Commons Sitting of 28 March 1893

Preamble
The House met at Two of the clock.

ROYAL ASSENT.
Message to attend the Lords Commissioners;—
The House went;—and, being returned;—
Mr. SPEAKER Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to,—

1. Consolidated Fund (No. 1) Act, 1893.

2. Trade Union (Provident Funds) Act, 1893.

3. Coinage Act, 1893.

PRIVATE BILLS.
Ordered, That Standing Orders 39 and 129 be suspended, and that the time for depositing Petitions against Private Bills, or against any Bill to confirm any Provisional Order, or Provisional Certificate, and for depositing duplicates of any Documents relating to any Bill to confirm any Provisional Order, or Provisional Certificate, be extended to the first day on which the House shall sit after the Recess.—(The Chairman of Ways and Means.)

THE PRESENTATION OF PETITIONS.
MR. BENNsaid he had been asked to present three Petitions against the Liquor Traffic (Local Veto) Bill, but he found, after examination and inquiry, that they contained a number of forged signatures. He hesitated to present a Petition which he knew to be partly fraudulent, but, on the other hand, he was anxious to avoid the charge of having suppressed the prayer of any of his constituents, the more so because he did not happen to agree with the prayer; he therefore desired to have the Speaker's guidance in the matter. He could not return the Petition because the source of origin was obscure, and he wished to know what means existed for preventing so great an abuse of the right of petitioning.
MR. SPEAKER: I think the hon. Gentleman is quite justified in bringing the matter before the House. The hon. Gentleman has several courses open to him. One is to refuse to accept the Petition, for no Member of this House is obliged to present a Petition which is not in accord with the custom or Rules of the House. Secondly, he may refer it to the petitioners for the purpose of procuring more accurate information as to whether the signatures are forged or genuine; and, in the third place, he may take a course which probably will be the best under the circumstances, and bring the matter officially under the notice of the Committee of Petitions in this House. If he takes that course it will be his duty to move an Instruction to the Committee that they should ascertain, with such information as the hon. Gentleman can give them, the truth or falsity of the signatures attached to the Petition.
MR. WOOTTON ISAACSONwished to know how the hon. Member had discovered that the signatures were forged. He himself had to present a Petition containing

1299
2,758 signatures from the East End of London. He had carefully looked through the signatures, but thought it was impossible to say whether they were genuine or not.
MR. SPEAKER: In this case the hon. Gentleman says the signatures are obviously false, and, that being so, he is quite justified in bringing the matter before the House.
MR. BENNsaid he had taken the best possible means of ascertaining whether the signatures were genuine by calling upon the persons whose names appeared on the Petitions.
DR. MACGREGORsaid he had received a Petition on a printed form, which appeared to have been circulated amongst public-houses of Scotland. He had not presented, and did not intend to present, the Petition, but he thought he might mention the matter to the House.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member would be entitled to refuse to present a Petition which is against the Rule prohibiting the presentation of Petitions on printed forms.
MR. SCHWANN MR. SCHWANN (Manchester, N.), in presenting a Petition from Manchester in favour of the Liquor Traffic (Local Control) Bill, said the signatures were all genuine, and not one of them had been purchased with free drinks.
MR. WOOTTON ISAACSON,MR. WOOTTON ISAACSON, in presenting two Petitions, one from Stepney, with 78 signatures in favour of the Bill, and the other from East London, with 2,758 signatures against the Bill, said, as to the first, he could not guarantee that the signatures were genuine, whilst, as to the second, they appeared to be genuine, but he could not vouch for them.
MR. BARTLEY: Mr. Speaker, might I ask whether it is in Order for an hon. Member, in presenting a Petition, to say that the signatures have been obtained without giving free drinks, thereby insinuating that possibly some signatures are obtained by giving free drinks?
MR. SPEAKER: As to the statement of the hon. Gentleman who preceded the hop. Member who put the question to me, I must say that the presentation of Petitions in this House is a very solemn right, and no ridicule ought to be thrown upon it. As to
1300
signatures, it is a very grave offence against the dignity and honour of this House to present Petitions with any names on them which are not genuine.

QUESTIONS.

  DEATH CERTIFICATES.
  MR. CARVELL WILLIAMS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that there is in some places still in use the form of certificate of registry of death in use prior to the passing of the Burial Act of 1880, with the result that disputes sometimes arise at funerals as to the production or custody of the certificate; whether he will represent to the Registrar General the necessity for substituting in all cases the new form issued since the passing of that Act; and whether he will also suggest that, in any further issue of the new form, the misleading note at foot should be omitted?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Sir W. FOSTER,): I have been requested to answer this question. The Local Government Board had been in communication with the Registrar General on the subject prior to notice being given of this question. He is about to issue a Circular to Registrars of Births and Deaths which will have the effect of substituting in all cases the now form of certificate of registry of death issued since the passing of the Burial Act of 1880. The note at the foot of the form will also be modified.

  FREE EDUCATION IN CUMBERLAND.
  MR. CARVELL WILLIAMS: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether the Education Department has received from Cleator Moor, Cumberland, an application on behalf of 239 children of Protestants for free education; whether, with reference to the statement of the Department that there are 874 free places in two Roman Catholic Schools, and 151 in a British school, such schools being within an easy distance of nearly all the applicants, he is aware that the British school is, in fact, a mile and a quarter from whore the children reside; and that, if all the places in that school

  1301
  were filled, there would be 88 Protestant children who, to obtain free education, must attend Roman Catholic schools; and whether, in view of the fact that the Department has, in the case of Portsmouth (20th May, 1892) and elsewhere, recognised the need for Roman Catholic schools, notwithstanding a sufficiency of school places in Protestant schools, he will now, on a reconsideration of the facts, take steps to provide the required free-school accommodation at Cleator Moor?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Mr. ACLAND,): The facts of this case are as stated in the hon. Member's question, except that the Department are not officially informed that all the 239 children in question are Protestants, though from the facts as to the existing accommodation in the Roman Catholic schools it may be assumed that they are. As I have already explained more than once in the House, the Department have no power under the law as it stands to compel additional provision in such a case, though they would not be precluded from accepting, and as a matter of fact have accepted, such additional provision if offered, either by a Board where a, Board existed, or by voluntary managers. In the Portsmouth case to which the hon. Member refers there was a large existing deficiency, which would not have been wholly supplied even by the additional provision which the School Board was prepared to make. I have no power to take such steps as the hon. Member suggests.

  SCHOOL FEES AT DEWSBURY.
  MR. OLDROYD: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he is aware that a printed circular has been issued by the managers of the Parish Church Schools, Dewsbury, addressed to the parents of the children in the boys and girls department, in which, for the purpose of preventing future reduction from the fee grant payable to their schools, the managers propose to place to the funds of the school, under the head of "subscription," the weekly contributions from 13th February to 31st March; and whether such a proceeding would constitute a violation of the Assisted Education Act of 1891; and, if
  1302
  so, what stops he proposes to take in the matter?
  MR. ACLAND: The Department were not aware of the issue of the circular referred to. But the proposal made therein would be regarded by the Department as inadmissible, and a letter has been addressed to the managers of the school stating this.

  THE SHROPSHIRE MILITIA.
  MR. GREENE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the great local interest taken in the territorial regiment of Militia by the inhabitants of Shropshire, he can hold out any hope that such regiment will this year or next year go through its annual course of training at Shrewsbury, or some other convenient place within the county?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN,): The difficulty in training the 3rd Battalion of the Shropshire Light Infantry at Shrewsbury arises from the want of an adequate rifle range; and it has been decided to train the battalion this year at Altcar. Should a range be obtained at or near Shrewsbury the question of training the battalion there in future would be considered.

  ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY REGULATIONS.
  MR. M'CARTAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that married members of the Royal Irish Constabulary who reside in private dwellings are prevented from letting any portion of their dwelling-houses; and whether, considering the desirability of encouraging members of the Force to live in respectable and commodious houses, particularly at summer resorts, he will communicate with the Inspector General in order to have this rule modified?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. J. MORLEY,): I am informed that it has always been held to be objectionable that members of the Force should accommodate lodgers in their own houses, and that to allow them to do so would seriously militate against the proper discharge of their police duties.

  WISBECH PAUPER SETTLEMENT DISPUTE.
  MR. BRAND: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether, owing to a want of agreement between the Wisbech (Cambridgeshire) and the Holbeach (Lincolnshire) Boards of Guardians as to the settlement of a widow pauper named Ramsdale, aged 85, who removed from Newton in Cambridgeshire to Wingland in Lincolnshire, the widow's outdoor relief was stopped for 13 weeks; and whether the Local Government Board will issue an Order to the Wisbech Board of Guardians to pay the 13 weeks' arrears?
  SIR W. FOSTER: I understand that Mary Ann Ramsdale, who was 85 years of age, whilst receiving relief from the Wisbech Union went to reside in the Holbeach Union. The Guardians of the Wisbech Union then asked the Guardians of the Holbeach Union to continue to pay on their behalf the 5s. 6d. per week which Ramsdale had previously been receiving, but as it appeared that the place where she had gone to live was a considerable distance from the residence of the medical officer, and any attendance by him in the case would have involved a long and special journey, and the payment of a bridge toll of 1s., the Holbeach Guardians were unwilling to undertake the payment of the relief unless the Wisbech Guardians would agree to pay any expense in respect of the medical officer and any other expenses incurred by them. This the Wisbech Guardians would not agree to, and they gave an order for the admission of the woman into the workhouse. The order was not accepted, but she has since returned to the Wisbech Union, and is in receipt of the allowance of relief which she formerly received. I have no information as to how Ramsdale was maintained during the 13 weeks referred to, and the Local Government Board have no authority to make any Order for the payment suggested.

  CIVIL SERVANTS AS TRADERS.
  MR. FISHER: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, before appointing Civil servants to positions where they are called upon to enforce discipline and to act with absolute impartiality, he will consider
  1304
  the advisability of requiring them to resign their seats as Directors of retail trading stores in which their subordinates may be shareholders?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Sir J. T. HIBBEBT,): I have been requested to answer the question for the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Rule of the Service in this matter is that laid down in the Orders in Council of March 21 and August 15,1890, and is as follows:—
  "No officer shall be allowed to accept any part in the management of any society or any trading, commercial, or financial company of whatever description which would require the attendance of such officer at any time between the hours of 10 a.m. and 6 p.m."
  MR. HANBURY: Is that rule absolutely carried out with regard to Civil servants?
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: Yes, Sir; it is.

  HAULBOWLINE DOCKYARD.
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the repairs said to be required by Her Majesty's guardships Triumph and Starling will be executed at Cork; and whether the Admiralty will allow some of the numerous steam launches lying idle at Haulbowline quays to be utilised, especially in bad weather, to convey Government employés to and from their work every evening?
  THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. E. ROBERTSON,): Inquiries are being made as to the executing the repairs of Triumph and Starling at Haulbowline. Inquiries are also being made as to the launches.

  RURAL POSTMEN'S EASTER HOLIDAY.
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he will grant the same privilege to rural and county postmen as that enjoyed by city postmen on Easter Mondays and Bank Holidays generally?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. A. MORLEY,): The rural postmen do, as near as possible, enjoy the same privileges as town postmen on the days mentioned—i.e., they are relieved from duty early in the day, and they receive extra pay for all the work which they perform. The duties could not be further curtailed without putting the public to serious inconvenience.

  INOCULATON AGAINST PLEURO- PNEUMONIA.
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether it is the intention of the Government to institute an exhaustive series of scientific experiments, utilising all the modern Continental results, regarding pleuro-pneumonia, and especially with a view to inquire into the efficacy of inoculation as a preventive of the disease as approved of by almost universal Colonial experience?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. H. GARDNER,): Perhaps my hon. Friend will allow me to refer him to the reply given by my Predecessor to the similar question addressed to him on the 11th August last. In the view then expressed I entirely concur, but I may perhaps add that, inasmuch as no case of pleuro-pneumonia has been discovered amongst home stock for nearly six months, there is now even less necessity for the institution of ex-pensive experiments than there was whilst pleuro-pneumonia was still prevalent.

  LICENCES FOR EXPLOSIVES.
  MR. HOZIER: I bog to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has granted, or is about to grant, a licence for the establishment of a magazine for explosives at Auchintibber, in the Parish of Blantyre, Lanarkshire; and, if so, whether it is usual for the Home Office to override the unanimous decision of the Local Authority upon the subject?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. ASQUITH,): Yes; intimation has been given to the applicants for a licence for a magazine at Auchiutibber, in the Parish of Blautyre in Lanarkshire, that the Secretary of State will be prepared, on the magazine being established in strict conformity with the draft licence, to confirm such licence, notwithstanding the refusal of the Local Authority. The question was brought up before me on appeal by the applicants under the 8th section of the Explosives Act against the refusal of their assent by the Local Authority
  1306
  to the establishment of the magazine. The appeal, together with the reasons given by the Local Authority, were carefully considered by me and my technical advisers, with the result above stated. There have been a number of appeals to the Secretary of State from the decisions of Local Authorities since the Act came into operation, of which some have been allowed and others disallowed.
  MR. HOZIER: Am I to understand this is the usual course?
  MR. ASQUITH: It is a statutory right.

  SMALL-POX AT WARRINGTON.
  MR. PIERPOINT: I beg to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Local Government Board whether he has received any Reports from the Medical Officer of Health for Warrington stating the numbers of cases of small-pox which occurred during the late epidemic in Warrington, and giving the numbers of cases and deaths amongst properly vaccinated persons compared with those amongst non-vaccinated or imperfectly vaccinated persons; and whether he will lay such Reports upon the Table?
  SIR W. FOSTER: The Local Government Board have not yet received Reports from the Medical Officer of Health of Warrington as to the number of cases of small-pox which occurred during the recent epidemic, and giving the numbers of cases among properly vaccinated persons compared with those among non-vaccinated or imperfectly vaccinated persons. As I have previously mentioned, the Royal Commission on Vaccination have caused inquiry to be made with regard to the outbreak of small-pox at Warrington.
  MR. PIERPOINT: But when does the hon. Gentleman expect to receive the Report?
  SIR W. FOSTER: I cannot fix a definite time. It will probably be two or three months.

  DISTURBANCES IN SYMI.
  MR. FRANCIS STEVENSON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether be can give any information with regard to recent disturbances in the Island of Symi?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir E. GREY,): It has been reported to Her Majesty's Government that the Authorities at Symi carried off a convert to Christianity from a monastery, but there is some dispute as to whether the conversion was the cause of the seizure. The inhabitants forcibly rescued the man from the police, and some soldiers are said to have committed excesses in searching for him afterwards. An Armenian Christian official was sent from Rhodes in a Government steamer to investigate the affair, and some of the soldiers were removed, which produced a change for the better. Two Senators of Symi were, however, summoned to Rhodes and put into prison there.

  DESTITUTION IN THE WESTERN ISLES OF INVERNESS-SHIRE.
  DR. MACGREGOR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether representations having been made to him that many of the Crofters in the Western Isles of Inverness-shire are in a destitute state, and unable to procure the necessary seeds to be put into the ground this spring, the Government is prepared to render those poor people any assistance under the circumstances?
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Sir G. TREVELYAN,: The Government are of opinion that assistance is best granted in the shape of wages for relief works rather than a seed loan or direct relief. In consequence a grant of £10,000 has been obtained for roads and footpaths, of which £3,000 was allotted to Inverness-shire. The County Council proposed to give three-fourths of that money to the distressed districts in the West, and one-fourth to the Eastern districts, but, as Secretary for Scotland, I ruled that, with the exception of £700 to Lochaber, the whole should go to the Western Islands, which I think is the right policy.
  DR. MACGREGOR: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he thinks it consistent with the exercise of good Government to turn a deaf ear to the cry of a large section of the community for bread?
  SIR G. TREVELYAN: I do not think the Government have turned a deaf ear, seeing that the £3,000 granted
  1308
  represents wages—at the rate paid in the Highlands—for 1,000 men for a month or five weeks.
  DR. MACGREGOR: But that money is for making roads, and not to provide seed for these poor people to put into the ground. It is of no use to them. In consequence of the unsatisfactory reply of the right hon. Gentleman, I will at the first opportunity call attention to this matter, which is of urgent public importance.

  RAILWAY RATES FOR COAL.
  MR. MYERS: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he has received a Memorial from the coal merchants of Winchester in reference to the increased rates charged since the 1st day of March last by the London and South Western Railway Company and the Great Western Railway Company for the carriage of coal to Winchester; and, if so, whether he will kindly put pressure on those Railway Companies to revert to their former charges, and to refund the excess rates?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. MUNDELLA,): Yes; I am in communication with the Railway Companies Association on the subject.

  GAME LAWS IN THE HIGHLANDS.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether his attention has been called to the dissatisfaction which exists throughout the Highlands and Islands, particularly in Ross and Cromarty, in consequence of the prosecutions for alleged breaches of the Game Laws; and whether the Government see their way to promote legislation for abolishing or amending the Game Laws?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR,): I have heard of complaints in regard to some individual cases of prosecutions under the Game Laws, but I have not had my attention called to the existence of general dissatisfaction on this subject throughout the Highlands and Islands, or in Ross and Cromarty particularly. The Government have not considered as to promoting legislation on this subject.

  TELEGRAPHIC ERRORS.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he will set aside a sum out of the profits of the Department, or seek powers to enable him to provide a fund for the purpose of affording compensation for losses similar to those occasioned to the fishermen of Plockton, Rossshire, on the 9th and 10th instant, through mistakes on the part of the Post Office authorities in dealing with telegrams?
  MR. A. MORLEY: No, Sir; I do not think I should be justified in asking Parliament for powers to impose upon the taxpayer the amount which would be necessary for the purpose mentioned by the hon. Member.

  SEA FISHING REGULATIONS.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether he is aware that the greatest dissatisfaction exists amongst the fishermen of the Highlands and Islands in consequence of the laws relating to sea fishing; and whether the Government will support a measure under which salmon and trout in any part of the sea shall be the property of the fishermen who net or catch them?
  MR. J. B. BALFOUR: I am aware that much dissatisfaction exists amongst the fishermen around the coasts of Scotland on the subject to which this query relates. The Government have it in contemplation to arrange for licences being granted to fish for salmon, and other fish of the salmon kind, in places around the coasts of Scotland, where the right of salmon fishing has not been already granted to private individuals.
  MR. MACFARLANE: How about the rights that have not been given to private individuals?
  MR. J. B. BALFOUR: In cases where the rights have not been given to private individuals they are vested in the Crown.
  MR. WEIR: When will the licences be granted?
  MR. J. B. BALFOUR: I know that ray right hon. Friend the Secretary for Scotland is doing all he can to forward the matter.
  DR. MACGREGOR: Does the right hon. Gentleman think the House is aware——
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! That is a matter of opinion. The hon. Member is entitled to ask questions only.
  DR. MACGREGOR: I am seeking for information. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that when a fisherman whose family perhaps is on the verge of starvation, while pursuing his ordinary calling, catches in his nets a salmon, and takes it home for food, he is seized by the keepers and watchers, and either fined or sent to prison?
  [No answer was given.]

  SCOTCH PRISONS CLERICAL STAFF.
  MR. WILLIAM WHITELAW: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he can now state what, if any, decision has been come to with regard to the claims of the clerical staff in Scotch prisons?
  SIR G. TREVELYAN: In reply to the hon. Member, I am glad to say that a decision, which I trust will be satisfactory, has been arrived at and communicated, for the information of the Clerical Staff, to the Prison Commissioners in Edinburgh, who will carry out the arrangement.

  PENANG MAGISTRATES.
  MR. CAINE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether Chiatek Sun and Chin Sin Yung have been added to the Commission of the Peace for the Settlement of Penang; whether they are also appointed to be Visiting Justices for that Settlement; and if he is aware that both these persons are opium farmers under the Government, and are proprietors of opium smoking dens of a similar nature to those prohibited by the Indian Government; and if so, will he consider the advisability of removing their names from the Commission of the Peace?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. S. BUXTON,): We have no information on the subject, the appointments being made by the Governor, but inquiry will be made.

  RIFLE RANGES.
  MAJOR RASCH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, to obviate the expense caused

  1311
  by the removal of troops for target practice to distant stations owing to the long range of the Lee-Metford, he will consider the advisability of constructing ranges of sufficient length at the various Infantry quarters?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The War Department is fully alive to the desirableness of having rifle ranges at all the military centres, but the great range of the Lee-Metford rifle renders it very difficult to find safe positions for the ranges; and often when sites are found the price of land is so high that the cost of transport now incurred is the less evil of the two.

  FROZEN MEAT FOR THE TROOPS.
  MR. MILDMAY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether an arrangement has been made whereby Her Majesty's Forces quartered in Plymouth and elsewhere are supplied with foreign frozen meat; and whether, if that be so, he will consider the advisability of encouraging the agricultural industry at home, and putting a stop to a practice so detrimental to that industry?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: A certain quantity of refrigerated beef and, in a smaller proportion, frozen mutton is supplied to the troops during the winter months. But whenever duo regard to economy admits of it, there is always a desire to give the preference to home-grown meat of good quality.
  MR. MILDMAY: Has the practice been extended lately?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I do not think so at all.

  THE RIDLEY COMMISSION.
  MR. MOWBRAY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the "normal establishment" of the various Public Offices recommended by the Ridley Commission has been settled in all cases; whether he will furnish a list showing the normal numbers so settled with those appearing in the Estimates, 1893–4; and whether an arrangement once made between the Head of a Department and the Treasury is considered final and the definite establishment of that Office, and not to be revised until after an independent inquiry to be held under the recommenda-
  1312
  tion of the same Commission on "Revision of Establishments"?
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: A normal establishment has been adopted, so far as is practicable, for nearly all the Public Offices. Particulars will be given in a Return which will shortly be distributed. Arrangements made between the Treajury and the Departments cannot, of course, be final, but must be liable to reconsideration if there should be variation in the nature or amount of work to be done.
  MR. MOWBRAY: Will these points be inquired into?
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: The Treasury will consider such matters whenever brought before them by the Departments.

  DUBLIN POSTAL APPOINTMENTS.
  MR. CLANCY: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he has received a protest from the postmen of Dublin against the recent appointment of Mr. A. Taplin to the office of Assistant Inspector of Postmen; and, if so, whether any reply has been given to it; and will he explain on what grounds this appointment has been made, seeing that it involves not only a departure from a rule of the Post Office, that postmen should be officered by men selected from their own branch of the Service, but the passing over of 200 employés with superior claims?
  MR. A. MORLEY: The appointment of Assistant Inspector of Postmen is ordinarily made from the class of charge-takers, and on this class Mr. Taplin stood, counting from the top, No. 6. The number of postmen, therefore, over whose heads he passed was not 200 but 5, and it was certified to me by those whose special duty it is to inform themselves on the point that of these five persons no one was qualified for the appointment of Assistant Inspector.

  TRAWLING IN THE FIRTH OF CLYDE.
  MR. GRAHAM MURRAY: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware that the maintenance of the bye-law of the Fishery Board, by which a limited portion of the waters of the Firth of Clyde was opened to trawlers, is a source of great dissatisfaction and injury to the local fishermen of the district; and whether he has held or ordered any renewed inquiry into the

  1313
  circumstances of the case as he promised to do when receiving a deputation of the said fishermen in Glasgow on 25th November, 1892?
  SIR G. TREVELYAN: I am aware that complaints have been made of the injury done by trawlers to the local fishermen of the Firth of Clyde. In consequence of the deputation of November, 1892, the case was fully inquired into in January last by Mr. Anderson Smith, of the Scottish Fishery Board. He reports that the small fleet of trawlers (there are 18 boats in all) form the principal fishing community of the locality, and have not seriously interfered with the productiveness of the ground; and that the town of Greenock considers that it could not properly be supplied with fish were it not for these trawlers. After careful consideration of his Report, I am not prepared to cancel the bye-law instituted under my Predecessor (Lord Lothian).
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: Has the right hon. Gentleman given his personal attention to the case of the fishermen on the Ballantine Banks? It is a very hard one.
  SIR G. TREVELYAN: I cannot say that I have gone into it personally, but I have read with very great care the Papers and the Report of Mr. Anderson Smith. I shall be happy to show them to the right hon. Baronet, and hear what he says about it.

  FOREIGN COMPETITION AND THE UNEMPLOYED.
  COLONEL HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if his attention had been directed to the loss of £37,000,000 in the foreign trade of the United Kingdom during the past six months (September to February inclusive), compared to the same period in 1889–90, and to the simultaneous increase of 115,000 Trades Unionists, reported to the Labour Department by some 20 Societies as being without employment; and what steps Her Majesty's Government propose to take to diminish the distress prevailing among the industrial masses owing to want of work, short time, and reduced wages?
  MR. MUNDELLA: The falling off in our foreign trade in the six months ending February, 1893, compared with the same period three years ago, is
  1314
  £30,890,000, and not £37,000,000, as stated by the hon. Member. The comparison, however, is misleading, inasmuch as the six months taken three years ago was a period of great inflation and high prices just preceding the crisis of 1890, as against a period of severe depression and low prices. 1890 was the highest year in the history of our foreign trade. The difference is very largely a difference of price both in imports and exports. With regard to what the hon. Member describes as "the simultaneous increase of 115,000 Trades Unionists, reported to the Labour Department by some 20 Societies as being without employment," no such Report has been made by the Labour Department. It would appear as though the hon. Member, instead of taking the average of the six months, has added together the numbers for each mouth and given the total, and has thus multiplied the number of the unemployed six-fold. It is not within the power or functions of Her Majesty's Government to prevent fluctuations in trade.
  COLONEL HOWARD VINCENT: Is the figure of £30,000,000 taken from the Trade and Navigation Returns, and is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the maximum number of unemployed in any one of the six months named in 1889–90 was 4,900, and the minimum in any one of the six months in 1892–93 was 16,974?
  MR. MUNDELLA: The hon. Gentleman has proved my case. He has taken them month by month for six months and added them together. I am sorry to say it is impossible to convey any idea of figures to the hon. Gentleman.

  THE ARMY MEDICAL BOARD.
  DR. KENNY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the Military Authorities have decided to appoint the examiners for the Army Medical Board from the London College of Surgeons; and, if so, whether it is intended to also appoint examiners from the Irish College of Surgeons; and whether he is aware that the rumour that the Army Medical Board intend to confine their choice of examiners to the London College has given rise to a belief, wide-spread, in medical circles in Ireland, that Irish candidates for the Army Medical Service will not receive fair consideration under such a system?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Yes, Sir; the examiners are now to be appointed for the limited time of four years, and they will be taken from among the examiners of the College of Physicians and the College of Surgeons. I do not anticipate that this will have any prejudicial effect on the interests of the Scotch and Irish Schools, a result to which I should personally be as reluctant to contribute as the hon. Member himself.
  DR. KENNY: Is there not a good deal of alarm in medical circles in Ireland on this subject? Why are the examiners appointed from one College only, and why are the Irish and Scotch Colleges ignored?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The examiners are to be appointed for a limited period of four years. I hope one of the examiners will be an Irishman, but the object of making the selections from the London Bodies is to insure that we get competent men. As far as I am concerned, I will take care nothing is done to damage the interests of the Irish and Scotch Schools.
  DR. KENNY: On what ground is it thought that the new plan will insure competence? What is the reason for the innovation? Was any complaint ever made against the old system?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The principal reason for the innovation is that formerly the examiners were appointed practically for life, and it is thought much better they should be appointed for a limited term of years, so as to secure fresh men, who perhaps were better acquainted with the newest developments of medical science.
  DR. KENNY: I give notice that I will call attention to the subject on the Estimates.
  MR. W. REDMOND: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think competent examiners can be obtained in Ireland?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: And quite as competent in Scotland.
  MR. W. REDMOND: Then will not the right hon. Gentleman take care to appoint one examiner from Scotland and one from Ireland?
  MR. WEIR: I would press the same point.
  DR. KENNY: As I understand it, the matter is to rest for four years without any change.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Yes.

  THE COURSE OF BUSINESS.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: May I ask the Prime Minister, for the general convenience of the House, in what order the various matters arranged for Thursday will be placed on the Paper?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. E. GLADSTONE,): The Motion for the time of the House will be the first business; the Vote on Account, if not previously obtained, will be the second; the Adjournment of the House and the Employers' Liability Bill then follow.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Will the House meet as usual at 3 o'clock?
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I have not been able to ascertain what will be most for the general convenience. If it will be for the general convenience to meet at 12 o'clock, the Government will give Notice of Motion to-night and make it at the commencement of business to-morrow.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: May I ask whether, if the House meets at 12 on Thursday, the Sitting will be subject to the Wednesday Rule?
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: No, Sir.
  MR. ANSTRUTHER: Will any Orders beyond those named be taken on Thursday? The Sea Fisheries Regulation (Scotland) Bill is down for that day; will it be proceeded with?
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: There is no intention of taking on Thursday any business which may be regarded as contentious.
  MR. BARTLEY: Will the Second Reading of the Local Veto Bill be taken before or after the Committee stage of the Homo Rule Bill?
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: If the hon. Gentleman will be kind enough to give the Second Reading of the Home Rule Bill, I shall then be in a position to answer that question.

  THAMES DREDGINGS.
  MAJOR RASCH: I wish to ask the Civil Lord of the Admiralty a question of which I have given him private notice. Has his attention been called to the fact that the Board of Trade have prohibited the deposit of dredgings on the Solent; and when will the Report as to the deposit from Admiralty lighters of dredgings on the Essex Fishing Grounds be out?
  MR. E. ROBERTSON: The answer to the first question is "No." As to the second, I have already informed the hon. Member the Report is of a confidential nature and will not be laid on the Table. It has been decided that the system of dredging must continue until the completion of the Ship Canal at Chatham—a work of Imperial importance. Then we hope a now system will be adopted.
  MAJOR RASCH: When will the Report be out?
  MR. E. ROBERTSON: It will not be laid on the Table at all.

  THE SCHEDULES OF THE HOME RULE BILL.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I beg to ask the Prime Minister if he is able to state when the blank Schedules of the Home Rule Bill would be in the hands of hon. Members. It is extremely desirable that this should be done some time before the opening of the Debate on the Second Reading, as at present the House has no information as to what the Government proposals are?
  MR. J. MORLEY: My right hon. Friend desires me to answer the question, which is a perfectly fair one. The Schedule concerning the arrangements for the Constabulary I hope to be able to place in the possession of hon. Members to-morrow or Thursday. The Schedule affecting the Civil servants is postponed at the request of certain Civil servants in Ireland, who desired to have an interview with me before definitely placing proposals in the Schedule. I conceive there will be no objection to that; on the contrary, a considerable amount may be gained. In any case, however, the Schedules will certainly be in the hands of hon. Members on the day when the Debate commences.
  >MR. T. W. RUSSELL: Will it not be possible to circulate the Schedules a
  1318
  day or two, at all events, before the beginning of the Debate.
  MR. J. MORLEY: I can only promise to do my best, and I hope to have the interview on Saturday in Dublin. Not an hour shall be lost.
  MR. BARTLEY: Is the House to understand that the Home Rule Bill is to be pressed forward next week, the Bill being completed only on the morning on which we are asked to read it?
  MR. J. MORLEY: The hon. Gentleman is really to understand nothing beyond what I said. All I said was perfectly reasonable and intelligible. The hon. Gentleman must be aware that it constantly happens in the case of large and important Bills that the Schedules are deferred till a late stage. The Schedule being in the hands of hon. Members at the time I have stated will give ample opportunity for the consideration of that part of the scheme.
  MR. TOMLINSON: I wish to know whether, according to the answers of the right hon. Gentleman, if the Bill had been brought on at the time the Prime Minister desired, the House would have been asked to read it a second time without having the Schedules before them?
  [No answer was given.]

  THE NORTH SEA FISHERIES BILL.
  MR. HENEAGE: Was it not at the request of the late Government that the Belgian Government brought about the Convention to the decisions of which the North Sea Fisheries Bill gives legal force, and is not, this country the only one that has failed to carry out legislation on the subject? Is it not essential that the Bill should be passed and receive the Royal Assent without delay?
  MR. MUNDELLA: It is quite true that the North Sea Fisheries Bill is of the utmost importance, not only to carry out the Convention, but in the interests of the fisheries themselves, because it will practically suppress the greatest curse of the North Sea fisheries—the floating grog-shops. But I am opposed night after night when I want to make progress with the Bill. What can I do then? If the right hon. Member will use his influence with his hon. Friends

  1319
  opposite, perhaps he can induce them to withdraw their opposition.
  MR. HANBURY: As the Government are taking over nearly the whole of the time of the House, why do they not bring it forward at a time when we can discuss it?
  MR. MUNDELLA: There is not a single Amendment put down to the Bill that it has not an opponent in this House. It is practically a re-enactment of the measure brought in by my Predecessor. As for bringing it in in Government time, I do not see any necessity for doing that, seeing that it is unopposed. Such a course would only afford the hon. Gentleman an opportunity of making talk about it.

ORDERS OF THE DAY
  SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, 1893–4.

    VOTE ON ACCOUNT.
    Considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £3,999,963, be granted to Her Majesty, on account, for or towards defraying the Charges for the following Civil Services and Revenue Departments for the year ending on the 31st day of March 1894:—

    CIVIL SERVICES.
    CLASS I.

    £

    Royal Palaces and Marlborough House

    6,000

    Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens

    16,000

    Houses of Parliament Buildings

    6,000

    Admiralty, Extension of Buildings

    8,000

    Miscellaneous Legal Buildings, Great Britain

    9,000

    Art and Science Buildings, Great Britain

    5,000

    Diplomatic and Consular Buildings

    5,000

    Revenue Department Buildings

    56,000

    Public Buildings, Great Britain

    33,000

    Surveys of the United Kingdom

    40,000

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

    3,000

    Peterhead Harbour

    3,000

    Rates on Government Property

    92,000

    Public Works and Buildings, Ireland

    40,000

    Railways, Ireland

    6,000

    CLASS II.

    United Kingdom and England:—

    House of Lords, Offices

    7,000

    House of Commons, Offices

    5,000

    Treasury and Subordinate Departments

    15,000

    Home Office and Subordinate Departments

    16,000

    REVENUE DEPARTMENTS.

    Customs

    100,000

    Inland Revenue

    100,000

    Post Office

    100,000

    Post Office Packet Service

    20,000

    Post Office Telegraphs

    415,000

    Total for Revenue Departments

    £735,000

    Grand Total

    £3,999,963

    MR. A. C. MORTONrose in his place.
    THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Morton.
    SIR R. TEMPLE: On a point of Order, Sir. I have an Amendment which touches the whole subject; should that not be taken first, Sir?
    THE CHAIRMAN: No, that would not be in Order, as it would prevent other Members from calling attention to particular items.
    MR. HANBURY: We want, by the Amendment put down by my hon. Friend, to dispute the right of the Government to take money on account for two months. We say that they ought to be content with sufficient for one month. If all the items are passed, then it will be impossible for my hon. Friend to raise the question. It therefore seems to me that his Amendment should have precedence.
    THE CHAIRMAN: If I were now to allow a discussion on the whole Vote, hon. Members wishing to discuss particular items would be precluded from doing so.
    MR. A. C. MORTONsaid, he did not intend to propose any reduction of the Vote, but he desired to know from the First Commissioner of Works whether anything was to be done towards the repair of Holyrood Palace? On the Estimates he would raise the whole question of the condition in which the palaces and castles in Scotland were maintained, and ask the Government to provide a sum of, say, £10,000 per annum for a series of years so as to place the Scottish palaces and castles in proper order, and in a decent, respectable condition. Although he was in favour of economy and against the waste of money by the Government, he did not object to the requisite amount of money being voted to maintain Scottish palaces and castles if they required it. He believed the Government of the country had sadly neglected their duty in regard to those palaces and castles.
    THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. SHAW-LEFEVRE,)said, he would consider the matter before the Estimates, but he could not undertake to propose an expenditure of £10,000 a year for Scottish palaces. He did not think that would be a wise policy, or in accordance with the arrangement carried out in

    1323
    regard to the maintenance of public buildings. If money were voted in that way he was afraid the expenditure on those palaces would largely increase. At the same time, he sympathised with the hon. Member in his desire that Holyrood should be kept up with dignity and in good repair.
    SIR R. TEMPLEasked, whether it would be in order for him at that point to move to reduce the Vote on one particular item?
    THE CHAIRMAN: Before we discuss a proposed reduction of the whole Vote we must take the items; after the items have been disposed of, it would be quite in order for the hon. Baronet to move the reduction of the whole Vote.
    MR. HANBURYsaid, the Vote included the large sum of £3,500 for sanitary works at Buckingham Palace. Similar Votes were constantly being asked for in regard to public buildings, and he wished to know whether the Government intended to take any steps to put an end to this system of continually asking for Votes for sanitary works. He thought the best way of dealing with the question was by legislation, because until there were means of punishing men who did sanitary work badly a good many lives must be lost in consequence of bad work. He wanted to make certain that in the works now to be undertaken adequate precautions would be observed so that the money spent should not be thrown away. It was well known that enormous blunders had been perpetrated in respect to Westminster Palace. For years there was a fire burning in the Victoria Tower for the purpose of ventilating the drains of the building, and after this fire had been kept alight for about a quarter of a century it was found that there was no communication whatever between it and the drains. He wished to know whether there was any one responsible person who could be punished if sanitary work in public buildings was not properly done? For the purpose of getting an answer he moved to reduce the Vote by £3,000.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That the item of £6,000, for the Royal Palaces and Marl borough House, be reduced by £3,000."—(Mr. Hanbury.)
    MR. LABOUCHEREsaid that during the last six years he had been complaining of the large expenditure in palaces without obtaining the support of a single hon. Gentleman opposite, but now the Conservative Party actually carried their objection to palaces so far that they demanded that the palace which Her Majesty inhabited when she came to London should be left in an insanitary condition. Much as he (Mr. Labouchere) objected to palaces he thought that sanitary regulations should apply equally to a palace and a hovel, that therefore he should vote against the Amendment.
    MR. SHAW-LEFEVRE: The hon. Gentleman has raised a point of considerable importance, and one which is fairly entitled to come under the consideration of the Committee. I may say that this item of £3,500 for the maintenance of the sanitary works of the Royal Palaces is an expenditure which is incurred only on the professional advice that it is absolutely necessary. The great bulk of the Government buildings are now in a fairly good sanitary condition, but in some of them much remains to be done to improve their underground drains. These drains, were constructed when sanitary science was not so advanced as it is now, and it is therefore proposed to remodel the system and put those drains in a perfectly sound condition. It will he necessary to incur considerable expenditure to bring about, that improved state of things. With respect to Buckingham Palace and to other Government buildings, it will be necessary to spend £8,000 or £10,000 on them annually for the next seven or eight years, in order to put them in a proper state. I do not state that there is any danger in the present state of things, but as the present drainage is not up to modern, science it requires constant care and attention.
    Mr. HANBURYsaid, he was sorry the right hon. Gentleman did not willingly incur this expenditure, as it was clear from his speech that it was absolutely necessary. Having got the information he desired from the right hon. Gentleman he considered it entirely satisfactory, and, differing from the right hon. Gentleman, he entirely concurred in the expenditure.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: What I meant was that the Government would rather have to spend the money on some work which would show better and do more public good.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid, he did not agree with his hon. Friend in thinking that this expenditure on the drains was absolutely necessary. He believed that the more alterations they made in drains the more likely they were to catch typhoid fever. He therefore hoped the First Commissioner of Works would hesitate before he expended this large sum on drains.
    MR. A. C. MORTONsaid, he did not intend to prolong the Debate on the condition of Holyrood Palace, as so far he was satisfied with the reply of the right hon. Gentleman, but he would point out that the expenditure of thousands of pounds every year on the English Palaces was another argument why the Palaces and Castles of Scotland should be put into that proper and decent condition to which their history entitles them.
    MR. PERCY THORNTONsaid, he found himself in thorough agreement with the hon. Member for Peterborough on this question. As one who had lived a good deal in Scotland, and studied the history of the country, he thought there was a real need for a greater expenditure of money in preserving the old Palaces of Scotland. Indeed, he would go further than that, and say, that the maintenance of these Palaces in a proper condition was part of the bargain of the Union of 1730. In the matter of historical interest these Palaces stood on an equality with Hampton and Kensington, while Holyrood had no peer except Royal Windsor.
    VISCOUNT WOLMERsaid, he had followed the excellent example of his hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough, and had visited those Scottish Palaces. Through the courtesy of the representative of the Board of Works he was shown through Holyrood, and he believed that if hon. Members visited the place they would come back, like him, convinced that the way it was maintained was wholly unworthy of its history. He would, therefore, earnestly join the hon. Member for Peterborough in urging on the First Commissioner of Works to look into this matter personally himself.
    DR. MACGREGORsaid, that as one of the few medical men in the House, and one who know something about sanitary science, he should say that a large portion of the money spent on the sanitary improvement of these public buildings was wasted. Take the House of Commons. He should say that the sanitation of the House was a disgrace to sanitary science. It was utterly impossible to sit for a minute in the Tea Room or the Reading Room without having a draught.
    THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! The Houses of Parliament come under a separate item of the Vote.
    DR. MACGREGORsaid, he would conclude by saying that when large sums of money were spent on the sanitary arrangements of these buildings the country had a right to expect that the money's worth was obtained.
    MR. MUNRO FERGUSONsaid, he wished to draw attention to one other Scottish palace—Linlithgow Palace. He understood that the matter was engaging the attention of the First Commissioner of Works, and he hoped his right hon. Friend would see his way to restoring the Palace to some extent, or to at least put it in a more satisfactory condition.
    MR. PARKER SMITHconsidered that the Old Royal Palaces of Scotland, Edinburgh Castle, and Stirling, deserved fully as much consideration as any of the buildings that had been mentioned. He would appeal to the Government, which was so thoroughly composed of Scotchmen, to give some attention to those buildings, which possessed so deep an historical interest for Scotchmen. He thought, that Edinburgh Castle and Stirling Castle should not be used as a barracks, but should be maintained as interesting memorials of ancient Scottish history.
    MR. SHAW-LEFEVRE: I may say that I deeply sympathise with the remarks of hon. Gentlemen in reference to those old British buildings. As regards Stirling Castle, it is not under the con troll of the Board of Works—it is a military establishment, and therefore under the control of the War Office. Edinburgh Castle is also under the control of the War Office, with the exception of a small portion, such as Queen Mary's apartments, and the chapel. With regard to Lin-

    1327
    lithgow Palace, the matter was taken up by my Predecessor, and it was determined to expend on it a sum sufficient to maintain it in its present condition as an interesting ruin and to prevent further destruction With that object £500 will be spent on the Palace.
    MR. A. C. MORTONsaid, his information was that the Society referred to by the right hon. Gentleman wanted a considerable sum of money spent on the preservation of Linlithgow Palace beyond the amount stated, which he thought a paltry sum. He also thought that the right hon. Gentleman was incorrect in stating that only a small part of Edinburgh Castle was under the control of the Board of Works. The late Mr. Nelson had spent £24,000 on it, and it therefore could not be a small part. There were many parts of the Castle left untouched by the donation of that good-natured and patriotic citizen. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would visit these places himself, and not trust merely to the information of officials in Scotland, for if the right hon. Gentleman did this he was sure he would do something better for the maintenance of these historic buildings.
    MR. PARKER SMITHregretted that the Minister for War was not in his place, for he desired to draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the fact that these Castles had been dealt with entirely from the military instead of from the æsthetic point of view.
    MR. A. C. MORTONsaid, he would take care to put down a notice to reduce the salary of the Minister of War also, in order that the right hon. Gentleman might have full notice.
    MR. DALZIELsaid, that in view of the large sum proposed to be spent on Buckingham Palace for sanitary purposes, he wished to know how many days the Palace had been in actual occupation during the year?
    MR. SHAW-LEFEVRE: There are a large number of people residing in the Palace, even though Her Majesty is not there, and I am sure the Committee will agree that the health of these people is entitled to consideration.
    SIR HERBERT MAXWELLhoped that the right hon. Gentleman would adhere to the decision that he would not attempt to put a roof on Linlithgow Palace, no matter what the hon.
    1328
    Member for Peterborough or anybody else might say.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    Original Question again proposed.
    SIR RICHARD TEMPLEsaid, he wished to know what action the First Commissioner of Works intended to take with regard to the Departmental Report which had been submitted to him recently in reference to the emoluments and remuneration of the employés of the Kew Gardens? The contents of that Report was awaited with much anxiety by these skilful, industrious, and meritorious men, and he trusted that his right hon. Friend would be able to give them the information, so far as his official duty would permit. Another matter to which he wished to refer was the hours of the opening of the Gardens. At present they were open from 12 o'clock noon to the general public, but they were also open from 9 or 10 o'clock to persons belonging to the scientific or artistic world, who were provided with special tickets. He desired that the general public should be allowed to enter the Gardens at the earlier hour, and felt sure that the change would not interfere in any way with scientific or artistic investigations.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLEScalled attention to the condition of Rotten Row, or the Ride in Hyde Park. He rode therein at an early hour of the day before coming down to his duties in the House, so that he had some experience of its state. It was full of cataracts, rocks, lakes, precipices, and brick-bats, which were not conducive to quiet riding. He attributed that state of affairs to the way the Ride was attended to, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would see his way to having it improved. Another matter to which he wished to draw attention was the Mall in St. James's Park. Since the opening of Constitution Hill for light traffic it had become of the highest importance that the eastern end of the Mall should be opened into Charing Cross. That would relieve the traffic not only in Piccadilly, but also in the Strand, for anyone driving by Constitution Hill and the Mall for the City would go along by the Embankment. He hoped, therefore, the new Admiralty buildings would be so constructed as not

    1329
    to interfere with the extension of the Mall to Charing Cross.
    MR. SHAW-LEFEVRE: The plans of the new Admiralty buildings contemplate the opening of the Mall into Charing Cross; but as these buildings will not be completed, at the earliest, before seven years, we will have to wait some little time. It will not be possible to make the opening until the buildings are completed, because the existing houses in Spring Gardens are occupied by the Admiralty Offices, and they cannot be turned out until the buildings are finished. I think the hon. Member has exaggerated the state of Rotten Row. I have known the Ride for many years, and I must say that I think it is now, on the whole, in a better condition than it has been for many years. It is not easy to keep it in good condition, because riders are allowed to go there in wet weather; but, being myself a rider and a frequent visitor to the Row, I must say that it is very well attended to. With regard to the matters raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston, my Predecessor in office directed a Departmental inquiry into the question of the wages paid to the labourers at Kew, and the Report of that inquiry was recently sent to me. The Report is not in favour of a general rise of the wages of the labourers. They say that the wages paid at the Gardens are somewhat higher than the average rate of wages paid for the same work by the market gardeners of the neighbourhood, and they do not, therefore, recommend a general rise of wages. The Report, however, is in favour of some minor improvements, and of increased pay to some special men, and those recommendations are now under the consideration of the Treasury and the Office of Works. As to the opening of the Kew Gardens at an early hour, I think I have given evidence in my interest in open spaces that I would entertain any such proposal from a favourable point of view. I was, therefore, disposed to do all I could towards opening the Gardens at an earlier hour, but I find it would entail great additional expense—something like £600 a year in the shape of wages for park-keepers—and also that there is much to be said for the opposite side. Although the Gardens are not open to the general public in the mornings, they are open to
    1330
    persons interested in botany and to gardeners and other specialists, who receive tickets from the Director, and are thereby enabled to study the plants in a manner which they could not do if the public were admitted. I have, therefore, come to the conclusion that there is no great case made for the opening of the Gardens to the general public at an earlier hour.
    MR. A. C. MORTONdrew attention, to the state of the water in the tanks in Trafalgar Square. He had called attention to this subject every year for the past few years, but nothing has been done. As there was a probability of an approach of cholera, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would do something in the matter, as the water was very much like sewage, and was likely in the hot weather to affect the health of the people of the neighbourhood.
    MR. SYDNEY HERBERTsaid he wished to call attention to the light on the Clock Tower of the House of Commons. The First Commissioner stated, in reply to a question which he put to the right hon. Gentleman a few days previously, that the light, which was a gas light, was not yet completed, from which he gathered that more money was to be spent on the light. He submitted that it was desirable to have an electric search light instead of the present gas light. To Members who lived at a distance from the House it would be a great advantage to have an electric search light in an upper direction which could be seen over London. At present they could not see the light, except there was a clear space between it and them, whereas if there was a bright column of light shooting up into the air it could be observed from every quarter.
    SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTcomplained that the electric light used in the House, as at present arranged, was very injurious to the eyes. The light, especially in the Smoke Room, was exceedingly bright and dazzling, and was without any protection for the eyes. He had heard on good authority that the number of Members of Parliament who suffer from weak eyes in consequence of the light was very considerable. He suggested that every light should be placed in a globe of either very thick glass or tinted glass, so as to

    1331
    prevent the violent effect of the electric light striking the eye directly, and if the right hon. Gentleman availed himself of the Recess in order to make that alteration he would have done a good deal for the health of the Members of the House.
    MR. STOREYsaid, he thought he spent a great deal more of his time in the Smoke Room than the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, and his judgment was that the present light was excellent. He did not know anything of the opinions opposite which prevailed amongst the right hon. Gentleman's friends, but he had heard no complaint amongst his own Radical friends, by which he was driven to the conclusion that the Radicals had stronger vision than the right hon. Gentleman and his friends. He hoped the First Commissioner of Works would not disturb the present arrangements for lighting the Smoke Room.
    THE MARQUESS OF CARMARTHENsaid, he had had to bring under the notice of the Committee a question of far more importance than the lighting of the House, and that was the sitting accommodation of hon. Members in the House—that question becoming this Session more than ever a burning question. Unless they happened to be in the House by half-past 2 or a quarter to 3 o'clock it was impossible to get a seat on the Benches anywhere from which it would be easy to address the House. He had come down the previous day at five minutes past 3, and could not find a single seat on any of the Benches, and was not even fortunate enough to obtain a seat under the Gallery. It would not mean a very large expenditure of money to increase the accommodation in the House. Considering that only on Friday last the House voted a very large sum of money for the remuneration of hon. Members, which was to be an annual charge, he thought the House would not object to voting the expenditure necessary to increase the sitting accommodation of hon. Members. He was expressing the opinion of private Members when he said that they desired greater consideration in the matter of seats. Members of the Government and Members of the ex-Government were not in the unfortunate position of private Members as regarded seats,
    1332
    for they had their seats provided for them. He was sorry the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) was not in his place; the hon. Member had promised a plan for giving a seat to every hon. Member of the House, and he was not sure that the hon. Member did not also undertake to accept the contract for the alteration of the House at a moderate price.
    SIR HERBERT MAXWELLdrew attention to the serious inconvenience to which hon. Members were put owing to the limited space of the Post Office. Within 25 years every corner of the Lobby had been tried to accommodate the Post Office, but the actual area of the Post Office had not been extended all through that time, though the amount of correspondence had largely increased. He ventured to say that if the First Commissioner of Works stepped out into the Lobby that moment he would find a row of Members two or three deep waiting at the Post Office to be served. He suggested that some other part of the building might be found to accommodate another post office.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: I will give consideration to the point just raised in reference to the Post Office, and see whether any additional accommodation can be provided. With regard to the light on the top of the Clock Tower, it was quite true that I told the right hon. Gentleman opposite, a few days ago, that it was not quite completed, but still it only awaits final completion, and I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to wait until he sees the effect of the new arrangements before he asks me to incur a further expenditure in a new direction. I think he will find that the new arrangements will not be unsatisfactory. The question of providing additional seats for hon. Members in the House is a very large question. The hon. Member for Northampton has given notice of his intention to move for a Committee to inquire into the sitting accommodation of the House, and I think it would be better to defer the definite discussion of the matter until that Motion comes on. It is a matter rather for the consideration of the House than for the Government, and if the House should desire that there should be an inquiry into the matter, the Government would consider whether it

    1333
    is possible to carry out their wishes; but when the Motion does come on I shall venture to show reasons why it would be wise to defer such an inquiry until the second Session of the present Parliament. There has always been a great pressure in the accommodation of the House during the first Session of every Parliament, but that pressure has been removed in the second Session, when the House becomes to a certain extent blasé, and when hon. Members do not display that extreme devotion to business which they showed in the early days of the Parliament. Take the illustration afforded by our proceedings yesterday. It so happened that yesterday a larger number of hon. Members took part than in any previous Division of the Session; 590 Members voted in the Division, which was 50 more than in any previous Division of the present Session, but curiously enough hon. Members did not sit in the House to listen to the Debate on the Vote of Censure. During the speech of the right hon. Gentleman who moved the Motion one-third of the Benches of the House were empty, so that there was a large body of hon. Members within the precincts of the House who did not care to listen. That cannot be attributed to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, because he never addressed the House without securing the general attention of hon. Members, and the House is always pleased to hear him; but, in my opinion, it goes to show that hon. Members are already weary of speeches, and that they are not giving that devoted attention to the duties of the House which they gave only a few weeks ago. Therefore, before expending a large sum of money on increasing the accommodation of the House, it would be wise to wait until we see whether, as usual, as the Parliament grows older, the demand for seats falls off.
    MR. JOHN BURNSsaid, it would seem from the remarks of hon. Members that there was only one part of the House to be considered, and that was the part devoted to hon. Members; but he ventured to protest against the limited accommodation allowed to strangers. He had had the pleasure the other day of going to the Press Gallery and the Press Rooms, and he thought it was really scandalous on the part of the House that the 120 Pressmen or so who were com-
    1334
    pelled to be there—Who Were obliged to sit and listen to the Debates—should be cribbed, cabined, and confined the Way they were. The number of rooms at the disposal of the Pressmen was insufficient, and he thought the accommodation in the Gallery was not good enough. Considering the number of important papers that were applying for admission to the Gallery, the Gallery should be at least one-third larger than it was. The Strangers' Gallery should, he thought, be also more convenient to the public; and with regard to the sitting accommodation of hon. Members in the House, he thought the time had arrived when the First Commissioner of Works should anticipate the Motion of the hon. Member for Northampton; and when it did come on he would join the noble Lord the Member for Brixton in supporting a complete revolution in the architectural accommodation of the House. If every hon. Member could rely upon a seat it would tend, he believed, to the more orderly conduct of the Debates. The House was now a congested district, and under the Sanitary Regulations of the County Council it ought to be indicted. The First Commissioner of Works would do well to anticipate the almost unanimous desire of the House, and to consult with his advisers respecting a plan for the complete remodeling of the House of Commons.
    MR. JAMES LOWTHERsaid, he entirely endorsed what had fallen from the hon. Member as to the necessity for a complete reconsideration of this subject. The First Commissioner of Works considered that this was a matter which was always put forward in the first Session of a new Parliament, that it gradually died out, and that by the time Parliament drew to a close hon. Members became accustomed to the inconvenience to which they were subjected. He should, however, like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether or not hon. Members ought to be precluded from having better accommodation? Looking back to the time when the right hon. Gentleman and himself first entered the House, the attendance of hon. Members day by day was very much less than it was at present. The habitual attendance of hon. Members had very largely increased during the last 25 years. In past times there were occa-

    1335
    sional nights when there was a crush, but as a general rule very few hon. Members were present. Now, however, the demand was much greater, and sometimes they had to complain that they could not get even standing room. The right hon. Gentleman was doubtless aware how many hon. Members could find seats within the purview of the Speaker, and he believed he was right in stating that after deducting the galleries and other seats outside the recognised limits for purposes of debate, something like two-thirds of the Members were unable to obtain seats in such a position as would enable them to rise in their places in order to discharge their public duties. He had seen an article published recently which sketched out a very comprehensive and at the same time economical scheme for remedying the defects to which attention had already been drawn, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would give this matter more than the passing attention which he seemed inclined to give. It seemed to him that the right hon. Gentleman, when he got too much money on account, would think no more of this matter, especially as Ministers did not themselves have the present difficulties to surmount which fell to the lot of others. In very recent times he had had some practical experience of the great difficulty there was in obtaining a seat. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not allow the subject to be indefinitely shelved, but that he would also consider not only the accommodation provided for Members, but for the Press and other strangers, and treat the whole subject in a spirit worthy of its importance.
    MR. LEGHalluded to the fœtid atmosphere of the Chamber, and the uncomfortable condition of the Reading Room, which was so contrived as to give the maximum of heat in summer and the maximum of cold in winter. There did not appear to be any position in which they could sit without inconveniencing somebody else, and it was permeated by the odours of the Tea Room.
    MR. ALLANsaid, he had had a large and varied experience in the construction and alteration of buildings. Hon. Members must bear in mind that they were confined here within a parallelo-
    1336
    gram of fixed dimensions, and as the Chamber was bounded by stone walls on all sides any attempt to alter it must be undertaken with the greatest possible care, because of the difficulties attendant upon such an operation, and due attention should be given to the mode of the accommodation to be provided.
    MR. H. R. FARQUHARSONhoped the question of the acoustic properties of the House would not be lost sight of.
    MR. R. G. WEBSTERthought the Reports of the Committees that sat in 1867 and 1868 with regard to this question might be consulted with advantage, for they had dealt with it in all its bearings.
    MR. MOORSOMsaid they did not know at present how many hon. Members the House would have to accommodate in the future. Probably either this year or next year that question would be settled for a considerable time. No man could foresee now how many hon. Members they might expect from Ireland, and he thought it would be prudent to wait and see exactly how they stood.
    BARON F. J. DE ROTHSCHILDsaid, it was only fair that they should have a more definite assurance from the Chief Commissioner of Works than the one he had given. The right hon. Gentleman had treated the question with comparative contempt. When the right hon. Gentleman was not a Member of the Government he had, in his capacity of Privy Councillor, a permanent seat on the Front Opposition Bench; but for the few Privy Councillors in that House there were hundreds of private Members who had no scats, and it was impossible for every hon. Member to be in time for prayers in order to obtain a seat. It was not always pleasant for private Members to be obliged to sit in parts of the House where they did not usually sit, and to find themselves between hon. Members with whom they were not in unison, and to have to listen to remarks which were not wanted. Many hon. Members waited in the Lobby and in the Smoking Room until the Division bell rang. He hoped a more definite answer would be given.
    MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, his hon. Friend who had just sat down had given them very excellent reasons why the

    1337
    House should be enlarged. He had said that instead of going to the Smoking Room he would have sat in the House, and no doubt he would have been converted from the political error of his ways. He had always been in favour of the enlargement of the House, because it was absolutely in accordance with common sense that there should be room for the 670 Members of which it was composed. Outside the House he was for One Man One Vote, but inside the House he was in favour of one man one seat. He understood that the Chief Commissioner was not prepared to accept his proposal for a Committee. In the present state of business he could only obtain a Committee by the universal consent of the House, because the Chief Commissioner or anyone else could block it; but he was quite prepared to bring in his proposal as soon as possible if the right hon. Gentleman assented. He thought there had been a sufficient expression of opinion in favour of the enlargement of the House to entitle them to a Committee, which would not only examine into the scheme, but the cost. He was given to understand that the cost of providing a place for every hon. Member would be about £3,5,000. There was no Legislative Assembly in the universe, except this one, which consisted of a number of Members who could find no place when they got there.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he hoped the hon. Member for Northampton would persevere with his Motion for the Committee, for even if he had to confront the opposition of the First Commissioner of Works he would find a sufficient number of hon. Members in all parts of the House to support him. It was somewhat of a scandal that hon. Members should have to enter into something like a physical encounter in order to get seats. He saw from an article in the Nineteenth Century, the other day, that there were only 270 seats on the floor of the House for a membership of 678, and that was a condition of things that would be tolerated only in this country. His hon. Friend the Member for Battersea had spoken in favour of each hon. Member having a desk, but he thought nothing could be more destructive to the homogeneity or harmony of a legislative body than the provision of desks. He
    1338
    should be very sorry to see the system of providing a desk for each Member introduced into the House, because the result in the United States was that the Members spent their time in writing letters, with the consequence that the Legislative Bodies were nothing but public offices, and the Debates were listened to only by a few Members around the Speaker. The removal of the desks from the House of Representatives at Washington had been recently recommended in an article by Mr. Reed, who was sometime ago Speaker of that House, and with whom he had conversed on the subject. The House of Commons, with all its inconveniences, had one advantage, which was that hon. Members were not obliged to speak in it at the top of their voices in order to be heard. The late Mr. Parnell used to say that the elevated tone of oratory in America was largely due to the fact that every speaker, by reason of the immense size of the House of Representatives, was compelled to bellow for the purpose of getting attention. He should, on that account, be opposed to any considerable enlargement of the House. But there could be no difference of opinion as to whether there should be a seat for every hon. Member in the House. The hon. Member for Northampton had many claims to public attention and regard, but his highest claim was his invariable piety. He knew no hon. Member who was so devout, and who was so assiduous in his attendance at prayers. But the attendance at prayers in the House of Commons was entirely removed from anything like devotional considerations. He observed that, while the House was piously asking for spiritual guidance, responsible occupants of the Front Benches were always conspicuous by their absence, which might partly be attributed to the fact that they had secured by right of office a place, without any spiritual intervention. His opinion was that spiritual merit should have only a spiritual reward, and therefore he objected to the earthly considerations which induced many hon. Members to come to the House at so early an hour every day.
    MR. HENEAGEasked what were the intentions of the Government with regard to the Select Committee. They had had a very fair discussion, and the opinion of all sides of

    1339
    the House was now known, that every private Member should have a seat.
    MR. MACFARLANEsaid, hundreds of hon. Members had to come down hours before the House met in order to secure seats, and if 400 hon. Members came down two hours before the time that would make 100 working days of eight hours totally lost. That was a substantial loss to hon. Members, many of whom were engaged in business.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, that if the general sense of the House was in favour of a Committee of Inquiry the Government certainly would not oppose it. He would take into consideration the opinions that had been expressed, and he would bring them under the notice of the Government. He could not undertake to promise a Committee of Inquiry; all he could say was that the Government would carefully consider what had been said, and also the opinions that were held by other Members occupying important positions. What he bad ventured to urge was that the experience of the last five or six Parliaments had shown that in the first Sessions of new Parliaments there had been great pressure upon the accommodation, but in the second and subsequent Sessions it had gradually diminished. The question first arose in 1866, when there was a Committee which considered all the plans for enlarging the existing House, and which came to the conclusion that they were all open to objection, and recommended that a new House should be constructed in the adjoining Courtyard, and that the present House should be converted into a kind of ante-Chamber. The estimated cost was £120,000, which was a very large item, and when the matter was discussed in the House the following Session, the almost unanimous feeling was against the incurring of that expenditure. The subject had come up again in the first Session of every new Parliament, and the Government generally met it by offering a Committee in the next Session. The last case that had occurred was that with reference to the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington. In 1866, the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington was asked in the first Session of Parliament whether he would grant a Committee to consider the increase of accommodation, and he replied that if the hon. Member who put the question
    1340
    would bring the matter up in the next Session, and the House desired a Committee, the Government would not oppose the appointment of one, but they would not commit themselves to any scheme which would entail a large expenditure on the present Houses of Parliament That was a very sensible answer, and the result of it was to extinguish the question for the time. In the next Session the questioner did not renew his demand, and the subject dropped. On the whole, he was inclined to think it would now be wise on the part of the House to follow the same course. There were many reasons why it was not desirable to hold an inquiry now. The Bill for the Government of Ireland was before the House, and it was quite possible that the determination of that measure would practically settle the question of whether a large body of Members from Ireland would sit in that House, and under what conditions. It was, at all events, desirable that the question of the accommodation required should be postponed for the present. If seats were to be found for all the present Members, it would be necessary to double the present accommodation. The present House was well adapted for the transaction of ordinary business. There were occasions when it was found too small, and hon. Members were put to inconvenience, but nine nights out of ten it was of a very convenient size for the business transacted in it. Its acoustic properties were good, and hon. Members could make themselves heard without difficulty; but with a Chamber double the size the strain would be great, and resort would have to be had to a tribune, which was the case in foreign countries. The Government, as far as he knew, had no objection to an inquiry, but there were many reasons for postponing it to next year. If the House should be satisfied with that he would undertake that there should be a Committee of Inquiry next year, when they would have had more experience as to what they actually wanted.
    MR. HANBURYsaid he had been rather alarmed by what the right hon. Gentleman had said as to the great length of time it would take to complete the new Admiralty Buildings. It was essential to the work of the Department that these offices should be built as soon as possible.
    MR. SHAW-LEFEVREsaid be thought it was regrettable that so long an interval should take place in the completion of the works, but unfortunately it was quite unavoidable. The buildings were in two blocks, and until the first was completed the second could not be started. The first block could not be completed for two years, and the second block would take four or five years; therefore, taking it altogether, seven years would probably elapse.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLESasked when the new road from the Mall would be opened into Charing Cross? It would much relieve the traffic, and he hoped it would be done as soon as possible.
    MR. SHAW-LEFEVREsaid that unfortunately the houses could not be removed until the building was completed.
    >COLONEL BRIDGEMANwanted to know whether there was any hope that the Secretary to the Treasury would make the hours for the opening of the British Museum longer?
    SIR J. T. HIBBERTsaid, that matter would be considered, but the Trustees of the British Museum were an independent body, and he would have to confer with them.
    MR. HANBURYthought the sum of £ 3,500 for the introduction of electric light into the Foreign Office was a very large one. He did not know why the Foreign Office should be singled out for it. If they were going to introduce the electric light on this scale into all the Government Offices they would rush into an expense of many thousands of pounds.
    MR. SHAW-LEFEVREsaid the Foreign Office was different from any other Department. It was taken first because work was carried on there later than in any other Office. He did not think the amount excessive, having regard to the building.
    MR. JEFFREYSwanted to know what had been done towards renewing the Ordnance maps, whether the surveys were corrected regularly, and who was responsible?
    MR. STOREYsaid, that from a Minute which the Secretary to the Treasury had sent to the House, he found that the £600,000 in respect of the Irish Light Railways would be expended this year, and that the remaining
    1342
    liabilities of the Government would be met by estimate. He wished to know whether, and when, a Report was going to be made on these railways, and what were the extra liabilities of the Government which would have to be met?
    SIR J. T. HIBBERTsaid, that Parliament had only provided for a sum of £600,000 up to the present time for Irish Light Railways, but that as the expenditure contemplated was about £169,000 in excess of the former amount, a Bill would be introduced to make provision for the latter sum.
    MR. STOREYsaid, of course if a Bill was to be introduced there would be an opportunity of discussing the whole policy.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. H. GARDNER,), replying to the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Jeffreys) said, there had been a Departmental Committee to inquire into the whole subject of the Ordnance Survey. The Committee had done most excellent work and presented a most valuable Report. The recommendations of the Committee might be divided into three classes—one requiring the sanction of the Treasury, another requiring legislative action, and the third requiring Departmental action alone. The recommendation of the Committee with regard to the 1-inch map had been agreed to, and the Treasury had sanctioned the provision of the necessary funds in the Estimates for 1893–4. The other recommendations were at present being carefully considered.
    MR. FARQUHARSONinquired whether the Ordnance maps would be coloured so as to indicate what was formerly arable land, but which had now been brought back to pasture.
    MR. GARDNERremarked that this was a matter which might receive consideration.
    MR. PENROSE FITZGERALDinquired when the question of telephonic and telegraphic communication between lighthouses, lightships, and the coast could be raised?
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. ASQUITH,)asked the hon. Member to put this question to the President of the Board of Trade, who was absent for the moment.
    MR. JAMES LOWTHERassumed that this subject could be taken upon a later Vote?
    SIR J. T. HIBBERTsaid, there was no separate Vote for this particular purpose, but a special sum of £20,000 had been set apart in the Post Office Vote for providing for coast communication; and, as an experiment, a connection was being made between one light ship and the shore. The other proposals of the Commission which dealt with this whole question were, at present, under consideration, and as soon as the Departmental Committee of the Board of Trade had decided what should be done the matter should be considered by the Treasury, and when the proper time came a Supplemental Estimate would be proposed to provide the necessary amount.
    MR. JAMES LOWTHER: Then I take it that the proper time will be on the salary of the President of the Board of Trade?
    SIR J. T. HIBBERT: I think it may be raised on the Board of Trade Vote.
    MR. A. C. MORTONmoved the reduction of the Vote by £250, in respect of the salary of the Home Secretary, in order to call attention to an accident at the New battle Collieries, Midlothian. He said he had a similar notice on the Paper with regard to the salaries of the Lord Advocate and the Secretary for Scotland, but he made the deduction in respect of the Home Office larger than others because the Homo Secretary was the greatest offender in the matter. On the 9th March a County Councillor, who was also a Magistrate representing the Newbattle district of Midlothian, asked him to put a question to the Lord Advocate, and to try to get a copy of the Report made by the Procurator Fiscal of Midlothian to the Crown Agent of Scotland, showing the result of his investigations, into an accident at the Newbattle Collieries of the 20th January last, whereby John Neesam, one of the constituents of Mr. John Romans (the County Councillor referred to), was killed while descending the pit shaft, and who left a widow and 10 of a family, nearly all under working age. Mr. Romans also asked him to ask for a Report on the accident by the Inspector of Mines, and said that he had exhausted all powers of inquiry in Edinburgh and
    1344
    had not been able to get any information whatever. The Lord Advocate, in reply to him (Mr. Morton), had refused to lay on the Table the Report of the Procurator Fiscal, because it was contrary to the custom of his Office to do so; and the Home Secretary, a few days afterwards, refused to lay on the Table a copy of the Report of the Inspector of Mines, as he said the Report was a confidential one. He (Mr. Morton) could not see why the matter was confidential. The public, including the miners, had to pay for these Reports, and they had to pay the salaries of the Home Secretary, the Lord Advocate, and the Secretary for Scotland, and the Inspectors. He might bring up a number of cases where there appeared to be no difficulty whatever in getting a copy of the Report of the Inspector of Mines, and in the case of a colliery accident which occurred some little time ago at Wednesbury an inquiry followed, and the Report of the Inspectors was laid upon the Table without any difficulty whatever. What they were demanding really was, however, that there should be some inquiry in Scotland like what they had in England, called a Coroner's Inquest. In this particular accident it was claimed by those on the spot that this accident was preventible with proper machinery, and it appeared to him that it was the duty of the Government to let the men who worked in these places know all they could about the matter. The Trade Union Congress, which met last year in Glasgow, passed unanimously a resolution in favour of some public inquiry into the case of these accidents in Scotland, and they have passed resolutions of a similar character in previous years. The Radical Party were supported by the working-men, and the working-men ought to have the support of the present Government. He would be glad to know whether the Home Secretary had, within the last six months, promised Trade Unionist representatives that there should be something like an open inquiry in Scotland. Apart, however, from the question of public inquiry, he (Mr. Morton) brought forward the Motion more particularly to get copies of the Reports, at least that of the Inspector of Mines. Of course, immediately they went in for secrecy, it was assumed that there was something wrong; and in the case of the accident,

    1345
    it was assumed that the proprietor, who happened to be a Marquess, or who was a large shareholder, had some particular influence with the Lord Advocate and the Crown Agent to enable their people to refuse to give information to the working-men. He (Mr. Morton) would meantime content himself with moving the reduction of the Secretary of State's salary by £250.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the sum of £16,000, for the Home Office and Subordinate Departments, be reduced by £250."—(Mr. A. C. Morton.)
    SIR FREDERICK MILNERwished to call attention to a speech made by the Home Secretary at Liverpool with reference to the Trafalgar Square meetings.
    MR. A. C. MORTON: I rise to order. I moved the reduction of the Vote upon a special matter, and I believe the custom is to get that decided before you wander off into other subjects.
    THE CHAIRMAN: It is quite open to the hon. Baronet on this Vote to refer to the action of the Home Secretary.
    SIR F. MILNER, continuing, said, that in his official capacity the Home Secretary received a deputation at the Home Office on the 19th October, 1892, on the subject of meetings in Trafalgar Square, and on that occasion he made use of the following remarks:—
    "In the autumn of the following year, 1887, the privilege of meeting in the Square, which had hitherto been used sparingly and considerately, began to be grossly abused. Meetings were held day after day for a considerable time. They were preceded and followed by processions through the streets—almost daily processions—which obstructed the traffic, which hindered business, which drove away customers from the shops and guests from the hotels, and which not only imposed a serious strain upon the Metropolitan Police, but undoubtedly created a not altogether ill-founded feeling of apprehension and uneasiness in the neighbourhood. I do not hesitate to say that the state of things which grew up at that time constituted an intolerable nuisance, and so long as I am responsible for the peace and good order of the streets of the Metropolis it shall not be permitted to recur. …. Undoubtedly, in my judgment, a very grave and serious state of affairs existed."
    That was, he thought, a very statesmanlike attitude on the part of the Home Secretary. It might be questioned whether he was wise in re-opening the Square to meetings, but so long as the
    1346
    Home Secretary kept the key of the Square practically at the Home Office, and allowed no meetings to take place there without due permission, so that proper precautions might be taken, he thought the right hon. Gentleman was right. When addressing the deputation the Home Secretary took a statesmanlike view of the matter, acknowledged the difficulties of his Predecessor, and admitted there was good reason for stopping the meetings in the Square. But then the Homo Secretary went to Liverpool, and there, addressing himself more to the gallery than to the interests of the country, he assumed a totally different attitude on this question. He said at Liverpool—
    "I found myself unable to conceive why the privilege which had been enjoyed until it was arbitrarily and wantonly interfered with without any cause of complaint should be permanently taken away from the people of London."
    He considered that that was a most mischievous utterance for a person in the position of the Homo Secretary to make. It was all very well to say that it was an extra-Parliamentary speech, but the words of a gentleman filling the responsible post of Home Secretary carried weight, and they carried all the more weight when it was remembered that the right hon. Gentleman himself was counsel for the rioters charged with the disgraceful disturbances in the Square, and that—no doubt doing his duty—he warmly espoused their cause on that occasion. But that circumstance added considerably to the gravity of this occurrence at, Liverpool. When the right hon. Gentleman said that these meetings were wantonly interfered with without any adequate cause of complaint he practically condoned the proceedings which he condemned at the Home Office. To show that this speech had created mischief he might mention that the patrons of disorder had quoted it as an argument that the public had an absolute right to the Square without permission from the Home Office, and in support of their contention that they had this right they had pointed out that the Home Secretary had receded from the point taken up by him when addressing the deputation at the Home Office, and had stated that the conduct of the late Government was absolutely unjustifiable. There was nothing to justify the Home

    1347
    Secretary in saying that these meetings had been arbitrarily and wantonly interfered with without any cause of complaint. He thought public men ought to be very careful in their utterances, for considerable mischief might be done by unguarded observations of this character. They had had proof of the mischief caused by extra-Parliamentary utterances in the case of the Transvaal and Egypt. Statements of Ministers on public platforms were seriously considered by the county, and they ought, therefore, to be careful what they said. He hoped the Home Secretary would frankly admit that in his statement at Liverpool he made a slip, and would revert to the statesmanlike attitude he assumed when addressing the deputation at the Home Office. He disclaimed any discourtesy to the Home Secretary in bringing this matter forward, but having seen the use that was being made of the right hon. Gentleman's speech, he felt it a public duty to draw attention to the fact in order that the Home Secretary might make it clear that he meant what he said at the Home Office.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir W. HARCOURT,): I want to point out to the House exactly how we are situated with regard to the time that still remains for the discussion of the Vote on Account. I want to point out to the House that it is absolutely essential and indispensable that the Vote on Account should be taken to-day before 10 minutes to 7. That will not preclude further discussion on the matters in the Vote upon the Report of the Vote on Account, because the Report on the Vote of Account is not subject to any limitation of time, whether it is taken on Wednesday or Thursday. But as to the Vote on Account itself it must be taken to-day, in order that it shall be possible to issue orders for the payment of various persons who have to be paid on Monday next. For that purpose the Vote on Account must be taken to-day, and we must get the Report of the Vote on Account at the latest by Thursday, and by the process of expediting matters it will then be possible for Her Majesty to sign the warrants upon the Vote on Account on Friday, and the warrant may return on Monday. If we do not have the warrant on Monday, payments which are due
    1348
    cannot be made. I only rise for the purpose of putting the House in possession of the facts as to how we are situated with reference to time, and to point out that in dealing with the Vote on Account to-day we are not precluded from further discussion on the Report of the Vote, which is not subject to any limitation of hours.
    MR. CHAPLIN: I think the Committee will perceive that the speech of the right hon. Gentleman shows most clearly and distinctly how greatly the Government had been to blame in postponing the taking of the Vote on Account. Remonstrances have been made over and over again from this side of the House with regard to the action they indicated their intention of taking, but they wore treated with indifference. In spite of the appeals of the Leader of the Opposition, made over and over again, to take this Vote at a time when it could be properly and reasonably discussed, the Government chose to take their own course in the matter, and whatever the consequences they must be held entirely responsible for them. I wish to point out to the right hon. Gentleman who has not been much in the House this afternoon, in consequence of the repeated charges of obstruction made against the Tory Party, that certainly three-fourths of the time occupied during this afternoon has been occupied by supporters of the Government themselves; and whether that time has been occupied by supporters of the Government or not, I have only this to say—that, in my opinion, not one word has been said on either side of the House which was not perfectly justified by the importance of the question before us. I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman this question: He says if the House will consent to take this Vote to-night there will be further opportunity of discussing questions more fully on Report. But when does he propose to take the Report stage? Does he propose to put it down for to-morrow, and take it as the first Order of the Day? The right hon. Gentleman can give notice, and take tomorrow for this purpose in precisely the same way as he proposes to take the Wednesdays after Easter for Government Business. I do not know whether the Government wish to avoid taking tomorrow for any particular purpose. I are aware that there is an Irish measure

    1349
    down for to-morrow—no doubt a measure of importance—but not of more importance than are the Bills standing first for a great number of Wednesdays after Easter. I would, therefore, suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should take the course I have ventured to indicate, and it will probably facilitate the getting of the Vote to-night.
    MR. HANBURYhoped the right hon. Gentleman would have some consideration for Public Business. He had taken Wednesdays already this Session, and why could he not take to-morrow for bringing on the Report of the Vote on Account. He endorsed what had been said by the last speaker, that if there had been any waste of time that afternoon—and he did not admit that there had—it had been mainly on the part of the supporters of the Government. Out of some 30 questions on the Paper that day 20 were put down by hon. Gentlemen opposite, who, in addition, put many supplemental questions. But, passing from private Members on the Government side, they had a much more serious complaint against the Government, because this was the first time within the last 10 years that a Vote on Account had over been brought on at this late period.
    MR. W. REDMOND: I rise to a point of Order. I wish to ask you whether we are now discussing the Vote on Account, or whether we are going into another Vote of Censure on the Government?
    THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is in Order. The Chancellor of the Exchequer made an appeal, which is being answered by the hon. Gentleman.
    MR. HANBURYobserved that the interruption to which he had just been subjected was one of those needless interruptions to which hon. Members on that side of the House were becoming accustomed. When he was so interrupted he was stating as a matter of fact that the Government, for the first time in 10 years, had broken through a hitherto unbroken rule in bringing on the Vote on Account at so late a date, and as to the discussion on the Vote it had for the first time for many years been compressed within the limits, not of one day but of half a day. The chief duty of that House was to vote Supplies, but in this the Government had signally failed, and
    1350
    the right hon. Gentleman himself, after having grossly mismanaged Public Business, now wanted to burk discussion. The Government thought, apparently, that their chief duty was to attempt to rush a great number of Bills through the House in the hope of gaining a certain amount of temporary popularity. The Government had delayed this Vote in order to burk proper discussion, and to so shorten the holidays that the Home Rule Bill could not be discussed during the Easter Recess, and in face of such facts he wished to know whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed to move the Closure upon this Vote for £4,500,000. Would the right hon. Gentleman be content, in the exceptional circumstances of the case, to take a Vote on Account for one month only, which would not be unreasonable considering the circumstances under which the Vote was taken? They had a right to ask the right hon. Gentleman, if he was going to burk discussion on the Vote on Account to-day, would he promise that no further Vote on Account would be brought forward, and that Supply, which was the proper business of the country, would be brought on at a reasonable period of the Session. The main issue between the Government and the Opposition was this: that the Government were for pressing forward their own measures, while the Opposition wore for doing the ordinary business of the country, and the Opposition would take every step possible, consistent with the ordinary Rules of the House, to press on Supply, which, as he had said, it was the first duty of Parliament to deal with.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: The hon. Member says I can be very moderate and conciliatory when I have an object to gain. Well, I have an object to gain in this case, and that is that the law shall be observed, in view of which this Vote on Account is proposed, in order that the proper payments may be made. I have asked what will happen if the Vote on Account is not taken to-day, and I have been told that the result would be that it would he impossible to pay the Irish Constabulary—a result which, I am sure, hon. Gentlemen opposite would not wish to bring about. I do not desire, however, to enter into any

    1351
    recrimination or any controversial matter, and I only rose to explain to the House how they are situated. Debate cannot take place on the Vote on Account on Thursday, but it may be taken tomorrow. The hon. Member asks for an undertaking that we will not bring forward another Vote on Account. I am afraid I cannot give that undertaking, but I agree with him generally in the view that, after a Vote on Account, unless there are exceptional circumstances intervening, we ought to go on with regular Supply.
    MR. HANBURY: Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to proceed with Supply at the end of April?
    MR. WEIRdid not wish to adopt, the course the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Hanbury) had declared it to be his intention to follow—namely, to retard the Business of the House. He, however, desired to support the proposal of the hon. Member for Peterborough, and he could not sit there without making a protest against the way in which inquiries into fatal accidents were managed in Scotland. The hon. Member assumed that there was something radically wrong in the Scotch system; but he (Mr. Weir) could assure him that there was no need at all for assumption—things were radically wrong. The policy of "hush up" had been adopted in Scotland for years in these matters, and it prevailed to-day. Procurators Fiscal were often the agents of the landlords, and therefore it suited their purpose to hush up important facts. He referred to the case of a clergyman at Portree, whose death resulted from a fall on a dark night between a steamer and the quay Avail; and because he had a small flask in his pocket the rumour was circulated that he was under the influence of liquor. As there was no public inquiry, there was no chance of contradicting this foul and calumnious report. Inquiry by the Procurator Fiscal ought to be abolished, or it should be conducted in public. [Cries of "Divide!"] He reminded the hon. Gentlemen who cried "Divide" that he had occupied less time than the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    MR. ASQUITH: On this Motion to reduce my salary, perhaps the House will allow me to say a few words. First with regard to the remarks of the hon.
    1352
    Baronet opposite (Sir F. Milner). It is not necessary that I should say much, as he did not attack my administrative conduct in the least. On the contrary, he appears to be rather pleased with what I have done. If I did not mistake him, I think he even applied the epithet "statesmanlike" to the regulations affecting Trafalgar Square. It is flattering to me that the hon. Baronet should have thought it worth while to occupy 10 minutes of the time of the House in arguing whether or not in two public extra-Parliamentary utterances of mine I was or was not consistent with myself. I believe, however, that they were consistent. There was no inconsistency either in the two statements of mine which the hon. Baronet has referred to. What I said upon both occasions was this, in substance, that there was no case, in my judgment, in what took place in 1887 to justify the permanent exclusion of the people of London from the privilege of public meeting in Trafalgar Square. I did admit, and I admit now, that there was abundant reason in what took place in 1887 to justify temporary restriction and permanent regulation. I have adopted the plan of permanent regulation, and I am glad to say that, up to the present moment—and we have nearly got to the end of the winter—the new system, having been tried for several months, has completely answered our expectations. There has not been a single case of disorder or of abuse in connection with the meetings that have been held in the Square, owing to the admirable tact and good temper of the police on the one side, and the equally admirable good temper and spirit of moderation of the people of London on the other. We have established a modus vivendi which I venture to hope will be permanently satisfactory. I say nothing more with reference to that. Now I come to the much more serious question raised by the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. A. C. Morton) as to the accident that took place at Newbattle. I think my hon. Friend has confused two things totally distinct. The first is the desirability of public inquiry in Scotland into fatal accidents, and the second is, as to whether I, as head of the Home Office, am bound to lay a confidential Report by a subordinate on the Table of the House. As to the expediency of public inquiry,

    1353
    I go a great length with the hon. Gentleman. I regret very much that the law of Scotland differs from the law of England on this matter. The English system of public inquiries in case of an accident, where evidence is taken on oath and cross-examination allowed, I regard as one of the best safeguards against abuse, and one of the best securities for the maintenance of the protection which is necessary in the prosecution of dangerous employments like that of mining. I do not think I have ever made any promise on this question; but so far as my own personal opinion goes, if I were approached on the subject, I should give an answer very much in the sense indicated.
    MR. PICKARDthought the right hon. Gentleman had made a promise to a deputation of minors the other day.
    MR. ASQUITH: The point upon which I said I thought the law of England and Scotland ought to be assimilated was with reference to juries in Sheriff' Courts, in actions under the Employers' Liability Act in Scotland. They cannot have a jury in the Sheriff Court, and I say that is an absurd anomaly. It has never been the practice to lay on the Table confidential Reports from Mining Inspectors. Such a course would greatly hamper the freedom of the Inspectors in expressing their opinions. After reading with great care the Report with reference to the Newbattle accident, I have come to the conclusion that, however regrettable the accident was, there was no case of infringement of the law.
    MR. MORTONasked the Lord Advocate if he had anything to say on the subject?
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR,)said that, according to the system which prevailed in Scotland, there was an investigation held by the Procurator Fiscal, and reported to the Crown Office. With regard to all deaths which were not clearly due to natural causes, the primary object of these inquiries was to see whether there was or was not any case for instituting criminal proceedings. That had been generally satisfactory in Scotland, apart from the particular case of accidents. In the last Commission which sat upon this question, and which reported in 1870 or 1871, the result of the evidence was to show that there was no reason why a
    1354
    system of Coroner's inquests should be introduced into Scotland. He was quite aware that a somewhat different feeling existed in regard to fatal accidents occurring in great and important industries, and in some cases, where such accidents had occurred, resulting in the loss of many lives, inquiries had been held under special Commissions issued by the Home Office or the Scottish Office. He instanced the cases of the Blantyre and Mauricewood mining accidents, and the capsizing of a steamer in the Clyde immediately after launching, in regard to which public inquiries had been held. It was felt by many persons that that very exceptional course did not cover the whole ground, and that, having regard to the object in view, public inquiries in regard to accidents should be instituted. If that should appear to be the prevalent desire of the people of Scotland, the Government would most sympathetically consider it, and take steps for carrying it out. He thought what had passed that day, and what one heard otherwise, made it very fit that the special case of accidents should be reconsidered.
    MR. A. C. MORTONsaid, he should like to know whether the Secretary for Scotland was in accord with the Home Secretary and the Lord Advocate in regard to public inquiries?
    SIR G. TREVELYANsaid, he was agreed in principle with the Home Secretary that in all cases of fatal accidents there ought to be publicity, and that the measures necessary to bring that about should be inquired into. He approved of legislation in the matter.
    MR. A. C. MORTONsaid, he was satisfied with the answers of the right hon. Gentlemen, and he would withdraw his Motion for the reduction of the Vote, and he desired that they would understand that in bringing the matter forward he had not intended to in any way reflect personally on the hon. Gentleman.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    Original Question again proposed.
    MR. LEGHsaid, he had a Motion on the Paper to reduce the Vote for the Foreign Office by £100 in order to call attention to a grievance suffered by the junior members of the Diplomatic Service.

    1355
    Some Members might not be aware of the fact that when candidates had passed their examination for the Service they were employed in the Foreign Office for two years without receiving pay. Up to quite recently, on the expiration of those two years, these young men received a salary of £150 a year, and upon passing an examination in International Law an additional allowance of £100 a year. When the Royal Commission on the Civil Service sat a few years ago they recommended that this allowance of £100 a year should be discontinued, and in its place that their payment as attachés should commence when their examination was passed and they began to fulfil their duties. Now he observed that the authorities had adopted one portion of the recommendation and had rejected the other; in other words, they had cut off £100 a year from the salaries of the Third Secretaries, and these Secretaries did not receive, as formerly, the additional allowance of £100 a year for passing the examination in International Law after they had served their two years. He thought it would be admitted that these gentlemen had been treated in an exceptionally shabby manner. If it had been proposed that from the salaries of persons holding high positions there should be taken off £1,000 a year it would be found very difficult to carry out the recommendation. Unfortunately, the young men whose case he was pleading had not many friends. Theirs was a case of undoubted hardship which called for some remedy, and unless he received a favourable answer, if he could secure a Teller, he should press the matter to a Division.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Item of £6,000, for the Foreign Office, be reduced by £100."—(Mr. Legh.)
    SIR E. GREYsaid that, undoubtedly, the hon. Member had a case, and he would not say that he had stated it unfairly, but at the same time he hoped he would not go to a Division on the point, which was one upon which it was not necessary to detain the Committee at any length. It was true the Royal Commission recommended that the additional payment of £100 a year to those attachés who passed in International Law should be discontinued, and that the Government had
    1356
    not thought it right to disregard the recommendation. The Commission also recommended that equivalent compensation should be made after the allowance had been discontinued. It was felt by those who had to do with the matter that there had been a delay in carrying out the second part of the recommendation, but that delay did not altogether originate with the present Government; it was caused by a fact which always led to delay—namely, the fact that the change would occasion additional expenditure. The original allowance having been discontinued, it was necessary to obtain money to effect the compensation, and that had caused the delay. He could assure the hon. Member that the delay was felt by the Government to be a matter of regret, and when the hon. Member asked for an explanation he (Sir E. Grey) hoped he would accept the assurance that the matter was receiving serious attention. He (Sir E. Grey) hoped the hon. Member would not press his Motion to a Division.
    COLONEL LOCKWOODasked whether the hon. Baronet was in a position to say that a remedy would be absolutely applied? It was not sufficient to say that the delay was felt to be a matter of regret. Would the hon. Baronet consider the case of these Civil servants at once?
    SIR E. GREYsaid, their case was being considered now, and his regret was that it had not been possible earlier to bring that consideration to an end. He was anxious to bring the matter to a satisfactory conclusion, and he could assure the hon. Member that it was not lost sight of.
    COLONEL LOCKWOOD: Can the hon. Baronet name a date when this compensation will be paid?
    SIR E. GREYsaid, he could not do that. He could only say that the Government were doing their utmost to bring the matter to a satisfactory settlement.
    COLONEL LOCKWOODasked whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer could say when the matter would be settled?
    MR. WOOTTONISAACSONasked whether the Report of Supply would be taken to-morrow? If so, he would postpone some

    1357
    observations he wished to make on this Vote.
    MR. JACKSONsaid, he understood from the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs that the delay did not rest with his Department, but the hon. Baronet had not answered the question as to when a decision would be arrived at. The question was: Would those who were entitled to the money receive it when a decision was arrived at? The subject was one of importance, and, though he did not wish to press it unduly, he thought that some one on the Treasury Bench should be able to answer the hon. and gallant Member.
    SIR E. GREYsaid without hesitation he could state that he had intended to convey to the Committee that the consideration which was being given to the subject was with a view to providing fun Is to make this compensatory allowance.
    MR. HOZIERasked whether the hitch was in the Foreign Office or at the Treasury, because, if at the latter, his experience as an old Foreign Office man taught him that the Foreign Office was only too glad to be backed up by the House against the Treasury.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 74; Noes 299.—(Division List, No. 50.)
    Original Question again proposed.
    BARON H. DE WORMS: Mr. Mellor——
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: Mr. Mellor, I claim to move "That the Question be now put."
    THE CHAIRMAN: Considering the exigencies of the Public Service, I do not think that I ought to withhold this matter from the judgment of the Committee.
    Motion made, and Question put, "That the Question be now put."
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 253; Noes 135.—(Division List, No. 51.)
    Original Question put accordingly, and agreed to.
    MR. GOSCHEN: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman when the Report of the Vote will be taken?
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: Tomorrow, but we have no power to give it precedence to-morrow.
    MR. GOSCHEN: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman may be able to inform us why notice cannot be given to-night that the Report will be taken as the first Order to-morrow. The light hon. Gentleman will remember that last Wednesday the Appropriation Bill was taken as the first Order, and I cannot see why the Report of the Vote on Account should not also be taken as the first Order, especially in view of the fact that it has been closured after only about £400,000 have been discussed, while about £3,000,000 remains still to be discussed. The greater part of the time this afternoon has been occupied by Members on the Government side of the House. On one occasion two Ministers followed each other, and were followed after a minute, or two by a third. I only mention this to show that no fault whatever attaches to this side of the House, if the proceedings have been prolonged this afternoon. In order to give a fair opportunity to gentlemen who have been deprived of the right of discussing the Vote in Committee, and in the interests of fair play, I venture to suggest that the Report should be taken the first thing to-morrow.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: The Appropriation Bill was put down last week as the first Order because it was presumed, and, indeed, Mr. Speaker stated, that that stage of the Appropriation Bill was not contentious business. The Vote on Account has been discussed at length; but if it is taken at half-past 5 tomorrow, it can be discussed at any further length, and it can also be discussed on Thursday, so that really there can, practically speaking, be two days' discussion upon it if that is desired.
    MR. GOSCHEN: I only wish to put this to the right hon. Gentleman: that there was no such exigency of the Public Service, and that it was in the power of the right hon. Gentleman to have given us Wednesday for the Committee. [Cries of "Spoke!"]
    SIR W. HARCOURT: The power of going on after half-past 5 applies to the Report and not to the Vote. That is why we could not put the Vote down to-morrow, but could the Report.
    SIR M. HICKS-BEACH: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that after half-past 5 we shall have any opportunity of discussing it?
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: There will be an opportunity.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: It is very unusual for gentlemen on the Front Opposition Bench to break the Rules of the House.
    MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not entitled to say that.
    Resolution to be reported To-morrow.
    Committee to sit again To-morrow.
    It being Seven of the clock, Mr. Speaker suspended the Sitting until Nine of the clock.

  EVENING SITTING.
    MOTIONS.
      LIFEBOAT SERVICE.

        RESOLUTION.
        MR. E. H. BAYLEYsaid, that in moving his Resolution calling on the Government to provide an effective lifeboat service at the public expense on the British coasts, he felt that as a new Member he ought not to occupy the time of the House at any great length. But the subject was one of national importance and interest; it was a matter of life and death to thousands in all classes of the population. The great central fact was that 700 persons were annually drowned round the coasts of Great Britain, the greater number of whom might be saved if the Government would adopt the practical and commonsense system of life-saving which was in use by the Government of the United States. The Government recognised and acted upon the principle that it was part of their duty to prevent shipwrecks as far as possible and to assist in the rescue of shipwrecked persons. They provided rocket stations all round the coast and coastguard men to work them. They provided lighthouses, lightships, and buoys. They instructed the Navy to assist ships in distress, and they distributed, through the Board of Trade, medals and other rewards to seamen for effective service in
        1360
        the rescue of life; but they stopped short at the all-important point of providing lifeboats, the reason being that a private Society, well-known as the National Lifeboat Institution, undertook this duty by means of voluntary contributions. There was one obvious objection to this, and that was that it introduced a dual control in the management of the life-saving service, which ought to be under one control and one management. The lifeboat men were under the National Lifeboat Institution, the rocket-men were under the Admiralty, thus introducing confusion, divided responsibility, and mismanagement. There were not sufficient lifeboats provided to do the work efficiently, and the lifeboat men were insufficiently paid. The brave men who did the real work on the stormy seas, rescuing lives at the risk of their own, were the more dissatisfied when they contrasted the miserable pittance which they received with the princely salaries paid to the officers of the Society, who discharged their duties in arm-chairs in London, and it might be—though he did not say it was—that the breakdowns and disasters which occurred in connection with the lifeboat service were not unconnected with this natural feeling of dissatisfaction on the part of the men. He need not refer to the lifeboat scandals which occurred not long ago at Sandgate, Shoreham, Southport and elsewhere, but he would remind the House of what he witnessed himself near Ilfracombe a few years ago. There a vessel was wrecked; there was a lifeboat within a stone's throw, but the crew were stationed at a place seven miles away, and by the time they could be fetched all the people on the vessel were drowned, or had been rescued by people on shore by other means. What was wanted was a unification of the management; the Government had promised they unification of London, but surely a unification which affected the lives of hundreds of people was fully as important as the amalgamation of Metropolitan Governing Bodies. Let them contrast this muddling method with the splendid system which prevailed in the United States. That system saved 80 per cent. more lives than were saved by the voluntary system which preceded it, and which was similar to the present system in this country. All

        1361
        round the coast of America there were lifeboat stations and observatories, and at each station were two lifeboats. The stations wore fitted with all kinds of appliances: beds were provided for the use of the rescued, and there were means for restoring to life the apparently drowned. The captain of the lifeboat was permanently stationed on the spot, and during what was called the "active" season the crew were also kept there, ready to be sent out at a moment's notice. They were constantly drilled, and a high state of efficiency was maintained.
        Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present,
        MR. BAYLEYcontinuing, said, he would read a paragraph from a Report by Mr. Sumner I. Kimball, the General Superintendent of the United States' Service, which showed the value of the system. It ran as follows:—
        "How well this purpose is fulfilled has been repeatedly illustrated on occasions of rescue, but never better than in the memorable storm of February 3, 1880, which wrought general ruin and devastation upon the coast of New Jersey, and strewed her shores with wrecks. In the very height of that terrible tempest at the dead of night the crews of three separate stations rescued without mishap the people on four different vessels by means of the apparatus set up and worked in almost utter darkness, the lanterns of the surfmen being so thickly coated with sleet that they emitted only glimmers of light, so feeble that the lines and implements could not be seen. These and the other rescues achieved in the storm excited such public admiration that the State Legislature unanimously passed resolutions commending the skill and bravery of the station crews."
        Later on the Report proceeded—
        "Next to the success of the service in saving life, that of its efforts in saving property is conspicuous. This is accomplished in getting vessels afloat when stranded, a work in which the surfmen are experts; in extricating them from dangerous situations; in pumping them out when leaking; in running lines between wrecked vessels and tugs when it cannot be done with ordinary boats; in rendering assistance in various ways, and in warning off vessels standing into danger. In the majority of casualties the surfmen succeed in saving the vessels and cargoes without any other aid than that of the ship's crew."
        The statistics proved that with the type of life oat used in America there were few capsizes and a higher percentage of li saved. It was shown that the service saved in one year 3,068 lives and
        1362
        property worth £1,000,000. Taking the analogy of the Fire Brigade, a Brigade which, in addition to saving a large number of lives saved annually property worth five times its own working expenses, had, he thought, justified its existence. There was only one other extract with which he would trouble the House, and it was the concluding paragraph of the Report on the American system, which read—
        "It must be remembered that, putting; aside entirely the consideration of the value of human life, the system saves many times its cost in property alone, and that it fulfils the functions usually allotted to several different agencies, it rescues the shipwrecked by both the principal methods which human ingenuity has devised for that purpose, and which in some countries are practised separately by two distinct organizations; it furnishes them with the subsequent succour which elsewhere would be afforded by Shipwrecked Mariners' Societies; it nightly patrols the dangerous coasts for the early discovery of wrecks and the hastening of relief, thus increasing the chances of rescue; it places over peculiarly dangerous points upon the rivers and lakes a sentry prepared to send instant relief to those who incautiously or recklessly incur the hazard of capsizing in boats; it annually saves, unaided, hundreds of vessels with their cargoes from total or partial destruction, and assists in saving scores of others; it protects wrecked property after landing from the ravage of the elements and the rapine of plunderers; it, extricates vessels unwarily caught in perilous positions; and it averts numerous disasters by its flashing signals of warning to vessels standing into danger."
        It had also rendered valuable aid to scientific research, and contributed rare specimens of marine zoology to the National Museum. This was the American system. It was always said that the first duty of a Government was the protection of life. The American system possessed three main features—the protection of life, the protection of property, and the prevention of disasters. It was no part of his case to disparage the National Lifeboat Institution. Otherwise much might be said, especially as to the cost of management and the disparity between the amount paid to the men who did the work and the salaries of the officials. He read extracts from the Society's Reports showing that the life-boatmen, upwards of 3,000 in number, received altogether an average of £5,000 per annum, whereas the Secretary and officials received an average of £5,700 per annum. He was bound to say, in view of the relative value of the services

        1363
        rendered, that that was scarcely a fair apportionment of the rewards. The reports showed that the payment to the London officials of the Society were altogether out of proportion to the sums handed over to the crews of the lifeboats. His contention was that all the work now done voluntarily should be performed by the State. The hon. Member for Middlesbrough, who represented 80,000 sailors, had authorised him to state that he would have seconded the Resolution but for the fact that he had been called away from town. He was sorry to find that the President of the Board of Trade seemed to be opposed to the Resolution, for only a few days ago he had stated that he would oppose it, on the ground that the work could not be managed by the State so well as by a private Society. But if this were really his opinion, why did he not hand over the rocket apparatus to a private Society? The right hon. Gentleman had been promptly answered by no less an authority than the Prince of Wales, who said that the Lifeboat Institution was short of funds and required some £20,000 a year more than it was now receiving to do its work efficiently. He was afraid that some Liberal statesmen were not so Progressive on these social questions as some of the Conservatives. The right Hon. Gentleman might thwart this proposal for a time, but he predicted that sooner or later, and perhaps sooner rather than later, this plan would be adopted, and the country would have, for the salvage of life and property, a national system worthy of the greatest maritime Power in the world.
        MR. CROSFIELDsaid, the Mover of the Resolution had shown in an admirable manner how his scheme could be carried out. As a citizen of the first seaport in the country he was painfully familiar with the many dangers to which a very large proportion of the seafaring population of his native town were subject, and as a member of the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board he knew something of the difficulties in carrying on a lifeboat establishment. That Board, which was entrusted with the serious responsibility of life-saving from the dangers of the sea, had hitherto
        1364
        pursued that work with even a lavish liberality, feeling that all that money and organisation could do should be done. But he was bound to say that the efforts of even so powerful a Body had on more than one occasion met with disastrous failure. This need not, he thought, be the case, but it unfortunately happened that they had to rely upon a portion of the population who sometimes failed in the hour of need. He would not for a moment disparage the heroic spirit which many of our lifeboat men showed, but they were only mortals and the very nature of their every-day avocation rendered them liable to temptations before which they sometimes fell, so that when the moment of great stress came it had been more than once found that the men were not ready for their work. There was in that portion of the population the necessary disqualification that the severe drill under which such men ought to live was not at all times possible. If this Resolution were adopted, he believed a Department of the Government might maintain a staff of men who would not be liable to these disqualifications. There were many men, such as they saw in the Coastguard Service, who might be available for lifeboat service, but he did not think that any Society or individual could possibly maintain the service, which was absolutely necessary. He had no mandate from the Mersey Docks Board, but he had on many occasions been present when discussions on this subject had taken place, and he ventured to give it as his own individual opinion that the Board would readily hand over to a Department of the Government the appliances which they at present maintained in as good a state of efficiency as any similar establishment within the four seas. They had no temptation to surrender their responsibility to any private Society; but any such Organisation which would deserve the name of national would meet with their very hearty sympathy and very ready concurrence. He hoped that the result of the Debate would show that the Board of Trade would freely, in the interests of a very large portion of the population, undertake the serious but necessary duty which was foreshadowed in the Resolution.
        Motion made, and Question proposed,
        "That, in the opinion of this House, it is incumbent upon the Government to provide at the public expense an effective lifeboat service on the coasts of the United Kingdom."—(Mr. Edward H. Bayley.")
        MR. PENROSE FITZGERALDsaid that, although the Mover of the Resolution stated he did not desire to rebuke in any way, or find fault with, the management of the Royal National Lifeboat Institution, he maintained that the whole tenour of the speech of the hon. Member, and also the whole tenour of the speech of the hon. Member who seconded the Resolution, implied a grave dereliction of duty on the part of the Institution of which be was the humble representative in the House. It was not in accordance with prudence that they should have the lifeboat service placed under a Government Department. He maintained the work could not be done under a Government Department as economically as it was done by the Royal National Lifeboat Institution, and he doubted whether it could be performed so effectively. The Institution was of a very considerable age; it was one that deserved well of the people of the country for the good work it had done in the past, and he did not think that by a side-wind—by the adoption of such a Resolution as that before the House—it would be wise or prudent—he would go further, and say just—for the House to condemn the work voluntarily done without pay by the men who managed the Royal National Lifeboat Institution. He would read a list of the Englishmen who were the principal managers of that Institution. The committee of management was large and comprehensive, and of course it contained many distinguished persons, who, except on great occasions, did not take an immediate part in the work of the Institution, but the working portion of the committee consisted of Admirals and Post Captains who had retired from the Service of their country by reason of the Age Rule in the Navy; and, in addition to these, Board of Trade representatives and Trinity House representatives. The Chairman of the committee was unfortunately not in the
        1366
        House now, to the regret, he thought, of probably every hon. Member—politics aside—who admired Sir Edward Birkbeck for the good work he had done in the Royal National Lifeboat Institution. The names of working members of the committee were—Sir Edward Birkbeck, Colonel Fitzroy Clayton, Robert Birkbeck, L. T. Cane, Admiral Sir John Corbett, General the Right Hon. Lord de Ros, R. U. Penrose Fitzgerald, M.P., Admiral Sir Richard Vesey Hamilton, William Hearle Lyall, Admiral Sir F. Leopold McClintock, Admiral Sir Augustus Phillimore, Earl Waldegrave, Captain Sir J. Sydney Webb, Sir Richard Henry Williams-Bulkeley, and Sir Allen Young. The main committee was divided into several sub-committees, which looked after finance, boat-building, and rewards. The Institution was founded in 1824, now 69 years ago; up to the 31st December, 1892, it had saved 37,265 lives—not a bad record; and the amount of money it had received during the same period was £1,855,109. The only nation in the world which had its lifeboat service controlled by a Government Department was the United States. All the nations of Europe had more or less followed the example set by the Royal National Lifeboat Institution of England. If time allowed him to enter on a comparison between the work done by that Institution and the work performed by the State-aided service of America, it would be found that the advantage lay with the voluntary efforts of England; and he hoped the House would never deprive England of the honour and the right to spend her money and to risk the lives of her people in saving lives from shipwrecks, because, while the rich spent their money to aid the Institution, the fishermen of our coasts voluntarily risked their lives in the good work. He should like to point out to the House the expense involved by the proposal to man the lifeboat service with the men of the Royal Navy, or even by the Coastguards or Reserves. There were 304 lifeboats along our coasts, and the boats contained, each, eight or 12 oars, so that they should have at each of the stations from eight to 12 men continuously employed, whereas under the system adopted by the Institution they got the fishermen, coastguards, trawlers,

        1367
        and the men who attended the ships in the roadsteads to man the lifeboats, and only paid for services rendered, a larger award being given in cases in which life was saved than in cases in which there was no saving of life. The men were taken out for training, and the boats were overhauled at least four times a year, and very much oftener. In every particular cove, or landing place or slip, the fishermen were best acquainted with the narrows, the channels, and the dangers of the tides, and if for no other reason, it would be foolish to deprive the lifeboat service of these men with their local knowledge; to place the service under the red-tape of the Admiralty, which would fill it with men drafted from all parts of the country, who could not be so well acquainted with the local dangers of the coasts as the fishermen who passed over them day after day and night after night. The hon. Gentleman who moved the Resolution was wrong in stating that the rocket life-saving apparatus was under Trinity House; it was under the Admiralty, and was worked by the coastguards. His contention was that both services—the lifeboat and the rocket—were necessary; for at the very moment the lifeboat crew were out to a ship in distress, the coastguard men would be engaged in looking after wreckage coming ashore in the storm. It might not be generally known that, practically speaking, the only place where it was possible to use the lifeboat was where there was shallow water; and outlying dangers of sands and rocks. The lifeboat was practically useless on iron-bound coasts where the water came smack up to the rocks. It was in the latter case that the benefit of the rocket system was experienced. Of course, if telegraph communication were established between the various lightships and the shore, the lifeboat service would be improved to an enormous extent. He wished to tell the House what had occurred at the wreck of The Chicago, which was recently wrecked off the coast of Cork. The cargo consisted of a large quantity of spirits and some bacon and cotton. The men of the coastguard station were fully occupied in looking after the cargo washed ashore; and if the manning of the lifeboat had depended on the coastguards, it would have been im-
        1368
        possible to send the lifeboat to the vessel. The lifeboat did go to the vessel, but its services were not necessary. But the lights which were lit on shore by the persons protecting the wreckage deceived a ship called the Vandor, and she came on shore straight under the rocks. Fortunately, there was an efficient brigade with the rocket service at the coastguard station, and they were on the spot in 10 minutes; in 19 minutes the rocket apparatus was working, and before 40 minutes every soul on the wreck was safe on shore. It would he a pity if the House, by the adoption of the Resolution, determined to spoil the two magnificent services of the lifeboats and the rockets for the sake of a sentiment, not well-founded nor widely entertained, that the work of both should be performed by the men of the Royal Navy or the coastguards. The Royal National Lifeboat Institution looked to the public for support on account of the good work it had done in the past. He was well aware that such an Institution, administering some £70,000 or £80,000 per annum, was exposed to attacks from many quarters, but principally from un-susscesful inventors of life-saving apparatus. But no Government Department was secure from such attacks, and the National Lifeboat Institution had to meet and repel them just as the Government Departments. One of their chief difficulties was in testing and trying the apparatus submitted to them by inventors. The hon. Member who moved the Resolution spoke of the boats of the Institution as not being of the best type. That opened a very large question. There were no two points on the coasts of these islands where the same type of boat could be used. There were no two tide ways, no two sots of shores, no two currents that were exactly the same; nay, further, there were no two sets of fishermen who used the same class of boat; and, therefore, what the Institution had got to do was to place it in the power of each local committee—who worked for nothing but for the love of the cause, and without red tape; who were not attacked from one side or other of the House, because they were in or out of Office, for they were of all shades of politics—to procure the best type of boat best suited for each particular locality.

        1369
        Marine science and architecture had made enormous strides in the last few years, and the Institution had endeavoured to the best of its ability to keep step with those strides in the improvement of the lifeboats. Last year the Institution had held at Lowestoft a series of competitive trials. Coxswains were selected from the lifeboat stations in all parts of England, and wont to Lowestoft. Four types of lifeboat competed, and for months the committee waited for adverse currents of wind and storms in order to thoroughly test the boats. The coxswains were allowed to select the type of boat they thought best for each individual district; and as soon as funds permitted, the Institution intended to send to each of the districts the boat most efficient for the district, and the boat in which the men would have the most confidence. But the Institution was not satisfied that the lifeboats had been sufficiently tested, so that they started at Montrose in the winter a second series of trials. Coxswains were again brought from all parts of the United Kingdom. They came from Teignmouth, Port Isaac, Holy Island, Scarborough, Penmon, Skegness, and Boulmer. These trials of four different types of lifeboat had only concluded that evening, and, therefore, the report of the committee had not yet been received. In addition to these types of boats, a steam lifeboat had been started by the Institution. He confessed that as an old-fashioned seafaring man he had been intensely opposed to the steam launches, and had done his best to prevent the money of the Institution from being spent in such an adventure. But he had seen the steam launch tried, and he could assure the House that from first to last she was a complete success. He believed that the time was not far distant when they would have at most of the important lifeboat stations a steam lifeboat, propelled by the turbine system, but not by screws. It was quite true that America had its lifeboat service under Government control, and that they had in America signals for warning vessels off shoals. But he knew something of American lighthouses, their lightships and buoyage, and he contended that they could not compare in excellence with the lighthouses, lightships, and buoyage of the United
        1370
        Kingdom. He had no doubt that if marine invention proceeded at the same rate at which it had advanced in the past, they would have sound signals which, used in the lighthouses and lightships, would be as useful as the fog-horn on board ship. He looked with confidence to the President of the Board of Trade, for he knew the interest the right hon. Gentleman took in these matters. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be able to melt the stony heart of the Secretary to the Treasury to provide the necessary cash to establish telegraphic communication direct between the lifeboat stations and the lightships, so that in the case of a wreck it would be known exactly where to send the lifeboats, instead of letting them, wander wildly about at sea. He wished to impress on the Government the importance of establishing this communication by submarine cable, in the interest of the lifeboat service. In conclusion, he appealed to the House not to cast a slight upon the Royal National Lifeboat Institution by the adoption of the Resolution. The Institution had endeavoured to do all the good it was in its power to do with the funds entrusted to it by the nation, and he hoped the House would never attempt to dam up the contributions of Englishmen and women for the purpose of saving life through the agency of the Institution which he had the honour to represent.
        MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid, he wished to add his testimony in favour of the work done by the Royal National Lifeboat Institution. It was a mistake to suppose that every part of our coast was suitable for lifeboats. In those parts where the deep water came right up to the shore vessels were in no danger of grounding until they reached the shore; but where there wore outlying sands, such as the Goodwins, the lifeboats were required to reach the vessels outside. Local knowledge on the part of those who used the lifeboats was absolutely necessary, and it was quite impossible for the men of the Royal Navy to have that local knowledge and aptitude that wore always possessed by the local fishermen. Again, there were different types of boats used which required special handling that only could be obtained by the boatmen who used

        1371
        them from their youth up, and it would not be proper to dislodge these men from the lifeboat service in favour of those who had not been so trained. He thought that, perhaps, a contribution might be made by the Government towards the lifeboat services and the rocket apparatus service, and other matters connected with the service to ships in danger. Large sums were levied off ships in the shape of dues, but they largely went not to the Trinity House but to some clerks in Whitehall. He had interviewed Trinity House with respect to the provision of a new lightship, and they told him it was impossible to entertain the application, because they had not enough money for the purpose from the Board of Trade. He hoped the President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Mundella) would take the question into consideration, and that the House would not do anything that would remove lifeboat work from the National Lifeboat Institution, which was specially qualified to carry it out efficiently.
        THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. MUNDELLA,): The Mover and Seconder of this Motion have referred to America as an example of what we ought to follow in England. I should be sorry to say a word in derogation of the life-saving apparatus in operation in the United States. The coastline covered, as compared which ours, is enormous, and they expend something like £100,000 a year in maintaining a staff at every station, and keeping up the life-saving apparatus; compare that with what is done upon our small coast, and I cannot think there is any doubt that the work done on the coast of the United Kingdom is infinitely more efficient, more effective, and that the proportion of lifeboats to the extent of coast is much greater in this country than in any other country in the world. The hon. Gentleman the Mover of the Resolution said you would have a staff of men always attached to the boats and paid by the Government for constant attendance. What the United States complained of was that they were constantly losing their men, who left the localities in order
        1372
        to obtain more remunerative employment. Neither the Mover nor the Seconder have ventured to allege that the service performed by the National Lifeboat Institution is inefficient or insufficient. If it could be alleged there was loss of life through the lack of life-saving apparatus, or that the lifeboat service was insufficient or inefficient, there would be some claim for the Government to step in and do the work, but no one has attempted to make that statement. I did not hear anything from the Mover or Seconder in that direction. My hon. Friend the Mover of the Resolution was most anxious not to say a word against the work done by the National Lifeboat Institution. That work has been steadily growing from the date of its foundation up to to-day, and last year the service rendered was greater than in any former year; the expenditure was over £80,000, the number of lives saved was 1,026, I believe, and not a single member of any one of the crews was lost during the whole of that service. That shows the efficiency of the service, to say nothing of the number of ships that were saved, and the crews of which were assisted. It shows the greatest efficiency on the part of the National Lifeboat Institution. I would like to ask the House, Is the luxury of doing good to be left exclusively to Government Departments; are we to do nothing either in the way of benevolence, or heroism, or of good service to the nation except through a Government Department? Is the Government to become a special providence for everyone? I venture to say, with respect to the National Lifeboat Institution, there is not an Institution in the whole of the United Kingdom that has more right to be called a National Institution than this. The whole of the people of these islands are entirely in sympathy with the work of this Institution. There is a growing interest in this work, as is seen from such movements as the "Lifeboat Saturday" and the "Lifeboat Sunday" collections, and the dwellers in the towns take the deepest interest in the lifeboats sent from their own neighbourhoods, and maintained at the expense of a particular neighbourhood, and certainly it is a good thing there should be this sympathy between the dwellers of the town and the seafaring population. I do not know whether the Mover and

        1373
        Seconder have thought of the fact that it is most desirable that the crews who man the lifeboats and render these great services should be residents on the spot and know all the intricacies and danger of the coast. That is one of the most important things—that the men should be resident; and as they are mostly fishermen or seamen resident on the spot, they are acquainted with their part of the coast, and know all the dangers they have to contend against. The Mover of the Resolution asked, as we are believers in the voluntary system, why do we not hand over the rocket apparatus to the lifeboat crows? There is a very good reason for that. This apparatus has to be manned by men who have special experience, and who have been drilled and trained for the work; it requires men who know exactly how to handle the rocket apparatus, who can throw the line, and take advantage of all the machinery, so that their services may be utilised to the uttermost. They are mainly coastguard men, and even with their voluntary' service the cost comes to something like £50,000 a year, which falls upon the Board of Trade. In addition, there are the life line and patent ladder apparatus, which have rendered good service in the past year, 398 lives having been saved, according to the last Return, by this apparatus. I ask the House whether it thinks it is so easy a matter to go to the Treasury constantly for money, and I want to know whether a Government Department would evoke all the sympathy and all the heroism which has been evoked by this National Lifeboat Institution? Every hon. Member of this House, and every person in England, from time to time reads the thrilling story of the noble services these men render. It is not merely the question of the expenditure of the National Lifeboat Institution, but the men are stimulated by the honour conferred upon them by the presentation of the gold or silver medal, and by the good opinion of the country at their efforts to save life. I must ask the House to pause before it ventures to interfere with this excellent work. There are other Institutions that do a noble work, and we are glad to welcome them. For instance, there is the Royal Humane Society and the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to
        1374
        Children. The Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children has done a work which this House, with all its legislation, has not been able to accomplish, and which could not be accomplished unless we had the voluntary and national support of the people behind, and I trust we shall at least leave something to be done by national generosity and benevolence. The hon. Gentleman who moved the rejection of this Resolution, the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Penrose FitzGerald), made an appeal to be with respect to the electric communication with lightships from the shore and the rock lighthouses. I believe my right hon. Friend the Postmaster General (Mr. Arnold Morley) is connecting the lightships with the shore by electric telegraphy all round the coast, and both as to the lightships and the rock lighthouses I am sure we shall heartily co-operate in the work, as we desire to see it as perfect as the hon. Gentleman himself. We have a Committee now sitting composed of three members of the Royal Commission, one representing Trinity House, one representing the Board of Trade, and the other representing the Post Office. We are anxious that the work shall be done thoroughly, and that Committee will report upon the best means of carrying it out. We think the work can be more economically and more efficiently done by the Post Office than by outside contractors. I do not know that I can add anything more to what has been said. I can only hope that after having ventilated the question my hon. Friend will not put the House to the trouble of a Division, but will be content to allow those who are doing the work to continue it. If the work was done insufficiently or inefficiently you might come and insist upon the Government stepping in. I do not agree with the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman opposite that because we have given funds there must be Government control. Let the National Lifeboat Institution do its work, and if more has to be done let us do our own work, and I trust that, both combined, there will be nothing lacking to make everything as complete as possible for the saving of life on our coasts.
        MR. A. C. MORTONwished to call attention to one point. It was said there had not been occasions when it was found the lifeboat was inefficient. He remembered there was a case near Liverpool, not so long ago, when it was found the Lifeboat Service was not strong enough, and not able to get out to vessels in distress. He remembered having a conversation at the time with the President of the Board of Trade of the late Government, and the right hon. Gentleman went so far as to say that more assistance in the shape of tug boats was required to get the lifeboat out than was available. Everyone would acknowledge that the National Lifeboat Institution was doing a good work, and probably were doing all they could, but he thought it would be absurd to say they were doing all that was wanted, and he thought it was equally absurd to say that they were necessarily better as a voluntary institution than they would be if they became a public institution. Would any hon. Member say that the Fire Brigades were ruined because it had been found necessary to put them under a public authority? The Voluntary Fire Brigade did good work, and in some places did good work now, but it was felt they could not do the work necessary, and therefore a public authority had to take upon themselves the duty of doing the work properly. He should be sorry to interfere with the National Lifeboat Institution, but he thought in some way further assistance was required to complete the work. He was glad the Government were going to do something in the shape of electric communication between the shore and the lightships and the rock lighthouses, and he should also have been glad if the Government were able further to assist the National Lifeboat Institution, if they were not able to take the work in hand themselves. He thought also that without any great expense ships belonging to our Navy might often render service to the National Lifeboat Institution. With regard to America, there of course they had a much larger amount of coast to look after, but he was informed that the American rescue service was much more efficient than ours. [Mr.
        1376
        MUNDELLA dissented.] It was all very well for the right hon. Gentleman to shake his head, but he was informed on very good authority that the American service was more complete than ours for the reason that they spent more money upon it, and if it was required he could produce evidence to establish this. He believed in voluntary work as much as any one, and they did a good deal of it in this country, but there were occasions when it was necessary the work should be done by some stronger and better off authority than voluntary effort. He did not know whether his hon. Friend intended to go to a Division, but if he did he would vote with him. They knew there were occasions when all that was required could not be done by voluntary effort, and oven at this late hour he trusted the Government would consider whether something could not be done to help this Institution and make it as complete as their excellent sailors had a right to demand at the hands of the Government of the country.
        Question put.
        The House divided:—Ayes 67; Noes 108.—(Division List, No. 52.)

  EAST INDIA (CIVIL AND MILITARY SERVICES).—RESOLUTION.
  SIR SEYMOUR KINGrose to call attention to the grave and injurious consequences likely to ensue in the Civil and Military Services of the Indian Government from its failure to provide a compensation for the reduction of their salaries by the diminution of the value in the rupee, and to move that a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the matter. He ventured to say the cause he had to plead that night was of greater importance than any that had been brought to the attention of the House for a long time. The cause he spoke of was that of six thousand of our fellow-countrymen in India who, under immense difficulties, were carrying on the government of that great Dependency, and whom an unforeseen and utterly incalculable event had reduced at the present time to a position of well-nigh bankruptcy. He doubted if the House knew the amount of the fall in the gold value of the rupee.

  1377
  Whilst the rupee formerly represented 2s., it now represented only 1s. 2½d. What that meant was that every man in the Indian Service to-day was receiving five mouths' less salary a year than he contracted for. In other words, 40 per cent. of salary was lost by the fall in the rupee. Then silver did not buy as much now in India as it did a few years ago, for the price of most commodities had risen. The result was that men with medium incomes under £1,000 had to make sacrifices which entailed loss of health and of physical efficiency; their wives had to struggle against hardships which amounted almost to a condition of poverty, and their children could only be given an inferior education, where they were given any at all. They had heard a good deal lately as to model employers. It had been said that the State should be a model employer of labour. He should be ashamed of himself as an employer of labour if he treated his employés in India as the Government treated theirs. There was not a firm of the first rank in India which had not compensated its servants for the fall in the rupee. In these circumstances, it was ridiculous to talk about the State being model employers. The Government extended a different treatment to their Dockyard employés, and he asked, were not their Indian officials to receive that consideration to which they were entitled simply because they had no votes? He had ventured to circulate among Members a statement as to the case of the Indian officials, in which he quoted a number of cases taken at random. He could read, if time permitted, dozens of communications which he had received, all disclosing cases of the greatest hardship. The discontent among the European servants in India would, if continued, lead to inefficiency, and, as a consequence, the administration of India must suffer. Those who knew India were aware how easily a little slackness, or neglect, or carelessness in the Public Works Department, the Revenue Department, or the Forest Department might lead to the loss of millions of rupees to the Government, and for that reason it would be wise to grant the small sum that would bring back the Civil servants to a state of content. In the existing condition of things men were crowding on to the pension
  1378
  list, and that was an important point for the consideration of the authorities both in India and at home. The time had come when the pay in India was no longer a temptation to remain in the Service, and the result would soon be seen in a crowded pension list and an increase of the home charges. He should like to read to the House a paragraph from a Memorandum by Lord Roberts to the Viceroy of India. Lord Roberts said—
  "Should the present condition of affairs continue, or become worse, I have grave reason to apprehend that the morale, the position and the general efficiency of the officers of the Army in India, will be seriously effected."
  The evil was really admitted. The Government of India itself admitted it. The Viceroy, speaking the other day to a deputation, said that—
  "The Indian Government was convinced that it could not ask public servants to tolerate for an indefinite period the distress borne with so much self command for some time past."
  Lord Wenlock had spoken to the same effect. It was easy to say that men went into the Indian Service with a certain risk, but he said there was not a man who went into this Service who anticipated that the exchange would fall from 2s. down to 1s. 2½d. He had a Circular in his hand, issued by the authority of the Indian Office, pointing out the advantage to be gained by going into the Indian Service, and quoting the pay at 2s. to the rupee. This Circular was issued with the view of inducing a high class of men, such as University men, to enter the Service. That was the way these men were induced to enter the Indian Service. Here, then, was a clear case of substantial injury, and a case for equitable compensation—an evident necessity that something ought to be done to save a great Service from grave injustice and discontent. He saw by The Indian Gazette, received by the last mail, that it had been resolved that the furlough pay, or absentee allowance, should be made at the rate of 1s. 4¾d. per rupee, and this fact was an admission that it was necessary to do something in the matter. It had been stated that they should wait for the Report of the Herschell Commission before taking action. They might as well wait for the Greek Kalends. The Herschell

  1379
  Commission had nothing whatever to do with the solution of the difficulty. The Civil servants felt they could wait no longer, and in their despair they appealed to the House for some relief. Were they to go on waiting for a solution month after mouth, year after year, getting poorer and weaker, with their children uneducated, and their wives reduced almost to poverty? Such a condition of things was not worthy of a great Government. The duty of a Government was to make up their minds on the question for themselves, and that question was whether they were prepared to allow their servants in India to remain in a state of demoralisation or to grant them some relief. Many suggestions had been made as to the remedy best calculated to deal with the difficulty. He would ask the Government to appoint a Select Committee to consider what was the best remedy. If such a Committee were appointed he would undertake to prove before it every word and fact he had stated. The servants of India, for whom he spoke, recognised the difficulties of the Government of India. They did not ask for impossible compensation, and they did not desire to embarrass the Government. Their whole record showed conclusively that the servants of India had borne their suffering to the last moment, until this strain had become intolerable and the breaking point had been reached. They most loyally desired to help the Government and not to cause it the least trouble. Upon the amount of the furlough allowance depended the power of the Civil servants in India to come home to this country on furlough, which was absolutely necessary for the health of nine out of ten of them, and all they asked for now was that their absentee allowances should be paid at a fixed rate of exchange of 1s. 9d., and that one-half of their salaries, with a fixed limit of £600 a year, should be allowed to be remitted home at the same rate of exchange. He did not ask the House to pledge itself to any particular remedy; all he asked was that it should express an opinion that there was a case for inquiry by a Select Committee. His hon. Friend the Member for Finsbury intended to move an Amendment to the effect that if any fixed rate of exchange should be determined upon by that House
  1380
  or by the Secretary of State for India the difference between such rate and the market rate should not become a burden upon the Indian taxpayer. It was satisfactory to him to note that his hon. Friend did not deny that there was a case demanding relief, only he proposed that the relief should come from the English Exchequer. It was always easy to be generous at other people's expense. His hon. Friend reminded him of the lines—
  "Willing to wound, and yet afraid to strike,
  Just hint a fault, and hesitate dislike."
  It would be better if his hon. Friend associated himself with some of the best opinion in India on this matter. The Hindu Patriot, a fair and legitimate exponent of Indian opinion, said—
  "The undoubted hardships suffered by Europeans in India, who are paid in the currency of one country while they are obliged largely to support their families in that of another, claim our commiseration upon a totally different ground, and we by no means withhold it."
  The article pointed out that the Government of Bengal had recognised the fact that the rupee no longer bought the same quantity of rice, and had raised the pay of certain classes of officers in inferior service in proportion to the rise that had taken place in the price of food grains.
  "There may be differences of Indian opinion as to the number of Europeans who should be employed in the superior Administration. But there is no difference of Indian opinion as to the necessity of drawing those officers from the best available sources of supply, or as to the danger of demoralising their Indian career into a life-long pecuniary embarrassment, and into a perpetual temptation to the devices to which such a condition gives rise."
  In The Statesman, there was a similar passage in which, speaking of the Viceroy's reply to the deputation, it said—
  "It shows that the Government are not prepared to accept the alternative of a discontented service, or of a service composed of cheaper material, but holds that, in default of other remedies, it will be under an obligation to compensate its European employés in every branch of the Administration for the loss inflicted upon them by the depreciation of the currency in which they are paid."
  Whatever differences he might have with his hon. Friend on this question, his hon. Friend ought to support him in asking for an inquiry by a Select Committee, because he could urge his remedies and suggest to that Committee that the Ex-

  1381
  chequer of this country ought to bear the burden. He was sure the House itself would never listen to such a proposal. India was not so poor a country as his hon. Friend would lead the House to suppose. There were few countries which could compare with India in all those tests by which one judged whether a country was rich or poor. During the last 30 years she had imported bullion on balance to the extent of £387,000,000 sterling, or at the rate of £11,250,000 a year; her trade had increased at the rate of 22·25 per cent., and her cultivated area had increased from 100 per cent. in Burma and Assam to 20 per cent. in Oudh. The ryot class enjoyed a considerable share in the increased profits of agriculture, and the wages of the labouring class and of domestic servants had risen. In every point he could prove that the wealth of India had increased within the last 30 years in the most satisfactory manner. No doubt the Indian Exchequer at the present moment was temporarily embarrassed by the sudden fall in the rupee. But there were also other causes for this, such as excessive home charges, and excessive military expenditure, with which he should be glad to deal on another occasion. He held that a further reduction in the European staff was impossible. Our hold on India and its peace and prosperity depended on the purity and efficiency of our administration in that country; its purity and efficiency depended on the quality, the integrity, the zeal, and contentment of our European agents: these largely depended on their being adequately paid and kept from anxieties and temptations which had a double force in the conditions of Indian life. On behalf of those gentlemen, therefore, he asked, in the interests no less of England than of India, that the House should, by a Select Committee, inquire into the circumstances he had so imperfectly sketched out to it, and recommend such measures as should save one of the finest, and most noble Services in the world from suffering and degradation.
  MR. CARSON: I rise with very great pleasure to second the Motion that has been so eloquently moved by the hon. Member. I do not profess to have any technical knowledge
  1382
  whatsoever upon the question of currency, but it appears to me that the subject of bimetalism and monometalism has nothing in the world to do with the question of the House doing justice to those who serve them in India. I venture however, to assert to the House that as the Member for the University of Dublin I happen to represent perhaps more than any other hon. Member in this House many of those who are serving us in India. Any person who is at all acquainted with our University life in Ireland will bear me out in this, that we have supplied for the Service in India, whether the Civil Service or the Military Service, all our best men, the men who have attained the highest distinction in the various schools to which they belong, and who have been led away to join your Service in India by the promises you held out to them, and by the prospect put before them of making a competency for themselves, and enabling them to educate their children. When that is the case, and where you have got our best men upon the promises of certain recompense for undergoing the risks and dangers they are prepared to undergo in joining your Service in India, and when it is admitted that these men have served the country faithfully and well, I can imagine no more important subject being brought before the notice of Parliament than the question of what is to be done, in view of the fait that circumstances, have arisen which practically take away half the pay promised to them on entering into the Service. We are always met by the statement that in India the value of the rupee is practically as much as ever it was. Well, I believe that is not a correct statement. In the present day, when the means of communication between the various countries are so easy, it is impossible that gold should be appreciated to the extent it is in England and the Dependencies of England, and that the rupee silver currency should maintain the same value even in India itself as it had originally. But even conceding that the value of the rupee in India remains the same, I say we have put before yon a specific grievance with regard to furlough allowances and the transmission of money which cannot be affected by the value of the rupee in India, and we say, as regards these two

  1383
  matters at all events, there is a very great hardship to those men who are serving us in India, and who have been brought there under the inducements I have already pointed out. The questions comes to this. You have hitherto had from our Universities our very best men for your Services in India. They have served you in the best possible way—do out want our best men in the future? I can assure the House that I have had many letters from those of my constituents who are in India asking me to warn University students not to be led into joining the Indian Services upon the representations which are set before them by the British Government, and it does appear to me to give rise to very serious consideration if our young men in the University are to be deterred from joining your Service by reason of having promises made to them which are not likely to be realised. I really do think that when we ask the Government to accede to the appointment of a Committee of Inquiry into the matter they should do so, because we are really asking very little. I hope the hon. Gentleman who represents the Indian Department in this House so worthily will not for one moment refuse an inquiry into the grievances of those servants of the country who are unable to come forward to agitate in the way that persons can agitate in this country, and who very soon have their grievances listened to. As has been well said, those who serve us in India have no votes. Yes, and it does appear to me that this House is being gradually turned into a medium for considering solely those who have votes, whilst the go-by is given to those who have no votes. We have had, I think, a lamentable instance of that in the few nights' Debate that has lately occurred. ["Order, order."] The question is a very germane one—the question of the Army, whose grievances have been passed by entirely in this House solely because it has no influence in the country, by reason of the men having no votes. [Opposition cheers, and "Order, order!"] This Government, if anything, is essentially a Government of Inquiry, and, Sir, with all the laurels they have obtained by instituting inquiries, I think they may very well add one more laurel to those already obtained by granting the
  1384
  Motion of my hon. Friend. I have great pleasure in seconding the Motion, and I feel assured that the grievances felt by those who are serving us in India will receive favourable consideration.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the effect of the diminution of the gold value of the rupee on the Civil and Military Services of the Indian Government."—(Sir Seymour King.)
  MR. NAOROJI: The hon. Member for Hull told us in very emphatic language of the sufferings of the Anglo-Indian Services in India. I do not blame him for that. Not only he, but even the Viceroy in his long speech went over the same ground, and in as emphatic a manner as possible pourtrayed what he called the sufferings, and hardships, and cruel wrongs of the Anglo-Indians, and in every way possible emphasised the demands of the Anglo-Indian servants. But it never occurred to either the hon. Member for Hull or the Viceroy that there is another side to the picture. And if these Anglo-Indians are suffering, there are also other people who are suffering far more. What is the position of the Indians themselves from the fall in this exchange? Have the hon. Member or the Viceroy, or any of the English gentlemen who are talking about this subject, given a single thought to the effect which is being produced upon the people of India? "Certainly not," as I suppose you would say. [Cries of "No!" "Certainly!" and "Oh! oh!"] Here is this long statement by the hon. Member for Hull, in which he has pourtrayed in very strong terms the sufferings of the Anglo-Indian servants, but he has not said one single word as to what the Indians them-selves have suffered. And not only the hon. Member, but the Viceroy also—as I have already said—emphasised as strongly as possible the sufferings, and used all the strong words to be found in the English vocabulary with regard to the hardships of the English servants, but in these long speeches there has not been one word of pity or sympathy with regard to those from whose pocket whatever is demanded has to be paid and what these people themselves have already suffered. Lord Macaulay has said that "the heaviest of

  1385
  all yokes is the yoke of the stranger." ["Oh, oh!"] So long as this House does not understand that the yoke as it, at present exists practically in India is "the heaviest of all yokes," India has no future, India has no hope. [Loud cries of "Oh, oh!"] You may say "Oh, oh!" but you have never been, fortunately—and I hope and pray you may never be—in the condition in which India is placed in your hands. ["Oh, oh!"] Wait a little, please. The saddest part of the picture is that while the British people and the British Parliament do not wish and have not willed that India shall be governed on the principle of "the heaviest yoke is the yoke of the stranger," yet it is so. It is distinctly laid down what the policy is to be, and this Parliament has actually willed 60 years ago that the rule over India ought to be the rule of justice, righteousness, beneficence. That was repeated again in the great Proclamation of 1858. But what has been the actual practice? What has been done by those who have been thus instructed? The actual practice has been to make this yoke the heaviest yoke—"the yoke of the stranger." ["Oh, oh!"] Has the hon. Gentleman who cries "Oh!" ever been in such a condition as we are? If he has not he can never understand it. I pray that you may never feel that yoke You have been free from it ever since the time when the Normans became assimilated with the English people [Cries of "Question!"] From that] time forward you have been a free people, and I hope and pray you may ever remain so. But, at the same time, it is difficult for you to even surmise the condition of the people of India. If is within your power to make this rule a rule of justice and honour, and at the same time beneficent and profitable, both to yourselves and to us. But I cannot now enter further into that point. The hon. Member for Hull introduced the subject of the poverty of the people of India and treated it with a light heart. That is exactly the question that has to be fought out by me upon the Floor of this House, but the time is not now. I cannot now enter into a Debate upon that point, because you, Mr. Speaker, would very properly call me to Order. I can only intimate my point, and give you some
  1386
  high testimony upon that subject. I will not go into my own reasons, but only quote you the testimony of some of the highest financiers of India. First of all, a Viceroy like Lord Lawrence has distinctly stated in those words—it was in the year 1864—
  "India is, on the whole, a very poor country. The mass of the population enjoy only a scanty subsistence."
  Then, again, in 1873, he repeated his opinion before the Finance Committee—
  "That the mass of the people were so miserably poor that they had barely the means of subsistence. It was as much as a man could do to feed his family, or half feed them, let alone spending money on what might be called luxuries or conveniences."
  Thou, coming down to a more recent date—to the days of Lord Cronier—these are the words of Lord Cromer in 1882—
  "It has been calculated that the average income per head of population in India is not more than Rs.27 a year. And though I am not prepared to pledge myself to the absolute accuracy of a calculation of this sort, it is sufficiently accurate to justify the conclusion that the tax-paying community is exceedingly poor. To derive any very large increase of revenue from so poor a population as this is obviously impossible, and, if it were possible, would be unjustifiable."
  Later on this authority goes on to show the extreme poverty of the mass of the people. Then he reverts back again to the question of the Salt Tax in India—
  "He would ask hon. Members to think what Rs.27 per annum was to support a person, and then he would ask whether a few annas was nothing to such poor people."
  There is the testimony of your highest Finance Minister, Lord Cromer, who is able to give a very satisfactory account of the work he is doing in Egypt, but was not able to give much encouragement as to India. And when we ask for information from the Government that would satisfactorily show whether, under the most highly praised administration in the world, and after 100 years of this administration, India is poor or not, a Finance Minister as late as 1882 expresses the same opinion as was expressed long ago. Nothing more can be said than that India is extremely poor. These are the words of your own Finance Ministers. Now take the conclusion to which Lord Cromer came in 1882, an extract from

  1387
  which I have read to you with regard to the income of India being not more than Rs.27 per head per annum. This calculation is based upon a Note prepared by the present Finance Minister, and I ask the Government of India, I ask the Under Secretary of State for India, for a Return here in this House of that Note. It is only by complete information given by the Government in conformity with the requirements of this House, which requires that a complete statement of the moral and material progress of India should be laid upon the Table every year, that hon. Members can become acquainted with the actual condition of India. We have it every year of a kind it is not worth the paper it is printed on. There is a certain half-truth line of view always expressed in it, but the information that is required is what is the actual income of the country from year to year. My wish, Sir is to compare figures and see whether the country is improving or becoming poorer. But such information as is needed is not given. I have asked for this Return, and what is the answer given? "That it is out of date." That is to say, that while this Note of 1881 was the basis upon which this public statement was made by Lord Cromer, this Return is not to be given to us. I now ask again that this Return should be given to us, and also a similar Return for 1891, that we may compare and judge whether India is really making any progress or not. Until you get this complete information before the House year by year, you will not be able to form a correct judgment as to the improvement of India. So far, we have, however, these high financial authorities telling us that India is the poorest country in the world, that it is even poorer than Russia. I trust that these facts are sufficient to satisfy hon. Gentlemen. Again, never has England spent, so far as I know, and so far as my information goes, never has there been a single farthing spent out of the British Exchequer, either for the acquirement of India, or for the maintenance of it, or administration, or in any manner connected with India, whilst at the same time hundreds of millions of the wealth of India have been constantly poured into this country. Whether any country in the world could stand such drain as India is subjected to is
  1388
  utterly out of the question. If England itself, with all its wealth, was subjected to such a drain as India is subjected to, it would be reduced to extreme poverty before long. When the necessary information is before this House I shall be able to show how during the whole of this century Englishmen themselves have pointed out that India was kept impoverished. Now, what has been the effect upon the natives of India—the taxpayers themselves—from the fall in exchange? During the 20 years from 1873 up to the present day there has been a heavy loss in exchange in the remittances for home charges. I am not hero to-night discussing the justice or injustice of the home charges; I am taking the home charges as they stand, and taking the effect upon the Indian taxpayers. The people live on a very scanty subsistence, and, according to your highest financial authorities, they are extremely poor, yet in their ordinary condition they have to pay Rs. 100,000,000 to the Anglo-Indian servants for salaries, &c., of Rs. 1,000 and upwards per annum, and salaries under Rs. 1,000 besides. There is a large military expenditure to be kept up, and you have other payments under "the system of the yoke of the stranger." All this means a great loss of wealth, wisdom, work, and capacity to India. I hope the House will be able to take all these points into consideration. Now let us see what a further heavy burden is put upon India by this fall in the exchange! There has been already, during the last 20 years, about Rs. 650,000,000 lost to the taxpayer on account of this fall of the exchange, and before next year is over it will be something like Rs. 1,000,000,000. And with these heavy burdens under which the taxpayer of India are groaning, you do not pay the slightest attention to them. You simply think of the sufferings and hardships of your own fellow-countrymen, for which I do not blame you at all. ["Oh, oh!"] It is only natural you should feel for them, but at the same time you ought to have some heart and some justice to consider from what sources this money has to be made up. You do not give a single thought to the sufferings of the men who are being ground to the very dust—as Sir Grant Duff once truly said. To

  1389
  these people who are being literally ground and crushed to dust and powder you wish to add a still heavier burden. They have already suffered greatly from these causes. Can you have the heart to do it? They are a poor people living on a scanty subsistence, merely hewers of wood and drawers of water. I can say nothing more. I leave the matter to your sense of justice, to your heart, to consider whether it is right or proper that you should put still more burdens upon these poor people already so low. I have said there has not been a single shilling spent, out of the British Exchequer upon India during all this long connection. But I should make this one exception. On the occesion of the last Afghan War the then Prime Minister, who is also now, offered and gave £5,000,000 towards the expenses that were put upon us by the War. But that was only about one-fourth of the expenses of that iniquitous war. We suffered very heavily by that Afghan War, and heavy military expenses are going on without check or hindrance. Had the British people to pay (which they must pay at least in some fair proportion), we would have heard on this very floor a great deal about them. Now the House is asked by the hon. Member for Hull to put another burden upon the Indian taxpayer. What is the use of asking this? The fact is the Viceroy has already committed himself in as strong language as he could that he would do something for the Anglo-Indians, whether the burden upon the poor taxpayers becomes greater or not. He has not said a word about the sufferings of the poor Indian taxpayer. He has not even thought of him. The only thing he said in his long speech was that he did not yet add to the taxation simply because he thought it would be a temporary difficulty. But if it became a permanent difficulty, and as the Anglo-Indian Services could not tolerate the suffering that they have been put to, then he would determine to do something for them by additional taxation. "Very well, then," says the hon. Member for Hull, "we must do something." You should not put the expense on the poor native taxpayer, who has no vote. One right hon. Member talked about the vote, and that is just
  1390
  because the poor Indian has no vote that there is so little heed for him. He is truly helpless and crushed down with every possible burden. If hon. Gentlemen here, after drawing millions from the native taxpayer, intend to put this additional burden upon him, then I can only say Heaven save him. With regard to the proposed relief, I would like to direct the attention of hon. Gentlemen to the words of the Viceroy in which he almost wholly commits himself to do something. In the face of that admission what is the good of a Committee. The Viceroy says that, whatever may be the Report of Lord Herschell's Committee, he is determined that if the present state of things continues, the distress which has been borne for some time past by the officials cannot continue to be tolerated. Well, after that you may appoint Committees, but what the result will be is perfectly clear. You have a Committee of Europeans, you have European witnesses, European interests, and all the European sympathy. We know very well what the result will be of the deliberations of such a Committee. We have had ample experience of those Committees in the past. At all gatherings which had been held, where the interests of Europeans and Indians clashed, we know very well that the Indians had gone to the wall. There has hardly been an instance in which a Commission has sat on such a matter as this, and decided in a manner that can be called impartial and unbiassed. [Cries of "Agreed, agreed!"] I can quite understand that hon. Gentlemen should become impatient. A Committee is not required to prove the cases the hon. Member for Hull has brought forward. No doubt there is a great deal of suffering, but I ask you not to drag the relief from those who are already crushed, or as he himself said, not to be liberal with other wretched people's money. I appeal to the British people in this instance to say that it is proper, right, and just that the British Exchequer should find the amount of money wanted. I will give a special reason for this. Every farthing that will be paid for this relief will be spent in this country. It will be simply passing from one hand to another. On the other hand, if you put the burden on the Indians, it means that every farthing taken out of their scanty sub-

  1391
  stance will be carried away from India to this country, and thus our distress and our poverty will be enhanced. The money given for this relief will not be spent in India, but in this country, and I appeal to your justice, to your honour, and to your conscience whether it would be right to put such additional burden on the taxpayer of India? At the present exchange he has lost nearly Rs. 1,000,000,000. I appeal to hon. Gentlemen of this House, to the British people at large, that in this case especially it will be the right and proper and humane thing to give this relief to Anglo-Indian servants from the British Exchequer. The Motion is for a Committee. You may have it, but it is merely a farce; the whole thing is a foregone conclusion. Do not put additional taxation on these poor people. The pressure at present upon them is already far too heavy. Lastly, the only effective and permanent remedy for our woes is to remove the cause—the inordinately heavy foreign agency must be reduced to reasonable dimensions—and then there will be no burden and no problem of loss by exchange. Remove the yoke of the stranger and make it the rule of the benefactor, and you will be as much blessed and benefited as we.
  MR. SCHWANN: I beg to second the Amendment.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That," to the end of the Question, in order to add the words If any fixed rate of exchange be determined upon by this House, or by the Secretary of State for India, to be allowed to the Civil and Military Services of the Indian Government, the difference between such rate of exchange and the actual market rate of exchange shall not become an additional burden on the Indian taxpayers."—(Mr. Naoroji.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. GEORGE RUSSELL,): I greatly regret that this Debate must be brought to a conclusion within a few minutes of this time, but during the short period left to me I desire to make such a reply as circumstances will permit me to make to the right hon. Gentleman opposite. I also regret that the interests of India and the India Office are not repre-
  1392
  sented more adequately on this occasion, because I cannot but be conscious that the hon. Member for Hull speaks on these subjects with the authority of not much less than life-long experience, and that with his knowledge I cannot even pretend to cope. I confess, however, I hardly felt that the same amount of authority attached to some of the observations which fell from the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Carson.) He appears to survey mankind if not from China to Peru, at any rate from Gweedore to Hindoostan. I must dissent from the sentence in his speech in which he said—if I understand him rightly—that the great and learned University he represents sends its best men into the service of India. I always understood that the best men from the University of Dublin passed to the profession of the Law, and became Irish Law Officers. But we live and learn. I am exceedingly glad to know that the vast Empire of India, with which I am officially connected, has in its service the best men from the University of Dublin. But lot me for one moment turn to the arguments which the hon. Member for Hull and the learned Member for the University addressed to the House. I will make one joint reply. I understand the hon. Member for Hull to say, and I think the hon. Member for the University agreed with him, that the grievances of the Indian Officers and servants in this matter have long been urged, and been systematically, year by year, neglected by the responsible Government. Well Sir, I cannot say what happened under the arbitrary rule of my Predecessor in Office, but the grievances of our Indian servants have certainly not been excluded from the consideration of Her Majesty's present Government. I know that till within the last three or four years the depreciation of the rupee was regarded as a standing joke—the hobby of a few crotcheteers. But that condition of things has passed away. I am certain there is not the slightest disposition to disregard or minimise this most serious question. Certainly sympathy is amply forth coming. No one would pretend to treat the grievances as imaginary or unreal, or to make them the subject of a joke. Everyone

  1393
  recognises, completely, fully, and candidly, the grievances which the hon. Member for Hull has brought before us. I think we cannot at this moment argue whether the purchasing power of the rupee in India is what it was or is less than it was. I think it will be universally admitted in the hard case given by the hon. Member for Hull, where a man has nine children at home in England, that the man is in need of sympathy, and, indeed, demands something more substantial than sympathy. The hon. Member says that when the subject dealt with in the Motion had been brought up this Session he and his colleagues were told to wait. Well, that disagreeable injunction to wait has been communicated to him and his clients by the Government through my lips, and I confess I am as sick and tired of giving that advice as he can be of receiving it. Nothing can be more distasteful to any one interested in the expedition of public business than to meet inquiries in this House by stating that the subject is under the consideration of a Committee. Still, if the House will remember for one moment who composes the Committee on Currency, which the hon. Member referred to, I do not think they will share his depreciatory tone. I will admit—everybody will admit—that this financial question, the question of the value of the rupee and the possible remedy for its depreciation, involves financial considerations of the most delicate and most far-reaching kind. The consequence is that a rash or unconsidered or mistaken action may have disastrous effects in a very wide area. I cannot admit that. A competent Committee of experts, with Lord Herschell at its head, dealing with such subjects as the currency, is not the tribunal to refer this matter to. The Currency Committee is, in a financial sense, very strongly constituted. I am prepared to admit that the deliberations of that Committee have been very long; they may be prolonged very much further. But even if the deliberations are prolonged I do not see they are adequate grounds for sneers and jests about unnecessary delay. The hon. Members of that Committee have other public works of various kinds to attend to, and they cannot proceed more quickly to a decision. They, however, are the best judges as to the conduct of their own affairs. The
  1394
  hon. Member may be assured that during the weeks—it may be months—this Committee is sitting the most constant and most conscientious care has been bestowed upon this vast question of the currency, and more particularly the interests of his clients in respect to their loss through the depreciation of the rupee. That has not for a single day been lost sight of. It may be said, that the Committee to inquire into the currency is not exactly the Committee to which a question of this kind should be referred. Certainly the two questions are not absolutely identical, but they are closely related. I think that no Committee—even such a Committee as the hon. Gentleman contemplates in his Resolution—can possibly proceed to a decision until they are possessed of the facts brought out by the Finance Committee. That would be an indispensable element in their calculations, and one which until it is forthcoming would make it impossible for them to proceed. In fact, my belief is that the most important elements in the question which the hon. Member has brought before the House are constantly before the minds of the Currency Committee, and, therefore, really such a Committee as the right hon. Gentleman seeks to be appointed is sitting. I must say that the House of Commons is overdone with Select Committees. A Government which goes in for a multiplication of Committees certainly runs some risk of not being able to know its own mind. ["Hear, hear!"] Hon. Gentlemen I see share that sentiment. Well, for my own part, I must admit I do not know what is being done by the Currency Committee, for the best of possible reasons, that at the present moment I have not been advised. I have said over and over again in answer to questions that it will not be long before the Report is presented to the House. I know it will commend itself to the serious consideration of the House of Commons, considering the distinguished qualifications of the gentlemen who compose the Committee. I think the House of Commons will be well advised to abstain from asking for the appointment of another Committee to deal with this subject until they are possessed of the Report of the Currency Committee. If the Report

  1395
  should prove to be unsatisfactory it would then be time to proceed in the direction of having another Committee. At the present moment, as things stand, we are not able to ask the House of Commons to assent to the formation of a Committee which we believe to be superfluous, and which in our opinion could not come to any profitable conclusion until the Report of the Currency Committee is forthcoming. Now, Sir, I must say one word with regard to what has been said by the hon. Member for North Finsbury. He is very anxious as the Representative of our fellow-subjects in India. [Opposition cries of "No, no!" and Ministerial cheers.] Well, Sir, there is such a thing as moral representation as well as mere political representation. The hon. Gentleman was bred and born in India, and is qualified—["No, no!"]—to speak with authority on Indian questions. His authority on such matters is at least as great as any Member in this House. I go all lengths with him in wishing to protect the pockets of Indian taxpayers. I agree with him generally we are bound in duty and honour to protect as far as it is in our power the natives of India. But if the proposition of the hon. Member for Hull is carried, the cost must fall somewhere. If it does not fall on our fellow-citizens in India it must fall on England. On which part of the Empire it should fall I will not presume at this moment to lay down the law. That he will have to settle with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I wish him all possible success. However, I am exceedingly unwilling to stand between the House and a decision, and I will conclude by saying that although I ask the House to await the decision of the Currency Committee, it has not been dismissed from my mind that even after the Currency Committee have reported it may be necessary for the Government to recommend a pecuniary compensation to its servants in India. That must not be taken to mean a pledge or a promise. I only say I do not dismiss the possibility from my mind. It is conceivable that the Report of the Currency Committee may lead us to a conclusion that some pecuniary compensation is due to our servants in India. If that is the view of the Committee, I presume it will receive the sanction of
  1396
  Government and of Parliament. In view of that possibility, I think I can appeal to the House not to support the hon. Member's Resolution. I regret that, owing to the late hour, I have not been able to expound more fully the views of Her Majesty's Government on this subject, or to avail myself of the abundant material placed at my disposal by the highly-skilled officials of the Indian Office. I only ask the House to believe that what I have said is literally true. This matter is not one which has been neglected by those responsible for the Government of India. It engages their conscientious and constant attention, and they have still the full confidence that the Committee of highly-trained experts dealing with this subject will before long guide Parliament to a practical decision consistent with the wishes and intentions of my hon. Friend.
  MR. GOSCHEN: In the few minutes that remain I wish to put a question to the right hon. Gentleman. I would first congratulate him on his speech and the ability he has displayed. I am glad to see him in his present position, and I am sure he has treated this matter with fit earnestness and in a tone which is separated by a great gulf from the manner in which the question is treated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I am afraid the Chancellor of the Exchequer regards it as a fad. I recognize, however, that the India Office treat this matter more seriously. I recognize that a Committee of great experience and financial knowledge has been appointed, and I hope their deliberations will lead to some result. I noted with pleasure what the hon. Gentleman said that something might be done for the Indian officials. Well, that is a considerable step. There is one further step which I would urge the hon. Gentleman to take. I suppose the Government do not see their way to get the consent of this Committee to inquire into the matter. They may be placed in the position of choosing three alternatives—either the decision of the Committee which is now inquiring and which would deal with this matter, or the Govern-

  1397
  meet would deal with it administratively, or, failing these two, they will have to consider whether we shall be able to have a Select Committee. I think hon. Members will see I am anxious to come to an agreement upon this matter. I do not wish to force the hand of the Government, but I think the suggestion I made would be the best one.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down cannot expect to have an answer to the somewhat elaborate question he has put. I must confess, for my own part, that with regard to a Committee of the House of Commons it is not the instrument which I think most suitable for the purpose of conducting an inquiry on the topic we have been considering. That is my own personal view. I have no authority to speak on behalf of my Colleagues. I think the right hon. Gentleman must judge for himself of the intentions of the Government from the general tone of the speech of my hon. Friend the Under Secretary, with which he avowed himself satisfied. There is no disposition on the part of the Government to treat this as a light matter, or to disregard our duty with respect to it.
  MR. C. F. ALLEN: [Cries of "Divide!"] I will not keep the House one moment. I associate myself with the hon. Member for Finsbury in the matter of his speech. I fully recognise the sufferings of the Indians, and say that any relief to Indian Civil servants should not be put on the Indian taxpayer.
  Sir Seymour King rose in his place and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put;" but Mr. Speaker withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.
  Debate resumed.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 66; Noes 131.—(Division List, No. 53.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
  It being after Midnight, the Debate stood adjourned.

  BARBED WIRE FENCES BILL.—(No. 176.)

    COMMITTEE.
    Considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    On the Motion of Mr. H. H. Fowler, the following Amendments were made:—In Clause 3, page 2, line 5, leave out "them," and insert "him"; line 7, leave out "any" and insert "such"; leave out line 8; lines 9 and 10, leave out "owner and"; line 11, leave out from "authority," to end of Clause, and insert—
    "To apply to a court of summary jurisdiction, and such court, if satisfied that the said barbed wire is dangerous to persons or animals properly using such highway, may by summary order direct the occupier to remove that wire."
    Page 2, leave out Clause 4; leave out Clause 5; leave out Clause 6; after Clause 4, insert the following Clause:—
    (Expenses of local authority.)
    "Any expenses incurred by a local authority in the execution of this Act shall be defrayed in like manner as the expenses of the local authority incurred in respect of any highways."
    New Clause—(Act not to apply to certain fences in the County of London).
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the New Clause be now read a second time."—(Mr. Kimber.)
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: I do not see why this clause should apply only to the County of London. There are many other populous neighbourhoods to which it should also apply.
    MR. KIMBER: I am willing to strike out the words "within the County of London." I beg to move the following Clause:—
    (Act not to apply to certain fences in county of London.)
    "This Act shall not apply to cleft oak, or other solid fences, on or over which barbed wire may be fixed for protection of the property enclosed thereby."
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: I have abstained from moving the extension of this Bill to Ireland, but I give notice I will raise the point on the Report stage. I also ask that the Bill should be reprinted.
    Bill reported; as amended to be considered upon Thursday, 13th April, and to be printed. [Bill 283.]

  NORTH SEA FISHERIES BILL.—(No. 259.)

    COMMITTEE.
    Order for Committee read.
    Objection taken.
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: I think if my hon. Friend were aware of the object of the Bill he would not persist in his objection. In 1888 I passed an Act to bring into force a Convention of Foreign Powers with regard to the North Sea Fisheries, the object being to put down the floating grog-shops. The Convention was not put in force, because the French Government did not find themselves able to agree with it. I understand the object of this Bill is to enable the Government to put it in force with the assent of the other Powers, excluding France.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. MUNDELLA,): And I may add that all the other Powers are waiting on our action.
    THE MARQUESS OF CARMARTHEN: I have a strong objection to the way in which we are being treated by the Government. I object to taking contested Business at this hour of the night, and therefore I shall persist in my objection.
    Committee deferred till To-morrow.

  MERCHANT SHIPPING (FISHING BOATS) ACTS (1883 & 1887) AMENDMENT BILL. (No. 183.)

    COMMITTEE.
    Considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Tomlinson.)
    MR. C. FENWICK, who was in charge of the Bill, appealed to the hon. Member to withdraw his objection, as the Bill was sanctioned by hon. Members on both sides of the House, and had been prepared under the arrangements of the President of the Board of Trade in the late Government.
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: I feel bound to corroborate what the hon. Member has said. This is a small Bill, but it is a useful Bill, and is very much desired.
    MR. TOMLINSONsaid he desired, under the circumstances, to withdraw his Motion.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Monday, 10th April.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to amend 'The Appellate Jurisdiction Act, 1876,' so far as regards Appeals in Formâ Pauperis." [Appeals (Forma Pauperis) Bill [Lords.]
  Also, a Bill, intituled "An Act to amend the Law of Evidence." [Evidence in Criminal Cases Bill [Lords.]

  JURORS' REMUNERATION BILL. (No. 182.)
  Considered in Committee.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

  LOCAL AUTHORITIES LOANS (SCOTLAND) ACT (1891) AMENDMENT BILL. (No. 166.)
  As amended, considered.
  Read the third time, and passed.

  REGIMENTAL DEBTS (CONSOLIDATION) BILL.—(No. 116.)
  Considered in Committee.
  Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Thursday.

  WEIGHTS AND MEASURES ACT, 1878.
  Copy presented,—of Order in Council, dated 15th March, 1893, legalising a scale of errors to be tolerated in legal standards when verified locally [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

  CROFTERS' HOLDINGS (SCOTLAND) ACTS, 1886–7.
  Copy presented,—of Sixth Annual Report of the Crofters' Commission, being for the year to the 31st December, 1892 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before One o'clock.