Commons Sitting of 29 March 1894

MR. SPEAKERS INDISPOSITION.
The House being met, the Clerk at the Table informed the House of the unavoidable absence of Mr. Speaker, owing to the continuance of his indisposition:—
Whereupon Mr. Mellor, the Chairman of Ways and Means, proceeded to the Table, and after Prayers, took the Chair as Deputy Speaker, pursuant to the Standing Order.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to,—Consolidated Fund (No. 1) Bill, without any Amendment.
Message to attend the Lords Commissioners;—
The House went;—and being returned:—

Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKERreported the Royal Assent to,—
1. Consolidated Fund (No. 1) Act, 1894.

QUEEN'S SPEECH.
The Vice Chamberlain of the Household reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Address as followeth:—
902
"I thank you for your loyal and dutiful Address.
You may rely on My cordial co-operation in your endeavours to promote the well-being of My people in all parts of My Dominions."

QUESTIONS.

  IRCHESTER RAILWAY FATALITY.
  MR. J. STUART: On behalf of the hon. Member for East Northamptonshire, I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the inquest, on 8th March, on the body of a platelayer, named Cross, who was knocked down and killed at Irchester, on the Midland Railway; whether he hits observed that it appears from the evidence that a curve in the line and a bridge prevented Cross from seeing in time the engine which struck him down; whether previous accidents of a similar character have occurred in the same locality; what precautions are taken on the Midland line for the protection of platelayers under such circumstances; and whether he will have an inquiry made by a Board of Trade Inspector into the circumstances?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. MUNDELLA,): My attention has been called to the accident in question. I understand that the railway is on a slight curve only, the radius being 70 chains, and that there is no bridge or other obstruction to the view of the line in the direction of Bedford for the distance of about 400 yards from the point where Cross was working. The Midland Company have Rides for the guidance of their servants, and one of them (347) is specially directed to men working on the permanent way. A coroner's inquest has been hold, and the coroner reports that a jury of practical men, one of whom had been an engine driver, re-turned a verdict of accidental death. The Board of Trade have been in communication with the Railway Company on the matter, and I have come to the conclusion that further inquiry would not throw any additional light on this sad occurrence.

  THE CHARITY COMMISSION.
  MR. CARVELL WILLIAMS: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education when Mr. Austie ceased to act as a Charity Commissioner; and whether, by the terms of ins appointment, he was appointed as a permanent Commissioner, or only as a temporary Commissioner in connection with the administration of "The City of London Parochial Charities Act, 1883"?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Mr. ACLAND,): I am informed that Mr. Austie ceased to act as a Charity Commissioner on the 30th of September, 1892, being the day on which the extended period prescribed by the City of London Parochial Charities Act, 1883, for the duration of the powers and duties vested in, or imposed upon, the Charity Commissioners by that Act, expired. Mr. Austie was appointed a Charity Commissioner under the power, given to the Crown by the above-mentioned Act, of appointing paid Charity Commissioners to hold office during the pleasure of the Crown, and his salary as Commissioner ceased to be paid on the expiration of that Act as thereby provided.
  MR. CARVELL WILLIAMS: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, with reference to the recent Return of Charities within the County of London, the trustees of which have omitted during five years to transmit to the Charity Commissioners copies of the annual accounts of the charities as required by law, whether the Commissioners have taken any, and what, steps to obtain compliance with the law; and whether any, and what, steps have been taken by the Commissioners in the case of numerous trustees of charities in other parts of the Kingdom who, during the same period, have omitted to transmit copies of their accounts to the Commissioners?
  MR. ACLAND: I am informed that the Charity Commissioners have taken steps to procure the Return of the accounts of the charities in question, and have already received the accounts in several cases; and that in every case in which such an omission is brought to
  904
  the notice of the Charity Commissioners a compliance with the law is at once required and enforced.

  MILITARY INSTRUCTION FOR VOLUNTEER OFFICERS.
  MR. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that great difficulty has recently been placed in the way of Volunteer officers, who are anxious to make themselves efficient, at Wellington Barracks, Hythe, and other Military schools; that one officer of the 1st Volunteer Battalion, Royal West Kent Regiment, who applied early in February for admission to Wellington Barracks in March, was refused on the ground that the school was full in March, and on subsequently applying for April was informed that in April there would be no school at all; and that another officer in the same regiment, who applied last December for admission to the School of Musketry at Hythe for any month in 1894, was refused on the ground that there were no vacancies at Hythe in 1894 at all; and whether he will consider the possibility of giving increased facilities to Volunteer officers of obtaining military instruction?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. CAMPBELL- BANNERMAN,, &c.): Referring to the specific instances quoted, the officer who wished to attend at Wellington Barracks in March, when there was no vacancy, has been informed that he can attend the April class. At the Hythe School of Musketry the only vacancy available in 1894 for the Militia and Volunteers of the Thames District was filled before this application was received. Speaking generally, the numbers which can he taken at the several Schools are necessarily limited; but, subject to those limits, there is every desire to afford Volunteer officers all possible facilities for making themselves efficient.

  SEA FISHERIES.
  SIR A. ROLLIT: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he has yet considered the Report of the Sea Fisheries Committee; and whether, and when, he intends to propose legislation in pursuance of its recommendations?
  MR. MUNDELLA: I regret that, having regard to the number of measures proposed by the Government, I am unable to promise legislation on this subject at present.

  STRUCTURAL ARRANGEMENTS IN THE HOUSE OF COMMON'S.
  MR. PAUL: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether the proposed Committee on the structure and arrangements of the House of Commons will have power to inquire into the want of proper accommodation for Representatives of the Press?
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. H. GLADSTONE,): Yes, Sir.

  UNIVERSITY OF LONDON COMMISSION.
  SIR A. ROLLIT: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, and when, it is intended to propose legislation in pursuance of the Report of the University of London Commission, and what will be the general character of procedure in reference to the subject?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir W.HARCOURT,): It is impossible to introduce legislation in pursuance of the Report of the University of London Commission this Session.

  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER AND THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY — PERSONAL EXPLANATION.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I beg to ask the indulgence of the House while I make a very brief personal explanation. On Thursday last the Secretary to the Admiralty made a reference to me in this House. It would be quite out of place for me to go into the subject-matter of that statement. I wish, however, to say that my absence from this House was a misfortune which no one regretted more than myself. I recognise the courtesy of the Secretary to the Admiralty in giving me notice of his intention; but owing to what was perhaps the necessarily short character of that notice, I did not receive it till the following morning. I desire nothing better than to have an opportunity of stating my case before this House, but I fear from the reply given to the hon. Member for King's Lynn by my right hon. Friend that I shall not be
  906
  allowed such an opportunity. I must, therefore, endeavour to state elsewhere what I should have preferred to state in this House. I may add that, despite the very categorical statement made by the right hon. Gentleman, I still find myself so sharply at issue with him that I do not feel justified—taking the view. I do of what is the public interest in this matter—in allowing a misunderstanding of this kind to remain unexplained. I can only repeat, as my right hon. Friend seems to think otherwise, that this is in no sense a personal matter with me, and no hon. Member can point to a word of mine which justifies such a, belief. I thank the House for its indulgence in bearing me, and I trust I have made it clear that it is by no wish of my own that I failed to support the exact terms of my Motion.

  THE ARMY (ANNUAL) BILL.
  MR. BRODRICK: Is it proposed to take the Army (Annual) Bill to-night? If so, after what hour will it not be proceeded with?
  MR. HANBURYasked if there was not a distinct understanding that up to the 29th of March no contentious business should be brought forward, and if the Secretary of War had not violated that understanding before Easter by getting the Second Reading of the Army (Annual) Bill without notice and before the Bill itself had been printed? He further inquired whether the Government really intended that night to proceed with this most contentious piece of business before hon. Members had had an opportunity of putting down Amendments to it?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANreplied, that if there was any general feeling in the House, or any feeling at all, against the Committee stage of the Army (Annual) Bill being taken that night, it would not be taken.

  NEW MEMBER SWORN.
  Ronald Craufurd Munro Ferguson, esquire, for the Leith District of Burghs.
ADJOURNMENT.

  LOSS OF THE "PORT YARROCK."
  MR. HAVELOCK WILSON,Member for Middlesbrough, rose in his place, and asked leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of

  907
  discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance—namely, "the loss of life caused by the loss of the British sailing vessel Port Yarrock;" but the pleasure of the House not having been signified, Mr. Deputy Speaker called on those Members who supported the Motion to rise in their places, and less than 40 Members having accordingly risen:—
  The House proceeded to the Business of the Day.

MOTIONS.
  EQUALISATION OF RATES (LONDON) BILL.

    MOTION FOR LEAVE.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. SHAW-LEFEVRE,): I have to ask leave to bring in a Bill to make better provision for the equalisation of rates as between different parts of London. This measure, I may explain, is the same measure which was introduced last Session by my right hon. Friend now Secretary of State for India. The Bill of last Session was introduced with a short statement on the understanding that anything like a general discussion should be deferred till the Second Reading, a stage which was not reached not because of any opposition on the part of hon. Members, but simply for want of time. On this occasion I propose to defer any general statement to the Second Reading, and the Government will endeavour to put down the Second Reading for as' early a day as possible. We have every desire for the fullest discussion, for we regard the measure as one of great importance, and will endeavour at the earliest possible moment to carry it into law.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That Leave be given to bring in a Bill to make better provision for the Equalisation of Rates as between different parts of London."— (Mr. Shaw-Lefevre.)
    MR. BARTLEYsaid, he thought the House was entitled to hear something more concerning this measure. The right hon. Gentleman told them it was exactly the same Bill as was introduced last year, but that Bill was not discussed, and it would only have been
    908
    courteous to the House to at least have stated the general line on which it was framed. They were certainly all agreed that there should be some re-arrangement of the system of local taxation in Loudon; but it was a peculiar thing to bring in a measure of this great importance, which affected a larger population than did the Home Rule Bill, without a single word of explanation. The Bill raised many questions which no doubt were more or less matters of detail and would be better discussed when the Bill had been printed, but the general question involved that of the rearrangement of the whole system of Metropolitan taxation, and was so important that he thought London had not been treated with due respect by the introduction of the Bill without a word of explanation from the Minister in charge. They ought to have some general idea of the Bill before they read it a first time. Although they desired that the burdens of local taxation should fall more lightly upon the poorer districts, they realised that a re-arrangement would have to be made with great care or else the general burden might be made more heavy in the future than it had been in the past. What had to be guarded against was the danger that drawing from a common fund would lead to extravagance, which would ultimately increase the burden of the rates even in the poorer districts. He had the honour to represent in that House a district in which there had been extremely careful administration of local funds and in which the average expenditure was lower than in other poor districts. Probably this Bill would at first have the effect of reducing the rates even in that district, but he feared that ultimately the system of drawing upon a general fund would produce higher expenditure and greater extravagance with consequently increased burdens on the unfortunate ratepayers that he therefore held that they ought to be informed what safeguards were provided in the Bill against these evils.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir W. HARCOURT,): No doubt there are a great many questions in this Bill which constitute proper matter for discussion. But the other day, when the question of First Reading was mentioned, I ventured to make an appeal to the House, which I understood to be

    909
    favourably responded to from both sides of the House, and it was that there should be no discussion on the First Readings of Bills. It is almost unknown to have anything in the nature of a First Reading discussion on the introduction of private Members' Bills, and until very recent times it was extremely unusual to raise discussion on the First Reading of Government Bills that were not in the proper sense of the term highly controversial, like the Home Rule Bill and the Bill for the repeal of the Corn Laws. Bills of the character now proposed it has not been the custom to discuss on the First Reading. The House has suffered greatly from want of time to transact its business, and to make a practice of discussing Bills on their introduction will have a prejudicial effect. I am not speaking merely in the interests of this Government, for it is equally in the interests of both sides of the House and of any Government that Bills of this character should be laid on the Table without discussion and that debate should he deferred to the Second Reading. In the interests of the business of the House and of all parties who might be responsible for legislation, I venture to appeal to the House not to discuss at this stage a Bill on which they are not fundamentally divided.
    MR. GOSCHEN: I will so far respond to the appeal which the right hon. Gentleman has just made as to refrain myself from discussing the Bill at this stage. It is true the Bill was introduced last year and that there was some little discussion upon it, hut I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that we have practically abolished discussion on two stages of Bills—on going into Committee and on the Report stage. Therefore, we can scarcely be hound by the procedure in the past when discussion on these stages was allowed, I agree generally with what the right hon. Gentleman has stated, but I make this reservation. There were good reasons last year for discussing Bills on the Motion for first Reading, because it was evident that those Bills were introduced mainly to show the intentions and indicate the programme of the Government, and because there was no prospect of the Bills reaching the Second Reading stage. Therefore, the First Reading was the only
    910
    opportunity the Opposition had of showing what was their attitude towards the measures of the Government. This is a new Session, and, without being authorised to say so, I venture to think that, if more Bills are introduced without a prospect of their being brought to the Second Reading, it will be the duty of the Opposition to discuss them on the First Reading. In this case I do not wish to prolong the discussion upon the Bill itself. I only desire to enter this caveat as regards the general principle laid down by the right hon. Gentleman. I have no wish to assume an unfriendly attitude on the present occasion.
    MR. WHITMOREsaid, he wished earnestly to appeal to the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill to allow some considerable and sufficient interval between the First and Second Reading to enable the Local Authorities of London to consider and express their opinions on the Government proposal. Although there was some little discussion on the measure last: year, it was understood that, in consequence of the pressure of highly controversial business, there was a great likelihood that the Bill would be dropped after the Second Reading, and therefore it did not receive the consideration it required. The right hon. Gentleman might rely on the cooperation of hon. Members in passing the Bill into law, but he must bear in mind that the practical merit of the measure depended on its details, which were necessarily of a complex nature, and it was therefore desirable that the Local Authorities which had practical knowledge of the subject should have ample opportunity of considering the details before their Representatives were asked to give an opinion on the Second Betiding.
    SIR J. LUBBOCKsaid, he wished to support the appeal of the hon. Member for Chelsea, for he very much doubted whether the Local Authorities were so well acquainted with the provisions of the Bill as the right hon. Gentleman seemed to think. The hon. Member for Islington had asked some very pertinent questions, and he regretted that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not thought fit to give any answer, which he might have done in less time than he had occupied in stating his reasons for giving none. He

    911
    would like to remind the Lender of the House, too, that there was a great deal of difference between Government Bills and private Members' Bills. Progress with the latter could practically be stopped by any Member or section of Members. Opportunities for rejecting private Members' Bills were, in his opinion, ample; but Government Bills stood in a more favourable position, and he therefore thought it was desirable to have a discussion on the First Reading. It was impossible for Members to be always present in their seats, and, therefore, if there was a discussion and a vote taken immediately, a great many Members would have to give their votes without having heard that discussion. They were told that most of the districts in the Metropolis were favourable to the Bill, which was not surprising considering that its effect would be to reduce the rates in most parishes and to increase them in a few. But then they had to consider the question whether it was fair to a district which, by economy and prudent management, had kept down its rates that it should not be allowed to continue to derive the advantages following from that management. if they had two districts, one of which had managed its affairs with economy and care, and another district which had not been so fortunate before they made a prudent district contribute to the other, they ought to have clear and conclusive reasons. In the present case no such reasons had been given. There might be considerable safeguards in the Bill, but they had not been indicated; and it was quite clear that unless there were some safeguards the result might be that, although there might be at first a diminution in the rates throughout the greater part of the Metropolis, the sense of responsibility and the feeling for the necessity of economy would be weakened and the rates eventually be generally increased. He did not see why they should stop at the Metropolis in this matter. Why not allow the proposal to be carried out, in other districts? In too many cases they legislated for the Metropolis in a hurry and on the spur of the moment. Last Session, with no notice to London, with no opportunity for the Local Authorities to consider what was being done, this House introduced clauses into a Bill
    912
    which not only entirely altered the management of the Metropolis generally, but placed it upon a different footing from that which prevailed in other large cities. he joined in expressing regret that Her Majesty's Government had not thought fit, on the introduction of the Bill, to give them some statement as to the character of the measure.
    SIR A. ROLLITsaid, he would express a hope that this period of consideration would not be too long. This was the same Bill as the Bill of last Session, and he remembered that there was a large amount of literature which reached him from the Local Authorities bearing upon it in the shape both of Petitions against it and of recommendations in its favour. As far as Islington was concerned—[Mr. BARTLEY: South Islington.] No;— Islington; he spoke for the whole parish, for the Vestry had itself passed a resolution and sent him a Petition in favour of the Bill—he believed they were generally in favour of the Bill, and that it would help them to do what they had been doing steadily ever since the London Health Act was passed for the benefit of its own district and the general health of the community, and it was desired that the measure should receive early consideration. Having regard to the fact that the Session was of doubtful duration and that the Bill was introduced last Session and was lost, and inasmuch as he was prepared to support it on behalf of his constituency, he hoped the interval would not be too long.
    MR. JAMES LOWTHERsaid, he did not want to go into the particular merits of this Bill, which, apparently, there was no very great desire to subject to exhaustive discussion at this stage; but he must make a few remarks with reference to what had fallen from the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to the general principle of the House reserving to itself the right to discuss measures on the motion for their introduction. He must remind the House that formerly there were five stages in which a Public Bill was subjected to discussion in the House as to its principles—the introduction, Second Reading, the Motion for the Speaker to leave the Chair, the Motion that the Bill, as amended, be

    913
    considered, and that the Bill be read a third time. While those five opportunities remained it was usual to waive the first of them, and, generally speaking, in dealing with Bills of a not very contentious character, it was usual to leave the remaining four stages for the discussion of their principles. But now that the opportunity had been removed from Members of discussing the principle of a Bill except upon the Second and Third Reading, he thought the House had been very wise in reserving to itself the right which, he hoped, it was distinctly understood they did reserve—ro discuss Bills upon the Motion for their introduction.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Shaw-Lefevre, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Sir Walter Foster, and Mr. Sydney Buxton,
    Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 124.]

CONCILIATION BILL.

  MOTION FOR LEAVE.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. MUNDELLA,): I ask leave Sir, to introduce a Bill to make better provision for the settlement of labour disputes. I think if may be regarded almost as a non-contentions measure by all sections of the House. [Mr. J. LOWTHER: What is it about?] My right hon. Friend says he does not know what it is. If he will allow me I will supplement what I have to say by a few preliminary remarks. This Bill, in substance, was before the House last Session, but I shall he very happy to state to the House shortly the provisions of the measure, and when I have done that I hope we shall allow the Bill to proceed as rapidly as we possibly can with a view to its speedily becoming law. The Bill of last year gave no powers of initiative to the Board of Trade, but the present Bill does, and to that extent it differs from the previous Bill. It states that—
  "Where a difference exists or is apprehended between an employer or any class of employers, or between different classes of workmen, the Board of Trade may, if they think tit, exercise all or any of the following powers:—First, to inquire into and report the cause of the difference."
  Their, it may go further: it may invite
  914
  the parties to meet together fry themselves, or through their representatives, under the presidency of a chairman mutually agreed upon or nominated by the Board of Trade, with a view to an amicable settlement of the difference. That is precisely following the lines that were taken with regard to the coal dispute last year. So far, that is an addition to the Bill of last year. The Board of Trade may also take the initiative, and where there seems to be a deadlock may intervene and endeavour to bring the parties together and constitute a Board with a view to an amicable settlement. The next clause is simply to take power to appoint a conciliator or Board of Conciliation in the case of any difference. As in the foregoing section, the Board of Trade, on the application of any employer or workmen interested, and after taking into consideration the circumstances, may, if it thinks fit, set up a Board of Conciliation in that distract in order to deal with the special dispute. That can only be done, as in the Bill of last year, on application to the Board of Trade either by the employer or employed There is a sub-section which says—
  "If it is agreed or arranged."
  —this goes beyond conciliation—
  "to refer any such difference to a person appointed by the Board of Trade, or to two or more persons, one of whom is to be appointed by the Board of Trade, the Board of Trade may, if it think fit make an appointment accordingly;"
  that is to say, the Board of Trade may appoint an arbitrator: and it is proposed that it shall keep a list of persons who are willing to act in that capacity. There are many men at this moment in England who for the last 20 year's have been doing admirable service as arbitrators or umpires. It is impossible to over-estimate the value of those services. Mr. David Dale, for example, has been engaged in this work for more than a quarter of a century, and has done the noblest service to the industries of the country. So has Dr. Spence Watson, and in the last Report he presented he stated he had just issued his 50th award, and that never in a single instance had any award been disputed, and others I might mention—Sir Rupert Kettle and Members of this House—who have done excellent service in this way, and who, I am sure, will allow their names to be placed

  915
  on a roll, or a list of honour, as men who are willing to give their impartial services for the promotion of conciliation. I see my right hon. Friend the Member for Bury (Sir H. James) sitting in his place. We all know what he has done in the shoe trade during the last few years, his admirable services, and the success with which he has intervened in disputes in Lancashire, Leicestershire, Staffordshire, Derbyshire, and Nottinghamshire; and how he has prevented again and again the most serious outbreaks of industrial war, so to speak, in that great trade. Clause 3 gives power to aid in the establishment of Boards of Conciliation. In any districts where disputes are frequent, and adequate means do not exist to deal with them, the Board of Trade may appoint a person or persons to inquire into the conditions of the mischief and to confer with the employers and employed, with a view to aiding and assisting the bringing into existence of a Board of Conciliation. Practically, the object of this Bill may be summed up as a Bill to call, as far as possible, Boards of Conciliation into existence, to assist their organisation with such information, and such Rules, Regulations, and methods as have proved successful in the past, and to record and publish their decisions. It is part of their business to do all this to give proof of their usefulness and to enlist intelligent public opinion on their side. The fourth clause simply provides that there shall be a register of Conciliation and Arbitration Boards kept by the Board of Trade. The fifth clause requires that there shall be an annual Report made to Parliament of the work of these institutions. When we consider the vast mischief accruing to the industries of this country from labour disputes, I think we shall all agree that anything that can be done by this House to give sanction, aid, and assistance to institutions of this kind will be of (he greatest possible benefit. The number of disputes recorded by the Labour Department during 1893 was 638, involving more than 600,000 persons. Of these, 525 ended during the year, of which the result is known, and the workmen were successful in 229 cases, involving 400,000 persons; they were partly successful in 110 cases, involving 140,000 persons; and they were wholly unsuccessful in 186 cases,
  916
  involving about 70,000 persons. It is impossible to consider the mischief that was caused to the industries of this country by the coal dispute of last year without our doing whatever lies in our power to minimise such evils. The mischiefs which accrued from that dispute did not terminate when the dispute was ended. We know that our supremacy in industries is no longer in dispute. We have fierce foreign competition. We cannot afford these industrial wars. The effect of them is that our competitors find new customers, and trade once diverted into a new channel does not easily revert to the old one. At least we lose some of it, and our people in consequence suffer miseries, starvation, and a load of debt, which are always the consequence of long-continued strikes. My right hon. Friend the Member for the University of London (Sir J. Lubbock) has a Bill before the House on behalf of the Chambers of Commerce, and I know he desires larger compulsory powers, to take evidence on oath, and to compel the production of books, &c. When we come to the Second Reading I hope we shall have an opportunity of discussing the desirability of extending the Bill, or otherwise; but I am quite sure the right hon. Gentleman's object is the same as that of the Government—to facilitate, as far as possible, the introduction of pacific measures rather than industrial war, and to minimise the mischief which at present results from strife between capital and labour.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Leave be given to bring in a Bill to make better provision for the settlement of Labour Disputes."—(Mr. Mundella.)
  MR. HOWELLsaid, he was very glad the right hon. Gentleman had enlarged the scope of his Bill as compared with what it was when introduced last year, and he should he very glad to co-operate with the right hon. Gentleman in making it as effective as possible. He had had some experience in this matter. He hoped, however, that facilities would be given for discussing the broader question put forward in the Bill of the right hon. Gentleman (Sir J. Lubbock), because, after all, the Bill of the Government was only a tentative measure. They wanted to go a little further. They wanted to put

  917
  into motion two Acts of Parliament already on the Statute Book, neither of which, for some reason or other, had ever been applied to labour disputes. But anything that could be done to induce both employers and employed to settle their differences by a system of conciliation—and, if that failed, by arbitration— would certainly receive his support.
  THE MARQUESS OF CARMARTHENsaid, he would like to say a few words in answer to what the right hon. Gentleman had said as to the Bill of last year being treated as contentious.
  MR. MUNDELLA: I beg pardon; I made no statement about the Bill of last year being' treated as contentious.
  THE MARQUESS OF CARMARTHENsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had stated that he hoped this Bill would not be considered contentious. [Mr. MUNDELLA: Hear, hear!] He thought that observation meant that the Bill of last year was treated as contentious. He, for one, pleaded guilty to having used the ordinary Forms of the House to prevent that Bill being taken at an unseemly hour because he and his friends thought it only touched the fringe of a great question, and he thought that this Bill now was of very much the same nature. He himself believed that the same good work that had been done by gentlemen in the past, to whom allusion had been made, could he done in the future without Act of Parliament at all. He complained that the Government, in dealing with this question, had omitted all power of making the decision of the Board of Conciliation binding upon either party. Yet without such a power the Bill would be absolutely useless. The question had been very carefully considered, and had been gone into very fully by the Labour Commission, and it appeared to him that it would be far better for both parties if the Government would wait until the Report of that Commission had been issued before proceeding far with the present Bill.
  SIR J. LUBBOCKsaid, he regretted as much as the noble Lord who had just spoken that there was no power contained in the Bill which would make the award of the Conciliation Board binding. He fully saw how difficult it would be to carry this out in all cases, but he be-
  918
  lieved that many disputes would occur in which both sides would be willing to agree to such a provision. He suggested that the Second Reading of the Bill should be taken at an early date. It was essentially a non-contentious measure, and, therefore, no great time need be occupied over it. His other objection to the provisions of the Bill as they now stood was that they did not go far enough. When the proper time came be believed they would be able to satisfy the right hon. Gentleman that there was a strong desire on the part of both employer and employed throughout the country to have stronger powers than those suggested in the Bill. The Bill as now brought forward by the right hon. Gentleman would not effect very much, and, all things considered, he thought it would be desirable to have a Committee appointed on the subject to take a certain amount of evidence. He urged the Government to take the Second Reading of the Bill at an early date and to refer the measure to a. Select Committee, in order that the whole question might be thoroughly gone into.
  SIR A. ROLLITasked whether the President of the Board of Trade would be willing to refer the Bill, backed by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir J. Lubbock), himself and others, and promoted by the London Conciliation Board, to the same Committee, so that the suggestions contained in it might have full consideration? He was quite prepared to admit that some of the present proposals were improvements, but he suggested for the consideration of the President of the Board of Trade how the appointment of an arbitrator was to be of practical value unless there was some means of carrying out and enforcing his awards. If the parties agreed that an arbitrator should be appointed, surely it might be assumed that they would not object to his award being made the final determination of the matter. The power to administer an oath to witnesses, in order to secure the truth, and to summons witnesses, were also subjects for the consideration of the right hon. Gentleman suggested by the experience of the London Conciliation Board.
  MR. STUART-WORTLEYasked whether it was desirable to deal with this subject by Bill at all? He doubted whether the

  919
  right hon. Gentleman could show that the Bill enabled him to do anything which he could not do already. He would probably say, as he said last year, that for what he proposed to do he wanted to have some kind of Parliamentary sanction. But in order to get that sanction it was not necessary to subject this grave and important question to the delays and difficulties incident to legislation. A Vote in the Estimates 1o meet the necessary expenses of conducting the inquiries and making the appointments would have secured all the Parliamentary sanction desired. That course had been adopted in regard to the appointment of Labour Correspondents, and he did not, see why it should not have been taken last year in connection with this subject.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Mundella, Mr. Secretary Asquith, and Mr. Burt.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 125.]

ORDER OF THE DAY.

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

  CIVIL SERVICE.-RESOLUTION.
  MR. W. FIELDrose to move—
  "That it is desirable to recruit the First Division of the Civil Service by promotion from the Second Division."
  In submitting the Motion he said he did not represent a Civil Service constituency, nor was he aware that any such constituency existed, but he and those hon. Members who had promised to support the Motion were actuated only by adherence to the principle of general utility which ought to be the mainspring of political action both inside and outside the House. It was strenuously asserted that the written promises and implied contracts between the Government and the Civil servants had not been fairly carried out, and if any reasonable doubt remained at the present time as to
  920
  the conditions of engagement and promises, surely the time had come when a clear and definite understanding should be arrived at. This great branch of the Public Service for which he spoke ought not to be conducted on haphazard chances or in irregular proceedings such as undoubtedly had occurred in the promotion and changes since 1870, when the pernicious system of patronage was abolished and open competition introduced instead. A quarter of a century ought to be a sufficient period of time for successive Governments to have made up their minds as to the best plan of governing the Civil Service. He had brought forward this Motion in consequence of attending an enthusiastic meeting in Exeter Hall, and he took up the question entirely on its merits. The fact of such a meeting being held showed that the gentlemen concerned were not afraid to appeal to public opinion; yet, at the same time, he thought that matters of that kind could He carried too far. But public opinion should be the breath of the law; and if the Government sought to evade discussion of the points which would be raised in this Debate, then he submitted they must have a case which would not bear discussion. At the meeting to which he referred the Member for South Islington was in the Chair, about two dozen Members of this House of different Parties were present, and co-operated in ventilating the grievances of the Civil servants, whilst many apologies were received from other Members, and also from Civil servants from all parts, who, while regretting their inability to attend, expressed their sympathy with the objects of the meeting. He should mention that the meeting invited analytical examination of the complaints put forward. In view of such a great demonstration, and the importance of the interests involved, the matter could not be lightly minimised by the Government officials who were concerned. This was a great question concerning the administration of the country; it was a matter of Imperial magnitude, and if ignored might tend to impair the efficiency of the administration in the most important Departments charged with responsibility. The Service should be contented and satisfied to be completely efficient, and this satisfaction

  921
  could be easily accomplished, as the claims of the Second Division were founded on justice and reason. The first resolution at the meeting protested against the unfair treatment which had been accorded to the Second Division by the permanent authorities, who, notwithstanding the recommendations of the Ridley Commission, and repeated promises of the Treasury both in and out of Parliament, persistently ignored the claims of the Second Division to promotion to the First Division, filling such appointments from without instead of by promotion from within the Service: whilst the second resolution protested against the delay of the Treasury in dealing with the other points referred to in the Memorial of last year. The contention of the Second Division clerks was not for more money, but they asked that the conditions under which they entered the Service should be faithfully observed, and they were able to advance claims to show that the highest posts now given to young untrained men outside ought to be given to the trained officials who were in the Public, Service. The House of Commons had been most reluctantly chosen as the tribunal of appeal. Memorials sent through the usual official channels to the Treasury praying for redress had remained unanswered, and, therefore, it had become necessary to appeal to Parliament, as no other channel remained open to the gentlemen of the Second Division, numbering 3,500—and whose numbers would probably be augmented to 5,000 in a few years—and to respectfully submit and urge that the requisition placed in the hands of each candidate for a Second Division clerkship, stating that under certain circumstances he might look for promotion after eight years' service, should be adhered to. They maintained that this condition had not been loyally or justly carried out. In a Treasury Letter of the 19th June, 1884, dealing with the question of the number of Second Division Clerks promoted to the First Division, the Lords of the Treasury stated—
  "Although the number of Second Division clerks promoted to the First Division must always bear a small proportion to the number not so promoted, it is not necessary that they should be an insignificant proportion to the First Division. On the contrary, my Lords look forward to that Division being largely replenished in certain Departments from the best
  922
  members of the Second Division. It will probably always be necessary to reserve a power of direct appointment to the First Division; but there are many Departments in which this power need not, so far as my Lords can foresee, be exercised habitually or even frequently. Promotion from the Second to the First Division may therefore fairly be considered as a legitimate aspiration for the superior members of the former."
  He contended that that, to a certain extent, proved the case he had laid down. Again, it could not be asserted that there was an insufficient number of eligible second-class men to furnish the necessary recruits for the First Division. The Ridley Commission reported very highly of their ability, and one member of that Commission, the hon. Member for Preston, declared that they were of as good stuff as any of the First Division, whilst the examiners and heads of Departments bore eloquent testimony to their ability. On the 6th of February of last year the Secretary for War, in reply to a question, admitted that in his Office he had men fit for promotion, but said that a compact between the Treasury and the War Office prevented this promotion. He would like to know if there was any reason to believe there was a similar compact in force throughout the Civil Service where the heads of the Departments had made recommendations for promotion which, as a result of unwritten negotiations, had been for some time withdrawn? The Secretary to the Treasury would probably reply that a large number of promotions had been made from the Second Division. A Return was rendered in February last which showed that some 109 promotions were made to the First Division, and to the intermediate division between that and the Second Division. But was it fair to term them the First Division promotions when a large number were really not to the First Division? He would like the right hon. Gentleman to say what promotions had been given to the Second Division in the Treasury itself, in the War, the Colonial, Home, Foreign, Education, Charity Commissioners, and Post Office Departments. He would also like to know the number of direct appointments from the outside to the First Division since the Report of the Ridley Commission. He believed that the right hon. Gentleman stated on the 18th December last that, while there had been only three promotions from the

  923
  Second Division to the First Division since the date of the Ridley Commission Report, 19 had been appointed from outside. He was informed that that was not the entire truth, but that 56, and not 19, such direct appointments had been made. Nineteen of these had been admitted into Class 1. under examination, leaving 37 which had not been accounted for. The Second Division clerks contended that every class of superior clerkship was regarded by them as their natural inheritance, and they further submitted that every young untrained man who entered by such means as those to which he had reverted filled up a place which ought to be occupied by themselves, who had been trained in the business of their own Departments. The Ridley Commission declared that it was unnecessary to bring in young men into Class I., and in their Second Report they stated—
  "We think the doors of promotion to all the upper posts should be open to any clerk who shows that he possesses the necessary qualifications for discharging the duties of the position."
  That was a recommendation which, coming from such a quarter, was deserving of serious consideration. The Commissioners further stated that the prizes of the Service should be open to exceptional fitness, and they advised that some definite and clear scheme of promotion should be formulated. Probably, at some times it might be possible that a gentleman could not be found in one particular office to suit the appointment vacant, but surely out of 3,500 gentlemen an efficient and capable officer could be found without bringing in outsiders. In the various ranks of the Second Division there were men fit to occupy the highest positions in the Service, whilst most of the eminent men who now filled with the utmost ability the various responsible positions under the Crown were those who had climbed from the lowest to the highest rung of the ladder. This was not a Party question, but a question of the efficiency of the Public Service of this great Empire, which was deserving of the most careful consideration. He hoped he should receive a sympathetic as well as a definite and clear statement of what would be done with regard to these promotions in the future, or other-
  924
  wise he should be compelled to press the matter to a Division.
  CAPTAIN NORTONseconded the Motion from the firm conviction that it was undesirable in the interest of the country that a large body of public servants, numbering some 3,500, and who would probably eventually number 5,000, should continue to perform their duties while feeling upon the one hand aggrieved, and upon the other hand filled with chronic discontent. It might be asked whether he, having for a number of years served where great weight was attached to discipline, thought it desirable in the interests of the public that certain bodies in the Public Service should combine for the purpose of bringing their grievances to the House. As a broad rule he did not; but when he found that a body of public servants had their Memorials unceremoniously consigned to the waste-paper basket, without the common courtesy of a reply; when he found they had been refused permission to approach the heads of Departments by means of deputations, and had had recourse to the columns of the public Press, and that none of these courses had procured the smallest redress, then he was prepared to exonerate them completely from any desire to overthrow discipline when they came to this House as the final Court of Appeal. What was the demand of the Second Division clerks? It was not a demand for higher salaries or shorter hours, but a demand for fair play. It was a demand that the conditions under which they entered the Public Service should be neither minimised nor misconstrued, but loyally adhered to, and they further demanded that the recommendations contained in the Report of the Ridley Commission should be faithfully carried out. It was acknowledged that when each candidate for a clerkship in the Second Division presented himself for examination a paper was passed into his hands which left the impression upon his mind—and which it was shown was the impression the Government intended to convey—that if to continued industry and uprightness of character he added a certain amount of ability superior to that of the other clerks he might reasonably hope at the expiration of eight years to be promoted to the First Division. How had successive Adminis-

  925
  trations dealt with the Second Division clerks, who had been led to believe that the First Division should be largely replenished from the Second? It was said that 107 appointments had been made from the Second Division to the First, or to posts higher than the Second, but when investigated they were found to be promotions only in name. It was admitted, in reply to a question in this House, that only three promotions had been made from the Second Class to the First, whereas 19 promotions had been made from the outside, and this was not the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. As a matter of fact, 56 promotions were made from the outside by means of first-class examinations and other methods, and the Second Class clerks considered themselves aggrieved in this matter, because they looked upon all promotions which were made from the outside—that was, when inexperienced, untried, and untrained men were brought into the Service over their heads—as an infringement of their legitimate rights. The right hon. Gentleman would perhaps tell them what promotions had been made in all the great Public Offices since the recommendations of the Ridley Commission. No excuse could be made that the Second Division did not produce a sufficient number of men suited for promotion, because, as the Member for Dublin had pointed out, the Secretary for War had admitted that in his Department there were men suitable for promotion, but that he was unable to carry out the contract owing to an arrangement which had been agreed upon between the Treasury and the War Office. To him, as a Radical, there would seem to be something of a social question at the bottom of this, and as if it was a case of birth and not worth, or rather of money, for, after all, to a great extent, a University education and high educational examinations meant a case of money and not brains. The fact that many of the men who came up for the examinations of the First Class Division were University graduates had been dwelt upon, but as a matter of fact there were many University graduates among the Second Division clerks, and graduates, too, of a University whose curriculum for the pass degree was higher than any other— namely, the University of London. The
  926
  question of competitive examinations had been spoken of. Familiar as he was with University and many other forms of examination he should not attempt to belittle examinations. Competitive examinations were excellent tests as compared with favouritism and similar methods. They were the best test known for untried, untrained, and inexperienced men, but were a very poor test as compared with the test of a man having performed satisfactorily for many years the very duties which these candidates were about to learn. It was asked why did not the Second Division clerks present themselves for examination? Many of them, for the very cogent reason that they were already beyond the age limit. Was it fair to expect that a public servant, after toiling for years at seven hours each day, could enter a competitive examination on anything like equal terms with a young man fresh from a University, and having every hour of the day practically at his own disposal? It was demanding a double test from the Second Division clerks. It was as if the Military Authorities were to tell a man who had entered the ranks, and by long service, good conduct, and practical experience in the various duties of the profession, had worked his way up through the noncommissioned grades, and had arrived at the point to be promoted to a commission, that he should compete in the complicated and difficult examination demanded of candidates from Sandhurst. It was unfair to ask the Second Division clerks to perform their duties on the one hand, and to prepare for the examination on the other. He regretted to say that there was a tendency recently to take the Second Division men off the first-class work and put them on the lower work, and when their turn came for promotion to tell them they were not fit to perform the work which they had been performing when First Division clerks were absent. That was scarcely straightforward treatment; indeed, he might say it was a subterfuge. Again, it was not an uncommon thing for the heads of the Departments when they found an aspiring, zealous, and superior young man to recommend him for promotion. But the heads of the Departments knew that in doing that they were taking part in a screaming farce, because the recommendation was not worth the paper it was

  927
  written on, for, as the Secretary for War had said, there were many men in the Department fit for promotion, but he was not able to promote them owing to the fact that an arrangement existed between the Treasury and the War Office.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir W. HARCOURT,)was understood to say that the Treasury had made concessions to the Second Division clerks in the matter of promotion.
  CAPTAIN NORTONsaid, that what the right hon. Gentleman had said was true, and yet was not true. The Second Division clerks had been given to understand that they would be promoted to the First Division, and then the First Division was largely reduced without any adequate compensation been given to the Second Class clerks. All the Second Class clerks had had from the Treasury was their sympathy. That sympathy was a very valuable thing, no doubt, but the Second Class clerks would appreciate it more if it showed itself in providing a certain number of promotions. The hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Hanbury) once said that the Ridley Commission recommended that the gulf which divided the First Division from the Second Division should be bridged over. But ever since the Ridley Commission the Government had been doing everything to widen the gulf. They heard a great deal about legitimate aspirations. It was said that every Second Division clerk on entering the Service carried in his knapsack the proverbial Marshal's baton; but when he placed his foot on the first rung of the ladder of promotion new, raw recruits, who enlisted under different conditions, jostled him out of his place. The Government should understand in this matter that honesty was the best policy. Some time ago it was the custom to capture recruits for the Military Service by representing that they would be paid 1s. per day, but the recruits soon found out there were so many arbitrary deductions from the 1s. that they did not get half the sum. The result was a falling-off in recruits. But, latterly, the authorities had modified their system of deception with very good results. Surely, the Government must know that they could no more succeed in deceiving the Civil servant than the soldier. He
  928
  would call upon the Government to act up to their pledges, and discontinue the present system which was crushing all hope out of the hearts of the Second Division clerks, by bringing in over their heads those untried and untrained men. There were two courses open to the Government. They could either revert to the original system under which all started at scratch and even weights, instead of some, as now, being handicapped to such a degree that they were practically weighted off the course of promotion. The old system had given the best officials the country could desire. Under it, the heads of Departments entered the Service by one single channel, and worked their way up from the bottom to the top. But if the Government did not revert to the old system, they could settle the matter by giving the Second Division clerks a certain proportion of the promotions— say one-half; and undertaking that, in the event of it being considered necessary to farther reduce the First Division, adequate compensation would be given to the Second Division clerks for having their chances of promotion damaged. Until some such course was followed by the Government great discontent would continue in the Service; and it was on account of that firm conviction that he called upon the Government, in the interests of justice, efficiency, and economy, to deal fairly and honestly with the Second Division clerks.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out from the word "That," to the end of the Question, in order to add the words,
  "It is desirable to recruit the First Division of the Civil Service by promotion from the Second Division,"—(Mr. Field,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Sir J. T. HIBBERT,): In rising to reply to the observations made by the Mover and Seconder of this Resolution, I do not wish to find fault with them in any way for the mode in which they have brought forward the question, because I admit readily that the Second Division clerks have long had what they consider to be a grievance.

  929
  We heard of it in this House last year. We know that they have given utterance to it at meetings in Exeter Hall, and they have brought it before many Members of Parliament. I will not say that they had no right to attempt to influence Members in their favour, but I think it very doubtful whether their attempts should have been as vigorous as they have been I do not refer to the Second Division clerks only, bill also to other persons who are in the employment of the Government and who use their influence on Members of Parliament with the object of getting their demands brought before the House of Commons when they might have their cases treated in another and more satisfactory way. I will say at once that the Treasury have attempted to act, in connection with the Second Division clerks and the question of their promotion, in a straightforward and honest manner. From the first the Department have thought it their duty to follow strictly the recommendations of the Playfair and Ridley Commissions, and I think I shall be able to show that the grievances said to exist are not such as has been alleged by the two hon. Members. The Playfair Commission recommended that there should be two Divisions—the Higher Division and the Lower Division. I will read an extract from their Report—
  "the amount of simple routine work in the bulk of Public Offices is very great in proportion to the amount of work of a higher class. The mechanical and monotonous labour on which clerks must, under such circumstances, be so long and continuously employed, in offices where no division or an inadequate division of labour exists, does not by any means, as a matter of course, fit them for discharging the duties of those higher posts in the Service which involve responsibility, discretion, and power to direct work, and to deal with the outside public in such a manner as to uphold the credit and efficiency of their Department."
  To carry out this division of work it was necessary that there should be—
  "two separate and distinct schemes of examination for admission to the Public Service, and two separate and distinct grades of clerks."
  Then I come to the question of promotion. From what has fallen from the Seconder of the Resolution it would be thought that the Second Division clerks had a perfect claim to promotion into the Higher Division. That is not so at all. The Ridley Commission recommended that
  930
  clerks might be promoted from the Second Division to the higher, but that such promotions should be exceptional and not the rule. This Motion would be contrary to that recommendation. It would make promotion the rule, and not the exception. The Playfair Commission had laid stress upon the necessity of strict division of labour between the higher and lower ranks in the passage which I have already quoted, The Ridley Commission, in like manner, considered that the routine work of the Second Division was not work that fitted every man in that Second Division for undertaking the duties of a First Division clerk, and they expressed the following emphatic opinion:—
  "We have no doubt that it will always be necessary to introduce a very limited number of men by means of a higher examination, to fill directly some of the more important posts of the Public Service. We think it an object of the most serious importance that men of the same standard of liberal education as those who now adopt the open professions should he attracted into the Public Service and trained there, for selection for the highest permanent posts."
  SIR A. ROLLIT: I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the words he has read do not mean, not that every Second Division clerk is unlit for the First Division, as he has wrongly implied, but that there are certain high and responsible positions, in which orders and directions are given, which might be otherwise filled?
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: I did not say that there were not clerks in the Second Division lit for the higher work.
  SIR A. ROLLIT: I am speaking of your interpretation of the words you quoted.
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: I wish now to draw attention to the difference in the competitive examinations for entry into the two divisions of clerks. The competition for the Second Division consists of ten subjects—handwriting, orthography, arithmetic, copying MS. (to test accuracy), English composition, geography, indexing or docketing, digesting returns into summaries, English history, and book-keeping. The examination for entry into the First Division is very much wider. It consists of 13 heads of subjects—English composition (including précis-writing), History of England (including that of the Laws and Constitution), English language and literature, Greek, Latin, French, German, Italian

  931
  languages, literature, and history, Mathematics (pure and mixed), Natural Sciences, Moral Sciences—that is, logic, mental and moral philosophy, Jurisprudence, and Political Economy. That shows a difference in the examinations for the two classes. No doubt many men who enter the Second Division are competent to undertake the work of an Upper Division clerkship. Many of them are University men, and many are members of the London University, where the standard is very high; but I must draw attention to the fact that there is nothing to prevent Second Division clerks from going in for the examination for Class I. Not only can they go in, but they have five extra years in which to do it. While a candidate from outside is obliged to compete between the ages of 22 and 24, a Second Division clerk can compete up to the age of 29. That is a very great advantage. This Resolution may be read in the sense either that all appointmants to the First Division must take place from the Second Division, or only that such promotions should take place as are possible. It is not very clear. In the limited form the Government could accept it at once, but it cannot be accepted in the wider sense. If it were to stand in its larger form it would injure a very large section of Her Majesty's subjects. Now, everybody in the United Kingdom can compete in the examination for Class I., whereas if all appointments were to be made from the Second Division, everybody would be shut out except those who happen to be in that Division. I think some notice ought to be taken of that point. Then comes the recommendation of the Playfair Commission with reference to promotion from the Lower Division to the Higher. They say—
  "Promotion from the Lower to the Higher Division of the Service should be a matter of rare occurrence. This is necessary if there is to be any educational test for the Higher Division; and it is reasonable, not only because the original qualifications are lower, but also because the character of the work in the inferior grades will be rarely calculated to develop superior capacities. Such a promotion should not take place without a certificate from the Civil Service Commissioners granted upon a special recommendation of the head of the Department, and with the assent of the Treasury, and should be published in The Gazette.
  The Ridley Commission also reported—
  932
  "We are of opinion that it is desirable to secure young men of more liberal education for those posts in the Service which are not simply clerical, but demand a wider and more cultivated view of public affairs than can, as a rule, be expected from youths entering by the lower examination. We agree with the Playfair Commission that the best preparation for the Upper Division is not to be found in the purely clerical routine of the ordinary clerkships, though there may be exceptions. We are of opinion that on the whole, open competition is the best method of selection."
  I do not for a moment wish to cast any reflection upon the Second Division clerks. I have no doubt that numbers of them are quite capable of competing in Class I., and of taking high places in it; but I wish to be allowed to say that the Ridley Commission recommended that promotions from the Second Division should be the exception. I think I am perfectly justified in saying that. It is said that the War Office have gentlemen who are fitted for promotion, but who cannot be promoted because some arrangement has been made between the Treasury and the War Office. Arrangements were made by the Treasury, not only with the War Office, but with other public Departments, to carry out the recommendations of the Ridley Commission to the effect that it was necessary to reduce the numbers of the Upper Division, and it is owing to this necessary reduction in the Upper Division that these promotions cannot take place. An advantage has been secured by this reduction of the Upper Division, which is that it has enabled a larger scale of salaries to be paid. Therefore, certain advantages do accrue from the reduction. Now I come for a moment to the question of the number of promotions that have been made—and here I think there has been a certain amount of misrepresentation. The number 56 has, I think, been mentioned by more than one speaker, but I have not been able to discover that there is any ground for it. I have never said anything of the kind, and I cannot find in the Treasury anything which bears it out. During the time which has elapsed since the issue of the Second Report of the Ridley Commission to the present date the total number of appointments from the Second Division to the First Division and to staff places together has been 132. There have been 12 appointments from the Second Division to the First, and these

  933
  are appointments ordinarily filled by Class I. competitions. And during the same period, how many appointments does the House suppose have been made under open competition? Why, only 20. That, therefore, shows a large number of appointments from the Second Division —a larger proportion than even the Ridley Commission would have led the Second Division clerks to expect. In addition to these 12 promotions there have been 46 others which formerly, though not now, were classed as Class I. appointments. The 132 appointments have been divided between the Departments as follows:—The Admiralty 23, the Board of Agriculture 2, the Board of Trade 3, the Bankruptcy Department 6, the Patent Office 2, the Office of the Chief Secretary (Ireland) 4, Customs 2, Scotch Fishery Board 1, Inland Revenue Department 58, Irish Laud Commission 2, Local Government Board (England) 5, Local Government Board (Ireland) 1, Paymaster General's Office J, Public Works Office (Ireland) 8, Post Office 1, Science and Art Department 2, Secretary for Scotland's Office 1, Treasury 1, the Valuation Office (Dublin) 7, War Office 1, Woods and Forests 1. That is a total of 132. In connection with these promotions, I think I ought to state to the House that up to the present time, from the commencement of this new system, the Treasury have never hesitated to sanction recommendations made for promotion from any Department, and, therefore, whatever my hon. Friends wish to say as to the action of the Treasury they cannot say that we have not assented to the promotions proposed by the Departments. It does not rest with the Treasury to suggest those promotions, but with the different Departments. The Treasury have no authority to make recommendations, but they have to consider the proposals when they come before them. If any Public Department has a vacancy which it thinks can he adequately filled by an able man from the Second Division, if it makes a representation I can assure the House that that recommendation will be favourably considered by the Treasury in the future as it has been in the past. With respect to the general question, I can only say that I have been rather twitted with having expressed sympathy with the Second Division clerks. I would assert,
  934
  however, that I have a real sympathy for them. I know them to be aspiring, and hoping to rise to positions in the First Division. I sympathise with them in that aspiration. I can only say that the matter will always be dealt with sympathetically by the Treasury. I have no-doubt it will be dealt with sympathetically by the Departments; but I do hope that if my hon. Friend thinks it proper and necessary to carry his Motion to a Division the House will consider seriously before it passes such a Resolution. The Civil Service of this country is a very important body—one of the most important bodies in the country— and bears favourable comparison with similar bodies in any other country. I should be sorry if the House should think proper to pass a Resolution which would tie the hands of the Treasury or of the Government with respect to these appointments. On those grounds whilst, as I say, I sympathise in the strongest way with the aspirations of these gentlemen I do not think that they have made out their case against the Government. I consider that the Report of the Ridley Commission has been carried out honestly and fairly in their interest as well as in that of the State, and I see no reason why, as time goes on, there should not be an increased number of promotions made from the ranks of the Second Division as vacancies occur.
  MR. GOSCHEN: I cannot but feel that I have a certain responsibility in this matter as having preceded the right hon. Gentleman opposite at the Treasury, and having been in Office when the Ridley Commission issued its Second Report. The House will feel that I am only doing my duty in stating my view with regard to the matter before the House. It would be wrong for anyone who has held the Office that I have held, and who has had the same long experience of the Civil Service, to refrain, from whatever motive, from giving his opinion frankly to the House. With regard to what fell from the right hon. Gentleman opposite in his last words: he spoke of the high character of our Civil Service. I believe there is no country which has a Civil Service so good as this country. It has served us in excellent stead, and what-

  935
  ever changes there may have been in the currents of public opinion the British Civil Service has always maintained its high and intelligent position, and has never gone back in public estimation. We are far from the days when it was considered that clerks in the Civil Service played from 10 till 4. They work hard, and their work is highly appreciated, both by their employers—the public—and those who are immediately placed over them. I would make an earnest appeal to the House not to tamper in any way with the general principles of our Civil Service, of which one of the chief is that new recruits are to be taken from all classes of society. The largo majority are taken from those—to whatever class they may belong—who are able to pass a certain high examination. I regret when I heard an hon. Member opposite speak about "birth." Birth has absolutely nothing whatever to do with the matter. The question is whether it is desirable that a certain number of men should still be admitted to the Civil Service who are able to pass that extremely difficult examination. Hon. Members may say, "What is the use of requiring Civil servants to be acquainted with those branches of study in which they are examined; is not the experience gained in the Second Division sufficient?" Well, I say as a taxpayer and a Member of Parliament who has taken a great interest in this matter for many years that the examination for the higher positions in the Civil Service should be such as to enable the country to secure the pick of the best men in the country so that we should not be obliged, as a rule, to resort to the Second Division. There is nothing anti-democratic in that—nothing that can jar on the sensibilities of the most advanced Radical. We ought to be able to secure the most intellectual portion of the public for the public Civil Service, as it is secured in other branches of life. I would remind the House how we have arrived at this general position, and why there is this discontent to a certain extent, which I deplore, and which I hope will be removed as time goes on by the promotions which will take place and to which the Government have pledged themselves. At the same time, let mo say this—that it is one of the mischiefs of Motions like the present
  936
  that they tend to tempt Ministers to say just a little more and to hold out a few more hopes than they afterwards are able to fulfil, and in this way expectations are raised, the failure to fulfil which is brought forward subsequently as a breach of faith—and we know on what slight foundation these charges are made. If any other Minister speaks, I urge him —and I do this quite as much on behalf of Civil servants as against them—to let the House know as clearly as possible what the Government intend to do, and do not let them hold out vague hopes of departing from what has been recommended by the Playfair and Ridley Commissions. There were phrases in the Report of the Ridley Commission which might be interpreted in different ways. The right hon. Gentleman spoke of accepting the Motion if it were slightly modified.
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: I do not think I went as far as that.
  MR. GOSCHEN: I think he did. Well, I should deprecate any such course. Let there be a clear understanding on this matter. I believe the general principle to be this—that a certain number of the Second Division are to be promoted, not, however, as the rule but as the exception, and that exception is to be based on the recommendation of the heads of Departments. I am glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman say that the Treasury have not interfered but have sanctioned all the recommendations made to them. Now, how did they arrive at that position? The Report of every Commission has been founded on a desire for a reform in the Civil Service. The country desires economy, and, although by the abolition of a certain number of places a certain immediate economy is effected, discontent is raised in the ranks of the Civil servants, and there are heard, as the House has had experience to-day, suggestions of compensation for loss of prospects. I can understand that there should be compensation for loss of prospects, but it is a very elastic principle to introduce. There are hon. Members who hold the view that the State is almost prohibited from diminishing the number of appointments, all of which are not necessary for the Public Service, because of the fear of disappointing the expectations of those who have joined the Civil Service. If there are a certain number of higher posts and a certain

  937
  number of lower, I can quite conceive that those in the lower will consider it a grievance if the number of higher posts are reduced. The country should know-its own mind; it ought not first to abolish posts upon grounds of economy and then compensate discontented public servants for that abolition. I have thought it right to mention tins to the House. I do not think I have exceeded my duty in doing so. In the liberations made in the reforms in the Customs there was discontent engendered. It slumbered for a time, but the nation had to repay in the end a portion of the amount saved by the posts that were abolished. The upshot of this part of my remarks is this—that I would urge the House not to interfere too much with the Executive Government in the management of the Civil Service. It is often urged that the Government should conduct its business on the same fooling as a private firm; but how, I would ask, could a private firm conduct its business if its employés were able to appeal to the outside public in regard to questions of promotion and salary? it would be impossible. The Government find their friends ever ready to support them on political questions, but their friends sometimes find it difficult to give that support in regard to executive functions. I strongly sympathise with the Civil Service; but, impressed as I am with its excellence and industry, I consider it to be my duty in cases like this to support the Executive Government, and to allow no feeling of Party and no political differences to prevent my speaking out on a question like that involved in the present Motion, which really affects the whole Executive Government. I should look upon it as a disaster if this Motion were carried. It would be, indeed, difficult for the Executive Government to carry on the daily work of the nation if the House of Commons interfered too frequently between the employer and the employé, and, therefore, on behalf not only of the Government, but of the taxpayer, I make an earnest appeal that the Motion should not be carried.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I hope that the important speech of the right hon. Gentleman opposite will have all the weight which it ought to have with the House, for there is no one who has had fuller experience or is better able to
  938
  judge of facts of this kind than the right hon. Gentleman. I rise thus early in the Debate in order to save I he time of the House by expressing clearly the view of the Government now responsible in this mailer. Of course, one of the first objects of any Government is to give satisfaction and contentment to every branch of the Civil Service, whether it is the highest or the lowest. I hope nobody will controvert that obvious fact. The principles on which these different classes of Civil servants are established were set forth in the language of the Reports of the two Commissions to which reference has been made. One paragraph, to which I would specially call attention, is in these words—
  "We have no doubt that it will always be necessary to introduce a very limited number of men, by means of the higher examination, to till directly some of the more important posts in the Public Service."
  Anybody who has occupied a responsible position in the Executive Government must know that the administration depends on keeping the more important posts in the hands of men of the very highest ability and education, and to depart from that would be to break down the just pride of this country in the efficiency of its Civil Service. The principle upon which Class I. is founded, and which was laid down by the Playfair Commission—a Commission composed, by the way, of men in non-official positions—is that it should be open to all classes of Her Majesty's subjects, irrespective of birth or social position. In this way we get the pick of the nation. The Second Division is chosen from a different class—not socially, but as regards the educational test. They are men who represent, only in a much better form, those who in the old days wore called "supernumeraries," though the latter were no doubt introduced without examination. The view taken of Class II. by the Ridley Commission is that they are required on account of the amount of simple routine work being very great in proportion to the work of the higher class. The work falling to members of Class II. is not, as a rule, of a kind that fits them for the highest posts. If the House considers this matter it will see that from the manner in which these appointments are made, the men of the Second Division are not primâ

  939
  facie of the order best fitted for the First Division. They can, of course, take part in the competitive examinations for the First Division if they are fit for it. The whole object of the scheme proposed by the Commission was that there should be two separate and distinct grades of clerks, the positions in which were to be competed for in two separate and distinct examinations. It has been remarked in the course of the Debate that in all trades and professions promotion is from the ranks, but it could scarcely be contended that a gasfitter is necessarily qualified for the post of chief engineer. The recommendation of the Ridley Commission as to promotions from the Second to the First Division has been closely observed. I may say, on behalf of the Treasury and the Government, that whenever the head of a Department has reported, as has occurred from time to time, that certain members of the Second Division have shown exceptional capacity and such qualifications as would fit them for the First Division, they have always received such appointments. That, I believe, will satisfy, as it ought to satisfy, the House. The hon. Member for Dublin (Mr. Field) says he has received a large number of communications upon the subject, and I regret to hear it, because a question of this kind ought not to be made a matter for a personal canvass. The right hon. Gentleman opposite and myself, acting under a full sense of official responsibility, believe that the principles laid down in the recommendations of the Commissions are perfectly sound, and that if the House of Commons were hastily to endeavour to set those principles aside they would do infinite mischief, and would strike a fatal blow at the organisation of the Civil Service. Let the House consider for a moment what has been done in this matter. Complaint has been made that promotion is slow in the Civil Service. Promotion has undoubtedly been slow, but that has been caused by the necessities of the case, the great object having been to have a few men at good salaries for first-class work, and a number of men at sufficient salaries for inferior work. Steps have been taken for the purpose of accelerating promotion, including the creation of a number of staff appointments, so that the reasonable expectations of the clerks in the
  940
  Second Division have been fully met. As my right hon. Friend has pointed out, there have been, since 1888, 12promotions from the Second to the First Division, whilst the number appointed to the First Division from outside has been 20. That, I submit, shows a fair proportion of promotions from the Second to the First Division, and is an adequate fulfilment of the policy recommended by the last Commission. I have taken great interest in this matter. I have watched the promotions from the Second into the First Divisions, and what happens is this— though the work in the Second Division is not of the highest order the heads of Departments are enabled to pick out in it men of high natural ability who, by sedulous devotion to the Public Service, show themselves capable of discharging the duties of the First Division. Men of that character become known in their office. Not long ago the President of the Local Government Board recommended a man from his Department, and the promotion was immediately assented to. Whenever a fit person is recommended for promotion in this way the Treasury has never refused, and will never refuse, to make the appointment. I cannot believe that there can be anybody in this House who will say that no man is to go into the First Division who had not been a Second Division Clerk. Nobody, I think, can maintain such a proposition as that, for it would necessarily lower the whole character of the First Division. Instead of opening the competitive examination to the whole country you would confine it to persons who have been deliberately admitted to the Civil Service upon a lower scale of examination. Anything that would be more destructive of the Public Service of this country it would be impossible to conceive What the Second Division have a right to ask is that those amongst them who in the work of their Departments have shown themselves capable men and men on a level with the men of the First Division, should be admitted to that Division. That is a view that the Government accept. If there have not been more promotions it has been be-cause there have been so few vacancies. I think I am right in saying that during the time the late Mr. W. H. Smith was First Lord of the Treasury by his directions no appointments were made from

  941
  outside at all. This was necessarily so, in order to carry out the recommendation of the Commission that all vacancies in the First Division should be filled up by transfer. I have endeavoured to state the view of the Government on this subject. We stand upon the Report of the Ridley Commission and the Playfair Commission, both most capable bodies, and we would advise the House to do the same. If, as representing the Treasury in this matter, I might add anything to what has been said by my right hon. Friend (Sir J. T. Hibbert), I would ask the House not to wreck that which is perhaps more than anything else essential to the good administration of the country— namely, the organisation of the Civil Service, and at the same time not to Jet it be believed that there is any wish whatever that the clerks of the Second Division should be treated with any unfairness. We desire to give what was called in revolutionary France a career open to talent in every form. We appeal to every class in the country to compete for situations in the First Division, while as to the clerks in the Second Division who were appointed on a lower examination, we say that if they prove their capabilities for occupying the highest positions they will have the good will and the cordial good wishes of the Executive Government. I hope that, with these assurances, my hon. Friend will be satisfied, and that he will not press his Motion to a Division.
  MR. W. FIELDsaid, that after the speeches of the two right hon. Gentlemen, he did not deem it wise to trouble the House any further in the matter, but he trusted that the Secretary to the Treasury and the Leader of the House would take to heart the arguments he had laid before them and that the claims of the Second Division clerks would in the future receive every consideration.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Main Question again proposed, "That Mr. Deputy Speaker do now leave the Chair."

  LAW OFFICERS (PRIVATE PRACTICE).

    RESOLUTION.
    MR. HANBURYwho had given notice of his intention to call attention to the Treasury Minute of December 1892, regulating the official
    942
    fees and the private practice of the Attorney and Solicitor General; and to move—
    "That this House regrets that the public remuneration of the Law Officers having been increased in consideration of the arrangement as to private practice therein specified, that arrangement has been widely departed from,"
    said, his Motion was not aimed in any way against the Law Officers of the Crown. Had he been in the position of the Attorney General, and had he had a Chancellor of the Exchequer to deal with who would have allowed him to draw larger fees than were ever drawn before by a Law Officer, he should have done exactly the same as the present Attorney General (Sir C. Russell) had done. If he brought any charge at all it was against the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir W. Harcourt) for not having acted upon his own Treasury Minute. That Treasury Minute certainly led laymen to suppose that the private practice of the Attorney General and Solicitor General would be very largely reduced, and in fact that they would have no private practice whatever except upon retainers given to them before they took Office and practice in two specified Courts. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was the guardian of the Public Purse, and it was of no use to put extra pennies on the Income Tax if he did not keep a very strict eye on the way in which money leaked out of the Exchequer. Above all things, the right hon. Gentleman ought to be careful to prevent any expenditure which was in distinct violation of the Treasury Minute being indulged in for the benefit of his colleagues on the Treasury Bench. One of the great benefits which the country was to have derived from the new system started by the present Government in regard to the payment of the Law Officers of the Crown was that of greater clearness. As a matter of fact, he (Mr. Hanbury) thought the country had been rather mystified under the new system. The information given with regard to it was at present very scant indeed. Under the new arrangement the Law Officers obtained larger fees than formerly, whilst a new Office was set up. It was due to the public that they should know precisely what the arrangement was. Hitherto a Return had always been printed showing what remuneration

    943
    the Attorney General and Solicitor General received. He (Mr. Hanbury) asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the other day whether he would present such a Return this year, and the reply was that no such Return would be given. The House had been told that the new arrangement would save the money of the public, whilst at the same time the public were to be entitled to a, greater-portion of the time of the Law Officers. It was said to be monstrous that the Law Officers should be paid high fees, and yet be able to give practically all their time to private practice. He himself had always protested against that system, and had especially objected to certain fees that used to be taken by the Attorney General. Well, everybody had supposed that, after all the parade of virtue that had been made by the present Government, the public would have obtained more of the lime of the Law Officers. It turned out that there was a great deal more hidden under the word "appear" in the Treasury Minute than Members had been led to believe. It seemed that the Attorney General and the Solicitor General were only prevented by the Treasury Minute from actually appearing in Court, and that they were perfectly at liberty to take any private practice whatever in their chambers, so that there was, in fact, practically no alteration in the system, inasmuch as the Law Officers might devote a great deal of time to their private practice as long as the public did not know of ii. Formerly the private practice was done openly, and he contended that the public had no idea whatever that when the change in the system was introduced it would still be possible for the Law Officers to act secretly in Chambers although they could not appear in open Court. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in answering the question he (Mr. Hanbury) had put to him on the subject, quoted the words of the Attorney General and acted as the Attorney General's mouthpiece. He (Mr. Hanbury) had some reason to protest against this. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was responsible for the Treasury Minute, and he ought to act as a check upon the action of the Attorney General, and ought to see that his own Treasury Minute was carried out. The Chancellor of the Exchequer the other day con-
    944
    fessed his complete ignorance of the whole subject.
    SIR W. HARCOURTwas understood to say that he had not stated that he was ignorant.
    MR. HANBURYsaid, he had questioned the right hon. Gentleman with regard to two retainers. One related to the Salt Union and the other to the Sutherland case. Well, the Treasury Minute dated back to the appointment of the present Attorney General and Solicitor General. He wished to know what was meant exactly by the words—
    "Retainers accepted before the appointment of the present Law Officers."
    As a layman, he confessed he did not exactly understand what the word "retainers" covered, but he was told by his legal friends that it might cover a vast amount of ground. It might mean that if the Attorney General or the Solicitor General had been engaged by any private client for a particular suit before his acceptance of Office he should be allowed to conduct that suit, and he (Mr. Hanbury) would not complain of an arrangement of that kind He was also told, however, by lawyers that it might mean that one of the Law Officers had accepted a sort of general retainer to act on behalf of any particular Railway Company or other company which was always having lawsuits, and that in that case he was at liberty to appear in every action that Company might bring or defend. If so, it was a farce, and they ought to know what was the meaning attached by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to his own Treasury Minute. He would now proceed to the other portion of his case, which was this: The Chancellor of the Exchequer had said that he was ignorant of the two particular cases which he (Mr. Hanbury) had mentioned — the Salt Union case and the Sutherland case. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was very specific in the answer which he made, and so was the Attorney General. He did not deal with these retainers as though they were general retainers given, say, by a Railway Company, hut the Chancellor of the Exchequer, speaking as the mouthpiece of the Attorney General, said that in each of these two cases the retaining fee had been given before the acceptance of Office, and with reference to the litigation referred to in the ques-

    945
    tion. He might say that he only mentioned these two cases because he saw in the newspaper reports that the Attorney General or the Solicitor General had received very large fees, and because it was possible there might be other cases of the kind: and as the Treasury would not publish this arrangement, or tell them what was meant by this retainer under which the Attorney General and the Solicitor General acted, the public must, of course, protect its own interest in the matter, and know what the Treasury meant by having a Return delivered of the fees which its own public officers received from private clients. To take the Sutherland case:—The Chancellor of the Exchequer fold him, in answer to a question specifically directed to the Sutherland case, that the Attorney General had received his retainer before he accepted Office. This statement came from a Minister who was responsible for the Public Purse, and not only that, but from a Minister who was specially responsible in this case, because by his own Treasury Minute be constituted himself the sole check upon the Law Officers of the Crown. Obviously the Chancellor of the Exchequer had paid no attention to this case, and it seemed that the Attorney General was in ignorance too, not as to the Treasury Minute, but as to the date of the death of the Duke of Sutherland.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: What ha-that to do with it?
    MR. HANBURY: Everything, because the right hon. Gentleman said that the retainer was given before the present Government took Office, and that the retainer was in reference to the litigation in the Sutherland case. [Sir W. HARCOURT dissented]. The Chancellor of the Exchequer shook his head. What, he said, was this—
    "In each of the cases a retaining fee had been, given before the acceptance of Office and in reference to the litigation referred to in the question."
    What was the litigation in the Sutherland case? If arose out of the will of the late Duke of Sutherland.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir C. RUSSELL,): Partly.
    Mr. HANBURY: Is the hon. and learned Gentlemen only going to deal with a part of the case? Is he going to
    946
    deal with the business arising out of the will of the Duke of Sutherland?
    SIR C. RUSSELL: Yes.
    MR. HANBURY: What I want to point out is that the Attorney General lid not take Office until six weeks after the Duke of Sutherland died. The Chancellor of the Exchequer laughed at that. Well, they knew how trustworthy a guardian of the Public Purse he was. Surely the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to guard the Public Purse particularly well when he was under a Treasury Minnie to be sole judge as to bow far it must be departed from, and the public money expended upon his own colleagues without the return which they had been led to expect. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was not entitled to laugh at that. It was a matter with which the right hon. Gentleman ought to deal stringently. If was certain that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was ignorant as to those two cases, although they were cases which ought to have been referred to him. The Minute said that in all cases of doubt—and surely the Sutherland ease is one of doubt— reference was to be had to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, was this question ever brought before him?
    SIR W. HARCOURT: Certainly not.
    MR. HANBURY: That showed the loose way in which this business had been transacted. Somebody was to blame in the matter. This Treasury Minute had been very loosely interpreted. He must ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Treasury Minute had been carried out, and whether any case of this kind had been brought before his notice? The Treasury Minute from first to last had been a gross deception, and it was under a misconception that last year they voted a large sum of money for the support of a new office and to raise the amounts of the fees of the Law Officers of the Crown, which he was told were upon an enormous scale, and based upon the fees paid to the Attorney General for private practice. Nobody was more ready than himself to acknowledge the abilities of the Attorney General. It should not be supposed that be wanted to depreciate the enormous talents of the hon. and learned Gentleman; but be would say that it was dangerous to set

    947
    up such a standard as that. Having once set up a standard of that sort, they might hereafter have men of inferior ability filling the office, but yet the standard of payment must remain the same. His chief object in bringing this matter before the House of Commons was to get information, and to whom to appeal for information he really did not know. The Chancellor of the Exchequer upon his own confession was ignorant, and did not know what was going on. He did not know the circumstances in regard to the Sutherland case. He was not aware that this case had arisen after his own Government had come into power.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: It did not arise.
    MR. HANBURY: Then they knew how this Treasury Minute had to be interpreted. They knew the loose way in which it was to be interpreted. If that was the case—if they had the distinct statement from the Chancellor of the Exchequer that in his opinion, under the Treasury Minute, the language was so loose that it was quite possible for the Attorney General or the Solicitor General to get large fees in connection with the will of a man who died six weeks after the Government came into Office, although that Treasury Minute distinctly said that they might act only upon retainers given before the Government came into Office, then he said that this Treasury Minute was not worth the paper upon which it was written and was a mere farce, and that the public was entitled, in view of the confession of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to have more definite information, and that they ought to have laid upon the Table of the House the terms of the precise arrangement come to between the Treasury and the Law Officers of the Crown, so that the House, when upon the Estimates they voted the salaries of the Law Officers, should have the full information before them. He begged to move his Motion.
    MR. JEFFREYS: I beg to second the Motion.
    Amendment proposed, to leave out from the word "That," to the end of the Question, in order to add the words,
    "This House regrets that the public remuneration of the Law Officers having been increased in consideration of the arrangement as to private practice therein specified, that arrangement has been widely departed from."—(Mr. Hanbury.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir C. RUSSELL,): I thank the hon. Member for his tone of personal courtesy to myself. He has travelled considerably wide of the Resolution which is on the Paper. I wish to call the attention of the House to the precise point which is raised. It is no longer a discussion on the original arrangement in the Treasury Minute of 1893. The complaint is that the Minute has not been observed by the Law Officers. The question of the new arrangement was discussed, and discussed at considerable length, upon two separate occasions in the month of March 1893, and the House approved of the arrangement which had been entered into with the Law Officers. The point now is whether the Law Officers have observed the terms of the contract with the Treasury. I will say in a sentence that not only according to the letter but according to the spirit of that arrangement the Law Officers of the Crown have adhered to the terms of that Minute. I will say more—and I speak for my colleague and myself—that we have not exercised the rights we might have exercised under the Minute, and have declined to act in many cases in which, under the Minute, we should have been entitled to act. The hon. Member also complains that he has had no Return of fees paid to the Law Officers. Let me remind him that he has had that information in the most specific form in which it could be given for the only complete year of Office of the present Law Officers. On the 12th of January he put on the Paper a question which asked for the fees paid in previous years, as contrasted with the amounts paid to the Law Officers under the new arrangement, and on the 12th of January these figures were given by me in answer to the hon. Member for Islington; and that answer was given in full, and will be found in the Parliamentary Reports of the 13th of January. I come to the question of what this Minute means. On two occasions in March—the hon. Member for Birmingham will probably

    949
    recollect it—I stated that according to the construction of this Minute the Law Officers were entitled to act upon the reservation expressly made—namely,
    "Except upon retainers delivered before the acceptance of Office."
    I was asked the question whether that included general retainers as well as what are called special retainers. At that time the hon. Member for Preston, who knows a good deal hut does not know everything, was under the impression that a retainer was the retainer of the solicitor.
    Mr. HANBURY: What I said was that a retainer for a Railway Company or a company of that kind would cover the cases in which they might engage, but I did not say from a solicitor.
    SIR C. RUSSELL: I thereupon pointed out that a retainer was not the retainer of the solicitor hut the retainer through the solicitor for a particular client; in other words, that it was the retainer of the client. In regard to the case of general retainers for Railway Companies or other bodies of the sort the question was asked, Are the Law Officers to act upon such retainers? My answer was Yes, they are entitled to do so, hut speaking for myself, I should not act upon any general retainer for a Railway Company or any other similar body in frequent litigation.
    MR. HANBURY: Both Law Officers?
    SIR C. RUSSELL: My colleague was not here, hut I added that I had not the least doubt that he would come to the same conclusion. I have never admitted that we should not he entitled to do this as a right, so far as it is consistent with the discharge of our public duties. But, as I say, we have not insisted upon it. The hon. Gentleman has said that under this new arrangement enormous fees are paid to the Law Officers of the Crown for the contentious work that they do—fees vastly in excess of what they got under the old system. I only wish that that were true. My clerk has furnished me with five specimen eases showing the amount of fees paid by the private litigants as against those paid by a liberal Treasury and by an extravagant Chancellor of the Exchequer, who, it is said, does not safeguard the Public Purse, to the Law Officers of the Crown. The counsel engaged in those five eases were Sir Horace Davey, Sir Edward Clarke, Sir Henry James, Mr. Findlay, and Sir
    950
    Richard Webster—counsel who are leading men at the Bar and of the same standing as ourselves. The total fees paid in those cases to the leading private counsel were 585 guineas. According to the hon. Member for Preston, the counsel for the Crown ought to have had at least 080 guineas. He received, as a fact, 235 guineas. Therefore, I complain that tinder the parsimonious influence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer the Treasury do not act up to the spirit of the Minute.
    MR. POWELL WILLIAMS: Did the counsel for the Crown appeal'?
    SIR C. RUSSELL: Yes, they did appear; and not only did they appear, but they are not even entitled to be briefed, and are not briefed, unless they are expected to appear.
    MR. HANBURY: Was this amount divided between the five counsel, or did they each get 585 guineas?
    SIR C. RUSSELL: The total fees in the five or six cases I have mentioned paid to the private counsel were 585 guineas. The amount paid by the Treasury to the Law Officer of the Crown was 235 guineas; in other words, considerably less than half. Therefore, it is all moonshine—this extravagant and ridiculous statement about the enormous fees paid to the Law Officers. I feel a little strongly upon this point, because I have taken the liberty of insisting that, if it is a proper provision of the arrangement that the counsel for the Crown should be paid foes in contentious business at all, it is not right they should he paid on an inferior scale for the same class of work. Therefore, it is that in the Minute it expressly provides that in contentious business the counsel are to be paid such fees as counsel of like standing would properly expect to receive from clients under like circumstances. The figures I have quoted show that the Minute is not acted up to by the Treasury.
    MR. HANBURY: But the new scale was an advance upon the fees previously paid.
    SIR C. RUSSELL: I have shown the hon. Member how this proposed new scale works out in fact and in practice. Now, with regard to Chamber practice. Let me say for myself that I do not believe I have earned or received five guineas for Chamber practice since I

    951
    became a Law Officer of the Crown, nearly two years ago. My hon. and learned Friend's business in advising was always greater than mine. He will tell you that he has practically abandoned giving opinions in Chambers altogether —not that he has not the right to do so, but because of the demands on his time by reason of his public duties. As the House knows, I was not in favour of the change personally, and I came into the arrangement with a certain amount of unwillingness; but I feel bound to say that with the enormous increase of business of a public character which the Law Officers have to deal with, especially within the last five or six or 10 years, I believe this Minute points in the right direction, and that in order to do the public work well the Law Officers of the Crown must be practically confined to the discharge of their public duties. I say this, although I felt, and feel, strongly that the Law Officers of the Crown should be, in fact, the leaders of the Bar as well as the titular leaders of the Bar. Now with regard to general retainers. It happens, in my ease, that I have a general retainer for a very large number of newspapers in London. In the case of the hon. Member for Northampton, for whom I have had the honour of acting for many years, and who has been considerably engaged in litigation, I have had recently, in the Zierenberg case, to refuse to act upon a general retainer. Only a few days ago Sir E. Lawson, of The Daily Telegraph, was brought up for alleged contempt of Court. I have had also the honour of a general retainer for that journal for many years, but in this case I felt that I could not act upon it, because it came within the category of clients who may be in frequent litigation. I could mention many other illustrations. Now I come to the next question. With regard to the Sutherland case, my retainer from the present Duke, the then Marquess of Stafford, was given on the 29th of January, 1892. I did not accept Office until the 20th August, 1892. That general retainer was in relation to litigation between himself and the late Duke—I am sorry to go into all this—which litigation was considered important in the interests of the Marquess of Stafford, and which has culminated in the disputed will case
    952
    now pending. The state of the facts is, that I received the retainer on the 29th of January, 1892; I accepted Office on the 20th of August, 1892; the late Duke died on the 27th of September, 1892; and the Treasury Minute is dated the 5th of December, 1892. These are the exact facts. I received the Salt Union retainer on the 10th of May, 1892; the writ in the specific action was issued on the 11th of July, 1892; and as I have said, I did not accept Office until the 20th of August, 1892. Now, I do ask whether it is not monstrous, in view of these facts, to make such a charge as the hon. Member has made? Not only have we acted up to the letter, but I say we have acted entirely up to the spirit of this Minute. I know, speaking both for my learned Colleague and myself, that our sacrifices have been considerable. We have tried, in discharge of our public duties, to do our best, and certainly with the most thorough desire to fulfil them in good faith. The point of this Resolution is an assertion on the part of the hon. Member, which, if he will forgive me for so saving, he ought not lightly to make, that the arrangement made has been widely departed from by the Law Officers. I absolutely deny that there is any foundation for such an assertion, and I assert again that we have acted entirely up to the spirit of this Minute.
    MR. J. POWELL WILLIAMSsaid, the Motion conveyed to the House the idea that the Law Officers of the Crown had trespassed beyond the limit with regard to private practice. That was an accusation which it was necessary to meet, and he was bound in fairness to say that the hon. and learned Member in the cases mentioned had given an effective answer. But after all, that was not the real question. The real question was, what was the amount of public money which the Law Officers of the Crown were receiving from year to year?
    MR. DEPUTY SPEAKERsaid, that was not the question which was raised by this Amendment.
    MR. J. POWELL WILLIAMSwas not proposing to argue that question now, which must be raised at another time upon a specific Motion to reduce the Vote for the remuneration of the Law Officers. He might be allowed to say, however,

    953
    that there was a prevalent impression that the present arrangement gave the Law Officers of the Crown no less a sum annually than about £27,000. If that was so, it would be a very serious matter for the House to consider, when the propel time arrived, and it would then have to be determined whether that was a, rate of payment which could be continued. They could get three Archbishops for that sum, and the House would have to consider whether the services of two Law Officers of the Crown were of equal value to those of three such eminent ecclesiastics. This matter could not be allowed to rest where it was, for there was a far wider and more important question behind it, which, if nobody else would do so, he would raise when the proper time arrived.
    SIR W. HARCOURTsaid, when the time came to vote upon the remuneration of the Law Officers he should have no hesitation in regard to the Lobby he should go into. However, that was not what the House had then to deal with. What they had to do with at the moment was a deliberate accusation against the Law Officers of the Crown of having done for their own personal advantage that which they ought not to have done, and which he certainly ought to have restrained them from doing under the terms of the Treasury Minute.
    MR. HANBURYsaid, he had distinctly stated that he made no charge whatever against the Attorney General, but that the Treasury Minute had not been conformed with That was all he had said.
    SIR W. HARCOURTsaid, the hon. Member had said quite enough, and a great deal too much, on the subject. He had made an accusation, for which he had no foundation whatever, against two as honourable men as ever filled these important Public Offices—made it on grounds as ridiculous as the were unfounded. He had referred to the mare's nest called the Sutherland case, and had asked whether the proceedings of the Attorney and Solicitor General had been watched, and whether they were entitled or not to the fees they took. He could only inform the hon. Member that he had other things to do, and that that was no part of his duty. He had simply, knowing the Attorney and Soli-
    954
    citor General to be men of honour and integrity, handed to them the Treasury Minute, relying upon them to act upon it both in letter and spirit. They had acted upon it both in letter and spirit, and the accusation that they had departed from it was baseless—founded upon no facts whatever: and he asked the House without further discussion to negative the Motion.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid, that no such charge as the right hon. Gentleman had stated had been made against the Attorney General. The allegation was that a Treasury Minute having laid down the conditions under which the Law Officers of the Crown were henceforth to be employed and remunerated, the meaning of that Minute, so far as appeared to any outside layman, had been departed from. How did it start? It started by saying that an arrangement had been made—and this was the statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer—limiting the business in which a Law Officer might appear as counsel for private clients to cases in the House of Lords and Privy Council. The whole Minute was founded upon that principle: that was the main part of it, and the rest was mere ornament. Was the Duke of Sutherland's case a case before the House of Lords or Privy Council? Certainly not. It was the duty of the Chancellor of the Exchequer (who had just run away from the House) to satisfy himself whether the cases mentioned came within the true meaning of the Minute or not. The Attorney General had given illustrations of a case in which larger fees were paid to the other counsel than to the Law Officers. Yes, but the other counsel had not £13,000 a year, like the Attorney and Solicitor General, to divide between them. That fact had a very important bearing upon the case. What was complained of was that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not performed his duty as guardian of the Public Purse. The right hon. Gentleman was always inveighing against extravagance, but in this particular instance he had not acted properly as guardian of the public money. As to the question of general retainer, they quite understood the principle which the Attorney General had laid down, that he and his colleague had a right to accept general retainers from public

    955
    companies exposed to constant litigation, though they did not exercise that right. But the Attorney General was not the judge in the matter. The Treasury Minute laid down the broad principle he had stated. Foreseeing, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer did, that questions might arise it laid down two things—first, that any question arising should be submitted to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whose decision should be final; and, secondly, that a copy of the Minute should be rent to each of the Law Officers. When the question was raised whether the Duke of Sutherland's case came within the Minute, the Attorney General and Solicitor General knew that it was their duty to submit the case to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. That was not done, and thereby they had all failed in their duty. The Law Officers had acted upon what they conceived to be their right, but they were not the judges; the Chancellor of the Exchequer was the judge, but again in this as in many another case the right hon. Gentleman had abandoned his post and had not fulfilled the duty imposed upon him.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Main Question again proposed.

  QUARANTINE.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLEScalled attention to the system of quarantine. He said, the late President of the Local Government Board and he had had a difference upon this matter. What was quarantine? As a means of preventing the spread of disease by infection it was ridiculous. Forty days were prescribed, as though "forty" had some magic in it? He might refer to the lazaretto which had been built on the Chetney Hills in Kent, to which persons were sent who Were likely to convey infectious disease to Her Majesty's subjects. Quarantine did not only extend under the Act 6 Geo. III. c. 7 to yellow fever, as the late President of the Local Government Board had stated; on the contrary, yellow fever was never mentioned at all in either that or succeeding Acts, except in an exceptional manner. Quarantine applied to any infectious disease or distemper highly dangerous to the health of His Majesty's subjects. It included cholera, and might be held to apply to
  956
  swine fever. The provisions for carrying it out were the most ridiculous, oppressive, expensive methods ever made in a civilised country. What was our system for protecting people from infection? We had four old hulks in the Solent, where they were established originally because vessels came generally to Southampton from the Mediterranean coast of Africa or Turkey, where the plague was supposed usually to exist. The lazaretto in Kent he had already referred to. Those were the means employed to prevent the spread of infection. But what was the case now? For one person who reached this country by way of the Solent hundreds and thousands came by Dover, Harwich, and other parts along the coasts. If we were going to maintain a system of quarantine it should, in the first place, be extended to the cholera; and, in the second, preventive methods should be applied where they were most needed, at the points of largest influx of foreigners into this country. It was perfectly ridiculous if we were to allow streams of people to come in by Folkestone, Dover, Harwich, and so on without question, to maintain those four crazy old hulks in the Solent. Such a system of quarantine afforded no protection whatever to the country against the spread of infectious diseases. If we were to have quarantine at all the matter could not stop where it was, because the great streams of foreigners now entering the country wore untouched by our present system. But even supposing it were intended to make the system a reality instead of a sham, he very much questioned the wisdom of so doing, for quarantine did no good, but on the contrary it did a great deal of harm. Persons coming by sea required less quarantine than others, having by their voyage automatically quarantined themselves, so to speak. Confining people for a number of days in a ship or lazaretto was eminently calculated to spread any germs of disease if they existed or to produce them if they did not. Ridiculous as the present system was, even if made more effective, it would still be bad, for it would not prevent the spread of infectious diseases. He ventured to say no one on the opposite Benches could tell the House why such a system was kept up. No doubt abroad it was maintained as a kind of system of outdoor relief for

  957
  Vice Consuls, providing them with fees in lieu of paying them salaries. For instance, the Spanish Government required a health certificate to be viséd at a charge of a few shillings by the Vice Consul of the place—an unnecessary visé by a person who did not know and could not know that a certificate given by a, person who did know was correct. If the right hon. Gentleman was going to abandon his system of quarantine and call in the assistance of the Local Government Board, that would be a clear confession that his system was of no use: but if he intended to try and make it of use, let him apply it as the Act intended it should be applied. In that case, instead of having £1,600 or £1,700 put on the Estimates for quarantine expenses, the cost would be spread over the whole country. He had said enough to show that the present quarantine system was extremely useless, ridiculous, and expensive, and ought to be abolished. The time had arrived when we must either extend or abandon altogether this ancient system of quarantine, and he would be glad of an assurance from the Government on the subject, or that at all events they would promise the familiar remedy of a Select Committee. The only explanation of this old system having been allowed to go on was that its existence bad been forgotten. For more than 100 years we bad put up with it, but the time had come when an end should be put to an ancient and stagnant abuse.
  MR. SHAW-LEFEVRE: I do not think the hon. Member opposite is quite justified in saying that the Act of George IV. contemplates yellow fever simply. It applies to infectious diseases.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid, he had stated that it was not exclusive of them.
  MR. SHAW-LEFEVREsaid, there had been five cases of vessels detained through yellow fever during the last few years, but such cases could be quite well dealt with under the Ordinances relating to the public health. That being so, it did not appear that there was any necessity, from the point of view of public health, for maintaining the quarantine law. The Government, however, were bound by certain Conventions with other Powers to maintain the quarantine regulations. In conseequence of the Debate that arose on the Civil Service Estimates last Autumn, the
  958
  Government had been giving their attention to the matter, and the Local Government Board had been in correspondence with the Departments concerned on the subject. Inquiries were being made as to the attitude of Foreign Powers, and as soon as replies were received to those inquiries the Government would be able to deal with the question. He did not think it would be necessary to have a Select Committee such as the hon. Member had suggested. Probably a Departmental Committee would be better. As he had said, however, the Government were bound by the Conventions, and until they obtained the views of the Foreign Governments could not act. They agreed that there was no longer any sanitary reason for maintaining a system which was to a large extent practically obsolete. He hoped, therefore, that the hon. Member would be satisfied to leave the matter in the hands of the Government. It was receiving the attention of the Government, and would certainly not be lost sight of.

  IMPROVEMENTS IN NON-BOARD SCHOOLS.
  SIR R. TEMPLEwho had given notice of the following Motion:—
  "That this House is of opinion that full and reasonable time, without prejudice to the allowance of grants which may have been rained, should be allowed to non Board schools, not supported by the rates, for carrying out such material improvements as the Education Department may, after considering all the circumstances, have ordered,"
  said, he believed be was precluded from moving it, but he wished to make a few remarks on the subject. Just before the Easter Recess the House had had the advantage of a tolerably free discussion on the subject, during the course of which the Minister for Education (Mr. Acland) gave some assurances which, though they were not perfect, were in some degree satisfactory, for all of which mercies he was infinitely obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. The Motion was, however, placed on the Paper before that discussion took place, and, inasmuch as during the Easter Recess further confirmation had been received for the necessity for having something done, he thought it well to revert to the subject. In his native County of Worcestershire there had been abnormal activity in respect of the

  959
  repairs and sanitation of voluntary schools. This was owing to the exceptional vigour of the Inspector who was appointed in that county. So great was the anxiety with regard to the poorer village schools that the rich landlords— if any landlords could in these days be called rich—and many small country gentlemen like himself had been obliged to raise a fund for the purpose of enabling the managers to meet the requirements of the Education Department. In the same way, in the part of Surrey which he represented, the people had been obliged to make great efforts to raise funds in order to meet the requirements of the Department. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Acland) very well knew that somewhat suddenly within the last year or two demands for material improvements which had never previously been pressed had been made. School committees had been going on for generations without any marked complaint being made to the Education Department, and although some further requirements were anticipated when the Free Education Act was passed, a year or so of gradual progress elapsed after its passage, and it was not until the present Government came into Office that demands were urged with what he regarded as exceptional and abnormal vigour. The schools to which the demands applied were, of course, more or less poor, and those who supported them were suffering from agricultural depression. He was sure that the vivid and graphic description recently given of them by the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) would be still fresh in the recollection of the right hon. Gentleman. It was under these circumstances of poverty and depression that the school managers were required to redouble their efforts for improving the buildings. The demands which had been made upon them were of such a character as in their opinion to endanger their position. They were apprehensive that they would not be able to raise the funds needed within the requisite time. No complaints were made respecting the efficiency of their school management. Their management was admitted to be good. They actually were making greater progress relatively than the Board schools, who had all the advantages of the rates to fall back upon. It was considered to be hard that at a
  960
  time when, despite all the enervating and depressing influences of the day, they had managed to maintain their schools in a state of efficiency which if it was equalled was scarcely surpassed by the Board schools, pressure should be put upon them for what was, after all, a very secondary matter. That was the shell of the grievance, so to speak—the framework of the educational picture painted by skilful artists with the best of colours. It was for the sake of the frame that the picture was being imperilled. It did seem hard that when schools were kept up by voluntary effort they should be placed in a position of pecuniary embarrassment for the sake of such matters as the provision of a cloak-room or a few hat-pegs. Those things as affecting sanitation, he ventured to say, were grossly exaggerated. The idea of the health of the children being endangered by reason of a few wet cloaks being hung up about the place was really absurd. He admitted that cloak-rooms and hat-pegs should be provided, but to say that the health of the children was placed in jeopardy by the absence of these things was ridiculous. Look at the children—at their vigorous gait and rosy cheeks. They were far healthier than the children under the London School Board. Was there any danger to their health? Of course not. The provision of cloak-rooms, and so on, was not urgent. The want of them was not likely to provoke epidemics or juvenile complaints. The children on the whole were healthy, and on the whole were progressive, and on the whole wore doing well. Why, then, should the schools be worried to death for the sake of material improvements of a secondary character? There was this further grievance—that the buildings were erected with the approval of the Education Department of their day, and had existed under similar sanction for more than one generation. There could be no particular reason—in the present year, at any rate—for enforcing these hitherto unprecedented demands. He (Sir R. Temple) and his friends submitted that the schools had claims of the first character on the Estimates. These were the schools that existed before Board schools were known. They were the pioneers of education in the country. They held up the light of

  961
  knowledge at a time when there was general darkness among the humbler classes; and these were the institutions that had provided a vast amount of educational capital for school buildings— to be counted by many millions sterling— and these were the institutions which now for several generations had saved the pockets of the taxpaying ratepayers. They were saving the ratepayers now, at a time when all other rates was rising. He did not say they saved much to the taxpayer. They received as much as the Board schools, but they saved the ratepayer. And, further, they maintained the good old English idea—differentiating from Scot-hind and Ireland, and every other nationality under the sun in the employment of private enterprise in the sacred cause of education. Elsewhere these things were done by the State, but in this country they were largely done by private enterprise. This gave them a claim upon the nation. They did no! deny that material progress must be made and go on pari passu with moral and intellectual progress. Poor as they were they were willing to make these material I improvements, but they asked to be allowed reasonable time for the purpose. It made all the difference next year or ! the year after—that was to say, compared with the present year—between death or survival. That was the point, It was time they asked for. They even ventured to demand it, and they ventured to conclude their plea with the assertion, "Have patience with us and we will make thee all the improvements that are fairly to be required of us." If was in order to obtain, if possible, some additional assurance from the right hon. Gentleman and also to show their educational friends who were regarding this question with great anxiety in all parts of the country that they in the House who were in favour of the voluntary system were not silent, but were firm in urging their case that he again brought this subject before the right hon. Gentleman—though he was precluded from moving a Resolution.
  THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Mr. ACLAND,): I do not want to say anything discourteous to the hon. Baronet and his friends, but to raise the question for the third time within the seventh
  962
  Parliamentary day is really a little hard the Minister in charge of the subject. On both previous occasions I have done my best not merely to receive the statements made with sympathy, but to show, by the announcement I made as to the Returns I proposed to obtain and the Circulars I was going to publish, that I honestly mean to try and meet in some reasonable degree hon. Members themselves. I hope the hon. Baronet opposite will pardon me for saying that I am not prepared to go again into the general question. I know that my statements have been considered satisfactory by those interested in voluntary schools from the many letters I have received from clergymen and others. If the hon. Member had been able to move the Motion I should not have been able to accept it, as it would draw a distinction between Board and voluntary schools as to the way in which they are to be treated in this matter. What the Education Department has to do is to adapt its demands to the circumstances of the case, and that is what it is prepared to try and do; but a Motion which would give a special position to the voluntary schools is one that could not, and would not, be accepted by the House. It is the duty of every Minister of Education to see that in return for the enormous grants that are made to these schools by the country the schools shall be healthy and in a good condition. And if hon. Members desire information as to the condition of some of the voluntary schools I should advise them to read the addresses of the President and members of the National Union of Teachers. The hon. Baronet and his friends accepted in the most friendly spirit what I formerly promised, and I am not prepared to say anything more on the subject.
  GENERAL GOLDSWORTHYsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had referred to the remarks which had been made on this subject on previous occasions. Well, many of them entertained strong feelings on the subject of the voluntary schools. Many people did not care about children being educated at all if they were not educated in voluntary schools. Even when Board schools were close to them they sent their children long distances to voluntary schools. They paid rates to maintain the Board schools, but derived no advantage from them. He

  963
  had himself contributed largely to Board schools, but he also contributed to voluntary schools, in which he was more immediately interested. While no objection was raised to pay for Board schools, those persons who supported voluntary schools felt that they had not the same advantages as compared with the Board schools, of dipping into the ratepayers' pockets. In the past they knew that an endeavour had been made to rundown the voluntary schools by means of the Board schools, in which low fees were charged. This was done in his district, but it was felt that religious education was necessary for the children. Whilst accepting the statement of the Vice President of the Council, that he was anxious to be fair to all classes of schools, they could not refrain from pointing out that in such serious times of agricultural depression as the present some consideration should be paid to the voluntary schools if only for the sake of saving the pockets of the ratepayers. He did not say any more than the right hon. Gentleman, that they should have the voluntary schools in an insanitary condition or with worse internal arrangements than the Board schools, but he held that alterations which were not absolutely necessary should be postponed or spread over a number of years. The supporters of the voluntary schools did not wish to see such schools crushed by unnecessary demands being made upon them.
  Main Question, "That Mr. Deputy Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.

  SUPPLY.—COMMITTEE.
  SUPPLY,—considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)

  SUPPLY.—COMMITTEE.
    CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS (ESTIMATES), 1894–5.

      CLASS I.
      1. £31,526, to complete the sum for Royal Palaces and Marlborough House.
      MR. A. C. MORTONdesired to call attention to one or two matters on the Vote for Royal Palaces, and to ask for a little information. He would first, however, congratulate his right hon. Friend on his appointment as First Commissioner of Works, and express the hope that
      964
      they might expect a little more sympathy from him than they got from the old hand. With regard to the Windsor Royal Kitchen Garden, he saw there was down in the Vote £1,015, as against £978 last year. He was always careful not to say much about Palaces which were occupied by Her Majesty, and he had no desire to alter the arrangements made when she came to the Throne. He could not, however, see why they should keep up the kitchen garden. Surely that ought to be kept up by the Civil List, and he should like to know why they were asked to pay for the garden? The next item was Kensington Palace, £2,415, as against £2,125 last year. There was no explanation of that increase as far as he could see. He objected to their being asked to pay for the repair of these Palaces at all. These buildings belonged to the nation, but they gave up their use of them. The Queen nominated certain persons to reside in such Palaces, and, living there rent free, the very least that could be expected from them was that they would keep them in a good state of repair. The people who occupied the Palaces were well-to-do and did not require to receive this kind of outdoor relief: but, in addition to this, it was not fair to call upon the already too-heavily taxed people of this country to pay for the expenses of repairing these Palaces. There was an increase in the expenditure of over £600 in regard to the White Lodge, Richmond Park. He should like to know who occupied the White Lodge, and why they were called upon to pay this sum? The same remarks applied to Pembroke Lodge and the other buildings enumerated in the Votes. He desired explanations on these points. The next item to which he wished to refer was in respect of Holyrood Palace. He had for a number of years been calling attention to the bad state of repair of the Scottish Palaces and Castles, hut so far he had got little sympathy from the Government. He hoped the present First Commissioner of Works would take some little interest in these buildings, and sympathise with the desire to have them kept in a proper state of repair. They were now, he was sorry to say, to some extent tumbling to pieces. With regard to the chapel that used to be attached to Holyrood Palace, the roof had tumbled

      965
      in, and the building gone to ruins. He suggested that something Like £10,000 a year should he taken for 10 years to put these Palaces and Castles into a proper state of repair. He would ask the First Commissioner to visit Holyrood and Linlithgow Palaces during the summer, and he would be satisfied that their present condition was a disgrace to the nation, and that they sorely needed repair. Part of Edinburgh Palace came under this Vote, and that structure also required some money spending on it to put it in good repair. A Mr. Nelson, a citizen of Edinburgh, formerly spent, £20,000 out of ins own pocket, not to embellish or decorate it, hut to put if into a decent state of repair and prevent it falling to pieces. It was disgraceful that it should be necessary for a, private citizen to do any such thing. Part of Edinburgh Castle was sold to a Railway Company some time ago, and the purchase money so received, instead of being spent on the building, had been put into the capital account of the Royalty fund. It was through the exertions of the Edinburgh Corporation that they got that money, and the least that could be expected was that the money so obtained should he spent in connection with the repair of that part of Edinburgh Castle under the charge of the First Commissioner of Works.
      MR. THORNTONdid not often find himself in accord with the hon. Member for Peterborough, hut on this matter of Scotch Palaces and Castles he was most thoroughly in agreement with him. He had visited Holyrood in the course of an historical tour he made over Scotland last year, and there was a danger of the chapel and other parts of the building falling into a state of disrepair, which would be disgraceful to this country. After all, if there was no absolute engagement made at the time of the Union to keep these Palaces and Castles in repair he considered it to be a moral responsibility. Holyrood was of profound historical interest in Scotland—Indeed, it did not sink beneath that of Royal Windsor itself. Such an important historical building as Holyrood should be kept up, and the necessary funds found for that purpose.
      MR. HANBURYdesired some information in regard to the large expenditure of £8,500 required for new drainage
      966
      at Buckingham Palace. He had very often had to complain of the serious danger and risk to health and life in our Public Offices on the part of the Civil servants engaged in such Offices. The condition of the War Office a few years ago was disastrous owing to the bad state of the drainage, and now they had the matter come home to Buckingham Palace itself. Of course, when the health of the Royal Family and Royal visitors at Buckingham Palace was concerned it was a serious thing. The fact that the drainage was in such a bad condition as to require the expenditure of £8,500 emphasised the desirability of a public inquiry into the condition of our Public Buildings, most of which he believed to be in a thoroughly insanitary state. The Government ought to set an example in this respect, and have buildings in such a sanitary state that those who worked or lived in them should not have their health endangered or injured. He did not grudge this amount. He could quite believe the money would be well spent, and he should like to see more going in the same direction, but the Government must not ask them to vote such large sums in the dark. This item appeared in the Votes for the first time.
      THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Sir J. T. HIBBERT,): It appeared last year.
      MR. HANBURYsaid, they did not have any explanation last year, and he hoped, therefore, they should he told what had been the defects in the drainage of Buckingham Palace, how the money would be expended, and whether sufficient guarantees would be taken that this would be a final sum?
      MR. CONYBEAREdesired to know what system of drainage it was proposed to introduce at Buckingham Palace? The drainage system was remodelled some years ago, and the system known as the pneumatic system, which had always worked with great satisfaction, was introduced. Was that the system which it was now proposed should be adopted? With regard to the Windsor Royal Kitchen Garden, he noticed that there was an increased charge this year. What became of the produce of this kitchen garden? The Royal Family were very seldom in residence there, and he should like to know

      967
      who got the benefit of the produce of the kitchen garden? If it found its way to Covent Garden, or if anything was made out of it, why should it not be applied in the reduction of the expenses.
      MR. GIBSON BOWLESremarked that the Secretary to the Treasury was, no doubt, aware that Windsor Castle was not the property of the Sovereign as such, neither was it personal, but it was the Palace of the Order of the Garter, and was occupied by the Sovereign not as Queen of England but as head of the Order of the Garter, and if it were a conceivable thing that any other Sovereign could be the head of the Order of the Garter, that Sovereign would occupy the Palace at Windsor; consequently, it did seem to him that Windsor Castle stood in a somewhat different position to Buckingham and St. James's Palaces, which were no doubt personal Palaces—personal to the Sovereign as Sovereign. He was not sure whether, if the strict right of the matter were followed out, Windsor Castle should not be charged with the other paraphernalia of the Garter, of which they made a separate Vote in other departments of the Estimates. There was another subject to which he wished to call attention. For many years there had been two services held in St. James's Chapel, one at o'clock in the morning, to which everybody was admitted, and another at 12, for which tickets were required. The 10 o'clock service, which he had long been in the habit of attending, was a most beautiful service, conducted with the utmost dignity and propriety, and had been regularly held up to last year. At the time of the Royal Marriage last year both services were interrupted at St. James's Chapel Royal, and were transferred to the German Chapel, of which he would only say that neither in propriety, in acoustic qualities, nor in appearance, was it at all comparable with the other, and, instead of being a delight and a pleasure to attend the service there, as it was at St. James's Chapel, it was rather a trial of patience.
      THE CHAIRMAN: That question does not arise on this Vote.
      MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid, that he only wished to complain that while part of the service had been restored to St. James's Chapel, the beautiful 10
      968
      o'clock service was carried on in the German Chapel, and was spoiled by the acoustic properties of the chapel. He, therefore, hoped that the First Commissioner of Works would see his way to restoring the service to the Chapel Royal.
      THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. H. GLADSTONE,)said, he was not aware why the change in the service in the Chapel Royal alluded to by the last speaker had been made, but he would inquire into the matter. The expenditure on the kitchen garden of Windsor Castle was for structural improvements, and the outlay upon Kensington Palace was attributable to ordinary repairs. The expenditure in connection with the White Lodge, Richmond Park, which was in the occupation of the Duke of Teck, was owing to the decrease in the water supply in the well. In order to insure an adequate supply in case of fire it was found necessary to expend several hundred pounds. In regard to Holyrood Palace, he quite agreed with the historic importance of the old ruin, and it would be his duty to look very closely into that matter. His predecessor in Office had, however, satisfied himself that there was no danger from deterioration, and the Surveyor of the Office of Works, who had gone very carefully into it, had said that there was no ground for apprehension. He would undertake that the whole condition of the building should be carefully watched, and a further Report called for in the course of the year. In regard to Buckingham Palace, the underground drains had all been taken up, the line altered, and new pipes put in on the best system. The item this year was, no doubt, very heavy, but was calculated to cover the cost of all the heavy work. He would endeavour to profit by the remarks of the hon. Member for Preston on the subject of drainage generally. Complaint had also been made of the condition of the buildings of the War Office. Those buildings were very old, but before very long the War Department would have a new house in which the sanitary system would be as satisfactory as sanitary science could make it. The question as to what became of the produce of the Windsor Royal Kitchen Gardens was outside his province, as it was a private matter.
      MR. A. C. MORTONthanked the right hon. Gentleman for the way in which he had met them in regard to Holyrood. As to the occupants of the White Lodge, if their well-water gave out, why should they not have the Water Company's supply laid on, and pay water-rates, just us other people had to do? They got the house rent free, and the least they might do was to pay the water rate. He also thought that the occupants of the buildings, to which the Queen had the right of nomination—such as the White Lodge, Sheen Lodge, and Straw Lodge—should be obliged to keep them in a state of repair. An arrangement had been made by which these people were obliged to keep the buildings in repair inside, and he thought they might be asked to look after the outside as well, as they had the houses rent free.
      MR. GIBSON BOWLESasked whether the Observatory at Kew was the place to which chronometers and nautical instruments were sent to be tested? He noticed under the heading of "Palaces"—stud-house, Hawthorn Lodge and Kew Observatory. The category of Palaces had been greatly extended when they included a stud-house, an observatory, and a lodge.
      MR. H. GLADSTONEsaid, he was unable to answer the question of the hon. Member who had just sat down. With regard to the question of the hon. Member for Peterborough, he could not undertake to say that the charge for the outside repairs would be thrown on the occupants of the houses mentioned. The owners of houses usually did the inside repairs, in order to ensure that the buildings were properly preserved.
      MR. CONY BEAREasked why the well-conditioned lords and ladies who occupied these Palaces, cottages, lodges, or whatever they were, rent-free did not pay for their "fuel, lights, water, and household articles"? He accepted the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman with regard to the produce of the Windsor Kitchen Garden. Perhaps Her Majesty had a right to make as much as she could out of the kitchen garden; but surely these people who had those buildings rent-free should pay for light and water and household articles.
      MR. H. GLADSTONEsaid, his hon. Friend was under a misapprehension. The occupants of those Palaces did pay for their gas and fuel. The item referred to was for gas and fuel used in the Public Works Department in respect to these edifices.
      MR. CONYBEAREsaid, that raised another question, which was whether the right hon. Gentleman so analysed the accounts as to apportion to each Palace its respective portion of the expense under this head?
      SIR R. TEMPLEsaid, he would like to point out, in answer to the hon. Member for Peterborough, that it would be impossible to ask the Royal occupants of those Palaces to undertake the repair of the outside of the buildings. Those Palaces were national property: they had been erected by the Crown or by Parliament, and no one should be allowed to touch them on the outside except under the authority of Parliament or the Royal authority.
      SIR J. T. HIBBERTsaid, he desired to say, in reply to the question of the hon. Member for Lynn Regis in reference to the Royal Kew Observatory, that the Observatory had been built in 1778 by Sir Thomas Chambers for George III., but since Her Majesty had come to the Throne she had allowed it to be used by the Royal Society, which looked after the internal repairs, while the outside repairs were done by the Board of Works.
      MR. A. C. MORTONsaid, the hon. Baronet the Member for Kingston did not seem to understand what he had said about the repairs of the Palaces. They had already made an arrangement whereby they compelled the people who lived in those buildings to keep them in repair internally, and he thought the principle should be extended to outside repairs, just as vicars or rectors were obliged to keep parsonage houses, which were also national property, in repair, inside and outside.
      Mr. GIBSON BOWLESsaid, he agreed with the hon. Baronet that it was absolutely impossible to allow people to work their fancy on the outside of the Palaces, and that if any work of the kind was needed it should be done by the Board of Works. For instance, if the hon. Member for Peterborough

      971
      occupied one of those buildings, he should not like to allow the hon. Member his way on the outside of the house, for he would probably spoil it.
      Vote agreed to.
      2. £79,228, to complete the sum for Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens.
      MR. A. C. MORTONsaid, that last year the First Commissioner of Works had promised him to provide additional seats in Hampton Court Park and Pleasure Gardens, and as the seats were very much required by the public, he would like to know whether the promise had been carried out. He also urged last year that a refreshment booth for the supply of temperance drinks should be erected in those grounds.
      MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Why limit them to temperance drinks?
      MR. A. C. MORTONreplied that a licence would have to be obtained, and that no doubt would be opposed by the public houses, which were kept up by hon. Gentlemen opposite so carefully. At any rate, all he desired was that the public who frequented those Gardens should be able to obtain temperance refreshments. He should also like to ask what became of the thousands of bunches of grapes which grew on the celebrated Vine at Hampton Court? So far as he could make out the grapes went to Windsor—what for he did not know— but as they belonged to the people, he thought the First Commissioner of Works should be able to give them to the hospitals for children in the Metropolis. With regard to Linlithgow Palace, he had again to complain that it was not in a proper state of repair. The walls of the Palace were still in a good and staple condition, and he thought the building might be roofed in and made use of. When Scotland got Home Rule the Palace might be used for the Governor of the country. He had received numerous complaints of the want of sanitary accommodation in Hyde Park, while the open spaces in the charge of the London County Council were admirably supplied in that respect. A little money spent wisely in that way would greatly benefit the people and visitors to London.
      MR. CONYBEAREsaid, he noticed that £400 a year were charged to India, in respect to services rendered to that
      972
      country by Kew Botanic and Pleasure Gardens. he should like to know what those services were. Complaint was constantly made about India being overburdened with taxation on behalf of England, and he thought this small sum might very well be paid by this country, rather than be charged to India. It was a more trifle, and not worth talking about; but he raised the subject as a question of principle.
      MR. THORNTONsaid, that with regard to Linlithgow Palace, he was aware a considerable difference of opinion existed in Scotland as to the way the building should be treated, and therefore no decision should become to without careful consideration.
      MR. H. GLADSTONEsaid, that additional seats had been provided in Hampton Court Gardens, and he would consider the question of providing a Kiosk, as in Kew and other places, for the supply of light refreshments. The grapes of the Vine at Hampton went to their owner, Her Majesty.
      MR. CONYBEARE: I thought we were the owner.
      MR. H. GLADSTONEsaid, that with regard to the £400 charged on India, it was a very trifling matter, but as he had great sympathy with the views expressed by his hon. Friend the Member for Camborne, he would look into the subject. As the hon. Member for Clapham had stated, there was a difference of opinion about the treatment to be given to the ruin at Linlithgow, and apart from that, it was a matter that required careful consideration. The question of sanitary accommodation in Hyde Park would also be attended to.
      SIR R. TEMPLEsaid, he would like to know what had become of the Report of the Committee which sat in 1892, and perhaps 1893 also, to inquire into the emoluments of the establishment at Kew Gardens? It would be remembered that the men employed at Kew desired that their emoluments should be rendered equal to the emoluments of similar establishments within the Metropolitan area. It was said that there were certain advantages at Kew, which were not enjoyed in the Metropolitan Parks, and that living was cheaper there. To that the men replied that living was dearer at

      973
      Kew, and probably they were right. The Committee was appointed—he thought, tinder the auspices or executive control of the late Chief Commissioner of Works. For his own part, he had never heard that the labours of the Committee had had any result. Possibly something might have been done, for he had not heard a complaint for the past year or so. It would be satisfactory, however, if some statement were made on the point. In regard to the bill which was brought against India by Kew he believed it to be bonâ fide. No doubt Kew Gardens did furnish seeds and specimens for the Botanical Gardens at Calcutta and elsewhere in India.
      MR. CONYBEAREsaid, that if similar services were rendered to the Colonies and not charged for why should India be charged?
      SIR R. TEMPLEsaid, he did not know whether Kew Gardens supplied specimens to the Colonies or not. He would point out that the residents at Kew had a standing grievance in respect of the lofty wall enclosing the Gardens on the south western side. The wall was a great eyesore to the inhabitants of a very long row of houses, and it would be a, great boon to them if it could be replaced by iron ralings. It might be said that as the removal of the wall would tend solely to the benefit of the residents in the neighbourhood they ought to be asked to defray part of the expense. That clearly was a matter for negotiation between the responsible Minister and the residents. He wished to thank the Government for throwing open the Home Park at Richmond to the inhabitants of Kingston and Surbiton. There was still a question as to whether equestrians were allowed to ride through it or not. He should like to press the Minister in charge of the Vote to concede this privilege.
      MR. HANBURYsaid, that as to this charge in India, though a small one, it was a shabby one. They were far too much inclined to put every charge they could on India. They had seen many evidences of that lately, and he protested against it with the hope of seeing the habit put an end to. The habit was the result of the policy of days gone by, when the House was only too ready to pile up small charges against the Indian
      974
      Exchequer. He agreed with the hon. Member for Kingston that, no doubt, India did derive benefit from Kew, but he thought it a little unjust that those charges should be imposed on India, whilst they were not imposed on self-governing or Crown Colonies. If India benefited from Kew, did not Kew, on the other hand, benefit from the Botanical Gardens of India? If so, was not the present arrangement under which India alone was charged rather one-sided? As the Government had promised to consider the matter, he did not think it was worth while going to a Division against the item.
      MR. SHAW-LEFEVREsaid, the hon. Baronet opposite had pointed out that, in consequence of the representations he had made, a Committee had been appointed to consider the emoluments of the labourers at Kew Gardens. The Committee eventually reported. They did not recommend any general rise of wages. They made, however, a number of recommendations with regard to small improvements in the wages of labourers in the Royal Parks generally, and all those recommendations had been carried out. The wages of the labourers at Kew had been raised, not to any great extent, but sufficient to keep them in correspondence with the policy of the Government in regard to other Departments of the Public Service. If it were possible in future to go further and raise the minimum rate of wages throughout the Public Service, the labourers generally at Kew would, of course, participate in the advantage.
      MR. CONYBEAREsaid, he had understood the hon. Gentleman who had replied to him on behalf of the Government to express such sympathy with the view he (Mr. Conybeare) had expressed that he did not think it necessary to press his Motion to a Division.
      MR. A. C. MORTONsaid, he agreed that it was ridiculous to make India pay the money to which reference had been made. He hoped no further charge would be made on that account. On another point, so far as his (Mr. Morton's) acquaintance with the Scotch Societies went, they all objected to keeping Holyrood Palace as a rain. They said they wanted it roofed in—especially the old Parliament House.
      MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid, the road in Richmond Park on the east, side of Pembroke Lodge was in a had condition, and very dangerous for riding purposes. It was a series of abysses, and a person riding on it was likely at any moment to come head over heels. It was badly kept, and in wet weather was simply a morass. For years they had been promised an entrance to the Park from London in Priory Lane. The lane ended in a gate, whore there was a Royal lodge inhabited by a Royal keeper, who was paid for out of the Estimates. This park keeper, when applied to by a person —as he (Mr. Bowles) had himself applied —for egress, said, "I cannot let you go through this gate unless you get the permission of Mr. Hugh Smith, who lives down the lane." He (Mr. Bowles) did not know who Mr. Hugh Smith was. It was not the Queen of England who was to give permission for a Royal Park Gate to be used: it was not even the Chancellor of the Exchequer, hut Mr. Hugh Smith. He took no interest in Mr. Hugh Smith—he only took interest in the Park and in the Estimates. This system of keeping up a Park Gate for the behoof of a private individual who was to give permission to his private friends to use it had been going on for years. They thought last year that it was to be put an end to, but apparently it still continued.
      MR. SHAW-LEFEVREsaid, the hon. Member was quite right about this gate. It was not open to general use, because the road leading to it was private property—the property, he believed, of the landowner to whom the hon. Member had referred. The gentleman, however, was quite ready to hand over the road to the public if some security were given that it would be kept in proper repair. The difficulty was as to who was to repair it. The Local Authorities were certainly the persons who ought to undertake that work. He had entered into communication with them on the subject some time ago, but they were not disposed to keep in repair a road which simply led to a Royal Park. The cost could hardly be placed on the public funds. The owner, Mr. Smith, had made a most generous offer to the public, and it was a pity it could not be availed of.
      MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid, he wished to call attention to the Vote for keeping Hyde Park in order. He thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer would agree with him that the money might be spent in a more advantageous manner, for it seemed as if work were purposely made in Hyde Park. Just now the authorities were putting down an expensive stone kerbing which was not only absolutely unnecessary, but which would probably become a source of danger by reason of horses stepping upon it. Why they were putting such a kerbing alongside Rotten Row he could not conceive; they had done without one for centuries, and the only explanation for laying it could only be that there was some money in hand which it was desired to spend.
      MR. H. GLADSTONE: I know nothing against this kerbstone, but I will make inquiry. I may point out to the hon. Member that the Vote covered expenditure in St. James's and other Parks, as well as Hyde Park.
      Vote agreed to.
      3. £30,855, to complete the sum for Houses of Parliament Buildings.
      MR. A. C. MORTONsaid, he noticed a charge for double sashes for the dining and grill-room windows. Similar items appeared on the Estimates two years ago, and he would like to know if the money then voted was expended on different works? He should watch this matter with some suspicion, as he feared there was a tendency to divert money for the purposes for which Parliament granted it. The promise of a Committee to consider the question of the structure and arrangements of the House of Commons rendered it unnecessary for him to go at any length into some of the matters he had intended to discuss. he did think there was a necessity for enlarging the post office, while the store rooms connected with the Vote Office wore both ill-lighted and badly ventilated, being really unfit for any one to work in. Next, he wanted to know if the men employed in the House had been granted an eight hours day; surely they ought in this respect to be treated in the same manner as the employés in the Army and Navy Departments.
      MR. CONYBEAREsaid, he was glad to hear that a Committee was to be appointed to discuss matters in connection with the arrangements of the House. He quite agreed with his hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough that the post office was not large enough, and he held further that the staff of clerks was inadequate. Rut he wished the right hon. Gentleman to direct his attention to the condition of St. Stephen's Crypt Chapel. This was an exceedingly beautiful building, but all who had visited it recently would have noticed that the frescoes and other decorations were becoming frightfully disfigured by damp. It would I very great pity indeed if the damp were allowed to increase the mischief. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would take speedy steps to see that that was put right. There was another department in which he was much interested, and that was the Library. He had repeatedly raised questions as to the provision of which he might call the necessities of their existence. For instance, if they wanted certain Law-Reports they had to go to the Lords' Library for them. He objected to having to do that, in view of the friction between the two Houses. Was it not ridiculous that the real legislators should be compelled to go to the House of Lords to look up the records as to the practical effect of their own legislation? During the Debates on the Local Government Rill it was frequently necessary to refer to the Law Reports for decisions on certain points, but the volumes were only to be had from the Lords' Library, and it was often the case that when reference bad to be made that Library was closed and the officials had gone home. Now, he was not asking that the shelves of the Library of the House of Commons should be encumbered with a lot of musty old tomes, but he believed that the Council of Legal Education had recently prepared a new edition of Law Reports which had brought within a reasonable compass all the important decisions of the last 30 years, and he thought that that would prove a useful addition to the Library. He was not asking that the edition should be obtained in the interests of the lawyers who came down there to study their briefs, but he advocated it in view of the convenience of hon. Members generally. He wished, finally, to com-
      978
      plain of the character of pens placed in the corridors and Library.
      THE MARQUESS OF CARMARTHENsaid, he wished to direct the attention of the First Commissioner of Works to the question of the want of accommodation on the floor of the House. This was an inconvenience not experienced by Members and ex-Members of the Government; it was fell solely by private Members. Of course, the Benches on ordinary occasions were not crowded: but there were times on which private Members, unless they could spare time to come down to the House early in the day, found it impossible to get a, seat from which they could hear what was going on. He hoped that the Government would take into their serious consideration the question of enlarging the House.
      SIR W. HARCOURT: I admit that the occupants of the two Front Benches may not be the best witnesses on this question of the accommodation, but I would suggest to the noble Lord that hon. Members must look at the construction of the House not from the point of view of exceptional occasions, but from the point of ordinary use, when the attendance is nothing like that which would call for the provision of 670 seats. The House, as at present constructed, is not badly designed for every-day purposes; and I am not sure that by endeavouring to secure the convenience of hon. Members during a few exceptional sittings, the convenience of the many would not be sacrificed. That is a point well worthy the consideration of the House at large.
      MR. CONYBEAREhoped that neither the present nor future Governments would not go on the line of increasing the size of the House. What they wanted to do was to reduce the number of Members to about 450, which would be sufficient for all legislative purposes; for such a number the accommodation was ample.
      MR. RADCLIFFE COOKEdesired to draw the attention of the First Commissioner of Works to the absence of any means of communication between the House itself and other parts of the building. There ought to be some easy mode of communication between the House and the smoking-room and the Library, instead of Members who

      979
      had to deal with a vast mass of correspondence being kept in total ignorance of what was going on in the Chamber. He was well aware of the fact that the Party Whips preferred the present system, as being better calculated to ensure Members voting straight. Some years since, when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dublin University was First Commissioner, he, upon the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion, got up a Memorial in favour of some change in this respect, in order to strengthen the right hon. Gentleman's hands against the Treasury. He induced at least half the Members of the House to sign it, and then presented it. The right hon. Gentleman took it away to some foreign watering place to consider, but nothing-was done, and he had since regained possession of the document, which he intended to keep as an interesting memento of his first and last effort 1o get up a Memorial. He believed that the Exchange Telegraph Company offered to supply information of what was going on in the House to the Smoking Room and the Library for a sum of £500 or £600, if an operator and machine could be placed behind the Speaker's Chair, but their offer had not been accepted. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would agree to devote some consideration to this matter.
      SIR R. TEMPLEsaid, he desired to strongly confirm what the hon. Member for Camborne had said with regard to the beauty of the architecture of the crypt, which was being destroyed by damp. The chapel was a structure well worthy of preservation in the utmost possible efficiency; it was the finest one of its kind in the Kingdom, and probably could not be surpassed by any structure of its description in the world. The interesting small room used as the cloak-room was also a fine specimen of architecture, and it ought to be kept in a condition worthy of the House of Commons. He complained that the tea room was not sufficiently lighted in the afternoons. Seeing that hon. Members were compelled by reason of their legislative duties to remain within the precincts of the House, he thought they ought at least to have the tea room as well lighted as the tea-rooms in their own houses.
      MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid, he wished to support the First Commissioner of Works in the refusal which he hoped the right hon. Gentleman was about to give to the request that the House should be enlarged. In his opinion, the House was quite large enough for the purposes for which it was used. He was entirely opposed to any proposal that would deplete the Benches of that House by supplying information of what was going on in it to hon. Members in the smoking-room or the Library. It was the duty of hon. Members to attend in the House, and they ought not to ensconce themselves in the Library and smoking-rooms. But be was bound to admit that the writing, smoking, dining, and tea-rooms were too small. Hon. Members must cat, drink, and smoke, and sufficient accommodation should be provided for them. The occupants of the Front Benches, he believed, had their private rooms behind the Speaker's Chair, but private Members had no such privileges, and they had to struggle for the writing tables and for the pens in most unseemly fashion. Many people could not write without smoking, and some even could not think without smoking, and be did hold it to be rather hard that the accommodation in this respect should be so restricted. Every Member know what the smoking-room was like, and the accommodation in that respect should have been doubled or trebled years ago. If two or three other smoking-rooms were provided, they would not be too much. The same thing might be said of the accommodation for writing. There was no doubt about it that the writing and smoking-rooms were most uncomfortably crowded whenever the business occupying the attention of the House was not of very general interest. He hoped that steps would be taken to considerably increase the present quite inadequate accommodation given to hon. Members.
      MR. H. GLADSTONEwas understood to point out that it was impossible to alter the windows while the House was sitting, but the work was to be carried out as soon as possible. The question of St. Stephen's Chapel and the chamber adjoining the cloak-room should receive immediate attention. Some minor matters had been alluded to by various hon. Members with regard to

      981
      the accommodation of the House, the post office, tea-rooms, and so forth, all of which appeared to him questions that should be settled by the Committee. He had no doubt that the Committee which if was proposed should be appointed would keep in view all questions relating to the general convenience of Members.
      MR. CONYBEAREsaid, he raised the question last year as to the accommodation in the Gallery, and asked whether the Committee, when it was appointed, would see its way to improve the present troublesome restriction which did not allow ladies to be accompanied by their husbands and brothers, but compelled them to sit away by themselves. It was a curious fact that ladies were not regarded as "strangers," and that, therefore, the arrangements which he proposed for their comfort last year were passed over. He trusted this question of better accommodation for ladies visiting the House would be brought forward for discussion before the Committee. Unless the right hon. Gentleman would promise that, he should oppose the appointment of the Committee.
      THE MARQUESS OF CARMARTHENthought that ladies should only be allowed access to certain portions of the House as now, and not to the Galleries generally all over the body of the House. If the Committee were to be empowered to make alterations in that direction, he would do all he could to prevent the appointment of the Committee at all.
      MR. A. C. MORTON,referring to an item for £450 for lamp oil, said, he never saw a lamp in any part of the House, nor could he find out how that sum of money was expended. He hoped some explanation would be given, and if the right hon. Gentleman would inquire into the matter he would probably find that a saving under that head might be effected.
      COLONEL LOCK WOODpointed out that the accommodation set apart for the public was already extremely limited. If ladies were allowed to occupy seats in the Strangers' Gallery, which was already insufficient for the public, he should oppose the innovation. The space at present so limited for the use of the public should not be still further diminished.
      MR. H. GLADSTONEsaid, he would see that the question of the oil lamps received proper attention. He did not say the Government could give a day for a discussion, but they were perfectly willing, if it was the wish of the House, to assent to the appointment of a Committee; and he would suggest that some Member might put down a Motion for appointing a Committee for the purpose. The remarks made that evening showed clearly what the wish of many Members was. His idea was that such questions as that of the admission of ladies to the Strangers' Gallery might be referred to a Committee. That question had not been included in the Reference to previous Committees. He did not like to express a personal opinion on the merits of any particular proposal; but it seemed to him that it would be acceptable to Members generally if a representative Committee were appointed to consider the whole question. With regard to the hours of labour of the workpeople employed by the Office of Works in the Houses of Parliament, it was not possible to consider them without reference to all classes of workpeople employed by Government. It was his intention to consider the question as a whole.
      MR. BARTLEYsaid, he was a Member of the last two Committees upon whose recommendations certain changes had been made. When the appointment of another Committee was proposed he would suggest "Let there be a discussion, so that it might be known what it was desired that the Committee should consider." On the last Committee the question arose whether the wording of the Reference would allow the Committee to consider the admission of ladies to the Strangers' Gallery, and it was decided that it would not. A discussion would now be the best means of elucidating the points to be considered by the Committee. As to the expenditure for oil, each succeeding First Commissioner had his attention drawn to it and gave the same answer—that the matter should be looked into. He did not know what troubled waters were calmed by the oil provided, or what light was thrown upon their proceedings by this expenditure of £1,300.
      MR. HANBURYthought the First Commissioner was under some misapprehension in treating the question of eight hours a day for those employed about the Houses of Parliament as part of the larger general eight hours question, because he understood they were not Government servants at all. They were in the hands of that mysterious Commission mentioned the other day, whose existence was unknown to the Members of it. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman could not get out of an answer on the general plea he bad given, as they were not Government officials, and the House was entitled to some explanation from the right hon. Gentleman upon this particular Vote—how the servants about the Houses of Parliament would be dealt with in this particular matter.
      MR. H. GLADSTONEsaid, that the persons be referred to were employed directly by the Office of Works.
      SIR J. GOLDSMIDsaid, the question of the accommodation for Members was not left in a satisfactory position. If a Committee was to be moved for, it ought to be moved for by the Minister responsible for the arrangements. He appealed to the right hon. Gentleman to show a little more backbone in the matter; and if there were to be a Committee appointed, to move for it himself rather than leave the responsibility to any individual Member. He made that suggestion in a friendly spirit, and trusted the right hon. Gentleman would accept it.
      MR. H. GLADSTONEsaid, the only desire of the Government was to meet the general convenience of Members. He should be ready to put down a Motion for a Committee on the understanding that the Government were not prepared to make any promise as to giving time for a discussion.
      SIR J. GOLDSMIDdid not think that the few minutes that might be devoted to the discussion of the terms of the Resolution would be a serious loss of time to the Government.
      MR. BANBURYsaid, that last Session he had so many applications from his constituents for admission to the House that at one time he had 100 names on his list. If ladies also were to be admitted to the Galleries he would have nothing else to do but keep a list of applicants.
      MR. HERBERTregretted that of the several demands made upon the Government by the Refreshment Committee only one was provided for. All the alterations and improvements which had been suggested were postponed; and this was particularly disappointing to Members as regarded the suggested communication between the dining-room and the kitchen, for by that alteration alone could any real improvement in the arrangements be effected.
      SIR R. TEMPLEsaid, that no Public Body, whether County Council, local, or otherwise, would be so slow in moving. It had always taken years and years before anything was done, and he felt sure unless some effort were made, these matters would again take four or five years in carrying out.
      Vote agreed to.
      4. Motion made, and Question proposed,
      "That a sum, not exceeding £31,200, 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 1895, for the Extension of the Admiralty Buildings."
      MR. STUART-WORTLEYasked how it came about that the original Estimate of £195,000 bad been exceeded by £100,000?
      MR. GIBSON BOWLESthought that the new buildings promised to be a very handsome pile, but it was disappointing that their completion should be so long delayed. Until they were completed the much-needed thoroughfare between the Mall and Charing Cross could not be made for the enormous traffic between the lower part of Regent Street and the Strand.
      THE DEPUTY CHAIRMANpointed out to the hon. Member that that was not the question before the House.
      MR. GIBSON BOWLESexplained that the failure to open a thoroughfare arose from the delay in carrying out the Admiralty buildings, and he pressed for accelerated speed that the traffic might be relieved. In that respect the delay in completing the buildings was very serious, and he would be glad of an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman in the matter.
      MR. H. GLADSTONEsaid, that the increased cost of the buildings had been

      985
      due partly to a considerable rise in wages and in the cost of material, but more particularly to the necessity for laying the foundations deeper than had been at first anticipated. The buildings were by far the best Government Offices which had yet been built. As to the opening from the Mull to Charing Cross, that could not be made until the present block was completed. The question would then he considered. He could not enter into the matter more fully now, because a large expense was entailed, and it depended upon financial considerations as to how quickly the work could be pushed forward in future years.
      MR. HERBERTsaid, he had noticed on the east side of the building an extraordinary cupola, which in two days had disappeared again. Might he ask for an assurance that it would not be adopted as a permanent portion of the structure? He noticed that there was a, sum of £5,000 down in respect of Block I for the removal of the staff of the Admiralty. Did the right hon. Gentleman contemplate the removal of any portion of the staff' into the new building during the present year?
      MR. H. GLADSTONEsaid, he hoped that might be done. With regard to the cupola, he was bound to say that the first inquiry he made upon entering the Office of Works was with regard to the structure to which the hon. Gentleman opposite had alluded. The architect came to the conclusion that the base of the cupola was too heavy, the finial too high, and that the curves were wrong. The alteration was being carried out now.
      MR. HERBERT: Will there be another experimental exhibition of the cupola?
      MR. H. GLADSTONE: I do not know that it will be necessary, after the experience from the section that was put up.
      MR. A. C. MORTONsaid, he did not pretend to lay the responsibility upon his right hon. Friend, who was now First Commissioner of Works, but it appeared to him that there was great delay with regard to these buildings. It might be thought that they were saving money; but they were not doing that, and instead were losing money, because of the rent they had to pay for the wretched old rooms in which much of their business had now to be transacted. He hoped
      986
      the Government would push on these works as fast as they could, and he believed they could do so without loss to the Public Purse. With regard to the foundations and extra basement, it seemed to him very extraordinary that the cost should amount to £110,000, or more than 50 per cent. of the original Estimate. He should like to have some details as to what was being done with the money. He had said that the First Commissioner was not responsible for the matters he had mentioned, but he was, at all events, responsible now for carrying on the work as fast as possible.
      MR. PLUNKETsaid, that last year when they were discussing this question the then First Commissioner of Works held out a rather gloomy prospect as to the time when this Admiralty building would be completed. He said it would take two years from that time to finish Block I and seven years to finish Block 2.
      MR. SHAW - LEFEVRE: What I said was that it would take two years before the second block was commenced.
      MR. PLUNKETsaid, he did not wish to insist upon his recollection as against that of the right hon. Gentleman. He was glad to see from the preliminary statement affixed to the Estimates that it was hoped the first block would be finished at the end of the summer or at the beginning of autumn. If that were so, it would be very satisfactory if some hope could he held out that the second prediction of the First Commissioner of Works would not turn out so badly as he feared. It seemed an extraordinary thing that it should take seven years to complete this block.
      MR. SHAW-LEFEVRE: What I said was that seven years would elapse before the time of the completion of the whole building.
      MR. PLUNKETsaid, as he understood, the first block was to be completely finished and ready for use by the autumn of the present year, and that a sufficient amount of money had been taken for completing the furnishing of the building as well as for the building itself. He did not know whether the First Commissioner of Works could hold out some better prospect as to the completion of Block No. 2. He would venture to ask him when the second block would be finished?
      SIR A. ROLLITsaid, he did not think they ought to miss so important a point as that raised by the hon. Member for Peterborough without some explanation from the Government. A difference of 50 per cent. upon an Estimate was almost unheard of, and would not be tolerated by any private individual. There were two grounds in respect of which he saw reasons for the increase—wages were higher, and the additional storey might account for another portion of it. But the cost of material had not increased. In fact, it ought to be less, and he must say that with the two exceptions he could not see any ground for so large an increase. If it were a matter for their own private expenditure the architect would be seriously taken to task for such an outrageous increase over the Estimate. The difficulty as to the foundations was one which ought to have been discovered before by means of borings.
      MR. LABOUCHERE: Is not the increase due to the fact that although this is supposed to be a brick building there is a vast amount of stone put into it?
      MR. SHAW-LEFEVREsaid, there was no doubt that the building had cost a great deal more than was estimated; but he was not responsible for that. He merely carried on the contract which was entered into by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, and he himself was anxious that the work should be completed within as short a time as possible. The delay which had taken place had its origin in the mode in which the work was carried out from the beginning—by the erection of the building in two blocks instead of as a whole. It was the late Government that determined that it should be erected in two blocks. The first block would be completed at the end of this year—that was to say, at the end of the two years that he anticipated when he spoke last year. The second block would then be commenced, and, judging from the progress made with the first block, the second block would be completed at the end of four years from the beginning, which would make 12 years in all from the commencement of the scheme. That was not altogether a satisfactory state of things, but, as he had said, it arose from the decision of the late Government to erect the build-
      988
      ing in two blocks instead of one and from the unforeseen difficulties with regard to the foundations. The building extended 35 feet more into the Park than was originally intended, and instead of adhering to the original design it was decided to transfer the Admiralty staff into the first block, and for that reason the character and size of the rooms had been altered. That was the best explanation he could give of the various causes of the increase.
      MR. BARTLEYsaid, he thought the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman opened up a matter of grave consideration. He had told them that the character of the rooms in the building had been completely altered. Those who remembered the discussion upon this building in 1887 knew what took place. The building was erected in accordance with the recommendation of a Committee which sat in that year. Great trouble was taken by the Committee upon the point of the construction of the rooms, and they thought it desirable that instead of everybody having a small room to him self the work should be done in larger rooms, so as to provide for greater economy and better supervision. Now it appeared, as the explanation of the increased cost of the works, that this careful decision of the House of Commons had been reversed by the Government, and that they had gone back to the old system of small rooms, which was condemned by the Committee. This was a question of principle, and far more important than that of cost, which, as a fact, had not been satisfactorily explained at all. The increase of 50 per cent. had not been accounted for, unless it was said that it was owing to the alteration of the rule laid down by the House of Commons —to resort to the old system of small rooms. That seemed to be the only excuse for this 50 per cent. increase—that the Government had upset the deliberate decision of Parliament. He had been in the Civil Service for many years, and he knew it was generally acknowledged that in the interests of the Public Service it was better that the officers should occupy large rooms. The House of Commons had given the Government no authority to act in this way, and they were entitled to know why the change had been made. The plans of the building were exhibited, and he

      989
      asked a question as to whether this arrangement was being carried out, and Mr. Smith and the Chairman of the Committee distinctly stated that the recommendations of the Committee had been adopted. He thought that the late First Commissioner ought to tell them upon what authority the Government changed the plans of the building as they were decided by the Committee.
      MR. PLUNKETsaid, the time referred to by the right hon. Gentleman just now was the time when he was at the Office of Works. It was an entire misapprehension, which he did not think was intended, to assume that the recommendations of the Committee had been departed from in this matter. There would be in the building large rooms as recommended by the Committee, and it was quite a mistake to suppose that that principle had been abandoned. The only changes which had been made, and which would cause but a very slight difference in the number of large rooms available for the use of the clerks, were made upon the earnest representation of I the Admiralty, with whom they were in communication at that time. His noble Friend who was then First Lord consulted his staff, and it was upon the urgent advice of the authorities at the Admiralty that the changes were made; but the number of large rooms available for the purposes of the clerks had not been substantially reduced at all. There certainly was no intention to depart from the recommendation of the Committee, and, so far as be knew, the recommendation had not been departed from. He believed that one or two rooms had been changed in allocation, but there was no change of small rooms for large rooms. He did not want in the least degree to shelter himself behind the Report of the Committee, but he did say that they tried to carry out the Report of the Committee as far as possible to the letter, and that any departures made as to the distribution of the rooms in the new building were made under the express advice of the authorities of the Admiralty. He was glad to hear from the right hon. Gentleman that they might hope that within a period of four years this building would be completed, and not only that, but he assumed that they would have the advantage of the way being opened up from the Park into Charing Cross, which
      990
      would undoubtedly he a great convenience and do much to facilitate traffic.
      MR. A. C. MORTONsaid, he had no doubt the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman was all right, except that he said the alterations were made by the Admiralty themselves.
      MR. PLUNKET: I said upon the advice of the Admiralty.
      MR. A. C. MORTONsaid, of course these were the very people who would want to alter the large rooms into small rooms. It was these officials against whom the Committee was lighting in order to get these large rooms for the bettor carrying on of the work of the public. He did not say that the Commissioner of Works was responsible, but this was a matter which was not to be looked over very lightly. The Government had said that the building would be erected for a certain sum, and then it turned out that there was an increase of £110,000, or 50 per cent. upon the Estimate. He had no doubt they would hereafter have other increases, perhaps to the extent of £40,000 or £50,000. All Governments ought to get proper estimates, and let the House know what was going to be the cost. He hoped the present Commissioner of Works would get this building completed as soon as possible.
      MR. HANBURYsaid, it was difficult to arrive at the facts in this case. The reason given by the late Commissioner of Works for some portion of this increased expenditure was that the plans had been altered, and that there were a good many small, instead of large, rooms. No sooner was that statement made than up jumped the previous Commissioner of Works and said that there was not this number of small rooms in the building. It was important that they should know the facts in this matter. It was not only that the House had been deceived, but the Committee had been deceived also. The Committee went very thoroughly into the question, and witnesses were called who said that not only in the interests of economy, but of good management, the clerks should cease to sit in the small rooms, and it was arranged that there should be large rooms in the new building. He contended that they were throwing away all the benefits that

      991
      they had expected to get from the new Admiralty Buildings if the clerks were going to be placed in a series of small rooms. He agreed with the hon. Member for Peterborough that the Admiralty officials were the last people who should be consulted upon this matter. They had got into a groove with regard to a good many things, but to the best of his recollection there was not one witness who came before the Committee that did not impress upon them the desirability of enlarging these rooms. While one evil was being remedied another of a similar character was being perpetrated, and the result would be that the annual cost of the Admiralty Office would be as great in the future as it had been in the past. As there was a difference of opinion between the two ex-First Commissioners as to the course that had been taken, he should like to know what were the facts of the case. Was one right hon. Gentleman right when he said there was a system of large rooms in the Admiralty, or was the other right hon. Gentleman right, when he said there were a series of small rooms?
      MR. SHAW-LEFEVRE: I should be very sorry to be in conflict with my right hon. Friend, but what I understand is this. According to the plan of 1887 the principal officers were to be in the old building. The Admiralty Office, however, made a requisition that they should be allowed to remove their principal officers to the new building. Those officers do not want large rooms. The new building, as I understand, was to be laid out wholly in large rooms. The removal of the principal staff necessitates the provision of small rooms, which are of a more expensive character, for their accommodation No doubt the old Admiralty will be remodelled in parts and larger rooms will then be provided. The principle of having large rooms for large bodies of clerks will, no doubt, be carried out.
      MR. BARTLEYsaid, he understood, then, the cause of the extra expense was that the new building, which was to have been made in large rooms, had been made in small rooms for the admirals, secretaries, and people of that kind, and, further, that another sum was going to be spent in making large rooms in the old Admiralty for the clerks. It was extraordinary that after Parliament had sanctioned the expenditure of
      992
      £195,000 the Government should, without authority, have altered the plans and thereby incurred additional expenditure, in order to provide certain officials, he supposed, with better rooms than they had at present. He said that no Government had any right to alter the building, at a large cost, without consulting Parliament. He moved the reduction of the Vote by £1,000, in order that Members might have an opportunity of considering the question, and of obtaining an undertaking that the original plans and the alterations would be exhibited in the tea-room. It was quite clear that the late Commissioner had had a great deal to do with the alterations.
      Motion made, and Question proposed, "That £30,200 be granted for the said Service."—(Mr. Bartley.)
      DR. CLARK (Caithness)said, he did not think the proposed reduction would be of any value. As a matter of fact, it was the ex-First Commissioner on the other side of the House (Mr. Plunket) who made the changes, and they had been actually carried out. He supposed that the only tiling that could now be done was to sue the right hon. Gentleman and the late Government for spending the additional money.
      MR. PLUNKET: As far as I am concerned, I have no objection whatever to the suggestion of my hon. Friend, that an opportunity should be given of showing exactly what alterations have been made. I venture to say that the result will be to show that the alterations are very small indeed. The idea that the system of large rooms has been sacrificed is an entire mistake, and the amount of money actually expended on the alterations forms a very small part of the increased expenditure. It will be found, I believe, to be something less than a tenth part of the whole additional expense.
      MR. H. GLADSTONE: £12,000.
      MR. PLUNKET: Yes; £12,000 was the whole expense which was incurred by these alterations, and the sacrifice of the principle of large rooms can hardly be said to exist at all. No doubt some of the rooms in the new building have been allocated in a different way from what was originally intended when the plans were made, but any changes

      993
      that were made during the time that I had any knowledge of the Office of Works were made at the instance and by the advice of the officers of the Admiralty. I have no reason to think that they sacrificed to their personal convenience the whole of the Service, and I believe that the more this matter is inquired into the more it will be found that there is really no substantial ground for the grave view that has been stated by some Members of the Committee. I do not in the least wish to shelter myself from responsibility. I shall be very glad if the matter is inquired into, as I consider that a totally different complexion will then be put upon it.
      MR. H. GLADSTONE: I shall be very glad to have the plans showing precisely the difference between the original plan and the alterations that have been made placed in the tea-room. As the money has been already spent on the building, I hope the hon. Gentleman will not press the reduction.
      MR. BARTLEYsaid, it would quite satisfy him if the plans were produced.
      MR. A. C. MORTONasked whether the right hon. Gentleman would also issue a statement showing how the excess sum was made up?
      MR. H. GLADSTONE: Yes, I will do that.
      Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
      Original Question put, and agreed to.
      5. Motion made, and Question proposed,
      "That a sum, not exceeding £59,278, 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:51st day of March 1895, for Expenditure in respect of Miscellaneous Legal Buildings— viz., County Courts. Metropolitan Police Courts, and Sheriff Court Houses, Scotland."
      MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he saw that a large sum of money was included in the Vote for the metropolitan Police Court, Buildings. He had frequently protested against such expenditure out of Imperial funds on the plain and simple ground that outside London each town paid for its own police courts, whereas Loudon did not. He believed he almost carried an Amendment on the subject at one time, and he had certainly thought that some alteration should have been made.
      SIR J. T. HIBBERT: I am not surprised at my hon. Friend bringing this subject forward again. He brought it forward last Session, and in the discussion that took place upon it my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir W. Harcourt) promised to take steps to transfer these courts to some Local Authority. Within a, very short period after the discussion in this House we communicated with the London County Council, and proposed that they should take over the police courts. The matter is a very complicated one, and we have been in communication with them ever since. We have had three or four interviews with representatives of the County Council and only about a fortnight ago we had our last interview. We are still in treaty with the County Council for the purpose of getting them to take the courts over. They do not refuse to take them over, hut they, of course, would like to have a, quid pro quo. It is very natural that when they are asked to take over an expenditure of this kind they should desire to have something in return. I was hopeful that before the Vote came on this Session the buildings would be transferred. I am sorry to say that that has not yet been done. I think there is every prospect of making an arrangement, and if my hon. Friend will only give us a little more time I hope to be able to succeed in carrying out the object he has in view. I entirely sympathise with that view myself, and have always done so since I have been in the House.
      MR. STUART-WORTLEY: The announcement which has just been made by the right hon. Gentleman is a very serious one. Not only is the matter very complicated, but it will require legislation to effect this transfer. Those who have listened to previous discussions on this subject will remember that it has always been mentioned and never disputed that if you are to effect this transfer of charge from the Imperial Exchequer to the London County Council, or in some other form to the shoulders of the London ratepayers, there will inevitably be put forward claims for a set-off in respect of burdens which the London ratepayer at present pays, and which it is arguable that ratepayers in similar communities in other parts of the country do not have to hear —in other words, you will have in some

      995
      way to revise the arrangement of 1888, under which the London County Council area was created, and under which the Exchequer contributions were made. Therefore, it comes to this: that for the sake of this purely theoretical re-arrangement of burdens under which if anything the Exchequer will be a loser rather than a gainer, for the sake of making the arrangement respecting these police courts square with what I may call the copybook theories of Radical legislators, the Government are burdening themselves with further legislation in spite of the fact that they have more already on their hands than they can hope to get through.
      MR. POWELL WILLIAMSsaid, he did not concur in the argument used by the hon. Member who had just sat down. He (Mr. Powell Williams) did not see why the taxpayers of Sheffield should contribute anything whatever towards the cost of the police court at Wandsworth. He did not understand on what ground the London County Council demanded a quid pro quo for the taking over of these charges. He should have thought it was the other way about. It seemed to him that the ratepayers of Loudon for a long series of years had been receiving in regard to their local legal administration assistance to which they were not entitled and which no county or borough in the country received. Under these circumstances, he should have thought that the Government might have demanded from the London County Council assistance in the other direction.
      MR. STUART-WORTLEY: I wish to point out that I did not say that the claims to sets-off would be in all cases just, but that they would be arguable. What I meant was, that in regard to such financial re-adjustments you had better "let sleeping dogs lie."
      MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, the hon. Gentleman seemed to be under the impression that, although the demand of the London County Council would be unjust, if it was arguable it ought not to be contested, because otherwise money might be lost over it in a Court of Law. On that (the Ministerial) side of the House Members were in favour of action, not because it was not arguable, but because it was just. He thought they were suffi-
      996
      ciently powerful to deal with the London Members, and to let them look after their own pickpockets and their own gaol-birds. It was 25 years ago that he first called attention to this matter, and he had gone on preaching in the desert ever since. He did hope the Government would bring in some sort of legislation on the subject. Let there be a proper adjustment by all means, but let the question not be postponed because they were to "let sleeping dogs lie." Who were the "sleeping dogs"? He saw the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Burns) opposite, and he was sure the hon. Member would not suggest that anything unfair had been done in asking that London should pay for its own police courts.
      MR. BARTLEYsaid, that as a Metropolitan Member, he had always taken the view that London ought to look after her own police courts. He could not, however, see the logic of the present position. If London ought to pay for the police courts, surely the County Council ought not to demand something to compensate them for doing so. If they were to be compensated, things might just as well go on as at present. If the London people were going to be so wonderfully virtuous, let them be virtuous for once, but do not let them say they would be virtuous on condition that they would be paid for it. Of course, they all knew what was at the bottom of this. The County Council wanted to got possession of the police. They would be a long time in getting that, and the Government ought to put their foot down and say so. The County Council were trying to use this question as a lever in order to get possession of the police, which no Municipal Authorities in any capital city in the world had yet obtained.
      SIR J. T. HIBBERT: I think my hon. Friend is very unfair and unjust to the London County Council. They made no proposal to the Government in respect of this matter. The Government made a proposal to them, and I have every confidence that the County Council will treat the matter in a fair spirit.
      MR. BARTLEY: But I think it was the right hon. Gentleman himself who said that they wanted a quid pro quo.
      SIR J. T. HIBBERT: Yes, I know that I said so, but that is no reason why we should give it. I have every confidence in the London County Council dealing with this matter in a fair way, and if it comes to an arrangement with the County Council hon. Members will have every opportunity of expressing an opinion when the Bill is brought forward. The County Council made no proposal to us; it was we who made a proposal to them.
      MR. A. C. MORTONsaid, he objected to the people of Peterborough having to pay for the London Police Courts. He did not understand why there should be a quid pro quo, and he trusted that the London County Council would give way to the Government and pay for their own police.
      SIR A. ROLLITsaid, he did not think the London Members would be unreasonable in a ease of this kind. In the case of the local administration of justice the principle that was applied to every other borough applied to London. So far from a quid pro quo being necessary, it seemed to him that if the Loudon ratepayers ought to pay for the police courts they ought to pay for the Magistrates.
      MR. POWELL WILLIAMSwished to know from the right hon. Gentleman whether in the negotiations with the Loudon County Council he had raised the question of the payment of the Magistrates in London? In all cases in the boroughs of England the Stipendiary Magistrates were paid out of the borough funds, and he thought that the same system should prevail in England.
      MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid, he considered that the questions involved were far too large and important, for the discussion to be confined to the maintenance of the Metropolitan Police Courts merely.
      MR. POWELL WILLIAMScalled the attention of Mr. Deputy Speaker to the fact that it was now after 12 o'clock.
      MR. DEPUTY SPEAKERsaid, the Twelve o'Clock Rule had been suspended.
      MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid, he only wished to point out that the question was one which could not be considered wholly as one of the maintenance of the Police Courts.
      SIR J. T. HIBBERTsaid, he agreed that it was a much larger question than that involved in the maintenance of the police courts. But the Government had thought it advisable to take one step at a time, and had not dealt with the question of the payment of Magistrates or the taking over of the staff. If they could see their way to carrying that one step out it would clear the ground for taking further action at some future time.
      MR. HANBURYwished to point out the peculiar position in which the Committee wore placed. This was a large subject, and it was impossible that it could be fully threshed out to-night. He appealed to the right hon. Gentleman to say whether there was not an understanding that this discussion should cease at 12 o'clock. The Committee could very well discuss the question further on, on the Vote for Magistrates salaries. There had not been a single Division since the Deputy Speaker left the Chair, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not press for any Vote after this tonight.
      SIR J. T. HIBBERTsaid, he desired to report Progress after this Vote had been taken.
      Question put, and agreed to.
      Resolutions to be reported To-morrow; Committee to sit again To-morrow.

    LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (HOUSING OF WORKING CLASSES) BILL.—(No. 3.)
    Read a second time, and committed.
    LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL.—(No. 1.)
    Read a second time, and committed.
    LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.—(No. 2.)
    Read a second time, and committed.

  BEHRING SEA AWARD BILL.
  On Motion of the Attorney General, Bill to provide for carrying into effect the Award of the Tribunal of Arbitration constituted under a Treaty between Her Majesty the Queen and the United States of America, ordered to be brought in by The Attorney General, Sir Edward Grey, and Mr. Sydney Buxton.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 123.]

  MERCHANDISE MARKS (FILES) BILE.
  On Motion of Mr. Stuart-Wortley, Bill to amend the Merchandise Marks Acts, 1887 and 1891, in respect of the marking of Files, ordered to be brought in by Mr, Stuart-Wortley, Mr. Coleridge, Sir Ellis Ashmead-Bartlett, and Colonel Howard Vincent.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 126.]

  HOP SUBSTITUTES BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Brookfield, Bill to regulate and restrict the use of Hop Substitutes, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Brookfield, Mr. Channing, Sir Edmund Lechmere, Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen, Mr. Rankin, Colonel Warde, Mr. Griffith-Boscawen, and Mr. Godson.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 127.]

  NAVY (VICTUALLING YARD MANUFACTURING ACCOUNTS, 1892–3).
  Annual Accounts presented,—of the Cost of Manufacturing, Provisions, Victualling Stores, &c., at the Home Victualling Yards for 1892–3, with the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General thereon [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  NATIONAL DEBT (SAVINGS BANKS).
  Copy presented,—of Balance Sheet setting forth the Assets and Liabilities of the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt, in respect of Trustee Savings Banks on 20th November, 1893 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  SUPERANNUATION ACT, 1884.
  Copy presented,—of Treasury Minute, dated 14th March, 1894, declaring that Henry Highman, Inspector of Telegraph Messengers, Post Office, was appointed without a Civil Service Certificate through inadvertence on the part of the Head of his Department [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  GOVERNMENT INSURANCES AND ANNUITIES.
  Accounts presented,—of moneys received and disposed of, and of contracts made, for the grant of Deferred Life Annuities, and for Payments on death, during 1893 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  ARMY (PENSIONS OF SOLDIERS.)
  Copy presented,—of Further Regulations relative to the Pensions of Soldiers [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES.)
  Copies presented.—of Diplomatic and Consular Reports on Trade and Finance, Nos. 1331 (Greece), 1332 (France), and 1333 (Portugal) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  TRADE REPORTS (MISCELLANEOUS SERIES).
  Copy presented,—of Reports on Subjects of General and Commercial Interest, No. 326 (United States) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES.)
  Copy presented,—of Statement showing the Expenditure from the Grant for Public Education in England and Wales in the year 1893 upon Annual Grants to Elementary Schools, also the number of Elementary Schools on 31st August, 1893, &c. [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION (EVENING SCHOOLS) CODE, 1894.
  Copy presented,—of Code of Regulations for Evening Continuation Schools, with Explanatory Memorandum, Schedule, and Appendices [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  ENDOWED SCHOOLS ACT, 1869, AND AMENDING ACTS, AND WELSH INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION ACT, 1889.
  Copy presented,—of Scheme for the Management of the Funds applicable to the Intermediate and Technical Education of the inhabitants of the county of Flint in the matter of Samuel Smith's Gift, of the Hawarden Free Grammar School, &c, of the Holywell Grammar School, and of the St. Asaph Grammar School, &c. [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 44.]

  ENDOWED SCHOOLS ACT, 1869, AND AMENDING ACTS, AND WELSH INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION ACT, 1889.
  Copy presented,—of Scheme for the Management of the Funds applicable to the Intermediate and Technical Education of the inhabitants of the county of Anglesey in the matter of the Free Grammar School and Almshouse founded by David Hughes in the parish of Beaumaris [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 45.]
  House adjourned at ten minutes after Twelve o'clock.