Commons Sitting of 18 May 1893

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

  WATER PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.—(No. 338.)
  MR. EDWARDShad the following Notice of Motion on the Paper:—
  "That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Water Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill to strike out of the Bill the Provisional Order empowering the Llandrindod Wells Water Company to raise additional capital."
  MR. SPEAKER: The other day the House sanctioned the Second Reading of a cluster of Bills of which this Bill forms one. To move an Instruction to the Committee that they have power to strike out one whole Bill is quite an unprecedented exercise of the right of Instruction, and would not be in Order. The hon. Gentleman, however, has got his remedy. The time for petitioning has not expired yet; and if a Petition is presented it will go, I understand, before the ordinary Committee, and will be dealt with as that Committee thinks fit.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  POLICE ACTS AMENDMENT BILL. (No. 103.)
  Lords' Amendment considered.
  SIR A. ROLLIT, in moving that the Lords' Amendment to this Bill be considered, said, the Amendment had been introduced by the Home Office for the purpose of enabling different and more beneficial investment of funds intended for pension purposes.
  Lords' Amendment agreed to.

  DAY INDUSTRIAL SCHOOLS (SCOTLAND) BILL.—(No. 158.)
  Lords' Amendments considered.
  MR. D. CRAWFORD, in moving that the Lords' Amendments to this Bill be considered, said, the only alterations which had been made in

  1231
  another place were one or two drafting Amendments, with the addition of clauses proposed by the Scotch Office. One was to the effect that Magistrates would always sit in open Court, and the other was a saving clause in regard to a Glasgow Bill.
  Lords' Amendments agreed to.

QUESTIONS.

  THE SCOTCH FISHERY LAWS.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether he is aware that Lord Cromarty's gamekeeper and two watchers stopped a crew of Ullapool fishermen on the 13th ultimo at 11 p.m. when fishing for bait, at a spot which for the past 60 years has been regularly frequented by the fishermen for that purpose; that the gamekeeper seized a small sea trout which was in the net and threw it into the boat, with the object of securing a conviction against them for poaching for sea trout; and whether he will take any action in the matter?
  *THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR,): This question appears to relate to an occurrence which took place at the mouth of the Ullapool River—the gamekeeper and watchers were not servants of Lord Cromarty, but of the sporting tenant, who is about to institute proceedings against two of the fishermen, charging them with contravention of the Act of 7 & 8 Vict. c. 95. The whole facts of the case will, doubtless, be elicited at the trial, a report of which I have asked to be sent to me, and I shall then see whether any further action is called for.

  BARRY GOLF LINKS.
  MR. LENG: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether any opinion has been received from the Law Officers of the Crown in Scotland, relative to the public rights on the foreshore of Barry Links; whether the Memorial from the Commissioners of Carnoustie, respecting the danger to the lieges from artillery practice, has beer considered; and what decision has beer arrived at with regard to the same?
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. CAMPBELL - BANNERMAN,): The opinion of the Lord Advocate has been received. It is to the effect that the War Department has power to make bye-laws to regulate the use by the public of the foreshore on Barry Links. The Memorial from the Commissioners of Carnoustie has been considered, and it has been found that no new situation as regards foreshores has been created by the recent purchase, seeing that artillery fire across them has gone on for several years past. Bye-laws will be made.

  ST. HELENA.
  ADMIRAL FIELD: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether Her Majesty's Government or Secretary of State have considered the state of things existing in St. Helena, as revealed in the Report No. 63 for 1891, recently issued, in which the Governor states that his gloomy forebodings in 1890 were more than justified by the year under review; and whether, in view of the general financial depression and the serious fall in the Revenue, the serious character of the Census Return, which shows an excess of females over males of about 16 per cent., and the state of things described in the Report, the Secretary of State will consider the advisability of assisting some of these people to emigrate to South Africa who may desire to do so, and generally to consider whether the condition of the island demands more attention than it appears to have received?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. S. BUXTON,): The melancholy state of things existing in St. Helena has received the most anxious consideration of the Secretary of State. An account of the efforts which have been made ever since the shipping began to decline, more than 20 years ago, to find employment for the people by developing the natural resources of the island will be found in the Annual Report for 1889. Unfortunately, these efforts have not been successful; and the only remedy for the distress is, probably, to be found in emigration. In 1891, through the kindness of the Admiralty, 75 persons were conveyed to

  1233
  the Cape by a troopship; and perhaps, if a similar opportunity occurs again, the Admiralty will allow some more emigrants to be taken.
  ADMIRAL FIELD: Will the Government assist in emigrating these poor people, and, as was done on the former occasion, send a man-of-war?
  MR. S. BUXTON: We are in communication with the Admiralty on the subject.

  POSTAL CHARGES TO ST. HELENA.
  ADMIRAL FIELD: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether his attention has been called to the Report on St. Helena, No. 63, 1891, by the Governor, and the postal charges therein complained of; and whether he will consider the desirability of relieving these people of the present rates of 6d. per ½ oz. on letters to the United Kingdom, with still higher rates to other parts of the world, and notably 1s. 2d. per ½ oz. on letters to Mauritius, together with other postal grievances to which attention has been called in the said Report?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. A. MORLEY,): My attention has been called to the Report of the Governor of St. Helena. The policy of the Post Office has been to allow the Colonial Postal Authorities to fix their own postal rates on homeward correspondence; and when the letter postage from this country to places abroad (including St. Helena) was reduced to 2½d. the ½ oz. the Colonies were left free to maintain or to lower their previously existing rates. St. Helena elected to maintain the high rates mentioned in the question, and I should not feel justified in putting pressure upon the Colonial Authorities, or in proposing a considerable subsidy to the Colonial Post Office, in order to induce them to lower the rates.
  ADMIRAL FIELD: Will the right hon. Gentleman send a copy of that answer to the Governor who has made this very strong Report, so that he may know where the fault rests?
  MR. A. MORLEY: That is rather a matter for the Colonial Office.

  NATIONAL SCHOOL WINDOWS.
  MR. JEFFREYS: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Educa-
  1234
  tion whether he is aware that some of Her Majesty's School Inspectors have reported that diamond panes should be removed from national school windows and be replaced by ordinary square glass windows; whether he has considered that this would cause great expense to the school managers; and whether any special instructions have been issued by the Council to the Inspectors on this matter?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Mr. ACLAND,): The Department have for many years past recommended that diamond or leaded panes should be avoided, as they obstruct light to some extent, are not always impervious to weather, and are not easy to keep clean. But their use is not objected to in moderation—for example, in the upper parts of the windows. No special instructions have been issued to Inspectors on the point. In some cases Inspectors have probably recommended the replacement of diamond by ordinary panes, on the above grounds, where the existing windows were not weathertight, or let in insufficient light.

  TRADES UNIONS AND TECHNICAL EDUCATION.
  MR. ALBAN GIBBS: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether objections have been raised by Trades Unions against the instruction in technical schools of persons not connected by their ordinary employment with the industry about which they desire to be taught, and whether the managers of any such schools, either in London or elsewhere, have consented by agreement or tacit understanding, or in any other way, to exclude students unconnected with the trade about some branch of which instruction was being given; and in view of the fact that these technical schools were designed to give instruction to all persons who might desire it, and that the Charity Commissioners have allotted large sums derived from charitable sources to founding and supporting such schools, whether he will take steps to secure the open use of these schools by all who may wish to attend them?
  MR. ACLAND: I believe that the objections raised by Trade Unions have considerable weight. It is not the

  1235
  function of technical education, as understood in England, to teach trades, but rather to supplement workshop practice by a knowledge of scientific or artistic principles connected with certain industries. That being so, it may be reasonably held to be undesirable to admit to certain kinds of technical classes the se who have not the foundation of workshop practice. If a number of amateurs were admitted to such classes, the teaching given would have to he distorted, or even altogether largely changed. It is mainly a question of organisation for the Governing be dies concerned. I am not aware of any reason for interference.

  TELEGRAPH SERVICE TO URLINGFORD.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he can arrange to have the telegraph extended to Urlingford, County Kilkenny?
  MR. A. MORLEY: I am glad to inform the hon. Member that the extension can be granted.

  PERIODICAL INSPECTIONS OF MILITARY ARMS.
  MR. HANBURY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the stated intention of the War Office has been carried out, and the whole of the small arms in the hands of troops at home are periodically tested by viewers specially detached from the inspection staff—once a year in the case of Regular troops, once in two years in that of the Militia, and once in three years in that of the Volunteers; how often such inspections have been made in each case; and what are the arrangements as to the inspection of these arms abroad?
  *MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Inspections of small arms are carried out annually in the case of troops at home—once every two years in the case of the Militia, and once every three years in the case of the Volunteers. No special arrangements have yet been made as to the troops in the Colonies, and the Indian Government makes its own arrangements.

  SIR THOMAS ESMONDE AND HIS TENANTS.
  MR. WILLIAM JOHNSTON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware, as has been stated in The Daily Express of 10th May, 1893, that cattle, the property of Mr. Matthew Bates, Primrose Lodge, Carnew, have been seized for rent duo to the hon. Member for West Kerry; whether he is aware that an ejectment has been taken out by the same landlord against the orphan children of the late John Bolton, of Gorey; and that these two families are Protestants, and have been recently visited by severe family affliction; and whether he will refuse to allow the Forces of the Crown to be employed in carrying out these legal processes?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I am informed that the facts are substantially as stated in the question. It is not anticipated that the Forces of the Crown will be requisitioned for the ejectment referred to, the ugh if such a requisition should be made I shall have no choice in the matter.
  MR. JOHNSTON: Is it not a fact that the Forces of the Crown will not be required owing to the circumstance that these people are Protestants?
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: By the indulgence of the house I may be allowed to state, with reference to the question of the hon. Member for South Belfast, that in the case of Mr. Bates his holding is an agricultural holding, the rent of which has been fixed by arbitration. The old rent was £41. The arbitration rent is £25. The Poor Law valuation of the holding is £29, and the acreage 75 acres. When the arbitration rent was fixed in 1889, arrears to the amount of £151 14s. 2d. were wiped out. In addition to the rent for which the Sheriff lately seized, Mr. Bates still owes £26 4s. 2d.—over a year's rent. I may add that in this case proceedings have been allowed to lie over for several months. Seizures were being made at the suits of other creditors, some of whom, I understand, are co-religionists of Mr. Bates. The seizure to which the question refers was not made at my suit only, but at the suit of another creditor also. In the case of the representatives of John Bolton, the holding is

  1237
  a town holding, consisting of a he use, yard, and garden situated in the main street of the town of Gorey, the rent of which is £18 9s. In 1886, at the late Mr. Bolton's request, I spent £200 in improving his he use. There is now duo on the holding £97 12s. 3d., over five years' rent. I may add that I offered to take £50 in lieu of arrears, and to reduce the rent to £15 per annum; but that offer was not accepted.

  ST. CLEMENT'S, KENSINGTON.
  MR. A. C. MORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the home Department whether he is aware that the Lord of the Manor of Fulham (the Bishop of London) in 1869 gave five acres of the waste of the manor to the Vicar of St. Clement's, Kensington, for building thereon a vicarage and conveniences without the consent of the commoners; and that since that time, 1869, nearly the whole of the five acres, with one rood and eleven perches of the waste of the manor added afterwards, has, with the Bishop's consent, been converted into a building estate, producing £360 per annum; and whether the Lord of the Manor was acting within his legal rights; and, if not, what steps the Government propose to take to have the land returned to the commoners?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. ASQUITH,): I am informed that the five acres referred to, being part of the waste of the Manor of Fulham, was granted in 1869 to the Vicar of St. Clement's as glebe by the Lord of the Manor (the Bishop of London), with the concurrence of the commoners (as represented by the he mage Jury), although such consent is not required by the Act 51 Geo. III., c. 115, under which the grant was made. The land having thus become glebe, it was subsequently leased for building purposes. I am advised that the Lord of the Manor was within his right in making the grant in question.
  SIR A. BORTHWICK: May I ask whether it is the case that the Vicar, Mr. Dalgarno Robinson, although the Bishop had full power to grant the laud, has compensated the commoners to the full extent of their interest—£300; whether it is true that,
  1238
  on the parish having to make up the North Pole Road for about 350 feet, the Court Leet, who were responsible, had no money, and the Vicar paid the expenses on condition of their surrendering their rights over the rood and few perches in question, which offer was gladly accepted; whether the public have no right to Wormwood Scrubbs, but only the Lord and the commoners, about 80 of them; and whether it is not the case that, owing to the persistent efforts of Mr. Dalgarno Robinson, be the Greater and the Little Scrubbs have been secured to the public for ever?
  *SIR CHARLES DILKE: I rise to Order. Is the hon. Baronet in Order in putting a series of questions which contain statements of facts as to which there is a dispute? I myself take an entirely different view of the matter.
  MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. Baronet will take upon himself the responsibility of the statements he can ask whether the se statements are true.
  SIR A. BORTHWICK: I am not in any way responsible for the statements, but I simply ask whether they are true?
  MR. SPEAKER: The better course would be for the hon. Baronet to ascertain the facts, or else to give notice of his question.
  MR. A. C. MORTON: I am afraid the home Secretary did not quite catch the point of my question—why land which had been given for a vicarage has since been converted into a building estate; and whether it is legal that land given for one purpose should be used for another purpose?
  GENERAL GOLDSWORTHY: Mr. Robinson has told me himself that he paid the money.
  MR. SPEAKER: That is not putting a question.
  MR. ASQUITH: I have no knowledge of the facts stated by the hon. Baronet, and am totally unable to answer his question; but if the hon. Baronet puts a question down on the Paper I will endeavour to answer it. As to the last question, I am informed that the land has been granted with the consent of all the persons interested, and that whatever has been done has been perfectly legal.

  TRIAL BY JURY IN BENGAL.
  MR. PAUL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether the Government of India will be directed to consider the desirability of carrying out the recommendation made by two members of the recent Commission that trial by jury should be extended to all Sessions cases in the district of Bengal, where it now partially prevails; and whether the Government will consider the desirability of introducing it as an experiment into the se districts where it is not now in force, as the Commissioners have unanimously found it to have been successful over so largo an area?
  *THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. GEORGE RUSSELL,): A further Despatch on the recommendations contained in the Report of the Commission is expected from India, and the Secretary of State must reserve any expression of his opinion until that Despatch has been received and considered.

  WAGES IN DOCKYARDS AND ARSENALS.
  MR. JOHN BURNS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War when the Report on Wages and Conditions of Labour of Arsenal and Dockyard Labourers will be presented to the House?
  *MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: This Report has now been completed for the consideration of the Government, and I hope no great delay will occur before that consideration is given. It is not a Report which can be, according to ordinary practice, presented to the House.

  CHARGES AGAINST IRISH CATHOLICS.
  COLONEL SANDYS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the home Department whether he is now able to give any further information regarding the young woman, in charge of two nuns, who in the month of March leaped overboard from the steamer Waterford between Ireland and England, intending to commit suicide, as to whether she was actually insane or not; and, if so, how this conclusion was arrived at; whether he is aware that a young woman named Mary Breen, the servant of a Methodist minister in Dungannon, County Tyrone,
  1240
  who had informed the priest there that she could no longer remain in the Roman Catholic faith, was forcibly taken by three men from her master's house on 7th July, 1891, and cannot now be found; and whether he will make inquiries into the matter?
  MR. ASQUITH: I am unable to give any further information on the first part of this question beyond that which was communicated to the hon. and gallant Member by my directions on the 21st of April last, when I informed him that I had ascertained that the young lady had been duly certified to be insane. I am not aware that Mary Breen ever informed the priest that she could no longer remain in the Roman Catholic faith; but, so far from her having been removed forcibly by three men from her master's house in July, 1891, it appears from inquiries made at the time by the Irish Government that she went away with her father of her own free will. I am happy to be able to inform the hon. and gallant Member that Mary Breen was seen at her own house on April 10 last, and then expressed her intention of proceeding to America in two or three weeks' time, having received her passage money from a brother who is already there. I do not think any further inquiry as to either of these cases is necessary.
  MR. SEXTON: I beg to ask whether it is not the fact, as stated in a letter from the Bishop of Waterford, that the certificate of insanity was signed, not only by the local medical practitioner, but by the resident medical officer of a large Government institution, who is a Protestant, and one of the highest authorities on mental disease?
  MR. ASQUITH: I believe the facts are as stated by the hon. Member; but I have no information as to the religious faith of the medical man.

  MARKS OF ORIGIN.
  MAJOR RASCH: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if, having regard to the injury inflicted on poor basket makers in Essex by the importation of foreign baskets, frequently made by prison labour, and their sale as of English make, he will give effect to the prayer of workers from all parts of the country addressed to him by deputation on 6th May, and introduce

  1241
  legislation to enable purchasers to distinguish between home-made and foreign products?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. MUNDELLA,): No, Sir. I have no intention of introducing legislation to compel the marking of the place of origin on all goods imported into this country?

  ELECTORAL PRIVILEGES OF CIVIL SERVANTS.
  MR. MACDONALD: I beg to ask the Solicitor General which Acts of Parliament deal with the electoral privileges of Civil servants; and what is the section of any Act from which officials of Civil establishments derive their authority for restricting the actions of their subordinates who desire to take part in public affairs?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir J. RIGBY,): There are no Acts of Parliament unrepealed that deal specially with the electoral privileges of Civil servants. Whatever regulations are made with reference to the action of subordinate officials in the Civil Service, are made not under the authority of any section of an Act of Parliament, but under the inherent authority of Heads of Departments to make regulations for the discipline and government of the se under their control.

  THE CASE OF MARY DYMOCK.
  MR. MACDONALD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will inquire into the circumstances in which a sentence of seven years' penal servitude was passed at Stirling two weeks ago on Mary Dymock for throwing her illegitimate child into a river, she being at the time exhausted from a long night walk, and almost desperate and starving; and whether, if the circumstances justify it, he will advise a reduction of the sentence?
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Sir G. TREVELYAN,): This question should have been addressed to me. I will give any Petition presented to mo on behalf of the person referred to the most anxious consideration. I am sure the hon. Member will see I cannot say more than that.

  BOARD OF AGRICULTURE PUBLICATIONS.
  MR. LENG: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether, considering the importance of making the valuable Reports received by the Board on such subjects as rust or mildew on wheat, and on dairy farming in Denmark, Germany, and Sweden, as largely available as possible, he will lay them upon the Table of the he use; and whether, either through the newspapers, free libraries, or village schoolmasters, he will give a larger circulation to the useful leaflets prepared by the Board on matters of general agricultural interest?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. H. GARDNER,): I shall be happy to give effect to the wish expressed by my hon. Friend, and to lay upon the Table the two Reports to which he refers. With regard to the leaflets issued by my Department, I can only say that I am anxious to secure for them as wide a circulation as possible amongst the se concerned; and I will endeavour to arrange for them to be regularly supplied to any newspapers, free libraries, or village schoolmasters, who may signify their desire to receive them, and whose names are not already on our circulation list.

  "THE LABOUR GAZETTE."
  MR. LENG: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether copies of The Labour Gazette will be issued to such free libraries as may apply for them, or whether any other means will be taken to bring the information it contains under the notice of the labouring classes?
  MR. MUNDELLA: The Labour Gazette has been sent gratuitously to free libraries, mechanics' institutes, Trades Unions, co-operative, societies, workmen's clubs, and other similar institutions of a non-political character.
  MR. JACKSON: Will the distribution be continued?
  MR. MUNDELLA: Yes, Sir.

  WOOLWICH BARRACKS.
  MR. ABEL SMITH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what is the sanitary condition of the Grand Dôpot Barracks at Woolwich; and whether the medical officer of the

  1243
  district has reported on the state of the drains?
  *MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: No Reports have been received as to the Grand Depôt Barracks at Woolwich being in an insanitary condition; but the system of drainage of the Royal Artillery Barracks is reported to be old and defective. A reconstruction of the whole system is under reconsideration. The general health of the troops has been reported to be good.
  MR. ABEL SMITH: Will the right hon. Gentleman press this work forward? I am told that some of the existing drains are 100 years old.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: My experience is that drains 100 years old are sometimes better than the se of recent construction.

  THE ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY FORCE FUND.
  MR. MAINS: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether extra clerks are at present engaged in each County Inspector's office in Ireland, with a view of immediately winding up the benefit branch of the Royal Irish Constabulary Force Fund, and distributing it amongst the subscribers to it, who are unanimous in having it wound up; and if the fund is about to be wound up, will pensioners who have contributed to it for lengthened periods, but who have ceased to contribute on the death of their wives and relatives, be refunded the amount they have paid into it?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. J. MORLEY,): No distribution of assets of the benefit branch of the Constabulary Force Fund is contemplated, or any winding up other than that already announced by me on more than one occasion in this House—namely, by meeting its obligations as they become due. The clerical work now being performed at County Head Quarters has reference solely to the collection of certain items of information for the Commissioners of the National Debt, in whose hands the management of the fund is being placed.

  HALF-PAY COLONELS.
  SIR FREDERICK SEAGER HUNT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, with reference to his statement to the effect that the Government have thought it desirable to make some addition to the pay of Colonels on half-pay during their period of suspended animation, he is now in a position to inform the house what addition it has been decided to make; and whether the additional payment will take effect from the commencement of the present financial year or from a prior date?
  *MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I am sorry for the delay which has occurred in this matter; but if the hon. Gentleman will repeat the question after the Recess, I shall be able to give him a positive answer.

  GUN LICENCES IN IRELAND.
  MR. GILHOOLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Mr. William Cotter, P.L.G., residing at Breenymore, Bantry, has applied to Captain Welsh, R.M., for a licence to carry a gun on his farm, but has been refused; and, if so, will he inquire what are the grounds for the refusal?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I learn that Mr. William Cotter has been refused an arms licence as stated. The power of granting or withholding such licences is vested by law in the Resident Magistrate of the district, and with this discretionary power the Government cannot interfere. Possibly the refusal in this instance may have had something to say to the state of the district at the time when application was first made some years ago. Of course, there is nothing to prevent Mr. Cotter from renewing his application now if he should see fit to do so.
  MR. GILHOOLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Mr. John Cotter, of Barna, Skibbereen, has applied to Captain Welsh, R.M., for a licence to carry a gun on his farm; that Dr. Lewis, J.P., gave Mr. Cotter a letter of recommendation to Captain Welsh; but that Mr. Cotter was refused the licence; and will he inquire on what grounds the licence was refused?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I am informed I that the Resident Magistrate has no recollection of having received an application from Mr. John Cotter. It also appears that the local Justice named cannot recollect having recommended Mr. Cotter for a licence.

  THE HANSARD UNION PROSECUTION.
  MR. POWELL WILLIAMS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury what fees in addition to salary are payable to the Solicitor General, under the new system recently introduced, in connection with the prosecution of Bottomley and others at the last Old Bailey Sessions; and how the amount of such fees compares with the amount that would have been payable under the former system?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Sir J. T. HIBBERT,): The Solicitor General's fees in the Hansard Union prosecution amount to about £1,650. I am informed that in this particular case the same, or very nearly the same, amount of fees would have been payable under the old as under the new arrangement.
  MR. POWELL WILLIAMS: Ts it not the fact that there is a considerable increase in the amount of the fees payable under the new system over what was payable under the old system?
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: There are fees payable under the new system which were not payable under the old system; but that point does not arise in this case.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury what is the total amount of the costs, charges, and expenses incurred in the recent prosecution of Sir Henry Isaacs, Mr. Horatio bottomley, and others, in connection with the affairs of the Company known as the Hansard Publishing Union, Limited; and out of what Vote such costs, charges, and expenses will be paid?
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: The exact amount of the costs cannot yet be stated; but they are estimated to amount to about £6,200, and will be paid from the Vote for Law Charges.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Is the Treasury in a position to certify the costs of any particular trial in England or Ireland?
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: I cannot answer that question without notice.

  ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY INSPECTORS.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland will he issue instructions to have the actual cost of foraging troop and transport horses in the Royal Irish Constabulary duly vouched and shown in the public accounts like other items of expenditure; how many of the 267 County and District Inspectors of the Royal Irish Constabulary in receipt of rent for a private house have their office in a barrack, while they draw rent for an office elsewhere; how many of such offices in barracks are wholly or partially furnished with articles of barrack furniture paid for by the public; how many County and District Inspectors in receipt of an annual allowance of £50 for a private horse and £45 for a servant, while residing away from the station, keep their horses, cars, hay, straw, &c, on the barrack premises; and on what grounds was it stated that sergeants in charge of stations had their stationery allowance lately doubled?
  MR. J. MORLEY: As regards the first paragraph, I see some disadvantage in this sort of contract with officers. There is this to be said, however, against the suggestion of the hon. Member—namely, that it would result in the loss of control over the expenditure. The allowance covers not only feeding, but also shoeing, medicine, and stable requisites; and if these were purchased and paid for separately, the total cost would, it is considered, be greatly increased. I will make further inquiry, however, into the matter. No allowance for an office elsewhere than in barracks is drawn by any officers, except eight District Inspectors, and the Inspector j General has no reason to believe that any of these do not provide offices in their own he uses. No articles of distinctively office furniture are supplied by the Constabulary Department. In some instances articles of furniture were supplied by the Board of Works in barracks built by that Department; the practice, however, has long since been discontinued, although the few articles so supplied were not removed. The Inspector General cannot reply to the fourth

  1247
  paragraph, but I have requested him to make inquiry into the matter, he informs me that in some instances, however, he is aware that it is most difficult for officers to procure suitable stabling in the town where stationed, and some are compelled to live in lodgings and cannot obtain he uses. In cases where such difficulty exists officers have always been allowed to keep their horses on barrack premises. It was not stated that the stationery allowance for sergeants in charge of stations had been lately doubled. The increase was granted from April 1, 1882, whilst the increase in the officers' allowance did not take effect till December, 1890.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: We want to get the basis on which these officers propose to commute their allowances after the home Rule Bill is passed.
  MR. J. MORLEY: I quite understand that, and the point is being borne in mind.

  THE LEITRIM MAGISTRACY.
  MR. P. A. M'HUGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that there is no Nationalist holding the Commission of the Peace for the County of Leitrim resident in the Petty Sessions district of Drumkeeran, in which 94 per cent. of the inhabitants are Nationalists; has a Nationalist Magistrate ever adjudicated in the Petty Sessions Court of Drumkeeran district; has the Lord Chancellor of Ireland been requested to appoint to the Commission of the Peace for the County of Leitrim a Nationalist residing in the district; has the Lord Chancellor up to the present refused to comply with the request, and why; and will the Lord Chancellor consider the advisability of appointing a Nationalist in the district to the Commission of the Peace for the County of Leitrim?
  MR. J. MORLEY: It is probably the fact, as I am told, that no Nationalist Magistrate adjudicates in the Petty Sessions district referred to; but the Lord Chancellor has no authentic information on the subject. The Lord Chancellor has been asked to appoint one gentleman to the Commission in this district; but he has not appointed him, and he has asked me to say that, as the result of his inquiries, he is compelled to decline to
  1248
  appoint the gentleman in question. The Lord Chancellor will be glad to consider on his own responsibility the claims of any gentleman whose name may be submitted to him, and to appoint him if he ascertains him to be fit.

  THE DUTIES OF PROCURATORS FISCAL
  MR. A. C. MORTON: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether he is aware that Procurators Fiscal are in the habit of employing clerks to make inquiries which should be made by themselves; and, if so, will he see that properly-qualified persons are employed to make these secret and important inquiries?
  *MR. J. B. BALFOUR: By the Act of 40 & 41 Vict., c. 50, Section 7, Fiscals were authorised to appoint Deputes with the consent of the Lord Advocate and Sheriff, and I believe that this provision has been generally taken advantage of. It is, however, clearly pointed out in the Crown Office Orders issued to Fiscals that the statutory provision for the appointment of duly-qualified Deputes is not intended in any way to deprive the Public Service of the advantage of the personal discharge by Fiscals of the duties of their office, but only to provide for cases in which it is impossible for them to do the work themselves. It may sometimes be necessary to employ the services of clerks, where neither the Fiscal nor his Depute can undertake the work; but successive Lord Advocates have done everything in their power to impress upon Fiscals the importance of personal discharge of duty. If any such practice exists as is pointed out in the question, I shall be glad to receive information in regard to particular cases of it, and shall cause them to be inquired into.

  SIR T. BRADY'S PENSION.
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the Government will carry out their promise respecting Sir Thomas Brady's pension, as requested by all sections of the Irish Members?
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: I am not aware that any promise has been made, except that Sir Thomas Brady's case would be again carefully considered. The Treasury have made a proposal which they hope shortly to be able to communicate to the he use.
  MR. HANBURY: Have the Treasury power to increase a pension?
  MR. CARSON: Is it the fact that all sections of the Irish Party agree in supporting the suggestion for an increased pension?
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: I think all sections are agreed on that.
  MR. MACARTNEY: No; I shall oppose any proposal which the right hon. Gentleman may make to increase the pension.

  THE TRALEE AND DINGLE RAILWAY.
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that last week another dwelling - house, near Camp, County Kerry, was set on fire by sparks from an engine of the Tralee and Dingle Railway, and burned to the ground with everything in it; whether, in the event of the owner of the house obtaining damages against the Tralee and Dingle Railway, the ratepayers of the barony will have to pay the damages; and whether these ratepayers have any control over the management of the line?
  MR. MUNDELLA: I am informed by the company that no house was set on fire or burnt last week by the company's engine. I can express no opinion as regards the liability of the company or the ratepayers of the barony. The railway is authorised by an Order of the Lord Lieutenant in Council, and with the constitution of the company I have nothing whatever to do.

  EXCESSIVE RAILWAY RATES IN IRELAND.
  MR. COLLERY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he has had any communication with the Midland Great Western Railway Company of Ireland relative to a refund of the excessive charges put on by that company in January last; whether he is aware that the se charges amounted in some cases to 40 and 50 per cent. on certain goods between Dublin and Sligo; whether the se rates have been voluntarily withdrawn by that company, or whether it was owing to competition from a competing line; and if any or all the se increased charges are still continued on goods to intermediate stations where no competition exists; and whether those
  1250
  charges are regulated by mileage rates, or by such as the circumstances of the case will permit them to make?
  MR. MUNDELLA: I have received a communication from the company informing me (1) that where rates have been reduced since the 2nd January, refund is made in all eases where applied for by persons paying freight; (2) rates (Dublin and Sligo) put out on the 2nd January contained increases varying from 1 to 29 per cent., and also decreases from 1 to 30 per cent.; (3) Dublin and Sligo rates have since been reduced, and now stand, compared with 1892, increases varying from 3 to 20 per cent., and decreases from 5 to 35 per cent. With regard to the last question of the hon. Member, competition is undoubtedly an element in fixing a rate.

  THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE IN BENGAL.
  MR. JEFFREYS: In the absence of the hon. Member for the Faversham Division of Kent, I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether the Judges of the High Court of Calcutta, have protested against the interference of the Government of Bengal with the administration of justice; and whether any Papers on the subject can be laid upon the Table?
  *MR. GEORGE RUSSELL: The matter referred to is now under the consideration of the Secretary of State in Council; and no Papers on the subject can be laid upon the Table.

  LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANIES.
  MR. BARROW: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he has further considered the subject of the public registration of mortgage debentures created by Limited Liability Companies?
  MR. MUNDELLA: Yes, Sir, I have; and I am now in communication with the Lord Chancellor with reference to a Bill dealing with the subject.

  INVERNESS PRISON.
  MR. WILLIAM WHITELAW: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland if he can state how many prisoners, male and female, were in confinement in Inverness Prison each

  1251
  day between 8th May and 10th May, both inclusive?
  SIR G. TREVELYAN: In reply to the hon. Member, the numbers in Inverness Prison on 8th to 10th May, both dates inclusive, were:—8th May, 1893, 34 males, I female; 9th, 37 males, I female; 10th, 38 males, 2 females; 11th, 37 males, 2 females; 12th, 38 males, 3 females; 13th, 33 males, 3 females; 14th, 33 males, 3 females; 10th, 30 males, 3 females. S The accommodation of the prison consists of:—For males, 27 ordinary cells, 3 large cells (for three prisoners each), I infirmary cell, and I punishment, cell, accommodating in all 38 male prisoners. For females:—9 ordinary cells, I large cell (for throe prisoners) and I infirmary cell, accommodating in all 13 females. From the 11th to 10th, 3 prisoners were associated on medical grounds; and when the high number of males on the 9th was reported in the weekly Return to the Commissioners, the Governor submitted the names of three long-sentence prisoners for removal.

  PRECAUTIONS AGAINST CHOLERA.
  MR. BURNIE: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if he has considered the desirability of utilising the pilots round the coasts of the United Kingdom as a cordon or line of defence against the 'introduction of cholera through our seaports; and, if so, will he state what decision has been arrived at?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. H. H. FOWLER,): Assistance is frequently rendered by licensed pilots in connection with precautions against the introduction of cholera., and the assistance is fully appreciated. But I do not see that the pilots can be utilised as a cordon, or line of defence, as suggested.

  THE MURDER OF GEORGE ROLT AT SPALDING.
  MR. LOPES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the home Department whether, when he recently ordered the release of Elizabeth Ireland, who was sentenced in 1879 to penal servitude for life for the wilful murder of George Rolt at Spalding, he also took
  1252
  into his consideration the case of the two men, Henry Howitt and John Vessey, who were convicted of the same crime?
  MR. ASQUITH: Yes; the case of all three persons concerned in the outrage was fully considered; but in advising the release of Elizabeth Ireland on licence I had special regard to the fact that the violence which caused the death of Rolt was inflicted by the men, and not by the woman, and that she had during her punishment been certified to be insane, and had passed nearly three years in Broadmoor. The case of the men referred to will, under ordinary circumstances, come under review again in 1895; but I am not prepared at present to make any recommendation in regard to them.

  GOVERNMENT WRITERS AND ABSTRACTORS.
  SIR FREDERICK DIXON-HARTLAND: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the Government has yet come to a decision as to the limit of age in case of Writers recommended for promotion to the Class of Abstractors; and, if so, what is the maximum limit now prescribed?
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: The question is still under consideration.
  SIR F. DIXON-HARTLAND: how soon will a decision be arrived at?
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: I cannot answer that without notice.

  OUTRAGE IN KERRY.
  MR. DANE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that, early on the morning of Sunday last, the house of a man named Fleming, near Castleisland, County Kerry, was attacked by a number of armed men, and fired into several times; has anyone been apprehended; and has protection been afforded to Fleming's family?
  MR. J. MORLEY: The house of James Flynn was fired at on the 13th instant in this locality. Three men have been arrested in connection with the outrage, and have been remanded without hail to Petty Sessions. Flynn and his family are receiving police protection?

  REPORTS ON CONSTITUTIONAL CHANGES.
  SIR GEORGE BADEN-POWELL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in reference to the Return showing the majorities necessary for changes in the Constitutions of Foreign Slates, whether he can state when the Reports will be presented from the States not included in the Parliamentary Paper, C. 6970?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir E. GREY,): Reports from all the more important places have been received and laid. Of the remainder only three have yet been received, and we are waiting for more before laying a further batch.

  PAY DAY IN DEVONPORT DOCKYARD.
  MR. KEARLEY: I beg to ask the Civil Lord of the Admiralty whether he can explain why the weekly pay day at Bull Point, Devonport, which hitherto has been as in the Dockyards on Fridays, has been recently altered to Saturdays, thereby causing considerable inconvenience to the weekly shopping arrangements of the men and their families; and whether there is any reason why the original day should not he reverted to?
  THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. E. BOBERTSON,)The wages at the different dôpots were formerly paid on different days: but, this being found inconvenient for purposes of account, Saturday was fixed upon as being, on the whole, the most convenient day to pay at all the dôpots: and that day being a half holiday, and the men receiving their wages at mid-day, it was considered ample time would be given for shopping. Should, however, real inconvenience be felt in consequence of the change, I shall be happy to consider any representation on the subject.
  MR. KEARLEY: Will the hon. Gentleman accept the statement from me that it is felt to be very inconvenient?
  MR. E. ROBERTSON: Certainly, if the hon. Member makes it with authority.

  BULL POINT, DEVONPORT.
  MR. KEARLEY: I beg to ask the Civil Lord of the Admiralty whether, when the, employés at Bull Point, Devon-port, were transferred from the Army Ordnance Department to the Naval Ordnance Department, they were guaranteed the continuance of certain privileges in respect to leave, sick pay, and medical attendance; whether he is aware that recently when some of the men were offered a small increase in their weekly wages, such offer was made conditional on these privileges being surrendered; whether several refused the proffered advance rather than submit to such conditions; and whether this attempt to break the agreement was made at the instigation of the Admiralty, or on the responsibility of the local officials?
  MR. E. ROBERTSON: The arrangement made was that the men should retain all the privileges to which they were entitled under the War Office, so long, and so long only, as they remained in the same position as at the time of transfer; but that as soon as they received promotion or increased pay, they should come under the ordinary regulations. No information has reached me to the effect stated in the second and third paragraphs. I may add that the operation of this arrangement is one of the many questions into which the Admiralty has recently been inquiring, and will receive careful consideration.
  MR. KEARLEY: Do I understand the hon. Gentleman to say that at the time the agreement was signed the men were told that they would forfeit these advantages in the case of promotion?
  MR. E. ROBERTSON: Yes, the agreement set forth that so long as they remained under the War Office there should be no change, but when they were promoted then they should come within ordinary Rules of the Admiralty.
  MR. KEARLEY: Is this change the outcome of inquiries which the Admiralty have been milking?
  MR. E. ROBERTSON: No, Sir. The original bargain was that the men should retain all their old privileges until they changed their position, but when they did change they should come under the ordinary Admiralty Regulations. I

  1255
  added that the operation of this arrangement was now being considered by the Admiralty.

  THE SCOTCH WEST COAST FISHERIES.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether, since 27th February last, any steps have been taken to procure from the Admiralty steam cruisers for the purpose of protecting the fishermen on the North-West Coast of Scotland and the Western Isles against trawlers?
  SIR G. TREVELYAN: Yes, Sir; communications have been passing between the Scottish Office and the Admiralty, in order to insure that, when the great summer herring fishery begins the usual additional cruisers given for its protection shall be forthcoming.
  MR. BUCHANAN: May I ask whether, seeing that the Secretary to the Admiralty has declined in this house any responsibility on the part of his Department for supplying sufficient ships for this purpose, he will consider the advisability of inserting in the Sea Fisheries Regulation Bill some provision for maintaining a proper sea fleet? Otherwise the new Act will not be workable.
  SIR G. TREVELYAN: That is a very interesting and proper suggestion, but I am not sure it will be necessary to introduce any legislation. The Fishery Board, undoubtedly, is not at all prepared to acquiesce in the amount of protection now afforded by the Admiralty, and I am quite aware that it is not sufficient.
  MR. MACFARLANE: Will the right he n Gentleman apply to the Treasury for money to purchase vessels to be at the disposal of the Fishery be and?
  SIR G. TREVELYAN: That is a proper matter for consideration. Lancashire has a vessel of its own, but then that is a rich county. With regard to the summer herring fishery, I have every reason to believe that the protection given by the Admiralty will be sufficient.
  MR. WEIR: Will steps be taken to secure the removal of that old sailing tub, the Jackal, which costs more to keep up than it is worth?
  [No answer was given.]

  SWINE FEVER.
  MR. JEFFREYS: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture if he can now state whether he proposes to take any action in order to carry out the recommendations of the Committee on Swine Fever?
  MR. GARDNER: I am afraid that as yet I can only refer the hon. Member to what I said in reply to the questions addressed to me on this subject a few days ago. I have not yet received the evidence on which the Report of the Departmental Committee is founded, but I understand that it will roach me in the course of the present week, and we shall then be able to see how far it will be possible for us to give effect to the conclusions at which the Committee have arrived.
  MR. CHAPLIN: Arising out of that reply, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman, as a matter of fact, whether in the Report of the Departmental Committee on Swine Fever there is any information whatever which could not have been obtained in his own Department without the appointment of any such Committee at all; and whether, under these circumstances, he cannot make up his mind to deal with this question, so important to the agricultural interest, and to carry out the recommendations of the Report without waiting for the evidence upon which the Report is based?
  MR. GARDNER: I cannot admit for one moment that the Committee was unnecessary, or that I had the information in the Department already. I must refer the right hon. Gentleman to the Report. With his knowledge of public business he must know it is impossible for the Government to decide on a Report without seeing the evidence on which it is based.
  MR. CHAPLIN: Well, then, I have examined it carefully, and I will ask whether the right hon. Gentleman can say what the information is in the Report which be could not have obtained in the Department? and, failing an answer to this question, I shall take the earliest opportunity of raising this question again.
  MR. GARDNER: I cannot give the right hon. Gentleman any further answer on the subject.
  MR. JEFFREYS: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been given to a Rill already before the House on this subject?
  MR. GARDNER: But that Bill does not contain the provisions which enable us to deal with this question.

  THE FURNESS RAILWAY COMPANY.
  MR. W. SMITH: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that the Furness Railway Company is charging for the carriage of agricultural products rates 50 to 60, and in some eases even 100 per cent. above the rates current in December, 1892; and whether he will make representations to the management of this company against such abuse of the powers conferred upon them?
  MR. MUNDELLA: I have received representations to the effect stated in my hon. Friend's question, and have placed myself in communication with the Railway Company on the subject.

  THE IRISH UNDER SECRETARY'S SALARY.
  MR. DANE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland what is the present salary attached to the office of Under Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant; whether the said salary was increased, and by what amount and upon what grounds, when Sir Robert Hamilton was Under Secretary; was Sir Robert Hamilton, when holding that Office, allowed any extra sum for the payment of premiums upon life assurance, or for the education of his children; and, if so, upon what grounds; and is the present Under Secretary granted the same allowances, or when were the same discontinued?
  MR. J. MORLEY: The salary attaching to the office of Under Secretary is £2,000 per annum, without extra allowances. In April, 1883, the salary was temporarily increased to £2,500 under exceptional circumstances, the increase being personal to Sir Robert Hamilton, the then Under Secretary. The special increase of £500 was continued to Sir Redvers Buller while acting temporarily as Under Secretary. It ceased on Sir West Ridgeway's appointment in October, 1887.
  MR. DANE: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered the third portion of the question.
  MR. J. MORLEY: I really do not think that the third paragraph of the question at all affects the root of the matter. I do not think there is any reason for me to go into the grounds which induced the Government of the day to increase the salary. A certain amount of delicacy is called for in these matters.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Is the right hon. Gentleman responsible for what was done by the Government 10 years ago?
  MR. DANE: I only want to know if the sums of money named were allowed?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I have already stated that the allowance was special and personal. Sir R. Hamilton received £2,000 a year, plus £500 a year as a special allowance in his case.
  MR. DANE: Were those allowances plus the £500?
  MR. J. MORLEY: No, Sir; the hon. Member is entirely mistaken if he thinks that.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Will the right hon. Gentleman give us the amount of special fees paid to all the Tory lawyers under the late Government?
  MR. CARSON: And also the amount paid to the prisoners' counsel in the Maryborough trials?
  [No answer was given.]

  THE DUBLIN, WICKLOW, AND WEXFORD RAILWAY.
  MR. DANE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that Major General Hutchinson has reported that the bridges carrying the line of the Dublin, Wicklow, and Wexford Railway Company over Bath Avenue and South Lotts Road are in an unsafe condition, and require reconstruction; whether he is aware that Bath Avenue is a most important thoroughfare, along which the Dublin Tramways run; and what steps have been or will be taken to compel the Railway Company to reconstruct these bridges at their own expense and with the least possible danger to the public using these thoroughfares?
  MR. MUNDELLA: Yes, Sir, General Hutchinson has reported that the Railway Company should lose no unnecessary time in adopting the requisite measures to place the bridges in a safe condition. The Board of Trade have urged the Company to do this, and have received a reply that their engineer intends to adopt a trough girder to support each rail, the side high enough to act as a guard rail. This is now under consideration.

  COMMISSIONS FOR DISTINGUISHED SERVICE.
  MR. WICKHAM: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether any commissions have been granted to officers of the Royal Naval Reserve under Article 43 of the Revised Regulations for Royal Naval Reserve, sanctioned by Orders in Council of 23rd February, 1891, which provide that officers who shall have greatly distinguished themselves in action with the enemy, or who may, by the character or length of that service, obtain the special approbation of the Admiralty, will be eligible to receive commissions as officers in the Royal Navy; and, if no such commissions have been granted, whether the Article is to be considered inoperative?
  MR. E. ROBERTSON: No commissions have yet been granted under the Regulations, but they are not to be considered as inoperative, and they will be put into operation when suitable cases arise.

  DUBLIN GUARDIANS' ELECTION.
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland with reference to the recent correspondence between the Local Government Board and Messrs Joseph Delahunt and Patrick Corrigan as to the inquiry on oath into the recent election for Guardians for the Fitzwilliam Ward of the City of Dublin, in the course of which Messrs. Delahunt and Corrigan asked whether, if they should substantiate the charges made, the Board would direct a new election, and the Board replied that they could not properly set aside the Return unless it should be shown at the inquiry that votes had been wrongly allowed or disallowed to such
  1260
  an extent as would affect the number of voles forming the majority recorded; whether, having regard to the letter of Messrs. Delahunt and Corrigan of the 24th April, 1893, charging, amongst other things, that the Returning Officer has a direct personal interest in discouraging contests at Poor Law elections for the reasons set forth in the said letter, will he direct, should the charges made be substantiated, a new election to be ordered?
  MR. W. KENNY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that counter-charges have been made of gross misrepresentation?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I am not aware of that. In reply to the question on the Paper, I have to say I am informed that the purport of the correspondence between the two gentlemen named and the Loral Government Board is correctly set forth in the question. Section 23 of the Act 6 & 7 Vict., c. 92, empowers the Local Government Board, when a question is raised as to the right of any person to act as an elected Guardian, to inquire into the circumstances of the case, and to issue such Order as they may deem requisite for determining the question. If, on inquiry under this section, the Board as certain that the Return made by the Returning Officer is correct, i.e., that the person returned by him has obtained a majority of good and valid votes and is in all respects qualified to fill the office of Guardian, the Board do not disturb the Return; but if, on the other hand, they find that the Return is incorrect, they issue a scaled Order setting it aside and directing the holding of a new election. Complaints not affecting the validity of a Return would not constitute a legal ground for setting aside such Return, though of course if such complaints were substantiated it would become necessary to take some action against the persons affected by them.

  EDINBURGH MUSEUM.
  MR. PAUL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he has received from the Education Department a statement of the grievances under which the attendants at the Edinburgh Museum believe themselves now to labour, as compared with a similar class of public

  1261
  servants at South Kensington; and what steps the Treasury propose to take in the matter?
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: The Treasury has received a letter from the Science and Art Department respecting the rates of pay of the attendants at the Edinburgh Museum, and is now in communication with the Department on the subject.

  THE LEE-METFORD RIFLE.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War how many of the Lee-Metford magazine rifles, Mark I. pattern, have been returned by Commanding Officers owing to defects in the working of the bolt and bolt-head?
  *MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: When the rifles of early manufacture were first issued complaints were made in regard to the bolt and bolt-head. Modifications were introduced and have been applied to all arms of the pattern in question. Since the introduction of these improvement all complaints have practically ceased, and no failures have been reported.
  In answer to a further question by Mr. WEIR, whose words were quite unintelligible in the Gallery,
  MR. CAMPBELL- BANNNERMANasked that the period during the Recess might be allowed him in order to ascertain.

  THE ARREST OF AN OXFORD TUTOUR.
  MR. BYLES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is acquainted with the facts in a recent case of mistaken identity at Oxford, in which a tutor of Mansfield College (Mr. Lewis) was arrested at mid-day, at the Oxford Railway Station, without warrant, on a charge of theft from a public-house, he being entirely innocent of the charge; whether he is aware that Mr. Lewis wrote a letter to the Principal of his college to prove his indentity and entrusted it to the police for delivery, and that, instead of delivering the said letter, they used it to endeavour to obtain further evidence against the accused, thus extending the time of his unjust detention; and whether the Home Secretary will think it his duty to take any action or make any inquiry into the matter?
  Mr. ASQUITH: I have received a Report from the Chief Constable of Oxfordshire, from which it appears that a barmaid employed at the public-house at Wolvercote, where a theft had been committed, was leaving Oxford for Wolvercote by the canal towing path, when she met Mr. Lewis, and thought she recognised him as the thief. She followed him to the rail way station and there gave him in custody, charging him with the theft. He was brought to the County Police-station, and as the Bullingdon Bench of Magistrates was then sitting, he was brought before them and remanded on her evidence for a week, the Bench offering to take bail. He then asked for a piece of paper to write to the Principal or Bursar of Mansfield College, asking them to he bail for him. This note was banded to the sergeant to deliver, but at that moment a friend of Mr. Lewis's came in and offered to fetch the Bursar. Mr. Lewis then told him not to trouble about the note, which was put down in front of Mr. Lewis on the table, and his friend fetched the Bursar. The sergeant, who had been told by Mr. Lewis where he lodged, went there to make inquiry, taking the paper with him to help to prove his identity. The inquiries he went to make were as much in Mr. Lewis's interest as in the prosecution's, and the time of his detention was not in the least extended by the action of the police. I think my hon. Friend will, after hearing this account, agree with me in thinking there appears to be no reason to impeach the conduct of the police in question, and I do not, under the circumstances, consider it my duty to take any action in the matter. If Mr. Lewis has sustained any legal wrong the remedy by action is, of course, open to him.
  MR. BYLES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the statement of Mr. Lewis and his friends differs materially from that given by the police. Is if not their duty to protect the innocent as well as detect the guilty?
  MR. ASQUITH: The statements do differ; but, as I have said, Mr. Lewis, if aggrieved, has his remedy in his own hands. I have no control over the Oxfordshire Police.

  RAVAGES BY FOXES IN ROSS-SHIRE
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether his attention has been drawn to the ravages of foxes amongst the lambs in the Lochearron district of Ross-shire, and the inability or unwillingness of the Landlords' and Sporting Tenants' Association to capture or destroy these vermin; and whether steps will be taken to deal energetically with this grievance?
  SIR G. TREVELYAN: My attention has not been called to these special ravages. If there is a serious grievance from the neglect to kill foxes in deer forests, there are bodies representing public opinion in the Highlands officially and non-officially from whom I should expect to receive resolutions.

  FRANK BUCKLAND'S COLLECTION.
  COLONEL MURRAY: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether it is the case that a collection of plaster casts of fish, and models for fish culture, and a sum for eventually founding a curatorship were left by the late Frank Buckland, and accepted by the Kensington Museum for the nation; whether he is aware that the collection is in a very neglected state; that many specimens have been lying on a piece of building land for many months exposed to the weather, and are now so much damaged as to be useless; and, that those which remain are deteriorating in an old and damp shed; whether the collection is considered of sufficient general interest and value to be preserved; and, if so, whether immediate steps can be taken to place and keep it in a proper state; whether, for this purpose, the terms of the legacy admit of the collection being transferred to the Natural History Museum; and whether such transfer can be effected?
  MR. ACLAND: Under the will of the late Mr. F. Buckland, his collection illustrative of fish culture was bequeathed to the South Kensington Museum, together with the reversion of a, sum of money in which his widow was to have a life interest. Certain specimens were some years ago removed from the collection as being useless or unsuitable for exhibition, and some of these have, no doubt, deteriorated. I am not aware of any deterioration in those specimens which are exhibited.
  1264
  The building in which they are cannot be said to be very suitable for a museum, but the collection is believed to be quite in as good a condition as when Mr. Buckland left it. A Treasury Committee, of which Sir J. Evans was Chairman, reported in 1889 that it was desirable that the collection should be removed from South Kensington. In order to transfer the trust, the sanction of the Court of Chancery, or possibly of an Act of Parliament, would be necessary. The authorities of the Natural History Museum declined to receive the collection. The Department has been in communication with the Marine Biological Association to endeavour to arrange for a transfer of the trust, but hitherto without success.

  IRISH CLERKS OF THE CROWN AND PEACE.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the Report of the Departmental Committee which sat in Dublin early in January last with reference to the clerical and other office allowances to be paid to the Clerks of the Crown and Peace in Ireland, in view of the additional duties which they have to discharge under the Registration of Title Act, has yet been made; and, if so, will he cause it to be laid upon the Table of the House; and has the Treasury yet fixed the amount of those, allowances; if not, what is the cause of the delay?
  *SIR J. HIBBERT: The remuneration of the Clerks of the Crown and Peace and their allowances for clerical and office expenses under the Act to the 31st March last have been settled, and also their remuneration for the future. I expect to receive in a few days the Report of the Committee as to the future clerical and office expenses, and the Treasury will then be ready to fix the amounts to be allowed. I do not think that any good purpose would be served by laying the Report upon the Table of the House.

  GUNS FOR THE MERCANTILE MARINE.
  MR. HANBURY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty what is the number of breech-loading and muzzle-loading guns respectively available for the use of the Reserve of the Mercantile Marine when

  1265
  undergoing annual drill; and whether, in view of the importance of this Reserve for manning the increasing fleet, and the nature of the modern ordnance on men-of-war, steps will at once he taken to largely increase the present supply of modern guns in batteries and drill ships?
  MR. ROBERTSON: My answer is as follows: (1) Guns available for drill of Royal Naval Reserve—breech-loading, 92; muzzle-loading, 146. (2) Arrangements are in progress to gradually replace the older pattern guns by modern ordnance. During the past two years all Royal Naval Reserve drill ships, and certain drill batteries have been supplied with quick-tiring guns of the latest pattern.
  MAJOR RASCH: Are not the guns the hon. Gentleman refers to the old 68lb. Palliser M.L. guns which were practically obsolete 25 years since?
  MR. E. ROBERTSON: I must ask for notice of that question.

  ATTENDANCE BOOKS IN PUBLIC DEPARTMENTS.
  MR. HANBURY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether any, and, if any, what public Departments are not subject to the Orders in Council requiring attendance books to be kept for the purpose of registering the arrival and departure of their clerks of both divisions of the Civil Service; and whether all the Departments have yet formulated their normal establishment; and, if so, whether a statement will be laid upon the Table before the Votes for the various Departments are taken showing the proposed establishment in each case?
  SIR J. HIBBERT: With regard to the Legal Departments, the hon. Member is aware that they have been held to be outside the Order in Council of l5th August, 1890. I cannot, therefore, at present answer either paragraph of the question, so far as relates to matters under the jurisdiction of judicial authorities not responsible to Parliament. Subject to this qualification, I am not aware of any public Departments except, perhaps, the Houses of Lords and Commons that are exempt from the requirements of the Orders in Council. All Departments except the Legal Departments, the Houses of Lords and Com-
  1266
  mons, the Foreign Office, the Admiralty, and the Education Department, have submitted schemes for their future normal establishment; but as, owing to reductions which have been made in the Upper Division and other causes, the normal establishment cannot be reached for some time, and the increase or diminution that may in the meantime take place in the work to be done by the Departments may necessitate changes in that normal establishment as now estimated, I think it would not be desirable to lay upon the Table particulars which must, from the nature of the case, be more or less theoretical.
  MR. HANBURY: Is it the intention of the Treasury not to give this information for two or three years?
  SIR. J. HIBBERT: Oh no! I thought the hon. Member wanted it laid on the Table for the purposes of to-night's discussion.
  MR. HANBURY: And what is the objection to that?
  SIR J. HIBBERT: It could not be done in time.

  THE RATING OF GOVERNMENT PROPERTY.
  MR. FREDERICK FRYE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury will he explain on what grounds the immense properties owned and occupied by the Government in the parishes of Woolwich and Plumstead are not rated at more than half their real value, thus causing a high rate to be paid by the inhabitants of those parishes generally; and whether he will cause a due assessment of the Government property in those parishes to be made, and wait to see what reduction in the rate it will produce, before he calls upon other parishes, by fresh legislation, to assist the ratepayers of Woolwich and Plumstead further than is now done under the existing law?
  SIR J. HIBBERT: There is no warrant for the assumption in the first paragraph. The properties in question have been carefully valued, and the assessment fixed with the Assessment Committee of the Union on three separate occasions, in 1875, 1884, and 1891, and on each occasion the Committee have Informal resolution declared the valuation to be fair and equitable. On the last

  1267
  occasion the following resolution was passed:—
  "The Assessment Committee, after going through all the details of the value of Government property in the several parishes comprised in this Union, are of opinion that the figures proposed by the Treasury Valuer at their special meeting to-day is a fair and equitable revision of the valuation, and they accept the figures accordingly."
  The second paragraph of the question does not, in view of these facts, appear to require any answer.

  GRANTS IN AID TO PROVINCIAL MUSEUMS.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGS: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education if it is the intention of the Government to reduce the grant-in-aid to provincial museums from £800 to £500 for the present financial year; and, if so, if he will state the reason for such reduction?
  MR. ACLAND: The grant-in-aid to local museums, which was made to assist them in the purchase of casts and other reproductions, has been put this year at £500 instead of £800. On the other hand, the Purchase Vote for the museum and for circulation to local museums has been increased by £3,450. The £800 grant was not fully taken up last year, and it is believed that £500 will be sufficient to meet all demands. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not think that I have any evil designs against Birmingham, for that city with one other last year absorbed six-sevenths of the grant, and in the year before two-thirds. I think there will be sufficient now for Birmingham.
  MR. J. COLLINGS: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the leading Local Authorities have made special arrangements this year to purchase specimens and original examples, a special opportunity having offered itself, and will he, by a Supplementary Estimate or by some other means, assist the Local Authorities in that respect?
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I wish to know whether the Government will refuse to give any more money for the purpose to Birmingham until Northampton has had some?
  MR. LENG: I have to make a similar inquiry in the interest of Dundee.
  [The questions were not answered.]

  THE CONVEYANCE OF AMERICAN MAILS.
  MR. FORWOOD: I beg to ask the Postmaster General if he will give the day and hour of the delivery at London, Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool, Glasgow, and Belfast respectively, of the correspondence brought from the United States by the Campania, which sailed from New York after the Paris, and the time of the delivery of the mails at these places brought by the latter vessel; and which of these vessels was selected by the United States Government to convey the mails to the United Kingdom?
  MR. MACARTNEY: At the same time I will ask the right hon. Gentleman when the American mails per Campania and when those per Paris were delivered in London and Provinces, and in Dublin and Provinces; and whether he has received any intimation that the American Government, would consider favourably a representation made by the Post. Office as to the carriage of the mails from the United States to England?
  *MR. A. MORLEY: The times at which the delivery of the correspondence in question commenced at the places named were as follows:—London, from the Campania, May 13, 8.30 a.m.; from the Paris, May 13, 8.15 p.m.; Birmingham, Manchester, and Liverpool, from the Campania, May 13, 7.0 a.m.; from the Paris, Sunday, May 14, 7.0 a.m.; Glasgow, from the Campania, May 13, 10.15 a.m.; from the Paris, May 15, 7.0 a.m.; Belfast, from the Campania, May 13, 7.0 a.m.; from the Paris, May 15, 7.0 a.m.; Dublin, from the Campania, May 12, 7.0 p.m.; from the Paris, May 14, 8.0 a.m. The vessel selected by the United States Post Office was the Paris. The method of choice announced by that office is comparison of results attained on eastward voyages: and the Campania had made no such voyages. There is no ground for doubting that any reasonable representation made by the British Post Office to that of the United States would receive due consideration; but it would not be reasonable to ask for preference to be given to a steamer concerning which the materials for the customary comparison do not yet exist.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Do these times relate to the delivery of newspapers us well as letters?
  MR. A. MORLEY: I cannot say.

  GOOD CONDUCT STRIPES FOR POSTMEN.
  MR. CREMER: I beg to ask the Postmaster General why the London and provincial postmen who wore recommended good conduct stripes by their superior officers have not yet received them, and what is the cause of the great delay?
  MR. A. MORLEY: So far as I am aware, there are no such recommendations on hand, but if the hon. Member will furnish me with particulars I will have inquiry made.

  POSTMEN'S SUMMER UNIFORM.
  MR. CREMER: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he is aware that the recent Order compelling postmen to work with their tunic buttoned at the top is regarded with dissatisfaction; and whether he will give instructions that postmen who have to climb stairs and carry loads shall during the summer months be exempt from such Order?
  MR. A. MORLEY: I am not aware of any dissatisfaction cruised by the Regulation referred to in the question, and I am not prepared to relax the Regulation, which is intended to prevent a practice which led to a slovenly appearance on the part of the postmen. In the summer the men wear lighter tunics.

  THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he will explain on what grounds the Senior Commissioner of the Civil Service Commission has received salary at the rate of £1,200 per annum after the age of 70, in contravention of the Order in Council of the l5th August, 1890; for what period such salary has been paid; and on what authority the provisions of Clause 10 of the Order in Council have been departed from?
  SIR. J. HIBBERT: The services of the late Senior Civil Service Commissioner were retained to meet a temporary emergency, pending the appointment of his successor. The whole matter has come before the Public Accounts Com-
  1270
  mittee, and I do not think it desirable to make any further statement in anticipation of their Report.

  EVENING SCHOOLS CODE.
  MR. SAMUEL SMITH: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education if he can state when the Code for Evening Schools will be issued?
  MR. ACLAND: I have laid the Code for Evening Schools on the Table to-day, and it will be circulated towards the end of next week.

  INLAND REVENUE REMOVALS.
  MR. TULLY: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is true that the Commissioners of Inland Revenue have recently declined to entertain applications of removal to Ireland made; by officers of Inland Revenue stationed in England; and, if this is so, what is the rule on the subject?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir W. HARCOURT,): The general rule is that officers are allowed to serve on stations for which they apply. The Board of Inland Revenue, however, reserve to themselves an absolute discretion to refuse or postpone such applications, in the interests of the Public Service.

  DUBLIN MILK RATES.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the Irish Great Northern Railway has refused to refund to the Dublin milk trade the differences between the old and new rates where the old rates have been reverted to?
  MR. MUNDELLA: I have received no information to the effect referred to. If the hon. Member will furnish me with any particulars I will have them inquired into. We have asked the question of the company, but have not yet received their answer.

  NATIONAL DENUNCIATION OF LAND GRABBING.
  MR. SMITH-BARRY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to a meeting at Fethard, County Tipperary, on 7th May,

  1271
  reported in The Nationalist or 13th May, over which the Rev. Archdeacon Ryan, P.P., presided, and held for the purpose of denouncing a Mr. Ashmore for having taken a farm which had been surrendered by a man named Fenelly; whether he is aware that a resolution was adopted to treat Mr. Ashmore as a grabber, and the attention of the meeting called to the fact that a certain trader was supplying those on the farm with provisions; whether it has been brought to his notice that last autumn several outrages to cattle were perpetrated on a neighbouring farm which was being worked in conjunction with the farm in question; and whether he will take steps to prevent the holding of public meetings to intimidate individuals who are exercising their legal rights?
  MR. J. MORLEY: My attention has been drawn to the proceedings referred to in the first and second paragraphs of the question. With regard to the third paragraph, it appeal's that two such outrages were reported to the police as having taken place. In one of these compensation was awarded by the Grand Jury, but in the other case the claim for compensation was rejected at Presentment Sessions. As regards the fourth paragraph, steps have been, and will continue to be, taken to prevent and to prohibit, if necessary, public meetings where there is reason to believe that they will endanger the public peace or intimidate individuals in the exercise of legal rights.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: What is meant by the word "denouncing" in this case? Is it not perfectly legal for persons to maintain the advisability of non-grabbing of evicted land?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I rather think that denouncing in this case meant pointing an individual out to public disapproval. If it leads to overt acts, or if the denunciation is so directed to the individual in question as to intimidate him in the exercise of his legal right, then the Government will interfere.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the decision of a London Magistrate within the last week, whereby persons circulating in front of his door handbills calling attention to the fact that an employer had refused to allow his servants certain holidays were held to have acted legally?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I did not say this was illegal.
  MR. SEXTON: On what ground was one of the two claims for compensation refused?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I must ask for notice of that.

  THE BOWLING PUBLIC HALL.
  MR. HOZIER: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland what were the special circumstances of the case, and who informed him as to the special circumstances of the case, which induced him to depart from what he has stated is "the ordinary course," and, at the last moment, to withdraw the sanction for the sale of Bowling Public Hall, against the finding of an inquiry held by the Education Department on the spot?
  SIR G. TREVELYAN: The ordinary course is for a School Board to sell a building which it does not want. The special circumstances in this case were that a right of public use was attached to the premises, and, therefore, a very small sum only could have been obtained for them; while it was of the first importance; that the strongest security should be taken that the community at large should have full and free use of the building. The arrangement which is being made by the School Board is the best that can be made in order to secure this object.
  MR. HOZIER: From whom did the right hon. Gentleman derive his information?
  SIR G. TREVELYAN: The Department informed itself of the facts partly from the School Board and partly by the inquiries of its own officers.

  ADMIRALTY SURVEYS OFF BRITISH COLUMBIA.
  SIR GEORGE BADEN-POWELL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the new surveys of Burrard's Inlet and English Bay, in British Columbia, which wore ordered to be made in 1890, have yet been completed and any corrections entered in the Admiralty charts?
  MR. E. ROBERTSON: The survey was completed, and a new chart has been issued.

  RAILWAY RATES ON LIVE STOCK.
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been again drawn to the increase in railway rates on live stock carried by the London, Brighton, and South Coast Railway, and more particularly on calves and pigs, the increase on the former being nearly 100 per cent. and the increase on the latter nearly 50 per cent. (vide way bills, Pulborough to Streatham Hill), and in the case of the London and South-Western Railway Company, where the increase on sheep from Hurstbourne is nearly 100 per cent. (vide way bills dated 15th April, 1893), notwithstanding the assertions of said companies in respect to a former occasion; and whether he will again call their attention to this subject?
  MR. MUNDELLA: As the hon. Member has been good enough to call my attention to this subject, I have communicated with the companies concerned, but have not yet received their explanation.

  MERCHANDISE MARKS.
  COLONEL HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps he has taken, or proposes to take, to fulfil his promise to the deputation received by him on the 6th inst., representative of many British productive industries and of over 250,000 workers, that—
  "He would confer with his Colleagues to see what could be done to enforce the provisions of the Merchandise Marks Act, both in the spirit and in the letter;"
  and if he has had any inquiries made, with a view to prosecution, into the examples submitted to him of stamping the foreign brand required on foreign imports (if they bear English words or trade marks) in fugitive inks, or in obscure and concealed places, in order to deceive purchasers, a result frequently proved to be the case with foreign articles bearing no mark of origin, and capable of being sold as English?
  MR. MUNDELLA: I have given instructions that in every case of alleged infringement of the Merchandise Marks Act, where the matter is brought to the attention of the Board of Trade in the manner directed by the Rules and in
  1274
  compliance with the Act, 1891, that the Board shall proceed to enforce the provisions of the Act if they are advised that there is a reasonable prospect of obtaining a conviction.
  COLONEL HOWARD VINCENT: Has the right hon. Gentleman made inquiries into the cases brought before him by the deputation that waited on him on the 6th instant?
  MR. MUNDELLA: No; I could not do that. The statements must be submitted, with evidence, to the Board of Trade.

  THE LABOUR GAZETTE
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether any person, and, if so, who, has been registered at Somerset House as the proprietor of The Labour Gazette; whether any arrangement has been made whereby the various Government Departments are to furnish to this journal information which they do not furnish to other journals; what amount of money has been expended so far in connection with the establishment of The Labour Gazette; and whether the expenditure will appear in any form; and, if so, in what form upon the Estimates?
  MR. MUNDELLA: The registration of The Labour Gazette rests with the Stationery Office, and I understand from that Office that it is unnecessary to register The Gazette at Somerset House, as it does not come within the definition of a newspaper contained in 44 & 45 Vict. c. 60. The arrangements made with the various Government Departments for the supply of information are fully set out in the Memorandum of the Labour Department laid before the House. If any expense is incurred in the printing and publishing The Labour Gazette, it will appear in the Votes of the Stationery Office in the usual way; but I do not anticipate there will be any beyond the gratuitous distribution of a certain number of copies. The Board of Trade Journal has cost nothing to the State for the last seven years, and The Labour Gazette has been so well received that I anticipate a similar result; 20,000 copies were taken the first day, and a further 20,000 have been printed.
  COLONEL HOWARD VINCENT: May I ask whether it is intended that advertisements shall be inserted in The Labour Gazette, thus bringing it into competition with the journals of the country? I may remind the right hon. Gentleman that his Predecessor received a large deputation from the entire Press of the country on the subject.
  MR. MUNDELLA: I am going to act precisely on the line laid down by my Predecessor.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Who is to be responsible for any libellous matter appearing in The Gazette? It seems to me that it already contains libellous matter.
  THE SPEAKER: Order, order!
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the question?
  MR. MUNDELLA: It is not a proper question to put.

  EGYPT.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the attention of Her Majesty's Government has been called to the statement made by M. Develle, the French Minister for Foreign Affairs, on Tuesday last, to the effect that in 1884 and 1885 England entered into negotiations with France respecting the evacuation of Egypt, and that a Convention was signed fixing 1888 as the date of the evacuation; whether Her Majesty's Government accept this as a correct statement of the facts; and whether all the communications and despatches relating to the negotiations and Convention in question are included in the Papers already laid before Parliament; and, if not, whether he can state what communications and despatches are not included therein, and will now lay them before this House?
  SIR E. GREY: An exchange of Notes between Lord Granville and M. Waddington took place in June, 1884. The Notes in full, and the conditions on which the proposals contained in them depended, will be found in Egypt, No. 23, 1884.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Cannot the hon. Gentleman give me some indication of what the tenour of the answer was?
  SIR E. GREY: The answer to which I referred the hon. Gentleman was, that it is not the practice to publish all the communications and Despatches, but only such as give an adequate impression of what has occurred. It may be that in this case all were published, but I have had no time to ascertain.

  EVICTIONS IN ARRAN.
  DR. CAMERON: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether his attention has been called to the fact that a number of notices of removal (stated at from 70 to 100, or upwards) have been served on behalf of the Duke of Hamilton upon tenants of his in the Island of Arran; whether he is aware that the houses and lands from which these tenants are threatened with eviction have, as a rule, been built and reclaimed without assistance from the landlord; and whether, in view of the urgency of the situation, he will consider the propriety on behalf of the Government of taking measures to bring Arran under the operation of the Crofters' Acts?
  SIR G. TREVELYAN: The subject which my hon. Friend has brought forward is one of much gravity and importance. I have not had my attention called to it otherwise than by the newspapers; but I have read what is alleged by the Press to be taking place in Arran. I will make inquiries on the subject, and if he will put his question again sifter the holidays I will give him an answer.

  THE SCOTCH REGISTRATION BILL.
  MR. MAXWELL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if his attention has been called to a copy of a letter which appeared in The Scotsman of the 11th instant, addressed to secretaries of Liberal Associations in Scotland, by the right hon. the Member for Berwickshire, in which it is stated that it is impossible that the Registration Bills now before Parliament can become law in time to affect the registration this year; and whether, in these circumstances, the Government intend to proceed further during the present Session with the Registration of Voters (Scotland) Amendment Bill?
  SIR G. TREVELYAN: In the absence of the Prime Minister, I will repeat what the First Lord has more than once emphatically stated, i.e., that the Government intend to proceed with! and to carry into law the Registration of Voters (Scotland) Bill during the present Session.

  LEEK BOARD OF GUARDIANS.
  MR. BILL: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he has considered the Memorial of the inhabitants of the township of Leek and Lowe, which was sent to him on the 13th of February last, with reference to an increase in the number of the Guardians for that township on the Board of Guardians for the Leek Union; and whether he is disposed to comply with the prayer of the Memorial?
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: The communication referred to contained certain proposals for the grouping of parishes, for the purpose of the election of Guardians, by the Local Government Board. But the Board have no power under which they could give effect to these proposals. The township of Leek and Lowe appears to have a claim to further representation; and the Board propose to issue an Order in the matter.

  THE DUNSANY CO-OPERATIVE STORE COMPANY.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Dunshaughlin Board of Guardians reported to the Local Government Board that Mr. George F. Murphy, J. P. and Mr. John Wilkinson, J. P. (both of Dunsany), voted as ex-officio Guardians in favour of giving the meat contract for the Dunshaughlin Union to the Dunsany Cooperative Store Company, a concern in which they are shareholders; and, if so, whether the Local Government Board intend to prosecute Messrs. Murphy and Wilkinson for corrupt and illegal voting: whether the Local Government Board are aware that Lord Dunsany, principal of the Dunsany Co-operative Store firm, Messrs. George F. Murphy, J.P., John Wilkinson, J.P., and other shareholders in that concern, by whose votes
  1278
  and influence on the Dunshaughlin Board of Guardians the meat contract was secured for the Dunsany Co-operative Store Company, are in the habit of selling fat cattle to their Co-operative Store, which, trading as butchers, sell their meat to the Board of Guardians, of which they are members, and, finally, voting themselves (indirectly) payment out of the funds of the ratepayers, thus having a double financial gain for their votes; whether the Local Government Board have sanctioned such a system of contracting, and consider it advantageous to the ratepayers and the poor; and whether the Local Government Board will take any, and, if so, what action in the matter?
  MR. HORACE PLUNKETT: I wish on this to ask the right hon. Gentleman a question of which I have given him private notice —i.e., Whether he is aware that on the occasion referred to 13 Guardians voted for and six against accepting the lowest tender—namely, that of the Dunsany Co-operative Store Company, Limited, an association for the benefit of the poor of the district, consisting of 200 shareholders, 85 of whom are labourers, and which has now been successfully established for 16 years?
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I rise to Order. Is it the practice in this House, when a person closely connected with a Member of this House has his public conduct attacked, for his relative to come to his aid with a long question?
  MR. SPEAKER: I saw nothing in the supplementary question calling for my interference.
  MR. H. PLUNKETT (continuing his question): Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that none of the Guardians who voted were shareholders except the two named who had shares value £5 and 10s. respectively, and that, therefore, their financial interest in the contract was nominal; that Mr. Wilkinson has never sold any cattle at all to the Stores, while Lord Dunsany and Mr. Murphy only sell occasionally for the accommodation of the stores at Liverpool prices, less freight and expenses, and without benefit to themselves; and whether the Local Government Board inquiry has shown that there, is the slightest foundation for all the suggestions of jobbery on the part of the men named in the

  1279
  question of the hon. Member for East Clare?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I am unable to certify as to the accuracy of the facts quoted by the hon. Gentleman. They may be substantially true, but I have had no time to test them. On the 20th April I stated, in reply to a question addressed to me on this subject by the hon. Member, that the Local Government Board had drawn the attention of the Guardians to the statutory penalties to which members concerned in Union contracts are liable. I now learn that on the 2nd instant the Board of Guardians, at a special meeting convened to consider the matter, unanimously passed a resolution to the effect that two of the Guardians, who are interested as shareholders in the concern to the extent of— in one case of £5 and in the other of 10s. —had voted in favour of the acceptance of the tender of the Co-operative Stores, and that in doing so they acted solely ill the interest of the poor and of the ratepayers. With the view of eliciting all the facts, the Local Government Board have instructed one of their Inspectors to make inquiry into the matter; and, upon the receipt of his Report, the Board will decide whether the case is one in which they should proceed for the recovery of the statutory penalties.
  MR. W. REDMOND: I will put another question after the Recess.

NOTICE OF MOTION.
  THE STATE OF CLARE, KERRY, AND LIMERICK.
  MR. MACARTNEY: I beg to give notice that on the Vote on Account the hon. Member for South Tyrone will call attention to the lawless condition of the Counties of Clare, Kerry, and Limerick, and move to reduce the Vote by an amount equivalent to the salary of the Chief Secretary.

  THE VOTE ON ACCOUNT.
  MR. BARTLEY: When will the Vote on Account be issued? Will it be in time to enable us to put down notices before the Recess?
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: I will lay it on the Table to-night.

  THE WHITSUNTIDE RECESS.
  SIR M. HICKS-BEACH: Will the Motion for the Adjournment over the Whitsuntide Recess be taken as the first Order to-morrow?
  Sir W. HARCOURT: The Motion, which will be that the House, at the conclusion of the Morning Sitting, shall adjourn till Monday, the 29th of May, will not be the first Order, but it will be taken at a time that will give hon. Members an opportunity of making any observations they desire upon it.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  TREASURY CHEST FUND BILL. (No. 321.)

    COMMITTEE. [Progress, 1st May.]
    Considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Clause 1.
    MR. HANBURYasked what was the exact purport of the Bill? As yet he had not been able to get a satisfactory answer, and he should like to know if he was correct in assuming it was another means of attempting to reduce the deficit? So far as he understood, what had happened in past years was this; the Treasury Chest was kept at a certain amount, but this year—for the first time for many years—they were told that it was not necessary to keep that amount in hand for foreign payments, because, in consequence of the facilities of communication with the different parts of the world through the post and telegraph, payments could thus be more easily made. But there was no distinction in that respect between this year and the last few years, and any Chancellor of the Exchequer hard up for money might have done the same thing that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was doing now. What he wanted was an answer to two plain questions. First, whether, as a matter of fact, the right hon. Gentleman was not borrowing this money in order to reduce the deficit; and, in the next phase, whether the right hon. Gentleman could tell him what special circumstances there were in connection with this Bill which enabled him, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, to reduce the

    1281
    balance by means of this chest, that were not equally applicable to any of his Predecessors? It might be a very proper thing to do, but if the Chancellor of the Exchequer was really borrowing—about which he thought there could be no doubt—then he should boldly say so. He would ask whether this was not, in fact, a new form of loan to a limited extent? If the right hon. Gentleman said it was, then the matter would be ended; but what he wanted was to prevent the Chancellor of the Exchequer sailing under false colours. The right hon. Gentleman had condemned similar action on the part of some of his Predecessors, and if they found that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was borrowing in this way, then it was only right that he should apply the same condemnation to himself which he had so readily extended to those who preceded him in Office. To put himself in Order he would therefore move the rejection of the clause.
    Amendment proposed, to leave out Clause 1.— (Mr. Hanbury.)
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir W. HARCOURT,): I put this down as the first Order of the Day in order that hon. Members might have full information upon it. The transaction contemplated by the Bill is one that has been done several times. This Treasury Chest is, in point of fact, the working balance for making payments abroad. From time to time it is found this working balance is more than necessary for that purpose. In 1861 the present Prime Minister, then Chancellor of the Exchequer, reduced the balance. In 1873 the same thing was done by Mr. Lowe, and exactly the same amount of money, £300,000, was taken. At that time the balance was £ 1,300,000, and Mr. Lowe applied the £300,000 to the financial arrangements of that year, and the Bill went through without any observation, it being treated as a mere Treasury matter. If the hon. Gentleman wants to know why it is done this year, I have not the slightest hesitation in telling him; it is because we want money. I have made no secret of that. Money is wanted; this is available for the purposes required; and if hon. Members consider that borrowing, I have no objection to their thinking so.
    *MR. COHENsaid, that whatever might have been thought before the explanation of the Chancellor of the Exchequer there could not now be any one in the House who could imagine for one moment that the transaction was one of borrowing, because he apprehended that borrowing contemplated repayment. This was an appropriation out of capital for the purpose of meeting a deficit; it was an experiment the Chancellor of the Exchequer would scarcely call borrowing. The right hon. Gentleman was appropriating £300,000 which belonged to capital in order to meet expenditure which he (Mr. Cohen) should consider ought to be defrayed from Revenue. The money ought to be applied in the same way as the surpluses were taken for the reduction of Debt. He thought his hon. Friend (Mr. Hanbury) would no longer consider it borrowing. It seemed to him that when his hon. Friend made the observation that he was under a misapprehension, and it was now absolutely clear that it was not borrowing, but was, he might almost say, confiscation. But whatever the expression ought to be, it was appropriating towards annual expenditure capital sources, and therefore he wondered that such a financial purist as the right hon. Gentleman should resort to an expedient that was scarcely so justifiable as the system of borrowing for capital expenditure.
    MR. BARTLEYthought this raised a somewhat serious question, inasmuch, as he understood it, all surpluses of this sort were obliged to be applied to the reduction of Debt. The money had arisen out of taxation in former years, and being no longer necessary for the purpose for which it was voted, it ought to go in the reduction of Debt. Therefore, he apprehended, this Bill was really and truly to do away with that provision and to give the Chancellor of the Exchequer the accommodation of £300,000 this year to make up deficiences. That was following the bad precedent of the present Prime Minister in 1861, and he hoped the Committee would be strong on this point and insist that the £300,000 should not be diverted to a wrong purpose, but should go in the reduction of Debt as it ought to do.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: That would make it necessary to put on another tax. The question of what is capital and what

    1283
    is not, no doubt, we might discuss at great length. If you have a great windfall on an estate you might treat the timber that fell as capital, but if you were hard up that year you would use it as revenue. The Committee knows very well what has been done in these eases in former times, and I hope they will allow us to have this Bill.
    *SIR JOHN LUBBOCKsaid, the right hon. Gentleman called this a windfall, but he submitted it was no windfall at all. Lot them understand what they were about to do. The Treasury Chest, as he understood it, were certain sums kept abroad to meet expenditure, and the right hon. Gentleman now brought in a Bill to diminish the sum kept in the Treasury Chest; therefore it was not a windfall in any sense of the word. If the Treasury found it was not necessary to keep so large a sum, it was quite right to bring the money home; but having done so, it ought to go in reduction of Debt, and they must clearly understand they were not making both ends meet to that extent, because taking the money out of one pocket and putting it into another could not be called a windfall. The right hon. Gentleman was quite right in bringing the money home, but it ought to go in the reduction of Debt, and not to the Revenue of the year. It was really part of the property of the nation being transferred from one place to another, and to treat it as income was ridiculous, and if his hon. Friend went to a Division he should feel bound to go with him. If they were to understand that merely because £300,000 had been transferred from the Treasury Chest to the Exchequer they were to spend it, he thought that was a matter they ought to protest against.
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: I think my hon. Friend behind me and the right hon. Baronet opposite are really financial purists. Of course, it is very easy to lay down the very honourable, strict, and creditable maxim that never must you apply money to one purpose that was intended for another, and for the guidance of the Treasury to pass a cast-iron rule; but when you consider what the action of the Treasury has been during many years in the management of English finances, and how the House of Commons has never been able to detect the Trea-
    1284
    sury in any fault, you must be careful to give a certain elasticity to the licence and liberty you allow the Treasury in dealing with the financial incidence of the time and the requirements which one year with another may bring. The Treasury is advanced a sum for the purposes of the year. A balance of £300,000 is lying on a deposit, as it were, called the Treasury Chest; it is not wanted for the purposes of the Treasury Chest, but is wanted for the purposes of the year, and if the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not adopted this course what would have been the result? The services of the year would not be fully provided for, and the Government would have to run the risk, at the end of the year, if they did not avail themselves of this, of increasing the Floating Debt by the amount that is required, and I want to know, in these days, whether those gentlemen who object to getting money from the Government at a rate of not more than 2 or 2¾ per cent. will run the risk of this year paying the interest they might have to pay if they increase the amount of the Treasury Debt? It is obvious to anyone that the Government have made a convenient arrangement for the country. If, following the purist rule of the right hon. Baronet, they had not provided for the deficit they would have been attacked in the House of Commons, and if they had put on a tax they would have again been attacked in the House of Commons. They have followed the precedent that has been set by Chancellors of the Exchequer like the First Lord of the Treasury and like the late Mr. Lowe, and they certainly procure money on more advantageous and convenient terms than if they followed any other course. That is financial common sense, and I shall certainly support the Government.
    MR. COURTNEYhad not intended to take part in the Debate, but it was really important to protest against the language and the attitude assumed by the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington (Lord R. Churchill). He had said before in this House that he knew of no more striking illustration of the immense power of the Treasury than the way in which it had captured the noble Lord and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, both of whom had gone there as enemies

    1285
    of that institution and had become the most docile disciples. The noble Lord had said that a certain balance (£300,000) had been appropriated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in order to meet the exigencies of the year. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had treated as Revenue that which was, in fact, part of capital. That was open to objection, and that was the part of the financial purists. In his opinion that ought not to pass without notice, and the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Hanbury) very properly called attention to what was being done. The noble Lord had said that "you must trust the Treasury; they behave extremely well." He protested against that line of argument, because they wore not dealing with the permanent officials of the Treasury, but with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It might very well be that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had overridden the scruples of the Treasury, but the right hon. Gentleman knew perfectly well that a very eminent Predecessor of his was once very sharply blamed for conduct like what be now practised. In the famous Budget of Mr. Disraeli in 1852, when he was in great straits to balance his accounts, as other Chancellors of the Exchequer had been, he made a proposal in respect to the Exchequer Loans, which was discussed for two nights, and which was opposed by the present Prime Minister and defeated. What the right hon. Gentleman was now doing was of precisely the same character, and it was quite right that it should be condemned. In this case borrowing was not the only alternative, for the Expenditure might have been cut down or the Revenue raised, and it was not a question of the difference in the interest, as the noble Lord had put forward, but it was a matter of real principle.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: I only rise to protest against the statement of my right hon. Friend that I was the enemy of the Treasury, because I never was the enemy of the Treasury. It is true that during the reign of a particular Secretary to the Treasury, the administration of the Treasury became so unpopular in most of the Departments that there was a feeling against that Body, but that does not exist now. I am, however, obliged to my right hon. Friend for his speech, because he has supported my case, and
    1286
    has, to use a vulgar expression, "given himself away." The right hon. Gentleman says that the balance should have been reduced, and what he proposes is that, instead of reducing the balance upon which it was not necessary to draw, we should reduce balances every penny of which is wanted. That is the real argument of the late Secretary of the Treasury, and I have never heard a more remarkable argument from an ex-Secretary. The right hon. Member for the University of London (Sir John Lubbock) is desirous of reducing the Debt. I have now a margin of £175,000, and I hope it may be realised; if so, that sum will go to the reduction of the Debt, because it would be a real surplus, and the £300,000 would find its way into the Treasury. Under those circumstances, I hope the hon. Member will not press his opposition.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid, the prospect of this sum going in the reduction of Debt, if certain things happened, was satisfactory to the Committee. The question now was, however, not that the balance should be reduced—they were prepared to agree to that—but what was to be done with the £300,000, and no doubt it did turn to some extent on the character of the sum the right hon. Gentleman had captured as a windfall. He did not think that was an appropriate description. A windfall was timber or apples blown down by the wind, but in this instance they had got the right hon. Gentleman in the orchard up the tree, after the apples himself. The right hon. Gentleman admitted it; he wanted money, and therefore had gone out to get it. He was a pirate. The animus furandi was ascertained. What they complained of was the allocation of it not to the diminution of Debt, not to the purpose which the wisdom of Parliament had pointed out as a proper destination of any sums of this kind, but to the payment of the inordinate expenses of this year. They said that according to all the sound principles of finance the expenses of the year should be met out of the Revenue of the year, and that the right hon. Gentleman had no right to put his hand in the public till, to go up the public apple-tree, and take the public apple which properly belonged to capital and not to Revenue. That was what they objected to.
    *MR. FREEMAN MITFORDsaid, the right hon. Gentleman stated that the right hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Courtney) had given himself away; but there wore two ways of reducing the balance, one by investment and the other by spending it, and in the present case it appeared to him they were spending it. The Treasury Chest was a matter they had been taught to look on as a sacred thing not to be lightly touched, and if the hon. Gentleman went to a Division he should vote with him.
    MR. TOMLINSONthought that if there was any doubt about the nature of the transaction before, the illustration the right hon. Gentleman had favoured them with as an excuse was enough to convince them. The right hon. Gentleman said that if his calculations were borne out there would be a surplus which would go to the reduction of Debt; but if they should not be borne out there would be a deficiency, and the capital sum would have been diminished by that amount.
    Question put, "That Clause 1 stand part of the Bill."
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 230: Noes 116.—(Division List, No. 95.)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Clause 2 stand part of the Bill."
    MR. BARTLEYsaid, it would be better to cite the Bill as the Treasury Chest Revenue Relief Bill.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again," put, and negatived.
    Bill reported without Amendment.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: I move that the Bill be read a third time. I hope the House will agree to this.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."—(Sir W. Harcourt.)
    MR. HANBURYsaid, he was opposed to the Third Reading being taken then Hon. Members knew very little about the Bill.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: Then, Sir, I put. it down for to-morrow.
    Bill to be read the third time Tomorrow, at Two of the clock.

SUPPLY.—CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, 1893–4.
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)

CLASS I.
1. Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £48,719, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1894, for Expenditure in respect of Miscellaneous Legal Buildings— namely, County Courts, Metropolitan Police Courts, and Sheriff Court Houses, Scotland."
*SIR J. LUBBOCKsaid, when the Committee last met, the subject of the Vote for London Police Courts was discussed, and several hon. Members expressed the opinion that they ought to be paid for out of the London rates. In London, however, they maintained that, so far from being unduly favoured in comparison with other districts, they had, on the contrary, great reason to complain. He did not allude to the scanty representation accorded to the Metropolis, but to the financial treatment they experienced. A considerable part of the police expenditure was for Imperial purposes. The London police was in the hands of the Home Office, and cost no less than £1,600,000, or 5d. in the £1, while in other boroughs it was only 4d. A difference of 1d. in the £1 amounted to £130,000 a year. Again, the Hackney Carriage Licences, amounting to £38,000 a year, in other boroughs went to the borough rate. Again, in the City of London the whole of the police expenses were paid out of rates, and the Imperial Government contributed nothing. These items together placed London at a disadvantage of over £200,000 a year as compared with other boroughs. But that was not all. The President of the Local Government Board (Mr. H. H. Fowler) in his recent Report pointed out that, whereas the contribution from the Imperial Government towards local expenses amounted in other county boroughs to 10d., in counties to 9·6d., in London it was only 8·6d. Here, again, the difference amounted to over £100,000 a

1289
year. In fact, so far from being unduly favoured, London was unfairly treated to the extent of something like £400,000 a year, and they would certainly resist any additional burdens being thrown on them. He would not, of course, go into the whole question just then; but he felt sure that when the Committee had the whole facts before them they would see that they in London suffered under a very great disadvantage in this matter.
*MR. WHITMOREsaid, the hon. Member for North Islington (Mr. Bartley) was rather precipitate in his method of dealing with this matter on a former occasion. There was much to be said in favour of London paying for its Police Courts. But if this change was made, they would have to go into an inquiry as to whether the Metropolis was not called upon in other matters to bear far more than its share of the public expenditure. In the provincial towns the fees and fines obtained in the Police Courts went to the Municipal Authority maintaining them, and in that way relief was given to such authority. In London at present the fees went to the State. The fees and fines received in the Metropolitan Courts, amounting in 1891 to £26,889, were paid into the Imperial Exchequer. If the proposed change was made it was obvious that this large sum should go to the local funds, to be applied towards defraying the cost of the Courts. He anticipated that the whole question of the relation between the finances of the County of London and those of the Exchequer would have to be gone into at some future time, and he hoped when that time came justice would be done to London.
*MR. JAMES STUARTsaid, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the London University had put the case of London with such admirable point and justice that it was not necessary to add a word to what he had said to the Committee. He (Mr. Stuart) wished to express his sympathy with the observations of the right hon. Gentleman. He would not have intervened in the Debate but for the remark of the hon. Member for Chelsea, that this was a small matter as compared with others that had been mentioned. It was important that a relief should be given to London rates, in comparison with burdens in the other large
1290
centres of the country. He would refer the hon. Member to the Report which had lately been issued by the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. H. H. Fowler). The hon. Member might have in recollection that the inequality that now existed was mainly due to the late Government, and was supported by the hon. Member's friends, whilst he (Mr. Stuart) and his hon. Friends representing London did all they could to relieve the London burdens, in comparison with other burdens as already mentioned. The Bill of 1888 established a difference between the aid given to London and County rates of 1¾d. in the £1. The rates of London had been relieved of 4¼d., and the rates of other County Boroughs 6d. in the £1, whereas the country districts were relieved of rather more than 5¾d. It was that Bill which had introduced the great inequality between the relief given to London from the central fund and that given to the rates of the country. He and his friends had endeavoured to rectify this state of things, but were strenuously opposed at that time by hon. Gentlemen opposite, who were now endeavouring to obtain a little cheap popularity. He seconded all that had been said by the Member for London University, and hoped that, before long, relief would be given to London burdens, as compared with the burdens of other parts of the country. In bringing about that result they would be glad to see all exceptional circumstances taken into account.
*THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. H. H. FOWLER,): I will not say anything about the allocation of Imperial Funds to local purposes at present; but as to the Metropolitan Police Courts it is said you ought not to throw on London the cost of maintaining them, unless you also give to London the fines and fees levied in them. The hon. Member said that the fines and fees are taken by the Local Authorities in the Municipal Boroughs. But I would point out that the Municipal Boroughs pay for their own Magistrates and Magistrates' Clerks, whereas the salaries of the London Police Magistrates and their Clerks are paid out of the Imperal Exchequer. There are 23 Magistrates in London, and as the salary of each is

1291
£1,500 a year, it will be seen that the fines and fees would not cover that expenditure as well as make provision for the staff at each Court. When it is said that London has not the advantage of drawing fines and fees, I would point out that London has the great advantage of drawing on the taxpayers of the United Kingdom for amounts which ought to be paid out of the Local Funds. I admit that the whole case of London finance is a difficult question, and I should be the last to maintain that London has obtained justice under the present arrangement.
*MR. WHITMOREsaid, his argument was that if London in future had to pay out of its own resources for the maintenance of the Police Courts and Magistrates, the fees and fines obtained in them should go to the London local exchequer.
MR. BARTLEYsaid, the hon. Member opposite (Mr. J. Stuart) had referred to some of them as trying to get popularity out of their opposition to the Vote. He would remind the hon. Member that he (Mr. Bartley) had always advocated London paying for its own Courts. He had always supported the hon. Member for Northampton in those Motions. No doubt this was part of a larger question, and when the whole subject came to be dealt with, no doubt it would be more complicated than it was at this particular time. But he thought that they ought to show that they were bonâ fide in their desire that the cost of maintaining the Police Courts should be borne by the localities. He was opposed to Imperial taxation assisting, as it was called, local taxation. The two ought to be kept as separate as possible. This might not be a very popular view to take of the matter, but it was a strictly financial one. These Police Courts were special to London, and were not at all of an Imperial nature. The hon. Member for Northampton had intended to reduce this Vote of £7,516 by £7,000. He had spoken very boldly, and had then run away without moving a reduction. He (Mr. Bartley), therefore, would move to reduce the Vote by £50, as an intimation that this particular item should be put upon the Local Authority.
Motion made, and Question proposed) "That Item G, New Works and Metropolitan Police Court Buildings, be reduced by £50."—(Mr. Bartley.)
SIR J. T. HIBBERT: I rise to say a few words which may induce the hon. Gentleman not to press his Motion to a Division. The hon. Member for Northampton did propose a reduction in the Vote, but withdrew his Motion on the intimation that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be prepared to deal with the question before another year came round. I will state what has taken place since we discussed this matter a few weeks ago. Since that discussion the Chancellor of the Exchequer has given instructions for a letter to be written to the County Council, and I have already undertaken the duty of writing it, setting forth the opinion of the Treasury with respect to taking this item of expenditure off the Imperial Funds and placing it on the funds of the County Council. That letter will, I hope, satisfy the hon. Member who has moved the reduction, and will give the London County Council a chance of considering the whole question. I do not think that this is the time to go into the question of Imperial finance and County Council finance, as against county finance. I have always been of opinion that this expenditure ought, in fairness to other parts of the United Kingdom, to be placed on the Metropolis; and I trust that, looking at the intentions of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, we shall he able, before another year (tomes round, to arrive at some agreement with the County Council with respect to this matter. I rise to say this in the hope that it will induce the hon. Member not to press this Motion to a Division.
MR. J. ROWLANDSsaid, he was pleased to hear the remarks of the Secretary to the Treasury to the effect that there would be some attempt made to alter the present arrangement, and to get purely local charges put on the Local Bodies, so that equal justice would be done all round, which ought to have been done in 1888, when the allocation took place under the Local Government Act. The right hon. Gentle-man the Secretary to the Treasury had not informed them of one thing. If they were going to re-adjust the question of the Police Courts, they must re-adjust the

1293
whole question of the civil administration of justice, and they must deal with the question of the control of the police. This was a question as to whether certain charges now borne by the Imperial Funds should be borne by the Local Authorities, and it was not a question of a reduction of £50 or £7,000; because, if hon. Gentlemen would glance at the full amount of the Vote, they would see that something like £50,000 was involved. This would have to be dealt with as a whole. He took it that the hon. Member for North Islington, in moving the reduction of the Vote, wished, as one of his Colleagues had put it, to appear very heroic. There were always hon. Gentlemen in the House prepared to give London something when it cost nothing; but when it came to going into the Division Lobby on the question of giving extended powers to London they always found those hon. Gentlemen voting against such extension. He should vote against this reduction, because he believed they could not deal with this question by a simple reduction. The moment they had an opportunity given them of dealing with the whole question of local charges they would be prepared to go into it. They would not assent to London being deprived of anything it now received until they had a thorough re-adjustment and London was treated in the same way as the rest of the country.
MR. LABOUCHIEREsaid, he did not think it necessary to go into the whole question of the amount London should receive from the general funds. The question now was simply with regard to the Police Courts—whether the Provinces ought to pay for them, or whether the cost should be thrown entirely upon London? The hon. Member opposite had said he (Mr. Labouchere) had moved an Amendment and was now going to run away. He had moved his Amendment time after time, even when the Party opposite were in power, but had never succeeded in getting a majority in favour of it. All that he cared for was that the thing should be done, and the question was what was the best way to obtain that end? It certainly seemed to him that when a responsible Minister said that he agreed with the principle, and would attempt to carry it out next year, that it would be a mistake to go to a Division.
1294
At the present time the London County Council could not raise money for the Police Courts even if they wished. It would be ultra vires. If he had carried his Motion to reduce the Vote by the sum of £7,000 it would have been necessary to put the sum back on Report because it was evident that London could not go without its Police Courts, and in a lesser degree the same argument would apply to the proposed reduction of £50. But were they sure that they would carry a reduction if they went to a Division, and what would be the result if they did not? Why, it was understood that if hon. Members did not accept the pledges of the Government and went to a Division and were beaten the Government were freed from those pledges. For his own part, he desired to hold the Government to their pledges. If no action was taken in the matter by the Government next year they would go to a Division, and if they did he believed they would carry a reduction. The answer of the Government to-day, however, had been so ample and practical that he believed if hon. Members took a Division they would be beaten, and do more harm than good in the cause they were espousing.
MR. POWELL WILLIAMSdid not think the answer of the Government was a practical one. They did not deal with the particular item which was the subject of attack, but said they had written to the London County Council raising the general question of the charge for the Police Courts, and a large number of other questions involving great complications. What they wanted to do was to get rid of the gross injustice which was very deeply felt in the London constituencies of the London Police Courts receiving assistance from the Imperial Funds while the local Police Courts had to be supported locally. It seemed to him that the Motion of the hon. Member opposite was a direct attack upon that state of things; therefore, he hoped he would press it to a, Division, notwithstanding the consequences the hon. Member for Northampton threatened them with.
MR. JACKSON: I did not understand the Secretary to the Treasury to state the case as the hon. Gentleman has just put it. I understood him to say that, although there

1295
was a very large question, he had communicated with the London County Council with reference to a particular item—the Police Courts—or that he was about to.
SIR J. T. HIBBERT: Was about to communicate.
MR. JACKSON: Presumably the communication will be made before very long. I understood the Secretary to the Treasury to go further than that, and to say that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was prepared to deal with the matter before the next Estimates are proposed. I take it, therefore, as far as the Police Courts are concerned, that this is the last time the item will appear on the Estimates.
SIR J. T. HIBBERT: No, no!
MR. JACKSON: I think the right hon. Gentleman will find that he said that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had promised to deal with it before the next Estimates. It seems, then, from what we have heard from the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board and from the Secretary to the Treasury that the Government are of opinion that this change should be made. I think we may be reasonably satisfied with the pledge we have received. I do not know whether this promise is confined to the buildings, or whether it extends to the more important question of who is to bear the expense of the salaries of the Police Magistrates. I should have been glad if the Secretary to the Treasury had told us something on that point. It would be tinkering only to deal with the buildings and not to touch the larger question. Whether London receives its fair share is a much larger question. My impression is that the late President of the Local Government Board was of opinion that London does not get its fair share. If the point is to be raised we should have a full opportunity of examining the whole question. I should be glad if the right hon. Gentleman would inform us whether his communication to the London County Council proposes that they should consider only the question of buildings, or whether they should deal also with the question of how the charge for Police Magistrates is to be borne in future?
SIR J. T. HIBBERT: I am anxious to confine the discussion as far as possible to the Vote, and I wish to avoid stating anything as to the larger question of the taxation of the Metropolis and as to the Police Magistrates and the police. At present the intention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer is to deal with the question of buildings. I cannot say whether the whole question of the Magistrates will be entered upon; but the London County Council will have an opportunity of dealing with the whole question.
*SIR J. LUBBOCKsaid, he could understand the desire of the Secretary to the Treasury to confine this controversy to the question of the Police Courts; but he thought that if the House of Commons were going to deal with the matter at all they should deal with it as a whole. If they were going to place the whole burden of this item on the London County Council, no one would deny that it would be difficult to withhold from them the control of the police.
THE CHAIRMAN: I must remind the right hon. Baronet that this Vote is for Police Court Buildings.
SIR J. T. HIBBERT: We propose now to write a letter to the London County Council to give that Body an opportunity of stating their views.
MR. POWELL WILLIAMSwished to know what was the use of making any representation to the London County Council on this particular head, inasmuch as the County Council had no legal means of taking this charge on themselves? The Provincial Corporations had power to levy a rate for Police Courts, but the London County Council had no such power.
*SIR J. LUBBOCKsaid, his contention was that as the Metropolitan Police cost no less than £1,600,000, or 3d, in the £1 on the rateable value—which was £130,000 more than ought to be paid— and considering that the Metropolitan Police discharged a great many Imperial duties, if the question was raised at all it should be raised as a whole.
MR. HANBURYsaid, he did not see the close connection between the police and the Magistrates' Courts. There was a much closer connection between the Police Courts and the payment of the Magistrates. They formed a part of the same question, and he had

1297
been astonished to hear the Secretary to the Treasury adduce as a reason for passing the item that he was about to bring a part of the question before the London County Council. If the London County Council paid for anything at all it would have to pay for the Courts and the Magistrates too, as was done in the Provinces. Members who represented large Provincial towns could not understand why London should be placed in a different position to other towns in regard to the police and Magistrates. What was the exceptional character of the Police Courts of London? Extradition cases were heard at Bow Street no doubt, and an exception should be made in the case of that Court; but in the case of the other Courts it was ridiculous to say that they were in any sense international, or that they ought to be treated in a different manner to Provincial Police Courts. Clerkenwell, Greenwich, Lambeth, Southwark, Woolwich— all these Courts were essentially local Courts. It was in that sense that opposition was being offered to the Vote by hon. Members who represented the Provinces. he did not think the promise to refer the question to those who had no legal powers in the matter would be of any use to them.
SIR J. T. HIBBERT: I would point out that it will be impossible to introduce a Bill until we have arrived at some kind of agreement with the London County Council.
MR. HANBURYsaid, he and his hon. Friends said they should object to a Bill which dealt with one part of the question only. The Government would deal with the Magistrates as well as the Courts, and yet on that the most important part of the question they were not going to consult the London County Council.
SIR J.T. HIBBERT: I say we have not yet deluded whether the question of the Magistrates shall be included with the buildings.
MR. HANBURYthought that if they did not get a promise that all these questions would be considered together a Division should be taken. He observed that most of the Police Courts were rented, yet he saw charges for repairs and alterations—in the case of the Thames Street Court, £315; and in that of the Southwark Court, £401. What did these charges mean?
SIR J. HIBBERT: The buildings are held under long leases.
MR. HANBURYsaid, that even then it seemed that they were spending large sums of money on these Courts. Before he assented to the money being voted he should require to know the length of the leases.
THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. SHAW-LEFEVRE,)said, that most of the buildings were originally taken on 99 years' leases. Large sums of money had been spent in warming and ventilating.
MR. LABOUCHEREthought it would be a great advantage if Magistrates and Courts could be brought into the same Vote; but they could not do that. This Vote affected buildings—the salaries were on the Consolidated Fund. If the Motion to reduce the Vote were carried it would only affect the buildings, and would in no way prejudice the question of the salaries of the Police Magistrates. The only way they could raise that question would be on the question of the salaries of the Police Commissioners, or of the salary of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He agreed that all these charges ought to be thrown on the Metropolis; but they would not advance the. matter further even if they carried the reduction of £50. Indeed, they would prejudice these cases if the Division went against them. It was, therefore, very much as the Prime Minister said the other day, "Heads I win, tails you lose." If anyone could show that, by dividing against this Vote, the Committee would in any sense put the Government under an obligation of taking the salaries of the Police Magistrates off the Consolidated Fund, he should certainly divide against it. That, however, would be impossible, because that was not the question raised by the proposed reduction. The proper course to adopt was to move a reduction of the salary of some Minister who was responsible for the present state of things. If such a reduction could be carried, the Committee might be absolutely certain that the reform which so many Members desired would be carried out in the following year.
MR. A. C. MORTONsaid, he had voted on two or three occasions against this charge being put upon the Consolidated Fund, and he

1299
should have done so this year but for the undertaking given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he would endeavour to meet the views of hon. Members before the next Budget. He had always objected to London being put in a different position from other large towns. To his mind it was somewhat disgraceful to London that the Metropolis was not allowed to manage its Police Courts and its Police Force in the same way as other towns. Next year, if the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not carry out his undertaking, he (Mr. Morton) should certainly join in attacking the Vote.
MAJOR RASCHsaid, he was sorry that the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) was not going to vote for the reduction; but he could not help admiring the hon. Member's flexibility and adaptability. The hon. Member seemed to change his opinions as he changed from one side of the House to the other. As the Representative of an agricultural constituency, he (Major Rasch) thought he should not be doing his duty to his constituents if he did not support the Vote. He could not conceive anything more unfair than to pay out of the taxes for the maintenance of the London Police Courts, when people in the country had to pay for their police out of their miserable local rates. With wheat at 25s. a quarter, it was rather hard that the Government should exempt any localities from the payment of taxation which they clearly ought to pay, and should refuse absolutely to give any assistance in the direction of reform, beyond writing a letter to the County Council, which the Council would probably not answer.
*MR. FREEMAN-MITFORDsaid, the present state of things was altogether indefensible, although it was evident that any alteration must be of an extremely complicated character. At the present moment there was nobody to whom these buildings could be handed over if the Government gave up the control of them, because there existed no Body with any funds which would enable them to look after them properly. He thought Bow Street stood in altogether an exceptional position, as it was, perhaps, the one Police Court in this Metropolis which had a distinctly Imperial character. Something had been
1300
said about the necessity, if the Police Courts were handed over to the Representatives of London, of handing the Police over also. That was an absolute and entire non sequitur. There was no reason why the Metropolitan Police should not remain under Government control, whilst all the Police Courts except Bow Street were handed over to the London County Council.
Question put, and negatived.
Original Question again proposed.
MR. A. C. MORTONwished to know why the Commissioners of Works had not bought the freehold of the South Western Police Court site instead of putting up an expensive building on a leasehold site? It was well known that after erecting a building the land on which it was built could not be obtained as cheaply as before the building was put up.
MR. SHAW-LEFEVREsaid, the transaction referred to by the hon. Member occurred before he himself went into Office, and all he could say was that the Government were anxious in every case to obtain the land on which their buildings were erected.
MR. POWELL WILLIAMSsaid, he observed that the cost of new works for the Sheriffs' Courts of Scotland was divided equally between the Local Authorities and the Crown. He was informed that this arrangement was due to the fact that the Sheriffs' Courts had criminal as well as civil jurisdiction. But he would like to ask on what principle the cost was divided equally between the Local Authorities and the Crown?
MR. SHAW-LEFEVREsaid, the amount was arrived at some years ago on a rough estimate that one-half the business of those Courts was of a criminal and the other half of a civil character.
MR. POWELL WILLIAMSsaid, he wished to get at the principle on which the payment was made. Suppose in the case of Airdrie the criminal side of the Court needed greater accommodation, and it was necessary to expend £1,000 on that increased accommodation, would the Treasury take no cognisance of that fact, but still pay half the cost? If so, it was perfectly clear that the Crown

1301
was contributing to Scotland considerable sums annually for the purpose of local criminal business, although it was making no such contribution to England.
MR. SHAW-LEFEVREsaid, that in the hypothetical case stated by his hon. Friend it would only be reasonable to take into account the fact that the increased cost was due to the need of further accommodation on the criminal side.
Original Question put, and agreed to.
(2.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £22,951, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1894, for Expenditure in respect of Art and Science Buildings, Great Britain."
DR. FARQUHARSONasked what the sum of £2,850 for new works, alterations, and additions meant?
MR. HANBURYwished to ask a question as to the item for additions to the Assyrian collections in the British Museum. He was personally glad that such additions were being made, and should like to know of what they consisted. From his own experience he could say that there were places in Assyria where one could see lying on the ground for almost the first comer to pickup very valuable winged bulls, and other monuments of antiquity, covered with inscriptions. These would be very valuable additions to the British Museum, and he wished to know whether the Museum authorities were obtaining any of them?
MR. SHAW-LEFEVREsaid, that what the hon. Member desired had, he thought, practically been carried out. A largo number of Assyrian sculptures were being put into place, and it had been found necessary to remodel the room for the purpose.
MR. HANBURYsaid, that was not his point. What he had said was that, for historical purposes, it would be well if the Government saw whether it was possible to bring to this country a number of the Assyrian sculptures at Nineveh, which could be had almost for nothing, and which he had been assured by those conversant with the matter were of great value.
MR. BUCHANAN: On a point of Order, Mr. Mellor. Is not the hon. Gentleman out of Order in bringing this question up on a Vote for Buildings?
THE CHAIRMAN: Strictly speaking, that is so; but the hon. Member is merely asking a question.
MR. SHAW-LEFEYRE: I have explained that the Trustees of the British Museum have already a greater accumulation of those Assyrian sculptures than they can find room for.
*MR. FREEMAN-MITFORDasked whether the item of £250 for Sanitary Works at the British Museum would complete the works, or was it likely that additional expenditure in that direction would appear on future Estimates?
MR. SHAW-LEFEVRE: It is to be hoped that the expenditure of this sum will put the drainage into a proper condition; but I may say that the drains are old, and are not up to modern requirements.
THE MARQUESS OF CARMARTHENdrew attention to the inadequate lighting of the British Museum. He owned that the question was not a novel one. It was brought up year after year. And year after year, Ministers made promises that something would be done to effect an improvement; but nothing was ever done. Considering the efforts that were being made to educate the working classes through the agency of the Free Libraries and similar institutions, it seemed a pity that such a great educational institution as the British Museum could not be lighted at night when the working classes had time to visit it. The stock argument against the lighting of the Museum was the danger from fire; but that danger was now obviated by the great perfection to which electric lighting had been brought. He hoped, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman would be able to give an assurance—not that the work would be carried out this year, for the expense would be too great for one year—but that the matter would not be practically shelved.
MR. LAWRENCEsaid, he understood that a considerable sum had been spent in improving the lighting of the Museum; and he would like to know whether any appreciable increase in visitors had followed?

1303
Some time ago he used to go in the evening to South Kensington, and from his experience there——
THE CHAIRMAN: I do not think that matter is properly raised on this Vote, which is for buildings.
MR. A. C. MORTONasked whether the First Commissioner of Works intended to get the Assyrian bulls referred to by the hon. Member for Preston. He did not know much about Assyrian bulls, or whether there was any connection between them and three acres and a cow——
MR. BUCHANAN: Mr. Mellor, is the hon. Gentleman in Order on this Vote?
MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I wish to ask you, Mr. Mellor, whether an Assyrian bull is not a building?
THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member for Peterborough is clearly out of Order.
MR. A. C. MORTONsaid, he saw an item of £2,000 for the new Assyrian rooms at the British Museum. He wanted to know whether it was intended to provide a room for the Assyrian bulls?
MR. SHAW-LEFEVRE: There is a large amount of Assyrian sculpture to be provided for, and the Vote is intended to procure the necessary accommodation for sculpture that cannot now be shown.
MR. PARKER SMITHdrew attention to the inadequate accommodation for readers in the Reading Room of the Museum. He had been there several times, and had found the place so full that it was extremely difficult to get a seat. He thought it was a great deal more important, from the point of view of the convenience of the British public, to provide room for readers than room for Assyrian bulls at the Museum. It would be a great public advantage if an additional Reading Room were provided for the benefit of the old gentlemen who went to the Reading Room for the purpose of spending a placid if not an instructive day there.
MR. SHAW-LEFEVRE: There is no provision this year for increasing the accommodation in the Reading Room. I quite agree with the hon. Gentleman that the pressure on the accommodation in the Reading Room is becoming an urgent question; and I have no doubt
1304
that if the Trustees of the Museum press for an increase in the accommodation it will he the duty of the Government to provide it.
MR. PARKER SMITH: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether any representations have been made to him by the Trustees of the want of accommodation?
MR. SHAW-LEFEVRE: Not while I have been in Office.
*MR. JACKSON: I notice a sum of £900, a Re-Vote for the conversion of the Medal Room into an Exhibition Room for gold ornaments. I was responsible, more or less, for putting £900 for this purpose on the Estimates last year, and I judge from the fact that it is stated to be a Re-Vote that none of the £900 voted last year was expended. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will tell us why no progress was made with the work last year, and whether any progress will be made with it this year? I remember that this work was pressed on the Treasury with great assiduity, and we could never have sanctioned the £900 unless we were satisfied at the time, not only that the work was necessary, but that there was an immediate intention of carrying it out. Let me add that the noble Lord the Member for Brixton has done some injustice to those who are responsible for the lighting of the Museum; for when I was at the Treasury we sanctioned the necessary expenditure for introducing the electric light. The work was carried out under the supervision of Mr. Preece, the Electrical Engineer of the Post Office, and I understand it gives the greatest satisfaction.
MR. SHAW-LEFEVRE: In answer to my right hon. Friend, I have to say that it is intended to provide a Library and Students' Room; but the work could not be proceeded with in consequence of no room being ready into which to transfer the medals. I understand the work will be proceeded with this year.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid, he was under the impression that there was a large Library at the Museum already, and he would like to know why an additional Library was required?
MR. SHAW-LEFEVRE: I am afraid I cannot give the hon. Member any information about this Library and

1305
Students' Room. It was a work undertaken last year.
*SIR RICHARD TEMPLEsaid, he desired to urge oh the Government the necessity for developing the British Museum, which was probably the finest institution of its kind in the world, and was the glory of the British nation. The question was whether due provision was made year by year for the development of the institution? The opinion amongst those who were best versed in literature, science, and art was that the provision made was of a scanty and insufficient character. They did not take sufficient care to add to their magnificent and world-renowned collection from the different regions under the influence of the British Crown——
THE CHAIRMAN: The Vote before the Committee relates to the buildings of the British Museum, and not to the policy of the Trustees of the British Museum.
*SIR RICHARD TEMPLEsaid, he wished to urge the importance of adding' to the collections, and, no doubt, the first step in that direction was to provide additional building accommodation. Then he wished to say that the electric lighting apparatus of the Museum must be deficient, because the Museum was not regularly lighted by the electric light at times convenient for the working classes. From an educational point of view, it was most important that the Museum should be lighted every evening, and, if not every evening, on certain evenings of the week for the benefit of all those who desired access to the collections.
MR. PLUNKET: I wish to call the attention of the First Commissioner of Works to the fact that there is no provision in the Estimates for the year for the prosecution of the scheme for completing the building of the Museum at South Kensington. The Committee are probably aware that there was a sum of £5,000 voted last year as a preliminary to the prosecution of those buildings, and I wish to toll the Committee very briefly how the matter now stands. This matter has excited a great deal of public interest for a long time. The condition of the buildings of South Kensington Museum on the east side of Exhibition
1306
Road, fronting the Brompton Road, are really a scandal to that part of London; and we have been pressed not only by men of science and art who are interested in the proper housing of our most valuable treasures of art and science, but also by the residents of the locality, who naturally complain of the very unsightly condition in which the buildings are allowed to remain. I am glad to say that we took steps to begin this most necessary work. In 1890 the late Government invited eight eminent architects—four of whom were nominated by the Institution of Architects and four by the Office of Works—to enter into a competition for providing designs for the building, with the result that the very handsome designs of Mr. Aston Webb were accepted. In the Estimates for 1891–2 a sum of £5,400 was voted for the expenses of the competition amongst the architects, and in the Estimates last year a sum of £5,000 was provided for the purpose of erecting temporary buildings into which it will be necessary to remove the valuable treasures before the new building can be commenced. I am sorry to see that there is no provision in the Estimates this year for carrying the project further; and I should like to ask the First Commissioner of Works why it is the work of providing proper accommodation for these national treasures at South Kensington, which are at present housed in very inadequate and very insecure buildings, is not continued this year?
MR. SHAW-LEFEVRE: I can assure my right hon. Friend that, personally, I fully sympathise with what he has said on this subject, and I hope that at an early period the works he has indicated will be carried out. I agree with him that it is extremely important that increased accommodation should be provided at South Kensington. The present buildings are extremely indifferent, and the plans to improve and enlarge them decided upon by the right hon. Gentleman have, I believe, given general satisfaction. The estimated cost of the new buildings, however, is no less than £400,000, and the right hon. Gentleman will not be surprised that the Treasury hesitated about beginning a work of such magnitude, at all events when they already have very large works on hand. The expenditure on new

1307
works this year is more than double that of the last four or five years, having risen from £150,000 in 1887–8 to £388,000 in the present financial year. In view of that largo expenditure, it would not have been wise on the part of the Government to have undertaken, at least until the public buildings of different kinds now in progress are completed, another great work involving an expenditure of £400,000.
DR. FARQUHARSONsaid, the necessity for this very heavy expenditure had not been made quite clear. They had at South Kensington a very large amount of unused gallery space, sufficient, he believed, to meet any demand on them for the accommodation of works of art; and he would, therefore, like to have an explanation, what further buildings were needed. He was bound to say he thought the expenditure on this proposed gallery was of a very unnecessary kind; but he would like to urge an expenditure for a different purpose, for which he saw no provision in the Estimates, and that was to procure additional accommodation for teaching at South Kensington. The conditions under which teaching in science was carried out there was hardly creditable to the country. There was a great deal of important work not only of a teaching character, but of an original and investigatory character, carried on at South Kensington under conditions that would disgrace a fifth-rate University in Germany or any other foreign country. he hoped, therefore, that the First Commissioner would be able to give an assurance that proper accommodation would be provided at South Kensington for carrying out this great national work.
SIR W. HART DYKE: I must call the attention of the Committee to the very unsatisfactory reply of the Representative of the Board of Works with regard to South Kensington Museum. This is no new complaint about the state of the buildings at South Kensington and their surroundings. No doubt the sum required for those buildings is very large, and in the present state of the Exchequer no hon. Member would propose that a very large amount should be at once voted. But what I complain of is that no effort whatever is made in these Estimates to alter the existing disgraceful state of things at South Kensing-
1308
ton. The outside appearance of those buildings is a disgrace to our civilisation. The First Commissioner of Works has been especially unfortunate in regard to this question. In 1882–11 years ago—the present President of the Hoard of Trade wrote that the Committee of Council expressed their satisfaction at learning that the Lords of the Treasury were going to take steps in the next financial year with a view to the completion of those buildings; and in the Estimates of 1883–4 a sum of £5,000 was inserted by the right hon. Gentleman who was then also First Commissioner of Works on account of the south-west wing. The proposal was attacked by the hon. Member for Northampton, and the right hon. Gentleman did not think it would be wise to press that part of the Vote, and so he withdrew it. Now, there is another withdrawal of £5,000 from the Estimates, and the right hon. Gentleman does not say that there is a probability of a sum being taken for the purpose even next year. I am not making this a question between Her Majesty's Government and the Opposition, and I am making no personal attack on the right hon. Gentleman. What I do complain of is the studied neglect shown by Her Majesty's Government and the Office of Works with respect-to those buildings. What is the present state of affairs at South Kensington? There is a quadrangle filled with several wooden buildings covered with some hideous corrugated iron; the buildings are of the most inflammable materials, and are placed next to a collection of the most valuable kind in the world, estimated to be worth over £2,000,000. But what I am anxious to press above all is the want of accommodation within the buildings themselves. In 1882 my right hon. Friend the First Commissioner of Works wrote, as I have already shown, to the Treasury, stating that the accommodation was deplorable. But since then the work carried on has doubled or trebled. Since drawing was made compulsory in the elementary schools, the number of schools sending work to South Kensington for examination has gone up from 4,500 to 20,000. For many years past the examination work has been carried on in passages where the water trickles through the roof on to the papers, and even over the staircases of the

1309
building. That is a most disgraceful state of affairs. It is really like spoiling the ship for a halfpenny worth of tar. The rest of our educational system has risen by £3,000,000 a year. No one objects to it, for a better policy of insurance no nation could have. But, surely, in order to assist the great work of education, we ought not to hesitate about spending £5,000, which would, at least, commence the necessary buildings. Instead of that, we are brought face to face with the fact that we have no pledge whatever from Her Majesty's Government that even next year this paltry sum of £5,000 will be voted for those buildings. That state of things at South Kensington cannot be remedied for four years—that is, not before 1897, for it will take at least four years to complete the buildings. With the consent of both parties a Museum has been made at South Kensington where art objects are displayed, and it is one of the best educational institutions in Europe. There is at South Kensington a splendid collection of art objects, which are sent from that place and circulated at local Museums throughout the country. That shows the great educational value of the institution. Technical education is also carried on under the auspices of the Science and Art Department. There has been a great increase in the work of the Department through the spread of technical education, and I hope it will be soon doubled and trebled. I trust I have said enough to show to the Committee and all the inhabitants of the Metropolis that this question of the South Kensington buildings should not be allowed to sleep. Parliament ought to insist that, either by this Government or by another—for I acknowledge that both Governments are to blame in this matter—the grave state of things to which I have called attention should at once be remedied. I only wish that the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he got his fingers into the Treasury Chest the other day had taken out £50,000 for this purpose, and had the right hon. Gentleman done so I am sure it would have met with the approval of the country. I hope, therefore, that another year's Estimates will not be framed without some prospect of this condition of affairs at South Kensington being remedied.
MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he agreed with the right hon. Gentleman that in questions of this kind there was little to choose between one Government and another; but still it seemed they had had some advantage in this matter in having a Conservative Government turned out and a Liberal Government placed in power. The right hon. Gentleman had told the Committee that a disgraceful state of things prevailed at South Kensington, and that the rain trickled down on the unfortunate examiners. But who was responsible for this for the last six years? The Conservative Government. Instead of buying some silly old cabinet for 50 times its value, if they had mended the roofs at South Kensington they would have protected the examiners from the rain, and saved a considerable amount to the country. Then the right hon. Gentleman said, "We want more space; look at the vast number of things we are sending round the provinces." But surely that was a reason why they did not want more space. Let them send more things round the provinces, and then the pressure on space at South Kensington would be relieved. He asked the Committee to consider what they bad heard from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dublin University. The right hon. Gentleman calmly stood up and told them that £5,000 had been expended upon the architect's plan for the proposed buildings; and that when the plan was accepted it was found it would not do and had to be altered.
MR. PLUNKET: What I said was that there were some slight alterations suggested by the Office of Works and by the Science and Art Department, but they did not interfere with the plan.
MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, the plan was impracticable, and alterations were proposed by the Science and Art Department and by the Office of Works. He did not think much of that plan, and he thought it cost a great deal too much when they had to spend £5,000 on it. Then, after they had been told that £5,000 had been spent on the plan, complaint was made by another right hon. Gentleman that the £400,000 necessary for the buildings was not spent.
SIR WILLIAM HART-DYKE: I stated that I would not support a scheme for spending the money at once.
MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, no Government wanted to spend the money at once. They slipped in a little Vote—a mere trifle; next year there was another Vote, and when complaint was made, it was—"Yon are pledged to the work, and will you waste the £10,000 that have been spent on it?" He rejoiced that there was not a shilling for the work on the Estimates. He was thankful that they had got it Chancellor of the Exchequer who was a jealous guardian of the Public Purse. He was thankful to say that the Chancellor of the Exchequer probably shared his objection to this wild and reckless and useless expenditure at South Kensington. Let them have it as a centre for examinations, as an exhibition of works of art, and as a means of sending those works over the country for pleasure and instruction, and South Kensington was, no doubt, in that way a valuable institution, but it was reckless and outrageous to suggest that they should be asked to spend £400,000 more in building a new gallery without even knowing what they were to put into it. He hoped the Chief Commissioner of Works would firmly oppose it, and he would give him his support; but if the right hon. Gentleman took the advice of right hon. Gentlemen opposite, who took care not to vote the money while they themselves were in Office, and proposed this expenditure, he would give it his most strenuous opposition.
An hon. MEMBER said he strongly opposed any such expenditure as that suggested for new galleries or extension of buildings, but there was one item in the present Estimates which he supported. That was a sum of £2,500 for making the gallery in which the Raphael Cartoons were exhibited fireproof. It was certainly a most reprehensible state of things that these priceless works of art should have been allowed for years to be exhibited in a gallery which was liable to be destroyed by fire. He hoped the gallery would be made fireproof without the least delay.
THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Mr. ACLAND,): I desire to refer to some of the observations made by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, who at Question time made an appeal to me when I answered a question of the hon. Member for Bordesley, as to the
1312
money spent in existing local museums, that Northampton should get its share. Well, I wish to say that this money for buildings is not merely for new galleries for exhibits, as hon. Members seem to suppose. A good deal of work of arranging specimens for circulation amongst the museums through the provinces is curried out at present in buildings which are not waterproof, or in any way in a favourable condition for the work. And when the hon. Member sneers at the Government for buying what he calls "a silly old cabinet" he should remember the purpose for which objects of the kind are purchased. The raison d'être of the Museum is that it should be a collection of splendid works of art having a close relation to the industries of the country, and a very large number of the working classes, who know what good work is, are of opinion that the money expended on South Kensington has been well spent on the whole. The object in view is, and should be, to make the Museum, as an educational institution, effective in every respect; to see that the arrangements for circulating specimens among local museums and other work of the institution are carried on in decent and convenient buildings, and by degrees to relieve the present overcrowded condition of the courts and galleries, so that the great works of art may be seen to advantage. I regret that the state of the national finances do not allow us to move faster in the matter. The whole question of Science and Art in this country is bound up with the Museum, and I say that the present condition of things at South Kensington is therefore a matter which all Governments alike should desire to see remedied.
MR. JAMES LOWTHERsaid, he had a great deal of sympathy with the protest of his hon. Friend the Member for Northampton against any additional expenditure at South Kensington. He remembered that some years ago there was a large Party in the House who regarded the whole institution at South Kensington with a great deal of suspicion, and he admitted that he was an embodiment of old and obsolete ideas, so far as that he had not absolutely divested himself of those sentiments. But he thought the expenditure of an adequate sum to keep the buildings in proper repair should not

1313
be grudged by any Party. What he wished to draw attention to was that the First Commissioner of Works had not answered the question with regard to the lighting of the British Museum. As to the lighting of a great national institution like the British Museum, he thought the Government ought to have ascertained that they were proceeding on a right principle. Great disappointment had attended the efforts of those who had sought to apply the electric lighting system to many of our buildings, and he thought his noble Friend the Member for Brixton was quite right in asking for assurances on this point. He ventured now to ask the right hon. Gentleman to explain what steps he had taken to meet the requirements of those who used the British Museum at night, and how far the amount which appeared in the Estimate as the amount which was to be expended in that direction would meet the requirements of the situation.
Mr. SHAW-LEFEVRE: The right hon. Gentleman has adopted a very inconvenient course in going back.
MR. JAMES LOWTHERsaid, that so far from going back the right hon. Gentleman had not replied to the inquiries which had been addressed to him.
MR. SHAW-LEFEVRE: Discussion has arisen already on this matter, and I thought the Committee had passed from the British Museum to South Kensington. In point of fact, the greater portion of the British Museum is lighted by electricity, and a great portion of it is open to the public, but not the whole of it, the same night. I agree that the result has not been altogether so satisfactory as was expected, and that the attendance of the public has not been so large as was expected; but, at the same time, there is no occasion whatever for reducing the present facilities.
MR. PARKER SMITH, alluding to the electric lighting of the British Museum, asked if the right hon. Gentleman could give them any facts as to the number of people who attended the British Museum in the evening; whether the experiment of lighting up the Museum was tried mainly at the instance of the House of Commons; and whether it was not the fact that the attendance at the Museum consequently on its being opened in the evening had been very small, and was diminishing? He was
1314
afraid the experiment of lighting the British Museum by the electric light so as to keep it open at night had not been attended with success, and there was not much prospect of it being so in the future. It was a costly matter to have the Museum opened at night; and seeing that the amount which the Treasury could vote for the service of the British Museum was limited, he thought the money might be expended to much better purpose. With regard to South Kensington, he called attention to the fact that they had there two galleries with almost the best light in the world for pictures, and these were at present devoted to diagrams and magnifying models of the insides of insects, &c. These were, no doubt, very useful objects, but they did not need the perfect light which was needed for pictures. He thought everything that had been said was true as to the crowded chaos that existed on the east side of Exhibition Road. He congratulated the Government on the new appointment of Director that had been made at the South Kensington Museum. The gentleman who had received the appointment had a power of scientific arrangement, and by proper scientific arrangements, and by getting rid of duplicate casts—the originals of which might be seen at Bloomsbury—they would find that further room might be utilised. The accommodation for science teaching at South Kensington was absolutely and grossly inadequate. The rooms in which the science work was conducted were scandalous and would disgrace a country School Board or a provincial town, not to speak of a German University. He hoped the Government would give the Committee an assurance that they were prepared, without further delay, to carry out some scheme by which a proper, suitable, and adequate building for the teaching of science would be provided, and that they would no longer be content with the present miserable makeshifts.
Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present.
*SIR. RICHARD TEMPLEsaid, his only reason for rising was because of the educational aspect which had been given to a portion of this Debate. The Committee had heard a very strong statement

1315
from the late Minister of Education— than whom a more competent authority they could not have—as to the utter insufficiency of the accommodation for conducting the various examinations in Science and Art, and especially in elementary drawing. The right hon. Gentleman had pointed out the growing expansion of that branch of elementary education — namely, the instruction of pupils in drawing, most of whom had to be examined ultimately in South Kensington, and the question before the Committee was not the style of examination or the mode of conducting it, but the deficiency of the accommodation provided for holding such examinations. The hon. Gentleman who had last spoken had said that no Education Department in Europe and no School Board in England would tolerate such accommodation. Of course no School Board would, and certainly the School Board for London would not. But he must point out that between our Parliament and the School Boards there was an essential difference in providing accommodation. School Boards provided it from capital account; they borrowed for it; but in the House of Commons a different policy was pursued. If a School Board had to provide this accommodation they would do it at once, but that House must do it by degrees, because whilst a School Board borrowed, Parliament had to defray the cost from current revenue and thus they had the delay which scandalised the nation and impeded the progress of education as well as of many other branches of national life. That was the kernel of the question, and of course there was much to be said for the Parliamentary practice. What they required in this case was an outlay of a sum of £400,000 which would supply their wants. As they could not obtain that sum they could not undertake the work, as it was no good attempting to spend £400,000 by driblets, and all that could be done was to provide this £15,000 or £16,000 for keeping the present temporary buildings in a tolerably satisfactory condition. He believed that was the outcome of the question, and what that House was about voting was the money for providing temporary accommodation or remedying the deficiencies, faults, and shortcomings which the late Minister of Education had so properly
1316
pointed out, and certainly there were no signs of extravagance in this respect; for, while the deficiencies became more and more glaring every year, the amount voted for that House became slightly less. They were now absolutely going to vote £2,000 less for this object than they voted the previous year. Under these circumstances he could not understand the hon. Member for Northampton when he talked about squandering money on South Kensington. Could it be said that money devoted to the purposes he had mentioned was squandered? Such language would not be popular with the new democracy, inasmuch as the students were drawn from the humbler classes and from all parts of the country, in order to pursue their studies and to pass their examinations there. Was it, he asked, likely to be a popular thing to decry this expenditure and say it was not wanted, and that students and prize-winners were to be treated as if the nation despised them and their occupation? On the contrary, the nation desired to receive them with true national hospitality, and in a manner in which students of this character, drawn from all classes of the nation, ought to be received. The hon. Member for Northampton went on to say that the money ought not to be spent at South Kensington at all, and that some better place ought to be found. But he would point out that South Kensington was the finest technical institution in the world, with immense ramifications, exercising a world-wide influence, so far as the English-speaking races wore concerned, and it was to that great national centre students from all classes were invited. It could not he an unpopular thing on the part of the governing classes to provide the finest, handsomest, and most attractive site to be found in the whole of the Metropolis. He contended that this Vote deserved the approval of the Committee, and the only question was whether it ought not to be larger. If the money could not be given this year it might be given next year. He regretted the disparaging expressions that were sometimes used in that House with reference to the objects of art which were collected in South Kensington, and which were not merely matters of curiosity, but which were required for affording object-lessons to the students, and, therefore, it was very important

1317
that sufficient money should be voted for their proper accommodation. He would desire to say a few words about the Natural History Museum. Whatever objection might he urged to the accommodation in the other buildings, he believed that certainly the accommodation in the Natural History Museum was extremely fine. The museum collection itself was well worthy, he thought, of the large buildings in which the objects were placed — buildings not only so elaborate as to attract the popular taste, but suited in every way for scientific instruction, and unsurpassed in any country in the world. Well, then, they had certain subsidiary matters in connection with all these buildings, and money was required for the workshops that were necessary to be kept in operation at the museum. If the development of the institution was to be properly cared for, if must be through the establishment of a staff of trained artificers and scientific workmen, and fair and full accommodation for such men. It did seem to him that more might be done in that direction, because, when they looked at the specimens that had been collected and placed in these fine buildings, it was not unreasonable that they should ask for a moderate sum to provide for the subsidiary works. That was not much to ask for in respect of institutions which were an honour and a credit to the nation.
MR. JESSE COLLINGSsaid, he had listened with very great pleasure to the speech of the hon. Baronet. There was one point about which he was not quite correct, however, and that was as to the amount spent on South Kensington. It was a mistake to say that that amount was small, for he (Mr. Collings) recollected that last year there was a Supplementary Vote for it, apart from the regular Vote, of something like £100,000. The administration of the Department was not such as commanded the approval of many provincial Members. If the institution was to gain the favour of the country it must make itself national in a truer sense. He was disappointed with the meagre speech of the Vice President (Mr. Acland), because he could not but contrast it with a speech he made a year or two ago, bringing the late Government to task in the strongest manner on account of the
1318
manner in which South Kensington was conducted. The right hon. Gentleman then pointed out the great national importance of South Kensington, and called for more accommodation. How was it they heard nothing about that now? How was it he did not dwell on these points in the speech he had just delivered? He spoke of providing additional accommodation, but of doing it by degrees. What step had he taken in the present Estimates to provide for this? There was an item of £2,850 for works; but that could not go far. The right hon. Gentleman had it now in his power to give effect to the ideas contained in the speech which he delivered on the subject while the late Government was in Office, but he did not attempt to do so. He agreed with him that a penny-wise and pound-foolish policy was not right where a great national work was concerned, and he hoped they would have some more information as to the intentions of the right hon. Gentleman. The late Government spent £100,000——
MR. ACLAND: No.
MR. J. COLLINGSsaid, at all events, they got the Vote for that amount.
MR. ACLANDwas understood to dissent.
MR. J. COLLINGSsaid, he might be astray as to the amount, though he did not think he was. He would put it to the right hon. Gentleman the late Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Jackson) was that not the amount voted?
MR. JACKSONnodded assent.
MR. J. COLLINGSsaid, that being so, what was the right hon. Gentleman now prepared to do on behalf of the present Government? He noticed that the hon. Member for South Birmingham (Mr. Powell Williams), for the first time while this Vote was under discussion, was not present. That hon. Member used to complain also of the accommodation. Surely they were entitled to further explanation? The Vice President, in speaking of the national character of South Kensington, told them of the large numbers of the working classes who visited the place. Why, more of the working class population visited the museums in Manchester, Glasgow, and Birmingham in one week than visited South Kensington in two months. If the right hon. Gentleman wanted accommodation, let him take some dozens

1319
of the objects at South Kensington, and send thorn to the provinces, where the working classes would see them, and where they would be useful. That would give him, temporarily at any rate, additional space. His opinion was that South Kensington had been carried on, of late years, with a hide-bound officialism., If its collections, or duplicates of them, were sent to the provinces with greater liberality, there would not be so much outcry about want of space in the Museum. Before sitting down, he wished to ask what arrangements had been made to cope with any outbreak of fire at South Kensington. Having in his mind a painful recollection of the great fire in the gallery and library at Birmingham, he was anxious to know that the priceless treasures which the country possessed at South Kensington —and which could never be replaced— were secure from fire as far as science and human ingenuity could provide. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not rest content with an official assurance, but would have the very highest scientific evidence, and a professional assurance, for, like his hon. Friend behind him (Mr. A. C. Morton), he liked the advice and assistance of professional men in matters of such great importance. It was not enough to go to the Chief Librarian and hear from him that all was secure. There was a higher authority somewhere in London, and he wanted to know whether the Government had 1aken steps to secure the advice of that authority. It would not do to wait, for, as he had said, they could not replace these treasures if they were lost.
MR. SHAW-LEFEVREsaid, the Government attached great importance to this subject, and they had included in the Estimates a Vote for £2,500 for the construction of a fire-proof roof for the South Kensington Galleries. They would take an early opportunity of asking for power to make an addition to the South Kensington buildings in order to provide the necessary accommodation. In his view, there ought to be a fixed sum taken every year for additional buildings and for repairing the existing buildings. The Government had spent a good deal of money for these purposes in London during this year, and he did not think that they would be justified it spending any more at present.
MR. JACKSONsaid, he had heard a good many unsatisfactory answers to questions in that House, and he was sometimes conscious of the unsatisfactory character of the answers that were being given, but he had never listened to an answer which was so unsatisfactory as that which hon. Members had just heard from the right hon. Gentleman on this most important subject. The right hon. Gentleman had said that this Vote ought to be maintained at. the same amount each year, but he forgets that the late Government had doubled the amount of the Vote during the last four or five years.
MR. SHAW-LEFEVREsaid, that the late Government had reduced the amount of the Vote at first.
*MR. JACKSONsaid, however that might have been, the late Government had eventually doubled the amount of the Vote. It was clear from the language of the right hon. Gentleman that neither he nor the present Government thought that Science teaching was a matter of much importance.
MR. SHAW-LEFEVRE: A matter of great importance.
MR. JACKSONwanted to know was that the reason there was not in the Estimates a Vote for a shilling for the extension of the buildings appropriated to Science teaching at South Kensington?
THE CHAIRMAN: I would remind the right hon. Gentleman of the subject of the Vote.
MR. JACKSONsaid, he was speaking of the provision made for South Kensington. The buildings at South Kensington were being neglected. What were the facts? It could scarcely be disputed that the provision for Science teaching at South Kensington was inadequate for the requirements of the Department. The Government ought to utilise for the purposes of the Department the land that was bought for the purpose of extending the buildings by the late Government. That Government most reluctantly arrived at the conclusion that it was absolutely necessary to provide additional accommodation for the Department, in view of the fact that the clerks had to discharge their duties in passages instead of in rooms. As Secretary to the Treasury in that Government it was his duty to fight against the demands made on the Treasury. The

1321
Chancellor of the Exchequer had no friends in the House of Commons when it came to an expenditure of this kind. The objections were raised from time to time; a Committee was appointed to see whether by any re-arrangement of the articles in South Kensington it would be possible to find additional space. The Committee was presided over, he thought, by Sir J. Evans, of the Royal Society. An important Report was presented by that Committee, and the conclusion come to was that, unwilling as the Government might be to add to the demands on the Treasury for new buildings, Post Office sites, and other undertakings, still they were bound to go on with the South Kensington extension, or at least that they should make ready to enter upon it when the Report came before them——
MR. SHAW-LEFEVRE: They did not pass it.
*MR. JACKSONsaid, they did what might be expected. They arranged for plans for new buildings, and had a substantial sum expended on temporary buildings. So much importance was attached to the matter that the late Mr. William II. Smith (his right hon. Friend the then Chancellor of the Exchequer) and himself went out to South Kensington, and saw the condition of things for themselves, trying to find out in every way whether they could postpone the expenditure. So impressed were they with what they did see that they were compelled to make the provision to which he had referred. Altogether, the late Government expended in two years some £10,000 in connection with the preparation of plans and the provision of temporary buildings. The answer of the right hon. Gentleman was unsatisfactory, because it left it in complete doubt whether the Government proposed to carry out the scheme of the late Government, or intended to allow the whole proposal to fall to the ground. The right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner had answered the question that had been put to him according to his brief, but he should like to know what were the views of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir W. Harcourt) with regard to it? Surely the Government ought to tell the Committee whether they were prepared to carry the intention of the late Government into effect or not, and,
1322
if so, it would be done in accordance with their plan. He did not wish to blame the right hon. Gentleman, but he would say that if ever there was a time when it was necessary to give increased accommodation to the Science Department at South Kensington, this was the proper time. Throughout the country enormous sums of money were being spent upon technical education. South Kensington had been expected to keep pace with the growing requirements of the country, and a representation had been made to the Treasury by the Professors and others engaged in the teaching of Science at South Kensington. He knew something of the standard of the Professors there. There were amongst them some of the best teachers in the country—two of them had been stolon from the Yorkshire College, Leeds, very much to the disadvantage of that college, although he had been glad to see these men promoted, and to see their abilities recognised by the Government, and to know that they had justified their appointment. These men had spoken to him over and over again as to the insufficiency of the laboratory accommodation, declaring that in some cases, owing to this cause, students were only able to take half their course at South Kensington. The late Government had spent between £2,000 and £3,000 in providing additional accommodation on the west side of Exhibition Road. This, however, was only intended to meet the pressing requirements at the time, and was really looked upon as a temporary expedient. He remembered being struck with the fact that these men proved to the Treasury at that time that the fees paid by the students more than covered the interest upon the additional expenditure, and that these students could not have been accommodated at South Kensington at that time. He had mentioned these facts to show that the question was not a new one. It was a question which was thoroughly investigated by the late Government, who came to the conclusion that it should be faced; and be confessed that in looking through the Estimates nothing had surprised him as much as to find the entire absence of any provision for the extension of the buildings connected with Science teaching. He hoped that the Government would be able to

1323
assure the Committee that they had not dropped the scheme which was decided upon, and that they intended to proceed with the work. If they got that assurance the Committee would probably have to rest satisfied. If they did not get that assurance the Committee ought to show its strong sense of disapprobation at the policy and proceedings of Her Majesty's Government.
*MR. SHAW-LEFEVRE: The right hon. Gentleman could hardly have been in the House when I replied to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin.
MR. JACKSON: I have not been out of the House.
MR. SHAW-LEFEVRE: From the right hon. Gentleman's speech one would have been led to suppose that he had not been present when I answered the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin. At any rate he could hardly have listened to what I said. I said that, personally, I agreed with all that had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman.
MR. JACKSON: That is exactly my complaint. I said I did not blame the right hon. Gentleman, but I wanted to know from the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether this scheme is to go on or not?
*MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: I gathered that though he did not blame me, yet he wished to hear from me a more explicit account of what was intended. I stated to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin that I agreed with him; that he had given an accurate account of what had taken place on the point, and that the decision that the Government had come to was, that they would not during the coming year vote any sum of money for the purpose of carrying out this work. I pointed out the heavy expenditure the Government had undertaken in the matter of public works, and that, with this in view, it was not possible for them to face the large expenditure of £400,000. I ended by saying that I could not state whether the Government would undertake the expenditure next year, but that, personally, I was strongly in favour of it. Until the Estimates next year come on I can say no more. I think that the right hon. Gentleman hardly distinguished between the two questions
1324
—buildings for scientific purposes, and additions opposite to Brompton Road, but I fully recognise the importance of both. During the present year some of the public buildings we have in hand will be completed, therefore I have great hopes that next year we shall be able to advance one or both of these works to some extent. Hut when once a portion is begun it will be wise to complete it as soon as possible. It would hardly be wise to commence a building which will ultimately cost £400,000 by spending £10,000 or £15,000 on it, as was proposed by the former Vice-President of the Education Department (Sir W. Hart-Dyke). I do not think it would be a wise policy to spread the expenditure over a number of years. I do not think the statement of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Jackson) that the late Government faced this question is a correct one. No doubt they spent something on preliminary arrangements and temporary buildings, but it would have been just as possible for them to commence the work they are urging us to undertake as it is for us.
MR. JACKSON: The right hon. Gentleman must know that it was impossible for us to commence the work before settling the preliminaries.
MR. SHAW-LEFEVRE: My point is that the late Government cannot be said to have faced the question. I have full sympathy with the right hon. Gentleman as to the importance of the work, and, as far as I am concerned, I shall use my influence with the Treasury to get them to sanction the commencement of these works.
MR. PLUNKET: We are not finding fault with the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works. The fault is that apparently, with all his good intentions and sympathy, he has been placed by his Colleagues under such terms that he is only allowed to say that no decision has yet been arrived at by the Government. A decision was arrived at by the late Government, and unless the present Government are prepared to carry out that decision in the sense desired by the English public we shall be justified in concluding that the scheme which the late Government determined upon has been abandoned. The time has come when the Representative of the Science and Art Department ought

1325
to move in this matter, and if he will not, pressure must be brought to bear by the public upon the Government, as it was brought to bear upon the late Government, to strengthen the hands of the Science and Art Department and the Office of Works, and compel the Treasury to give effect to the will of the public. Unless that, is done there will be more delay and more money wasted. The right hon. Gentleman opposite says there is a large increase in the expenditure on buildings. Well, I have been looking over the Estimates, and I find that the total increase in the Estimates for buildings is £40,000, of which £25,000 is for postal and telegraph buildings, which are always reproductive. Expenditure of that kind is a way of earning money for the public, therefore I cannot attach much importance to the right hon. Gentleman's plea. The late Government obtained plans and spent £5,400 one year and £5,000 the year following. It would have been impossible to spend more on building operations during the last financial year. I agree that it would be unwise to spend £10,000 or £15,000 this year on a building which is to cost £400,000; but that is no reason for saying that the scheme should be dropped altogether, or dropped for some years. I say the necessity for these buildings has been demonstrated and proved again and again, and the good intentions and the sympathy expressed by the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works are altogether insufficient and unsatisfactory. Unless the public take the matter up nothing will be done.
SIR J.T. HIBBERTwas understood 1o say that the works contemplated by the late Government had not been abandoned.
MR. POWELL WILLIAMS: I rise to Order. May I point out to the right hon. Member that there are others besides those on the Front Bench and who sit immediately opposite who want to hear what he has to say on this question?
MR. J. COLLINGS: We cannot hear a word.
THE CHAIRMAN: Sir John Hibbert is in possession of the Committee.
SIR J. HIBBERT: I beg pardon. I have been asked whether these works have been abandoned or not. I naturally cannot say whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer will consent to the works being carried on next year; but I can say that, owing to financial pressure, the Treasury have consented to the works being postponed, but not abandoned. My own feeling in the matter is strongly in favour of the continuation of the works at South Kensington, when we are in a position to spend money upon them. The present Government are in a very different position from that, in which the late Government were in when they sanctioned these buildings. Nearly every year the late Government were fortunate enough to have a. considerable surplus, but this year there is a large deficiency; and I feel sure that the Committee, and even the strongest friends of the South Kensington Museum, will agree that this is not a year when we should incur a large expenditure on new buildings. My own opinion is that, the portion of the scheme which we should push on with first is that with reference to the Science-teaching Department. I know there is great pressure on that Department owing to the want of buildings; and I trust that next year, presuming we are in. a more fortunate position, provision will be made for carrying out that portion of the scheme. With respect to the larger scheme and the expenditure of £400,000, I am not in a position to commit the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the question. I can only say that I look upon the proposal as postponed, not abandoned. I do not doubt the bona fides of light hon. Gentlemen opposite; but, had they been in Office, I do not think they would have been able to carry out these works this year. Next year I trust we may be in a more fortunate position, when something may be done to carry out the scheme elaborated and prepared by the late Government.
MR. POWELL WILLIAMSthought it very unfortunate that the Government had come to the conclusion to postpone this important matter. If they had the experience which some hon. Members had of the immense advantages, in the

1327
point of view of technical education, which were derived by local communities from exhibitions of this kind, they would consider it one of their first obligations and duties to see that the splendid collection in South Kensington was exhibited in a building fit to contain it, and that every opportunity was afforded to working men for studying design and construction which they saw exemplified in so many forms in that building. The right hon. Gentleman said the Vote was postponed, and he thought they had a right to ask how long was it to be postponed? That was a matter closely affecting the prosperity of the nation. It affected trade, which depended on design, and the skill of working men. He wished, further, to call attention to the security of this building. He would ask a simple question which would test the question of security. Did the Government insure the collection, or did they not? Had they any difficulty in getting the requisite amount of insurance from the great Insurance Companies, or were the great Insurance Companies unwilling to take the risk at the ordinary rates? If they did not insure, he thought it would be because the Insurance Companies would not accept the risk of insuring such a collection in buildings of so dangerous a character. There was another question he wished to ask. He saw there was an item of £3,500 for rent for certain parts of the existing buildings; and it appeared to him a fair question to ask whether this sum had reference to buildings erected on land which was not the property of the Crown? He was told that some years ago a certain portion of 1he buildings stood on land that did not belong to the nation. Was that so, or was it the fact that, though the laud belonged to the Crown, the buildings did not? This touched the question of whether the buildings were properly fitted to contain this collection. As to the character of the buildings as they stood, he quite concurred with what had been said by the right, hon. Member for Dublin University. Anything more disgraceful than those buildings it would be impossible to find in any capital in Europe. He never saw such a thing in his life as the entrance to the South Kensington Museum. He agreed with
1328
all that had been said as to these buildings, both in point of security and in point of architectural design.
MR. CHAPLIN: I am sure I have no desire unnecessarily to prolong this discussion; but I am bound to say that nothing can be more unsatisfactory than the statement of the Secretary to the Treasury and the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works in reply to the speeches which have been made from this Bench. The Committee will observe that the importance of these works is not denied for a moment by either of these right hon. Gentlemen. On the contrary, they have admitted the force of everything that has fallen from my right hon. Friends. A question was put from this side of the House as to whether or not the work is to be abandoned, and the right hon. Gentleman opposite, in reply, said—"It is not to be abandoned; but. I cannot say whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer will consent to go on with the work next year, or whether he will not." He says—"All I can say is that this work is to be postponed." Postponed, but for how long? Are we to understand that it is postponed sine die? If not, will the Government, give us a distinct undertaking as to when they intend to go on with it, and when progress will be made with it? Frequent allusion has been made to the wishes or intentions of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on this subject, and it appears that no answer is possible from the right hon. Gentleman opposite unless the Chancellor of the Exchequer is consulted. Well, where is the Chancellor of the Exchequer? Is it not possible for the right hon. Gentleman to ask for his attendance, and for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to come into the House to listen to the Debate upon a subject which the Government themselves admit to be very important. We are driven to the conclusion, by the attitude of right hon. Gentlemen opposite, that they intend to postpone sine die the work to which the late Government were committed. We cannot allow the matter to remain in this position. We must have some more explicit statement from the Government; therefore, in order that

1329
the First Commissioner of Works may have an opportunity of consulting the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and in order to enable the Committee to advance the business, I beg leave to move to report Progress.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Chaplin.)
MR. JACKSON: I do not know whether my right hon. Friend (Mr. Chaplin) contemplated the possibility of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer not being at hand. If it is not possible to consult him, the alternative would be to postpone the consideration of the Vote until such time as the right hon. Gentleman is in his place.
MR. SHAW-LEFEVRE: I think the proposal to postpone the Vote is hardly reasonable. We have been discussing this matter not in regard to what is in the Vote, but in regard to what is not in it. The importance of commencing this work next year has been pressed on the Government, and that is a matter which we shall have to consider when next year's Estimates are before us. Even if the Chancellor of the Exchequer were here, he might not be in a position to pledge himself to commence the work at a certain date. All he would be able to do would be to say that he would take into consideration the views that have been expressed in many quarters, and would consider the question on the Estimates of the coming year. It has been already pointed out that the Government have not abandoned the work, and that the only decision they have arrived at is that they will not insert an item in the Votes of the present year. I am not sorry there has been a strong expression of opinion from many sides of the House on the subject. I hope, however, the right hon. Gentleman opposite and other hon. Members will rest satisfied with the assurance that I will do my best, when the Estimates are under consideration in a future year, to induce
1330
the Government to insert an item to enable the work mentioned to be commenced.
Mr. J. COLLINGSsaid, the right hon. Gentleman, in speaking on the adjournment, had thrown more light on this question than he had done all the evening. The reason this Motion was warranted was because there were other points beside the one to which the right hon. Gentleman had alluded to which no reply had been given. There was the question of security from fire, for instance.
MR. SHAW-LEFEVRE: I dealt with that subject in answer to a question put to me earlier in. the evening. I should have been glad to enter into the subject again if this Motion for reporting Progress had not been moved.
MR. J. COLLINGSsaid, they had been listening in vain to hear the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council: therefore, if the Motion were withdrawn, it would be on the understanding that the information asked for should be given in a way that would satisfy the Committee, and in a way commensurate with the importance of the subject. The Committee should not be treated like a lot of children, to whom any kind of answer might be given.
M R. CHAPLIN: I gather from the reply of the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works that the services of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer are not at the present moment available—that, in fact, the right hon. Gentleman is more pleasantly engaged. I do not propose to put the Committee to the trouble of dividing; but I would suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should confer with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and that on the Report he should make a more definite statement.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Original Question again proposed.
*MR. JOHN BURNSendorsed the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Bordesley Division as to the necessity of taking

1331
precautions for the prevention of fire and for recouping the Government in. the event of fire. There were several large items in the Vote for the repairs of official residences. It was obvious, therefore, that there were officials in. residence in these buildings; and his observation upon that was that if they were to have their public buildings protected as much as they could, humanly speaking, protect them, there was only one thing to do with official residencies, and that was to do away with them altogether. When there were officials in residence their children were, as a rule, allowed much greater freedom in the buildings than adults by the firemen and policemen, and thus there was always danger from fire. Besides, the space occupied by these residences would be much better utilised for technical instruction and laboratories, and, at the same time, the money spent on them might be saved. He in. no sense agreed with the Radical Vandalism of the hon. Member for Northampton. If Radicalism meant ugliness in public buildings and Vandalism in. Art he was against it. The hon. Gentleman said there was plenty of room at South Kensington; but, as a frequent visitor, he (Mr. Burns) was unable to endorse that opinion. There was no space to spare either in the rooms or the galleries, and if the hon. Member were present he would ask him where the vacant space was. In the picture gallery the pictures were crowded together for want of space, and the engineering section resembled more a scrap-iron heap than an engineering museum. In the china department and in other parts of the Museum where general objects were exhibited it was impossible to get a clear view of some of the most beautiful exhibits in consequence of the limited accommodation. He could not concur in the criticism that had been indulged in as to what was called the extravagance of the proposition that the front portion of the Museum, facing the Brompton Road, should be completed. At present the front of the building looked like a cross between a blank factory wall after a fire and a disused racquet court. When he remembered that this blank wall was next to one of the most beautiful cathedrals now in course of being finished—namely, the Oratory—he thought it was a shame
1332
that it remained in such a condition. What was £400,000 to a nation as rich as England? It was only half the price of an ironclad, which would go to the bottom either through some lack of knowledge on the part of the captain or some fault in the compass. If the country could spend £800,000 on an ironclad, the guns of which could only be fired 10 or 15 times, he really did not see why it should not spend half that amount in instalments spread over four or five years on the completion of the South Kensington Museum. He must, however, express a hope that no encouragement would be given to the over-centralisation in all things which, he believed, took place at South Kensington. But even if decentralisation took place there was a necessity for increased accommodation for all purposes.
*SIR J. LUBBOCKsaid, the Trustees of the British Museum had always been most anxious to take every possible precaution against danger from fire, because they realised what a misfortune to the whole civilised world it would be if the British Museum were destroyed. Captain Simonds, the present chief of the London Fire Brigade, was their adviser with respect to danger against fire, and every precaution which experience could suggest was taken. Humanly speaking, he believed nothing more could be done in order to protect the Museum against fire. The official residences were not in the Museum, but adjoined it. The Trustees had always been of opinion that it was a very great security to have one of the officials close at hand in. case any misfortune should happen; in. fact, one of the regulations was that one of the keepers should always be in his official residence for the purpose. As regarded the question of saving money, it was necessary to have gentlemen of the highest possible acquirements in their respective departments, and as the salaries were only from £500 to £700 a year he did not think the officials wore overpaid. The official residences had always been regarded as moderate additions to the salaries, and if the officials were deprived of their residences the loss must be made up in some other way.
THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Mr. ACLAND,): I may just say in reply to the hon. Member opposite and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bordesley (Mr. Jesse Collings) that, as far as fire is concerned, great precautions are taken at South Kensington.
MR. J. COLLINGSsaid, that the authorities in Birmingham believed every possible precaution was taken against fire, and yet they lost their collection. He wanted the right hon. Gentleman to state on what scientific authority, if he had any, he based his opinion that the best precautions were taken.
MR. ACLAND: We have there military men of the greatest possible experience in a matter of this sort, engineers of great skill, who are in constant training, fire-alarms which are frequently set, in motion, and admirable appliances of the most modern description. Policemen and engineers are there all night, and I believe the very best precautions are taken.
*MR. JACKSONsaid, there was a great difference of opinion as to whether official residences in some cases were not rather a source of danger than a source of protection. At South Kensington the official residences were in close contact with two important buildings. One of the plans proposed by the Treasury was that the official residences should be used for an extension of the Science Teaching Department. He was under the impression that this was rather a favourable time to consider the question, as he understood that one of the gentlemen connected with South Kensington was about to retire. If that was the case, the Vice President had an excellent opportunity for pressing the Treasury for additional accommodation for the Science Department. He thought it would be found that the Chief of the Metropolitan Fire Brigade had reported that the official residences were a source rather of danger than of safety.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESobserved that no sum appeared this year in the Estimates for the insurance of the
1334
galleries at South Kensington. Was he to understand that the galleries were no longer insured?
MR. A. C. MORTONhad been rather surprised to hear that military officers were employed in connection with the prevention of fire at South Kensington. It is a most extraordinary thing in the government of this country that military officers were so frequently employed to do work which had nothing of a military character about it. He was anxious not to have everything put in the West End of London, and would suggest that if the Government had money to spend on these purposes some of it should go to other parts of London. He would remind the Committee that before long a large building in the neighbourhood of the South Kensington Museum would be vacant—namely, the Imperial Institute. He wished to know how it was that £750 was put down for the rent of a gallery in the Imperial Institute building? Did it mean that an attempt was being made to smuggle into the Vote some sort of subsidy to the Imperial Institute?
MR. JAMES LOWTHERsaid, he did not wish in any way to endorse the idea that officials whose duties necessitated their constant presence on the premises should not have official residences; but, at the same time, he thought that such residences ought not to be in dangerous proximity to buildings in which priceless treasures were housed. There was no reason why the officials should not be provided with residences reasonably near their work, but disconnected with the public buildings. He did not wish to have more money spent at South Kensington, because he had a strong opinion that the less money we spent, except upon the Army and Navy, the better.
Sir John Hibbert rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
Question, "That the Question be now put," put, and agreed to.
Original Question put accordingly, and agreed to.
MR. HANBURY: We challenged the Vote, Mr. Mellor.
THE CHAIRMAN: I can only say the challenge was inaudible to the Chair.
3. £25,201, to complete the sum for Diplomatic and Consular Buildings.
MR. HANBURY: On a point of Order, Sir, I distinctly challenged the Vote, and several others around me.
THE CHAIRMAN: I declared the "Ayes have it," and I heard no challenge.
MR. A. C. MORTONsaid, he wished to ask a few questions with regard to this Vote. On page 26, he found a sum of £190 for Municipal and State Taxes. As was well known in this country, Consuls were not charged any local or Imperial taxes, and two years ago, when he raised a similar question, he was promised the matter should be looked into. He wished, therefore, to know why the Prussian or German Government should be the one Government to make this charge for local taxes? The next point he wished to raise was why we were going to spend at Constantinople £500 more than last year? The same remark would apply with regard to Lisbon, where they were spending this year £500, as against £100 last year, and he wished to know why there should be an increase of £400 in this item? On page 28, he found there was an increased charge for Siam of £430 more than last year. At Tangier also there was an increase of more than £200 over last year. On page 29, he found the Vote asked for Zanzibar was increased by very nearly £700. A little while ago the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Prime Minister said that efforts would be made to reduce the expenditure of some of these Consuls, but he found that in many of these items, instead of being reduced, or of the Chancellor of the Exchequer insisting upon a reduction, they were increased and no reason given for it. He should, therefore, like to hear from the right hon. Gentleman some explanation in regard to
1336
the charge for taxes in Berlin, and the increase in the other cases he had mentioned.
*MR. FREEMAN-MITFORDsaid, there were one or two questions he wished to ask with regard to Berlin. He found that the charge for maintenance and repairs of the Embassy House, furniture of State Room, and Architect's fees came to a total of £75, and out of that sum the Architect's fees were £25. The ordinary foe to an architect was 5 per cent., whereas here it was 50 per cent., and that seemed to him an altogether immoderate and excessive charge, and inasmuch as we had a travelling surveyor, who looked after these buildings, it seemed to be a very heavy demand to make. There was a matter he also wished to call attention to on page 28, which was a charge that appeared for the first time, namely—
"Purchase of site for new hospital to British seamen, and preliminary building expenses, total estimated cost £8,000."
The charge for this year was £2,000, and this was a matter on which he thought the Committee ought to have some information before voting the money. Then there was a sum of £300 set down for the maintenance and repairs of furniture, gardens, and other things at the Legation House at Tangier, and on this item either a great many items were charged which would not be provided, or else the whole thing was perfectly unintelligible.
*MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid, he should like some explanation as to two items under the head of Constantinople. First, he saw that two Embassies were charged for, the Embassy at the capital and the Embassy at Therapia. He could not understand why they should provide a country house on the Bosphorus for the Ambassador as well as a residence in the capital. His next complaint was in reference to the provision of a prison. Sir Henry Drummond Wolff had reported that the Capitulations involving ex-territorial prisons were most objectionable, and rendered the government of the country where they exist impossible, and he therefore objected to this charge. When

1337
a man went to Turkey he should be content to abide by the laws of the country, and he thought that no Foreign Power should attempt to maintain a prison in a foreign country.
*SIR R. TEMPLEwished to enumerate various points with regard to this Vote, because these consular buildings greatly concerned the welfare of this country; they were buildings constructed in the face of nationalities not always friendly to us, and were regarded as a symbol of the British influence and sovereignty in various parts of the world. When one came to think of it, there was no doubt these items were entered upon by the recommendation of the Foreign Department, and the right hon. Gentleman would surely have Reports on the subject from this Department. The Reports ought to be familiar to the right hon. Gentleman, and doubtless he had brought them with him, therefore it ought not to be difficult for him to answer these various questions, which ought to be answered if the Committee was to go over this branch of the expenditure satisfactorily. The points he wished to draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to were items under heading "B" relating to China and Japan, "H" relating to Egypt, "L" relating to Persia, "O" relating to Siam, and matters relating to Zanzibar, and various other Missions. The items were all in the Votes, and in reality they were bound to look at each one, as they were matters actually before the Committee at this moment. With regard to the China and Japan item, he wished to draw attention to this fact: that there was a large sum for new works, alterations, and additions to the Consular building, and at the same time there was another item of £3,000 odd for the maintenance and repair of the buildings. He had no doubt the Reports which the right hon. Gentleman had from the Foreign Department would explain how these two items stood. He supposed the one was for maintaining the buildings which already existed and the other was for building new ones. One would not think the two
1338
things would go parallel; either buildings already existed and were in use—and if so he could not see why they should want a new building—or they were occupying some old building while a new one was being eroded. It required some explanation, as it was not usual to see two items, one for new construction and the other for maintenance and repair. The next point related to Egypt, and notwithstanding the presence of his hon. Friend the Member for Lynn (Mr. Gibson Bowles) he must say he imagined the large expenditure for the residence at Cairo was very much needed. He understood his hon. Friend to object, but considering the position of our official there, he thought that the expenditure was necessary for the upholding of the dignity of this country. Whether we occupied Egypt or not we should always have an officer there of the first class to represent this country in a manner worthy of the nation, and in that case he must have a proper house to live in. Either he would be in full British residence and real Governor under the control of England under the suzerainty of the Sultan, or if we evacuated the country he would be Consul General, and in either case they would require a residence of proper dignity and decent architectural style. But the other building at Alexandria seemed to be maintained at an extraordinarily cheap rate. They found under all the other Consulates in Asia and Africa several hundreds a year charged for maintenance and repairs, but in the case of Alexandria it amounted to only £90. That seemed to be so unaccountably cheap that it required some explanation as to whether this £90 could really cover all the cost attending this Consulate, and if the Consulate received some other sum besides this they ought to know it. [An hon. MEMBER: The £90 is for rent.] His lion. Friend pointed out that sum was for rent, and in that case he supposed the tenant would do the repairs, but perhaps the right hon. Gentleman, with the aid of the Report from the Foreign Department, would be able to tell them that. Then, with regard to Siam, the items were certainly moderate. In another place the Government adopted the plan of building new structures outright, and the question naturally arose as to whether

1339
it was better to have these buildings constructed at once at capital cost or to rent them. At Smyrna there was this large item of a site for the new hospital that had been referred to by his hon. Friend (Mr. Freeman-Mitford). That was certainly a large expenditure, but the institution was of considerable interest. He was not sure it had been before the House as yet, and if this was the first time it appeared, he thought the right hon. Gentleman should give them some information regarding it, and why there should be a hospital for British seamen at Smyrna of all places, though, no doubt, there was a good reason for it. At Tangier there was an item of £300 for maintenance and repairs. Considering the rapid developments of our interests and the importance of our position there, it would be well for the right hon. Gentleman to inform them as to whether our Consular buildings there were in a proper condition and capable of meeting the growing requirements of this country in that part of the British sphere of influence. Then they came to Zanzibar. [" Oh, oh! "] A year ago the Committee would remember these hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway urged similar criticism he was now doing. On that occasion the Committee patiently listened to them, and now that he was offering what might be called skilled criticism they objected. As regarded Zanzibar our interests there were rapidly spreading. What was a Consulate had become an Agency, and would soon become a Residency and seat of government, and they should be informed whether the buildings were in a proper condition for an officer upon whom so much depended. With regard to the West Coast of Africa, he noticed this peculiarity: that, whereas certain items were put down last year for the old Calabar Consulate and various other Consulates, nothing whatever was put down this year, and he wished to know whether they were to infer those Consulates had been removed? On the East Coast of Africa, at Delagoa Bay, there was an item of £1,700 put down for the completion of the erection of a Consulate there. The total cost was £4,100, and by the 31st March last there had been expended the sum of £2,400. Apparently the work was being done at the rate of about £2,000 a year, and it
1340
would be satisfactory to know when the work would be completed. Lastly, he came to the cemeteries. £360 was put down for repairs to a cemetery on the Bosphorus, and he wished to ask what cemetery there was on the Bosphorus? There was a well-known cemetery at Scutari that contained the remains of many of our officers and men who fell during the Crimean War, and he would ask if that was the cemetery indicated, or whether the Bosphorus cemetery was some other; and, if so, could the right hon. Gentleman tell them whether the cemetery at Scutari— which was certainly a British one, containing the bones of many of our best officers and men, and one that was held in veneration by all nations—was being kept in proper repair by the British Government or not? There were other cemeteries about which remark might be made, but, out of regard to the feelings of hon. Gentlemen, he would not pursue the question further. He would conclude his list of questions by submitting, with all respect, that the points he had raised were worthy of consideration, and if the Committee was to proceed with proper knowledge they ought to have information regarding the condition of our consular buildings, as it constituted a matter of national importance.
*MR. SHAW-LEFEVREsaid, the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had gone from China to Zanzibar, and he had certainly amused the Committee if he had not enlightened them. The hon. Gentleman asked him various questions, and he would take the last one first, as to the cemetery on the Bosphorus. The hon. Gentleman was quite right in supposing that was the cemetery at Scutari, though he believed there wore other smaller cemeteries that came under the same item. Then his hon. Friend reverted to the expenditure incurred upon various Consulates in China. He need hardly point out that it had been absolutely necessary to provide for these. The charge with regard to Tangier is to defray the expense of providing gardens to the Consular buildings. With regard to our Ambassador at Constantinople having two residences, it must be remembered that it is impos-

1341
sible for him to reside in that city during the summer months, and, therefore, it is absolutely necessary that he should have an additional residence at Pera. With regard to the payment of taxes for the Ambassador's residence at Berlin, that is due to the fact that the Municipal Authorities of the city exact the payment.
MR. A. C. MORTONsaid, that as the Local Authorities of Berlin insisted on charging rates and taxes on our Ambassador's house at Berlin, the right hon. Gentleman ought to direct the Local Authorities of the parish in London in which the Berlin Embassy resided to charge that Embassy rates and taxes, so that there might be equal dealing on both sides.
MR. MACARTNEYsaid, our Embassy House at St. Petersburg seemed to be held on different terms from the Embassy Houses in other capitals, because rent was paid for it; while in the other cities the residences of the Ambassadors were acquired by Great Britain. It appeared to him that the country would save a considerable sum of money by purchasing the Embassy House at St. Petersburg. He also noticed that the rent of the house varied considerably from year to year. In 1891 the rent was £1,875; last year it was £1,500; and this year it was £1,600. Perhaps the First Commissioner would give an explanation why the rent varied in such considerable amounts in three years? He also noticed that there was a sum of £1,700 on the Estimates for the completion of the Consular buildings on the East Coast of Africa. The total estimated cost of the building was given at £4,100, but going back on the Estimates for previous years, he found that in 1891–2, £1,000 was voted for the works; in 1892–3, £2,000; and now this year £1,700, making a total of £4,700, which was £600 above the total estimated cost.
MR. SHAW-LEFEVRE: The estimated cost of these buildings is £4,100. The sums to which the hon. Gentleman
1342
has called attention have not all been spent, and we expect to keep within the estimated cost. With regard to the Embassy House at St. Petersburg, it is true that we pay rent for it; but I cannot say why, three years ago, the rent was higher than it is now.
SIR FRANCIS POWELLsaid, that there was a sum of £7,000 down for the new Agency House at Cairo, and he wished to know whether that amount would really complete the buildings?
MR. GIBSON BOWLESasked whether it was the fact that rent had to be paid for the Embassy House at St. Petersburg because the Russian Government would not allow us to buy land there? He saw that a rent of £430 was charged for the Consular House at Alexandria. He knew the house; it was a twelve-roomed house, such as a prosperous tradesman would retire to in Bloomsbury, and how anyone could charge £430 for it he could not imagine.
MR. BARTLEYsaid, he noticed that there was a number of items for allowances to Ministers for petty repairs. For instance, in Brussels there was an allowance of £33, which he did not consider a large amount. But he thought it was hardly consistent with the dignity of Ministers to be allowed a small salary—for the payments seemed to be made regularly every year—for these petty repairs. The cost of these repairs should be defrayed when the work was done. He also noticed that the Ministers at Athens and Copenhagen were each allowed £100 a year in lieu of furniture. It would be better to furnish these houses than to pay a large sum annually for furniture in that fashion.
*MR. SHAW-LEFEVRE: It has been found that these annual allowances for repairs are the most economical arrangement; and if we were to furnish the houses at Athens and Copenhagen as the hon. Member suggests, our expenditure would be very much greater than it is now. The cost of the new

1343
Consular buildings at Cairo will be fully covered by the Estimate; and, with regard to the sum charged for rent of the Consular House at Alexandria, it must be borne in mind that rents are very high there.
MR. HANBURYthought they should have a more satisfactory answer in regard to the Embassy House at St. Petersburg. It seemed strange that we should pay rent for the Embassy House at St. Petersburg, while the Embassy Houses in all the other capitals were our private property. The Embassy House at Constantinople was a present from the Sultan. He believed the real reason why we had to pay rent at St. Petersburg was because the Russian Government would not allow us to acquire land there. He noticed that there were certain Consular Buildings in China to which the Indian Government contributed, and others to which they contributed nothing. He would like to know the principle on which the Indian Government made these contributions?
MR. LABOUCHEREcongratulated hon. Gentlemen opposite on their skilled criticism of the Estimates. It seemed to him they had reversed the usual order of things with regard to the Estimates, for nearly all of them had absolutely complained that the Estimates were too low. The hon. Baronet the Member for Kingston was in a perfect state of despair because the expenditure at some of the Consulates was lower than the expenditure at others, and he urged that they should level up rather than down. The reason why the Embassy House at St. Petersburg was hired, rather than, as in other cities, purchased or built, was because it was easy to hire a house sufficiently large for our purpose at St. Petersburg, while there was a great difficulty in obtaining houses of the proper kind on hire in other capitals. He hoped the Government would consinue to hire the house in St. Petersburg to long as it was possible to do so, rather than build or purchase one.
MR. MACARTNEYsaid, he had pointed out that the rent for the house
1344
at St. Petersburg fluctuated year by year in the most extraordinary manner; and surely, if they had to rent a house there, it would be wise to secure that they should not be at the mercy of the landlord of the house.
MR. SHAW-LEFEVREsaid, it was more economical to hire the house than to build or buy one. He was unable at present to give the hon. Member for Preston the arrangements under which the Indian Government contributed towards the Consular Houses in China.
Vote agreed to.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £283,923, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1894, for the Customs, Inland Revenue, Post Office, and Post Office Telegraph Buildings in Great Britain, including Furniture, Fuel, and sundry Miscellaneous Services."
MR. FORWOODsaid, he was aware that any criticism on the Estimates which came from his side of the House was liable to be received with adverse criticism by hon. Gentlemen opposite and their organs in the Press. But he was willing to take the risk, because he believed that the practice of criticising the Estimates was wholesome and good, and in the interest of good government and administration as well as of the taxpayers. On this Vote for Revenue Buildings a most important principle arose, on which he wished to make a few comments, but not at all of a Party character. His observations would be directed to the question of the framing of the Estimates. In order that the Committee might properly understand the proposals of the Government, it was necessary, in the first place, that the Estimates should be reliable and intelligible. But the present Estimates were not intelligible. He had no doubt that hon. Members, when they took the Paper which had been circulated by the Government in their hands, they imagined that the heading of the Paper really indicated the money they were asked to vote, and the

1345
circumstances and particulars of previous Votes. That was far from being the state of affairs in this case. On page 35 of the Estimates, which professed to give particulars of the proposed outlay on different Post Office Buildings, it would he seen that in the first column they had the name of the post office on which the money was to be expended and its location; then the next two columns gave them the Estimate of the costs; then they were told what had been the expenditure of the Vote up to the 31st March last, and then they were told what Vote was required for 1893–4, the balance required to complete the Vote, and, finally, what the Vote was last year. Now, if that were all that was in the Estimates, it would be a clear, and simple, and intelligible statement. There were no details given of the works to be carried out. When these figures were arrived at they had evidently in their minds distinct and individual works, for they actually said £47,709 with regard to the Post Office, and £14,161 with regard to Telegraphs. Therefore, he was afraid all the information that appeared on that Table as to the amount required was illusory and altogether unreliable, and they might just as well have had placed before them the Vote for £1,096,000 without any particulars whatever as to have had the Vote placed before them in the form in which it appeared. In former years there was a column in this Vote which gave the amount of Re-Votes; but that was now omitted. The Secretary to the Treasury explained he omitted it because it might mislead. Therefore he concluded that all the items which might mislead the House in connection with this Vote had been eliminated, and that they might take the Vote as drawn up as clearly and distinctly showing what money was wanted for each and every purpose. On that hypothesis, where opposite different items the word "Re-Vote" appeared, he must assume it meant that on a previous occasion the House voted that sum of money for the particular purpose for which the Vote was required; that the money had not been expended; and that, therefore, the House was asked in the coming year to provide the sum over again. Let him take one of these items and test it. Here was an item that was typical of them all — "South-
1346
Western District, New Sorting Office." On that there was a Re-Vote of £9,000. Take the history of this transaction. The cost of the building was estimated in 1891–2 to be £54,000; £15,000 was voted for it, and there was spent in that year only £1,760. In 1892–3 £25,000 was estimated, including a Re-Vote of £13,940. But out of that £25,000 there was only spent £7,510 in the year and £8,490, making a total of £16,000 out of the £25,000 voted. This year it was proposed to ask for £25,000, and there still remained £13,000 to complete that work in the following year, so that they would positively have been asked to vote £78,000 for a building that was only to cost, at the outside, £54,300. That was a system of estimating and charging upon the taxpayers of this country that was eminently and highly unsatisfactory. His right hon. Friend opposite said it was not spent. No; but the cost of the building was £54,000, whereas with Re-Votes the taxpayers had had to provide £78,000. [Sir W. HARCOURT dissented.] It had been explained by the Secretary to the Treasury that these Re-Votes were to replace money voted in a previous year.
SIR W. HARCOURT: Not spent.
MR. FORWOOD: But the money not spent had to be surrendered, and, as far as the taxpayers were concerned, they had had to provide £78,000 instead of £54,000.
SIR W. HARCOURT: That is a fallacy.
MR. FORWOOD: If it was, it was a fallacy deducible from the Estimates and the mode in which they were prepared. The amount of Re-Votes amounted to £50,000 added to the Votes of this year; therefore there was £50,000 short, spent in the last year, if this statement was worth anything. He could not understand how such a statement as that could be approved by the Treasury, or passed by the Controller and Auditor General. If he understood Public Accounts, the system of the Exchequer and Audit Act, and the course of procedure laid down by the Treasury, he gathered, in the first

1347
place, that any money voted find not expended became an amount that had to be surrendered to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and was available with the surplus of the year for the reduction of the National Debt. And, secondly, he understood that the Controller and Auditor General, in auditing these accounts, ought to ascertain whether or not the money voted had been expended in the course of the year upon the item for which it was so voted. He notified the Secretary to the Treasury accepted that position; and, that being so, how was it possible for the Controller and Auditor General to take this statement which professed to give the Vote of the year on a specified building and then at the end deduct a lump sum without saying from which Vote that lump sum was deducted? This matter was not raised for the first time. A former Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Childers, in criticising the Votes, attacked the then Postmaster General. On that occasion he complained of the extraordinary way in which the Estimates were prepared for post offices in and around London. He pointed out that on the proposed Post Office at Fins-bury Park the total expenditure was to be £2,500; but £5,000 had already been spent. In the case of another post office, the Estimate for which was £1,000, a sum of £2,000 had already been spent; and for the London Bridge Post Office the original Estimate was for £12,000, and £22,000 had been expended. Another hon. Gentleman, the Member for East Donegal, who was thoroughly acquainted with Public Accounts, said the whole method of preparing the Post Office Estimates was a farce, and that the Post Office officials never paid any attention to the statement of detailed expenditure in the Estimates. These elaborate statements, said the hon. Member, were quite untrustworthy as guides to the manner in which the money granted to the Post Office would be spent. Since that time no change whatever had been made in the manner in which these documents were placed before them, and he thought they were absolutely misleading and completely unintelligible. He could not understand the Controller and Auditor General giving a certificate for such Estimates on such a statement as was then before the House; but
1348
perhaps he did so because the aggregate sum mentioned in the Estimate was not exceeded, and he took no notice whatever of the amount spent on individual buildings. If that were so let it be distinctly stated. He pointed to the fact that in a Treasury Minute issued on the 19th February, 1890, on matters analogous to this, allusion was made to the inclination of Departments to find some other object on which to spend money which had not been used for the purpose voted rather than surrender it to the Exchequer; and the Auditor General stated that instead of having been so used such money ought to have gone to increase the Sinking Fund for the reduction of the National Debt, and if any Department had a surplus at its disposal resulting from one Vote for the service of the year, it had no right to spend the 'saving for any other purpose, not even for effecting a saving in the succeeding year. If there were Re-Votes to the extent of £50,000, clearly £50,000 was not expended last year; but it was either surrendered to the Treasury, or it was spent for other purposes of which Parliament had no knowledge. He was sorry that the First Commissioner of Works had not asked from the Chancellor of the Exchequer enough money for the work of the coming year. He thought it would be admitted that in the great commercial wants of the country the Post Office played a most important part, and that to starve the Post Office was to starve the Revenue and inconvenience the traders and people of the country. He called it starving the Post Office and levying increased cost of charges on the public if, when they once undertook a large work, they did not provide sufficient money to push that work on to completion. If anyone would take the Votes, it would be seen they had on hand works for the Post Office estimated to cost £1,096,000. To put aside £200,000 or £300,000 towards providing works which were going to cost £2,000,000 meant that it would take five years to complete the work. It was realty a waste of money to start a work unless they had enough money to push on quickly with it. That sum of £1,096,000 did not include sites which were lying dormant and idle, and which would 'mean another £1,000,000, so

1349
that positively there were £2,000,000 the work for which required to be finished in order to be utilised for the benefit of the Revenue and the public. He thought there was a change required in that system, especially regarding the Post Office. He would take a particular case in his own knowledge. Nearly three years ago a new site for a Post Office was required at Liverpool at a cost of no less than £180,000, and that site was lying idle. The present Post Office had been condemned as unsanitary by the Medical Officer of Health, and as an unfit place for the clerks of the Post Office to reside in. In consequence of that, the late Mr. Raikes was induced to favour the purchase of this large site for the erection of a Post Office: and, therefore, not only had they a site lying idle and a consequent loss of interest on money, but it was positively injurious to the health of the postal officials who have to remain in the old Post Office which had been condemned. What did they find? After three years, on a building which was to cost £180,000 this year, the small sum of £6,000 was asked to go on with the work. The plans had been passed, the contract made, and there was a splendid opportunity for the work to be gone on with. The defence of the First Commissioner of Works in regard to the Science and Art Department building was, that it would be idle to commence a building which would cost £400,000 if they could only have £10,000 or £15,000. What would be his defence in regard to a building which was to cost £180,000, the contract for which had been made, and in regard to which he only proposed to spend £6,000? In Leeds, a new Post Office was commenced in 1890 or 1891, which was to cost £76,000; but so little money had been taken for that undertaking, that at the end of this year there would yet remain 50 per cent. of the work unexecuted, although four years would have elapsed since its commencement. In Sheffield, in 1890. a new Post Office was commenced at a cost of £14,500,and it would have taken four years when the work was completed. In Glasgow, Post Office Buildings which were to cost £30,000 were commenced in 1889, and they would not be completed by March 1894.
SIR W. HARCOURT: That is not our fault.
MR. FORWOOD: He endeavoured, at the opening of his remarks, to show that I his was not a Party question. It was the fault of the system on which they proceeded. There was no doubt that hon. Members of that House came to the Postmaster General, or the Secretary to the Treasury, and said that the most important post office that could be built was in the particular Member's constituency; and then it was a very satisfactory thing—especially if it was near an Election—for that hon. Member to go down to his constituents and tell them he had got this new post office from the Tory or the Radical Government, as the case might be. Thus it came about that, instead of having 20 or 30 works on which £200,000 could be spent, and the works completed, they undertook no fewer than 64, and dribbled and frittered away their resources over them. The Post Office was a revenue-producing undertaking, and ought not to be subjected to the exigencies of the Exchequer. They ought to have such financial arrangements come to that, when a post office was really wanted, the work should be commenced and carried through without delay. They should treat this as any public undertaking should be treated. It was capital expenditure, and ought to be spread over a reasonable number of years. If barracks and fortifications could be provided and paid for by the money being spread over a series of years, surely they could spread the payment for the post offices over a period of years, and so insure such necessary works being completed within a reasonable period of time. He disclaimed having brought this matter forward in any way as a personal attack on his right hon. Friend, the Secretary to the Treasury or the present Government: but the fault was with all Governments, for it was in the system. The way the Estimates were prepared and laid before them was such as to make them misleading and unintelligible, and he was surprised they were allowed to pass the

1351
Public Accounts Committee and Controller and Auditor General. He hoped this matter would receive attention, and that they would not allow these sites to remain waste after having cost such an enormous sum of public money.
SIR W. HARCOURT(who rose a minute or two before midnight) said, the right hon. Gentleman had not left him time to reply. It was no doubt a question of capital expenditure, and as such deserved consideration.
Mr. T. M. Healyrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put"; but the Chairman withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.
Debate resumed.
MR. TOMLINSONcalled attention to the post office at Preston, where the accommodation was totally inadequate for the requirements of the town.
It being Midnight, the Chairman proceeded to interrupt the Business.
Whereupon Mr. T. M. Healy rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put"; but the Chairman withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.
And the Chairman left the Chair to make his report to the House.
Resolutions to be reported To-morrow, at Two of the clock.
Committee also report Progress; to sit again To-morrow, at Two of the clock.

LABOUR DISPUTES (ARBITRATION) BILL.—(No. 308.)

  SECOND READINGS.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Mundella.)
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESobjected.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. MUNDELLA,)mentioned that there were three other Bills on this subject, and it had been agreed that afterwards they
  1352
  should all be referred to a Committee and be considered together. He hoped, therefore, no objection would be taken to the Bill being now read a second time.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESconsidered it was extremely doubtful whether the House should pass the Bill at all; but, if they did, it should only be after they had had a full explanation of its objects.
  *SIR JOHN LUBBOCKappealed to hon. Members to allow the Second Reading to be taken, and then this, together with the other Bills on the same subject, could go before a Select Committee.
  MR. BARTLEYobserved that one of the Labour Members had got a Motion down to the effect that the Bill be read that day six months.
  MR. MUNDELLA: No, Sir; he has withdrawn it.
  MR. BARTLEY: It is on the Paper for to-day, and he spoke to me about it himself; therefore, I must take it that the Labour Members are strongly opposed to it.
  MR. MUNDELLAsaid the notice of objection was put down to secure that the three Bills should go with this Bill to a Select Committee, and on that understanding the objection had been withdrawn.
  COLONEL HOWARD VINCENT: Will all the Bills be referred to a Select Committee?
  MR. MUNDELLA: Yes.
  MR. HANBURYobjected to the present stage of the Bill being taken at that hour.
  SIR W. HARCOURTpointed out that it had been agreed that all the Bills on this subject should be sent to be considered by a Select Committee. Legislation on this subject was of great importance, and what conceivable argument could there be against the adoption of the course which was suggested? Surely it would not be justifiable to obstruct a measure of this kind.
  MR. HANBURYmust point out that, this was not obstruction. The real obstruction came from the Government themselves, who, having taken the whole time of the House and sacrificed everything to the Home Rule Bill, refused to allow 10 minutes of public time for the discussion of other Bills. It was because they objected to the way the important business of the country was being obstructed by the Government——
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! If the Bill is objected to, of course it will have to stand over.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I wish to ask whether it is not possible to consider the advisability of abrogating the Twelve o'Clock Rules seeing that hon. Members object to Bills night after night without any regard to what the business is?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I am afraid, Sir, we are approaching a, point when it will be necessary to consider it.
  Second Reading deferred till To-morrow, at Two of the clock.

PUBLIC LIBRARIES (IRELAND) ACTS AMENDMENT BILL —(No. 212.)

  THIRD READING.
  Order for Third Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
  COLONEL HOWARD VINCENTobjected.
  SIR ALBERT ROLLITwould ask the hon. Member to allow this Bill to go through. There was a manifest feeling in the House the previous night that the Bill should be allowed to pass, because the English Bill had been helped by Irish Members. He would point out that this Bill was merely to assimilate the law of the two countries, and if they wanted to keep them united they ought to allow them to have the same laws.
  MR. MARJORIBANKSsaid, he would ask the hon. Member to put off the Bill for a few days, as the Irish Office had some Amendments to put down.
  Third Reading deferred till Tuesday, 6th June.
  MR. BARTLEYsaid, he would draw attention to the fact that this Bill in its
  1354
  present stage was really opposed by Her Majesty's Government.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: No, no!

  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 3) BILL.—(No. 318.)
  Read the third time, and passed.
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 1) BILL.—(No. 284.)
  As amended, considered; read the third time, and passed.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (HOUSING OF WORKING CLASSES) BILL.—(No. 331.)
  Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Order confirmed]; to be read the third time To-morrow.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 4) BILL.—(No. 288.)
  Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Orders confirmed]; as amended, to be considered To-morrow.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 9) BILL.—(No. 330.)
  Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Orders confirmed]; as amended, to be considered To-morrow.
  PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1) BILL.—(No. 310.)
  Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Orders confirmed]; as amended, to be considered To-morrow.
  PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.—(No. 328.)
  Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Orders confirmed]; as amended, to be considered To-morrow.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 3) BILL.— (No. 334.)
  Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Order confirmed]; to be read the third time To-morrow.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm an Order made by the Secretary for Scotland, under 'The

1355
Sea Fisheries Act, 1868,' relating to a several Oyster and Mussel Fishery at Loch Creran, Argyllshire." [Oyster and Mussel Fishery Provisional Order Confirmation Bill [Lords].

OYSTER AND MUSSEL FISHERY PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL [Lords].
Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to he printed. [Bill 362.]

FEUS AND LEASES (SCOTLAND.)
Select Committee on Feus and Leases (Scotland) nominated of,—Mr. Baird, Mr. J. B. Balfour, Mr. James Campbell, Mr. Donald Crawford, Mr. Dalziel, Mr. Hunter. Sir John Kinloch, Dr. MacGregor, Mr. Maxwell. Sir Charles Pearson. Mr. Renshaw, Mr. G. A. L. Whitelaw, and Mr. Stephen Williamson.
Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.
Ordered, That Five be the quorum.—(Mr. Marjoribanks.)

FATAL ACCIDENTS INQUIRY (SCOTLAND) BILL.
On Motion of The Lord Advocate, Bill to make provision for Public Inquiry in regard to Fatal Accidents occurring in industrial employments or occupations in Scotland, ordered to be brought in by The Lord Advocate. Sir George Trevelyan, and Mr. Solicitor General for Scotland.
Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 363.]

SOUTHERN RAILWAY (IRELAND) BILL.
On Motion of Sir John Hibbert, Bill to confirm an agreement entered into between the Great Southern and Western Railway Company and the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland for the improvement and use of the railway station at Thurles; and for other purposes, ordered to be brought in by Sir John Hibbert and Mr. John Morley.
Bill presented, and read first time [Bill 364.]

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES BILL. (No. 163.)
Read the third time, and passed.
PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.

  STANDING ORDER APPLICABLE THERETO COMPLIED WITH.
  MR. SPEAKERlaid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Order which is applicable thereto has
  1356
  been complied with, namely—Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Order (No. 5) Bill; Tramways Provisional Orders Bill.
  Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time To-morrow.

  CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, 1893–4.
  (VOTE ON ACCOUNT.)
  Estimate presented,—showing the several Services for which a further Vote on Account is required for the year ending 31st March, 1894 [by Command]; Referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed. [No. 223.]

  RAILWAYS (CONTINUOUS BRAKES).
  Copy presented,—of Return by the Railway Companies of the United Kingdom for the six months ending the 31st December, 1892 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  ALKALI, & C, WORKS REGULATION ACT, 1881.
  Copy presented, — of Twenty-ninth Annual Report on Alkali, &c., Works by the Chief Inspector of Proceedings during 1892 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION (EVENING SCHOOLS).
  Copy presented,—of Minute of the Committee of Council on Education, dated 18th May, 1893, establishing a Code of Regulations for Evening Continuation Schools, &c. [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  PAWNBROKERS' RETURNS (IRELAND).
  Copy presented,—of Return from the City Marshal of Dublin for the year 1892 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT, 1888 (MONMOUTH).
Copy presented, — of Order of the County Council of Monmouth for altering the boundaries of the urban districts of Bedwelty and Ebbw Vale [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
House adjourned at a quarter after Twelve o'clock.