Commons Sitting of 14 June 1895

Preamble
The House met at Three of the clock.
PRIVATE BUSINESS.

  GLASGOW CORPORATION AND POLICE BILL.
  On the Order for the further consideration of this Bill, as amended,
  *SIR C. CAMERON*SIR C. CAMERON (Glasgow, College) Moved, in Clause 24, to insert the words "subject to the approval of the Secretary for Scotland."
  MR. J. CALDWELLsaid, that although the proposed Amendment removed much of his objections to the clause, he wished to make a few observations upon it. At the present moment neither the Corporation of Glasgow nor any Corporation in Scotland or England had any jurisdiction whatever with regard to the Magistrates' Courts or in any way to interfere with magistrates in the exercise of their jurisdiction. While this clause gave power to the Corporation over stipendiary magistrates, it did not give them power over citizen magistrates. They had no control over the latter. For the first time the clause introduced a novelty in legislation in giving power to popularly-elected bodies to interfere with magistrates. There was no such power in England. In Manchester and in the borough of Salford, where there were stipendiary magistrates, the justices by law had the whole responsibility for the administration of justice in the courts, and were entitled to make the necessary arrangements for holding those courts, and to alter the courts not only of the stipendiary justices but of the other justices. Then, again, by the Stafford-shire Potteries Stipendiary Magistrate Act, 1871, power was given to the magistrate subject to the approval of commissioners to make the necessary arrangements for holding his court; and
  1146
  there was a proviso in that Act that, in the event of difference, the matter should be referred to one of Her Majesty's principal Secretaries of State. The most recent Act of all was the Merthyr Tydfil Stipendiary Act, 1894. That was a case of a stipendiary magistrate presiding over a very large area, and the Act provided that he should attend his court on each day fixed by the Standing Joint Committee, subject to the approval of one of Her Majesty's principal Secretaries of State, with a proviso that he should not be required to attend more than four days in each week. Then there was on instance in England, anymore than in Scotland, of any local body having the right to interfere in the management of the magistrates' courts. He thought, therefore, that in an important matter of this kind, cropping up for the first time in legislation, that the attention of the House should be called to the subject. If a precedent were set in this case, it might hereafter be sought to extend the principle to Ireland, and no one could tell what the consequence might be of introducing a precedent of this kind. The intervention of the Secretary for Scotland was, in his opinion, absolutely essential, and he thought that the Amendment before the House would remove a great deal of the mischief.
  MR. JAMES LOWTHERsaid, he did not object to the adoption of the course that had been suggested; but still no reason had been assigned why the promoters of this Bill should not have adopted in this case, with the alteration of a word or two, the provisions of the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act. The Lord Advocate had been at some pains to show that appointments of stipendiary magistrates had been previously dealt within Private Bills; but that was not the point to be met. What he himself urged was that in all cases in which Private Bills had dealt with matters of this kind the precedents already established by public legislation had been adhered to. The Lord Advocate had given no reason why the Corporation of Glasgow alone in the United Kingdom should have the powers conferred upon them to enable them to drive an unfortunate magistrate from pillar to post at their discretion—a power not conferred upon

  1147
  any other corporation in the country. It was, however, understood that the Corporation of Glasgow had a grudge against a stipendiary magistrate. [An HON. MEMBER: "No; he's dead."] Well, they were afraid of a recurrence of a condition of things in which they would find a stipendiary magistrate not amenable to their wishes; and, therefore, they wished to provide that a stipendiary should be at their beck and call. As far as he could see, no provision was made in the Bill for giving the stipendiary a pension; and, therefore, he was justified in asking the Lord Advocate whether this was an intentional omission. The Borough Police Act said that stipendiary magistrates should be entitled to such retiring allowances, having regard to their salaries, as were provided in the case of sheriff-substitutes. If the omission in this case were designed, it was one to which attention ought to be drawn. He could not see any object to be served by reducing the magistrate to a position of dependence upon the caprice of the corporation. What was done in Glasgow to-day might be applied to London to-morrow; and that a magistrate should be removable from Bow Street to the Thames Police Court would be a most dangerous power to confer on a representative body.
  *THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR, Clackmannan and Kinross)reminded the right hon. Gentleman that this was not a Government Bill, and he could not say for what reason the Corporation of Glasgow made no provision for a pension for the stipendiary magistrate; but it was entirely for them to consider whether they should do so or not. There were two ways in which you could pay a man. You could either make his salary sufficient to enable him to provide for himself in old age by saving, or you could pay him a smaller salary and give him a pension, which in that case was only deferred pay. He was not aware of any obligation upon public authorities making such appointments to remunerate partly by present payment and partly by postponed payments. It was a matter for arrangement and bargain between them and the persons accepting the appointment whether there should be a smaller salary and a pension, or a larger salary without one.
  MR. JAMES LOWTHER: Is there any precedent for not providing a pension for a stipendiary magistrate?
  *MR. SPEAKER: I must point out that there is nothing about pensions in this Amendment.
  MR. J. H. DALZIELsaid, he presumed the hon. Baronet the Member for the College Division was moving the Amendments on behalf of the promoters of the Bill, and therefore he offered no objection to them, although he should be content to pass the Bill without them, and he was not sure whether the House would not be prepared to support the Bill as it stood; but he supposed it was a case in which compromise was advisable. Efforts had been made to induce the House to believe that the Corporation of Glasgow were going to interfere with the due discharge of the duties of the stipendiary magistrate; but those efforts had not succeeded. All that was asked was that the Corporation should have power to determine the duties the stipendiary magistrate was to discharge under this Bill. All that the Bill would do would be to give the corporation power to ask the stipendiary magistrate to go from one Court where there was no business to another Court where there were cases waiting to be heard. It was a baseless suggestion that in the carrying out of these arrangements there would be any interference with the proper discharge of magisterial duties.
  MR. H. SMITHwished to repudiate the idea that in bringing this matter before the House there was any desire to attack the Corporation of Glasgow. Nothing could be further from his own wish, knowing as he did members of the corporation, and having received from them great kindness and courtesy for many years. He should have been the last man to support his hon. Friends if he thought that they meant in any way to reflect upon the integrity and probity of the magistrates of Glasgow or the members of the corporation. All that they endeavoured to do by the Amendment was to prevent the Corporation of Glasgow, as they would prevent any corporation or public body, from being endowed by Parliament with powers that were certainly liable to be abused, however good and

  1149
  worthy the corporation and its members might be. They could not answer for the corporation of the future; and, however much they might esteem the present, they ought not to confer upon them powers that were liable to abuse.
  MR. ALEXANDER CROSSwished to point out, in strong and precise terms, that they were not dealing merely with the question whether there should be power to ask the stipendiary magistrate to go from one Court to another, but they were dealing with the whole question of the regulation of the duties of the stipendiary magistrate. It was that which raised the question whether it was wise to accept the proposals made and to pass them into law. He dissented from the views expressed by the Member for Mid Lanark, and if the House had gone to a Division he should have voted against them. It was only right and proper that the Corporation of Glasgow should be entrusted with control over all their paid officials, and have discretionary power as to their duties. He hoped the Amendment that had been moved would be accepted by the House. He only intended to express his regret that his hon. Friend should have imagined that there dwelt in the minds of the critics of the measure any other sentiment than a general desire to make the administration of the law in Glasgow as efficient as possible.
  The Amendment having been agreed to—
  *SIR C. CAMERON*SIR C. CAMERON moved the insertion of similar words in line 7 of the same Clause. He said the Amendment had the approval of the Corporation of the City of Glasgow. He wished to correct the suggestion of his hon. Colleague that this was proposed in pursuance of an arrangement suggested either by the Member for Mid Lanark or the Member for Thanet. It had been suggested at the last Sitting by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bodmin, and as it had been already privately suggested to himself and the promoters of the Bill as an arrangement that would meet every reasonable objection, he had been authorised, if the proposal were made in the course of the Debate, to accept it. With regard to the question
  1150
  of pension, he had the authority of the Lord Advocate for saying that there was no provision for a pension in the only case in Scotland in which a stipendiary magistrate had been appointed. He was at a loss to understand why the right hon. Gentleman opposite was so intensely interested in the concerns of Glasgow. He was so solicitous about the stipendiary's pension, so resentful of any suggestion to hustle the stipendiary from court to court. He did not know whether the right hon. Gentleman intended to renew his opposition on the Third Reading; if so, he recommended him to learn something about the details of the subject. He had said that the cat had been let out of the bag, and that the Corporation of Glasgow wished to put the screw upon the stipendiary. Why, the late stipendiary died two years ago! He was the master of the Corporation, and not the Corporation master of him. The right hon. Gentleman did not know that there was a School Board at Glasgow, or what were the duties and functions of a Procurator Fiscal, and if the Bill must be opposed on a Third Reading he should really leave his opposition to some one with more local knowledge.
  MR. CALDWELLsupported the Amendment, saying it was not put down in opposition to the Corporation of Glasgow as a Corporation, but n opposition to the principle that any Corporation should possess the powers which would be conferred upon the Glasgow Corporation by this Bill. If the powers proposed were conferred on the Corporation of Glasgow, they would be sought for by other Corporations. The manner in which the Corporation of Glasgow discharged its municipal duties had nothing to do with the question. The clause, as it stood, was quite unnecessary as far as conferring the powers of an ex officio justice of the peace upon the stipendiary were concerned. The clause, as it stood with Amendment, would make the stipendiary magistrate a servant of the Corporation. He did not know a case in which a stipendiary magistrate was at the beck and call of any persons in regard to his official duties. It was quite necessary that the approval of the Secretary for Scotland should be provided for, and it was necessary for the

  1151
  dignity and independence of an important judicial officer.
  MR. JAMES LOWTHERsaid, he only rose in consequence of the remarks of the hon. Baronet the Member for Glasgow. He asked what he himself knew about Glasgow, and why he was so much interested in this subject. He did not wish to pose in any false light. He explained to the House that he had no local knowledge, that he did not represent any interest in Glasgow; but he appealed to the House to adhere to the universal practice by which it had always been actuated—to maintain the independence of the judiciary in any appointment sanctioned by an Act of Parliament. The hon. Baronet had had an opportunity of explaining why this important provision had been conspicuously absent from the Bill. He confessed he was not at all satisfied with the way in which the matter had been arranged. He did not wish to reopen the controversy; but the fact remained in connection with the appointment of a stipendiary at Glasgow that the statutory safeguards which Parliament had inserted in a public Act so recently as 1892 had been disregarded and omitted from the Bill, and a precedent was being set which must be extremely dangerous and most inconvenient when followed in other cases. The Lord Advocate had said he was not the draughtsman of the Bill. But he would remind him that the Chairman of the Select Committee stated the previous day that it was on the assurance of the Lord Advocate, as the head of the Scotch Bar, that the Committee passed the Clause. His responsibility for the Bill was therefore second to no one else's. If he himself found the retiring allowance of the stipendiary had been inequitably adjusted he should move that the Bill be re-committed.
  Amendment agreed to.

  PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
  The following were read 3° and passed:—

  COMMONS REGULATION (BEXHILL) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
  COMMONS REGULATION (HALIFAX) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
  INCLOSURE (CASTOR AND AILSWORTH) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER (NO. 5) BILL.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (HOUSING OF WORKING CLASSES) BILL.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (NO. 6) BILL.
  The following Bills were considered:—
  INCLOSURE (UPTON ST. LEONARDS) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
  PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDER (NO. 3) BILL.
  The following Bills were read 2° and committed:—
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (NO. 13) BILL.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (NO. 15) BILL.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (POOR LAW) BILL.

  CANAL RATES, TOLLS, AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
  Resolved—
  "That the Resolution of the House of the 23rd day of May relative to Canal Rates, Tolls, and Charges Provisional Order Bills, and the Message from the Lords of the 29th day of May signifying their concurrence in the said Resolution, be read. That the following Bills be committed to a Select Committee of five Members, to be nominated by the Committee of Selection, to be joined with a Committee of the Lords:—Canal Rates, Tolls, and Charges Provisional Order [Strabane Canal] Bill. Canal Tolls and Charges Provisional Order [Caledonian and Crinan Canals] Bill. Canal Tolls and Charges Provisional Order [River Ouse (Beds. and Hunts.) &c.] Bill. That all Petitions in favour of or against the Bills or Orders scheduled thereto presented five clear days before the meeting of the Committee be referred to the Committee; that the Petitioners praying to be heard by themselves,, their Counsel, or Agents, be heard in favour of or against the Bills, and Counsel heard in support of the Bills. That a Message be sent to the Lords to acquaint their Lordships that the said Bills have been committed to five Members of this House, to be joined with a Committee of the Lords, and to request that their Lordships will be pleased to appoint an equal number of Lords to be joined with the Members of this House."—(Mr. T. Burt.)

QUESTIONS.

  ENGLISH AND FOREIGN FODDER.
  MAJOR RASCH: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office—(1) whether French wheat straw is being used at Woolwich; and (2) if, as English hay can be delivered at 72s. 0¾d. and straw at 41s. 4d. per ton, he would buy home rather than foreign produce?
  *THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. W. WOODALL, Hanley): There is on information in the War Office as to the source from which the straw is supplied; all that is looked to is the quality of the supply sent in. As to the second paragraph of the hon. and gallant Member's question, I would refer him to the answer given on February 3, 1893, by the right hon. Member for Midlothian to the hon. and gallant member for Central Sheffield.
  COLONEL LOCKWOODsaid, that surely the War Office could ascertain the source of their supplies.
  MR. R. W. HANBURYasked, whether the War Office went upon any definite principle upon these matters. Did they give cœteris paribus any preference to English labour or produce, or did they act upon the rough and ready principle of buying everything in the cheapest market?
  MR. WOODALLsaid, that the War Office thought themselves entitled to obtain for the public service the best possible articles in precisely the same manner as the hon. Member would obtain such articles for his own purposes.
  COLONEL LOCKWOODasked, whether, in the matter of labour, the War Office did not pay a certain rate of wages without inquiring whether they could obtain that labour at a cheaper rate.
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! That does not arise out of the question on the paper.

  SALMON FISHING AT DONAGHADEE, COUNTY DOWN.
  MR. M. M'CARTAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his
  1154
  attention has been called to the complaints made by the fishermen of Donaghadee, County Down, regarding the licence for netting salmon in the sea there; whether he is aware that payment of £3 for the annual licence entitles the holder to fish only on one side of the Donaghadee Lighthouse, and that in order to fish to the north and to the south of the lighthouse two licences costing £6 a year are now required; and whether he will consider the desirability of allowing the one licence to be available within a reasonable distance to the north and south of Donaghadee?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. JOHN MORLEY, Newcastle-upon-Tyne): The Inspectors of Fisheries inform me that no complaint has been made to them by the fishermen referred to regarding the licence for netting salmon in the sea. The line to which reference is made as "on one side of the lighthouse," forms the division between two fishery districts, and under the law, licensed nets cannot be fished outside the district for which they are licensed.

  WORKHOUSE INFIRMARIES IN IRELAND.
  MR. M'CARTAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to a letter which appeared in the Irish papers, headed "Misery in Workhouses," signed by Sir Philip C. Smyly, M.D., chairman of the Irish Medical Association, stating that a circular letter asking for information had been sent to the medical officers of the workhouses and workhouse infirmaries in Ireland; whether he is aware that it is publicly declared that the replies of the medical officers show that in 43 infirmaries the nursing is entirely in the hands of pauper women mostly burdened with children; that these women have to take charge of serious medical and surgical cases, as well as of the lunatic patients; that in 61 infirmaries they have charge of paupers both night and day; that in 65 the sanitary arrangements are of the most disgusting character imaginable; and that in 43 of them there are neither plates, knives nor forks for the poor inmates to eat their food with; and whether, under the circumstances, he will consider the

  1155
  desirability of having a public inquiry into the condition, working, and the general system of workhouses in Ireland?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I have read the letter to which reference is made, and which contains the statements set forth in the question. The Local Government Board inform me that they do not consider that the letter fairly represents the actual condition of workhouses in Ireland. The statement that there are 43 workhouses in which the nursing is entirely in the hands of pauper women is, the Board points out, absolutely without foundation, as there is no workhouse infirmary which is not in charge of a responsible paid officer. There are 641 paid nurses in the 159 unions in Ireland, who have no duties to perform other than the nursing of the sick. Nor do the Board think that in any case patients suffer from want of proper food, and a medical officer is entitled to order any description of food he thinks fit for patients under his care. With regard to sanitation, ventilation, &c., medical officers are bound by the regulations to report any defects in such matters to the guardians, and when they do this it is the Board's invariable practice to support their recommendations. Much has been done in recent years in this direction, and doubtless much still remains to be done. The Local Government Board will welcome the efforts of any organisation working with the same objects, and they only regret that the Irish Medical Association have not seen their way to supply them with specific information upon this subject. The Board, however, have brought under the notice of their inspectors the alleged defects, which will be made the subject of detailed inquiry by them.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELLasked whether the attention of the right hon. Gentleman had been directed to the recent inquiry, under the Local Government Board, into the case of the Athlone Workhouse, where the very worst system of nursing was pursued, and the most serious results had accrued; and whether the right hon. Gentleman would consider the appeal which had been made to him by the hon. Member opposite, and would order some kind of public inquiry, either by Royal Commission or by a Departmental Committee,
  1156
  to investigate these matters independently altogether of the Local Government Board.
  MR. J. MORLEYsaid, that his attention had been drawn to the state of things in the Athlone Workhouse. He had watched the state of things in the Irish workhouses with much care since he had been in Office, and he confessed that in some instances he had found grave reasons for dissatisfaction; but the Local Government Board were constantly drawing the attention of the Boards of Guardians to their duty in this respect, although it was not a very light matter to overrule the Boards of Guardians. He, however, could assure the hon. Gentleman that the matter was engaging his serious attention. The subject called for revision, but what particular form that revision should take he could not say at present.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL, in order that the right hon. Gentleman might not be taken by surprise, he begged to give notice that he should call attention to the subject of workhouse treatment in Ireland on the Vote for the Irish Local Government Board.

  EDISON-SWAN UNITED ELECTRIC LIGHT COMPANY.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Civil Lord of the Admiralty if it is the case that the Edison-Swan United Electric Light Company are executing an Admiralty order for incandescent lamps at their works at Ponders End; whether he is aware that a strike began there a fortnight ago, of which the object is to compel the firm to recognise the standard rate of wages; and that one effect of this strike has been to bring out of work 330 women, in addition to about 80 men and boys concerned in the strike itself; and what steps the Admiralty propose to take to secure action by the company on the Resolution of the House of 13th February 1891, so far as it is embodied in the contract?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Sir UGHTRED KAY-SHUTTLE-WORTH, Lancashire, N.E., Clitheroe): The Edison-Swan Company are supplying incandescent lamps under an Admiralty contract. We have no knowledge

  1157
  as to the strike except through the newspapers and the Electrical Trades Union. The Trades Union have recently complained that the wages paid by the company are contrary to the Resolution of the House; but it was necessary to obtain an explanation (received only yesterday) of their complaint before any communication could be addressed to the company, to whom a letter will now be sent.

  MARRIED WOMEN AS POOR LAW GUARDIANS.
  MR. HENRY COBB: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that in several instances doubts have been raised as to whether a married woman, having on interest in her husband's business, is disqualified from being elected or from sitting and voting as a member of a Board of Guardians under Sub-section (e) of Section 46 of the Local Government Act, 1894, because her husband, either solely or as a member of a firm, has a contract with the Board for the supply of provisions; whether he is aware that in one instance a large firm at Leamington have ceased to contract with the Warwick Board of Guardians for the supply of provisions because the wife of the senior partner, having an interest in the business of the firm, was elected a guardian, and doubts were raised under the subsection as to her right to vote, and that for some time during the existence of a previous contract with the firm she abstained from voting; and whether, as the doubts which have been raised upon the sub-section are calculated to interfere with and restrict trade and to prevent married women from performing their duties as guardians, he will take the opinion of the Law Officers upon the point?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. G. J. SHAW LEFEVRE, Bradford, Central): Section 46 (1) (e) of the Local Government Act provides that a person shall be disqualified for being a member of a Board of Guardians if he is concerned in any bargain or contract entered into with the Board or participates in the profit of any such bargain or contract, or of any work done under the authority
  1158
  of the Board. I am aware that the question has been raised whether the wife of a person who has contracted with the Guardians for the supply of goods does not come within this disqualification. It appears to me that each case must be considered with reference to the particular facts, and that without those facts no general legal opinion would be of much value.

  DESTRUCTION OF INFECTED CLOTHING.
  MR. EDWARD P. O'KELLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland—(1) if he is aware that two boxes of clothing belonging to a servant of the Central Hotel, Dublin, who died a few months ago of smallpox in a Dublin Hospital, were sent by the Central Hotel proprietors to the deceased woman's mother, a resident of the town of Wicklow; and that the Town Commissioners of Wick-low, acting on the advice of Sir Charles Cameron, Dublin, burnt the clothing; and (2) will the Local Government Board call upon the Dublin Sanitary Authority to prosecute the proprietors of the Central Hotel under Subsection (3) of Section 142 of the Public Health (Ireland) Act, 1878, and to provide compensation for the burnt clothing?
  MR. JOHN MORLEY: I am informed that the facts are as stated in the first paragraph. The Local Government Board are of opinion that the Wicklow Town Commissioners into whose district the clothing was sent from an infected area were the persons aggrieved by the action of the hotel proprietors, and any prosecution under the 142nd Section of the Act referred to should be instituted by them and not by the Dublin Sanitary Authorities. If any compensation is to be allowed it should be given by the Wicklow authorities, who directed the destruction of the clothing.

  MADAGASCAR.
  SIR JOHN GORST: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether any information has been received by Her Majesty's Government in reference to an alleged intention on the part of the French Government to recruit

  1159
  natives of Mashonaland to serve against the Hovas in the Madagascar war; and, whether either the High Commissioner of South Africa or Her Majesty's Government possess any legal power to prevent such recruiting if attempted?
  *THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir EDWARD GREY, Northumberland, Berwick): I am informed that the Colonial Office have no information on the subject. But it is understood that the Crown, by either the High Commissioner or the Secretary of State has adequate power to prohibit such recruiting if it were thought necessary or expedient to do so.

  STREET BEGGING.
  MR. T. SNAPE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether he has noticed the sentence passed by the Blackpool Bench of magistrates last week condemning a woman named Mary Ann Kirkham, charged with begging in the street, to 28 days' imprisoment with hard labour for the offence; and, whether he can mitigate this sentence by reducing the term of imprisonment?
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. H. H. ASQUITH, Fife, E.): I have received a report from the Clerk to the Justices, in which it appears that Mary Kirkham has three times before been convicted of disorderly conduct, and sentenced to imprisonment. In these circumstances I do not propose to interfere with her punishment.

  DUTCH MILK.
  MR. GEORGE LAMBERT: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he can state the quantity of milk imported from Holland during the year 1894, and during the year 1895 to date, not being in a condensed form nor sterilised in any way?
  *THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. HERBERT GARDNER, Essex, Saffron Walden): 67,580 gallons of fresh milk and cream were imported from Holland during the year 1894, and 12,210 gallons have been
  1160
  received from the same source in the first five months of the present year. I may add that the value of these imports was £2,835 and £451 respectively, so that competition from this quarter is really of very trifling dimensions.
  COLONEL LOCKWOODasked how much of the milk so imported from Holland was purchased by the Government for the use of Her Majesty's troops?
  *MR. GARDNERsaid, that he was unable to answer the hon. and gallant Gentleman's question.

  RUSSIA AND CHINA.
  SIR ELLIS ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government has received information that Russia and China have made a treaty by which China is to have the Russian guarantee for a Chinese loan of £16,000,000, and China is to give Russia the right to construct the Trans-Siberian railway across Chinese Manchuria, and Russia is to have a port in Chinese territory south-west of Corea?
  *SIR E. GREY: We understand that no arrangement has yet been concluded between Russia and China, but I cannot make any statement as to negotiations which may take place between them.
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTasked whether the hon. Gentleman had reason to believe that the statements in question were true?
  *MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I wish to ask the hon. Gentleman, with reference to the phrase in the question, "a territory south-west of Corea," whether the only territory southwest of Corea is the Yellow Sea?
  *SIR E. GREY: In answer to the hon. Member for Sheffield, I can only say that questions addressed to Her Majesty's Government about negotiations between foreign Powers, are obviously questions which it would not be proper to answer.
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT,who was called upon to "Speak up": I will not press the hon. Gentleman further upon the point. With regard to the subsidiary question, I wish to ask him whether a large portion—[Cries of "Order."]
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order. That question does not arise out of the question upon the Paper.

  TREATY OF BERLIN.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Article 9 of the Treaty of Berlin (signed on the 13th July 1878), by which the six Powers signatory to the Treaty enacted that all the old fortresses of Bulgaria should be razed at the expense of the Principality within one year, or sooner, if possible, and that the local Government should immediately take steps for their demolition, has been carried into execution; whether Article 52 of the same Treaty, which declared that all the fortresses and fortifications existing on the banks of the Danube from the Iron Gates to its mouth, have been carried into execution; whether he can state what fortresses have been razed in Bulgaria and on the banks of the Danube in execution of these Articles of the Treaty; and, whether Her Majesty's Government held themselves to be under the same obligation in regard to these Articles of the Treaty as in regard to other Articles thereof?
  MR. T. W. LEGHasked if the hon. Baronet would also state if Article 59 of the Berlin Treaty relating to Batoum would be carried into execution?
  *SIR E. GREY: I can only answer the question on the Paper. The Article relating to the Bulgarian fortresses is Article 11. Both these and the Roumanian fortresses, to which the Treaty of Berlin referred, if not actually razed, were allowed to fall into decay, and have ceased to exist. Her Majesty's Government recognise the whole of the Treaty, but the extent and degree of the various obligations imposed by it, and the measure in which they are shared by the parties to the Treaty, must be gathered from the words of the Treaty itself.

  PAY OF PROVINCIAL TELEGRAPHISTS.
  MR. C. E. SCHWANN: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he is now prepared to give a final decision to the application made to him six months ago by the deputation of provincial telegraphists for an increase to the rate of pay of the younger telegraphists after five years' service?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. ARNOLD MORLEY, Nottingham, E.): As I have appointed a Committee to
  1162
  received statements from the various classes of the postal service on the subject of their position and prospects, I propose—even if the telegraphists themselves should not raise the question—to ask the Committee to be good enough to consider it in connection with other matters which will, I presume, be brought before them; and I do not think it would be right for me to decide the case pending inquiry by the Committee.

  CHURCH OF SCOTLAND BILL.
  SIR MARK J. STEWART: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if the Government are going to bring in a Bill to disestablish and disendow the Church of Scotland; and, if so, when; or are they going to adopt as their own Bill the Church of Scotland Bill now before the House, and to press it on the attention of the House this Session?
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Sir GEORGE TREVELYAN, Glasgow, Bridgeton): The Government, as has been before this stated in the House, will not have the time to introduce a Bill for the Disestablishment and Disendowment of the Church of Scotland this Session; and they are unable to give facilities for the promotion of any Bill introduced on the subject by a private Member. I may state, however, that the Bill introduced by the hon. Baronet the Member for the College Division of Glasgow has the approval of the Government, and represents their views on the question.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: I should like to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer with reference to Order No. 3, the Light Railways Bill, whether he can afford some reasonable opportunity for the conclusion of the Debate upon that Bill. In explanation, perhaps I may say that the Bill has been brought on two nights in the Session, first at Half-past Eleven, and secondly at a Quarter-past Eleven: I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree that snatch Debates of that kind are hardly fair to those Members who take an interest in the Bill, and are not likely to promote its progress.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT, Derby): I think the right hon. Gentleman's observations are well founded, and I will take care that the Bill shall not be brought on again unless when we are able to afford a reasonable time for its further discussion. I was going to mention to the House that, as I stated previously, it is of great importance that the Seal Fisheries (North Pacific) Bill should be passed into law by both Houses of Parliament at the end of this month. I therefore propose, as I understand that some Gentlemen are desirous to make observations on it, that we should report in Supply to-night at Eleven o'clock so as to allow an hour for the Second Reading of this Bill, and I hope, therefore, that the Bill may be allowed then to proceed without further delay, as it is very urgent.
  MR. T. GIBSON BOWLESasked whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer was adhering to his promise made on the previous day to give a whole day for Supply, and whether it would not be very much better to put the Seal Fisheries Bill down as the First Order of the Day on Monday.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I do not think that that would be reasonable. As a great part of yesterday was devoted to Supply we shall have given two days to Supply this week, and considering the urgency of the public business we want to forward, I think it is reasonable to take an hour tonight, as we propose, from Supply.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHasked what would be the business next week, and on what day Supply would be taken.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the business during next week would be mainly the Welsh Church Bill. He was not able to state then, but he would state on Monday. whether the day for Supply would be Thursday or Friday; there were reasons why it was doubtful which day would be fixed.
  MR. ALPHEUS MORTONasked whether the right hon. Gentleman would arrange to take the Report of the Uganda Vote at an early hour, so that the Members closured on Thursday night might have an opportunity of expressing their views.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EX CHEQUER: I am afraid that the closure, carried all but unanimously last night, would prove to be a very useless operation if it were followed by giving a day, as suggested by the hon. Member.

  ALLEGED INTIMIDATION IN IRELAND.
  MR. W. REDMONDasked, whether it was true that the Irish Government had ordered the prosecution of certain evicted tenants on the Massereene estate, and what was the charge of the Crown?
  MR. J. MORLEYsaid, it was true that proceedings had been directed against certain persons—he did not know whether they were evicted tenants or not, but he dared say they were evicted tenants—on the Massereene estate. The exact and technical nature of the charge he could not at that moment state, but the action for which they were to be brought up was, or was alleged to be, of an intimidatory character.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY.
  Considered in Committee.
  Mr. MELLOR in the Chair.
  (In the Committee).

CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS (ESTIMATES), 1895–6.

  CLASS I.
  On the Vote of £24,500, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending March 31st, 1896, for Expenditure in respect of Royal Palaces and Marlborough House—
  MR. ALPHEUS MORTON MR. ALPHEUS MORTON (Peterborough) Moved—
  "That Sub-head 3, Palaces not in the occupation of Her Majesty, be reduced by £10, in respect of Holyrood Palace."
  He asked whether any sum was included in the Vote for repairing Clarence House?
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. HERBERT GLADSTONE, Leeds, W.): None at all.
  MR. ALPHEUS MORTONthought that Holyrood Palace, together with Linlithgow, Edinburgh, Stirling, and Dumbarton Castles, should be kept in a proper state of repair, and contended that they were not so kept at present. He had always understood that Holy-rood Palace was to be kept up, in accordance with the Treaty of the Union, at the expense of the British Government. But ever since that time the palace had been allowed to go entirely to ruin, especially the chapel adjoining it. Nothing whatever had been done to protect the chapel. He did not know that he could ask the First Commissioner to re-erect this chapel, but there were parts of the palace which might be put into a state of repair. At the present time the palace was not kept in even a decent state of repair. He would ask the First Commissioner, with regard to Holyrood Palace to begin with, to take the best architectural advice he could get in Scotland, and to provide a sum of £100,000, with which in the course of 10 years, at an annual expenditure of £10,000, he might be able to put Holy-rood Palace, and, perhaps, other palaces or castles in repair.
  MR. H. LABOUCHEREsaid, he had listened with positive horror to the proposal of his hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough. His hon. Friend generally protested against expenditure, and now he asked that £100,000 should be expended on Holy-rood Palace.
  MR. ALPHEUS MORTON: No; on all of them.
  MR. LABOUCHERE,continuing, said, that at any rate he presumed a great deal of the money was to be expended on Holyrood Palace. His hon. Friend had told them there was no roof to the chapel. Did he not know that a palace in ruin was a far more beautiful object than a palace not in ruin? His hon. Friend had no doubt been to see Melrose Abbey, and other places, of the beauties of which under moonlight poets had sung. He was glad to hear that Holyrood Palace was going to wreck and ruin, and he trusted that absolutely nothing would be done to protect it from
  1166
  the effects of time. It was not a place of residence, and why on earth should the House interfere with the work of time on this palace which would convert it into a beautiful ruin, where his hon. Friend might go by moonlight and meditate? To expend this money for æsthetical or other reasons would be absurd, and he was surprised at such a proposal coming from his hon Friend.
  MR. PERCY THORNTONthought Holyrood and the other palaces ought to be kept up in accordance with the spirit of the Act of Union.
  MR. HERBERT GLADSTONEsaid, that with regard to Holyrood Palace, he should have to steer a very careful and even course between his hon. Friends the Members for Peterborough and Northampton. He confessed that he could hardly agree with either of them. The hon. Member for Peterborough said the Government did not maintain either the palace or the grounds in a state of decent repair. He (Mr. Gladstone) had personally visited the palace, and had gone over the house and grounds, and he could not share his hon. Friend's opinion as to their condition. As a matter of fact, in the last two years the Government had taken a much larger amount in the Estimates for the maintenance of the palace, and they had also, taken an additional £50 for labour on the grounds. In his opinion the condition of the grounds and the palace was very satisfactory. He did not believe that any authority would recommend the restoration of Holyrood Chapel. They had it from their own surveyor in Scotland that it was impossible to recommend any plan of restoration, even if restoration were advisable in this particular case. But he had given instructions that every care should be taken to preserve the ruin, as far as possible, from further deterioration through the effects of time, and that course would be continued.
  SIR D. MACFARLANEsaid, the Minister for War once offered his hon. Friend one of those Scotch castles if he would undertake to keep it in repair at his own expense. But he thought that, instead of offering old Scotch castles to Members for English

  1167
  cathedral cities, he should first offer them to Scotch Members who would cheerfully undertake to keep them in repair.
  In reply to MR. LABOUCHERE,
  MR. HERBERT GLADSTONEsaid, that a clear distinction could be drawn between Clarence House and St. James's Palace, and there was no money under this Vote for Clarence House.
  MR. ALPHEUS MORTONsaid, he was not quite satisfied with the answer of the right hon. Gentleman with regard to Holyrood Palace. The right hon. Gentleman would get no one else to say that the palace was in a decent state of repair. He thought the right hon. Gentleman could hardly be aware of the condition of some parts of the palace. He understood his right hon. Friend to say that he was not willing to do anything at all in this matter; but if some assurance were not given he should be obliged to press his Amendment.
  MR. ALEXANDER CROSSdid not think that the Palace of Holyrood was in the condition that it ought to be, and he desired to join in the protest of his hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough. In England public money was largely spent on such buildings, while in Scotland things were done more negligently. One argument in connection with this matter might have some weight with the First Commissioner of Works. The right hon. Gentleman was an advocate of the principle of Home Rule being applied to Scotland, as well as to Ireland, and looked forward to the day when Home Rule would be an accomplished fact. When that event occurred, the grand old Palace of Holyrood would be useful as a Parliament House, and, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman should do something to keep it in a good state of repair. He knew that he expressed the sentiments of Scotchmen when he advocated the claims of Holyrood.
  MR. HERBERT GLADSTONEsaid, that he could not give his hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough any further assurance, but he might state that the Palace would not be allowed to deteriorate further than was inevitable. He was, as the last speaker had observed, a Home Ruler, and was always
  1168
  glad to consider local representations; but he must point out that he had received no representations whatsoever from the municipal authorities of Edinburgh in regard to this particular building. He was quite sure that those authorities were capable of looking after the interests of their locality in the best possible way. They had a beautiful open country, and it was easy there to get out on to the hills. This was not the case in London. He had been to Holyrood Palace last year, and had satisfied himself that the building was in an adequate state of repair. He considered that their officer in Edinburgh had done his duty well by the palace.
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTsaid, that his experience bore out that of his hon. Friend below the Gangway opposite. When he visited the Palace two or three years ago he was struck with the impression that the building was certainly left in an exceedingly shabby condition.
  MR. DALZIELinquired whether the First Commissioner could give any reason why a charge was still made for admission to Holyrood Palace, while no charge was made for admission to Windsor when the Queen was not there. He noticed that £700 was collected from visitors who went to view Holyrood Palace during the past year, although a promise was made about two years ago that, if possible, the charge for admission should be discontinued.
  MR. HERBERT GLADSTONEpointed out that Windsor Castle was not open all the year round. Holyrood was open all the year, and on three days in the week was free to visitors.
  MR. ALPHEUS MORTONsaid, that the Palace of Holyrood was open free on three days in the week only on condition that the Corporation of Edinburgh contributed towards the cost of maintaining it on those days. All sorts of representations had been made by various societies in Edinburgh before his right hon. Friend came into Office, and the papers relating to those representations must be in his hon. Friend's Department. No doubt the municipal authorities of Edinburgh would be glad to take the Palace over if his right hon. Friend would put it into repair, but his right hon. Friend would not do so. He

  1169
  asserted that no architect or surveyor of any reputation would say that the building was in a good state of repair.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Vote agreed to.
  On the Vote to complete the sum of £102,000 for the Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens,
  MR. ALPHEUS MORTON MR. ALPHEUS MORTON rose to call attention to the condition of Linlithgow Palace and the buildings attached thereto. He said that nothing had been done to them till a few years ago, when the Government of that day were induced to spend about £500 on repairs. This was, he would point out, a palace which was not a ruin. It might be repaired and made some use of. His right hon. Friend might let Linlithgow Palace if he wanted to make some money. No doubt the Salvation Army would take it for a Convalescent Home, or some other use might be made of it. He would ask his right hon. Friend what he was going to do with this palace, which was not a ruin, but which required more substantial repairs than Holyrood. He begged to move the reduction of the vote by £10, in order to emphasize the matter.
  MR. HARRY SMITHin supporting the Amendment, said, that it was a fact well known to all Scotch Members that Linlithgow was second in historical importance to no town in Scotland. It was the birthplace and home of many Scottish Monarchs. It was the meeting place very often of the Scottish Parliament and the seat of the Scottish Government; and yet if they went to look at it to-day they would see that it was nothing but a neglected ruin. It was a disgrace to the Department of the Government in whose province the matter fell, and ought to be remedied without material delay. [Mr. HERBERT GLADSTONE: "Or material cost?"] He did not think they should grudge a few thousand pounds in a matter of this kind that was dear to the heart of every Scotchman, and very near to the heart of his constituents, the citizens of the burgh of Linlithgow.
  *CAPTAIN HOPEwished to support to a certain extent what had been said by hon. Gentlemen opposite, because he was pretty well acquainted with Linlithgow Palace. He did not think he would go so far as to urge the complete restoration of the palace that had been proposed. But in view of its great historic interest and the beauty of its surroundings it deserved a little more attention than it had ever had. He did not see how the palace could very well be made use of as an actually restored and completed building, but at least it ought to be carefully preserved as a very valuable monument of ancient times. There had been a certain amount of good work done during the last two or three years. That work had been carried out with the very best intentions, and it had certainly prevented further decay, but it was hardly in keeping with the character of the building. For instance, in renewing the floor of Parliament Hall, instead of making any attempt to restore the original form of the floor, there had been, used a reddish-coloured cement, which had a painfully modern aspect alongside of the ancient wall. While it prevented the building from becoming worse, it did not add to the beauty of the place. He hoped that in future some material would be used which had a more suitable appearance than the material that had been used hitherto. He had not estimated what the cost would be, but he thought that in a matter of this kind a sum of money, even though not a very large sum, if judiciously spent and spread over a considerable time might be of very great service and might improve very much the condition of things in this very valuable ancient monument. He did not know how far the First Commissioner of Works could go with regard to any of the other ancient monuments in the neighbourhood. Alongside the palace, and originally belonging to it, was one of the finest old churches that existed anywhere.
  THE CHAIRMAN: That is not a matter that comes within the scope of this Vote.
  *CAPTAIN HOPEconcluded by urging that the First Commissioner would consider the case of these other ancient monuments when he got an opportunity.
  MR. HERBERT GLADSTONEquite agreed that this was a subject requiring very careful consideration. Those hon. Members who had visited Linlithgow Palace would know that it was a very extensive ruin, and he had not yet seen any detailed estimate of the cost which would be incurred if anything like a complete restoration were attempted. He was quite certain that to carry out that work adequately something like £50,000 would be necessary. It was impossible for him to undertake to recommend that large expenditure when money was so badly wanted in other directions. Any representation from public bodies in Scotland would have his most careful attention, but with regard to the maintenance of the building a good deal had been done. He quite agreed with the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken that the red-coloured cement did not harmonise with the general aspect of the building, but at the same time, if any general restoration of the whole were undertaken it would be quite easy to remove that cement and to put in flooring in harmony with the old design. Meanwhile it had been put in because it was rain-proof and safeguarded the ceiling from any percolation of wet. He had been all over the ruin, and could personally testify to the fact that the work of maintenance had been adequately done. It had been his duty to see that this fabric did not suffer from deterioration, and he had given directions that the estimate for the cost of maintenance should err on the side of generosity rather than on the side of economy. He was afraid he could not give any other satisfaction to his hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough. He did not think his hon. Friend had gone seriously into the matter. Had he made an estimate of the cost? Had he any suggestion as to the use to which the building should be put when it was restored? He was afraid that until more definite and detailed proposals came before him he could not very seriously consider the matter.
  MR. ALPHEUS MORTONsaid, his right hon. Friend would find detailed proposals in the papers submitted to him on the subject by the Edinburgh Societies. Would he undertake to consider the points set forth in these papers?
  MR. HERBERT GLADSTONE: Certainly.
  MR. ALPHEUS MORTONsaid, that having obtained that assurance he would not press his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. T. GIBSON BOWLESsaid he desired to ask two questions in reference to Richmond Park and St. James's Park. First, he inquired why access to Richmond Park through Clarence Lane was denied to the general public, though allowed to a few favoured individuals. What was the present position of this Clarence Lane question? It was curious to observe the number of officials who figured in the Vote as Deputy Rangers and Assistant Rangers, and he asked were there not more than sufficient. Then, in reference to St. James' Park he noticed an item for £700 for wood paving from Marlborough Gate to the Mall. He supposed this was the little strip of roadway on the west side of Marlborough House; it was not more than 100 yards, and was to cost £700. He was very much afraid this indicated an intention to continue the wood paving to the front of Buckingham Palace. This, he considered, objectionable and dangerous for the roadway upon which there was considerable traffic, much of it coming to the House, because horses had not sufficient foothold on this paving. He trusted this was not part of a project—to introduce wood paving on the road in front of the Palace, but if it were he should move a reduction of the Vote. If the proposal were to deal only with the small portion between Marlborough House and the Mall he had no great objection, though he thought it was rather to be regretted; but then he had nothing more to say about it.
  MR. ALPHEUS MORTONsaid, he understood that a number of regulations for the parks had been issued by the authority of "George, Ranger," and he desired to know who was this George Ranger and what was the total amount of his emoluments under this Vote? He had been told that in the park, under the direct management of his right hon. Friend, there was much less difficulty than there was where a Ranger was interposed, and the hon. Member

  1173
  opposite had mentioned a number of Assistant Rangers. Would it not be better to dispense with the office of Ranger?
  MR. HERBERT GLADSTONEsaid, the hon. Member could not expect him to go at length into this question, and he knew perfectly well who the Ranger was. The items in the Vote would give full information. As everybody would understand, where there was anything in the nature of dual management, there would sometimes arise differences of opinion, but he could say that all his representations to the Ranger had been met with the greatest courtesy and consideration. It should be remembered that it was to the Ranger more than anybody else the public owed the music of the military bands in the parks, providing enjoyment to thousands of people in the summer months.
  MR. ALPHEUS MORTONasked how much the Ranger received for the Vote.
  MR. HERBERT GLADSTONEsaid, the hon. Member might spend his time looking up the items while he replied to the hon. Member opposite, and if unsuccessful he would afterwards assist him. He had been asked a question as to Clarence Lane, and he regretted very much he had not been able, up to the present, to open the lane to the public.
  MR. T. GIBSON BOWLES: Why?
  MR. HERBERT GLADSTONEsaid, he held it was not fair to the Treasury to make itself responsible for the cost which would be necessary for making the lane into a public thoroughfare. It would have, to be laid down, lighted, and drained, at, he would not say considerable, but material, cost; and it appeared to him that this cost should be borne by the local authorities more particularly interested. During the past year he had been in correspondence with the London County Council and the Wands-worth Local Board, the two authorities primarily interested in the matter, and after a very considerable period had elapsed neither authority had seen their way to incur further expense in regard to the lane. He proposed to lay the correspondence between his Department and the local authorities before the House, and with these papers the hon. Member would have the whole case before him. He quite concurred in the
  1174
  view of the hon. Member that the lane should be opened to the public as a thoroughfare into the park.
  MR. R. W. HANBURYasked if the right hon. Gentleman could say what the additional cost would be?
  MR. HERBERT GLADSTONEcould not give the figure at the moment. With regard to the wood-paving opposite Marlborough House this item was placed on the Votes, because where the roadway was under repair twice a year there was considerable diversion of traffic by day and night. It was not intended to continue the wood-paving in front of Buckingham Palace.
  MR. A. B. FORWOODquite appreciated the manner in which St. James's Park, Hyde Park, and the Green Park were looked after by the right hon. Gentleman's Department in the planting of flowers and shrubs, but there was one feature in connection with the parks of even greater public interest, and that was the grass. To keep the turf in good order was of more value to the appearance of the parks than anything else. Certainly in the last few seasons keeping the grass in order had been very difficult, owing to the habit of the public of avoiding the pathways and walking on the margins of the turf. He suggested that precautions should be taken in anticipation of this, not waiting until the grass was worn away. Then he had observed that for some days past Horse Guards from Knightsbridge Barracks had used the grass for drilling-ground; excellent for drilling no doubt, but very destructive to the turf. Perhaps if the right hon. Gentleman made representation to the proper authority this might be avoided in the future.
  MR. HARRY LAWSONsaid, whatever might have been the administrative faults of the County Council, they had undoubtedly done well with the parks under their control by improving them as places of popular recreation, and especially so in providing the means for obtaining light refreshments. In Battersea Park the people had the opportunity of obtaining what they required at a fixed tariff and without any attendant evils. Would it not be possible to provide something of the same kind in Hyde Park?
  MR. W. R. CREMERsaid, the hon. Member was not in the House the other day when the Vote on Account was taken, or he would have known that on this question there was a discussion of considerable length, and the right hon. Gentleman gave a promise to seriously consider this suggestion to erect in Hyde Park some such building as was allowed some years ago by a predecessor in his Office in Kew Gardens. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman had considered the question, for certainly a provision of the kind would be of great convenience to thousands of visitors to the park. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not fall into the error his predecessor committed, when he allowed a gentleman to build a place in Kew Gardens and to acquire a monopoly for the sale of light refreshments for a series of years. The result was not quite satisfactory, as it might have been had the Government erected a kiosk for themselves. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not make the mistake made by his predecessor in Office, for he was satisfied that the public would be very much better served if he could see his way to set up some such building in Hyde Park, and get a respectable contractor who should be under the guidance and direction of the Commissioner of Works. He would like to refer again to the question which he raised the other day with regard to the chairs in Hyde Park. It might seem a very trifling matter to hon. Members that they should be called upon to pay a penny for the purpose of sitting on a chair; but everyone knew that a large number of working men resorted to the park with their wives and families. The number of free seats in the park had practically disappeared. As compared with some years ago, the free seats had practically disappeared, for where there was one now, there were at least half-a-dozen a few years ago. It was not at all difficult then to find a free seat, but since the custom of introducing the chairs in the park had obtained these free seats had gradually disappeared, and in some parts of the park at least they might walk a long distance before they found one. The working man who went there with his wife and two or three children, being unable to find a free seat, had to spend threepence, fourpence,
  1176
  or even more, for chairs, and some were charged twopence for a chair. A reduction in the price might have been made recently, but he had paid twopence himself, and, therefore, he knew what he was speaking about. This was a serious tax on workingmen, and there was no reason why they should be compelled to pay this money if only a sufficient number of free seats were provided. This was not the only grievance. Some one had a monopoly of providing these seats in Hyde Park. That was the statement which the right hon. Gentleman made the other day. He stated, he thought, the name of the gentleman, but he could not remember it. He did not pay one farthing for the privilege of letting out these chairs. Last Sunday week he took the opportunity of going to the park, and he calculated there must have been 7,000 or 8,000 seats engaged. It was not merely that each occupant paid a penny for his seat, but some of the seats was occupied three or four times over, and each time there was a penny paid. The right hon. Gentleman would himself be able to calculate the enormous income which must be derived from the letting of these seats on a Sunday alone. Hon. Members would see what folly it was to allow anyone to possess such a monopoly, and to him it was perfectly monstrous that a source of such enormous revenue should be diverted from the Office of Works. He did not know how long the right had to run, but he hoped that before next season the right hon. Gentleman would put that right up to public tender. He hoped they would have some clear assurance that free seats should be provided for the seating of the public; that the monopoly which was now possessed by some individual would be done away with; that the enormous revenue which was derived from the letting of the seats should be intercepted for the benefit of the public purse; and that arrangements would be made by which the public might be able to obtain light refreshments in Hyde Park.
  MR. HANBURYasked, whether the right hon. Gentleman could give the Committee any information upon a subject he brought under his notice by means of a question the other day—that was the payment of the military bands which now performed in the park. These

  1177
  bands were a very great expense to the officers of the regiment, and he did not think they should be expected to pay for performances for the public. Looking at it also from the point of view of the bandsmen themselves, he could not help thinking that if no remuneration were allowed to them, they were treating them rather shabbily. They were men who, with very few exceptions, were paid very little more than an ordinary private soldier, and, owing to what he thought was a somewhat bad system, they depended to a considerable extent upon their remuneration for services at private entertainments. The time during which they were giving the performances in the park was either taken out of their leisure time, or was actually time during which they might be employed earning remuneration at private entertainments, and it was, therefore, a little shabby if they accepted their services without any remuneration. He would like to know whether it would not be possible to place an extra charge on the chairs on those occasions which should go towards the baud fund, or to make a direct payment out of the public purse. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be able to assure the Committee that the present somewhat shabby system would be discontinued, and some extra remuneration given to these men.
  COLONEL LOCKWOODsaid, he should like to join in the appeal of his right hon. Friend the Member for Preston. The bands, he believed, belonged mostly to the brigaded Guards, with which he was formerly connected. They had always taken the greatest possible care to employ a skilful band, and the expenses of the officers, which were already heavy enough, cams extremely heavy with regard to the band charges.
  MR. HERBERT GLADSTONEsaid, the arrangements under which the bandsmen were paid rested altogether with the military authorities. His function in the matter was to obtain the services of the band for the public, and he was very glad that had been done. The hon. Member for Paddington had given notice of a question for Monday next raising the point which was now under discussion. He had sent that question to the War Office, who no doubt would consider it, and give them their views upon it.
  1178
  He quite agreed it might be to some extent hard upon the bandsmen that they should have to do this work without remuneration, having regard to the conditions under which they were employed. The suggestion of the hon. Member for Preston had already occurred to him, and he was giving it his attention now. He would remind the Committee that this band-playing was a new departure. It did not amount to a system yet, and until they had some more experience it was impossible to know in what way they could rely upon the attendance of the public. With regard to the questions raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ormskirk, he had to say that the authorities of the park were constantly battling with that question. It was a most difficult matter, and a great deal of time and attention were given to it, and the authorities did their utmost to keep the grass from being worn by giving it a rest. He would look into the matter he had mentioned with regard to the drilling outside Knightsbridge Barracks. With regard to the questions raised by the hon. Member for Haggerston, he would point out that since 1858 a charge had been imposed for the chairs supplied by the licensee. He was asked the other-day whether there was a contract, and he then told hon. Members that the principal purveyor of chairs was Mr. Sharp, but he found that there were really five licensees, and that Mr. Sharp had to do with the great majority of the chairs for which a charge was imposed. There were nearly 30,000 of those chairs in St. James's Park, Hyde Park, the Green Park, and Kensington Gardens. He thought the exact number was 29,200. It was quite true that no sum was paid to the Government by the licensees, but they found that this system on the whole worked very well, and they had no reason to think that an undue profit was made by these licensees. The charge for the chairs was one penny. For that penny they got a ticket, and with that ticket they could go and sit on the whole of the 30,000 chairs, or upon any of the chairs in any part of the parks through which they were scattered. He agreed that it was desirable that there should be an adequate supply of free seats for the public in Hyde Park. But he did not understand what the hon.

  1179
  Member for Shoreditch meant when he said that there were fewer seats now than there used to be. As a matter of fact, the number of seats had been increasing every year. He was always glad to be told where additional free seats were wanted and to meet the demand for them. His own impression was that there was already a considerable number of free seats in Hyde Park, and it was not an uncommon thing to see these free seats entirely empty, even at times when the Park was crowded. He would, however, give directions that this matter should be carefully looked into, and if it should be found that more free seats were required they would be provided. On the subject of the kiosk he could not add anything to what he had said on the vote on account. He expressed his views on the subject then.
  MR. CYRIL DODD, asked for how long a period the licences for the supply of chairs were granted to the licensees. He suggested that when the new licences were granted it might be possible to arrange for some charge in respect of the band. The fault of the arrangement of the free seats was that they were placed too near the paths. Where people wanted them to be was away from the paths.
  MR. HERBERT GLADSTONEexplained that the seats were not all in one part of the park. In one of the northern corners, which was comparatively little frequented by the public, there were 1,900 chairs besides free seats.
  MR. CREMERasked whether the right hon. Geneleman would consent, when opportunity arose, to invite contractors to tender for the supply of chairs. The right hon Gentleman would then be in a position to ascertain whether the representations made by the present contractors were well founded. His own belief was that there was an enormous profit made by the letting of these chairs. Hundreds of people, he believed, would be glad to undertake the duty of supplying these chairs, especially if they were allowed to do so on the present terms.
  MR. C. B. STUART-WORTLEY, wished to draw attention to a matter of special interest to cyclists. By those who were devoted to the pastime of cycling the roads maintained by the Crown were not beloved;
  1180
  nor was macadam dear to their hearts. Constitution Hill, to give an illustration, was only comparable to a ploughed field. Could not the science of road-making, which was apparently understood fairly well by the London County Council, be studied more closely by the Office of Works? He knew from experience that principles of economy were made to govern matters of this kind in Departments subject to the Treasury, and therefore he did not wish to press the right hon. Member too urgently. He hoped, however, that the right hon. Member would not refuse to give his consideration to the subject to which he had draw attention.
  MR. HERBERT GLADSTONEsaid, that upon the roads running through the Royal Parks there was a very large amount of traffic. The traffic in Batter-sea Park, for example, was not nearly as heavy as the traffic in Hyde Park or on Constitution Hill. It was the hansom cab traffic which ploughed up these roads, but he would give his attention to the matter, for he was anxious that the roads under the management of his Department should be in as good a condition as possible.
  MR. ALPHEUS MORTONasked what emolument was received by George Ranger under this Vote? He was glad to hear that his right hon. Friend had such a high opinion of him—he could not believe that anybody else had—he meant with regard to the management of the parks. He hoped the Government would find an opportunity to get rid of this expense. There was a Ranger, a Deputy Ranger, and a Superintendent, and they were military officers receiving pay from Army funds. This perhaps accounted for the bad management of the parks. These gentlemen, instead of attending to the parks, were very properly discharging their military duties. He should like his right hon. Friend to tell him who "George Ranger" was.
  MR. HERBERT GLADSTONEsaid, that the payment made to the Ranger in respect of Richmond Park was £109.
  MR. ALPHEUS MORTONsaid, that the public were anxious to know whether this "George Ranger" received anything in respect of Hyde Park?
  MR. H. GLADSTONE: No.
  Vote agreed to.
  On the Vote to complete the sum of £35,825 for Houses of Parliament Buildings,
  MR. L. P. HAYDEN MR. L. P. HAYDEN (Roscommon, S.), rose to move the reduction of the Vote by £500, the sum appearing in the Estimates on account of the provision for the statue of Oliver Cromwell. He said that Oliver Cromwell deserved nothing at the hands of Irishmen. In Ireland Cromwell was thought of with a bitterness and hatred that could scarcely be exceeded. Anyone who read the history of the war of 1641 could not wonder at that. In Gardiner's History of the Commonwealth speaking of the Drogheda Massacre, of defenceless men, women, and children, the writer said—
  "The deed of horror was all Cromwell's own. Till he spoke the words of fate, some of the soldiers were offering quarter to the defenders. Cromwell's orders put an end to these proffers of mercy, and the Royalists were butchered as they stood. Save at the storming of Basing House he had never yet exercised the rights which the stem law of war placed in his hands, but he had one measure for Protestants and another for Papists, and especially for Irish Papists. The stern command leaped lightly from his lips. Then ensued a scene the like of which had seldom been witnessed in English war. Amidst shrieks and groans, and shouts of triumph, pikes and swords plied their fiendish work down the sloping streets. The slaughter continued as pursuers and pursued breasted the steep hill. A thousand were slain in and around St. Peter's Church. When Cromwell came up he found that about eighty had taken refuge in the steeple. These he summoned to surrender, but such a summons did not imply that their lives were to be spared, and hopeless as their position was they refused the offer. After a fruitless attempt to blow up the tower with gun-powder Cromwell gave orders to drag the seats in the church beneath it and set it on fire. The unhappy victims attempted to escape by the roof. Fifty were killed by the soldiers, and the remaining thirty perished in the burning steeple."
  A soldier in Cromwell's Army wrote—
  "After they had killed all in the church they went into the vaults underneath, where all the flower and choicest of the women and ladies hid themselves. These too were massacred."
  Even if Englishmen chose to erect a statue to a man whom many of them regarded as a regicide, the money ought not to come out of the public funds. When Irish Members asked at times for small sums for useful Irish purposes, they were told there was no money in the Treasury; but it seemed easy enough
  1182
  to find money for a purpose which many Englishmen would strongly disapprove of. At the dinner of the Royal Academy the Prime Minister stated that the work would be carried out by way of showing the desire of the Government to patronise Art. He was sorry they could not find some better means of patronising Art. It was said that there was no desire in this matter to revive painful memories, but simply to commemorate an historical figure. If so, why confine this statue to Oliver Cromwell? Why not erect a statue to his great rival, Owen Roe O'Neill? He asked the great majority of Members not to sanction the proposal of the Government.
  MR. W. REDMOND, in seconding the Amendment, said it was incomprehensible that, under present circumstances, a Radical Government, a Government which called itself of the people, and meant to represent the people, should ask for £500 to put up a statue outside these walls to this man, who was regarded by nine-tenths of the Irish people not only as a murderer, but as a canting hypocritical murderer as well. If Radical representatives of crowded constituencies chose to spend the money of the people in this way, when there was want of the most dire description all around them, it was their affair. His business was to represent the Irish point of view. It was also incomprehensible to him that a Government which expressed so much sympathy with the Irish people should make a proposal which everybody must know to be extremely distasteful to the large majority of the Irish people. He did not think there was an Irish Nationalist representative in this House who would venture to vote in favour of putting up a statue to Oliver Cromwell. The hon. Gentleman who moved the reduction of the Vote spoke of Cromwell's proceedings in Drogheda. His proceedings in Wexford, of which he was formerly the representative, and in which he lived for years, wore even worse, because he not only made war upon the people without justification, but spared neither women nor children. He made war in the most ruthless way on the ministers of religion to which the great majority of the Irish Members belonged. What he particularly objected to in Cromwell, what he considered so

  1183
  absolutely blasphemous about him, was that wherever he went the more murders he allowed his soldiers to commit-and it should be remembered that the massacres were not mere unpremeditated incidents of war, but the orders for them were invariably and deliberately given by Cromwell himself—he always endeavoured, according to the impartial British historian, Gardiner, to put the responsibility for the slaughter upon Almighty God. While flooding the streets with blood, massacring men, women, and children, he wrote hypocritical, canting letters to the Speaker of the Parliament, praising God for the infamies which he had committed. It was an authenticated historical fact that, after Cromwell's troops had obtained absolute possession of the town of Wexford, after every man had been driven from the town or killed, all the women rallied to the market place, where a cross had been erected, and while they knelt around the cross, and some priests, with the emblem of our Saviour and our common Christianity in their hands, were begging for mercy—it was an authenticated historical fact that 300 at least of the women, many with children at the breast, were put to the sword by the orders of Cromwell, and the Parliament was congratulated on the wise ways of God. Cromwell and his Government sold the Irish people into exile and slavery, if they escaped being slaughtered; their churches were burned, their priests were hunted, and everything their forefathers held dear were destroyed by this man. Radicals might admire Cromwell's career, but was there a single Englishman or Scotchman who could wonder at the feeling towards him entertained by the Irish people? It was only a natural feeling. They would be false to the traditions of their country, false to its history, false to their forefathers, their religion, their nationality, if they did not offer a protest against this Vote. In Wexford to this day the worst imprecation, the foulest and most dishonouring that one could hurl at the head of another was: "The curse of Cromwell on you! "He uttered his protest against the erection of this statue, and, at all events, if the Committee were prepared to spend this
  1184
  large sum of money on such a project, he asked, in common fairness, that there should be some arrangement whereby it should be spent solely from English and Scotch sources. Do not let them ask the Irish people, directly or indirectly, to vote a single penny to perpetuate the memory of a man whose name was execrated in Ireland and whose career in that country should to-day be regretted by every English Liberal. To Cromwell's policy was attributable much of the difficulty and animosity which had existed between England and Ireland, and, instead of allaying such animosity, there could be no surer way of arousing the passions of the Irish people and making them indignant than by erecting a statue to a man whom they regarded as a blasphemer and a murderer.
  *MR. ALFRED WEBBentirely agreed with the views on this subject which had been expressed by his two hon. Friends who had preceded him. It was a matter of amazement to him how any Liberal Ministry, and especially one who was actuated with friendly feelings towards Ireland to an extent never known on the part of any previous Administration, could make such a proposal. It showed how little they had really read of Irish history if they thought for a moment that it was possible for the Irish people to give their consent to the erection of a statue to Cromwell. The idea was that the British Parliament was to be a united Parliament, desiring to consider and consult the feelings of all parts of the countries represented in it, and thus promote union amongst them. No surer way, however, of bringing about disunion and dissension could be suggested than to propose to erect a statue to this man, and whether they paid for it or not it would be felt to be an insult to the Irish people. Cromwell did not occupy the position of an ordinary Sovereign who acted on the advice of others, but he acted on his own direct and deliberate judgment in the question of his Irish policy. He was not going to speak of what was enacted under Cromwell at Drogheda, Wexford, and elsewhere, his hon. Friends had already dwelt upon it; but he wished to dwell upon other portions of his career.

  1185
  Regarding the religion of the country, what was Cromwell's attitude? He was approached by the inhabitants of Ross as to his future policy in Ireland, and this was what he said:—
  "I meddle not with any man's conscience; but if by liberty of conscience you mean a liberty to exorcise the mass, I judge it best to use plain dealing and to let you know that where the Parliament of England has power that will not be allowed of."
  They expected Irish Catholic people to endorse this. He was not a Catholic but a Protestant, opposed to Catholics in religious matters, but he was an Irish man, and he felt this just as keenly as his Catholic fellow-countrymen. His ancestors, who were Quakers, were well treated, but he did not mind this, for the fate of the majority of his fellow-countrymen was dearer to him than the fate of a minority however closely related to him. For the proof of Cromwell's cruelty, he referred hon. Members to the "Cromwellian Act of Settlement" by Prendergast, and to "Scobell's Acts of Parliament," two works accepted by Mr. Froude, Mr. Lecky, and subsequent writers as authorities. In Scobell's work they would find the enactments under which Cromwell attempted to sweep off the greater part of the inhabitants, and to plant the land with English Protestant settlers. His policy was to drive the Catholic inhabitants into Con-naught. If anyone took up a list of the landed proprietors of Ireland, he would find that nearly all of them obtained a footing at that time.
  "They banned the son,
  They banned the sire;
  Their dogs were taught alike to run
  Upon the track of wolf and friar."
  It was provided by the Act of Settlement that those sent to Connaught should not be allowed to live in towns, or within three miles of the coast. No priests were tolerated, and the Act went on—
  "Provided that none of the persons aforesaid shall be admitted to live in or to enter any port, town, or garrison within the said provinces."
  This policy was carried out to the bitter end. Here was one clause in the Act of Settlement:—
  "And that whatsoever person or persons aforesaid shall after the 1st day of May 1654, be found
  1186
  inhabiting or remaining in any part of the provinces of Leinster, Munster, or Ulster (except the said county of Clare), or (without a passport) travelling in any of the said provinces, he and they shall be reported as spies and enemies, and shall for the same offence suffer death."
  Forty thousand of the fighting men were swept from Ireland into the armies of the continent, whilst their priests were absolutely forbidden to live in the country. Here was an example, quoted by Prendergast:—
  "Daniel Connery, a gentleman of Clare, was sentenced to banishment in 1657 by Colonel Henry Ingolsby for harbouring a priest. This gentleman had a wife and twelve children. His wife fell sick, and died in poverty. Three of his daughters, most beautiful girls, were transported to the West Indies, to an island called Barbadoes, where, if they are alive, they are miserable slaves."
  In another passage of his work Prendergast said:—
  "In the course of four years they had seized and shipped about 6,400 Irishmen, women, boys and maidens. In 1655. … the Lord Proctector applied to … Henry Cromwell to engage 1,500 soldiers of the army in Ireland to go to [Jamaica] as planters, and to secure 1,000 young Irish girls to be sent there also. Henry Cromwell answered that there would be no difficulty, only that force must be used in taking them, find he suggested the addition of 1,500 to 2,000 boys of from 12 to 14 years of age. We could well spare them,' he adds, 'and they might be of use to you, and who knows but it, might be the means of making them Englishmen—I mean, Christians?' The numbers finally fixed were 1,000 boys and 1,000 girls, who sailed from Galway in October, 1655, the boys as bondmen, probably, and the girls to be bound by other ties to the English soldiers in America."
  He knew that Cromwell's policy would be attempted to be defended on the ground that it was justified because of the so-called massacre of 1641. He would like to refer to what Mr. Lecky said in regard to the supposed massacre. Mr. Lecky stated that the common assertion that the rebellion of 1641 began with a general massacre of Protestants in Ireland was entirely untrue, although in the course of the long and savage struggle in Ireland great numbers of Englishmen were undoubtedly murdered. The number of victims, however, though great had been enormously exaggerated. The horrors of the struggle were much less than were supposed, and the worst crimes were the unpremeditated and isolated acts of a half-savage population, and it

  1187
  was very far from clear on which side the balance of excess rested. The Irish people wore sometimes charged with inconsistency, but he (Mr. Webb) reminded the Committee that while £79,000 was expended on the pompous funeral of Cromwell, a few years afterwards, amid the rejoicings of the London populace, his body was taken from its resting place and hung up at Tyburn. Cromwell's Irish policy had been entirely ineffective, and it had led to misery and disorder, and not to peace and blessings. It was impossible for him to understand how any English Liberals could approve of this proposal to erect a statue to such a man, whilst three-fourths of the Irish people would bitterly resent it as an insult.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I certainly do not rise to defend the Irish policy of Oliver Cromwell. There is no man in this House who would join more completely with the hon. Members who have spoken in condemnation of the ferocity and cruelty and injustice of that policy. But I venture to say that the consideration by which this House should be governed in the record of famous men in English history must not be determined by their objections to, or their sympathies with, the policy of individuals. I think it was Macaulay who spoke of Westminster Abbey as the great Temple of Reconciliation, where you find monuments erected to men of most antagonistic policies, and whose conduct will be criticised, and has been criticised, by their own generation and by posterity in different spirits. You will remember the famous lines of Sir Walter Scott, that the tear will fall alike upon the tombs of Pitt and Fox, which adjoin one another. In St. Stephen's Hall we have erected statues to Falkland and Hampden. We are surrounded by monuments of men whom many of us will applaud, and an equal number will condemn the policy which they pursued. But what we have to consider, on an occasion like this, is—What were the places those men occupied in English history? No one can dispute that one of the great epochs of English history was the English Commonwealth. I do not know that I am myself a blind worshipper of Cromwell after the fashion of Carlyle. I confess that in those albums which sometimes are handed to
  1188
  you, and in which you are asked to write down the name of your favourite poet or your favourite hero, I am not sure that I should write down the name of Oliver Cromwell. But the House of Commons must look at this matter in a broad spirit. Gentlemen from Ireland will allow me to remind them that there is a statue in Dublin to a character who is not much more favourably regarded by the great portion of the Irish people—I refer to William III.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: He was a gentleman compared to Oliver Cromwell.
  MR. T. D. SULLIVAN: Who set up that statue?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Well, I am told that in recent times the Corporation of Dublin were not unwilling to repair the statue of William III. That was a broad and enlightened view to be taken on behalf of the people of Ireland by the Dublin Corporation.
  SIR D. MACFARLANE: That statue of William III. should have been set up at Glencoe.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: It seems to me that what we ought to regard is this—Who can deny that Cromwell was one of the great rulers of this country?
  MR. W. REDMOND: Who can deny that he was a murderer?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: From the point of view which I have laid down there is hardly, if you except Elizabeth, a greater name that can be mentioned than the name of Oliver Cromwell. We must not look at Cromwell's policy in its particulars. I do not know that the House of Commons admire some chapters of Cromwell's career, and that observation would equally apply to the other House of Parliament. But that does not prevent the fact of Cromwell's being one of the greatest characters in English history, and one of the greatest rulers who ever carried the fame of England's name to every part of the habitable globe. These are the points of view from which, I think, the House of Commons ought to consider this question. It would be regarded with some astonishment in foreign lands if it were thought England considered that Cromwell was the only character amongst its rulers or in its

  1189
  history that it was unwilling to commemorate. These are the points of view from which, I think, the House of Commons ought to consider the matter; and I hope that, so regarding it, the House will agree to this Vote.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I agree with some of the observations which have fallen from the right hon. Gentleman. I agree with him that in commemorating the memories of the great men of this country it is well we should forget the controversies in which they were engaged, and it is not sufficient reason for refusing to put up some expression of our sentiments of admiration for our great men that we see much in their conduct to disapprove and even severely to condemn. But what I wanted to learn from the right hon. Gentleman, and what I thought I should have learned, was the principle which animated the Government in proposing a statue to Cromwell, and to Cromwell alone. There have been other great men in our history who are not, so far as I know, commemorated by statues put up at the cost of the nation in the precincts of Westminster; and I was curious to learn from the right hon. Gentleman why it was that Cromwell, and Cromwell alone, was to be selected for this signal favour. Every one will admit—even gentlemen from Ireland will, I think, admit—that, whatever else may be said of Cromwell, no one will deny that he was a great man, but his greatness was not of a kind which I should have thought would have appealed specially to the right hon. Gentlemen opposite. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has dissociated himself from Cromwell's Irish policy. Is it, then, because Cromwell was a Jingo that he admires him? Is it because Cromwell had the most spirited foreign policy of any ruler of England that the right hon. Gentleman thinks him worthy of special favour? Is it because Cromwell was a great soldier that the military spirit of the right hon. Gentleman stirred within him? Or is it because Cromwell put a summary termination to the existence of this House? In which of those great characters is it that the right hon. Gentleman specially asks us to do honour to Cromwell? There is one act of Cromwell's life which should appeal specially to the right hon. Gentleman. Cromwell
  1190
  not only destroyed this House, but he destroyed the House of Lords, and that act alone, so far as I know, amongst the great public acts of Cromwell, should appeal to the sentiments of the hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House. But great as our admiration of Cromwell's abilities must be, it is true of him to say that, so far as I can remember at least, not one single constructive act of his life has left behind it any trace in our history.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: That is true of Charles II.
  MR. BALFOUR: You did not put up a statue to Charles II. as a great ruler. You put it up to Charles II. as one of the Kings of England. I thought we were to put this statue up to Cromwell, not as one of the Kings of England, but as a great Englishman. That proposal I am prepared to consider, and with it I feel great sympathy. But I do not see why we should vote £500 to Cromwell as a King. Cromwell was placed in a position that made it practically impossible for him, with all his great qualities as a ruler, to leave behind him a constructive work of genius. When he died the tide swept over all he had done and destroyed it, as it destroys the castles which children make upon the sands. That is not a reason for refusing to do honour to Cromwell's memory; but it is a fact we must remember when we are asked to do honour to Cromwell's memory, and to Cromwell's memory alone. That is the reason why I ask on what principle the Government made this selection? The right hon. Gentleman has said truly that we have put up a statue not only to Pitt, but to Fox also. Those great opponents, who from time to time fought each other in our constitutional history, are each remembered, and are all remembered, by the impartial voice of posterity. But those men are men honourably connected with Parliamentary Government. Cromwell is not honourably connected with Parliamentary Government. I believe one of his greatest desires was to rule by constitutional means; but from the very difficulties of the situation he found it impossible to do so. He tried it several times, and each time he tried the experiment he was foiled; and to the last he remained the one instance of a ruler of

  1191
  England who depended for his power upon the Army, and upon the Army alone. That can be said, thank Heaven, of no other ruler that existed in modern England; and I hope it will never be said of any ruler again. If you are going to put up a statue to Cromwell, why do you not put up one to Stratford? Stratford was a very great man, a man of very large abilities and political ideas, though not ideas with which we sympathise any more than we sympathise with the ideas of Cromwell. But no man can read the history of England in the second quarter of the 17th century and not feel what a dominating personality Strafford was. Why, then, commemorate Cromwell and not Strafford? Why have the Government, in travelling over the field of English history, selected Cromwell, who is the only man who absolutely succeeded in uprooting our whole Parliamentary system? If there were subscriptions for a statue of Cromwell I should very likely subscribe. But I want to know why the House of Commons is going to vote money for this purpose? I do not know whether Cromwell is popular in Scotland; but I am sure he is not popular in Ireland. Although I do not think that ancient quarrels and controversies are a sufficient, or ought to be considered a sufficient, bar to Parliamentary generosity in celebrating the virtues of the great departed of this country, I must say I should have thought the fact of the hatred which Cromwell succeeded in inspiring in one great section of our population would be deemed a reason, at least, why the Government should pause, and why, when they embarked upon it, it should have been in conformity with some general principle which would embrace in its scope the name of every great statesman who has adorned the historic past. But the Government have no principle that I can discover. No principle has been suggested by the right hon. Gentleman, and, unless some principle can be suggested by some other spokesman of the Government, I shall certainly remain of opinion that this is not a very felicitous way of spending public money. The Prime Minister, I understand, in a recent speech, justified the policy more on the ground that we should commemorate English greatness.
  1192
  I do not know whether Cromwell is, or is not, a good subject for artistic treatment. But, at all events, there is no reason to suppose that he is a much better subject for artistic treatment than any of our other great men who are still uncommemorated. But what I ask from he Government is a declaration of their policy. Will they tell us what we are doing? Is this the first step in a general movement for commemorating English rulers, English heroes, and English poets? Or is it an isolated effort, a sporadic attempt on the part of the Government to honour one individual, not to be followed up by other efforts of a similar kind? If it is the latter, I must say that I do not admire the policy which the Government have adopted; if it be the former, I have great sympathy with it, and the only limit I would desire to put on the policy which they have adopted would be the humble one of economy. However, that is a matter for them more than for us to decide, but in the meanwhile let us hear, before determining whether or not to support the Government in granting this vote, why it is that they have selected this man alone for commemoration.
  *MR. R. L. EVERETTsaid, he was responsible in some small measure for originating this discussion by placing on the Paper a question relating to this proposal. The reason which had led him to put the question on the Paper was because, after looking with interest, as a new Member of this House, at the statues erected to the memories of the great men who had ruled over this country, he was struck by the absence of one of the most conspicuous figures in English history—Oliver Cromwell. Coming from a part of the country where the feelings entertained with respect to that great man were the opposite of those entertained by Irishmen, he felt that it would give great pleasure to the dwellers in the Eastern Counties of England if a statue to one of the most eminent men who had ever played a great part in English history, and who came from that part of the country with which he was connected, could be erected in order to commemorate his memory. He hoped the House would sanction this Vote. ["No, no."] He regretted that this proposal

  1193
  was so distasteful to hon. Members from Ireland. The Nonconformists and Puritans, who would be most pleased with the erection of this statue, were the best friends the Irish had in desire to give them free institutions in their own country. They were the enemies of tryanny anywhere. Oliver Cromwell fought against the tyranny of kings, and no one would pretend, in erecting a statue to his memory, to justify all the stern deeds of which he had been guilty. The statue would simply be an historical tribute to a great man, one of the strongest whom England ever knew.
  COLONEL NOLANsaid, that the hon. Member had spoken of Oliver Cromwell as having played a stern and great part in English history. On the other hand his view of Cromwell was that he had played his part as a treacherous brute, at any rate in Ireland. He was at present, however, more concerned with the manner in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had thrown himself into this debate, and had identified himself, to a great extent, with many of the actions of Oliver Cromwell. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, who was now engaged in secularising the Welsh Church, considered that Cromwell was a model of secularism. He certainly was, for Cromwell not only secularised the Church, but he caused his soldiers to drive their swords through the bodies of its priests. It was asked whether the House was to set up a statue to a regicide or not. He did not look on Cromwell as a great man; he acknowledged that Cromwell was a good general. But not a single campaign of Cromwell's was taught as a model of strategy in any of our military schools. It must, therefore, be as a politician and a good Parliamentarian that the Government were going to erect a statue to Cromwell. No doubt Cromwell was a good Parliamentarian, for when he found that he had not a majority in the House of Commons he swept Parliament away altogether; and perhaps that was why the Chancellor of the Exchequer was thinking of the Protector at the present time. He quoted from a Protestant historian as to the events which occurred when Cromwell was at Drogheda. Quarter had been promised by Cromwell to all those who laid down their arms. The promise was observed until all
  1194
  resistance was at an end; but the moment the city was completely reduced, orders were issued to the garrison to put the people to the sword, and the soldiers with reluctance butchered their prisoners; and for five days this hideous execution, was continued with every circumstance of horror. Cromwell carried out this terrible policy with deliberation and intention; and that was why he said he was a treacherous brute. Not only so, but Cromwell cut off his King's head, he killed off the Irish people and swept them out of their land, and he put an end to the House of Commons. In these circumstances Cromwell was the last man to whose memory he should be inclined to erect a statue.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 137; Noes, 152.—(Division List, No. 123.)
  MR. CREMER MR. CREMER moved the reduction of the Vote by £500, for the purpose of drawing attention to the extraordinary revelations with reference to the number of rooms occupied in the building by officials of the House made during the sittings of the Committee appointed last year to inquire into the best means of providing better accommodation for the Members of the House. He thought the facts so revealed ought to be known to Members of the House. One of the first things that Committee did was to authorise returns to be made of the number of rooms occupied in the building by the various officials, and he would briefly repeat for the benefit of Members the information laid before the Committee. Two returns were made, the first in MS. and the second in print. The former gave the information that the Speaker had at his disposal 60 rooms, the Sergeant-at-Arms 35, the Deputy Sergeant-at-Arms 32, the Clerk of the House of Commons 30, the Assistant Clerk 23, Black Rod 35, the Librarian of the House of Lords 24, the Lord Great Chamberlain's Secretary 25, the Housekeeper of the House of Lords 10, the Resident Superintendent 8, the Resident Engineer 8, the Foreman Engineer 5, the Turncock 4, the Refreshment Caterer to the House of Lords 7, the Refreshment Caterer to the House of Commons 6, Office Keeper Commons' Library 4, Trainbearer 3, the Officekeeper of Committee Rooms 3, and the Officekeeper

  1195
  No. 2, 3, making a total of 315 rooms in the building which were occupied by officials. It was agreed that the superficial area of each room should also be given to the Committee, and many of the rooms were of magnificent proportions. When the printed return was laid before the Committee, the number had been boiled down considerably, and was 35 less than in the written return. The printed return gave only 280. Of that number there were 14 drawing-rooms, 12 dining-rooms, 14 dressing-rooms, 18 kitchens, 112 bedrooms, the remainder being made up of audience-rooms, nurseries, libraries, sculleries, servants' rooms, &c. Mr. Speaker had 22 bedrooms at his disposal; and the Librarian of the House of Lords, although he was a bachelor, had 10 bedrooms; and Black Rod had 12 bedrooms, although when the salary was last under discussion it was understood that the successor of the then holder of the office was not to be lodged in the building. A few weeks ago, when the impending resignation of the Speakership became known, he asked the First Commissioner of works whether he would not seize the opportunity of making some re-arrangement of the rooms at the disposal of Officials and of Ministers; but the right hon. Gentleman allowed the opportunity to pass. He did not know whether Ministers were ashamed of the rooms they occupied; but he had heard many Members who had had to interview Ministers in their private rooms express disgust that Ministers should be compelled to use such rooms. Some of them were in the basement and were practically cellars, from which light and air were almost excluded; and this while there were 315 rooms placed at the disposal of Officials. It was, perhaps, a delicate thing for Ministers in their own interests to attempt to interfere with the comfortable arrangements made by somebody for Officials; but the time had come when somebody ought to expose such a state of things. He had undertaken to do it from the figures supplied to the Committee—figures which ought to be in the hands of every Member. He did not believe it was ever intended that this building should be given up to Officials; it was intended primarily for the use of Members. Le any Member ask himself whether it was
  1196
  absolutely necessary that so many as 315 rooms should be placed at the disposal of Officials connected with the two Houses, and that while Ministers were driven into the basement and Members were put to all sorts of inconvenience for want of adequate accommodation to discharge their duties. A room had by courtesy been called a conference-room, which was miserable and contemptible when compared with rooms of magnificent proportions in the occupation of Officials. The members of no other legislature would tolerate so much inconvenience to themselves and their Ministers through exclusion from accommodation that could easily be made available. He had nothing whatever to say against the Officials; it was only human nature that they should make the best of the rooms allotted to them. Who placed them at their disposal he should be glad to learn from the First Commissioner, of whom he would also ask how soon he would put an end to this extraordinary state of things? He concluded by moving the reduction of the Vote as a protest against a disgraceful state of things.
  MR. RADCLIFFE COOKEsaid, he was a Member of the Committee that had been mentioned, and the evidence brought before it caused him to arrive at much the same conclusions as the hon. Member for Haggerston. At the same time it was obvious to the Members of the Committee that the building was erected with a view to a state of circumstances very different from those which now existed. The designers of the building had no conception that the attendance of Members would become so constant and regular as it was in these days, and that so many demands would be made upon Ministers by individual Members from day to day and hour to hour. The time was clearly come for some rearrangement in the occupation of the rooms. However desirable it might have been thought 40 or 50 years ago to place officials in comfortable, and even luxurious apartments, their interests must now give way to the necessities of Ministers and of Members, who ought not to be hampered in the discharge of their duties because the accommodation they required had been otherwise disposed of in other days. The present First Commissioner had been more active in his office than his immediate predecessors, and it was

  1197
  obvious to all that he had made many improvements which had greatly added to the convenience of Members, but the present Government, as mere hangers-on, whose time was so limited, could hardly be expected to make the great changes that were indicated, and must therefore leave them to their successors. The first step would be to get the officials, or some of them, outside the building, for the simple reason that the accommodation they had was wanted by others whose duties were of more importance than official residences. That would set free a number of useful, healthy, and convenient rooms, which could be used as conference rooms, or as Ministers' private rooms. He quite concurred in the strictures passed upon the little hovels occupied by Ministers. It was shameful to have to go downstairs to see the First Commissioner, or the Under Secretary to the Home Office, in rooms in which you would not put a scullery maid. How could they then be expected to discharge their duties officially if they had to spend half their time in rooms in which they could get no fresh air? The strictures of the hon. Member for Haggerston were fully justified. It was an unpleasant thing to have to suggest that officials in the occupation of pleasant chambers should go elsewhere, but that sort of sentiment was the product of our over-civilisation, which made us not like to tell these officials the truth that they must go when the public service demanded their removal. They could not expect the present First Commissioner to do much more. He had suffered from the present state of things for three years, and was, perhaps, not in a robust frame of mind; but at any rate the discussion would probably lead to his successor taking some effective steps in a no distant future.
  MR. DALZIELsaid, he was also a member of the Committee, in which it was generally agreed that the rooms for Members and Ministers were totally inadequate. The Committee recommended that whenever rooms were at the disposal of the First Commissioner of Works they should be placed at the disposal of the Members of the House. There were 30 rooms at the disposal of Black Rod. He had not attended to his duties for two or three years, but a substitute had attended to them—paid
  1198
  £200 or £300 a year. Assuming that a change would soon take place in the office of Black Rod, an arrangement might be made by which his successor would live elsewhere, and the rooms he occupied be placed at the disposal of other officials or Members of the House. Black Rod's hours at the House were not late, so it was unnecessary he should live at the House.
  MR. HERBERT GLADSTONEsaid, Black Rod was an official of the House of Lords, and he had no jurisdiction over him.
  MR. DALZIEL: But we vote his salary.
  MR. HERBERT GLADSTONEsaid, that it was a matter for the House, but officially he could not interfere with the allocation of rooms in that part of the Palace of Westminster occupied by Black Rod. The inconveniences to Members and Ministers had been exaggerated. The value of rooms in the House depended upon their convenience. The rooms occupied by Ministers were not palatial, but were freely healthy. It would not be fair to disturb the present officials occupying rooms in the House, but on the termination of their occupancy the House might see what could be done. It was necessary that many of the officials of the House should live in the building. The recommendations of the Committee of last year had been carried out as far as practicable. Conference room accommodation had been increased. The rooms provided were often unused, and, therefore, there was on urgent necessity to provide more conference rooms.
  MR. LABOUCHEREpointed out that Black Rod had 35 rooms in the House, besides five rooms that were used as prisons. Black Rod's duties did not keep him at the House late; but even if they did, surely he could manage to take his rest without requiring 35 rooms to do it. Thirty-five would constitute a large House. Mr. Mellor, the Chairman of Committees, often had to remain late and come early to look to private Bills and other matters, and it was monstrous that 35 Rooms should be occupied by Black Rod—even if he fulfilled his easy functions—while the Chairman of Committees should not have any. Black Rod shut up his rooms, and had not lived there for three

  1199
  or four years. The state of things to which attention had been drawn should be put an end to as soon as possible.
  MR. ALPHEUS MORTONhoped his hon. Friend would divide the House to give the First Commissioner of Works the power he had asked for. It had been stated that the Librarian of the House of Lords had 18 rooms, 10 of which were bedrooms, in the building. That was pretty good accommodation for a bachelor. In his view the House of Commons ought to be masters in their own House. It was quite possible that several of those rooms were empty ones, but no one knew what they were used for. Could the right hon. Gentleman tell the Committee who was occupying Black Rod's rooms at the present moment?
  MR. HERBERT GLADSTONEsaid, that he could not answer the question.
  MR. ALPHEUS MORTONsaid, that if Black Rod was afraid to allow a great man like the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works to know what he did with his rooms they ought to place the matter in the hands of the police. The rooms might be used for very bad purposes, and it might be that gambling was going on in them.
  MR. HERBERT GLADSTONEsaid, he would make inquiries into the matter.
  MR. ALPHEUS MORTONsaid, that he was glad that the right hon. Gentleman was gaining a little courage, and perhaps hon. Members might now obtain a little information on the subject. It was not the men who did the work that got these rooms, because the clerks of that House, who were bound to be on the premises early and late, had no residences in the building.
  MR. DALZIELwished to know whether it was true that during the absence of Black Rod from his rooms during the last three years he had sublet or lent those rooms to someone else. Would the right hon. Gentleman consent to make a request to the proper authorities of the House of Lords that Black Rod's rooms should be placed at the disposal of the Board of Works.
  MR. C. A. V. CONYBEAREthought that it would be more consonant to the dignity of the House of Commons if the First Commissioner, instead of making a request on the subject to the House of Lords, were to make a
  1200
  demand on the other House that they should conform themselves to the wish of the House of Commons. It was high time that the House should secure the control over a building which was intended for the transaction of public business, but which had been appropriated to the personal convenience of a few individuals. In his opinion, the library of the House of Lords ought to be open to Members of the House of Commons at all hours when the latter House was sitting; whereas, under the present system, it was closed at the normal hour when the noble Lords usually went home to dinner. If hon. Members could have access to the library of the House of Lords at proper hours, he should have no objection to the Librarian of the House of Lords having a reasonable number of rooms in the building, but the number he now had was absurd.
  MR. W. ALLANsaid, that he held in his hand a list of the rooms occupied in the building by the officials of both Houses, which certainly contained some startling information. He should advise the right hon. Gentleman to charge a rent for the use of the rooms.
  MR. CREMERsaid, that the Committee which had sat upon this subject last year had recommended that the opportunity should be seized, in the event of a fresh appointment of any of the officials of the House being made, to make a fresh arrangement in connection with the occupation of the rooms of the building. Such an opportunity had offered itself a few weeks ago, when a fresh Speaker was appointed, but the right hon. Gentleman had neglected to avail himself of it. In a return which had been made on the subject, it was stated that the Speaker occupied 60 rooms, of which 22 were bed-rooms; although in a subsequent return the number of rooms so occupied had been reduced to 50. He should like to know why the right hon. Gentleman had not carried out the recommendations of the Committee in the matter.
  MR. HERBERT GLADSTONEthought that the time was inopportune for making an onslaught upon the accommodation provided for the Speaker. He could not see how the rooms in question could be made available for the convenience of hon. Members.

  1201
  He was afraid he could not do more in the matter than he did last year. He did not deny that a great deal more might be done, and would, he hoped, he done in the future.
  MR. CONYBEAREasked if the right hon. Gentleman would secure to them some of the rooms of the librarian of the House of Lords.
  MR. HERBERT GLADSTONEsaid, he would do all that he could.
  MR. J. BURNSsaid, he entirely dissented from the opinion of the First Commissioner of Works as to the ungraciousness of suggesting the need for some surrender on the part of Mr. Speaker, or some of the officials of the House, of some of the rooms unoccupied by them. If the First Commissioner of Works were to have a consultation with Mr. Speaker, the Clerk of the House, and the Serjeant-at-Arms, he felt sure that they could make such a readjustment of the accommodation in the building as would satisfy nearly every Member who had criticised the number of rooms that some of these official hangers-on had. Members at present had not got the accommodation they required. There were only the two Conference rooms available, and the result was sometimes that Members with deputations were waiting on each other, and irritation was caused. He suggested that some of the rooms occupied by officials, in closer proximity to the lobby than Black Rod's, might be given up, and one of the Clerks at the Table, who at present had no rooms, might be accommodated. The First Commissioner of Works was putting the matter off until some day when perhaps it would be too late to grapple with it. He believed if the House of Lords knew that Black Rod had 30 rooms which had been unoccupied for three years, and that their Librarian, who was a single man, with no family, had 18 rooms, they would be only too pleased to hand over to the House of Commons that surplus accommodation. If Black Rod had let the rooms it ought to be terminated, for it could in no way be justified. If there were officials foolish enough to fly in the face of the desire of the House of Commons some of them must be told that if they could not adapt themselves to existing circumstances they would
  1202
  have to get work elsewhere, where they certainly would not get the emoluments and privileges that they did at present.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 63; Noes 43.—(Division List No. 124.)
  The reduced Vote was therefore agreed to.
  Immediatety after the announcement of the numbers,
  MR. CONYBEARErose and said: Mr. Chairman, I rise to a point of Order. I understood that the tellers in the "No" Lobby came away, supposing that the full number of Members had passed through, and afterwards returned to tell others who had been lurking in the recesses of the Lobby. What I wish to know is whether that is a regular proceeding—whether, the tellers having left the door, they can return to count any others who may desire to pass through?
  THE CHAIRMAN: There is no objection to the tellers going back to tell others who may not have come through the Lobby.
  On the vote of £12,200 to complete the sum for the extension of the Admiralty buildings,
  MR. ALPHEUS MORTONsaid, they had been told that, although the original estimate presented to Parliament was £195,000, these new building were to cost £304,000. He thought they had a right to complain when they found an architect's estimate exceeded by 50 per cent. His right hon. Friend was good enough to furnish him with particulars of the extraordinary statement, showing the items upon which the original estimate had been increased, but still more information was required. He knew it was the constant practice of Departments to come to Parliament with a demand for a sum of money, keeping the sum as low as possible, though being quite aware that it would be insufficient. The idea was, that a large demand might be met with a refusal, and so £195,000 was asked for instead of £300,000. Having commenced work, they thought further sums would be more readily obtained. I It was not certain, even, that £300,000 would be sufficient. It was time this

  1203
  system was altered, and it was no use employing officials who would not, or could not, estimate more accurately. The original estimate could not have been an honest one. For instance, the architect's commission was altogether omitted. He had no desire to detain the Committee, but when the matter was discussed last year, the Committee were promised information which he had since received, and they were assured that matters were now all right. But that was not so while the system remained unaltered, and he invited his right hon. Friend to give an undertaking that, in future, the work of his office should be conducted on business-like lines, and the House be provided with honest estimates.
  MR. HERBERT GLADSTONEsaid, this matter was fully debated last year, and he did not pretend to say that the whole history was satisfactory, but he was prepared to defend his Department in relation to the preparation of estimates. As a matter of fact, as his hon. Friend knew, certain plans were sanctioned ten years ago. After that came a change of Government, and a Committee was appointed, and to this Committee a rough estimate was presented in which the architect's dues were not included. Then the whole scheme underwent various changes, which involved large additional expenditure, owing to the nature of the foundations and the increased cost of materials and wages, with the alterations in the accommodation in the building. The ultimate increase in expenditure was considerable, but he did not see how this, under the circumstances, could have been avoided. Of his Department he could say that, knowing what was required, and no subsequent changes being made in designs, most accurate estimates could be prepared.
  MR. G. C. T. BARTLEYinquired when the new buildings were likely to be occupied. He observed there was a re-vote for furniture, so he supposed occupation had not commenced. There was much to be dissatisfied with in connection with this building. He took a great deal of interest in it when the plans were first drawn up. Sir Matthew White Ridley's Committee laid down the principle that large rooms were most suitable for the business of the Department, and upon that idea the
  1204
  building was planned, and a great part of the extra cost was really due to a change in that system, and the large block of buildings was cut up into smaller rooms, a most serious drawback to the usefulness of the building. But it was now too late to go back, and he now only desired to know when by occupation there would be some return for this large expenditure?
  MR. HERBERT GLADSTONEsaid, the new building would be ready for occupation in a few weeks, but it was not intended to commence occupation until the autumn. So far as the accommodation of the staff required, there had not been a departure from the principle of large rooms.
  MR. W. ALLANasked if the original estimate of £195,500 was based upon plans and drawings?
  MR. HERBERT GLADSTONEsaid, it was rather a long history, into which he could not enter then. The original estimate was submitted to a Committee of the House, and changes were made subsequently.
  MR. W. ALLANasked who was responsible for the original estimate of £195,000?
  MR. HERBERT GLADSTONEsaid, it was supplied by the Department upon a certain basis submitted.
  MR. ALPHEUS MORTONsaid, he was not at all satisfied with the explanation. He was quite aware that his right hon. Friend was not personally responsible in this matter, but what had happened would occur again if a change was not made in the system. It was not an honest system to commence with a small demand and then continue to draw further supplies from the long purse of the British taxpayer. He protested against this loose way of doing business, and a better system should be at once introduced. The right hon. Gentleman had now an opportunity of effecting an Amendment, and he hoped he would have the courage and strength enough to say that this loose and incompetent way of doing business should be carried on no longer.
  Vote agreed to, as was also the Vote to complete the sum of £56,600 for miscellaneous legal buildings, County Courts, Metropolitan Police Courts, and Sheriffs Court Houses in Scotland.

  1205
  On the Vote to complete the sum of £28,000 for art and science buildings in Great Britain,
  MR. BARTLEYsaid, there was a very large reduction this year in the Vote for new works and alterations. That he took to be the temporary iron buildings for which money was taken last year, although they did not know whether it was used for that purpose. During the discussion on that point the general tone of the Committee was opposed to the expenditure, and the Vice President of the Council said that possibly he might alter his plan during the year and take one of the other buildings on the other side of the road as a temporary means of providing accommodation. They did not know, however, what had been done in respect to that matter. There was another item which he had always complained of. A very large sum of money was paid for the rent of those buildings on the Western Gallery, South Kensington, and the North Gallery, Imperial Institute. The rent paid amounted to £4,360, which, capitalized on the ordinary Government basis, meant a capital expenditure of £150,000. He had always protested against this money being paid while they had got acres of land standing idle at the South Kensington Museum, and one of the most remarkable of modern erections was left in this incomplete state. The country, year after year, was called upon to pay this very large rental instead of the buildings being completed. A large sum of money had been spent on getting the plan completed. The plan suited the requirements of the Museum, and if it were carried out it would complete the building to the satisfaction of the district and to the country at large, and yet they went on paying this £4,000 or £5,000 a year for the hire of a lot of odd buildings on the other side of the road. It was not creditable to any Government. He thought it was a most unsatisfactory state of affairs, and that the country would agree that it was a most extravagant way of conducting the work. They certainly ought, in his opinion, to take a Vote in order to provide accommodation on the side of the road where there was ample space. He thought the time
  1206
  had come when some measures ought to be taken to complete this work, and he should move to reduce the Vote by the sum of £1,000—namely, Item M of the Vote, simply as a protest against the present system of continuing the museum, and unless he got some satisfactory assurance from the right hon. Gentleman he would have to divide the Committee.
  MR. HERBERT GLADSTONEsaid, he was afraid he was not in a position to give any satisfactory answer to the hon. Gentleman. He had very strong sympathies in favour of finding more money for the purposes of South Kensington, but he had no money to spend beyond the ordinary cost of maintenance, and he was not in a position to hold out any particular hope for the future. In regard to the questions the hon. Gentleman had asked him, he had to say that the office on the west side of the road was finished, and had been in use for some time. The galleries they had on lease for a long term of years, and they could do nothing until the lease terminated.
  MR. BARTLEY: What is the length of the lease?
  MR. HERBERT GLADSTONE: 50 years.
  MR. JOHN BURNSsaid, he gathered that they were paying to the trustees of the Imperial Institute £860 rent for certain rooms in the North Gallery for exhibits. He assumed that these rooms had been hired in consequence of the smallness and inadequacy of the exhibition rooms in the neighbourhood of the South Kensington Museum. It seemed to him that, considering the Imperial Institute had become, in the opinion of sensible men in London, a white elephant so far as the objects which it sought to achieve were concerned, the time was now ripe when the Office of Works should take into consideration the conditions under which it was built. It was built as a national testimonial of the Queen's Jubilee, but it was practically a failure. They wanted increased exhibition room in that particular district, and he would seriously suggest to the First Commissioner that he should make representations to the trustees of the Imperial Institute to take over their building. Then the Imperial Institute would no longer be a cross between Cremorne Gardens as they used to be

  1207
  and the Burlington Arcade as it now is, but an exhibition building to South Kensington. That would be the most worthy means of carrying out the real object of the founders of the Imperial Institute. It might incidentally deprive one or two gentlemen of an office or two, and perhaps a salary, but they had got this art collection that could advantageously be stored in the building. If it was not used for that purpose it seemed to him it might make a good technological museum, or be used for some other such purpose.
  MR. BARTLEYobserved that he could not agree with the hon. Member for Battersea, who seemed to think that because one might not approve of the way in which the work of the Imperial Institute was being carried on, one was entitled to steal the building. He was not concerned with the Imperial Institute. What he was anxious about was the completion of the South Kensington Museum. The answer of the right hon. Member was unsatisfactory. Last year a pledge was given by the Government that they would propose a small Vote for the work of completing the museum. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that the pledge was given on the condition that the money could be found. The Government, however, might not withdraw from a pledge merely because it was convenient to do so.
  MR. JOHN BURNSasked for an answer from the First Commissioner of Works. He wished to correct the allegation of the hon. Member for North Islington that he had proposed that the South Kensington authorities should steal the Imperial Institute. He made no such proposal. What he said was that as the Imperial Institute was practically an empty building, which was only intermittently used, a respectful representation should be made to the trustees and to Her Majesty asking that the building might be allocated to educational and artistic purposes.
  MR. HERBERT GLADSTONEsaid, that he would communicate his hon. Friend's suggestion to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He had not, however, much hope that the trustees of the Imperial Institute would accede to the suggestion.
  MR. R. W. HANBURYasked, with reference to the rent payable for the east
  1208
  and west galleries of the South Kensington Museum, how long the leases had to run. The right hon. Member said that the leases were long. If so it might have been more economical to build an entirely new building. He did not agree altogether with the observations of the hon. Member for Battersea respecting the Imperial Institute, but he maintained that they ought not to be called upon, as they were practically, to subsidise that institution. The renting of the rooms in the Imperial Institute amounted to a contribution towards its maintenance. No evidence had been adduced to show that it was not in the Chancellor of the Exchequer's power to fulfil the pledge given last Session. He hoped, therefore, that his hon. Friend would go to a division.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 32; Noes, 76.—(Division List No. 125.)
  Vote agreed to; as also the Vote to complete the sum of £22,000 for Diplomatic and Consular Buildings, and the maintenance of certain cemeteries abroad; and the Vote to complete the sum of £407,695 for the Customs and Inland Revenue Departments, Post Office, and Telegraph Buildings in Great Britain.
  On the Vote to complete the sum of £232,700 for Public Buildings in Great Britain not provided for in other Votes,
  MR. T. H. BOLTONcalled attention to the charge for offices in Temple Avenue, which were used for the Official Receiver for Berkshire in connection with bankruptcies arising in that county. Meetings of creditors were held there, and professional men and witnesses had to come up at considerable inconvenience and expense to transact business. The same observation applied to premises at London Bridge Approach, which were used by the Official Receiver for the district of Tunbridge Wells. He knew a case of an unfortunate man who was made bankrupt and who lived several miles from a railway station on the South-Eastern line. He was summoned to come up and give information to the Official Receiver. He wrote saying he had no means to come up to London, and that

  1209
  he would be willing to walk any reasonable distance, but could not be expected to walk to London. All the answer he got was that unless he came up the Official Receiver would apply to the County Court Judge to commit him for contempt. The proper course, he submitted, was for these Official Receivers to have an office in some convenient place in the districts with which they were officially connected. It was an exceedingly inconvenient thing to bring people up to London from those districts when bankruptcies occurred, and he hoped at an early period the right hon. Gentleman would make arrangements with the President of the Board of Trade whereby the offices would be located in the respective districts.
  MR. HERBERT GLADSTONEsaid, his department was not concerned with the policy of keeping up these buildings, but he would call the attention of the President of the Board of Trade to what his hon. Friend had said.
  *MR. JOHN BURNSsaid, he paid a visit to the Tower of London a week or two ago, and, like many other visitors who had a great regard for that fine old building, was very much annoyed at the shabby and inartistic flight of steps which has been substituted for the old steps leading above the horse armoury to the White Tower. If there was one building that appealed strongly to Londoners it was that White Tower, which stood four-square to all the winds that blew. The new steps, in respect of the quality and colour of the stone, were entirely different from the stone of which the Tower was built, and were an eyesore to everyone who lived there, to the officers who were stationed there, and to the general public who took an interest in our public buildings. If they could revert to the old Tower days of punishing malefactors, he would go so far as to say that the architect arid those who carried out the work would be promptly executed on Tower Hill. He would have the new steps pulled down and new ones
  1210
  put up more in keeping with the characteristics of the Tower. When he was there it was a holiday, and he saw a large number of children evidently enjoying some privilege of playing in the moat. That part of London was much restricted in playgrounds, and as the Office of Works had kindly improved the gardens on the front of the Tower facing the river, it appeared to him that not only privileged children, but general children, should have an opportunity of using the moat to a greater extent than they now had. He understood that the officers at the Tower were not opposed to this extension. He urged that the First Commissioner of Works should see that the Tower of London was preserved as the historic building it undoubtedly was, and that he should stop at once the erection of subsidiary outhouses and small buildings for the convenience of the officials there, which were an eyesore the public did not like, and which ought to be discontinued. Many improvements had been made to the Tower during the last few years, but it was ridiculous to spend money on such improvements, if, with them, they allowed the officials for their own private convenience, to put a coach-house here, a fowl-house or a rabbit-hutch there, and thus dwarf the general grand lines of the Tower building as a whole.
  MR. HERBERT GLADSTONEhad not been to the Tower since the alteration to which the hon. Member referred had been made, but he would make inquiry. No doubt his hon. Friend was aware that the new flight of stairs was built to permit of the freer passage of visitors. He would himself go and inspect it. With regard to the moat, he did not quite know what the arrangements were at the present moment with the War Department, but he should be very glad indeed if he could meet the wishes expressed by the hon. Member, and give further opportunities for its utilisation as a playground for children. He would see whether anything could be done.
  MR. BARTLEYcalled attention to the enormous sums paid for rents of temporary Government offices, principally in London, scattered about in different districts. Over £50,000 was thus spent each year, which meant, at the rate at which money could now be borrowed, a capital of £2,000,000 sterling. The great bulk of these offices ought to be in permanent buildings belonging to the State, the various branches of the departments being brought more closely together. He hoped that when the large improvement which was going to take place at the bottom of Parliament Street was effected, it would be the means, not only of greatly improving that magnificent site, but also the means of getting rid of this great number of temporary offices.
  MR. ALPHEUS MORTONendorsed the observations of the hon. Member for Islington on this subject. When this question was raised last year, the First Commissioner of Works told them he was considering the whole question. He should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman what was going to be done with the site opposite the Horse Guards, as well as with other vacant lands belonging to the Government. They ought, he contended, to be utilised so that they might get rid of paying the rents and other expenses which appeared in this Vote. With reference to Trafalgar Square, he had again to ask the right hon. Gentleman when he was going to make provision for the supply of cleaner water to the fountains than that which was at present used for this purpose. He was told that there were certain lamps in the square which were under the control of the right hon. Gentleman's Department which had not been allowed to be cleaned for very many years. He noticed every year in the charges for the maintenance and repairs of public offices an item of £25 in respect of the Banqueting Hall at Whitehall. He understood the whole building was given over by the Government to the United Service Institution for nothing, and that the
  1212
  Institution now made a charge to the public who desired to see the building. He did not think that Parliament having given over to them an historical building of this sort, the Institution had any right to charge the public for the privilege of visiting it, as he was informed they did. Some of their public offices were a disgrace to the country, and if the Government would only utilise the vacant land in their possession they might, without loss, employ a good many of their working men and save money in the end by providing suitable public offices, which would result in the better conduct of their business.
  MR. HERBERT GLADSTONEwas not in a position that night to make any statement as to the plans of the Government with regard to the Parliament Street site. He could, however, assure the Committee that the matter was being pushed on with all possible speed, and he hoped, in a short time, the Government would be able to state their intentions fully with regard to it. He entirely agreed with the views expressed by the hon. Member for Islington as to the large sums which were paid for rents of public offices, and very often for places unsuitable, but which stood on valuable ground which might be used by the Government to more profitable purpose. With regard to Trafalgar Square, he was very sceptical as to whether he had anything to do with the lamps, but he would find out. With reference to the supply of water to the fountains, and which was that which had been used before, he very often felt ashamed of it, but the cost of using fresh water to any great extent would be considerable. He was very 10th to lay anything like sacrilegious hands upon the fountains, which were looked upon almost as institutions by Londoners, though they were not very ornamental. He was anxious, however, that alterations should be made if they would lead to the greater enjoyment by the public of the square, and he had taken the opinion of the director of Kew

  1213
  Gardens, who had informed him that it was quite possible to convert the two fountains into extremely ornamental tanks, and that even then it might be possible to have one fountain. The Banqueting Hall at Whitehall had been handed over to the United Service Institution on the condition that the paintings should be taken care of. A sum of £25 was paid annually to enable the Office of Works to execute the necessary repairs of the buildings.
  MR. ALPHEUS MORTONsaid, there was a feeling abroad that the National Gallery was not safe, owing to the nature of the business carried on in some of the buildings which stood close to it. He would like to know whether anything was done to secure the Gallery from fire?
  MR. HERBERT GLADSTONEsaid, the barracks behind the National Gallery were separated from the Gallery buildings by a distance of 40 feet, and by a high wall. The skylights of the Gallery were also protected by iron shutters, which were closed at night. The danger of fire was, therefore, infinitesimal; but, as it was undesirable that any building should be close to the National Gallery, he was glad to be able to announce that the erection of the new quarters for the War Office would enable them to pull down the barracks and so make room for a necessary extension of the Gallery.
  MR. HANBURYthought the Committee ought to get some information in reference to the item of £27,000 for the acquisition of the houses adjoining Westminster Abbey.
  MR. HERBERT GLADSTONEsaid, the acquisition of those houses was connected with a proposal to erect a Mortuary Chapel adjoining Westminster Abbey. There was a great difference of opinion on the subject, and his predecessor in Office had arranged that the question of whether or not the Chapel was to be built should stand over until the houses referred to had been cleared away. This Vote was for the purchase of the houses.
  1214
  The Government had settled with the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and had arranged with the trustees of the houses (with the exception of one, and that case was referred to arbitration), so that if the money were voted, the work of removing the houses would be proceeded with during the Parliamentary Recess. When the houses were demolished, the area would be laid down in grass, and a full opportunity would be given to the House to form a judgment as to what ought to be done, if anything, in regard to the Mortuary Chapel.
  MR. ALPHEUS MORTON: Will £27,000 be the total cost?
  MR. HERBERT GLADSTONE: Yes.
  MR. JOHN BURNSsaid, he was pleased to hear that the Government had finally abandoned the idea of erecting a Memorial Chapel on that particular spot.
  MR. HERBERT GLADSTONE: I am not in a position to say that. All I say is that my predecessor stated it was his intention to postpone the consideration of the question until the ground was cleared.
  MR. BURNSthought that was a polite way of saying that the project was abandoned. He was pleased to hear that the houses near the Abbey were about to be removed. Another thing that ought to be done was to get the master mason to remove his pails, and ladders, and scaffoldings, which had for the past ten or twelve years injured the view of the west side of the Abbey, to a more appropriate storehouse behind the Abbey.
  MR. HERBERT GLADSTONEsaid, he would communicate with the proper authority to see whether the obstructions could not be removed as suggested.
  Vote agreed to.
  On the Vote to complete the sum of £219,210 for the Survey of the United Kingdom,
  MR. R, W. HANBURYwanted some information with regard to the work of this Department. It was impossible for

  1215
  the House to form any idea from the Estimates as to the annual progress which was being made in this Department. It had been arranged for some time that there should be four great maps made of the United Kingdom. The sum expended on the preparation of those four maps was something like £7,000,000, but there were no reasonable maps to show for this large sum of money. He should therefore like to have a clear and precise statement as to what was the actual condition of the four maps. A Select Committee made a distinct recommendation which would have had the effect of putting the House of Commons year after year in possession of clear information as to what was being done. This Committee recommended that in the Report to the House the Director General should every year state exactly what recommendations he had made for the purpose of improving the Survey, and how far he had been allowed by the Government to carry out his recommendations. That was objected to, and, therefore, the valuable Report was not available to the House. In the first place there was the large 10 foot town plan, for which £600,000 had been spent on 14,000 of them. Those plans very soon got out of date, and to a great extent had become practically useless. A question arose as to who was to pay for them—whether the local authorities should pay for the maps out of the rates, or whether the maps for the large towns should still continue to be paid out of Imperial taxation. He thought that the suggestion of the Committee was that the cost should fall on the resources of the large towns themselves. The discontinuance of the further publication of these town maps was supposed to bring a useful result, namely, that out of the annual grant of Parliament there should be funds available for carrying on the revision of the 25-inch map. What was the real position of the present 25-inch map? The original idea of the survey was that there should be a revision every
  1216
  15 years, but very few of these maps were up to date at the present time. If the revision were set about at once the cost would be £600,000, but if not begun at once, then the cost would naturally be greater. At what rate was the revision proceeding; over what number of years would it extend, and what would be the cost? There was very little information available in regard to the other two maps which depended on the 25-inch map. He did not know what was being done with the six-inch map, and as to the one-inch map, he understood that the revision was proceeding, and that it could be brought up to date in two or three years for £25,000. It appeared, however, that we were going to abandon the system on which the one-inch map had been hitherto revised. It was to go on independently of the revision of the 25-inch map, instead of following the old principle adopted for 40 years of reducing the larger maps. He hoped that, as the country had already spent something like £7,000,000 on these maps, nearly everyone of which was out of date, Parliament would not go on voting these large sums of money year after year for the survey, unless they had a great deal more information from the Minister in charge than they had yet had.
  MR. JOHN BURNSsaid, the House had now presented to them every year Estimates amounting to something like £100,000,000. It was evident to any man who took any notice of the increase year after year in the money which the House had to vote for the public service, that in some way or other, there must be some substantial economy effected. He did not know whether any economy could be effected in the Survey Department, but it did seem to him, speaking without technical knowledge—and it was not the fault of hon. Members that they did not possess technical knowledge, but the fault of the vicious system—that when they had an estimate for £219,000 submitted to them, they ought to know what was done with it. This sum

  1217
  of £219,000 appeared to be paid to 2,530 persons, but that did not properly represent the expense of this particular Department, because he found that many of the persons employed also derived some payment in money from either the Army or Navy funds, and he believed he would be well within the mark when he stated that the total expense of the Survey Department amounted to £250,000 per annum. He would appeal to the Minister for Agriculture to tell the Committee what answer he had to give to the charges made as to the obsolete character of the maps and other work this Department turned out; and also to say whether in the light of the serious amount of money voted for this Department, there was any means by which the method of doing the work could be revised and some economy effected. He really did not believe that the country got value for its money. He believed much of the work turned out was obsolete by the time the whole of the work was placed before the public. He appealed to the Minister for Agriculture to place at the disposal of the critical Members of the House of Commons some opportunity of going into the work of the Survey Department in a minute manner, so that at any rate, they might disarm some of the suspicion that in any of the Government Departments a maximum salary was paid for a minimum of work, and that the Survey Department was the greatest sinner in that respect. He did seriously believe that the survey work ought not to cost more than £200,000, and that the work ought to be more up to date than it was; and he asked the Minister for Agriculture whether he could not effect some economy, and whether a number of the "Tite Barnacles" who attached themselves to an office of this kind could not be retired.
  MR. H. J. WILSONwished to mention, as bearing on the obsolete character of the work done by this Department, what had
  1218
  occurred in a Committee which was sitting upstairs on a Bill dealing with the Irish borough of Clonmel. It had transpired in the course of the inquiry, that the maps which were being used were 53 years old, and the contending parties before the Committee had to make the best use they could of maps 53 years out of date.
  MR. T. H. BOLTONasked for some explanation of the very large item of £149,000 for civil assistants, and also of the item of £17,000 or £18,000 for extra pay to non-commissioned officers and sappers. He understood that the survey was made by the Royal Engineers, and he would like to have some information as to what these civil assistants were and what they did. Were they surveyors or what?
  MR. GRANT LAWSONcalled attention to the position of the Civil assistants in the Ordnance Survey. They constituted one of the few branches of the public service, the members of which could not, by any length of service, acquire a pension. At one time, as he understood, an arrangement was made under which a certain number of pensions were granted to some who had been on the higher scale of salaries; but this was not extended to those who were on the lower scale, and who were, therefore, less able to provide against the time when they would be past work. He should be glad to learn how it was that this branch of the service was debarred from any chance of earning pensions?
  MR. HERBERT PAULsaid, as he understood, these civil assistants legally, like all civil servants, were entitled to a pension; but in 1870, owing to a report made by General James, who represented that the work was of a temporary character and would be completed in about ten years, these gentlemen were deprived of their right to a pension. The decision was represented as a legitimate grievance to the Treasury, who relaxed a little and granted

  1219
  a right to a pension to those who were employed between September 1870 and January 1873. Those who were employed since had no right to a pension, however long their service might be. The work, represented by General James as temporary, had long been recognised as of a permanent character. These gentlemen were employed permanently on the work of revising the Ordnance Survey, and they were paid at the same rate as those who, after a certain term of service, were entitled to a pension. On the 21st of March last the hon. Member for Northampton asked the President of the Board of Agriculture—
  "Whether some of the so-called labourers in the Ordnance Survey Department are receiving as low a rate of wages as 16s. 6d. per week, and whether, although called labourers, their work is really that of surveyors' assistants, and when in the office they are chiefly employed as assistant printers; and whether he will take steps to fix their minimum wage at 20s. per week, the same as is now paid to the Admiralty labourers at Deptford?"
  The President of the Board of Agriculture (Mr. Herbert Gardner) in reply, said:—
  "The rate of wages mentioned by the hon. Member is a probationary rate for men who are really learning their work. At the end of the probationary period, which has recently been reduced from three years to one, the labourers employed in the field receive 18s. per week, and the printers' labourers at Southampton and Dublin gradually rise from 18s. to 21s. a week. It would not be correct to describe the former as surveyors' assistants or the latter as assistant printers. I have on more than one occasion looked into the case of these men, at the request of hon. Members behind me, and, taking into account their other privileges and all the conditions under which they work, I do not think they are insufficiently paid, or that their position compares unfavourably with that of any Admiralty labourer employed on similar duties."
  The hon. Member (Mr. Tankerville Chamberlayne) then asked:—
  "I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture what is the number of civilians employed in the Ordnance Survey Department, and how many are classed as permanent civil assistants entitled to pensions, and how many are called temporary civil assistants not so entitled, and if there is any difference in the nature of the work performed by these two classes; whether a distinction has lately been made in the temporary class, whereby those who joined before 4th January 1873 become entitled to
  1220
  pensions, while those who joined a few days after are excluded; and if he will make it a rule in future that 15 years' continuous service shall qualify an employé for a pension?"
  The President of the Board of Agriculture replied:—
  "The number of civil assistants employed on the Ordnance Survey is 1,672, of whom 336 are entitled to pension and 1,336 are not so entitled. Under an arrangement sanctioned by the Treasury early last year a civil assistant appointed to any one of the 76 important and responsible situations on the Survey will be entitled to pension if he obtains the necessary certificate from the Civil Service Commissioners, but otherwise the right to pension depends not upon the nature of the duties, but upon the date of appointment. My hon. Friend behind me (Sir F. Evans) recently brought under notice the case of the civil assistants appointed between September 1870 and January 1873, and the right to pension has now been conceded by the Treasury to 57 of those assistants on the ground that it was not until the latter date that the final decision abolishing superannuation was notified to the Survey. It rests with the Treasury to say whether any modification of the conditions under which temporary civil assistants have joined the Survey since the 4th January 1873 should be made, but there can be no doubt that at the time of their appointment those assistants had no reason to suppose that their engagement carried with it any right to pension."
  He did not think it was quite a satisfactory answer, and he should be glad if the right hon. Gentleman could give any further information on the point. It did not seem to him to be consistent with justice that gentlemen who entered the service between 1870 and 1873 should have pensions as a special concession from the Treasury, and that those who had entered it later and who had received notice that they would not be entitled to pensions, should be deprived of them after such long-continued service. Some of these gentlemen had now served for periods of more than 20 years, and they might continue to serve for a large number of years to come. They joined under the ordinary understanding and belief that they would, in course of time, become entitled to the ordinary pension. It was quite evident that the work was of an important character; it required great skill and care; and it was to the public interest that it should be done with the utmost efficiency. Some of these men were in his own constituency. If it was merely a case of men in the public service asking to have their wages

  1221
  increased, he would not stand up to make such a demand; but the representation he made was, that they were placed on a footing different from that of other persons in the same Department, and of other branches of the Civil Service. In these circumstances, they were entitled to have an explanation from the Government of the reason why they were placed in such an exceptional position. As they had given 15 years continuous service as civil assistants, they asked that they should be recognised as permanent assistants. In order to give his right hon. Friend an opportunity to make a full explanation, and to elicit an expression of opinion, he moved the reduction of the vote by the sum of £100.
  *THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. HERBERT GARDNER, Essex, Saffron Walden)said, he fancied that the objects which the hon. Members for Preston and for Battersea had at heart were to be reached by somewhat different roads, because the former wanted to have the 25-inch map completed at any cost, and the latter wished to see some economy exercised. He must enter a protest against the criticism which had been passed upon the Ordnance Survey Maps. He regretted the absence of the hon. Baronet opposite who presided over a Committee which made a most exhaustive inquiry into the subject, and came to the conclusion that our Ordnance Survey Maps were the best maps in the world. [Mr. HANBURY: "If up to date."] That they were superior to the best maps produced anywhere, and even to the German maps. The Government had considered whether they would embark on a large additional expenditure, or endeavour with the large sum annually voted by Parliament to bring these maps up to date. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, two or three years ago, decided that it was impossible to find more money, and an effort would therefore be made to bring the maps up to date with the money annually voted, which he thought would be found quite sufficient to carry out the work now authorised. On page 55 of the ordinary Estimates the hon. Member for Preston would find set down specifically and exhaustively the present programme of the Ordnance Survey.
  MR. HANBURYsaid, no doubt it showed how the money was to be spent,
  1222
  but it did not give the state of the completion of maps, or how many were out of date and even 53 years old.
  *MR. HERBERT GARDNERsaid, the information required was given. The new series of 1-inch maps would be completed earlier than was expected by the Committee. The approximate sum required for the completion of the revision of the 25-inch maps would be £1,574,000.
  MR. HANBURYasked how far they had got towards the completion of the maps?
  *MR. HERBERT GARDNERreplied that he could not say at the moment. But the fact that the maps were to be produced within a shorter time than was expected at only the normal cost voted each year, instead of a larger sum being asked for, was in itself a pledge that the work was being pushed on as quickly as possible.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked whether one-fiftieth part of the total estimated expenditure on this item had been, or was in process of being, expended?
  *MR. HERBERT GARDNERsaid, that in Column 1 of the Appendix to the Estimates the hon. Gentleman would see the exact sum required for 1895–6, and if he added it to the sum which in future would be required he would see the total cost.
  MR. A. O'CONNORsaid, that in Column 1 there was an item £90,000 appropriated for two different surveys-one for the survey of Scotland, the other for general revision. The distribution between the two items was not shown, but the approximate further sum required for the completion of one of these items alone exceeded £1,500,000. He wanted to know what proportion of the £90,000 had vet been expended either in connection with the 6-inch or the 9-inch map. According to his information, not one-fiftieth part of the estimated expenditure on the survey had yet been expended.
  *MR. HERBERT GARDNERsaid that he was not prepared to answer that question offhand, but he would obtain information on the subject. With regard to the question of pensions to the temporary Civil assistants in the Civil Service, their claims had been carefully

  1223
  considered by his predecessor and himself and by the Treasury. It was recognised that in certain cases there might be some ground for some persons supposing that they had been treated with injustice, and in those cases pensions had been granted.
  *MR. T. H. BOLTONasked what these people were before they were appointed.
  *MR. GARDNERsaid, that he really did not know.
  MR. PAULsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman had referred him to the Treasury for a reply to his question with regard to these so-called temporary assistants. He should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman, however, whether these temporary assistants did not perform precisely the same duties as the permanent Civil Servants discharged, and whether, in fact, they were not as permanently employed as any of the other Civil Servants. The right hon. Gentleman had said that these temporary assistants who were engaged before June 1873 were under the belief that they were obtaining appointments to which pensions were attached.
  *MR. GARDNERsaid, that he had not gone quite as far as that. What he had said was that there might have been some kind of belief on their parts that they were to receive pensions, and, therefore, the pensions had been granted them.
  MR. PAULsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman admitted that these people entertained the belief, reasonable or not reasonable, that they were to receive pensions. He should like to know whether the gentlemen engaged after 1873 were not engaged upon precisely the same footing as those who were engaged before that date.
  *MR. T. H. BOLTONsaid, that when the Government had work of a temporary character to be done they engaged temporary assistants to do it. Those temporary assistants thoroughly understood that their employment was merely of a temporary character, and it was not
  1224
  because they were kept on in their employment much longer than they themselves expected that they were entitled to pensions. These sort of persons, however, usually before very long began agitating and causing pressure to be brought upon Members of Parliament in the Lobby and through them upon the Government, in order to get on the permanent staff and to obtain pensions to which they had no legitimate claim. Pensions were granted to permanent Civil Servants on the understanding that those pensions were in reality merely deferred pay. The officers postponed part of their pay instead of setting aside themselves a portion of their salaries. When, however, temporary officers were appointed, it was monstrous that, having got their employment on the understanding that it was to be merely of a temporary character, they should come to that House and claim to be placed upon the same footing as permanent Civil Servants. If, when appeals were made to Members of Parliament to take up cases of this kind, they would consider the taxpayer a little as well as the people who made the appeal to have their condition improved, they would do more real service to their constituents. He hoped the Government would stand firm, and would not encourage Civil servants to look for the conversion of temporary appointments into permanent positions, and to get pensions which they had not earned.
  *THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Sir JOHN HIBBERT, Oldham)said, on the 4th January, 1873, an Order was issued and communicated to the Civil assistants to whom the hon. Member for South Edinburgh had referred, in which those men were informed that they were not to be placed on the establishment, and, therefore, they had no claim to a pension. On retirement, however, they would receive a gratuity, the amount of which would be based on the number of years they had served.
  MR. JOHN BURNSsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had not replied to what he considered the most pertinent part of the hon. Member for Preston's speech—namely, the obsolete character of some of the work turned out by the Survey Department. The truth of that had been confirmed by the hon. Member for the Holmfirth Division of Yorkshire, who was an active Member of a Committee upstairs, and who gave some instances where a map was 53 years out of date. That was the general opinion outside. They were not bringing specific allegations against the officers of the Survey Department, but they did say that unless this Department brought its work more up to date, and until it established 10 years as the longest period that a map could go unrevised, the Department would be open to vigorous criticism by Members of the House who frequently served on Water Committees upstairs. It had been shown that the Department was equal to an emergency, and that was his contention. If they were stimulated and stirred up a little more, he thought they would be able to produce their work a little more quickly, and if pressure was brought to bear upon them he believed they would adapt themselves to the new requirements. It was a serious hindrance to a Committee which was considering a Water Bill upstairs to find, as sometimes happened, that the map on which they had been proceeding was obsolete. The question in regard to the workmen referred to by the hon. Member for East Donegal was not one of pension so much as that of revision of pay, and he would suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should apply the Woolwich Arsenal scale of pay to the case of the labourers of the Survey Department.
  *MR. GARDNERsaid, that since the Survey Department had been under his control the eight-hours system and other advantages affecting the labourers had been introduced by him. The pay of the Survey labourers was equal to that of
  1226
  similar classes of men in the other Government Departments; and it might be stated that, at the present moment, the work of the Department in regard to the maps and their revision was in a more forward and satisfactory state than it had hitherto been.
  SIR JOHN HIBBERTexpressed the hope that, it being now past Eleven o'clock, the Committee would consent to Progress being reported, according to the arrangement that had been entered into.
  MR. PAULasked leave to withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. HANBURYsaid, he would like to ask one question with regard to the pay of certain of the Civil assistants and labourers in the Survey Departments. Many of these men were pensioners from the Army and Navy, and he wished to know on what principle they were paid. It would be very unfair to labouring men generally that those men, because they were in receipt of pensions, should therefore be expected to work for dimished pay, for they would be thus competing with other men most unfairly. He desired to know from the right hon. Gentleman whether those Civil assistants and labourers who were pensioners received the ordinary rate of pay or not?
  *MR. GARDNER: Yes, that is the case with respect to all of them.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he thought the Committee would agree that the answers given by the right hon. Gentleman to the points submitted to him had been of a very general character, and had been to a great extent limited to reading page 55 of the Estimates The right hon Gentleman gave the Committee no detailed information whatever. On an examination of this Vote, too, it would be found that the Estimate had been prepared in a very slipshod fashion. Even in such a small detail as that on page 53, relating to the labourers engaged, this was shown. It was stated

  1227
  that the total number of labourers last year were 444, and this year they had been reduced to 400, a reduction of about one-eleventh. But while the number of labourers was shown to be reduced by one-eleventh the reduction of wages was shown to be reduced by only one-twenty seventh. This was an indication of the slipshod way in which the Estimate was drawn. With regard to the question of the Civil assistants, he thought those men were entitled to some consideration, for they were now refused the pensions, status, and advantages which were granted to almost every other branch of the Civil Service.
  *MR. GARDNERsaid, he was quite ready to answer any further questions on this subject, but in view of the arrangement to take the Second Reading of the Seal Fisheries Bill, he hoped that progress would be reported.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, under the circumstances, he would move to report progress.
  Motion agreed to.

  SEAL FISHERIES (NORTH PACIFIC) BILL.
  *SIR E. GREYformally moved the Second Reading of this Bill.
  SIR G. BADEN-POWELLsaid, that the Bill dealt with an important industry, and important international rights were involved in it. Although he agreed with the direction in which the Bill went, he hoped that his hon. Friend had noticed that in many respects it did not go far enough, notwithstanding the fact that it was so far an advance on all previous Bills on the subject as to cross the limit of the 180th degree of longitude in order to conciliate Russia. He thought, however, that the parts of the Pacific Ocean "adjacent to" Behring Sea could not be taken to include certain other seas and parts around Kamschatka which he would have liked to see included. He would also like to hear that some negotiations had been opened with Japan. He regretted, moreover, that this Bill, like its predecessors, failed in any way to meet or carry out the very important declaration made by the Paris arbitrators, which said that the regulations
  1228
  for the seal fisheries which they were empowered to make were applicable only to the high seas, but that they should, in the opinion of the arbitrators, be extended within the limits of the jurisdictional waters, and even on the shores of the Powers involved. He considered that this Bill was very deficient, and he thought that its details might, with advantage, be amended. The Act was, for instance, to remain in force until December, the most inopportune time in regard to the industry, because the vessels were all at sea in December and January, and fresh regulations, if promulgated, could not reach them conveniently. Section 7 declared that this Bill was to be in addition to, and not in derogation of, the Behring Sea Award Act, 1894; but that clause would cover and render nugatory a portion of Clause 2, by which this Bill empowered Her Majesty to issue regulations for the hunting and taking of fur seals. If, under Section 2, Her Majesty, by Order in Council was to regulate the implements to be employed in catching the seals, nothing could be done in that respect, because under the Act of 1894 that matter was dealt with. The most important point of all that was dealt with in this Bill was the close time, which, under the Act of 1894, was specified to be between May 1st and July 31st. The Act of 1894 remained in force until the provisions in the Schedule of that Act were altered, and those provisions were the award of the Behring Sea Arbitrators, and only the Merchant Shipping Act was altered. This Bill perpetuated the vicious provisions of the Act of 1894. He thought some of its clauses ought to be very carefully amended in the respects he had mentioned; and he hoped the Under Secretary would be able to give some assurance that the Act would be made to extend not only over the Behring Sea, but over the whole of the Pacific Ocean north of the 42nd parallel of latitude. He hoped they might not only have the willing consent of Russia and Japan, but some stipulation on the part or those Powers that, in accordance with the decision and recommendation of the Arbitrators, at least there would be some regulations for the preservation of the fur seal fishery extending not only over the ocean, but over that far more

  1229
  important area of the seal fishery industry on shore.
  *MR. GIBSON BOWLES*MR. GIBSON BOWLES rose to move—
  "That no Bill dealing with the taking of seals in the Pacific will be satisfactory which withdraws British protection from British subjects on the high seas, and subjects them and their vessels in lime of peace to search or seizure by foreign naval officers."
  He thought it extremely unfortunate and a matter of reproach that, although the Government had known perfectly well for two years that the Act expired on the 1st of July next, they made no effort until now to introduce this Bill. This Bill was intended to carry out that part of the agreement regarding the western portion of the Pacific Ocean that concerned Russia, just as the Bill of 1894 was intended to carry out that part which concerned the United States. But the argument that the Bill was founded on the agreement was bad in two respects. The agreement only extended to the 31st December, 1893, and it stipulated that the British Government should prohibit its subjects from hunting seals only within a limited zone. But the 31st December, 1893, was long passed, and the Bill dealt with the whole of the Pacific Ocean from the 42nd parallel of north latitude to the North Pole. The Bill, therefore, went very far beyond anything that was in the agreement itself. This question began with the seizure of certain English sealers by the United States Government. The sealers were taken into Court and tried, and when the United States recognised that the seizures had been improperly made they at once made restitution and granted compensation. Then there was the Arbitration in Paris, and in consequence of the Award which was made the Act of 1894 was passed. But in the Russian case, where there was also a seizure, and where the greatest outrages were alleged to have been committed, there was no trial and no legal procedure of any kind, and so far as he knew there had been no compensation for the acts of the Russian cruisers. Therefore, as the House would see, the case for the Bill of 1894, which carried into effect the award of Paris following on the American incidents, was good
  1230
  enough; but the case now made for carrying out the agreement with Russia, following upon an entirely different set of incidents much less lawful, and followed by no award or arbitration, was very different and far weaker. Coming to the question of these alleged outrages, the case was perfectly monstrous. Time did not allow him to enter into them, but there were at least half-a-dozen cases of outrages committed on British sealing vessels by Russian naval officers. Her Majesty's Government made representations to the Russian Government, but the complaints were referred to no Court of Arbitration, but a Commission was appointed to examine the charges of very serious offences alleged against Russian officers. Who composed this Commission he did not know, nor the names of the Commissioners, but it was appointed exclusively by the Russian Government, whose officers were charged with these outrages. He had the Report of the Commission, which, however, he would not read for time did not permit; he would content himself by saying that in his opinion a more unsatisfactory answer to definite charges, supported by the evidence of reputable witnesses upon all the facts and circumstances, was never made, not even by an anonymous Commission. It was confined to a simple denial on the part of Lieutenant Levron of the statements of all the witnesses set forth by Her Majesty's Government. But even this anonymous Commission felt constrained to admit that in the case of two sealing vessels there was no adequate justification for seizure. Anybody who read the papers would see that the arguments put forward by the Commission as justification for seizure of sealing vessels were trivial and inconclusive. In two cases, however, they did admit there was not justification, and in regard to these the Russian Government proposed to give compensation. There has not been a word of this since. He asked if any compensation had been paid. If not, then he thought it was perfectly monstrous for the Government to come to the House and propose for the second time to put English sealers under the control of Russian cruisers, while compensation for unlawful seizures remained unpaid after a long lapse of time. In the course of correspondence Russia claimed to have power to make seizures

  1231
  on the high seas. Against this claim, of course, Lord Rosebery protested, but he was told what the Russian view was, and that the Russian Government would take no account of his, and would continue to seize vessels within certain limits beyond the three miles territorial limit as before. Her Majesty's Government repudiated this claim in despatches. Yes, but they acknowledged it in this Bill. In the regulations we were to make under this Bill, we absolutely acknowledged the claim of Russia over the high seas! He had no spirit of animosity towards, or that dread of, Russia which seemed to pervade the Foreign Office to an extent that the very mention of Russia there was almost sufficient to send everybody to hide in the cellars. His own opinion was, that if Russia were treated in a proper and dignified way, and we held to our proper rights and our duties to British subjects, we should obtain proper results, but not in any other way. The agreement with Russia was arrived at in 1893, and in that year Her Majesty's Government brought in a Bill. In consequence of his opposition, negotiations ensued, and it was arranged that instead of being perpetual it should cease to operate on 1st July next. The Bill was sufficient to cover the time embraced in the agreement with Russia. This agreement stipulated on the part of Russia that the number of seals to be killed on the Russian islands and territory should be limited to 30,000, but what was the security for this limitation being observed? A similar agreement was made in regard to the number to be killed on the Pribyloff Islands, but instead of the stipulated number of 7,000 being adhered to, 12,000 were killed. What security was there that this limit of 30,000 would be observed in the case of Russia? There was none whatever. The House would propably be told that there was an engagement on the part of Russia that a British agent should be admitted to the islands to gather from the local Russian authorities all necessary information as to the results of the arrangement arrived at. But this agent was required to give notice of the place and time of his visit, which was not to be prolonged beyond a certain number of weeks, so everything would be carefully prepared for him, and he would gather information from Russian sources such
  1232
  as would enable him to write home some beautiful despatches saying that the stipulated number of 30,000 had not been exceeded. His main objection to the Bill was formulated in the Resolution of which he had given notice. In that beautiful prayer which was read daily in our Fleet it was declared that Her Majesty's Navy existed for the protection of all those "who pass upon the seas on their lawful occasions." This Bill withdrew the protection of the Queen from those who passed upon the seas on their lawful occasions. It was sometimes said this was in the interests of the seals. The seals were left to be killed with the utmost brutality both on the American islands and the Russian islands. There was on question of humanity in it. It was done in the interests of certain monopolists—in the interests of the Alaska Company on the American islands, and of other monopolists on the Russian islands. But the Bill fell short of what would be necessary to secure these absolute monopolists, because, when they had passed this Bill, in addition to the Bill of 1894, they would only have dealt with the subjects of England, America, and Russia; but there was Japan hard by, and the Japanese would have absolute power to go on the high seas and kill and take the seals. He was told they did it now. He had no doubt they did, and he had equally no doubt that before very long a very largely increased number of Japanese sealers would be found engaged in the industry. So that when they had passed all their Acts, and made all their orders, monstrous orders as he considered them, depriving Englishmen of the protection of the Queen on the high seas, they would not have achieved their object, because they would only have prohibited Englishmen, Americans and Russians from sharing in the advantages which all the other nations of the world, including the Japanese, might enjoy. There was one other point. Had Canada consented to the arrangement embodied in the Bill? Had she in any way signified her consent to the arrangement? He did not believe she had. In consequence of the action he took last year and the year before, he had received a large number of letters protesting in the most emphatic manner against the interference with their honest industry by

  1233
  regulations of this kind authorised by Bills of this nature. He asked the hon. Baronet the other day whether this matter had been communicated to the Canadian Government, and he replied that it had, and that they objected, but that, so far as possible, their objections had been met in this Bill. Yes, so far as it suited the convenience of the Foreign Office and the British Government; but would the hon. Baronet tell them that evening, or at some other time, what were the exact terms in which the Canadians had last expressed their views upon this matter? He, for one, was perfectly certain that the Canadians held now the same views that they did in 1893 and 1894. There was one clause which was perfectly monstrous, and he had thought first of submitting it to the Speaker on a point of Order. On p. 4, in the last clause, Sub-section 5 provided that:—
  "The Seal Fishery (North Pacific) Act, 1893, is hereby repealed as from the passing of this Act, but shall be deemed until that passing, to be continued in force."
  So that if this Act did not pass into law until the 1st of August, they would have passed an Act of Parliament regalvanising an Act that died a month before! This Act, it was provided, was to remain in force until the 31st day of December 1897. This was an Act which absolutely deprived Her Majesty's subjects of their common rights on the high seas, and which subjected them to seizure by foreign cruisers—not merely by American or Russian cruisers, but by any cruisers to which, in time of peace, Her Majesty, by Order in Council, chose to give the authority which she was empowered to give under this Act. An Act of this kind, withdrawing in such an important degree rights so important as these, was at least of the same importance as the Mutiny Act, and, like the Mutiny Act, it should be passed for one year only. The Queen's protection ought to be extended to Her Majesty's subjects on the high seas, and as this Bill involved the question of the liberty of the subject at sea, he must move his Amendment.
  MR. F. G. BANBURYseconded the Amendment.
  *SIR E. GREYadmitted that the terms of the Bill were wide, but it was not intended to do more than
  1234
  carry out our agreement with Russia. With regard to the question of compensation this was what had happened. The Russian Government admitted certain liability in the case of two seizures. Before presenting a claim for those two seizures the Government desired to go into the cases of the other seizures respecting which the Russian Government were not prepared to admit that they were under any liability. These other cases had caused difficulty and delay, there being a conflict of evidence as to the facts. Further information on both sides had now been produced, but it had taken a long time to procure that information, and the conflict of evidence had not yet been reconciled. The original idea was, that a settlement of all the claims might be arrived at at the same time; but as the delay had been so great the intention now was to present a claim in the case of the two vessels respecting which liability had been admitted. That claim was to be presented at once. The Canadian Government's views had been put very fully before the Colonial Office, and although the consent of that Government had not been given to the text of this Bill, Her Majesty's Government were convinced that everything had been done to meet the objections of the Canadian Government that could be done, consistently with the obligation to carry out our agreement with the Russian Government. [Mr. GIBSON BOWLES: "What were the objections of the Canadian Government?"] Some of those objections had been already met. For example, under the original Act a vessel could be seized because, in the judgment of the commander of a ship, she was making certain preparations. This would be changed under this Bill, and a vessel would only be liable to seizure if the commander of a vessel should have reasonable cause to believe that an offence against the Act or the regulations had actually been committed. The hon. Member opposite objected that power should be given to the commanders of foreign vessels to seize British ships; but it would be impossible to carry out our agreements if that power were taken away. What the House had to consider was whether the agreement with the Russian Government was a fair agreement.
  *MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Am I to understand that this agreement has been renewed?
  *SIR E. GREY: Yes, it is because the agreement has been renewed that the Bill has been introduced. The question was, whether it was reasonable that any restrictions should be imposed. That question was submitted to arbitration, as regards the eastern side, and the award given admitted that restrictions were necessary and justifiable for the preservation of the fur seal. Had the award itself been justified as to the expectations that the restrictions, while necessary, would not interfere to damage the Canadian sealers to the extent that was apprehended? He answered that the regulations had not so interfered. Since the award had been in force the catch had been a satisfactory one, and from the point of view of the Canadian sealers the apprehensions expressed as to the effect of the restrictions had been removed. Now, some restrictions being justifiable and even necessary, there was the further question—Were these restrictions reasonable? These restrictions were much less stringent than those under the Award. He said, therefore, that in the interests of the Canadian industry these restrictions were reasonable, and, as we were bound to carry out the agreement with Russia, and the Bill was limited to two years, and was provisional in its nature, he asked the House to pass the Bill.
  SIR G. BADEN-POWELLsaid, the hon. Baronet had raised some novel points. He did not understand the explanation, nor that this Bill was to carry out an agreement with Russia. The hon. Baronet, had raised some important points of principle, and he raised his earnest protest that, owing to the action of the Government, time was not permitted him to reply to the strange arguments of the Under Secretary.
  Question put: "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the question."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 87; Noes, 11.—(Division List, No. 126.)
  On the Motion for the Second Reading of the Bill,
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether he could inform the House of the actual circumstances under which this measure was promoted. He understood there was a Convention with Russia which expired in 1893. That Convention apparently had not been renewed. Something had been said about an agreement——
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member cannot continue the Debate now that the hour of interruption has come. I have put the question for the Second Reading of the Bill, and it can be taken if the House desires, but there can be no Debate on an opposed Motion.
  MR. A. O'CONNOR: I must object to the Second Reading without an answer.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I would appeal to my hon. Friend to withdraw his objection, and allow the Second Reading to be taken——
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I object most strongly.
  Debate postponed.

  SUPPLY [13TH JUNE.]
  Resolution reported—
CIVIL SERVICES (REVISED ADDITIONAL ESTIMATE), 1895–96.

  CLASS V.
  "That a sum, not exceeding £80,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1896, for a grant to the Imperial British East Africa Company on their retirement from East Africa, and for a Grant in aid of the Expenses of Administration in British East Africa."
  Resolution agreed to.

  VOLUNTEERS (MILITARY SERVICE) BILL.
  Read 2°, and committed for Monday next.

  FARM SERVANTS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Considered in Committee; Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.
  House adjourned at a Quarter after Twelve o'clock till Monday next.