied to the object for which it was given.

  JURA POST OFFICE.
  MR. MACFARLANE: I beg to ask the Postmaster General if it is the intention of the Post Office Authority to remove the only post office in the island of Jura, Argyllshire, and substitute a pillar post only for the use of the inhabitants of that island, numbering more than 600 persons?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. A. MORLET,): There are two post offices in Jura—one at Craighouse, the other at Lagg. The sub-postmaster at Craighouse, the more important office, has resigned his appointment. I am taking steps to nominate a successor.

  TUBERCULOSIS.
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether, having regard to the uncertainty and frequent Joss accruing from the purchase of native
  374
  cattle owing to the law not providing compensation for tuberculosis, will the Government accelerate the issue of the Bovine Tuberculosis Report, and meantime compensate owners for seizure and confiscation?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. H. H. FOWLER,): I am informed by the Royal Commission on Tuberculosis that it is impossible to give precisely the date of the termination of the work of the Commission and of the presentation of their Report. This will depend mainly on the issue of the experimental inquiries which are still being carried on. It is stated, however, that as far as can at present be calculated the experiments on animals will be concluded by the end of April, or within a fortnight of that date, and before the end of June it is anticipated that the whole of the microscopical investigations will be completed and the Reports of the three Sub-Inquirers will be in the hands of the Commission. Their deliberation thereon will follow, and their Report will be presented as soon as possible afterwards. The Government are not prepared to make proposals to Parliament with respect to compensation until that Report is presented.

  GARVE PAUPERS.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland if he will state why five paupers—namely, Widow Stewart, over 70 years of age; Widow Mackintosh, over 80 years of age; Widow M. Cameron, nearly 80 years of age; Widow Mackenzie Corriemoilie and Alexander Grant, both said to be 97 years of age, resident at Garve, or neighbourhood, have to pay a person to go to Contin, a distance of six miles, to receive their parish allowance; and whether this duty should not be performed by the Inspector of Poor for the parishes of Urray and Killornan, or other competent person appointed by the Parochial Board as provided by Statute?
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Sir G. TREVELYAN,): Six Garve paupers have been in the habit of giving their tickets to a very respectable woman, who has occasion to go periodically to Contin for other purposes, to draw their parish allowance for them. Three of the six

  375
  have been in the habit of giving her a present of about 1s. 6d. a year each. The Board of Supervision have ordered that this is to be discontinued. No presents are to be given, and if any expense is incurred in future in delivering their allowances to distant paupers, the cost is to be defrayed by the Parochial Board.

  TRIVIAL QUESTIONS.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he is aware that a telegram, handed in at Leicester at 10.30 a.m., on the 10th March, was not-delivered to the addressee, William Campbell, fish merchant, Plockton, until 6.15 p.m. the same day, and that in consequence of the delay Mr. Campbell suffered great loss and inconvenience; and whether, under the circumstances, the Post Office will make some compensation to Mr. Campbell for his loss, and take such steps as may be necessary to prevent a similar occurrence?
  MR. SNAPE: May I ask whether questions of this character could not be as effectively put by letter to the Department concerned as by questions in this House?
  MR. SPEAKER: I think it would be a very good reform to establish if questions of small import to the general public were addressed to the different Departments.
  MR. WEIR: I hope then the Postmaster General will take care that more energy, more activity, and greater despatch will be displayed by the Department.

  KILDARE PETTY SESSIONAL DISTRICT.
  MR. MINCH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland is he aware there is only one magistrate resident in the Monasterevan Petty Sessions district, County Kildare, and that gentleman is very often away, causing great inconvenience in the district, and that the same state of affairs exists in the Kildare Petty Sessions district of the said county; and if he will call the attention of the Lord Chancellor to the matter?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. J. MORLEY,): I have received a Report in reference to this matter and will bring it under the notice of the Lord Chancellor.

  AINSDALE ROMAN CATHOLIC SCHOOL.
  MR. PICTON: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether his attention has been directed to a letter written by the Secretary of the Education Department to Miss Ryley, of Birkdale, dated 10th March, 1893, in answer to an application for free schooling on behalf of 11 children, and referring the applicants to the managers of the Ainsdale Roman Catholic School; and whether he is prepared, in this and similar cases, to make attendance at a Roman Catholic school a necessary condition of free schooling for Protestant children?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Mr. ACLAND,): My attention has been called to the letter in question. It appeared on inquiry that the Roman Catholic School, which was a free school, had ample vacant accommodation for both older children and infants, and that, therefore, there was no deficiency of free school places. In this and similar cases I have to deal with the law as it stands. The Education Acts make no distinction between Roman Catholic and other Schools so long as they are Public Elementary Schools, and I do not think it is possible under the Acts to compel a school district to provide additional accommodation, if that in existing Public Elementary Schools is sufficient.
  MR. PICTON: Has the right hon. Gentleman got evidence for certain that the School in question is free?
  MR. ACLAND: I understand that it is free, but I will make further inquiry.

  THE DRAPERS' COMPANY'S ESTATE.
  MR. HAYDEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that arrangements were come to in November, 1890, between the Drapers' Company and 70 of their tenants in County Derry, under which the latter were to purchase their holdings, paying one half-year's rent in lieu of arrears; that the agent took proceedings at the recent Magherafelt Quarter Sessions for the recovery of 4 per cent. on the purchase money, under a clause in the terms of the arbitration enabling the Company to charge this interest if the delay in completing

  377
  the purchase were not due to them; and that Mr. Glover, the agent, stated in Court that the delay was not due to the Company but to the Land Commission; and will he inquire if this statement is true; and, if so, what is the cause of the delay, which will result in a very serious loss to a number of poor tenants?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I have received from the clerk to the Drapers' Company a communication in which he states that in an arbitration between the Company and certain of their tenants, on their estate in Ireland, an award was made dealing with arrears of rent and terms of purchase in some 550 cases, and that under this award the tenants were to pay interest on purchase-money at the rate of 4 per cent. per annum pending the completion of the sales. Having failed to do so, however, a number of civil bill processes were taken out by the Company, which, as stated in the question, were heard at the recent Magherafelt Quarter Sessions, and the cases were settled by the tenants agreeing to pay interest at 3⅛ per cent. to November 1st last. This settlement will not, I am informed, result in loss to any tenant, inasmuch as if the advances for purchase had been made by the Land Commission, the tenants would have had to pay interest at 4 per cent. instead of 3⅛ per cent., as provided by the terms of settlement at Quarter Sessions. Regarding the statement that the agent to the Company attributes the delay in the completion of the sales to the Land Commission, the latter deny that such is the case, and state that the delay in the proceedings is due to the Company.

  COLLOONEY AND CLAREMORRIS RAILWAY.
  MR. HAYDEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether progress is being made with the Collooney and Claremorris Railway; and, if not, what is the cause of the delay?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Sir J. T. HIBBERT,): I will answer this question. I am afraid that I am not in a position to add anything to the statement I made to the House on the Supplementary Estimate, but the Waterford and Limerick Railway Company, who are responsible
  378
  for constructing the line, state that they are actively negotiating with a firm of contractors. The Board of Works have called on the Company to proceed at once with the construction of the line, and if immediate assurances as to this are not given, proceedings will be taken to compel them to carry out the obligations imposed on them by the Orders in Council.

  SUPERANNUATION OF SCHOOL TEACHERS.
  MR. MAC DONALD: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he can now state what additional sum is to be provided, in accordance with the recent promise of the Government, for the superannuation of teachers who entered the service between 1851 and 1862?
  MR. ACLAND: The sum which has been arranged for between the Treasury and the Education Department, for superannuation of teachers who entered between 1851 and 1862, is £5,000 for England and Wales, to be used so far as the necessities of the case require.

  NATAL.
  BARON HENRY DE WORMS: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Bill to establish a responsible Government in Natal has been re-introduced in the Colonial Legislature, and whether it contains the special provisions for the protection of inhabitants not of European birth or descent which were deemed essential by the late Government?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. S. BUXTON,): The answer to the first question is, No. As regards the latter question, no change has been made in the policy of the late Secretary of State.

  TAXATION IN CEYLON.
  BARON HENRY DE WORMS: I beg to ask the Lender Secretary of State for the Colonies what alterations have been made in the Import Duties or in taxation in Ceylon in order to make up for the loss of revenue consequent on the abolition of the Paddy Tax?
  MR. S. BUXTON: The Import Duty on cigars and snuff has been raised from Rs. 1 to Rs. 1.50 a pound; on manufactured tobacco from 25c. to 40c. a pound; on unmanufactured tobacco from 12c. to 25c. a pound; for spirits of ordinary strength from Rs. 4 to Rs. 5 per imperial gallon; on kerosine oil from an ad valorem duty of 6½ per cent. to a duty of 25c. per gallon. The Ordinance for effecting these changes was, I may add, authorized and finally sanctioned by the Administration of which the right hon. Gentleman was a Member.

  NEWFOUNDLAND.
  BARON HENRY DE WORMS: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies when further Papers relating to Newfoundland will be presented?
  MR. S. BUXTON: Papers will be laid when the correspondence is more complete, and when they can be given consistently with the public interests.

  INCOME TAX.
  MR. MACDONALD: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the Commissioners of Income Tax are in the habit of accepting audited balance sheets as evidence of the net profits of a business; and, if not, what are the means they adopt of estimating the profits upon which they assess the tax?
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: Commissioners of Income Tax are empowered by law to call upon appellants to furnish such Information in such form as, in their discretion, they consider is necessary for the purposes of the Income Tax Acts. It is, therefore, entirely within the discretion of the Commissioners to accept, or not to accept, balance sheets as evidence, as well as to determine what other evidence, if any, they may require.

  LIVERPOOL SCHOOL BOARD.
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether the Education Department, in pressing the Liverpool School Board to open or build free schools in the outskirts of the city, which would be mainly utilised by those who could afford to pay fees, have taken into their consideration the fact that the loss in the management of such schools has in a large measure to be defrayed by the
  380
  dock labourers and small struggling tradesmen of the central part of the city, who receive no aid whatever towards the maintenance of their own schools; also whether, in view of the working of the Elementary Education Acts, especially in Liverpool, where the poorer Irish Catholic ratepayers, although contributing £10,000 per year towards the maintenance of the School Board system, are prohibited by law from receiving anything out of the local rates for the support of their own schools, which educate 24,000 children, or nearly as many as the Board schools, it is contemplated by the Education Department to initiate or support any measure for placing voluntary schools on a footing of equality, as regards aid from public funds, in accordance with the recommendation of the Majority Report of the Royal Commission on Elementary Education,1888, p. 195?
  MR. ACLAND: I am aware that the rate levied by a School Board in order to provide schools in any part of its district is levied on the whole of the rateable property throughout the district, whatever the character of the population. But it is the duty of the Department, under the Act of 1891, to require free education to be provided for all those who claim it. The late Government did not adopt the recommendation of the Royal Commission that voluntary schools should, in certain circumstances, be aided from the rates, and it is not the intention of the present Government to introduce any legislation with that object.

  THE CONGO FREE STATE.
  MR. PICTON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government are now in possession of further information with regard to the Congo Free State, and especially whether they have examined the Royal Decree issued by King Leopold, as Sovereign of the Congo Free State, on 29th September, 1891, appropriating to the use of the State the fruits of its domains; whether this decree or any previous document on which it may be based, if such has been issued, has been sanctioned by Her Majesty's Government and other signatories to the Berlin Act of 1885, as regards its supersession of the stipulations

  381
  of that Act, to the effect that the trade of all nations shall enjoy complete freedom in all the regions forming the basins of the Congo and its outlets; and whether he will inform the House as to the origin, nature, and validity of the doctrine of State domains in Africa?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir E. GREY,): Decrees of the Congo State do not require the sanction of the signatories of the Berlin Act, but they must be consistent with that Act. The decrees in question were really issued in 1889, and doubts with regard to their consistency have been expressed both by Her Majesty's Government and by companies commercially interested. It is understood that important modifications have been made and will be duly notified. As implied in a previous answer to the hon. Member, it is difficult to define the extent and validity of the doctrine of State domains.
  MR. PICTON: Will the Secretary of State give special attention to the consistency or otherwise of these decrees with the ordinary conditions of the Convention?
  SIR E. GREY: As I have said, that is a point on which doubts have already been expressed, and in consequence it is understood important modifications have been made.

  STAMP DUTY ON LEASE AGREEMENTS.
  MR. JEFFREYS (): I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in the case of leases and agreements to take farms since the passing of the last Tithe Act, in accordance with which the landlord now pays the tithe, but the same is included in the amount of the rent mentioned in the lease, the ad valorem Stamp Duty on the leases is to be calculated on the rent, less the tithe?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir W. HARCOURT,): The answer to this question is in the negative. The Stamp Duty on a lease, or on an agreement for a lease, is charged upon the rent reserved thereby, and no deduction is allowed on the ground that such rent is calculated by reference to, or may include, tithe, or any other liability imposed upon the landlord.
  MR. JEFFREYS: Is not this a great injustice, seeing that the duty is calcu-
  382
  lated on a larger amount than is actually received? Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer take steps to remedy it?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I will consider it. But the existing law applies to tithe us to every other liability.

  SHOOTING RANGE ON THE MASSEREENE ESTATE.
  MR. M'CARTAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether an arrangement was made some time ago with Lord Massereene for securing his deer park, or a portion of it near the town of Antrim, for a shooting range; whether he can state on what terms the land was taken; and whether the agreement has yet been perfected; and, if not, will he state the cause of the delay?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. CAMPBELL - BANNERMAN,):: The arrangement with Lord Massereene is still pending. The responsibility for the delay does not rest with the War Department.

  WORKING HOURS OF TELEGRAPHISTS.
  SIR ALBERT ROLLIT: I beg to ask the Postmaster General if he is aware that telegraphists at the Central Office on 3 p.m. to 11 p.m. and 4 p.m. to 11·45 p.m. duties perform seven to eight hours' work without a break for food; and will he take steps to secure for them an uninterrupted meal time?
  MR. A. MORLEY: The subject raised by the hon. Member was fully dealt with in 1888, 1889, and 1890 by Mr. Raikes in reply to questions. The telegraphists referred to come on duty after the dinner hour. They are supplied with tea in the office, and they have facilities for having their supper brought to them. The fluctuating nature of the work, which is largely composed of Press work, and work originating in the proceedings of the House of Commons, renders it impracticable to let them leave the office for meals.

  TRAWLING IN CLEW BAY.
  MR. WILLIAM O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware the steam trawlers, which did so much injury to the Clew Bay fisheries last year, have again commenced work-

  383
  ing, in violation of the bye-law passed by the Inspectors of Fisheries with the view of restricting their operations; and whether, in view of the efforts now being made to develop the Clew Bay fisheries, steps will be taken to enforce the bye-law, and prohibit the ravages of the steam trawlers?
  MR. J. MORLEYsaid, the Inspectors of Fisheries reported that it was a fact that steam trawling had been carried on this year in Clew Bay, and that complaints had been made of injuries to the gear of local fishermen in consequence of such trawling. The bay was not at present closed against steam trawling, but he was informed that a bye-law had been made prohibiting this mode of fishing therein during the first four mouths of each year, and that the bye-law, before it comes into force, must be approved by the Lord Lieutenant and Privy Council. An appeal against the bye-law had been lodged by the owners of the trawlers, and the hearing of this appeal had been postponed in order to give the appellants and those interested in supporting the provision of the bye-law an opportunity of appearing personally or by counsel before the next meeting of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.

  THE CONGESTED DISTRICTS BOARD AND SOUTH KERRY.
  ME. KILBRIDE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can now state what resolution, if any, the Congested Districts Board have arrived at with regard to the suggestions made to members of the Board during their recent visit for the erection of piers and boat-slips in South Kerry?
  MR. J. MORLEY: The Congested Districts Board cannot yet state, definitely, what action they will take in the direction indicated.
  MR. SEXTON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how it is no decision has yet been come to on the representations sent in from North Kerry many months ago?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I will inquire.
  MR. KILBRIDE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the fact that members of the Congested Districts Board visited South Kerry last October and nothing has yet been done?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I can only repeat that I will make further inquiry.

  MOSLEM OUTRAGES IN ARMENIA.
  MR. FRANCIS STEVENSON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the attention of the Foreign Office has been called to the telegram in The Daily News of the 15th instant, in which it is stated that three Armenian churches have been gutted by Moslem mobs at Caesarea; that 510 Armenians of that place are in prison; that in Yozgat the prisons are full, and 65 leading Armenians are imprisoned in the military barracks near the city; that goods coming by caravan addressed to Christian merchants are pillaged by Moslem villagers on the road, so that orders for goods from Constantinople cannot be made good; and that all business is at a standstill; whether the Turkish Government are acting in accordance with the 61st Article of the Berlin Treaty in permitting the continuance of that state of things; and whether any remonstrances will be made with the object of securing the proper observance of the stipulations contained in the Treaty?
  SIR E. GREY: The attention of the Foreign Office has been called to the telegram. We have had no confirmation of the statement that three Armenian churches have been gutted, but we have heard that in consequence of the posting of seditious placards a number of persons were imprisoned. The Grand Vizier hag informed Her Majesty's Ambassador that the Governor General of Angora would proceed at once to Caesarea to report on the state of affairs.

  THE IMPRISONMENT OF MR. THOUMAIAN.
  MR. FRANCIS STEVENSON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information with regard to the imprisonment of Mr. Thoumaian, a Protestant missionary, by the Turkish authorities at Marsovan; and (2) whether representations can be made with the object of securing his release?
  SIR E. GREY: Mr. Thoumaian, who is an Ottoman subject and a Professor of the American College at Marsovan, has been imprisoned. It is not clear

  385
  whether his arrest is due to the burning of part of the College, which is believed to have been the act of an incendiary, or to the distribution of seditious placards. The Sultan has ordered a careful inquiry to be made into the matter.

  DONEGAL LAND APPEAL COURTS.
  MR. MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that land cases from the Carrick and Killybegs districts of Donegal have been fixed by the Chief Commissioners for hearing at Strabane in April; and whether, having regard to the poverty of the tenants in the Carrick and Killybegs districts, whose cases are set down for hearing at Strabane, and the great expense and hardship entailed on those tenants by being compelled to travel a long distance from their homes, arrangements can be made for the sitting of the Land Commission Court at Carrick or Killybegs for the hearing of land eases arising in these districts?
  MR. J. MORLEY: Inquiry is being made in this matter, and if the hon. Member will repeat the question on Monday I expect to be then in a position to furnish a reply.

  INTOXICATION IN THE ARMY.
  MR. SCHWANN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether any note is taken of any soldiers who may return to barracks at night in a state of intoxication; are they reported, and is any penalty inflicted upon them; and do any statistics exist to show how numerous such cases are?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Soldiers entering barracks at night or at any other time in a state of intoxication are placed in the guard-room and their offence is disposed of by fine or other punishment. Statistics do not exist showing the number of such cases as a total; but the cases which were serious enough to involve a fine are recorded; and it is gratifying to note a progressive fall from year to year, the ratio per 1,000 men, which in 1881 was 243, having fallen in 1891 to 147.

  METROPOLITAN POLICE PENSIONS.
  MR. WOOTTON ISAACSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention
  386
  has been called to the case of James Marks, mounted police officer of the N Division of the Metropolitan Police, who, about the end of November, 1887, was returning from duty in Trafalgar Square, when passing Shaftesbury Avenue his horse fell, causing severe injuries to his right leg, rendering him unable to do duty for five months, subsequently paralysis set in, which has compelled his retirement from the Force as unfit for duty, owing to the above injury, and a permanent cripple, on a pension of 8s. 1½d. per week only; and whether, under the lamentable circumstances of the case, he can see his way to increase the pension?
  MR. ASQUITH: The pension to Constable James Marks, injured by the falling of his horse, was awarded under the Rules of the Secretary of State then in force. In the case of injuries received in the execution of duty the Rules made a distinction according as the injury was accidental or not, a distinction which has since been adopted in the Police Pension Act, and has, therefore, received the approval of Parliament. This case was considered to fall within the class of accidental injuries, and there was awarded to Marks the highest pension which under such circumstances the Rules permitted. The amount was smaller than it would otherwise have been, because the service of the constable was only one year and five months. This award could not now be revised without opening the door to numerous applications of a similar character with reference to pensions that have been granted in accordance with the Rules.

  THE HOME RULE BILL.
  COLONEL HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland what will be the cost to Great Britain of the indemnification of the members of the Royal Irish Constabulary and the Dublin Metropolitan Police for the extinction of the posts in which they have rendered such distinguished service, under Clause 30 of the Home Rule Bill; and if the officers and constables of those Forces will be freely allowed to petition Her Majesty's Government and both Houses of Parliament, through the proper channels, against the manner in which it is proposed to treat them?
  MR. J. MORLEY: The figures asked for in the hon. Member's question could only be ascertained by calculations which have not yet been completed, but which I hope will be ready in a few days; and, therefore, it is not practicable at present to reply to the first paragraph. As regards the second paragraph, I fear I cannot add anything to my answer to a question addressed to me yesterday by the hon. Member for South Tyrone.
  MR. HORACE PLUNKETT: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, with a view to elucidating in detail the Return No. 91 of this Session, lately presented by him, and entitled "Government of Ireland Bill (Financial Effect)," he will have the Return No. 329 of 1891, entitled "Financial Relations (England, Scotland, and Ireland)," continued so as to include the financial year 1892–3, and present the same to this House?
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: The Return (No. 329 of 1891) to which the hon. Member refers has been revised, so as to include the latest completed financial year 1891–2, in compliance with the Motion made by the hon. Member for North Dublin (Mr. Clancy). There will be no objection, so far as I am aware, to issue a further Return, which will include the corresponding information for 1892–3, based on the Exchequer receipts and issues of the year, as soon as is practicable after these receipts and issues have been ascertained.
  MR. SEXTON: Is it not possible to give the actual figures for the current year in time for the Debate on the Second Reading?
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: I will see if it can be done.
  MR. CLANCY: When will the Return be issued. It was ordered in the month of February.
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: I hope it will be in the hands of Members in a few days.

  FRANCE AND THE NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERIES.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can explain why a Copy of the Bill relative to the Newfoundland coast and fisheries, under the title of "The Fishery Treaties Act, 1892," and which is published in the French Yellow Book for
  388
  1892, and laid before the French Chambers, has not yet been laid before this House; whether the Bill in question was rejected by the Newfoundland Legislature; whether he will now lay upon the Table a Copy of that Bill and of the Correspondence concerning it, together with the Report thereon of the Joint Committee of both Houses of the Newfoundland Legislature; and whether, as a matter of fact, the Newfoundland Legislature have objected to the Court proposed by that Bill to be erected, and to the absence of any provision for compensation in cases of losses arising from any arbitration award, and that it has also protested against any partial arbitration with France on the lobster question alone, until arbitration regarding all questions arising under the various matters regarding Newfoundland be agreed upon?
  MR. S. BUXTON: The Bill and Correspondence have not been published, as the Report of the Joint Committee referred to has not yet been received and considered by Her Majesty's Government. As I have already informed the right hon. Member for the Toxteth Division of Liverpool, Papers will be laid when the Correspondence is more complete, and when they can be given consistently with the public interests. The Bill was rejected by the Newfoundland Legislature. From the telegraphic information which we have received, the facts appear to be as stated in the last paragraph of the question.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Will the hon. Gentleman answer the question in the first paragraph?
  MR. BUXTON: The Bill is included with the Correspondence in the Report of the Joint Committee which we have not yet received.

  THE SOLENT FISHINGS.
  MR. SCOTT MONTAGU (): I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether, pending the Report of the Inspector now holding an inquiry at Cowes, he will prohibit the depositing of any more dredgings from the Southampton Docks upon the fishing grounds in the Solent, and order the dredgings to be taken outside the Solent into the Channel, in view of the serious injury inflicted upon the fishermen, of the district?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. MUNDELLA,): I understand that the Report of the Inspector will be presented to me in a day or two, and I can assure the hon. Member that the suggestion made will be carefully considered, but it is not possible for me to determine on any action until I have received the Report.

  GREENWICH AGE PENSIONS.
  MR. CLOUGH: I beg to ask the Civil Lord of the Admiralty if it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to promote, this Session, legislation having for its object the carrying into effect of the recommendations of the Select Committee of the House of Commons on Greenwich Age Pensions (1892)?
  THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. E. ROBERTSON,): This matter is now under consideration by the Treasury and the Admiralty, as I stated yesterday, and it is not possible for me to add anything more. I assure my hon. Friend that the question has not been, and will not be, neglected.

  GLANDERS AND FARCY.
  MR. HARRY FOSTER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether four years ago the Army horses suffered severely from farcy and glanders; whether the Army stables are now practically free from the diseases; and, if so, how this result was arrived at; and whether he can inform the House what measures were taken to stamp out the diseases, and with what result?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: No horse in the Army the property of the Government has been affected with farcy or glanders during very nearly the last five years. The Army stables are free from the disease, as a result of good sanitary measures and of precaution against contagion.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Is the absence of this disease due in any sense to the use of Warner's Safe Cure?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order order!
  MR. HARRY FOSTER: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether, on his advent to office, his attention was drawn to an important increase in the epidemic of farcy or
  390
  glanders raging among horses, more especially among those stabled in the Metropolis, and to the highly infectious character of the disease and serious danger to human life; whether it has been satisfactorily proved that the most efficacious method of stamping out the disease is the compulsory slaughter of all affected or suspected animals, with the payment of limited compensation to the owners, so that the temptation to conceal the disease, and so spread infection, should be reduced to a minimum; whether the London County Council, as the Local Authority for the Metropolis, have declined to exercise the powers conferred by the Order known as "The Glanders or Farcy Order, 1892," empowering the Local Authority to exercise compulsory powers of inspection and slaughter, with such limited compensation, and providing that if the Local Authority failed to exercise such powers the Board of Agriculture should compel them to do so; whether it is a fact that upwards of 90 per cent. of the cases of farcy or glanders, during the last year, occurred in the Metropolitan area; whether the refusal of the London County Council has his approval; and, if not, what steps he proposes to take to insure the provisions under the Order being properly carried out; and whether he proposes to issue any further Orders on the subject, and when?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. H. GARDNER,): Soon after my advent to office my attention was drawn to the increase of glanders and farcy, and to the fact that upwards of 90 per cent. of the cases occurred in the Metropolitan area. In September last I issued an Order which, amongst other things, empowered Local Authorities to slaughter diseased or suspected animals on payment of a limited measure of compensation. I believe that the adoption of that course would necessarily have the beneficial effect indicated in the question, but the London County Council decided that they were not justified in incurring the heavy expenditure which the payment of compensation would entail. I view their decision with regret; but, at the same time, it is quite open to the County Council to argue that by the active enforcement of the other provisions of the Order they can achieve the desired result at

  391
  much less cost to the ratepayers, and this view is to some extent confirmed by the fact that the number of horses reported to have been attacked during the current year shows a substantial falling off: as compared with the corresponding period of last year, the numbers being respectively 433 and 486. In those circumstances, I do not contemplate taking any further steps at the present moment, but I shall continue to give my close attention to this important subject.
  MR. FOSTER: Does the right hon. Gentleman still adhere to the opinion he expressed to a deputation on the 20th January last, that he had learned the action of the London County Council with surprise and regret, as he believed the payment of compensation under his Order would have been of material assistance in stamping out the disease?
  MR. GARDNER: If the hon. Gentleman will read the whole of my remarks he will find I said that if the action of the Order was not satisfactory I should be prepared to reconsider my decision.

  VACCINATION.
  MR. A. C. MORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to introduce a Rill to carry out the recommendations of the Royal Commission with regard to Vaccination?
  DR. FARQUHARSON (): May I ask if the right hon. Gentleman will not follow the policy of his predecessor, and defer legislation until the whole Report of the Commission is laid on the Table?
  MR. PICTON: May I ask whether it is not a fact that the Commission has sent in an interim and unanimous Report as a matter of urgency, and that its recommendations are supported by such high medical authorities as Sir James Paget, Dr. Bristowe, and Dr. Jonathan Hutchinson?
  MR. ASQUITH: The Commission have presented an interim and unanimous Report. I shall, therefore, introduce the Bill at the earliest available opportunity—I hope on some day in next week.
  DR. FARQUHARSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman, at some stage, allow opportunity for fair and reasonable discussion?
  MR. ASQUITH: My hon. Friend may be quite sure he will have the fullest opportunity of discussion.

  INTERFERENCE WITH STRIKES.
  DR. CAMERON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the fact that in a dispute in the shoe making trade in Glasgow work for the masters was undertaken by the managers of reformatory and industrial schools; whether he has taken any steps in the matter; and whether he proposes to issue general instructions for the prevention of a recurrence of similar interference of State-aided institutions in trade disputes in the future?
  MR. ASQUITH: My attention was some time ago called to this matter. I find upon inquiry that the boys of these schools had been allowed to take work from employers for whom they have not done work before, while a trade dispute was pending between the employers and his ordinary workpeople. I have conveyed to the managers of the school my opinion that the course taken was very ill-advised, and one that ought not to have been adopted. I have always disapproved of any interference by schools of this description in trade disputes, and therefore, there is no necessity for my issuing general instructions.
  DR. CAMERON: I understand the right hon. Gentleman has given instructions that this interference is not to be continued?
  MR. ASQUITH: Yes.

  NEW BATTLE COLLIERIES.
  MR. A. C. MORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will lay upon the Table the Report of Her Majesty's Inspector of Mines on the accident which took place at New battle Collieries on the 20th January, 1893, whereby John Neesam, a workman, was killed, so that the working men and their representatives may have the fullest information for their protection?
  MR. ASQUITH: I am in communication with the Inspector of Mines, and if my hon. Friend will postpone his question until Tuesday next, I hope by

  393
  then to be in possession of the necessary information which will enable me to answer his question.

  THE SHOEBURYNESS LAND DISPUTE.
  COMMANDER BETHELL (): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what is the cause of delay in the pending arbitration as to the amount to be paid by the Crown for certain lands at Shoeburyness, the claim to which was finally decided by the House of Lords in 1891; if he is aware that the delay causes great inconvenience to the owners, who assert that they have pressed for arbitration under the terms of their agreement since 1891; if it is the case that interest at 5 per cent. on the amount determined has to be paid since 1881; and whether he is aware that the owners can materially interfere with the range at Shoeburyness in order to insist upon a prompt settlement of the question?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The cause of the present delay in the pending arbitration is that the claimants refuse to be bound by the opinion which the counsel, who settled the terms on which the action of "Emerson v.Childers" was stayed in 1881, have given as to the construction of those terms. As the delay is caused by the action of the owners it is within their power to stop any inconvenience which may result to them from it. Five per cent. interest from 1881 on the amount to be determined has to be paid. I am not aware of the circumstances alleged in the last paragraph.

  THE PAYMENT OF MEMBERS
  MR. ROBERT WALLACE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can now state if the Government intend by legislation, Budget arrangement, or otherwise, to give practical effect to the principle of the payment of Members of Parliament?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY(Mr. W. E. GLADSTONE,): With regard to the question and the alternative to which it refers, I have no hesitation in saying that, in my opinion, legislation is the only method by which a question of that magnitude could be disposed of; I do not think it could be disposed of by the Budget or other proceedings of the Executive Government. With regard to the question itself, I have already
  394
  communicated with two deputations of Members of Parliament, a number of whom, I am aware, feel strongly on the question. I have made known to them that the opinions of my colleagues, as far as I am acquainted with them, are favourable to the measure indicated for the payment of Members, and will use their efforts to promote it, but they have not felt themselves able to propose to make so considerable an addition to their present arrangements for this Session, without any reasonable probability of being able to redeem such engagement.

  SCOTCH BUSINESS.
  MR. ROBERT WALLACE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether his attention has been called to the proceedings of a meeting of the four Liberal Committees of Edinburgh, held on the 8th instant under the auspices of the United Liberal Committee of that city, at which, inter alia, a resolution was unanimously passed stating that during the last six years Scotch business has been greatly neglected, and urging the Government to make arrangements to press forward those measures which affect Scotland; whether he is aware that the feeling thus indicated is deep and universal throughout Scotland; whether in the circumstances stated the Government will reconsider their intention of not devoting more time to Scotch Business; and whether, in the event of their being constrained to adopt Saturday Sittings in aid of any change of purpose, they will arrange that Scotch Business shall have a fair share of time on the ordinary days?
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I am aware, Sir, that there is much dissatisfaction in Scotland with regard to the slow progress with its business by this House, and such dissatisfaction appears to me to be just, but at the same time I think I may also say that it is by no means confined to Scotland. Scotland is included in the principal parts of the legislation now before the House on the part of the Government. With respect to the question whether the Government will reconsider their intention of not devoting more time to Scotch Business, I am not aware of any such decision which we should have to reconsider. What we have desired is to find time for Scotch Business as well as we can in

  395
  due proportion to its comparative claims, but we have come to no decision which corresponds to the terms of the question. And with regard to what we are to do in the event of our being constrained to adopt Saturday Sittings in aid of any change of purpose, I think, Sir, that when we have arrived at the conclusion that Saturday Sittings must be adopted for such purpose, and when the House has supported us in such conclusion, then will be the time for proceeding to a division of the spoil and arranging how the time can be most fairly apportioned among the several claimants.
  MR. R. WALLACE: With reference to one part of the right hon. Gentleman's answer, I may say I understood, and I am glad to hear I misunderstood, the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say, during the temporary absence of the Prime Minister, that Scotch Business had not been sufficiently provided for from a Scotch point of view in the deliberations of the right hon. Gentleman's colleagues.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I never said anything of the sort.
  DR. M ACGREGOR: Does not the Prime Minister think the best way to devote sufficient time to Scotch Business is to grant Home Rule for Scotland?
  [No answer was given.]

  NEW MEMBER SWORN.
  Sir William Wedderburn, Baronet, for the County of Banff.
  ARBITRATION WITH THE UNITED STATES.
  MR. CREMERgave notice that on that day month he proposed to call attention to the question of a Treaty of Arbitration with the United States of America, and to move a Resolution.
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY—ARMY ESTIMATES, 1893–4.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  1. 154,442, Land Forces.
  2 £5,876,400, Pay, &c., of the Army (General Staff Regiments, Reserve, and Departments).
  CAPTAIN NAYLOR-LEYLANDsaid, the other evening the noble Lord the Member for South Edinburgh (Viscount Wolmer) aimed at very high game, as he aimed at the organisation, or reorganisation, or disorganisation, as the case might be, of the whole of the higher branches of the administration of the War Office. He (Captain Naylor-Leyland) merely desired to deal with those matters which affected the rank and file, leaving the higher branches of military administration to those who were better qualified to speak upon them. The first point to which he would address himself was one on which he had questioned the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War without receiving any satisfactory reply. He could inform the right hon. Gentleman that if he would display a little interest in the subject-matter of the questions that were addressed to him, and evince a desire to put right matters which he found to be wrong, he would save not only the time of the House but the time of the Government. For his part he fully intended to obtain an answer to the questions he had addressed to the right hon. Gentleman. If he did not obtain one now he should raise the subjects at considerable length hereafter in Committee of Supply. His first point was connected with the barrack accommodation of the country. Under the Barracks Act, passed in 1890, a sum of £4,100,000was set aside for the purpose of rebuilding camps and barracks. The late Secretary for War (Mr. E. Stanhope), however, stated in 1890 that it was intended to rebuild one camp out of the current Army Estimates.
  MR. E. STANHOPE: I am sure I made no such statement.
  CAPTAIN NAYLOR-LEYLANDsaid, he entirely accepted his right hon. Friend's statement. The fact remained, however, that some of the camps which were in the worst condition were excluded from the action of the Barrack Bill. Colchester Camp was an example of this. Colchester was one of the most important military centres in the country, being within a few miles of the town where Napoleon intended to land for the invasion of England. Any schoolboy who had studied the strategical defences of the country knew that East Anglia was one of the most vulnerable portions of

  397
  the Kingdom. At the time of the Crimean War a few temporary wooden huts were put up at Colchester for the purpose of housing the drafts for the Crimea. It was stated at the time that the huts were to be pulled down or rebuilt directly after the war, but from that day to this these huts had remained, and they were now used as permanent barracks for the troops. They were practically uninhabitable, as they would not keep out wind, snow, or rain.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I must point out to the hon. Gentleman that the first Vote is passed, and that no general discussion can take place on this Vote.
  CAPTAIN NAYLOR-LEYLANDsaid, in that case he would raise the point on Vote 7. He must, however, refer to a question connected with the welfare of the rank and file of the Army. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War had issued a Memorandum for the information of Members. He could quite understand the right hon. Gentleman's position. The right hon. Gentleman said to himself, "I know there are some 30 reforms desired by the Army. I do not, however, propose to carry out any of those reforms, and I will issue a Memorandum instead." Of course, the Committee accepted the document as being a State document of an important kind, but he felt bound to say that if be had to choose between Army reforms on the one baud, and the Memorandum on the other, he should prefer the reforms. But he was glad to see that in this Memorandum the right hon. Gentleman stated he proposed to carry out one, at least, of the recommendations of Lord Wantage's Committee. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would make, not only a paper but a practical performance of the promise. The right hon. Gentleman proposed to allocate a sum of £20,000—£26,000 was the sum really required for the purpose—to increase the pay of lance-corporals, who complained very justly that they had to keep up the status of a non-commissioned officer on the pay of a trooper or private. That, however, was a grievance which the right hon. Gentleman would not remove, unless concomitantly with spending the money he issued a regulation preventing the promotion of lance-corporals in excess of the establishment. Officers were partial to promoting a great number of
  398
  lance-corporals, and if the right hon. Gentleman spent a great deal of money in increasing the pay of non-commissioned officers, and at the same time allowed officers to promote men in excess of the establishment, then the grievance of non-commissioned officers discharging their duties on the pay of a private would still remain. All the recommendations of any reform in general might be properly divided into two classes—financial and non-financial proposals. He meant by financial proposals those proposals which would cost the State something to carry out, and non-financial proposals, those which would cost the State absolutely nothing at all. He was aware that if he urged on the right hon. Gentleman the financial proposals he would be met with the statement that the Treasury was in its normal condition of being extremely hard up, though he would confess that had always been a source of dilemma to him. For instance, the other day they had heard of £600,000 being spent on light railways in Ireland, and there was now before the House a Bill which proposed to endow Ireland with a still larger capital sum, and if they could afford to spend all that money on Ireland, surely they ought to afford to spend a little money at least on the British Army, on whom the defence of these realms depends. But there was only one of these financial proposals to which he would refer— it was included in the recommendations of Lord Wantage's Committee, and it referred to the pay and position of the soldier. It had been said by an hon. Member in the course of the Debate the previous night that new recruiting posters had been issued. He would be glad to hear that that statement was true, though he had not seen anything but old posters, and he believed the military authorities were using up the old posters. In the old posters the recruit was offered 1s. a day and free rations. Technically speaking, free rations meant three-quarters of a pound of meat and a pound of bread; but the ordinary man took "free rations" to mean free food. When the recruit joined he found that threepence a day was stopped out of his pay for food, and taking other deductions into account, if he had fourpence a day in his pocket be was an extremely lucky man. Two courses were open to the Secretary for War in this matter. One

  399
  was to carry out the promise made to the recruit, which would cost £800,000 a year, and the other was to remove the false statement off the recruiting poster, though he himself would like to see the recommendation of Lord Wantage's Committee carried out. There were also one or two small matters to which he wished to direct the attention of the right hon. Gentleman. The Cavalry had just been reorganised into squadrons, and a new noncommissioned officer, called a squadron sergeant-major, had been created. There were only four of these new non-commissioned officers in each Cavalry regiment, and 128 in the whole British Army. These important non - commissioned officers were likely to be passed over in promotion by juniors of not half their service. A non-combatant junior of six years' service, who, being fond of writing his name on paper, was taken into the Orderly Office to do clerical work, after three years' service was promoted over the heads of these combatant non-commissioned officers, with their fifteen years' service. These squadron sergeant-majors did not ask for anything wonderful. They did not ask for increase of pay; but they asked to be put on the same footing as the non-combatant juniors, that was to say, technically speaking, that after three years in Part 17 they should be promoted to Class 17. The Secretary for War had plumed himself over the satisfactory state of recruiting. He should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman on what did recruiting depend? Recruiting depended entirely on the cheapness of the labour market. When there was a cheap labour market recruits were to be had in any quantity, but when there was a dear labour market hardly any recruits at all were to be obtained. It was a significant thing that when the right hon. Gentleman's Government came into power there was usually a cheap labour market, trade was visually depressed, a large number of men were thrown out of employment, and therefore recruits were obtained. He trusted that when the right hon. Gentleman plumed himself on the satisfactory state of recruiting he would remember on what recruiting depended. If the right hon. Gentleman carried out some of the recommendations which had been laid before him he would at any rate signalise his tenure of office by a display
  400
  of interest and zeal in the Public Service which would bring not only credit to himself but to the Government to which he had the honour to belong.
  SIR GEORGE OSBORNE MORGANsaid, he wished to call attention to the practical abolition of the office of Judge Advocate General, one of the oldest offices in the Kingdom—an office which was much older than that of his right hon. Friend the Minister for War. His right hon. Friend had informed him, in reply to a question, that it had been determined in accordance with the recommendations of the Select Committee to appoint Sir Francis Jeune —a Judge for whom he (Sir G. Osborne Morgan) had the highest respect—to the office without salary. His right hon. Friend stated in the course of the same answer that there were only a few cases referred to the Judge Advocate General. His right hon. Friend must have been misinformed. He could assure him that was not the case during the five or six years which he (Sir G. Osborne Morgan) had held the office. On the contrary, every case that presented the slightest difficulty to the military authorities was referred to the Judge Advocate General's tribunal. He used to attend from 12 to 5 o'clock every day, and sometimes even after that hour, and as a matter of course there wore always three or four cases referred to him every day. It was natural that that should be so. The tribunals of Court Martial were right in 19 cases out of 20—indeed, he would say in 99 cases out of 100—but sometimes they happened to go wrong, and when they went wrong they went very wrong, often convicting a man on hearsay evidence, or because he was a bad character. In order to show that he was speaking by the book he would call attention to the number of cases in which the findings of Court Martial were set aside during the four years in which he had held office. In 1881 the number of men relieved from the consequences of unjust conviction was 246; in 1882, 154; in 1883, 116; in 1884, 100; making in the four years a total of 616 cases in which the findings of Courts Martial were reversed. But that was not the whole of the work which the Judge Advocate General was called upon to perform. Mr. O'Dowd, who had ably filled the office of Military Secretary, resigned, and he took it up, and in that

  ERRATA.
  17 March, Page 400, line 3 from bottom, for "O'Dowd" read "Clode."
  capacity had to give 800 opinions in the course of a single year. The Committee would, therefore, see that the office of Judge Advocate General was no sinecure. The office had been given to Sir Francis Jeune—a Judge for whom he had the very highest respect—but he had got his hands full already. He believed that Sir Francis Jeune had just finished a case which had taken him eight days, and it was probable he would have other cases which would occupy him the same time. How, then, could he find time to dispose of the cases which came before him as Judge Advocate General? It was absurd to think he could do it. He would like to know how many cases Sir Francis Jeune had been called upon to decide since his appointment as Judge Advocate General. There was another objection to the appointment of a Judge to such an Office. They all knew that the Queen administered Military Law by virtue of her prerogative. They all knew that the Queen could do nothing wrong, and the reason why the Judge Advocate General was, as a rule, a Member of the House, was that in Military Law the Queen might be advised by the Judge Advocate General. The Manual of Military Law said—
  "The Administration of Military Law was checked by the Judge Advocate General, a Privy Councillor, and usually a Member of Parliament, and often a Minister of the day, who advised the Sovereign on the legality of the proceedings of Courts Martial."
  The Queen administered the law through the Judge Advocate General who was responsible to the House; when he was Judge Advocate General he was often asked questions on Military Law in the House, as, for instance, he was questioned about Lieutenant Carey, who got into trouble in connection with the death of the Prince Imperial. If they appointed a Judge to the position they appointed a man who was responsible to nobody. He certainly was not responsible to the House. Though fortified by the decision of a Select Committee, his right hon. Friend had been guilty of a rather unconstitutional course in appointing a Judge to the position. There was another question on which he should like to have an answer from his right hon. Friend. Last year they voted a sum of £1,000 for the salary of a Judge Advocate General. What had become of that money? It
  402
  could not have gone to the late Judge Advocate General for he had only held office for four months, and it could not have gone to Sir Francis Jeune for he had been expressly appointed without salary. This was a very important constitutional question, and he hoped he would be able to get a satisfactory answer from his right hon. Friend.
  MR. BECKETT ()said he thought they might all congratulate themselves on the favourable character of the statement of the Minister of the War Department. He did not think, however, that the right hon. Gentleman wished them to believe that they had the best possible Army and that they might dismiss all anxiety with respect to it from their minds. He admitted that much good had been done in the matter of recruiting, but there was still room for improvement. The right hon. Gentleman had pointed out that the number of recruits this year was greater than in any of the years of the immediate past; but the hon. and gallant Member for Colchester had shown to what that increase must be attributed. Anyone looking over the Army Returns would find that the number of recruits always increased when there was a depression in trade. The truth was that in these times men were driven by hunger into the Army, and with that powerful auxiliary at their back it was not surprising that recruits were increasing. In some respects recruiting had also been improved by the adoption of the short service system. They had had an increase in the quantity of recruits, but the important question was, what about the quality? Did they get the right men? A distinguished officer had told him that the Army was choked with bad characters. If they looked at the figures they would see what that meant. In ten years 32,000 men had joined the Army, and out of these, 110,000, or one in three, had been imprisoned. That showed the character of the recruits. The right hon. Gentleman had said that the number of offenders had fallen from 1 in 11 to 1 in 18, but the latter was still a high figure. How would it compare with the London Metropolitan Police Force, for instance? He did not think they could get the Army up to the standard of the London Police Force, but they should endeavour to do so as far as possible.

  403
  If they wanted a proper Army they should do something to make it popular. He admitted that the life of the soldier had been greatly improved by the reforms of the past twenty years, and altogether it was not now a had life. The soldier had nearly everything found for him, he had 4s. or 5s. a week in his pocket; he was not too hard worked, and he had a smart uniform which was a great attraction, especially in the eyes of the other sex. There were a few other points to which he wished to direct attention. In Cavalry regiments the soldiers had to provide out of their own pockets the cost of the material for keeping their uniforms clean, so that the smarter a man kept himself the more he had to pay. That, he thought, was an injustice, and was a premium on slovenliness. As the men were expected to keep their uniforms clean, the material for doing so should be provided. The right hon. Gentleman had said the men were to be allowed to keep their clothing. The Report of the Committee on the Army Estimates pointed out that the Commander-in-Chief and the Adjutant General were both opposed to the clothes being made over to the men, as it offered temptations to the men to do away with the clothing improperly, with the result that men were seen going about in worn-out uniforms, which had a very bad effect. He regretted to see that only 3 per cent. of the men re-engaged on the completion of their service. Old soldiers were the backbone of the Army, and everything should be done to induce them to remain. Since the introduction of short service into the Army, the number of old soldiers had very much decreased. In 1875, out of every 1,000 men 340 were over 15 years' service; in 1880,236; in 1886,246; and in 1889, the number had shrunk to 211, which was a very serious falling off indeed. Let them compare the Army in that respect with the London Metropolitan Police Force. In that Force there were, in 1879, 1,900 men of over 15 years' service, and in 1888, 3,900. He thought some means should be used to try to induce men to remain in the Army, for it was a very serious thing to have such large numbers leaving year after year. He also found that in ten years 320,000 left the Army, and yet the strength
  404
  of our Reserve only amounted to some 55,000 men. That showed a great waste was going on in the Army. Nearly 250,000 men, on whom the State had spent an enormous amount of money, had passed in ten years out of the Service and into the ranks, perhaps, of the unemployed. The right hon. Gentleman had stated that there was a Field Force of 20,000 men ready to take the field at the shortest notice. He would like to ask what was behind that Field Force? Could the right hon. Gentleman assure them that behind that Field Force there was an Army Corps of 60,000 men ready to take the field at a moment's notice? They were told that they had a Field Force of some 20,000 ready to take the field at the shortest notice, but he wished to tell the Secretary for War that if that was all they had they were not at all prepared for emergencies. They should have an Army Corps ready for action at a month's notice. The right hon. Gentleman must see that the Army wanted elasticity and adaptability. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War had said the other night that these qualities were demanded. My right hon. Friend (Sir James Fergusson) said that the men in the Guards stayed on longer because they received more pay than others. But the fact remained that they did not get as much pay as men in other employments. In his opinion they stayed on longer because they belonged to one of the first branches of the Service, and if every branch was treated as well as they were more men would stay on. One point that required attention was that of stoppages from pay. When a soldier came into the Army he expected to receive so much, and he was very much disappointed when he found that he did not get the promised sum in cash; a certain proportion was deducted, and this the men justly regarded as a grievance. Another point was the important one of pensions. The soldier wanted to have something to look forward to, and when doubts arose as to the payment of a pension the decision was more frequently in favour of the State rather than of the soldier. Then there ought to be some extra pay for service abroad. By this they might hope to have good men in the Service. Englishmen liked the soldier's life and profession; their military instincts were

  405
  very much developed, and he believed that if they adopted a shorter term of service more men would enlist than they could induce to enlist under the present system. The men were now bound for a certain number of years, but they were not so bound in other occupations, and they must not impose conditions that did not exist elsewhere. A man who would not join now would be willing to join for six months, at the end of which time he would be able to say whether he was satisfied and whether he would stay or not. He would enlist for six mouths, whereas he would not enlist for a term of years. Under the present system, undoubtedly, they got a large number of men, but it was too often the case that when a man was taken with the soldier's life he was uncertain of the character of the Service he had committed himself to, and the result was that he was very much disappointed and then he deserted. The expense of desertions was very considerable, as it meant that a man had to be captured, brought back, tried, convicted and imprisoned—all of which cost money; and besides, when a man came out of imprisonment he was very much inferior as a man and a soldier. He would recommend to the right hon. Gentleman that if a man was not willing to remain in the Service it would be much better to let him go. Another point was that the soldier's life might be relieved of the sense of perpetual constraint. The soldier was not always supposed to be on duty, and when he was not he should be allowed liberty and relaxation. For instance, he should be allowed occasionally, and for special purposes, to go about in plain clothes—subject to the civil law and not the military—and if that were done he felt that the number of imprisonments under the Military Code would very much diminish. When a soldier was tried it was almost invariably the case that he was imprisoned. Only one in 60 was allowed off. Why should they not be given advantage of the civil law for certain offences? He claimed that the soldier should have more relaxation, and that he should have the same privileges as were to be found elsewhere. If they looked to the Royal Irish Constabulary they would see that in that Force the relaxation of discipline in this respect tended to make the Service
  406
  more popular and more attractive. The men of the Constabulary could hardly be equalled anywhere in point of discipline. Then, again, the men might be punished by fines rather than by imprisonment. If they did not wish to have a bad man in the Army they would soon be able to get rid of him, and to procure a good one in his stead. If the right hon. Gentleman looked into these points he would undoubtedly have better value for the expenditure on the Army.
  *COLONEL F. C. BRIDGEMANsaid he hoped the Secretary for War would state his views on the question of deferred pay, and state also whether it would be possible for him to adjust the rates of pay, and make them proportionate to the length of service. He believed that in certain cases in civil employment the man who gave a month's warning got a higher rate of pay than the man who gave a lesser term of warning. It was a question whether they should not have some such arrangement in the Army. He also wanted to put it to the right hon. Gentleman whether he could not have the Financial Branch of the War Office opened to officers of the Army. At present the Department was served by civilians; but he thought the appointment of officers of the Army, as he suggested, would lead to economy and efficiency in the Service. He would like to say, in conclusion, that the Army was very much gratified on hearing of the appointment of the present Secretary for War—one who was sympathetic with the Service in all its branches.
  SIR RICHARD TEMPLEsaid he would not detain the Committee for more than a minute. He had one or two questions to put to the Secretary for War. In the first place, he wanted to ascertain whether the garrisons for the Australian coaling stations at Thursday Island and St. George's Sound had been completely arranged, and, if so, whether the arrangements had been made through the Colonial Government, or through the Imperial Government — in fact, whether the garrisons were to be furnished by the Regular Army, whose pay was being voted to-day, or by some Colonial troops? A large portion of the public was greatly interested in the maintenance of those very important strategic positions, and

  407
  he would venture to hope that the garrisons would be established in sufficient strength. He would not be allowed on this Vote to advert to the fortifications and armament, but he believed that these had been nearly completed.
  COLONEL KENYON - SLANEYsaid, he wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he could not hold out some hope of equipping, or partly equipping, the officers' messes at the various quarters permanently occupied by the troops? This was a step which would give much satisfaction, since it would obviate much inconvenience and save the officers expense incurred when changing from one station to another. He also wished to ask whether the right hon. Gentleman would do anything towards equipping the barrack quarters occupied by the officers? He did not ask for any luxurious equipment of furniture, and he would not suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should follow the lines laid down in Ouida's novels; but surely something more and better might be supplied to the officer than the bare table and chairs he found in his room when he first entered it. Another subject of importance had been mentioned by the hon. and gallant Member for Oxford—that was, to the reduction of the number of officers on the Staff—but he did not think the Army generally would approve of such a step, as it was in the Staff appointments that our young officers very often found their first opportunities of securing an education, or training, which was open to them in no other channel. He could not believe that any officer of experience would agree with many of the suggestions which had been made by the hon. Member for the Whitby Division. For instance, as to the suggestion that the soldier should be allowed to walk out at times in plain clothes, he must say emphatically that such a privilege should be sternly reserved to the higher class of non-commissioned officers only. He could imagine nothing that would be more subversive of discipline, or that would tend more to bring the Army into ridicule, than to extend such a rule to every private soldier. A matter in which both soldiers and civilians took a great interest was the enlargement of the pensions, which the right hon. Gentleman,
  408
  following in the lines of his Predecessor, proposed to give to the veterans of the Army who had served in the Crimean Campaign and in the Indian Mutiny, but he would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he intended to take any steps to discover the whereabouts of those men, or whether he intended to wait for them to make applications for the allowance? The point was not unimportant, for many of the men were hidden away in corners of the country where they would be unlikely to hear of the grant, and he believed it would be satisfactory to the country generally if some means could be set on foot to reach them. Was the right hon. Gentleman going to do this? In his (Colonel Kenyon-Slaney's) own neighbourhood an enterprising newspaper had found out quite a number of these men, and unless the right hon. Gentleman adopted the suggestion he feared it would be very difficult for him to carry out his just and useful plan of recognising the services of these brave veterans.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. CAMPBELL - BANNERMAN,): Sir, I will answer as briefly as possible the questions which hare been addressed to me. First, with regard to the improvement of Colchester Camp, I can assure the hon. and gallant Member for Colchester that the work is being proceeded with gradually and regularly. It cannot be completed at once, although I am quite aware that as little time as possible should be lost in carrying out so essential a work. The Military Authorities are quite aware of the necessity of pushing it on as rapidly as possible. The hon. and gallant Gentleman also made some observations upon the general recommendations of the Wantage Committee, now so familiar to us, and he referred especially to the point of giving free rations to the soldier without any stoppage at all. As I have said before, this would involve a large sum of money, and at present I am not able to contemplate any re-adjustment in the pay which would admit of such a change being made. Then several observations have been offered by hon. Members with respect to the desirableness of increasing, in some small degree, the pay of the soldier, with the view of getting into the Army a different class of men—a higher class. But I would point out to the Committee that, accord-

  409
  ing to the best evidence that has been received, and, as I think, in accordance with one's own common-sense observation, if we were to endeavour to get a different class of society into the Army, a mere increase of 1d., or 2d., or 3d. a day in the pay would be nothing. To carry out such a suggestion an increase of 1s. or 2s. a day would have to be given. That would be a total change in our present system. It has always been thought, however, that we must be content with getting the young men of the country into the Army before they settle down to any serious occupation, and at present the services of as many of those young men of the labouring class as are required are obtained under existing conditions. In those circumstances, I am not prepared to embark on any large scheme to carry out such a proposal as that referred to—or even to hold out any hope of considering it. As to the squadron sergeant majors, I have nothing to add to the answer I gave on the matter the other day. My military advisers—who are much more competent judges than I am—do not think there is any necessity for doing more than at present in the case of these non-commissioned officers. I now come to the question raised by the right hon. Member for Denbighshire as to the position of the Judge Advocate General. I am not prepared, however, to go into the whole history of this office. The matter has been often discussed, and the general conclusion arrived at, and expressed in the House in regard to that office, is that it should be continued; and in this opinion I strongly share, as also in the opinion that the office should be filled by an official, if possible, of legal eminence, to protect the interests of the soldiers against any possible aggression by his superior officers. The question is, who is to be that officer, and what should be his pay? It has been recommended that he should be a man of the calibre and character I have described, and that he should receive no pay. I am no great believer in the value of services that are not paid for, and therefore in that sense I do not. very much admire even the present temporary arrangement which exists in regard to this office. If I am to answer all the questions which have been asked me by my right hon. Friend, I must state how it comes about
  410
  that there is no money for the maintenance of this office. The right hon. Gentleman who lately held the office of Judge Advocate General had a somewhat variegated career. He was sometimes paid, and sometimes he was not. Sometimes he was paid in one fashion, and sometimes in another. But I am only concerned with the last year in which he held office, that is the current year which began on the 1st April of last year. The arrangement with the Treasury was that he should receive a fixed salary of £500 a year, and that he should be allowed to receive fees for business actually transacted up to another sum of £500. But it appears that the right hon. Gentleman the late Judge Advocate General claimed his £500 fixed salary, to be paid over to him on the 1st April, us his retaining fee during the year, which thus absorbed half the sum allocated to this office. The year was somewhat risky with regard to the life of the Government; nevertheless, he was paid over the £500 on the 1st April, and he proceeded, with I believe most unusual but very praiseworthy activity, to transact as much business as possible within the earlier weeks and months of the year, so that when the change of Government took place in the beginning of August there was only a balance of something like £150 available for the distinguished public servant who would be appointed to fill this office. That is the reason why there was no money left with us to pay the Judge Advocate General. It was owing to the exceeding devotion to his public duties of the late Judge Advocate General. We are in this position, Sir. We have in Mr. O'Dowd, Deputy Judge Advocate General, an officer who discharges his duties in a most satisfactory way. There could not he a more efficient, a more zealous, or more public-spirited officer, and, I will add, an officer in whom the soldiers of the Army have greater confidence than Mr. O'Dowd, and, therefore, knowing he was so well qualified to discharge the ordinary duties of the office, we contented ourselves with allowing him to fill the duties, and then after the lapse of some time for consideration we invited Sir Francis Jeune to undertake the honorary office of Judge Advocate General, on the understanding that Mr. O'Dowd would dis-

  411
  charge most of the duties that did not require reference to a higher authority, and that then Sir Francis Jeune would come in. Sir Francis Jeune, in the most public spirited way, accepted the office, and I have received a note from him in which he says that to the best of his experience the arrangement works exceedingly well. I still say I cannot regard it as a satisfactory permanent arrangement, but temporarily I believe it answers all that is required in the case. My right hon. Friend behind me (Sir (G. Osborne Morgan) has shown the large number of cases which he decided personally. But we know the zeal of my right hon. Friend. He is not one of those who would make an office a sinecure, but if associated with anybody else he would make his colleague's office a sinecure, because my right hon. Friend will undertake a great deal more work than falls to one man's share in the ordinary Course of business. We honour him for that, but we must not set up this high standard of merit and activity as a test of what the ordinary, normal condition of the work of the Judge Advocate General ought to be. I now come to the speech of the hon. Member for Whitby, and although I do not agree with a good deal he said I found his speech exceedingly refreshing, because it represented very clearly and with great ability those sides of the question of a soldier's career which are not always brought before us. I quite agree with the hon. Member in this: that it is not only of advantage, but it is necessary as years go on, as the world changes, as the people of this country, from whom we draw our recruits, become more intelligent, to make the Military Service freer and freer. I cannot, however, go as far as the hon. Member, who advocates that a man should be enlisted for only six months. Apart from anything else we should have all the expense and trouble, not only of clothing and feeding him, but of keeping up a staff for the purpose of training him, and after all we should not have the slightest hold on him or anything to ensure that he would be the slightest use to us at all. I am of opinion that all through a soldier's career, and at frequent intervals in that career, there should be opportunities, in the case of a well-behaved man, given to him to exercise a choice whether he should continue to
  412
  serve with the Colours or whether he should retire into the Reserve. I have no idea of hustling a man out of the Colours into the Reserve, or, on the other hand, of chaining him with the Colours when his interest or inclinations would lead him to the Reserve. But, still, I cannot adopt the free and easy system recommended by the hon. Member. The hon. Member has met someone—a distinguished officer—who spoke of the Army as being choked with bad characters. Let me caution my hon. Friend not to accept too literally expressions of this sort from officers, however distinguished, which are generally the outcome of some prejudice or some tradition which beset the officers in question. If the hon. Member had cross-questioned this distinguished officer he would have found that the assertion was not warranted. I quoted figures the other day which showed that what is known, as crime is decreasing. But, after all, what is military crime? Most of the offences are of a very innocent character from the civilian point of view. Again, I say we must be ready to advance with the times, and I believe there is nothing more prejudicial to the interests of the Army than that soldiers should be constantly liable to being punished and to possible imprisonment for offences which in private life are treated of no account, but which may perhaps be serious in the eyes of a strict disciplinarian officer who is full of zeal for the Service, but still with not sufficient regard for those whose affairs he has to administer in the regiment. If" I see any opportunity, or any room for introducing or making alterations in the system of discipline which would lead to a reduction of these nominal offences, and especially would lead to a more lenient way of dealing with them when they occur, I shall only be too glad to adopt them. The hon. Member complained that the number of old soldiers has very much decreased. I wish to quote some figures which will show that we have not fallen off in this very point of old soldiers, unless you mean by old soldiers men of 35 or 40 years of age. The best men to have in the Army are men from 20 to 30, and nothing is more certain than this: that except, in the case of non-commissioned officers, after 30 years of age, a soldier becomes, I will not say an undesirable thing in a regiment, but at all

  413
  events there ought not to be too many of that class. What are the ages of the men with the Colours in the latest figures—that is for last year—as compared with 20 years ago? In 1871 there were under 20, 190 soldiers, out of 1,000 in the Infantry; and in 1892, with short service, with the regiments filled with boys, as we are told, and mere lads flooding the whole system, there were 178 per 1,000. There were actually fewer under 20 in 1892 than in 1871. In 1871 there were of soldiers between 20 and 30—which I say is the best age—490, or about one-half, and in 1892 there wore 733. But when I come to the men over 30, of whom I say it is not desirable to have too many in the ranks, I find in 1871 there were 320 per 1,000, and in 1892 only 89; so that these figures are most significant, they make a fair balance of the constitution of the Army at present as compared with previous years, and answer, to a large extent I think, these complaints which the hon. Member says he heard from a distinguished officer, and also those complaints about the Army being flooded with boys, or there being practically no Army at all. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bolton (Colonel Bridge-man) asked me about the question of deferred pay. The Wantage Committee, or the majority who make the recommendation, did, I think, contemplate the abolition of deferred pay. I have always looked upon deferred pay with a certain amount of suspicion, because it was introduced as a boon to the soldier, without I think a very full appreciation of the extent to which it would rise in years to come and of its ultimate effect. At the same time, I do not see how you can continue the short service and the reserve system without some sort of gratuity or deferred pay to give the soldier when he goes into the Reserve. As to the opinion of the Army on this subject, Lord Wantage's Committee examined six non-commissioned officers and men who were against it, but all the privates except one were for it, and questions were issued to a number of Reservists to see what the opinion on the subject was. 32,948 men were asked, were they in favour of or against it, and what was their experience? Of these, 27,740 were in favour of deferred pay, and only 5,204 against it. In face of that

  414
  I think he would be a bold man who would propose to make an immediate abolition of deferred pay. But there is one objection frequently urged to deferred pay, and it is this: there is a danger that a man receiving a considerable sum of money the moment he leaves the Colours may spend it in jollification with comrades, or in some other equally unprofitable way, and may thus get no benefit from it at all. What we have done in this matter is to issue orders that such pay over £5 shall be put to the man's savings bank account, which he can draw out at the place where he is going to live after he has left the Army. £3 will be given to him in order that he may not be devoid of money, but everything else, where the amount exceeds £5, is put into his savings bank account, which will have some effect, at all events, in preventing the wasting of it in the way to which I have referred. My hon. and gallant Friend spoke of the Army Pay Department. That is a question to which I have not yet devoted much attention; but I will bear in mind what he said. The hon. Member for Kingston (Sir E. Temple) put to me a question which I cannot answer as to the composition of the coaling station garrisons; but I will endeavour to answer it on the Report. Now, I come to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Newport (Colonel Kenyon-Slaney), who asks me in the first place whether I shall be prepared to contemplate doing something to make barrack quarters more habitable, and also as to equipping the messes so as to avoid the breakage and expense in carriage. That I think would to a considerable extent be an adoption of the system which prevails in the Navy. The Admiralty undertakes to furnish the quarters, and charges the officer a certain percentage to cover the use of the furniture. That would be a great change to introduce into the Army system, but before forming any definite opinion I will look into the matter, and see whether any steps ought to be taken in the direction suggested. Then we come to the question of the extension of pensions to Crimean and Indian Mutiny soldiers. In proposing that an extended number of these pensions should be given, the motive was not a philanthropic, generous, or charitable one at

  415
  all; but it was taken in the interests of the Army, and to that extent it was therefore a selfish one. It was taken because it was thought it was not to the interests of recruiting or to the credit of the Army that such men should be seen in the streets or elsewhere in a lamentable condition of distress. That rather precludes our giving pensions to men who are hidden away in holes and corners; because if they happen to be hidden away they will not cause injury to the Army. In the meantime, I can only promise to deal with those cases already brought before us, which form a large number, and we must wait to see what the results of our dealing with them is, and we can then consider if it is necessary to pursue that inquiry.
  COLONEL KENYON-SLANEYsaid these very old soldiers who were hidden away in the holes and corners of the country would be the best recruiting officers if they were treated with consideration, because it was from these rural districts the best sort of soldiers wore drawn, and something ought to be done to improve the condition of these men and thus remove a stigma from the Army.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I shall be glad to consider any proposal, although I cannot promise to take any active steps to increase the number of the claimants, who are already more numerous than we can deal with for the present. I think I have answered all the points that have been raised, and I trust now that the Committee will allow the Vote to be taken.
  MR. E. STANHOPE: Before this Vote is taken I should like to say, in justice to my right hon. Friend who lately filled the office of Judge Advocate General (Sir W. Marriott), that the fluctuations in the mode of remuneration to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred were mainly due to my right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton himself. First of all, he was appointed to the office at a salary of £2,000 a year. After he had held it for only a year my right hon. Friend publicly expressed the opinion that £2,000 a year was a larger salary than ought to be given to any Judge Advocate General for the amount of work he had to do, and in order to show his strong sense in that direction he voluntarily resigned the whole salary attached to the
  416
  office. After a year or two the late Government took exactly the same view that the right hon. Gentleman takes. They thought it was not satisfactory that the Judge Advocate General should he unpaid, and in agreement with the Treasury they fixed the system of remuneration by fees, including a retaining fee of 500 guineas as the remuneration of the office. The right hon. Gentleman received that retaining fee to which he was entitled, and looking back throughout the last six years he held office the average amount of remuneration he received was not a large one.
  COLONEL NOLANsaid, his recollection differed very much from that of the late Secretary for War as to this matter. There was no voluntary retirement of the late Judge Advocate General in the ordinary sense of the word, but the Committee of Lord Randolph Churchill went into this question, and the exertions of the noble Lord, actuated solely by motives of economy, had the effect of procuring a practical retirement. In his (Colonel Nolan's) opinion the office was a useful one, and Sir W. Marriott discharged its duties well. It was a mistake of the House of Commons to loosen their grip on the Army by abolishing this office.
  Vote agreed to.

  ARMY (SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1892–3).
  3. £15,000, Supplementary, Pay, &c. of the Army (General Staff.)

  ARMY EXCESSES.
  4. £100, Army (Ordnance Factories) Excesses, 1890–91.
  MR. BRODRICKasked, would the reduction which was contemplated in the establishments at Enfield and Spark brook, and which were calculated to save the country about £100,000, not have the effect of increasing the cost of rifles to be produced by 10s. per rifle, resulting in a loss of something like £20,000 on these weapons?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: My hon. Friend is not correct in saying I am making a reduction calculated to produce a saving of a large sum of money, or that I am making an artificial reduction. We are

  417
  coming to a period when we must contemplate a reduction in the necessities of the supply regarding these weapons, and therefore we thought it necessary to slacken off a little earlier. That is the reason for the reduction. When the hon. Member says that this reduction increases the cost of the rifle, I have to say it does not increase the cost of the rifle itself. The rifle will apparently cost more, because you will have a certain number of charges spread over a fewer number of rifles. Supposing these charges are to go on, whether we make 100,000 or 200,000 rifles, the only result of any other policy would be that, while we shall make what has been of late years the normal number of rifles and other weapons during the present year, we shall next year have a much larger falling off, and the prices during next year would be even larger and more increased than the hon. Member puts.
  Vote agreed to.
  5. £100, Army (Ordnance Factories) Excesses, 1891–92.

  ARMY ESTIMATES, 1893–94.
  6. £100, Army (Ordnance Factories)
  MR. BRODRICKsaid he doubted whether it would be an economical arrangement to keep up all these establishments if a small number of rifles was to be made. It might prove to be a loss to the country.
  MR. HANBURYsaid he had intended to raise a discussion, but he recognised that the Secretary for War was entitled to get some of his Votes to-day, and if he could get a reasonable undertaking from the right hon. Gentleman that he would give him a fairly early opportunity—say June—he would not say anything to-day.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I am much obliged to my hon. Friend for making that proposal, and I undertake to say that in the month of June he shall have the opportunity he desires.
  Vote agreed to.

  CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DE- PARTMENTS (SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES), 1892–3.

    CLASS III.
    7. Motion made, and Question proposed,
    418
    "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £7,170, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1893, for Law Charges, England."
    LORD R. CHURCHILL: I hope the Committee will not suspect me, whatever may have been the case in former days, of desiring at the present time to protract in any way the course of ordinary Public Business in the House of Commons if I rise to ask the House to allow me to make some remarks on the subject which is raised by this Vote, for no other reason than that I am convinced of the very great importance of the change which it is proposed to make in the position of the Law Officers of the Crown. This matter has hardly been discussed before in this Parliament. It was discussed in former days on more than one occasion, as I will show. But the other night in Committee—I think it was Friday—only a few speeches were made; one speech was in favour of change, and others against it. No doubt, persuaded by the friendly pressure of his colleagues, the Attorney General has modified the character of the remarks he used on the subject. As far as the question of arrangement goes for the carrying out of the change in the position of the Law Officers of the Crown in respect to their private practice, I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Preston as to the defects in the particular arrangement made. I object to it on the ground of economy, in the first place, because you are without any certainty that you will get a beneficial arrangement or a better arrangement than you now have, and possibly you will get a worse one. You are throwing on the Exchequer between £9,000 and £10,000 a year extra charge. I believe that under the system which has been for the moment supplanted by the new one the contentious business of the Crown, conducted under the superintendence of the Law Officers, brought in fees to the amount of about £4,500 a year to each Law Officer. But it was arranged that the Law Officers should be paid for the contentious business in which they took part at rates far lower than barristers of the position of Law Officers would receive if employed by private individuals. Those rates I estimate at 50 per cent. lower. Much of

    419
    that contentious business, too, was devolved by the Law Officers on other barristers—able, skilful, and experienced—who took the business at far lower fees than great counsel would require. Now that is all to be changed. The Law Officers under the new arrangement are to have no private business, but undoubtedly it is contemplated that their fees for contentious business will be raised to what they could command in private business as great counsel, and that charge must fall upon the Exchequer. The Chancellor of the Exchequer shakes his head; but he has great faith, I think, in the goodness of mankind; but the Committee will probably agree with me that in these matters it is better to take a businesslike view. I am perfectly certain that if you want to maintain the high-class of your Law Officers you cannot do it on the cheap; but you are not, under the present arrangement, doing it on the cheap. I hold that you are really paying more without any security that you are getting a better article, but with every possibility that you will get a worse article. But in addition the Law Officers are to be allowed to practise before the Privy Council and the House of Lords. That is an arrangement which might work very capriciously. I do not wish to make any personal remark, but the Solicitor General might easily have a very large practice in the House of Lords, and with regard to the Privy Council, I can quite understand that, under certain developments of the Constitution, the Law Officers might have very heavy employment before the Privy Council and if you want to get all the time of the Law Officers it seems to be a very large slice to cut out to allow them to be retained before the Privy Council and the House of Lords. The scheme is one which the Committee ought to scrutinise very carefully before it is allowed. But I pass to another view of the case, and wish to examine the case solely upon the question of principle. I can quote in support of the contention that a change in the direction which the Government contemplate will, on the whole, be unfortunate in its result and probably mischievous to the public interest some of the highest legal authorities. I would like to recall to the House some of the opinions of the great Law Officers who have held office in this
    420
    House in former days, but not very long ago. This matter came up for examination in 1872, when there was one of the strongest Liberal Governments in Office. It was debated in the House of Commons, and evidence was taken by a Departmental Committee, presided over by Sir G. Jessel, who, I suppose, was one of the most eminent Judges that ever sat on the Bench. Nothing has happened since that day to alter the opinion which was expressed by that Committee. They called before them Sir John Karslake, than whom there never was a more brilliant or a more distinguished lawyer, never one more respected in his profession, and by the large circle who knew him never one more worshipped. He said that nothing could be more unfortunate than to have Law Officers who never appeared in private cases, but that they must sacrifice those private cases if they had a great deal to do for the Government, and he added that if the Attorney General lost prestige by never going into Court except on Government business it would be a great misfortune. The whole of Sir John Karslake's evidence was in that direction—that the Law Officers of the Crown, whether Attorney or Solicitor General, must represent the greatest amount of legal eminence which the Bar of the day can show. In a Debate in this House, in 1872, the present Lord Chief Justice said—
    "You want the very best and most eminent men in the profession who can obtain seats in the House of Commons. You want for your Attorney General not merely a clever man, but a man of ascertained position and of considerable experience. Remember, he has to advise the Government and the House itself on subjects the importance of which cannot be overstated. He must have the judgment which is born of experience, and he must have an ascertained and great professional position, so that he may not be overborne by the weight of any great authority in the House itself when he is called upon to speak."
    The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bury expressed a similar opinion. He said—
    "We ought to have the best men who can be obtained, and we ought to take care that we do not lower the office of Attorney General or Solicitor General so as to make it unacceptable to the best men we can obtain. I cannot help entering a protest against comparisons being drawn between the position of Prime Minister and other Ministers, and the Law Officers of the Crown.

    421
    Those who become Ministers, as a rule, give up nothing; they only receive their salary in addition to their previous incomes; but the case of a Law Officer is very different. Before he accepts the position, if he be a worthy person to fill it, he has a large private practice, and if the emoluments of the office are considerably reduced we shall not get the right men to fill the position."
    I could quote, also, the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman who occupied the position of Home Secretary in the late Government, and who is certainly as well qualified as anybody can he to speak on this subject. I think it may be taken that all legal authorities, almost without exception, are in favour of the opinion that the Law Officers of the Crown ought to be those who in the general opinion of the Bar are the best qualified, and marked out as their leaders and their best men. But there were also debates on the subject in this House in 1887 and 1888, and then a change in the position of the Law Officers in the direction of private practice was advocated, but the opinion of Parliament was still against the proposed change. In 1888, on the Vote for the Law Officers, it was argued that they cost the country too much money, and that the country did not get enough of their time, but again Parliament absolutely refused to countenance that proposition. I think the action of the Government in proposing this change in the position of the Law Officers of Parliament has been premature and hasty, and what I would ask the Committee to do is to put some pressure on the Government to make them pause before they come to a final decision. It cannot be said that up to now opinion in the House of Commons or in legal circles has been unfavourable to the arrangement which has lasted up to the present Session. I believe I may lay stress, without fear of contradiction from the hon. and learned Law Officers of the Crown opposite me, on the importance of a lawyer who has to fulfil important duties having a large and varied private practice. Lord Coleridge has said that it would never do to have as Law Officers men who were unknown to the profession, or men without a great practice, that it was probable such men would not be fit for the duties of the Law Officers, and that as a general rule the men at the head of the profession were there because they deserved to be there. I could quote the opinions of
    422
    other great authorities if I had time, all bearing in the direction that when a counsel has not a large private practice, and when he gets out of touch with his profession, he loses that sure knowledge and experience of all varieties of law which ought to be at the command of the Law Officers of the Crown; that when he appears in Court in only a certain class of business he becomes lowered in the estimation of his profession, and that when he leaves his profession any private practice he may have previously possessed would be altogether gone. Now, I cannot think the Committee will be of opinion that that is the sort of man we ought to have for a Law Officer. The duration of the office of Law Officer has not been at any time very long. Lord Coleridge stated that from the accession of William IV. to 1872 there had been 20 Attorney Generals and more Solicitor Generals, and that only gave an average duration of office of about two years, and he asked—
    "If you at all interfere with the emoluments and profits of the office, how will you get persons of any position at the Bar to accept such a precarious position? Whether you have short Governments or long Governments, I think it will always be a matter of the greatest importance to the State to have at its command the highest legal assistance that the Bar can produce. But if you are going to make the office less profitable, more precarious than it was, and more liable to change, surely you will lower its attraction for members of the Bar. If you get a class of men who are not of the standing of the two hon. and learned Gentlemen whom I see before me, and of my hon. and learned Friends who preceded them, and of the great men who have held the office of Law Officers of the Crown—if you lower the class of men, the persons you will get will look upon their office as a mere stage in their career, and they will be eager for any puisne Judgeships which may fall vacant; there will be what there has never been before among the great Law Officers, a regular scramble for ordinary puisne Judgeships. The tenure of the office being made shorter, and the value less, the class of men will become less good."
    I will not dwell further upon the importance of preserving for the service of the State the best men who are known at the Bar. The Committee I am sure will see that for themselves. When we remember the importance of the questions which the Law Officers have to deal with, questions involving the expenditure of millions of money, and, perhaps, great loss of life—questions such as the Newfoundland difficulty, the Behring Sea Arbitration, the Alabama affair, and

    423
    matters of that kind, of which numerous instances are to be found in history—money is saved, and the country is greatly strengthened by having at its command the most solid legal assistance that the Bar can give. You are now altering the position of your Law Officers. You are making them a sort of Crown officials, limiting them entirely to the transaction of Crown business. They no longer can come to you representing a vast knowledge of law, native and international. They will be different people entirely from what they have been in the past, because the offices in all probability will no longer be held by the greatest men at the Bar. I know the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General will not disagree with the views I am expressing, and I do not believe the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bury (Sir H. James) will widely disagree with them. There is a tremendous weight of authority against the change, and absolutely no facts are adduced in support of the proposals of the Government in this direction, unless, indeed, you have in your minds certain circumstances, which occurred some years back, in respect of the private practice of the Law Officers, and which excited a good deal of attention at the time, but which were only judged as making a change necessary by persons who judge and think hastily. These persons, when events that surprise them occur, say "Oh! something must he done," and I have always noticed when that cry is hastily raised "Oh! something must be done," it invariably follows that something very foolish is done. That, I think, has been the ease in the present instance. It seems to me that by the new system you have adopted you are running enormous risks, and are gaining nothing to the Exchequer. You are running the risk of getting inferior persons to advise the Government on subjects that involve the greatest interests of the State—subjects, even, of peace or war—and you are doing it as the result of criticism without evidence. It is true that the Attorney General defended the Vote when it was opposed, but he never said a word in favour of the change. I do hope some Member of the Government, able to give an authoritative opinion—someone like the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Solicitor
    424
    General—will tell the Committee what induces the Government to propose this change to the House of Commons at all; will say within what limits they think it may work; and what will he the probable effect upon the class of future Law Officers, as compared with that of former days. I hope we shall have that explanation from the Government, but in any case, for my own part, I would press on the Committee the desirability of pausing before accepting the arrangement proposed by the Government. I support the Motion of the hon. Member for Preston as a protest against the change, and this I would say in conclusion: The present Government may make what change they like in opposition to the view of their Law Officer, but they cannot bind future Governments; and I have a very strong feeling that you will find that future Governments will go back—and will be forced to go back—to the old arrangements. They will be obliged to secure the best legal assistance they have at their command. You are really putting an extra charge of no inconsiderable amount on the Exchequer in order to effect a change which will only last the lifetime of the present Government. I would really ask the Government and the Committee whether they think the change worth persevering in. I have myself the strongest opinion of its impolicy, and, as a protest, I shall support the Motion of the hon. Member for Preston.
    THE CHAIRMAN: I would point out that no Amendment has been moved to the Estimate.
    MR. HANBURY: I beg to move to reduce the Vote by £500.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Item A, of £700, for Law Officers' Salaries, be reduced by £500."—(Mr. Hanbury.)
    SIR H. JAMES: I will only occupy the time of the Committee for a very brief period, but I wish to give some of my reasons for having always supported the change now made. I hope the Committee will not expect me to enter into that portion of the subject which affects the amount of the emoluments the Law Officers receive. I do not wish to criticise that portion of the arrangement—I do not wish to deal with the terms made by my hon. and learned

    425
    Friends for their services. The noble Lord says that the Law Officers will, under the new system, be placed in such an inferior position that the Crown will not get the best men for the place; but he also said that under the new system the Attorney General will receive £16,000 a year of the taxpayers' money—and there is no member of the profession but will feel that £16,000 a year, with the private practice he is able to enjoy, is an ample remuneration for any public service which the Attorney General may render. But I take a broader view of the matter. I think that the public should receive the full services of the Law Officers of the Crown, and I think that unless the public do receive them the duties of the Law Officers cannot be properly performed. I particularly desire to make it clear that I am not for one moment supposing that those who have previously occupied the position have not efficiently discharged their duties. But the business of this country has been increasing year by year, and is increasing in many ways, especially in the Law Officers' Department. In former times the Law Officers never attended the House of Commons at all unless they were sent for on some particular occasion when their attendance was specially required, or when some crucial Division was about to take place on which the fate of the Government depended. But of recent years a great change has taken place. The Law Officers now attend most diligently to their duties at the House, and one of them ought, I think, to be present upon every Standing Committee. Such duties were never thrown upon them in former times. Year by year an increased number of legal opinions is required from the Law Officers. I believe in the last 20 years they have more than doubled. And my view is that, if these duties are properly performed, there is but little, if any time for attention to private business. It is not right to place the Law Officers in a, position of temptation either of neglecting their public duties for their private practice or of overworking themselves. The noble Lord has referred to the case of Sir John Karslake, who retained his private practice. I was one of those who had to remonstrate with him for the manner in which he devoted
    426
    himself to his private duties. I begged him to spare himself, lest overwork should bring him to his death. But he did not listen to these remonstrances, and his duties to the public were so heavy, and his private practice so great, that I do not hesitate to say that Sir John Karslake killed himself by the diligence with which he applied himself to his work. And take another view of the question. I am one of those who think that the personal position of the Law Officers, without continuity or connection with a Department, prevents the legal business of the country from being properly performed. I think that a Law Officer should be as accessible to the heads of Departments as a solicitor is to his client. When the head of a Department wants a legal opinion, there is no office to which he can go and say, "I want your opinion." The opinion has to be obtained by a cumbrous red-tape method of procedure. A period of four or five weeks often elapses before an opinion which has been asked for is returned to the head of a Department. That is accounted for by the pressure put upon the Law Officers; but surely that pressure is increased, if the Law Officers retain their private practice. The delay which so often occurs now is frequently detrimental to the Public Service. Great inconvenience is suffered from the want of a central department. A Law Officer has to discover for himself as best he can what has been done in the past; and surely, if you can adopt a method by which you can secure consistency in the legal opinions that are given you ought to adopt it. At present there is no record of the opinions given — there is no précis of the cases advised upon, and every Law Officer is without guidance as to past precedents. If he cannot discover what has been done in the past he must give a fresh opinion. It may appear a small matter, but it is most necessary that there should be a central department where access can be had to one Law Officer or the other. The Chancellor of the Exchequer will no doubt recollect the fight that took place in the interest of the Law Officers about 20 years ago. At that time they were allowed no method of official communication, but the right hon. Gentleman, by the employment of language of a super-official character, not overburdened with

    427
    moderation, secured the concession from the Government that the Law Officers should have one small bag passed through the Post Office as an official bag. That was all that the Law Officers could obtain. But the absence of a central department was not a grievance of a fancied character. This country once suffered through the absence of such a department. Not long ago—during the time of the American War—there was building upon the Mersey a vessel known as "No. 260." The Custom House officers watched that vessel, and sent to the Foreign Office for instructions as to what course to pursue. The Law Officers had to be consulted. There were three of them in those days—for we then had the Queen's Advocate. One was reposing on the banks of the River Wye, and he dispatched his opinion to London. The papers were wrapped in a brown-paper parcel. That parcel was followed by some enterprising persons connected with the Confederate States, and before the papers reached London their contents were known to the agents of the Southern States. Before the advice contained in the papers could be acted upon, that vessel, half-equipped, had left the Mersey. Her equipment was subsequently completed, and "No. 260" became the Alabama, and cost this country millions of money. This was simply because we had no department where business could be carried on as it should be. Ever since I have had knowledge and experience of this subject, I have felt that there must come a time when the practice of a barrister on the part of a Law Officer of the Crown must give place entirely to the performance of his public duties. I cherish the hope that the Law Officers of the Crown will ever maintain their high position, whilst, at the same time, properly discharging their duties. I do not believe that by accepting office they will get out of touch with the profession and the public. I am convinced that eminent lawyers like my hon. and learned Friends who at present occupy the position of Law Officers on leaving office will at once find themselves retained by the public. The large number of Law Officers who in recent years have disappeared from view has been referred to. Yes; but what has become of them? The great majority of them have obtained judicial offices,
    428
    offices which will still be open to Attorneys General and Solicitors General. I do trust that a fair trial will be given to the change the Government have carried into effect.
    SIR R. WEBSTER: I intervene in the Debate with some reluctance, and I will not touch upon the question of the particular reduction moved by the hon. Member for Preston, because it seems to me the House of Commons would be well advised if it considered this matter as one of principle quite apart from any other question. I prefer to argue the question from the point of view of what is best for the Government and for the transaction of the legal business of the country. I cannot help having a slight feeling of wonder as to what are the feelings of the Under Secretary for the Colonies in connection with this Debate. It cannot be seriously denied that the result of the change will be to increase the burdens on the country by some £7,000 or £8,000 a year, and I very much doubt whether the Under Secretary for the Colonies, when he moved in this matter in two consecutive Sessions, had any idea that the result of the Government adopting his suggestion would be to increase the burden on the taxpayer. I cannot help feeling that many people will think that the object which it was sought to obtain has been rather dearly bought. What is the principle for which the Government are contending? If it be that the Attorney General and the Solicitor General should not take private practice, what is the meaning of the exception in the case of the House of Lords and the Privy Council? I say, from the point of view of principle, when it comes to be examined into, it is an absurdity to suggest that you are depriving the Law Officers of the opportunity of making large sums of money by private practice, and also preventing a sensible amount of their time being occupied if these two tribunals are excepted. I happen to know where the suggestion originally came from. The President of the Local Government Board will probably remember mentioning the matter to me some years ago, and I then explained to him the opinion which I venture to express to the House to-night. It is a mode of selection which in my humble judgment would apply most unfairly in the case of certain members of the

    429
    profession, and would defeat its object. Some Law Officers have been great advocates before juries, some have been great advocates in the Courts of Equity, and some have done a large and almost continuous practice in the House of Lords and the Privy Council. What is to be the position of the Law Officers in connection with the House of Lords and the Privy Council? The House of Lords sits four days and the Privy Council four or five days a week, and I may be permitted to say, with some little knowledge of the matter, that the work of getting up and mastering a Privy Council case is not the least laborious part of our profession. The Attorney General and Solicitor General will be distinctly at a disadvantage in cases before those tribunals. They may not, in the first place, be accustomed to the practice of those Courts, and, in the next place, they will not have had the advantage of following cases up from the Court of First Instance. From the point of view of principle it would be better to say that a Law Officer shall never take any but criminal practice. The Attorney General is the director of prosecutions, in the sense that he advises the Home Secretary and other Secretaries of State, and if he is not to engage to any extent in private practice, I say what reason is there for picking out and exempting the two tribunals which involve the most lucrative remuneration, and certainly involve not the least heavy labour, and in connection with which some Law Officers may have a large practice and others none at all? The history of the past 50 or 100 years shows how essential it is to have a lawyer well acquainted with criminal practice to advise the Government; therefore, we have to face the question of the best way to secure the services of the man who will command the respect of the House of Commons and of the country. I had not the pleasure of hearing the speech of the Attorney General the other evening, but I could not help thinking as I read it that there was in it an under-current of regret at the change to which he had been a party. I am doing him no injustice I am satisfied. No one who read the speech could have had any doubt as to what was not in it. He said that he was in a unique position for the six months during which he had previously held the office of
    430
    Attorney General; he had lost £2,000. We know very well what was the class of legislation then being framed, and what were the relations between the First Lord of the Treasury and the Attorney General. There was a Home Rule scheme then in preparation, and in connection with that the hon. and learned Gentleman's time must have been fully occupied. I certainly think that if it had been then necessary to make this change it should have been the result of the concentrated wisdom of the Government, the Government saying to their Law Officers, "It is wise that the change should be made," and the Law Officers taking that view. I confess it does encourage us in thinking that the change was not a wise one when we have the conviction that does not admit of any serious doubt that the best opinion that possibly could be taken on this matter—namely, that of the Attorney General himself, is against the change, and against the change when it was coupled with the condition that the Law Officers might practice in two tribunals to the exclusion of others. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bury has referred to the increasing duties of the Law Officers of the Crown, and I cannot help reminding him that in 1872, speaking as Solicitor General, he defended the position of the Law Officers taking private practice.
    SIR H. JAMES: I was not made Solicitor General until 1873—the year after that.
    SIR R. WEBSTER: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for the correction, especially as it gives the Chancellor of the Exchequer an opportunity for amusement at my expense. The date is not material to my purpose. The right hon. Gentleman, however, spoke of having to give up two-thirds of his private practice when he became Law Officer. I say that if the right hon. Gentleman found it necessary to give up so much of his private practice it proves that, he recognised the fact that the public had the first claim upon his time. And I cannot help saying that the Government must have a very poor opinion of their Law Officers if they cannot trust them to limit their private practice to an amount consistent with the discharge of the public duties. I do not think anyone would tax the right hon. and learned Gentleman the

    431
    present Chancellor of the Exchequer with having neglected public business for private practice. And I do not for a moment suppose that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bury permitted private practice to interfere with his public duties. The fact is that if you cannot trust a Law Officer to make public business his first charge, he is not very fit to be selected for the post. The point of continuity in the offices of Attorney General and Solicitor General is worthy of more consideration than has been given to it. The last Government experienced the inconvenience of constant changes especially in regard to the Irish Law Officers. They had, I think, four or five different Attorneys General for Ireland. I cannot help saying that, having regard to the risks which any Attorney General runs when he is obliged to give up the whole of his private practice, the natural inducement to obtain judicial rank will have a serious effect upon the length of time during which a Law Officer will hold his office. Certainly there are few offices in which continuity is of more importance than in the case of those who have to perform such duties as the Law Officers have to perform. While I have disclaimed altogether—and do disclaim—the idea of arguing the question from a financial point of view, I cannot help thinking that some future Law Officers will be in the position of demanding and of receiving briefs in that considerable part of Government business which is now done by permanent counsel. I hope and trust that we have made our meaning clear that this is a matter which cannot be decided by any private bargain between a Prime Minister and an Attorney General. I hope the House will pause before it puts an end to a system that has now existed for something like 100 years, and which in the past—speaking of the period from 1820 to 1880—has produced a series of distinguished men who have given their time and the best of their abilities to the public service. I hope the protest we are now making will not be forgotten, because I cannot help feeling, apart from personal considerations, that what we have to do is to adopt a system by which we can secure the services of the men best fitted to serve the public.
    MR. H. H. FOWLER: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bury has stated the views of the Government with such force and ability that it would be impertinent in me to add anything to what he has said. So far from this being a new question raised for the first time in a new Parliament, I would remind the Committee that it was raised five years ago, and that the House divided on it as lately as in 1891, and though the late Government had a large majority, and though it is always difficult to obtain support for a proposal to reduce a Vote, the majority of the Government on that occasion was only 35. I think that was a clear expression on the part of the House of Commons that the change should be made. I must say I have some difficulty in reconciling the views of the late Attorney General with those of the noble Lord. The position of the noble Lord the Member for Paddington was—first, that the services of the best men cannot be obtained under the new system, because they will not be well enough paid; and, secondly, that a charge of £9,000 or £10,000 will be thrown on the Exchequer in order to pay the Law Officers better.
    LORD R. CHURCHILL: I said you would not secure the services of the best men, not because they will be badly paid, but because they will not have that great reputation at the Bar on leaving office which they possessed before, and because they will undoubtedly fall off in their legal skill and experience from the loss of that private practice which you propose to take away.
    MR. H. H. FOWLER: That, of course, is a matter of prophecy oil the part of the noble Lord.
    LORD R. CHURCHILL: Not at all.
    MR. H. H. FOWLER: So far as the facts go they answer the noble Lord conclusively. He says we cannot get the best men at the Bar under this arrangement, but he admits that two of the ablest men at the Bar have been got. Then the arrangement has the approval of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bury, who was one of the ablest Attorneys General who ever held office; and we have heard that Sir Horace Davey takes the same view. Without wishing to imply anything disrespectful of other counsel at the Bar, I would appeal to the noble Lord whether it is

    433
    possible to get four men of higher standing and greater ability, and—to put the matter on the lowest basis—men who have drawn larger incomes from their professions?
    LORD R. CHURCHILL: The Attorney General is not in favour of the new arrangement.
    MR. H. H. FOWLER: The Attorney General has accepted the arrangement. The decision of the Government on this question was arrived at before any appointment was made. The noble Lord gave us the opinions of two or three late Attorneys General, but he omitted the opinion of one, a very eminent Member of a Tory Government, who was afterwards elevated to the Bench. I mean the late Lord Justice Baggallay, who said—
    "Any Attorney General who wishes to fairly discharge the duties of his office must be prepared to sacrifice the emoluments to be derived from private practice, at any rate during that portion of the year in which Parliament is sitting."
    That was in 1872. The noble Lord asks why we want to make a change. Because the conditions of public life have changed, because the work of the Attorney General has doubled, and trebled and quadrupled, and because the work which is thrown upon a successful advocate has increased. He says we cannot obtain the best men under such circumstances. He has been answered on that point by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bury (Sir H. James). The average income of the Attorney General from the State has for some time past been £11,140 a year. The headship of the English Bar, and the certainty of promotion to a high position on the Judicial Bench in addition to such an income will command the services of men of the greatest ability that the English Bar has ever produced. The late Attorney General spoke of the continuity of the office. Will he tell me of any Attorney General who, during the last 10 years or the last 40 years, has hesitated to accept one of the highest positions of the Judicial Bench?
    SIR R. WEBSTER: Yes; the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bury (Sir Henry James).
    MR. H. H. FOWLER: The right hon. Gentleman did not refuse the highest judicial office on the ground of the un-
    434
    certain tenure of the post of Attorney General, and I venture to say that the continuity of the office will be just as secure under the new arrangement as under the old one. I have no time left to go further into the question, but I should like to give one further explanation to the noble Lord, who has made an unfounded statement as to the Attorney General's work. He said a large number of briefs would be received by the Attorney General under the new arrangement which he did not formerly obtain.
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: Under the heading of what is called contentious business, and I make the statement on the highest legal authority.
    MR. H. H. FOWLER: On the highest legal authority I contradict it. The same inaccuracy characterises the noble Lord's statement with respect to the fees. The fees are subject to the Treasury Rules. The noble Lord has said it is the duty of the House of Commons to secure the best men for the post. We believe we shall do that, and are satisfied that the Public Service will be best promoted by the course we have taken.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think this interesting discussion may now come to an end, and I do not rise to continue it, but I think it is right that I should emphasise the statement of my noble Friend, that whatever decision the House or the Government may come to in this matter, it will not be binding on future Governments. It will be, in my opinion, open to any future Government to take whatever step it considers proper to secure the highest legal ability for the positions of Law Officers. It has already been pointed out that the present Government, whilst nominally abolishing private practice, have left the most laborious and the most lucrative private practice still open to the Law Officers. I do not think that, after the declarations which have been made on this subject, there will be much object in putting the House to the trouble of a Division, and I would suggest that the discussion may come to an end without a Division.
    MR. HANBURY: I beg to withdraw the Amendment, Sir.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: No, Sir; I think that, after the declaration which

    435
    has just been made as to the future, it is necessary we should negative the proposal.
    Question put, and negatived.
    Original Question put, and agreed to.
    Vote agreed to.
    8. £5,400, Supplementary, Supreme Court of Judicature.
    MR. TOMLINSONsaid, the Committee was asked to vote a sum which apparently ought to have been charged last year, and he should like to have an explanation of the item.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Sir J. T. HIBBERT,)said, the sum referred to was provided for in 1891–92, but not used in that year owing to the claims not having come in. It was merely a re-Vote.
    MR. A. C. MORTONasked how it was that circuit allowances had been increased by £1,000? The complaint had always been that they were too large already.
    SIR J. T. HIBBERTsaid, that the re-Vote arose in connection with the Winter Assizes. The matter could be discussed when the main Estimates came on.
    SIR R. WEBSTERinquired whether the £1,000 was an aggregation of the sum of £7 10s. a day. It seemed to be a very large increase, and many Members had objection to the allowance of £7 10s. a day altogether.
    SIR J. T. HIBBERT: It is for circuit expenses.
    Vote agreed to.
    9. £10, Supplementary, County Courts.
    Resolutions to be reported upon Monday next.
    Committee to sit again this day.

  SUPPLY—REPORT.
  Resolutions [16th March] reported.
  SUPPLY—REPORT.
    NAVY ESTIMATES, 1893–4.
    1. "That a sum, not exceeding £3,620,800, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Expense of Wages, &c. to Officers, Seamen and Boys, Coast Guard and Royal Marines, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1894."

    NAVY EXCESSES, 1891–2.
    2. "That a sum, not exceeding £62,088 10s. 8d., be granted to Her Majesty to make good the Excess of Net Expenditure beyond the ordinary Navy Grants, for the year ended on the 31st day of March 1892."
    MAJOR RASCH: I desire to make a brief personal explanation with reference to the extraordinary attack made upon me last night by the Secretary to the Admiralty (Sir U. Kay-Shuttleworth), an attack which he prevented me replying to, by having the Closure moved when I rose to answer him. He accused me of ignorance, disingenuousness, and incivility; and the reason why I appeared to have fallen under his displeasure was, that I charged the Admiralty with taking the bread out of the mouths of the seamen and the fishermen, and with destroying the trade of those who work in the estuary of the Thames and the North Sea. I ventured to say that the Admiralty have done that, and I moved the reduction of the Vote. Well, Sir, I am here to stand up for these poor men who are not able to speak for themselves, and I intend to do so unless you, Sir, silence me, whoever happens to be Secretary to the Admiralty. I am sorry to have occupied the time of the House with a personal matter, but I think it is a duty I owe to those men to explain to the House the situation in which they stand. I think it is very hard that a man, when he endeavours to serve his constituents in the best way he can, should be dragooned into silence by the Minister who happens to be in charge of the Vote in a manner that would be regarded as brusque, if applied by Providence to a black-beetle.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Sir U. KAY-SHUTTLE-WORTH,): The hon. and gallant Gentleman has given an inaccurate version of what occurred yesterday. For instance, he omitted to state that he rose after the Closure had been moved by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and not before. Therefore, the Closure was not moved for the purpose of preventing him from making any statement he desired to make. It was moved for a totally different reason. I certainly did point out that the hon. and gallant Gentleman had done scant justice to the First Lord of the Admiralty in accusing him of having done nothing,

    437
    after a certain point had been brought before him by the hon. and gallant Member, when the hon. and gallant Member knew perfectly well that immediate action had been taken by my noble Friend. It was for this injustice of the hon. and gallant Member to my noble Friend that I ventured to take him to task.
    MR. KEARLEYremarked that an order was issued in October last at the Royal Naval Barracks at Plymouth stating that in future the uniform stick would be the one sold at the canteens for 8d., and that this stick was to be in possession of all ranks. He wished to know whether the authorities had power to issue orders of this description without first of all appealing to the Admiralty, and whether it was fair that a charge of 8d. should be made for a stick which would be very dear at 2d? He should also like to know whether the men ought to be called upon to give up practically a day's pay in order to provide themselves with an article of luxury of which they already had a specimen in their possession?
    THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. E. ROBERTSON,): The question my hon. Friend has raised is a new one to me, but it shall be taken into consideration.
    Resolutions agreed to.

  EVENING SITTING.
    ORDERS OF THE DAY.

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

      SUPPLY—COMMITTEE.

        LAND TAX ON SMALL PROPERTIES.
        MR. FRANCIS S. STEVENSONrose to move the Resolution standing in his name, as follows:—
        "To call attention to the variations in the incidence of the Land Tax on Small Properties; and to more, That, in the opinion of this House, no increase of the Land Tax on Small Properties should be permitted to arise out of the reduction of valuation in the case of large holdings situated in the same parish; and that the time has arrived when the whole subject of the incidence of the Land Tax in various parts of the country might with advantage be re-considered."
        438
        He said he would only address himself to the Resolution in a few words. Although the Resolution was divided into two parts, it would be found that one bore strongly upon the other. He had to ask the House to go back to the origin of Land Tax, to the Tudor subsidies, and to the Commonwealth monthly assessments. Both these included, to some extent, what was known as the quota system. A law was passed in 1656 by which the specified sum charged upon a particular county was
        "so levied on the general divisions, hundreds ridings, wapentakes, and parishes for all their real and personal estate."
        This provision was re-enacted in subsequent Acts. In 1692 real estate, offices, and personal property were under the head of this taxation. Offices and personal property gradually fell out, and the tax on offices was finally repealed in 1876, that on personal property having been repealed in 1833. No proper Returns were made in 1692 for the purpose of valuation. The partisans of William were liberal in their Returns; the partisans of the Pretender were niggardly. The centres of wealth and population were different then from what they were now. When, in 1798, Mr. Pitt made the Laud Tax perpetual, the Commissioners were directed to be governed in their assessments by those made in 1692, and so it was that the quota fixed upon the parishes and places under the Act of 1798 was, with few exceptions, the same as that fixed at the time of William and Mary. The result was somewhat startling. The new dynasty was in 1692 only four years old, and the tax was looked upon as a new and revolutionary one. And it happened that districts which favoured the House of Orange assessed themselves equitably and fairly, while those districts which favoured the Pretender assessed themselves inequitably. There had, however, been no change from the assessment of William and Mary, with the result that some centres of population and wealth and agricultural districts at present had to pay more in taxation, while London, Lancashire, and Yorkshire, which ought to pay more, were exempted from paying a fair amount of the burden of public taxation which, in equity and justice,

        439
        they ought to bear. In order to show the need for a re-valuation as between different parts of England, he would refer the House to the evidence of Mr. Wood, Chairman of the Board of Inland Revenue, before the Committee on Agricultural Depression in 1836, and some cases of inequality of the incidence of the tax. Lewes, for example, paid 2s. 3d., while Brighton paid less than ¼d.; Lancashire paid £20,000, while Suffolk paid nearly £50,000, and Norfolk £84,000 a year. Surely there might be a means devised of imposing the tax according to an ad valorem system instead of hard-and-fast quotas. He could quote other cases; but he thought it would be admitted, from the figures he had given, that the agricultural districts generally paid far too much. The Inland Revenue Report for 1870 told them that—
        "Through Mr. Pitt's unfortunate resource of 1798, perpetuating the assessment of 1692 (or nearly so), the impost has assumed a form which is almost grotesque, so great have been the changes, more especially since 1798, in the relative valuation of the different districts in which the country is divided."
        And, again, it was stated that the Queen's Bench of 1853 decided that the quotas for the parishes were fixed and could not be altered. The Report went on—
        "The parishes have to pay each its own rent-charge, and all that, this Department has to do is to take care that they pay the proper amount With the mode in which they raise the money we have no concern whatever."
        That, in itself, was an anomaly. Mr. Wood declared, in his evidence before the Court alluded to—
        "The circumstances of Liverpool are these: The quota unredeemed is £99 and some odd shillings; the rental is the basis of the rating, and the sum to be levied in the £1 is something less than one-third of ¼d. annually and the consequence is that a rate is made, I believe, every three years, of ¼d., and the expense is probably three or four times as much as the sum actually raised, because all the forms of assessment of the Land Tax, all the duplicates, all the payments into the Exchequer must go on with as much regularity as if they were £100,000 per year."
        Mr. Wood, being asked what objection he anticipated to the equalisation of the Land Tax, replied—
        "It may, probably, be argued that by the Act rendering the quotas perpetual as fixed in the year 1798, subject to redemption, an implied pledge was given that no alteration would be
        440
        made in the appointment of the tax on the several districts and parishes. There is nothing, however, in the law which bears this construction."
        He went on to say—
        "There is one great objection to the altering of the Land Tax at present and equalising it—that is the expense which it is apprehended might be thrown on the districts by taxing new valuations."
        But this objection had been removed by the valuation of property made throughout the Kingdom for the purposes of the Poor Law Amendment Act and by the Returns for the Property Tax. According to Miller, in his preface to his work on the Land Tax, published in 1849, and still a work which was regarded as an authority on the subject—
        "Although the assessments were originally calculated at a rate of four shillings in the £1, to which all real property is now legally subject, an equalised rate of 9d. m the £1, even after deducting the amount redeemed, would produce an increase to the Revenue of 1½ millions. Agricultural districts would obtain an immediate benefit."
        Of course, as Mr. Wood stated in his evidence in 1836—
        "The law only affords protection from future assessments so far as regards the estates redeemed and exonerated."
        Pitt, in moving his Resolutions, said much the same thing. He said—
        "If the whole of the Land Tax were to be redeemed, the only necessary to be provided as expressly as any legislation can guard is that, if ever a new Land Tax is imposed, it shall not be imposed upon those who have redeemed in any different proportion from that, or those who have not redeemed. It would be necessary to provide that the amount of what may have been redeemed shall be deducted from any new impost."
        In 1798 the Land Tax yielded £1,989,673. Since that time the Land Tax redeemed amounted to £874,750; and the present tax yielded about £1,000,000, the difference accounted for by the portion the tax relating to personal property and to offices having disappeared. What he (Mr. Stevenson) objected to was that there should be taxes raised with the mode of levying which neither that House nor the Board of Inland Revenue had anything to do. That, he held, was an obsolete and anomalous proceeding. It ought to be possible for that House to have something to do with the matter, and not leave it to the

        441
        Commissioners in their own localities, without any power of appeal as to the mode in which the tax was assessed and the mode in which the tax was levied. He had ventured to go into the quota system to show the inequalities which existed in the present system. The tax on the small holders had increased owing to circumstances over which they had no control—owing to reductions of rent and consequent reductions of valuation. He had letters from various parts of the country which showed that the grievance was not confined to any one part of England. One correspondent wrote—
        "I am a working shoemaker, having managed to save sufficient to purchase a small house and garden 18 rods in extent. The collector for this parish has demanded from me the sum of 9s. fid. for the current year, whereas I have only previously paid 4s. 3d. I have received no notice of the increase, being simply told by the collector that it was a Government affair, and that if I did not pay my goods would be seized."
        Another wrote—
        "I have four cottages in a certain parish. The rents were £14 and the Land Tax 7s. 4d. The rents have been reduced to £10, but the Land Tax is raised to 17s."
        In another case—
        "I have eight cottages at £29 rent and 8s. 4d. Land Tax. The Land Tax is now £1 10s., although the rents have been reduced to £20."
        Another man wrote from Warwickshire that on most of the small holdings the collector had raised the Land Tax from 6d. to 9¾d. in the £1 for two years in succession. He added—
        "There are old residents who have lived here for more than 60 years who have never been called upon to pay more than 6d. in the £1. There has been no fresh assessment in the parish."
        In most cases the difference was due to the difference in the assessment. I hold extracts from the hooks of Land Tax, showing the difference between the payments made in 1885 and 1893 in a parish of about 3,000 inhabitants. There had been a reduction on the large properties outside the town, but a considerable increase—in many cases a doubling—of the amount paid by houses in the town, which had not risen in value. One did not grudge reduction in the agricultural part, but one objected to the increase in
        442
        the small properties which had not done anything to deserve it. What he wanted to see was a fair assessment ail over the country—and a regular assessment. The want of elasticity of the quota lay at the root of the difficulty. It would be said, no doubt, that there was power of appeal against unfair assessment. That might be; but appeals from the Commissioners, so far us he could gather, only carried against double assessment, or against wrongful assessment—assessment, that was, in more than one place. The power of appeal to the Commissioners under 38 Geo. III., c. 5, s. 84, was rendered nugatory, partly because the Commissioners, owing to their qualification, were necessarily interested under present circumstances, and rightly so, in reducing the assessments on the large agricultural properties, and were, therefore, compelled to make up the quota from other sources—partly because of the burden of proof which fell upon the person aggrieved, but mainly owing to the fact that they were bound tore-assess it within the four corners of their district, which meant practically within the parish: whereas, if they had an ad valorem assessment instead of the quota system, no difficulty would arise. He thought the House would agree with him that the settlement of William and Mary was indefensible, and that, at any rate, some alteration was necessary in the direction, if nothing else could be done, of an automatic system of appeal. The Inland Revenue Report of 1870 said—
        "We believe that in the great majority of parishes the Land Tax has been regarded for the last 70 years as a fixed charge on property, subject to which it has been bought and sold."
        What, then, must be the feelings of those who, having been accustomed to pay, say 10s., had the amount suddenly raised to £1? It was clear that the whole system of quotas would have to undergo revision. The House had in the last Parliament formally pledged itself to encourage as far as possible the creation of small holdings by the Small Holdings Act; but, as he had shown, the persons responsible for the assessment and collection of the Land Tax were doing everything they

        443
        could to throw obstacles in the way of that policy—a course of conduct which, in his opinion, should he discouraged by the Government and by the Board of Inland Revenue. This was a matter which had excited very considerable attention throughout the country. Resolutions on the subject had been passed by various County Councils throughout the country. The County Council of Norfolk asked that the Land Tax should be remitted and returned, but that was the last thing in the world which he should advocate. What he wanted was that there should be a revision of the tax in such a manner as that there would be a fair and equitable assessment of the tax all over the country. He did not suppose that the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the House would consent to part with such a valuable source of revenue as the Land Tax; but if the tax remained, it was only fair that the agricultural counties, which were the poor counties, should bear the least of the burden, and that counties like Middlesex and Yorkshire, which were the rich counties, should bear more of the burden than they do at the present time. He was sure that every hon. Member, on whatever side of the House he might sit, would agree that that was a demand that was not at all extravagant or unjust. He did not suppose that this was a question which could be forced on the attention of the Government without careful consideration; but at least he might be permitted to ask that the Government and the Board of Inland Revenue should give their attention to the subject, and that by some scheme an attempt might be made to remit the pre-sent inequalities of the tax and relieve the grievances felt by those valued and valuable members of the community— the small holders, whom it was the duty of the House to encourage, but whom the assessors and collectors of the Laud Tax were doing so much to discourage.
        MR. CHANNINGformally seconded the Motion.
        Amendment proposed,
        To leave out from the word "That," to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "in the opinion of this House, no increase of the Land Tax on Small properties should be permitted to arise out of the reduction of valuation in the case of large holdings situated in
        444
        the same parish; and that the time has arrived when the whole subject of the incidence of the Land Tax in various parts of the country might with advantage be reconsidered,"—(Mr. Francis Stevenson,)
        —instead thereof.
        Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
        THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT,): I have listened with great interest and instruction to the speech of my hon. Friend. He has given us an able speech on a very important subject-He has called attention to the great anomalies caused by what is called the Land Tax. He says truly that the Inland Revenue have no authority in this matter, and this House does not exercise, in respect to the Land Tax, the authority it does exercise in respect to other taxes. The real solution to the difficulty is that this charge is not a tax, and has long ceased to be a tax at all. It retains a name which belonged to it properly two centuries ago, when it was imposed in the reign of William III. for the purposes of the great war. Since that time it has ceased to be a tax, and has become a rent-charge upon the land of the country. That rent-charge has, no doubt, now become quite unequal in its incidence in different counties, but it is not a tax. I want the House to understand that perfectly, for it practically explains all the anomalies to which my hon. Friend has referred. I do not wish to rest that statement on my own authority alone. It has always been the view that has been taken of the Land Tax. We have the authority of John Stuart Mill for saying that the Land Tax is not a tax, but a rent-charge; and that it is no more a burden upon the landlord than the share of one tenant in common is a burden upon another. The late Professor Fawcett also affirmed that the Land Tax should properly be considered as denoting that the State has reserved a small share in the pecuniary value of the soil. If you bear in mind that view of the Land Tax you will see at once that it is not a tax at all, and you will understand why the Inland Revenue has

        445
        nothing to do with it. The charge is in the hands of certain Land Tax Commissioners, who are appointed at the beginning of every Parliament by Parliament itself. I do not know whether my hon. Friend and the other County Members are aware that they themselves may be said to appoint the Land Tax Commissioners. I believe most hon. Members are not aware of that fact. The way in which it is done is by sending a circular round to the Clerks to the Commissioners of Land Tax, who submit the names to hon. Members for approval. I do not know whether my hon. Friend has received any such list of names. The present Commissioners were appointed in this way by the last Parliament in 1886. This is one of those obscure mysteries of the British Constitution which it is so difficult to explain, though, on the whole, it works well. To add to the anomaly, the Land Tax Commissioners, who govern the whole of the Land Tax, appoint the Income Tax Commissioners. That is a fact which is not generally known. I receive every day complaints of the conduct of the Income Tax Commissioners, with whom the Government has nothing to do, as they are appointed by the Land Tax Commissioners, who are in turn appointed by the County Members. Such a system, it will readily be seen, is likely to lead to anomaly. It has been suggested that a new Land Tax should be imposed on a different principle. That would be a great deal more effective. One of these days I shall be very happy, with my hon. Friend's assistance, to impose a new Land Tax, but on a different principle, and that, to my mind, will be a great deal more effective than endeavouring to tinker with this old Land Tax. We cannot equalise this old Laud Tax; it is impossible. A great difficulty in the way of dealing with the tax is that half of it has been redeemed. What are you going to do with the Land Tax where the tax has been redeemed? Besides, estates have been bought and sold subject to this charge, which, for the existing holders, is no burden at all. If a man has bought an estate and made a deduction of the purchase money equivalent to the amount of the Land Tax, of course it is not a burden upon him. That burden has been discounted for genera-
        446
        tions, and, therefore, it is not a burden at all upon existing landowners who have hled the land—they or their forebears—for generations subject to a charge for this Land Tax. I hope my hon. Friends, who have great questions before them dealing with the burdens on land, will clear their minds on this subject, and not make demands which would be fatal to the true principle upon which land taxation ought to proceed in the future. When my hon. Friend directed attention to the question of quota, he touched on a sore point. We have a fixed charge, and the question arises on whose shoulders it is to fall. That is left to the discretion of the Commissioners, who may change the burden so as to put a larger amount on one man than he bore before, and a less amount upon another man than he bore before. I ask my hon. Friends to discard the notion of equalising the present Land Tax upon different parts of the country. That is impossible We cannot do that with the present tax We may set to work to impose a new tax which shall be equal over all part of the country, but that must be irrespective altogether of the present Land Tax. The Land Tax is a rent due to the State or Crown. Any Land Tax, or charge upon land of the character of a Land Tax, must be a new tax in addition to the present tax. I do not know whether any of the hon. Members interested in agriculture and landed estates are disposed to support a review of the Land Tax. I should not be sorry to review the Land Tax; but if I were a representative of the lauded interest, that is exactly the thing I should not desire, because I do not think a revision of the Land Tax is likely to redound to their advantage. But the question of the quota is deserving of great consideration. I regard the Land Tax as a rent-charge due to the State, and it is the duty of the State to see that it is equitably levied in the districts from which it is due. That is the real point which my hon. Friend has made out; and as regards that point, I think it is a matter that is deserving of great consideration. I daresay it would be a difficult matter to deal with. I hope, however, that my hon. Friend will believe that I am not insensible to the case he has made out; that he will be satisfied with the assurance which I have given

        447
        on my part and on the part of the Government, and will consent to withdraw his Motion.
        SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: As one who has seen in the division which I have the honour to represent grave causes of grievance against the tax, I would advise my hon. Friend to be content with the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and withdraw his Motion. The case is an extreme one. The hardship is great indeed. There are not many Members in this House who know how extreme the pressure of this tax is in certain parishes. I will just mention one case which has come under my notice. There is a small parish about three miles from Gloucester which affords a striking and interesting case of the injustice done by the tax. The parish is inhabited by small freeholders, who were planted there by Feargus O'Connor, and these men—40 or 50 in number—have had their assessments of Land Tax increased by more than double within the last year, after having remained unchanged for a long period. The House will see how extreme is the pressure of the tax on these small holdings. It is a great discouragement to these freeholders, and it prevents the sale of their properties, for there is no knowing how the tax might be further increased in the future. From that single case the House will see how urgent is the need for redress.
        MR. F. S. STEVENSONsaid that, after what had fallen from the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his right hon. Friend the Member for the Forest of Dean, he had no objection to the Motion being negatived, on the understanding given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that this matter would receive the careful consideration of himself and the Board of Inland Revenue. When the Bill which had been promised by the Secretary to the Treasury came on it would be possible to raise this question in another form with advantage to the country.
        Question put, and agreed to.
        Main Question again proposed.

        THE DISPOSAL OF THE DEAD.
        DR. CAMERONsaid, the Government had assented to his Motion which stood on the Paper as follows:—
        "To call attention to the state of the law as to the Disposal of the Dead; and to move that a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the sufficiency of the existing law as to the Disposal of the Dead, for securing an accurate record of the causes of death in all cases, and especially for detecting them where death may have been due to poison, violence, or criminal neglect."
        He would, therefore, say only a few words to show the necessity for this inquiry. There were 16,000 deaths every year in which there were no certificates of death furnished, and 26,000 deaths in which the certificates were so loose and unsatisfactory that the Registrars were unable to classify them. There were also 8,000 cases of so-called still-born births in which no certificates at all were furnished. Therefore, there were 50,000 cases of death occurring every year in England alone in which there was not the slightest form of certificate. Under these circumstances, every Member of the House would agree as to the propriety of appointing the Committee which he asked for, and, as the Government had consented to it, he would not take up any further time, but would withdraw the Motion.
        DR. ROBERT FARQUHARSONsaid, he had intended to second the Motion. There were 40,000 people smuggled into their graves every year without a proper investigation as to the causes of their deaths. There was, therefore, a case for inquiry, and he thanked the Government for acceding to the Motion.
        Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

        SOLWAY WHITE FISHING.
        SIR HERBERT MAXWELL (): I have to bring before the notice of the House a subject which I hoped might have been disposed of by answers to questions which I had addressed on more than one occasion to the Secretary for Scotland. The Motion is—

        449
        "To call attention to the Report of the Departmental Committee on Solway White Fishings; and to move, That, in the opinion of this House, effect should be given to the recommendations of the Committee, or by some other means, to enable the fishermen to carry on an ancient and profitable industry without molestation."
        Unfortunately, the answers of the right hon. Gentleman to the questions which I addressed to him—while they show every sympathy with, and, if I may say so, an intelligent interest in the subject—convey, to my mind, the impression that there is in his mind no apprehension of the principal bearings of the subject. I preface the few remarks I have to make by saying they differ in one respect from Motions on this Order that are frequently brought before the House. Generally, I may say, Amendments brought forward that you leave the Chair, Sir, are connected with subjects affecting the constituency of the Member who moves them. That is not the case in this instance, as not one of my constituents cares a snap of his fingers for the white fishing in the Solway, because, though geographically my constituency is within the bounds of the Solway, the mode of fishing to which I wish to call the attention of the House is confined to that portion of the Solway which borders upon the shores of the counties which I have not the honour of representing. The general physical features of the estuary are tolerably well-known to Members of this House; it is a large expanse of sand at low water and a shallow muddy sea at high water. Within that area, on the northern or Scottish side, are conducted two industries which of recent years, and of recent years only, have come into direct conflict, and it is in behalf of the weaker party in this conflict that I now appeal to the House, and to Scotchmen in particular. The Solway, and especially the salmon fishing of the Solway, has been the subject of legislation, if not from time immemorial, at all events, from the time of the union of the two Kingdoms. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Scotland (Sir George Trevelyan), in reply to a question I put to him the other day, seemed to assume that the Salmon Fishery Laws were inextricably mixed up with
        450
        the laws affecting the white fishing. I venture to say that is not the case, that they are absolutely distinct in their sphere and operation, and it is only by the action of interested persons on either side—I will not specify who they are—that the laws have become confused in the minds of the public, and, apparently, in the mind of the right hon. Gentleman. The peculiarity of fishery legislation in the Solway is this: that whereas in most parts of the Kingdom the object of legislation has been to effect the utmost benefit, the object of fishery legislation in the Solway has been to effect the utmost damage to the property. English legislation has been directed in a hostile spirit towards Scotch interests, and Scottish legislation has been directed, up to the time of the Union, in a spirit hostile to English interests. I am not going to enter—Heaven forbid that I should!—upon the vexed question of salmon fishery legislation in the Solway, but it is necessary to touch upon it at one point. By the Solway Act of 1867 it was enacted that no fixed engines should exist within the estuary— fixed engines, that is to say, for the capture of salmon. But there was this exception on the Scottish side which an Act of Parliament could not touch—namely, those fixed salmon engines which fell under Royal Charter. Every fixed engine for the capture of salmon was swept away by the Act of 1867, and every fixed engine went off the English shore in consequence of that Act, but there remained upon the Scottish shore certain fixed engines which were constituted by Royal Charter and by immemorial usage. There were other fixed engines not erected for the purpose of taking salmon, or, us they are known in Scotland, as red fish, but for the purpose of taking white fish, which include flat fish, whitings, haddocks, and so on. This industry, the capture of white fish, has been for many centuries the occupation of various communities along the Scottish shores of the Solway; from time immemorial they had exercised the industry which, though humble, was a profitable one to them. It had been recognised by various Acts of Parliament. In the year 1705 there was an Act of Queen Anne recognising their right to take these white fish and making various provisions for their pro-

        451
        tection from interference. And the rights so set forth and defended by the Act of Queen Anne were further recognised and extended by the Act of the 29 George II., c. 23. Now, no interference took place with these white fish fishermen until the year 1877, 10 years after the passing of the Solway Salmon Act. The means by which these white fish are taken is specially recognised in the Act of Queen Anne and the Act of George II., and they are, in fact, miniature fixed engines, miniatures of the same stake or bag nets used in the capture of salmon. A certain proprietor, urged, I believe, by his tacks-man the lessee of the salmon fishing, in 1877 lodged an action for interdict against the white fish fishermen because they were fishing with fixed engines which might, and sometimes did, capture salmon, though not set for that purpose, and were of a kind prohibited by the Act of 1867. Mr. Mackenzie, in the interests of his tacksman, lodged an action for interdict in the Court of Session, and the Court of Session held that these paidle nets were fixed engines in the meaning of the Act of 1867, and as such were illegal. The interdict was granted, and certain of these fishermen were prohibited from prosecuting their industry. Well, Sir, if nothing further had taken place, it might have been held that that was a hard law; that that was a law which extended certainly further than the framers of it intended it should go, because it extended to the capture of fish other than salmon. But the Court of Session took a very strong line. They subsequently appointed Inspectors to go down and see what the action of these fixed engines was. Undoubtedly they were fixed engines; the local name for them is paidle nets. One of these Inspectors was directed to fish with a paidle net to see what the result was on these salmon, and what did he find? He fished with one of these nets from the 21st September to the 10th October, 1885, eight years after the first action for interdict was brought forward, and what was the result? Why, that this agent fishing one of these nets for 17 days, although he caught 28 stone and 11 lbs. of white fish, valued at £1 16s. 6d.—a considerable sum to a poor fisherman—he
        452
        did not see one single salmon in that net the whole time. That was not sufficient for the Court of Session, actuated I know not by what abstruse principle of law, while they granted the interdict against this improper mode of fishing as being prohibited under the Solway Act of 1867, they adopted the report of their agent and laid down certain limits within the Solway, within the estuary, where fixed engines are illegal, and they said that in these limits the fishermen might use the paidle nets. The position is clearly this: If the paidle net is illegal anywhere in the estuary, it is illegal because it is a fixed engine; if a fixed engine is illegal in one part of the Solway, it is illegal in the other parts; and, therefore, I cannot but think this decision of the Court of Session is incapable of being supported by any sound argument, and has resulted in much unmerited hardship upon a humble and industrious class of persons. In 1890 a Committee was appointed by the predecessor of the right hon. Gentleman opposite—a Departmental Committee over which I had the honour of presiding—and we went down and made a most minute inquiry—and I venture to assure the House a most impartial inquiry—into the conflicting interests involved in that dispute. We visited the nets when they were fishing; we took evidence from salmon fishers, from proprietors, from tacksmen of salmon fisheries, from white fishers, from landlords, from land agents, from every class in the community who could by any means be connected with the inquiry, and the conclusion that we came to unanimously—no question of Party politics was involved, for I remember the Member for North East Lanark (Mr. Donald Crawford) who sits on the opposite side of the House was a Member of that Committee—was to the effect that a grievous injustice had been done to a deserving class of men, and that a blow had been inflicted—apparently unintentionally—upon a profitable industry. I am quite aware it is said that it would be impossible for men to fish these nets profitably except on the chance of occasionally catching a salmon and thus infringing the rights of the salmon fishing proprietors. We inquired into that, and we found at one village alone, where 12 fishermen were occupied in this industry, the returns of white fish taken for six

        453
        years varied from 287 cwt. m the year 1886, which was the lowest, and valued at £215, to 880 cwt., the highest, in the year 1888, and valued at £465. Now I venture to say if you strike the mean between the £215 and the £465, and divide that between the families of the 12 fishermen, you have no inconsiderable source of income. The conclusion we came to without any hesitation was this: that it was quite possible to carry on that industry—that ancient industry established by Acts of Parliament and traditional in the district—without doing the slightest harm to any other farm or property or any other industry in the Solway. We made several recommendations, but I will not trouble the House by entering upon them just now further than to say that we recommended that powers should be conferred on the Secretary for Scotland to create a representative Board, a Board elected partly by the County Council, partly by the District Salmon Fishery Board, and partly by the white fishers themselves, whose duty it should be to issue regulations under which this white fishing should be conducted, to issue a licence for the privilege of fishing, and generally to see that this industry was carried on without interference with any other more important trade in the Firth. That seemed to us to be a solution of the difficulty, not only just but acceptable to both parties in the dispute. We found that both the proprietors of the salmon fishing and the white fishers themselves expressed themselves willing to accept that solution. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Scotland has said that this matter must stand over until the whole subject of the Salmon Fishery Boards of the Solway is overhauled by Parliament. Does he know what that means? has he any idea of the complexity of the salmon legislation of the Solway? has he any idea of the present state of the case? does he know that now there is a most hitter feeling on both sides of the estuary? does he know that the English fishermen obtain licences to fish, and carry on their industry in Scotch waters; and has he any idea of the intensity of the feeling existing between the two sides of the Firth? If he has not, let me assure him that if he touches the
        454
        question of the Solway salmon fishing he will regret the day he was advised to do so. But this question, I maintain, ought to be dealt with quite apart from that of salmon fishing, which should not be brought into it at all, and I maintain that the Committee over which I presided dealt with the question entirely apart from the question of salmon fishing. There are other questions which might be dealt with in the same measure. I do not know why this subject was not dealt with by the General Deep Sea Fishery Bill that has been introduced by the Government—why they did not deal with and provide for fishing in the estuaries as well as the deep sea. There is one provision in the Bill of the Government, which, I think, is specially fitted to deal with this question—namely, the provision for District Boards or Councils. I have alluded to an elective Board dealing with the work of the Solway, but I am quite certain the great majority of the persons interested in this question would be perfectly content to place their interests in the hands of one of the District Boards provided for by the right hon. Gentleman opposite. Before I leave this subject there are two other most important facts connected with it that I wish to bring before the attention of the right hon. Gentleman—one, which I had almost forgotten to mention, is as almost as vexed a question as that of the salmon; it is the regulation of trawling in the Solway. Trawling cannot be carried on in an estuary like the Solway without immense injury being done to other modes of fishing. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that one of the facts that impressed my Committee most forcibly while in that district was the immense destruction of the fry of valuable species by the trawlers. It is quite true that some of the trawlers are careful to return the fry to the water; but what is the use of that if other trawlers are careless in that respect? and if there are no means of compelling them to do so the destruction will go on. I venture to say that the very slightest acquaintance with the nature of the fishing in that district will convince anyone the first and most important object is the protection of young fish; after the fish have got to a certain size they will take care of themselves. The fishermen at Annan

        455
        have agreed amongst themselves to use a mesh of a certain size, but what takes place? They use that minimum mesh, but fishermen coming from the other side of the Solway and other parts use the smaller mesh and thereby destroy u great many young fish. To anyone who knows the district the provisions relating to trawling are absurd. Trawling is prohibited in the Cree, but it is allowed in the estuary of the Annan, and there is an old grievance that has arisen from this peculiar geographical limitation. I am obliged to import into my remarks a little local colouring. There is one small species of fish in the estuary of the Annan which in pre-scientific days was regarded as white fish, but it has now been announced as one of the migratory salmon species. It is known to Scotchmen as the sparling, and in England as the smelt. They were always regarded in my early days as white fish, but undoubtedly they are members of the salmon family. They are migratory, and the result has been that since the passage of the Act of 1867 they have been claimed as the monopoly of the proprietors of salmon fishing, thereby to a great extent depriving a number of people of a means of livelihood. This sparling, or smelt, is one of the most valuable fishes we have. It is a most delicate and delicious fish, and fetches from 4s. to 6s. a pound in the market, but unfortunately it is protected by no legislation at present. There is no close time, and what I wish to urge upon the right hon. Gentleman is this: that he will be conferring a great benefit upon the Solway if he will, first of all, adopt our recommendation to the effect that, although scientifically the sparling is a salmon, and, therefore, a red fish—that practically and commercially it shall be treated as a white fish, as it always has been treated. All the persons connected with the matter—the proprietors, the lessees, the fishermen, themselves, are all agreed, as will be seen by the evidence taken before our Committee, that there ought to be a close time. This fish ascends the rivers early in March; it spawns in the tidal water, and is then practically unfit for capture. But, unhappily, it has then got into rivers claimed by lessees or proprietors who do not have an opportunity of catching it any other time of the year; therefore they
        456
        do their best to catch as many as possible. The result is, that this valuable fish has become almost extinct in the Annan; it has become almost extinct in the Nith; it is considerably scarcer in the Cree, and unless means are taken to preserve it—means which nobody opposes, for everybody is agreed there ought to be a close time from the 1st March to the 1st August—this valuable fish will altogether disappear from our waters. I would not have ventured to bring this matter before the House unless I had believed it to be a genuine grievance. I hope, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman will not put off action upon this subject until that illusory time when he believes he may take up a Solway Salmon Fishery Act, but that he will take immediate steps to bring in a separate Bill, or to favour a Bill I shall be happy to lay on the Table of the House, in order to protect a useful, an honourable, and a profitable industry.
        SIR GEORGE TREVELYAN: The hon. Baronet began by assuring the House that he had no interest as a Member of Parliament in this question, and that it was not on account of his constituents that he took it up. Whoever doubted that—I do not know anyone that would—I should be the very last to do so, because the hon. Baronet has distinguished himself not on this Committee only, but on another Committee, the Crown Fisheries (Scotland) Committee, by having vindicated in the boldest and broadest way the rights of the community against antiquated privileges in fishing. I am quite certain the only object with which the hon. Baronet has brought this matter forward is because of the great interest he takes in this matter of the white fish in the Solway, and in the welfare of a most valuable class of fishermen in Scotland. The hon. Baronet described certain matters of which he thought I was ignorant in spite of the answers given in Parliament. I can assure him I was not ignorant, of them, but it was because I was conversant with them and others that I have been very anxious to deal with this question. The interests of the Solway and the Tweed I am satisfied, for the reasons which the hon. Baronet has given and for many others, can never be finally determined with satisfaction until both the shores of this river are placed under one authority and under

        457
        One law. The hon. Baronet gave one or two instances of the discrepancies in the law on the two sides of the Solway. I could give several others besides those which he named. There is a difference in the annual close time and in the weekly close time; there is a difference in the size of the not, and there is the great difference of fixed engines being allowed on one side and not on the other, and the fact that summonses do not run in all the counties. It seems to me that these very great differences in the law on both sides of the water, which ought to be governed by the same law, are in themselves quite sufficient reason for looking forward to the time when this river may be put under the general law of the country, and I hope that country will be Scotland. I know something of the bitterness of feeling caused by the diversity of legislation, and the difference in administration of the law relating to this question of fishery in the Solway, and those who are interested in the fishery on both sides would be very glad to have it dealt with under one law. That is the reason why I look forward to the day when the Deep Sea Fisheries Act having been passed we may approach the question on the river fisheries of the Tweed and Solway. But that does not exhaust the question. The hon. Baronet has given excellent reasons why there should, if possible, be some prompt remedy applied to the evils which affect the white fisheries of the Solway. I shall not enlarge upon these evils, except to say that I am sure the sympathy of the House will be aroused when I tell them that in the course of 10 years of the comparatively small number of the hardworking fishermen who were employed on the white fisheries, no fewer than 46 were put in the position of criminals for pursuing a business which they themselves believed was their hereditary right. There is something really pathetic in several of these law cases which have been reported in the Minutes of Evidence and Appendices to the Report, signed by the two hon. Gentlemen opposite and by my hon. and learned Friend behind me. If hon. Members will look at the case in which the complainant was named Mackenzie, they will there see that three hard-working men were sent to prison for two months for, as they show, catching
        458
        fish in the same manner as their fathers had caught them long before. This is a state of things to which, if an immediate remedy could he applied, the Government would be very glad to apply it. The hon. Baronet thinks that that remedy should be found in the Deep Sea Fisheries Bill, and he likewise believes in the possibility of the Government bringing in a special Bill upon this subject. As to that the hon. Baronet has watched the proceedings of the House, at a late hour during the last two months, and he must have seen what the chances are of the Government bringing in a non-contentious Bill. At this moment, we have before the House a non-contentious Scotch Bill—a Bill that is to amend an Act passed by a gentleman who does not agree with us in politics; a Bill called for by a great number of the burghs in Scotland, opposed by not a single Scotch Member, supported by the ex-Law Officers of the Crown for Scotland, but which during the last two months has been blocked night after night, in no ease by a Scotch Member, but always by an English Member, not one of whom, I will venture to say, has the least idea of the contents of the Bill. I refer to the Local Loans (Scotland) Bill, to amend the Act brought in by Mr. Finlay, formerly a Member of this House. I think, after that, the hon. Baronet will allow the Government are not in a position to bring in a non-contentious Scotch measure, but what the Government are prepared to do is to consider any Amendment which the hon. Baronet may have to move on the Deep Sea Fisheries Bill, and if, on reflection, they come to the conclusion that that will meet the object of the hon. Baronet, they will agree to include the counties to the north of the estuary of the Solway in the South-West District of Scotland. In the recommendations of the Committee, over which the hon. Baronet presided, a Board is suggested constituted out of the County Councils, the District Salmon Fisheries Board, and members to be elected out of the white fishing community. I take it the hon. Baronet and his colleagues would be contented with a Board elected half by the County Council and half by those interested in the fishing district. That Board would have the power of passing bye-laws conversant with the nature of the fish in

        459
        their district, and I should imagine we could give them power to deal with that question of the sparlan or the smelt of which the hon. Baronet spoke. On the Second Reading of the Deep Sea Fisheries Bill, which I hope will be very soon, an hon. Member opposite has got an Amendment to extend that Bill to salmon fishing in the sea. That Amendment will be considered with great interest, and, for my part, with the greatest sympathy, and, therefore, if this Amendment is adopted, not as traversing the Bill, hut in the shape of an Amendment, afterwards to be made in the Bill in Committee, then the District Fishery Committee will be able to deal very effectively not only with the white fishing in the estuary, but likewise with the salmon fishing as far as it is called deep-sea fishing. I cannot say more until I see whether the House is prepared to go with us, but we are perfectly prepared to make into one district under the Fishery Bill those counties which border on the estuary to the North. That is the only way I can possibly find to meet the hon. Baronet, whose labour, energy, and courage in these fishing inquiries entitle him to our gratitude. I earnestly hope, after the manner in which I have met him, this Debate may not be prolonged.
        MR. J. W. LOWTHER: My hon. Friend, in introducing this Motion, said he thought he was right in bringing it forward, because his constituents were not interested in any way in the matter. My justification for intervening for a few moments in the discussion is the fact that my constituents are interested to a considerable degree in what takes place in the estuary of the Solway. I desire at once to say that I recognise the spirit which prompted the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Scotland to say he admitted the bitterness which existed between the fishermen who inhabit the Cumberland shore and those who inhabit the Scotch shore of the Solway. I am afraid that bitterness is very deep-seated, and, to a certain extent, it is justified. There are faults on both sides of this question, as there are in most quarrels, and those faults are
        460
        due to the fact that very important differences exist between the respective laws which govern the fishery on the north and on the south side of the Solway. My hon. Friend, in the last paragraph of the able Report which he drew up in March, 1892, pointed out certain of those differences, and, in addition, there is the very difficult question of the fixed engines obtaining on the Scotch shore, and the fixed engines having disappeared from the English shore. But, Sir, I ventured the other day, in a question to the President of the Board of Trade, to suggest that there were three points upon which a solution might promptly be arrived at. I acknowledge that the question of fixed engines is a very difficult one; that it will require some considerable time, a great deal of discussion, and probably a considerable amount of money will have to be spent before that difficulty can be solved. But there are three points in dispute as to which English fishermen feel very strongly, and which are really of comparatively minor importance. There is the question of the annual close time, the question of the weekly close time, and the question of the different sizes of the meshes of the nets. The Scotch fishermen use a net of 1¾ inches from knot to knot, but the English fishermen are not allowed to use a smaller mesh than one of 2 inches. Then there are differences in the English and Scotch close time, both annual and weekly, and, although these differences may be small, they are differences which cause a great deal of trouble, and I suggested to the President of the Board of Trade the other day that it would be very desirable if, without going into the whole question which my hon. Friend has opened up, some steps could he taken to solve these much smaller difficulties. It must he done, as it seems to me, by legislation, but I cannot help thinking that legislation upon a matter of that sort—where those who are interested both on behalf of the English and Scotch fishermen were thoroughly agreed, would be considered as non-contentious, and would occupy very little of the time of the House. What we want is that there shall be uniformity, and if we obtain uniformity I do not think it matters very much whether we have a 2-inch

        461
        or 1¾-inch mesh, or whether the close time begins at 6 o'clock in the morning or 6 at night. I made that suggestion to the President of the Board of Trade the other day, but he did not seem to rise at it; and I am afraid, also, notwithstanding the comforting words we have listened to from the right hon. Gentleman opposite just now, that it would be impossible to bring this matter, in any shape or form, as an Amendment to the Deep Sea Fisheries Bill to which he has referred; therefore, it would be impossible to deal with the Cumberland interests in that manner. But I do wish to press upon him as strongly and as urgently as I can that this matter is causing a deal of friction and unpleasantness; it is most desirable in the interests both of the Scotch and English fishermen that it should be removed, and I firmly believe it might be removed in great part by dealing with those three minor points to which I have referred.
        MR. MAXWELLwould like to say a few words on this matter, which affected his constituency. He thanked the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Scotland for the intimation that he would look with favour on any proposal made on the Deep Sea Fisheries Bill for dealing with this matter. The question of white fishing might not affect a very large population, but it was a question of local importance. The Solway had, from historical causes, been in an exceptional position with regard to the fishing laws, and it had been exempt from those laws which prohibited fixed engines in estuaries in other parts of Scotland; therefore they had fixed engines for both salmon and white fish. This right to take white fish by means of stake nets had been established in the clearest possible manner by a decision of the Court of Session; but, unfortunately, the Commission appointed in 1887 ordered the removal of a large number of these nets, and after that followed several actions to prevent white fish being caught by these stake nets on the ground that they injured the salmon fishery, and the contest had gone on till the present time. But the inquiry which the Committee presided over by the hon. Baronet (Sir H. Maxwell) carried out clearly demon-
        462
        strated that these stake nets used for taking white fish could be used, under certain conditions, without the least injury to salmon fishing, and they had indicated a way in which these stake nets could be licensed so as to free them from interference by the owner of the salmon stake nets. Whilst he thought that some of the conditions in the Report of this Committee were much too stringent, still they indicated broadly the lines on which these licences might be granted. He thought the licences ought to be granted free to all the inhabitants of a certain district along the coast, and he expressed the opinion that the Committee proposed to be set up in the Deep Sea Fisheries Bill would be a better Body for issuing licences than a Committee constituted in the manner suggested in the Report of the Committee which inquired into the subject. These questions of taking white fish with stake nets might very well he dealt with apart from the larger question of the Solway referred to by the Member for Penrith, and, for his part, he believed they might very well be dealt with in the Deep Sea Fisheries Bill.
        The subject was allowed to drop.

        ILLITERATE VOTERS.
        MR. R. G. WEBSTERsaid, he rose for the purpose of calling attention to the Returns lately issued showing that there had been an increase in the number of illiterate voters in certain parts of the United Kingdom, and to ask for a Select Committee to consider the question. He said the question was one of very great importance. They in England were absolutely free from the system of coercion which, unfortunately, existed elsewhere. Indeed they had little to complain of in either England or Scotland at the present time. The percentage in England was extremely small in respect of illiterates, and in Scotland the figures were even more satisfactory. But let them look to Ireland. They knew that 21 out of every 100 had claimed to vote as illiterates. It was impossible for him to say how many of these were really illiterates; but the House might be interested if he read a few figures from districts included in the Return. There was one county,

        463
        that of Galway, where out or 15,000 voters who came to the poll, 6,705 claimed to be illiterate—that they could neither read nor write. In Kerry there were 12,800 voters who went to the poll, of whom 3,800 described themselves as illiterate. In Cork there were only two contested elections, but the proportion of illiterates was large. They could contrast this with such outlying constituencies as Orkney and Shetland, where 203,000 voted, and where the very smallest number—only one, he believed —claimed to be illiterate; or Ayr, where, out of 10,387, only 82 claimed to be illiterate. The same thing was to be found as regarded the remote parts of Englandߞߞ
        THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. MARJORIBANKS,): I rise to Order, Sir; and I wish to ask, Is this question not covered by the Bill which the hon. Member himself has introduced?
        MR. SPEAKER: My attention has only just been called to the Bill. I am clearly of opinion that the clauses of the Bill cover the whole subject of the Motion now before the House.
        MR. R. G. WEBSTERsaid, he saw that quite clearly himself, but he would point out that he had not in any way referred to the Ballot Act. He had simply pointed out that this was a grave anomaly that existed, and he only proposed asking for a Committee to inquire into it. He had dealt with the clauses of the Bill.
        MR. SPEAKER: There can be no object in alluding to the subject of the illiterate voter except it be to secure his removal. That seems to be the object of the Bill, and I must, therefore, rule the hon. Gentleman out of Order.
        Main Question put, and agreed to.
        SUPPLY—considered in Committee.
        (In the Committee.)

        CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1892–3.

          CLASS III.
          1. £1,130, Supplementary, Supreme Court of Judicature and other Legal Departments in Ireland.
          MR. CARSONsaid he would like to have some information as to the cost of the registration of titles in Ireland. He understood the number of persons who registered titles was entirely disproportionate to the expense of administering the Act, and he hoped it would be possible to give the information. The last time he was in Dublin be was told the system was very unsatisfactory. Could the right hon. Gentleman give the number of persons who had registered under the Act?
          THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR. IRELAND (Mr. J. MORLEY,): I have only to say, in reply to the hon. Gentleman, that I am not prepared with the information at the moment, but I will be glad to give it on Report.
          Vote agreed to.

          CLASS IV.
          2. £102,000, Supplementary, Public Education, England and Wales.
          SIR RICHARD TEMPLEsaid, he wished to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to some figures given in the Return supplied to Members of the Committee. He confessed he could not understand these figures as presented to them in support of the Vote. He had high confidence in the right hon. Gentleman, however; and he was sure he would be able to give them an explanation before taking the Vote. A sum of £22,000 was asked for in respect of the scholars whose fees were remitted under the new system of free education. This meant that 44,000 additional children had come under the free system. That was not a great addition. They had now an average attendance of 95,000. The figures as given in the Papers did not seem to him to agree. They did not tally as between the average and the increased attendance and the cost to the country. If not now an explanation could be given on Report. The present Chancellor of the Exchequer had said that the present Government had made the free system a reality, but there had been no shortcomings or failures on the part of the late Government as compared with the present Government on this point. The Returns showed there had been a normal

          465
          increase in the free attendances under the present Government, but nothing more. The number of evening scholars was put down in the Returns at 65,000. He would like to know whether that number showed any great increase during the present year? because this was one of the matters in respect to which the system did not seem to produce the results that might be expected. The great desideratum at the present time was a more rapid rate of progress in the evening school. [Cries of "Divide!" and "Order!"] Not at all. He was strictly in Order. It was the duty of the Committee to understand the figures which wore presented in the official Returns, and upon which were based the Votes now before the Committee.
          SIR W. HART DYKE: There are just one or two questions in regard to the working of the Act of 1891 to which I would refer. I am delighted that the Vote under the Act is so large, because I had the honour of passing it through this House. It. was said at the time that cheap education would be spurned by the people, and that this scheme would be falsified. That has not been the case; and what is being done under the Act is practically our (the Conservative Party's) success. I learn that the average increase of the number of children attending has gone up from 30,000 to 120,000. That is, so far, satisfactory. But I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he could give the Committee any information as to the age of the children entering the school, whether they are chiefly infants or elder children, and also whether the increase in attendances is largely in the agricultural districts or in the towns?
          MR. A. C. MORTONsaid, he would like to ask just one question with regard to a matter about which he had received complaints. He wanted to know what was the cost of school books, especially in voluntary schools; and perhaps the right hon. Gentleman who was about to reply would state what orders the Education Department had issued in regard to the cost?
          THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Mr. ACLAND,): With regard to the question put by the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir R. Temple), of course, Sir, the figures in the Returns to which he refers are made up early in March, and those now before us to the end of the month. The hon. Baronet has dealt with the advantages we enjoy from free education, and that we do enjoy advantages is shown by the Return of average attendance. But surely the hon. Baronet does not say that there has been any shortcoming or apathy on the part of the present Government in the matter of the Act of 1891. I hope it will not be taken that there is any shortcoming in the administration of that Act. The present Government has had this difficulty to face: We have had to administer the clauses dealing with free education, which came into operation in September last. That administration is one of very great difficulty, and I can only say that we are doing our best to carry it out fairly and to the best of our ability. The hon. Baronet has stated correctly the number of the increase that has taken place in the schools since the Act came into operation—since free education was granted. It is because of that increase that we ask for a Supplementary Vote. The right hon. Gentleman asks me to say a few words about the ages of the children. There is a great deal to be said with regard to the increase last year. The increase in attendances in 1889–90 was 35,000. For 1890–91 it was 32,000; but during last year it suddenly bounded up to 120,000. There was also a very large increase in the attendance of the older scholars. The 120,000 general increase is made up by an increase of 58,000 in the infants and an increase of 60,000 in the older scholars. That, on the whole, may be considered very satisfactory. The increase of infants is larger in proportion than that of the older scholars, but the increase in older scholars is infinitely larger than in former years. The passing of the Act has had the effect of increasing the attendance generally of children up to the age of 13, but I cannot say whether the increase is greater in towns or in the

          467
          rural districts. The right hon. Baronet asked me a question that at present I am not able to answer, as to whether the increase was more in the towns or in the agricultural districts. It is in that respect that we have not yet got full and complete statistics of the working of the Act, but I hope that by the time the Estimates come on I may be able to give the right hon. Baronet information on that subject. A question was put to me with regard to the rule as to books. Well, there is no doubt that since we came to administer Clause 5 of the Act and to impress upon school managers that they must, unless they wish the work to be done by School Boards, provide free education for those who ask it, the conditions under which free education is given have been matter of discussion between the Department and the managers. Amongst other questions the subject of books has come up. It is clear that in the Code managers and Boards are obliged to supply to children who attend the schools among other requisites books, and it is, therefore, clear that parents cannot be told that as a condition of their children entering the schools they must pay a weekly charge for books. Managers are bound to provide a proper supply of apparatus, including books, and they cannot compel parents to provide books either by periodical payments or purchase. But if a parent desires to buy the school books, so that they may become his or her property, there is no reason why such an arrangement should not be made. We have no duty to interfere with that. But free places must be unconditional, and must not depend upon whether the parent is willing to pay for anything. I can say, generally, that by degrees parents are learning what is their right under Clause 5 of the Act, and I hope the Department is doing its best to meet the parents without any hardship either upon Boards or managers by trying to bring about a reasonable agreement between the parents, who have the right, and the managers, who ought to endeavour to meet them as far as they can.
          MR. BARTLEYwished to say a word with regard to evening schools. This Vote was not only for day schools, but it had reference also to evening schools, of
          468
          which he wished to know whether there had been a large increase?
          MR. ACLAND: An increase of £400.
          MR. BARTLEYsaid, that was what he wanted to get at. He wished to draw the attention of the Vice President of the Council to the most unsatisfactory condition of this most important branch of our educational system. The night schools, which he had always held to be about one of the most important sections of our elementary instruction, had from year to year been becoming less and less important. It was an extraordinary thing that in proportion to the enormous increase made in education, evening classes appeared to be getting less important and efficient. The number of evening schools 12 or 13 years ago was considerably greater than it was at the present time. In 1870, although there wore under 2,000,000 day scholars, there were 2,504 night classes, with 78,000 pupils; but the last Report of 1891, 21 years later, showed that, although there were something like 5,000,000 pupils in the day schools, the evening schools had gone down in numbers to only 1,388, with only 47,000 pupils. It must be clear that the condition of our night classes was a grave matter as affecting the educational efficiency of the country. There were something like 500,000 children leaving the elementary schools every year at the age of 13, and of those only about 10 per cent. ever attended evening classes. He had spent 20 years of his life in the Education Department, and he had no hesitation in saying that there was no part of the education of the child in a certain class of life more important than that received after the age of 13, after work had commenced. He did not suppose the Vice President of the Council was blind to this matter; but whether it was that the machinery of the Education Department was of too rigid a character and not elastic enough for the requirements of the different localities, or whatever the reason we, the fact remained that in spite of all the efforts made to promote really efficient education, the period after 13 was being less and less availed of for evening instruction. He had, years ago, in

          469
          evidence given by him as to the working of the School Board system, stated that in his opinion it was more important to poor children to attend evening schools after the ordinary school age than it was for them to attend school between the age of 5 and 13. If they could secure that all children devoted two evenings a week, after the age of 13, to some reasonable educational system, he was convinced that it would be an enormous benefit to the real education of the people. They must remember that, after all, what children learnt in elementary schools was but the rudimentary use of the tools of knowledge, and that the learning subsequently acquired, when intelligence was developing, was of much greater advantage to them. He hoped they would all live to see the day when the great educational palaces they had built in all large towns would be brilliantly lighted up at night, and would be used by older children for the purpose of obtaining reasonable and recreative education in night classes. If they could supplement the education of both boys and girls in continuation schools of an evening much would be done to make elementary education of more practical use, and to make it fit the wants of the people and train them for their everyday life. Therefore, without wishing to trespass on the time of the Committee, he hoped that the Vice President of the Council would be able to say a word or two of encouragement in regard to this important branch of educational work.
          SIR R. TEMPLEasked whether he understood the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council to say that there were over 1,000,000 children still paying the school fees?
          MR. ACLAND: The number of free scholars last August was about 3,800,000, and the number of scholars still paying fees in schools taking the free grant, and in schools not taking the free grant was somewhat over 1,000,000—about 1,020,000. With regard to evening schools, I quite agree with the hon. Member (Mr. Bartley) that we waste a great deal of our money unless we can carry on the education of our children to an older age. We are alive to the need for making a more elastic free evening Code to encourage an attractive system
          470
          of evening schools. We propose to lay an evening Code on the Table, following the example of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, who laid one on the Table last May. I hope, when we have produced it, it will be found more attractive and elastic than any hitherto submitted to the House. Though there are only 60,000 evening scholars now, we hope to be able to make provision next year for 80,000. That shows that we are getting on.
          Vote agreed to.
          3. £30,000, Supplementary, Science and Art Department.
          SIR H. MAXWELL ()said, the only way in which they could estimate the results derived from this expenditure was by having regard to the artistic productions of the country. Well, the only result we had this year was the new coinage.
          THE CHAIRMAN: That subject does not come within the limits of the Vote, which has reference to grants for drawing in elementary schools, and so forth.
          SIR H. MAXWELL: As I am aware that the Government are anxious to make progress with the Votes, I will put off my remarks on that subject until the Education Votes.
          Vote agreed to.
          4. £5, Supplementary, London University.
          MR. PARKER SMITHwished to point out that the total expenditure of the University during the year was £14,000, and the excess, together with the original Vote, would be more than covered by the increase of fees. The whole receipts amounted to £16,000, which he regarded as a singularly unsatisfactory state of things. Either the fees asked of students were too high or else the fees paid to the professors were too low. It had always been understood that the University should be supported, to some extent, by the State, and he desired to know whether it was intended to so arrange the fees as to carry out that understanding?
          SIR J. T. HIBBERTregarded it as a highly satisfactory state of things that

          471
          the revenue of the University had reached its present proportions.
          Vote agreed to.
          5. £250, Supplementary, National Gallery, &c, Scotland.
          6. £157,500, Supplementary, Public Education, Ireland.
          MR. JACKSON: I think the 1st of October was the date when the schools were to be freed in Ireland. As there was considerable interest taken in the subject last year it would be interesting to the Committee to know if the right hon. Gentleman can tell us whether the school attendance has improved during the five complete months that have elapsed since the schools were freed? We have heard what has been the result of freeing the schools in England, and we desire to know if a similar result, or anything like the same result, has been attained in Ireland? If the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary is not in a position to answer the question now, perhaps he will be able to do so on the Vote on Account or when the main Vote comes on.
          MR. J. MORLEY: The right hon. Gentleman does not ask an unreasonable question. He says we have had figures for England, but he forgets that the schools have been freed in England for 18 months, whereas in Ireland the Act has only come into operation since October. We shall be able to give the figures relating to Ireland, I hope, on the Vote on Account or on the original Estimate.
          COLONEL NOLANregretted that none of this money went to the best schools in Ireland—namely, those conducted by the Christian Brothers The Irish Members were put off from time to time when they called attention to this subject, the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary telling them that there was no immediate prospect of their wishes being carried out.
          MR. J. MORLEY: The enormous and complex question to which the hon. and gallant Member refers does not arise under this Vote. There was not time
          472
          between the passing of the Act of 1892 and the closing of the Session to obtain from Parliament the money necessary to carry out the purposes of the Act. We resorted to such devices as we could so that the teachers should not be disappointed in the reasonable expectations they had formed of the Act. It is now for the Committee, by voting this sum, to make good what we did. What we did we were obliged to do in consequence of the action of the last Parliament.
          MR. JACKSON: Was I right in stating the other day, in reply to a query, that it was the intention of the Government, immediately the money was placed at their disposal, to pay the teachers the balance of the sum due to them on the capitation grant either before the 31st March or about that date?
          MR. J. MORLEY: The right hon. Gentleman is quite right.
          MR. T. M. HEALY: I had wished to say a few words on this Vote, but I will postpone my observations to the Report stage.
          MR. BARTLEYsaid, the schools had only been freed since October, and yet the whole of the increase in the Vote was for the year. What did that mean?
          MR. JACKSON: A certain sum of money was due to Ireland, as a corresponding grant to that made to England. This is the sum that represents Ireland's proportion of the grant.
          Vote agreed to.
          Resolutions to be reported upon Monday next.
          Committee to sit again upon Monday next.

  REGIMENTAL DEBTS (CONSOLIDATION) BILL—(No. 116.)

    COMMITTEE. [Progress, 27th February.]
    Considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    MR. HANBURY: This Bill was down for the Morning Sitting, and I object to its being taken now.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
    THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. WOODALL,): This is a Consolidation Bill containing absolutely no contentious clauses. The late Secretary for War is entirely in accord with me in wishing to pass it.
    MR. HANBURY: I cannot take that view of it, and I must object.
    MR. T.M. HEALY: On a point of Order, Mr. Mellor, I should like to know how it is that three Orders of the Day have been put down in front of the ordinary Orders since the Morning Sitting? I want to know for guidance in the future.
    THE CHAIRMAN: All Bills not reached at the Morning Sitting are put down for the Evening Sitting, and rearranged by the Government.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: Surely, Sir, they ought not to be put as the first Orders.
    Question put, and agreed to.

  MERCHANT SHIPPING (FISHING BOATS) ACT (1883 AND 1887) AMENDMENT BILL. (No. 183.)

    COMMITTEE.
    Order for Committee read.
    MR. C. FENWICK: I hope the House will allow me to make progress with this Bill to-night. The Act of 1887 provides that fishing boats used in trawling should, beside the skipper, have a second person on board possessed of a master's certificate. This Bill only provides that other fishing boats of the same registered tonnage as the trawlers should also carry a second certificated person on board. The measure received the assent of the Board of Trade when the late Government were in Office, and has the full approval of the late President of the Board of Trade.
    An hon. MEMBER: I object.
    Committee deferred till Monday next.

  BRUSSELS CONFERENCE (REPORTS OF INDIAN DELEGATES).
  Address for "Copies of the Reports of the Delegates of India at the Brussels Monetary Conference."—(Sir William Houldsworth.)

  PAYMENT OF MEMBERS BILL.—(No. 224.)
  Order for Second Reading upon Monday 27th March read, and discharged.
  Bill withdrawn.

  SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES). TRADE, & C.
  SIR JOHN R. MOWBRAYreported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from the Standing Committee on Trade (including Agriculture and Fishing), Shipping, and Manufactures:— Mr. Macartney; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. David Plunket (Dublin University).
  Report to lie upon the Table.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

    STATUTE LAW REVISION BILLS.
    That they propose that the Joint Committee on Statute Law Revision Bills do meet in Committee Room B upon Wednesday next, at Twelve o'clock.
    Lords Message considered.
    Ordered, That the Select Committee appointed by this House to join with the Committee of the Lords on Statute Law Revision Bills do meet in Committee Room B upon Wednesday next, at Twelve o'clock.
    Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

  REGIMENTAL DEBTS (CONSOLIDATION) BILL.—(No. 116.)
  Considered in Committee.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

  LAW OF DISTRESS (IRELAND) BILL (No. 237.)
  Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; read the third time, and passed.

  EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY (NO. 2) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Hunter, Bill to amend the Law relating to the Liability of Employers for injury to the workmen, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Hunter, Mr. Labouchere, Mr. Philip Stanhope, Mr. Cremer, Mr. James Rowlands, Mr. Brunner, Mr. Samuel Evans, Mr. Lloyd-George, Mr. Crombie, and Mr. Dalziel.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 264.]

  MEDICAL COUNCILS.
  Accounts presented,—for 1892, of the General Medical Council, Branch Councils, and of the Dental Registration Fund [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  HASCHISCH (COMMERCIAL, No. 4, 1893).
  Copy presented,—of Reports from Her Majesty's Representatives in Egypt, Greece, and Turkey on the regulations affecting the importation and sale of Haschisch [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  IRISH LAND COMMISSION (AGRICULTURAL DEPARTMENT).
  Copy presented,—of Return of Average Prices of Agricultural Produce in the Provinces and for the whole of Ireland for the years 1887, 1888, 1889, 1890, 1891, and 1892 respectively. March 1893 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  DUCHY OF LANCASTER (JUSTICES OF THE PEACE).
  Address for "Return of the Memorandum of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, made in the year 1870, and of the Letter addressed by him to the Lord Lieutenant in April of that year, with reference to the nomination of Justices of the Peace for the county palatine of Lancaster:"
  "Of the Correspondence on the subject between the present Chancellor of the Duchy and the Lord Lieutenant:"
  "And, of the Memorandum of the present month, signed by the present
  476
  Chancellor of the Duchy, relating to the same matter."—(Mr. Legh.)

  PARLIAMENTARY ELECTORS.
  Address for "Return from the Counties and Boroughs of England and Wales, showing the several classes of Electors on the existing Parliamentary Registers, under the following heads:—
  Electors, England and Wales.
  Analysis of Register.
  Counties.
  Constituency; Ownership Electors; Occupiers; Lodgers; Total.
  Boroughs.
  Constituency; Occupiers; Freemen, &c.; Lodgers; Total. — (Mr. Philip Stanhope.)

  ADJOURNMENT.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."

  SUSPENSION OF THE TWELVE O'CLOCK RULE.
  THE PATRONAGE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. MARJORI-BANKS,)said, I have to give notice that it is the intention of the Government to move the suspension of the Twelve o'Clock Rule on Monday for the purpose of Supply. If Supply is finished before 12 o'clock it is proposed to proceed with the Employers' Liability Bill.
  MR. BARTLEY: Nothing will be proceeded with after 12 o'clock except Supply?
  MR. MARJORIBANKS: No, except the Committee of Ways and Means.
  Motion agreed to.
  House adjourned at ten minutes after Twelve o'clock till Monday next.