CLASS I. (Hansard, 28 May 1897)

§ MR. JOHN DILLON (Mayo, E.)
called attention to the case of the Civil assistants of the Ordnance Survey, who, according to the information supplied to him, had been unfairly deprived of their rights to promotion and superannuation under certain rules introduced some 25 years ago. He believed that the rule against the Civil assistants was made by the then head of the Survey on the distinct understanding that the Survey would be completed in or about the year 1880, and that therefore it was not desirable of take on any more assistants in that Department who could be treated as permanent Civil Servants of the Crown. This was now 1897, and the Ordnance Survey was not completed; in fact, he was informed it might go on for an indefinite number of years. Perhaps the responsible Minister would state to the Committee the view he took in regard to the claim of these men.

§ *MR. HANBURY
thought the hon. Member was under some misapprehension as to the real merits of the case. As he understood, these Civil assistants who were without pension rested their claim to pension upon two grounds. They maintained, in the first place, that when they entered the service they thought it was a pensionable service. No doubt up to the year 1870 this had been a pensionable service, but in that year Sir Henry James, who was then Director of the Survey, came to the conclusion that the survey ought to be completed in about ten years—about 1880. That being so, it was absurd to enter men who would be pensionable; and, consequently, orders were given by the Office of Works, who 1526 were then the controlling authority of the Survey, to the effect that no more men should be admitted upon pensionable terms. That Order was sent to Sir Henry James on September 29, 1870, (but it was not made known to the men generally until about the end of August, 1872, when the Order was officially announced in the House, and a Parliamentary Paper was issued stating publicly the effect of the Order. The men apparently refused to treat that as an official notice, and on January 4, 1873, an official notice was issued to the men warning them as to the Order that had been given. The men who had entered the service between September 29, 1870, and January 4, 1873, contended that between those dates they had had no official intimation that they were not pensionable, and they claimed pension. In 1894 that claim was conceded. Now, however, those who entered the service since January 4, 1874, said that, although no doubt they had full notice, they were in the same position with regard to pay as the men who had entered during the two previous years, and they ought to be treated in exactly the same way. The answer was complete—namely, that they entered the service with full knowledge of their position. Then they said, "Yes, that may be true, but we are paid on the same terms as those men." That, again, was not exactly accurate, because there were two sets of men who were receiving the same wages. There were those who had received the same salary and prospective pension in addition, owing to an alleged mistake which did not exist in the case of the men who had complained; and the only other men who received the same rate of salary and pensions in addition were the men of higher position, who had been promoted to supervising and superintending posts. There was, therefore, no analogy between the two cases. Another point raised was that in 1870 this service was made a non-pensionable service, under the idea that the ordnance survey would come to an end in about ten years. That was perfectly true, but what had happened in that time? In the first place, all the men whose work was necessarily permanent were pensionable as it was. Then, again, they found that the work was quite as well, and perhaps better, done by a non-pensionable staff, 1527 where they could dismiss the men either if they were not required or their work was not quite up to the mark. According to the Report of the Committee of 1891, the number of pensionable men was 300, as compared with 1,350 who were not pensionable, and it would be perfectly ridiculous to put the whole of these 1,350 men or whatever the present number was when they had no special claim whatever, in exactly the same position as the pensionable men. He was bound to say that they had not very much encouragement to give pensions, because some of the trouble with regard to this staff had really arisen with the men who were pensionable already. The Committee of 1891 had gone into this case most carefully, and they reported that these men were receiving the full pay their services required, that there was a great demand to enter the service, that sons of civil assistants themselves were constantly applying to be put on the list, and that many who had left the service were constantly asking to be restored. That showed that the men were receiving adequate and full salary. The Committee also said it would be a great disadvantage to the service if these men were pensioned, because undoubtedly, in a great number of these cases, the work would be quite as well done by the Royal Engineers, and that in the case of vacancies, it would be more advantageous to the service, instead of having pensionable men, to employ Royal Engineers in their place. A further argument raised by the men was that if the Government could not pension them all, at any rate, they should pension those who had been 15 years in the service. That, of course, gave away the case of all the men who had not had 15 years' service. It was an admission that their salaries were adequate. He did not know why men with that amount of service should be treated differently to men of shorter service. They must have the whole of the men in a similar position, either pensionable or not pensionable. As a matter of fact the men who had served 15 years were already in a somewhat better position than the men who had not served that time, because on their retirement after 15 years' service they were entitled to a very considerable gratuity. Then, again, the men raised the point that they had been in continuous employment and that, therefore, they ought to 1528 be put on the pension list. The answer to that was equally plain. They had had the benefit of being in this continuous employment, a benefit which they might not have had if they had been in private service. Their case by no means differed from that of a large number of men in the employment of the Government.

§ SIR BARRINGTON SIMEON (Southampton)
was sure the Financial Secretary to the Treasury would not think he was in any way contradicting him, or being at all uncivil, if he said that the account he had given of the knowledge of these men, many of whom were in his own constituency, when they joined that they were not going into a pensionable service, was perfectly different from that which they themselves gave. He could bring forward many of these temporary civil assistants who would take their oath that they joined this service believing, and having every possible good reason to believe, that they were joining a service in which they would get pensions at the age of 60 years. He had seen in Colonel Leech's own handwriting a letter in which he said that the taking of pensions off these men was not a publication, but was simply a direction to the Director of the Ordnance Survey Department, the then Sir Henry James. They were told that these boys might have found out from the Parliamentary Papers that they were joining a survey which was not pensionable, but how were these young clerks to get hold of Parliamentary Papers at the age of 14 to find out whether, when they were 60 years old they were to have a pension or not. He absolutely maintained that proper steps had not been taken, and he did not know that they had been taken at this moment, to tell these men that they were not to receive a pension. They were told that the pay was so good that pensions were absolutely unnecessary. When a man was 29 years old and had got 15 years' service he had a pay of 30s. a week. If he had 30 years' service his pay was 50s. if he had been of the best possible conduct. They had to remember that every one of these men was an educated man, and that he quite naturally wished to educate his children as well as, or better than, he had been educated himself. He maintained that it was absolutely impossible for a middle-aged man, out of 50s. a week, with children to educate and himself to keep respectable, to save 1529 money. He completely, but as politely as he could, denied the idea that the pay was sufficient to make pensions unnecessary. The right hon. Gentleman had told them—and he quite allowed that he must know—that a great many sons of these men were anxious to go into the same service as their fathers. All that he could say was that a very great many sons of these men were not anxious to go into the same service. The number of sons of men in this employment who wanted to go as clerks in the railway and said they were better treated than they would be in their father's service was perfectly annoying at times when the postbag came in in the morning. He was sorry the right hon. Gentleman had not been able to say anything that would have been comforting to the hearts of these people. He supposed the only thing to do was to hammer away year after year, because it was absolutely necessary that the state of these people should be kept as much as possible before Parliament. He hoped that some day the Treasury would change their minds and be a little more soft-hearted to these most deserving, but most necessitous, people.

§ MR. J. J. CLANCY (Dublin Co., N.)
agreed with the Secretary to the Treasury that there was no distinction between those men who had 15 years' service, and those who had not, but he thought that the claim on behalf of these men for pensions was sustainable on another ground. The work in which these men were employed was of a peculiar and exceptional character, and required a very special training, and when they ceased to work at this employment they were absolutely useless for any other employment. He desired to press that point on the right hon. Gentleman because he had not touched it at all. He wanted to ask him this question. Were the Treasury under the circumstances, knowing that these were educated men—personally, he knew several of these men to be men of education and real gentlemen—were, the Treasury, knowing the character of these men, and knowing that after 15 or 20 years' service they would be absolutely helpless and idle, and if they had not saved money absolutely without resources—wore they going, under these circumstances, to stand on the strict letter of their contract? He would admit for the moment the strength of the point made by the Secretary to the Treasury as to the men having knowledge of 1530 the fact that they were to be without pensions; though, indeed, he must say that the reply of the hon. Member for Southampton on that subject came home to him with peculiar force, because he know, as a matter of fact, that these public notices, supposed to be given, did not come within the knowledge of the persons affected. But, admitting for the moment that these men knew on entering the service that they were entering a non-pensionable service, was it in the public interest to hold them to it? Putting the public interest aside, was it common justice to take the services of a man of special education, and exceptional training, who at the end of 15 or 20 years' service, when he lost his employment, would be absolutely without resources and without the means of earning his bread—was it common justice for the Treasury to say, "Oh ! we made a contract with you 20, or it may be 30, years ago; you knew you were entering an unpensionable service, and we will bind you now to the strictest terms of that contract." It would be a mean and shabby performance on the part of the Treasury of this great country, which was able to spend on one shell fired into Crete the other day, as much money as would provide pensions for the whole of these people. There was another reason why these men were entitled to generous treatment in the matter of pensions. The right hon. Gentleman had hinted at the desirability of employing Royal Engineers to do some of this work according as vacancies arose. He was informed that when vacancies had occurred, men on the temporary list, well qualified by training and character—had been passed over, and instead of appointing these men to the posts, and thereby mitigating to that extent the grievance of having no pension, they had dragged in men of the Koyal Engineers, men who had been worn-out in the service, and who had a pension already, and who, in his opinion, were not fit for the work, at all events, not as fit as the persons who had been passed over.

§ *MR. HANBURY
wished to correct the hon. Member. In 1894 there wore 43 civil assistants appointed, as against 12 Royal Engineers.

§ MR. CLANCY
said that was just his case. Why should any of these vacancies be given to the Royal Engineers? Why should they not be all given to the 1531 temporary civil assistants? It was out of the nature of things that these Royal Engineers, after long service in other parts of the world, and who were already provided for, should be as fit for the duties as men who had specially trained; and it was most unjust that they should be promoted over the heads of men who had practically spent the whole of their lives in doing the drudgery of the Department. The course pursued seemed to him to be shabby, mean, and unjust, and as long as he was in the House he should never cease to say so, until the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury or some one else representing his Department, gave way upon this question.

§ MR. C. J. MONK (Gloucester)
said that in spite of what had been urged, he thought the Committee would be of opinion that the reply of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury was quite unanswerable. The appeal to justice could hardly come fairly from hon. Gentlemen opposite. He thought that justice had been fully done to the employés of the Ordnance Survey. He rose, however, for the purpose of asking how long the Survey would be continued? Parliament was informed many years ago that it would probably be concluded in 1880. Seventeen years had passed, and he should like to know if the right hon. Gentleman could give them any idea how many years more it would be prolonged. He observed that there was an increase in the estimate this year of upwards of £7,000. That increase probably arose under the head of stores. There was an increase of £2,500 for maps and printer's ink; and he had hopes that perhaps this might be an indication that the labours of the Survey were approaching an end, and that the time had arrived for finishing and printing off the maps. But he also saw a new item this year—" contract work." Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would explain what part of this work vas done by contract. His chief object, however, was to inquire how long the Ordnance Survey was likely to be prolonged?

§ MR. JOHN DILLON (Mayo, E.)
said he should like to hear some statement in reference to the claims of these officers from the President of the Board of Agriculture, who was responsible.

§ *MR. HANBURY
The Treasury is responsible on the question of pensions; 1532 but with the exception of the amount referred to by my hon. Friend behind, the amounts are already passed.

§ MR. DILLON
said the Secretary to the Treasury had, no doubt, with his usual ability, made a case against throwing an additional charge on the Treasury. But he trusted that before the discussion was over they would have some statement from the head of the Department responsible for the work of the Survey. The Secretary to the Treasury made one remarkable statement. He said it had been reported by a Departmental Committee, which sat, he believed, in 1892, that the work was quite as well done by non-pensionable men as by men who were drawing pensions. That was a very wide issue to raise, because hon. Members knew there were many people in this country who opposed pensions of all kinds in the Civil Service, and if they were to be told that sort of thing with regard to one Department of the Civil Service, they would begin to ask, "Why not extend the principle to other Departments of the Civil Service?" The right hon. Gentleman went on to say that in spite of the fact that these men knew they were not going to have pensions, and that their salaries were fixed at a certain figure—which appeared to him to be very moderate—still plenty of men were willing to enter the service. Well, that argument, carried to its full extent, would justify sweating. ["Hear, hear!"] They knew well that with the competition which existed in this thickly populated country, they might probably do away with pensions in the Civil Service altogether, and reduce salaries at the same time, and yet be able to get plenty of poor fellows who were anxious to get in as long as they could earn a subsistence allowance. But that was not the point. The right hon. Gentleman had not, in his judgment, satisfactorily stated what were the grounds on which this Department of the Civil Service was to be treated worse than any other Department. The only attempt he had made at giving a reason for this discrimination as against the civil assistants of the Ordnance Survey Department was that some time ago it was the opinion of Sir Henry James—then the head of the Department—that his Department was going to come to an end in 1880, and that, therefore, it was unjust and unwise 1533 to the finances of the country to take on a fresh number of pensionable servants in a Department that was going to cease —and accordingly a minute was made enforcing the system of giving no pensions to the civil assistants. But it had turned out that the opinion of Sir Henry James was not a well-founded opinion. The Ordnance Department had not come to an end in 1880, and, as the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken had pointed out, in 1897, not only were there no signs of its coming to an end, but there was an actual increase of expenditure. At the present moment there were 1,600 Civil assistants at work in the Ordnance Survey. In the Report of the Departmental Committee of 1892 it was stated that the question of superannuation was not one of the points referred to the Committee for consideration, but in the course of the proceedings several protests were made by witnesses against its exclusion, and the Committee thought it right to draw attention to the fact that this could not be regarded as a temporary Department of the Civil Service, but that it was necessary to maintain it as a permanent Department, and that although the question of superannuation was not referred to them in their reference, they felt that the question must sooner or later arise. That was to say that in 1892, 12 years after Sir Henry James recommended the abolition of superannuation on the ground that the Department would be wound up in 1880, this Committee give it as their judgment that it must be regarded as a permanent Department. It was only natural that when these clerks found themselves discriminated against and boycotted in the public service, they should consider they had a grievance.

§ *MR. HANBURY
That Report was considered the very next year, and 76 pensionable posts were created.

§ MR. DILLON
said the Report of the Committee referred to the whole question. It stated that this Department must be regarded as a permanent Department of the Civil Service, and these men, being permanent Civil servants, it was not fair to say they should be treated on a different footing to other Civil servants of the Crown. In this country, whether for good or evil, the superannuation system had been extended to the whole of the Civil Service, and if they 1534 accepted that principle for one Department they were bound, in common equity and justice, to extend it to all Departments, unless there were special grounds why, in this particular Department, the superannuation principle ought not to apply. No ground or justification had been offered the Committee by the Secretary to the Treasury for treating this particular Department, which was admitted to be a permanent branch of the Civil Service, on different principles from those adopted in regard to every other branch. The right hon. Gentleman led the Committee to suppose that these officials were amply paid, and had no ground for grievance at all. But their maximum pay was very little over £2, while their minimum pay was something like 30s. per week, and that, too, for men who must be above the average clerk of the Civil Service in point of acquirements, education, and skill. Again, it was alleged that their work was particularly trying on the eyesight, and that a great number of them broke down because their sight became weak; and they were thus left without any resources at all. Another ground on which he thought that these servants were specially entitled to be better, rather than worse, treated than the servants of other Departments, was that, while promotion in every other branch of the Civil Service-was open to the lower ranks, in this Department the upper ranks were almost entirely closed to the temporary Civil assistants, the whole of the superior and highly-paid offices being in the hands of the officers of the Royal Engineers. He thought it a cruel thing to deny them this right to a pension—whether they had notice of it on entering the Service or not—when there was no equivalent increase in their salaries in consequence of this denial of pension. He trusted that before this Vote was taken the President of the Board of Agriculture would endeavour to' soften the stony heart of the Secretary to the Treasury and induce him to reconsider the matter.

§ MR. T. LOUGH (Islington, W.)
suggested that those interested in this subject should induce the Secretary to the Treasury to receive a deputation, when the whole matter could be presented before him. He desired to thank tile right hon. Gentleman for inaugurating a most useful change, by which Ordnance maps 1535 were now on sale at the post offices. He saw by the Report which was issued the previous day that, whereas in England and Wales there were formerly 111 agents for the sale of the maps, they were now procurable at 492 post offices in addition to the agencies; that, whereas in Scotland there were formerly only 15 depôts, the maps were now obtainable at 137 post offices; and that, as regarded Ireland, whereas there were previously only 12 places where the maps could be obtained, they were now on sale at 116 post offices. Altogether the maps could be bought at over 700 post offices throughout the United Kingdom, and that was a change upon which the right hon. Gentleman deserved to be congratulated. Something like a quarter of a million a year was spent in connection with the Ordnance Survey, and the receipts for the sale of the maps only amounted to £13,000 or £14,000. That was not at all satisfactory, and they ought to consider whether steps could not possibly be taken to increase the sales. He would suggest that, in order to bring about this result, more liberal terms of commission should be offered the agents who sold them, and that the price of the maps should be reduced. If this were done he was convinced the sales would rapidly increase. He had lately taken a house at Littlestone in Kent, not far from London, and neither in the one-inch nor in the six-inch map was Littlestone shown, nor the railway that led to it. This might possibly explain why the maps were not sold, although £250,000 a year was spent on the Ordnance Survey. The place had grown up within the last 15 years, and yet was not in the maps, which were not brought up to date as quickly as they ought to be.

§ *THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. WALTER LONG,) Liverpool, West Derby
said the hon. Member for East Mayo asked for his views with reference to the claim for pensionable rights on the part of the Civil Assistants in the Ordnance Survey Department. It was not his duty as a Minister to decide the questions relating to pensions. The decision on those points rested with the Treasury. The Secretary to the Treasury had announced what that decision was, and it seemed to him that he had firmly established the position taken up in regard to the 1536 administration of the Ordnance Survey. He himself did not believe it was in the best interests of the Civil Assistants that their case should be repeated and reinforced. If an attempt were made to increase the cost of the administration of the Department, the alternative indicated by the Secretary to the Treasury would be arrived at with greater rapidity than he hoped it would be. The hon. Member for Gloucester asked when the existing survey would be completed. Dates were given in the Estimates for the completion of the various services, but it was not for himself to say, having regard to the great interest attaching to the Survey, and the great importance of having useful and efficient maps, that the work would be finally determined even by 1920. The increased Estimate was accounted for in this way. Under the head of "Pay" there was an increased Estimate of £1,500. That was a slightly increased sum which he obtained from the Treasury in the hope that he might be able, by means of the employment of additional men, to complete certain portions of the work within the time specified. £1,000 was for the engraving work which had been put out on contract, it being found impossible to get the hill engraving performed within the necessary time unless outside assistance were obtained. It was an experiment, and until they saw the result it was impossible for him to express an opinion. Owing to the increase in the sale of the 25-inch map, further expenditure on paper and materials was necessary. The hon. Member for Islington expressed satisfaction with the new arrangement for the sale of ordnance maps, and asked some detailed questions which it would be premature for him to answer. The new arrangement had only just come into existence. The deposit of index maps at post offices, and the appointment of various agents in the provinces, were entirely new. It did not rest with postmasters to sell the maps. They were supplied with the prices of the maps, which could be seen on application, and were to send in requisitions for such maps as might be applied for, which would then be supplied from Southampton. It was, therefore, undesirable to give them more than a small commission on that part of their work. The hon. Member found fault with the existing Survey because Littlestone was not found on the 1537 map. He could not account for the non-appearance of this place, but now that the hon. Member had gone to live there no doubt it would soon obtain notoriety. [laughter and "Hear, hear!"] When the Survey was taken the existence of the place was certainly not known, but no doubt it would find a place in the map when the next survey of that part of the country was taken. He could assure the hon. Member that the Department would do all it could to increase the usefulness and sale of the maps and to bring them easily within the reach of the public in all parts of the country. He did not, however, think there could at present be any reduction in price. The Department were doing their best with the money at their disposal, and if they increased the salaries of the staff he did not see how the price of the maps could be reduced.

§ MR. CLANCY
pressed for a further answer to the points raised by the hon. Member for East Mayo, with regard to the Civil Assistants in the Ordnance Department. The Secretary to the Treasury was standing out for strict observance of the contract with the Temporary Civil Assistants. But the Government were not observing their part of the contract, because he found that these Temporary Civil Assistants were subjected to all the restrictions of the Civil Service, such as being debarred from taking outside employment, and compulsory retirement at a certain age, and these restrictions were not imposed until long after they entered the service—in fact, they were imposed during the last few years. If the Government had not observed their part of the contract what right had they to assume that they ought not to give pensions because 20 or 30 years ago it was announced in a mysterious hole and corner fashion that pensions would not be given?

§ MR. CLANCY
said he objected to any Vote proposed—not that he had any objection to any particular item, but 1538 on the ground that he should object to every shilling that it was attempted to give to England or Scotland. His sole and simple objection was to vote money for Great Britain, while under existing circumstances Ireland was called upon to par an undue proportion according to her resources to keep up English establishments, and the present Government having refused redress on that subject, the Irish Members were bound to take the course of opposing every Vote for England and Scotland until there was redress. He might be allowed to say that what was promised last week had in no way redressed the grievance of which Ireland complained. The statement of the First Lord of the Treasury meant the giving to Ireland in one particular matter only equal treatment to that already accorded to England and Scotland. Under the Agricultural Railway Act there was taken for England out of the Imperial purse—

*THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS
Order, order ! To discuss that would be out of order. The point the hon. Member is anxious to raise should be raised in Committee of Ways and Means. There is here no question of taxation, it is only a question of granting the money.

§ MR. CLANCY
said they were now granting public money, and as to the Committee of Ways and Means he gathered that it was a fiction and of no consequence at all. The Government had not attempted to grapple with the financial grievances of Ireland, which remained unredressed.

§ MR. JOHN REDMOND (Waterford)
said with all respect he could not take the view that they were not entitled to raise the question on this Vote. That seemed to be a proper and constitutional occasion for raising a grievance of which Ireland complained. ["Hear, hear!"] They were voting money, than which nothing could be more important, and his hon. Friend argued, as he would argue, that Ireland was paying more than her fair share. He certainly should regret if they were debarred from raising a question of this sort. The organ of the Government in the public Press had taken up the position that the recent concession to Ireland was a concession meeting the Financial Relations Commission. It was nothing of the kind. All that was promised was that on one little narrow point equal treatment 1539 with England would be dealt out to Ireland.

*THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS
said it must be obvious to the hon. Member that they could not discuss on the Vote for harbours and lighthouses whether or not Ireland paid her fair share of the general taxation. The hon. Member would be perfectly entitled to discuss whether too much money under this Vote was spent on English and Scotch harbours.

§ MR. J. REDMOND
said that the position he was taking up was absolutely relevant to this Vote. He objected to vote this money. Why? Because Ireland had to pay too large a proportion of it. He pointed to the Report of the Commission, and he contended that the recent promise of the Government did not meet the case. He did not, of course, attempt to go into the details of this matter, but he felt it to be his duty to point out at the earliest opportunity that the proposals of the Government did not in the remotest degree touch the contention that Ireland had to pay too much. What had recently been proposed by the Government did not touch the fringe of that question.

*THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS
I see no reason to change the opinion which I have expressed, and I hope the hon. Member will not persist in discussing the subject.

§ MR. J. REDMOND
I must, Sir, insist on my rights.

*THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS
I must ask the hon. Member to resume his seat.

§ MR. REDMOND
That is a request which has not been made to me for 15 years.

*THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS
Does the hon. Member decline to resume his seat?

§ MR. REDMOND
Yes, Sir; I must respectfully decline.

*THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS
Then I must name the hon. Member, Mr. Redmond, for disregarding the authority of the Chair.

§ THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. C. T. RITCHIE,) Croydon
I therefore, Sir, beg to move that the hon. Member for Waterford be suspended from the service of the House.

§ MR. CLANCY
Must you not Report that to the Speaker?

*THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS
Yes, but the Committee must decide first.

*THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS said
Mr. Speaker, I have to report to you that, during the discussion of a Resolution in Supply, it became my duty to call to order the hon. Member for Waterford City, and, in consequence of persistent irrelevance, I requested him to resume his seat under the Standing Orders of the House. He stated that he would decline to comply with my order, and it then became necessary for me to name the hon. Member. In consequence of that, a Motion was made that the hon. Member should be suspended from the service of the House, and I have to report to you, Sir, that that Motion was put and was carried in Committee.

§ *MR. SPEAKER
forthwith put the question, "That Mr. John Redmond be suspended from the service of the House."

§ *MR. SPEAKER
having declared the result of the Division, said: I do not see the hon. Member in his place, but if he is here I must call upon him to withdraw from the House.

§ Mr. JOHN REDMOND
, who had, before the House was cleared for a Division, taken a seat in the Distinguished Strangers' Gallery, made no sign of obedience to Mr. Speaker's order.

§ *MR. SPEAKER (after a brief interval)
If the hon. Member is in any part of the House, he must withdraw from the precincts in obedience to the orders of the House.

§ Mr. JOHN REDMOND
at once left the Distinguished Strangers' Gallery.

§ Mr. SPEAKER
vacated the Chair, and the House again went into Committee of Supply, the CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS in the Chair.

§ MR. CLANCY
resumed the Debate on the Vote. He said that before the Vote was passed or put to the Committee he desired to reiterate the reasons he had already given for objecting to it, and to every other Vote for England and Scotland. His reason was that Ireland was called upon to contribute out of its due proportion to the cost of English and Scottish services. A Royal Commission had recently sat and inquired into the question of the over-taxation of Ireland, and the Report of that Commission established beyond doubt or question that Ireland was overtaxed. That being so—

*THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS
I have already ruled more than once on that point, that that question cannot be raised upon Votes in Supply. It must be raised in Committee of Ways and Means. This is not the proper time to raise it. I hope the hon. Member will therefore not persist in continued irrelevancy.

§ MR. CLANCY
I thought, and I still think, that to raise the question, in general terms, of the over-taxation of Ireland on every Vote was the most relevant thing I could do [Irish cheers]—when we are called upon to contribute to the cost of English and Scottish services. And I must respectfully press my right to discuss this matter. [Ministerial cries of "Order !"]

*THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS
I understand the hon. Member desires to persist in disregarding the authority of the Chair.

§ MR. CLANCY
I desire to say that I persist in discussing this question which is now before the House upon the grounds —[loud Ministerial cries of "Order !"] —which I have already stated, and I think—

*THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS
I have already ruled that that is not a sufficient ground, and that the matter cannot be discussed in Supply. If the hon. Member persists in discussing it in Supply I must regard his conduct as grossly disorderly, and, under these 1542 circumstances, I must request him to withdraw from the House.

§ MR. CLANCY
I consider the decision unjust—[Ministerial cries of "Order !"] —and I am not disposed to submit to injustice. [Irish cheers and Ministerial cries of"Order!"]

*THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS
I have directed the hon. Member to withdraw from the House. Do I understand the hon. Member refuses to obey?

§ MR. CLANCY
I do, Sir.

*THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS
Then I must call on the Serjeant-at-Arms to enforce the order I gave. [Cheers.]

§ MR. WILLIAM REDMOND
Send for the Horse Guards! [Laughter.]
The Serjeant-at-Arms approached the hon. Member for Dublin County, N., who at once rose from his seat and left the House amid Nationalist cheers and Ministerial laughter.

§ MR. W. REDMOND
rose, amid Ministerial laughter and Nationalist cheers, and said: On a point of order, Mr. Lowther, I desire to ask you whether it is in order for you to order the Serjeant-at-Arms to remove an hon. Member without having first asked the leave of the House to do so? [Cheers.]

*THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS
Oh! yes, certainly. [Ministerial cheers.]

§ MR. W. REDMOND
May I ask, Sir, on a further point of order, whether we are to understand that we are in this position—that at any time we are liable to be removed from the House by the Serjeant-at-Arms by an order from the Chair?

*THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS
That depends on hon. Members. If hon. Members are disorderly in their conduct it is my duty to order them to withdraw under the Rules of the House. [Ministerial cheers.]

§ MR. W. REDMOND
Well, Mr. Lowther, opinions may differ—[cries of "Order!" and laughter]—as to what is disorderly conduct; but I think it is not only grossly disorderly, but grossly criminal, to rob a country and then gag its representatives—[cheers and cries of "Order!"]—and order them out of the House when they simply raise their voice in order to enforce a demand which has 1543 been unanimously given utterance to throughout the length and breadth of Ireland. [Cheers.] I certainly on this Vote now before the House desire to say that I take this opportunity, and shall take every opportunity, of objecting to the participation of Ireland in a single one of these Votes in the present circumstances. It has been abundantly proved that the Irish people are taxed altogether out of proportion. [Cries of "Order, order!"]

*THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS
I do not know whether it is really necessary for me to repeat what I have already ruled—that that question cannot be raised in Committee of Supply. There are other and proper opportunities for raising that question. ["Hear, hear!"] All I have ruled this afternoon is that this is not a proper occasion for raising that question, and if the hon. Member persists in disregarding my ruling I am afraid I shall have to put the Standing Order in force. ["Hear, hear! "]

§ MR. W. REDMOND
I think you should take into consideration, Mr. Lowther, that when you gave your, no doubt, weighty ruling I was not present. I cannot, therefore, be expected to know what your ruling was, and if you have got a ruling that applies to me, I must ask you to explain it. My point at the present time is that I object to this Vote because I object to the Irish people being called on to bear a share in these expenses, and I fail altogether to see—and I say go with great respect—how it is I am out of order in endeavouring to show why it is I object to the Irish people being called on to participate in this Vote. [Cheers.] I do so because I think it is unjust to the Irish people, in view of the fact that it is perfectly well known to the House and this country that the Irish people are taxed more than they ought to be in proportion to the people of this country, and that, as a matter of fact, we are being robbed in Ireland. [Ministerial cries of "Order, order !"] I do not know whether that is grossly disorderly or not, but I consider that I am but discharging a very simple duty to my constituents and the Irish people when I take this opportunity of protesting as strongly as I can against what is undoubtedly a system of robbery practised on the Irish people. [Cheers.] In 1544 view of the Report of the Royal Commission on the financial relations—[cries of "Order !" and cheers]—

*THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS
The hon. Member is perfectly entitled to object to this Vote on the ground that it is too large and that too much money is spent on English and Scotch harbours and not enough on Irish harbours; but the question of the financial relations between Great Britain and Ireland cannot be discussed on this Vote. I think the hon. Member will see—on reflection it will be obvious to him—that it must be so, because otherwise the same question can be raised on every Vote, and that would clearly be against the ordinary rules and practice of the House. ["Hear, hear!"] Therefore that seems to me to be sufficient ground, amongst others, for saying that the question cannot be discussed now, and therefore I must ask the hon. Member to confine himself to the Vote.

§ MR. W. REDMOND
I have listened to your ruling, Mr. Lowther, very patiently. [Loud laughter.] I think every patience is required by hon. Members who, if they say a word on behalf of their countrymen, are liable to be suspended. [Cheers.] Hon. Members opposite seem to think it is extremely amusing to see Irish Members interfered with in expressing what they consider to be the demands of their countrymen. ["Hear, hear!"] I should like very much to see English, Scotch, and Welsh Members labouring under the same grievance we are labouring under in this financial matter. Such treatment as we have received would not be meted out to them. [Cheers.] I really cannot see how it is possible for me to give my reasons for objecting to this Vote without going into the question of the relative taxation of Ireland and Great Britain. [Cries of "Hear, hear !" and "Order!")

*THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS
If that is so, the hon. Member will be disorderly, for he will be violating the ruling I have laid down. If the hon. Member persists in that course I shall have to put the Standing Order in force. [Cheers.]

§ MR. W. REDMOND
May I ask you, Mr. Lowther, in all seriousness— [laughter]—upon my word and honour —[renewed laughter]—it is extremely 1545 hard for Irish Members to take this treatment seriously—do I understand you to nay that I am grossly disorderly in simply referring to the relative taxation of Ireland and Great Britain? Because, if that is your ruling, all I can say is that it is like a ruling in one of Gilbert and Sullivan's operas. [Laughter, cheers, and cries of "Order !"]

*THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS
The hon. Member is grossly disorderly in his last remark. [Cheers.] My ruling is not to the effect quoted by the hon. Member. My ruling is that the hon. Member is not entitled on the present occasion to discuss the question of the financial relations of Great Britain and Ireland. If he cannot state his objections to this Vote without discussing that question, there is no necessity for him to state them, and he can remain silent. ["Hear, hear!"] If, however, he persists in stating them, and bringing that question in, I shall have to take some steps. [Cheers.]

§ MR. W. REDMOND
On the question of whether it is necessary for me to state my objections or not, I beg leave to state that you really are not the judge. [Cries of "Order !" and cheers] I am, after all, sent here to say what may be considered necessary, in the opinion of my constituents, and not in the opinion of either the Chairman of Committees or the Speaker of this House—[cheers]— and at the risk of being considered disorderly, I do say it is adding insult to injury to say not only that we are over taxed, but when we attempt to say so, we are practically gagged and subjected to [Laud cries of "Order"]

*THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS
The hon. Member is now grossly disorderly, and I must request him to withdraw from the House for the remainder of this day's sitting. [Cheers.]

§ MR. W. REDMOND
I certainly shall not withdraw unless you send the Serjeant-at-Arms to remove me.

*THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS
directed the Serjeant-at-Arms to remove the hon. Member.

Mr. ERSKINE
approached the hon. Member for Clare, E., who at once rose from his seat and passed down the Gangway, previously exclaiming, "I simply protest against the continual robbery of Ireland. You have done it for a century. It is a most outrageous thing." The hon. 1546 Member then left the House, amid cheers from his supporters and Ministerial laughter.

§ MR. W. FIELD (Dublin, St. Patrick)
, who rose amid loud Ministerial laughter and Nationalist cheers, said he objected to this Vote because it was proposed to expend a large sum on English harbours without making any provision for Irish harbours, although for many years past the Irish Members had been complaining of the want of funds for the repair of various harbours in Ireland. It was well-known that many harbours in Ireland were in a very unsatisfactory state. The hon. Member proceeded: I have no intention whatever of taking up the time of the House, but I do protest as one who takes an interest in the financial relations of the two countries. [Laughter.] Hon. Members may laugh, but this is an exceedingly serious question to the Irish people. I have no wish to run counter to the Rules of the House or to dispute your ruling, Sir; but I claim the right of free speech—[cheers]— in a matter on which I believe the majority of my countrymen agree with me; and I challenge any Gentleman who represents a Unionist constituency to deny that the majority of the people of Ireland believe that they are overtaxed. [Cries of "Order !" and cheers.]

*THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS
Order, order ! The hon. Member is evidently anxious to disregard the ruling I have recently given. I hope he will not force me to put the Standing Order in force. I have had to do it in the case of some of his colleagues, and I warn him that if he persists in the course he is pursuing I shall have to do so in his case

§ MR. FIELD
I am exceedingly sorry, but I consider it my duty to obey what I believe to be the opinion of the majority of my countrymen, that we are overtaxed— [Cries of "Order !"]

*THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS
The conduct of the hon. Member is, in my opinion, grossly disorderly, and I must request him to leave the House during the rest of the sitting.

§ MR. FIELD
I will obey.
The hon. Member for Dublin, St. Patrick, rose and withdrew accordingly, amid laughter and cheers.

§ MR. JOHN DILLON (Mayo, E.)
, who rose amid cries of "Hear, hear," and "Order," said he had been nearly 15 years in the House, and during the whole of that time they had been voting something every year towards Peterhead Harbour. The time had come, he thought, when they ought to have from the Government some definite information as to when the work would be completed.

§ *GENERAL RUSSELL (Cheltenham)
said he happened to have a villa in the Peterhead district, and he had watched this money being thrown into the sea. Very recently he took the opportunity of visiting the works on the harbour of refuge and consulting with the very able and intelligent engineer in charge. He had put down a Motion to reduce this Vote by £10,000, but after consulting with the engineer and discussing the whole question with those best qualified to judge, he withdrew his Motion, for he came to the conclusion that the only thing to be done was to continue the work if they did not sacrifice the large sum of money that had been already spent upon it. The House must bear in mind that a large convict prison had been built there solely for the purpose of making the harbour of refuge. He was doubtful whether it would be of much use when made. Formerly, before steamers existed, sailing vessels used to take refuge between the heads of the bay, which give protection from the north and north-west winds, the prevalent winds in that part of the country. But now that so much of their carrying trade was done by means of steam transport, it was very doubtful whether a harbour of refuge at that spot would be of any use at all. As far as he could make out, he should never see it finished. The engineer told him the other day that, calculating according to the most favourable circumstances, it could not be finished for twenty-six years. He 1548 wished to call the attention of the Committee to the circumstance that originally the scheme was adopted by the gentlemen who sat opposite when they were in office, so that hon. members on the Government side of the House were in no way responsible for this waste of money, as he considered it. Still, he should be very sorry, taking all the circumstances into consideration, if this Vote were to be suspended, and hence that the money which had already been expended on the harbour of refuge should not be put to some use. It was asserted, as a reason of making this harbour of refuge, that it was the only way to employ the convicts, and, as he had said, for that reason a very large convict prison had been built at a cost of about£25,000. At the end of the 26 years, if the work was ever finished, there would be a harbour of refuge magnificent in size, capable of sheltering a large part of the British Navy; but whether it would be of much use was a matter of great doubt. Still, under all the circumstances of the case, seeing that the present Government was not responsible for the scheme being entered into, he hoped the Committee would sanction the continuance of the expenditure and make the best of a bad bargain.

§ MR. DILLON
said that after the remarkable speech they had just listened to, he hoped the Government would re-consider their policy. The hon. Member concluded a strong speech against the Vote by hoping that the Vote would be sanctioned. He had given the Committee the information for which he had himself been seeking in vain; for he had told them on good authority that the harbour would probably not be finished for the next 26 years. They were told 10 years ago that it would be finished before now. In he judgment of the hon. Member who lived in the neighbourhood, when finished it would be a magnificent harbour, but probably there would be no ships to enter it, and it would be perfectly worthless.

§ *GENERAL RUSSELL
I did not quite say that, I think, but I do not believe it will be of the use it was originally intended to be when the idea was first conceived, as then most of the merchant traffic was carried in sailing ships.

§ MR. DILLON
What was the principle set forth by the hon. Member? It seemed that this harbour of refuge at Peterhead was to cost close on a million sterling. He was told by an hon. Member sitting near him that the sum so far expended on the work was £297,000. Therefore the argument was because you had spent £297,000 on a useless work, you must spend £000,000 more for fear the £297,000 should be wasted. Was there ever such logic t [Hear, hear!"] The hon. Member came from the district and the money would be spent in his own constituency—

§ *GENERAL RUSSELL
It is not my constituency.

§ MR. DILLON
I beg pardon—in the district in which he lives. I apologise. He admitted, practically speaking, that according to the original intention of those who sanctioned the undertaking, it would be useless—that was to say that it was not going to be of any use that would justify the expenditure of such an enormous sum of money. He was content to put it in that way. A sum of £297,000 had been spent; therefore to prevent that being wasted, they were to spend £000,000 more spread over a period of six years. He saw that the original estimate for Peterhead was £730,000, and £100,000 had been added. In addition to that expenditure, they had, of course, the cost of the convict establishment, and everybody knew that convict labour on such works was an extremely expensive form of labour. He protested against this Vote. He protested against it first of all as a British taxpayer—he could not protest against it as an Irish. He protested against this Vote of the money of the British taxpayer, and although his own contribution to the revenue of this great Empire was extremely small, still he gave it with a most grudging hand. It was but a small amount of income tax that it was his privilege to pay—he wished it was a great deal more; but he gave it with a grudging hand, and he objected to a portion of that income tax being spent on Peterhead Harbour. [Laughter]. And he objected to it all the more because the Chairman had been kind enough to point out that they were at liberty to discuss these Votes on from the point of view of 1550 the relative expenditure on these Votes in Ireland and England. He had in his mind at that moment the harbour of Wicklow, in regard to which appeals had repeatedly been made in vain to the Treasury, and in respect of which a most influential deputation, composed not of Nationalists alone, but of Unionists and men of all classes, had waited on the Treasury and on the Chief Secretary for Ireland. That harbour which could be put in repair for a small sum of money, was left to go to ruin, to silt up, the water rushing in and out of a big hole in the breakwater—he had himself inspected the scandalous condition of things. In a moment the whole thing might be swept away, and for the sake of a few thousand pounds they left that scandalous and disgraceful condition of things in a poor country like Ireland, while they were recklessly spending this enormous sum at Peterhead on a work that would be useless. It was a monstrous, an extravagant, waste of money; and they were entitled and bound to raise their voices against such Azotes being passed. He protested against this with all the more confidence and strength because, as he had already said, Peterhead Harbour had been one of the chronic grievances of the House of Commons. It had come up every year for the last ten or fifteen years, and he should unquestionably divide the House against it unless an equivalent amount on a liberal scale was given where it was required in Ireland.

§ THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN, Worcestershire, E.)
was not quite sure whether the hon. Gentleman opposite knew what the origin of this Harbour of Refuge was, or how this Vote came upon the Paper. It was the result of a Committee summoned in 1881 to inquire into various questions in connection with the employment of convicts. They reported that the best method of employing convicts was in the establishment of the most suitable form of public works, and that the most suitable form of public works on which they could be employed was the formation of harbours of refuge; and they recommended Peterhead as the best place on the east coast for constructing such a harbour. 1551 In accordance with that recommendation a scheme was prepared by an eminent firm of engineers and sanctioned by the House. The progress of the work had necessarily been slow. He did not think that the House had ever been told that it was likely to be finished by the present time, and he certainly could not hold out any hope of its completion before many years had elapsed. His hon. and gallant Friend's estimate of the time that would be required was probably correct. Quick progress was next to impossible at present on account of the rocky nature of the bottom on which the breakwater had been founded. The sum included for this purpose in the Estimate was the largest sum which they could hope to expend this year, having regard to the difficulties of the work. It was expected when the structure was begun that on the average 500 convicts would be available, but during the past year the average number of available men had not exceeded 250. He supposed he ought to congratulate Scotland upon that fact, but it was not conducive to rapid progress with the work. He trusted that the hon. Member would not Divide the Committee against this proposal. Scotch Members had repeatedly urged that the work was of the utmost importance, and it was a means of employing convict labour usefully.

§ SIR HENRY FOWLER (Wolverhampton, E.)
said that he was at the Home Office when it was decided to undertake this work, and that its main object was to provide employment for convicts. Portland breakwater was at that time approaching conclusion, and there was not a sufficient field for convict labour. The claims of Dover were urged in rivalry with those of Peterhead, and the Scotch Members, who were rather pertinacious in supporting the rights of their country, maintained that the harbour should be at Peterhead, and that Scotland should supply criminals for the purpose of constructing it. [Laughter.] They could not but feel gratified at the fact that the general reform in character and manners in Scotland had now reduced the number of those who could be employed upon the breakwater. He assured the Committee that the work was only decided upon after great consideration by the Home Office. It was a departmental undertaking, dictated by no political or party 1552 considerations. If the Committee desired that the harbour should be finished in a shorter time than was now contemplated, they must decide to employ other labour than that of convicts.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES (Lynn Regis)
said that if the object was to provide a harbour of refuge for vessels on the eastern coast of Scotland, the sooner the harbour was finished the better. An inordinate amount of time had already been spent upon the work. The whole coast of Algiers had been supplied with deep water harbours of this nature since this Peterhead harbour was begun.

§ MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN
explained that there were great difficulties at Peterhead caused by the nature of the bottom on which the foundations of the breakwater had to be laid. The work could only be proceeded with at certain states of the tides and at low water.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES
referred the hon. Member to the case of the harbour at Bona on the coast of Algiers. In that case great difficulties were encountered on account of the depth of the water, but they were successfully overcome. A rising and falling tide was not a disadvantage when a harbour was being built. It was, on the contrary, an advantage. At Bona there was no tide of the kind. When the Peterhead harbour was begun the science of constructing harbours on hard bottoms was in its infancy. In the last few years new methods had been devised. Bags containing Portland cement or other substances in a fluid state were let down, and the contents solidified when they reached the bottom. The harbour at La Guayra on the Spanish main was constructed in that way. He appreciated the affection for the convicts shown by Her Majesty's Government, but his affections inclined rather to the seamen on our coasts, and for their sakes he was anxious to see this harbour at Peterhead completed.

§ MR. P. J. POWER (Waterford, E.)
said that the construction of harbours of refuge had been recommended at other places besides Peterhead. Waterford, for example had long ago been mentioned by a Commission of experts as one of the best points at which to construct a harbour of refuge on the south coast of Ireland. Nothing, however, had been done, although a harbour could be constructed at Waterford at less cost than at 1553 any other place in the south of Ireland. At present Waterford was a fairly good harbour, but there was a bar there which could be removed with ease at a comparatively small cost, and which would then secure a harbour of refuge on that coast which was greatly needed. The Irish people had a right to complain that while they contributed largely to expenditure of this kind it was all for England and Scotland and Wales, nothing whatever being spent in improving the harbours of Ireland.

§ *GENERAL RUSSELL
, replying to the hon. Member for Lynn Regis, stated that it was impossible to advance the work at Peterhead Harbour more rapidly, and the experiments which the hon. Member had described as being carried out in the case of a Spanish harbour would not be practicable at Peterhead. In the first place there wag a very stormy sea, and it was only possible to work something like 115 days a year out of the 365. The only way the harbour could be completed sooner would be by working at night, and this would quadruple the cost, as the convicts could not be employed during the night. The Civil Lord of the Admiralty had said that the work might progress more rapidly when they got into deeper water, but the information he obained was just the opposite, and he was told that when they got into the deeper water the progress would be even slower than now.

§ MR. DILLON
said that his recollections of the Peterhead Harbour were somewhat different to those of the Civil Lord of the Admiralty, but the origin of this work was lost in the mists of antiquity, and its completion would be one of the events of the next century. Nobody knew when the work would be completed, but everybody agreed that it would not be before the next century. The hon. Member for King's Lynn was, of course, as usual, wide of the mark. The primary object of this harbour was not to afford protection to shipping. It had two objects with both of which he sympathised. One was to employ convicts, under healthy circumstances, on the sea coast, and the second was to spend some money in Scotland. Such being the condition of affairs, it did not in the least matter when the harbour was finished, and if it could be kept going for the next half century so much the 1554 better. He had listened to the appeal which the Civil Lord of the Admiralty had made to him to withdraw his opposition to this Vote. He would have been delighted to have done so if the Government would have given them some quid pro quo in regard to Irish harbours. They were now asked to vote £12,000, the sum required for this year being £24,000. It was universally admitted, firstly, that the longer the harbour took to complete the better it would be; and secondly, that the supply of convicts in Scotland was scarce, and unless they could be manufactured on a larger scale the harbour could not be built at the present rate with convict labour. Let the Government take say, £10,000 off the sum required fur the year, and give it to Wicklow Harbour. If Scotch convicts were allowed to be employed in the healthy work of harbour construction, why should not Irish convicts be employed in the same way instead of being immersed in Mountjoy and other prisons? There were no convict prisons in Ireland where the Irish convicts had any outdoor occupation, and none where they were employed in building harbours of refuge, though the Irish required them much more than the Scotch. Every argument which could be used in support of convict labour for Peterhead Harbour was applicable in the case of Ireland, where convicts were manufactured out of material which would not be turned into convicts in England and Scotland. In Ireland, packed juries made convicts of men who had committed no crimes.

§ *GENERAL RUSSELL
could assure the hon. Gentleman that on the occasion he last visited the prison at Peterhead, a number of Irish convicts were among those employed on the works there.

§ MR. DILLON
said that if the hon. and gallant Gentleman desired to insinuate that the Irish people, whether they lived in this country or in Ireland, contributed more than their share to the criminal jails, he had to reply that the statement; was false. He had heard that charge made before, although there was not one shadow of foundation for it. A criminal judge made the same statement in Australia, and he at once challenged the assertion. It was then shown that while I the Irish did maintain a high ratio as regarded minor offences, when it came to crimes of a grave kind the Irish people 1555 were considerably below what would have been their proportion. There was, therefore, no truth in the statement that his countrymen contributed an undue share to any convict prison, and the observation of the hon. and gallant Gentleman was most insulting.

§ *GENERAL RUSSELL
could assure the hon. Gentleman that he did not intend the observation as an insult.

§ MR. DILLON
It was a very insulting observation.

§ *GENERAL RUSSELL
said that if he had unintentionally hurt the hon. Gentleman's feelings he withdrew the observation, repeating that he did not intend it in any way as an insult.

§ MR DILLON
accepted the explanation, and intimated that unless some concession were made in regard to Wicklow or some other Irish harbours, he should be compelled to divide the Committee against the Vote.

§ MR. WEIR
maintained that if the work at Peterhead was to be of service it ought to be advanced speedily; if it was not to be of service then it ought to be dropped and the money spent in more useful ways on harbour accommodation elsewhere. He felt it keenly that while there were so many harbours needed all round the coast of Scotland, especially in the north, the Government were practically throwing this large sum of money into the sea. He called attention to the item of, £21,840 for labour and materials for 1897–98, an increase of £404. The engineer-in-chief at Peterhead received £800 a year for 110 days' work, and the resident engineer £750. Was the engineer-in-chief a retired naval or military officer? [Mr. A. CHAMBERLAIN: "No; he is Mr. John Coode!"] How often did he visit the works? It seemed to him that £150 as expenses was a large item, and he had come to the conclusion that this official was a useless individual, whose services were not wanted. He believed that the resident engineer would do the work quite satisfactorily.

§ MR. HUMPHREYS-OWEN (Montgomery)
supported the appeal of the hon. Member for East Mayo on behalf of Irish harbours. It had been well shown that the money now being spent at Peterhead was spent for an indirect rather than for a direct purpose. At the same time he felt that the claims of the Irish harbours were largely bound up with the claims of 1556 the Welsh harbours. For example, there was no communication between mid-Wales and the opposite coast of Ireland, except by the long sea route from Waterford to Milford Haven. There was a harbour on the Irish coast called Roslare, which with a little expenditure of money could be fitted for cross-channel traffic, and by taking Aberdovey on the Welsh coast there would be a third alternative route made between the two coasts, and embracing districts which were at present destitute of communication. The Report of a distinguished civil engineer stated that by an expenditure of less than £100,000 a harbour could be made at Aberdovey with great depth of water at all times of the tide. Anything which would increase the traffic in that district would contribute materially to the prosperity of the population.

§ MR. P. J. POWER
hoped that the Government would give consideration to the Report of the Royal Commission which recommended the improvement of Waterford as a harbour.

§ MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN
said that his position in this matter was simply this—when the work was decided upon the Admiralty were asked to take charge and superintend the execution of the work. It was not a part of the Admiralty policy that this harbour at Peterhead should be built, and the policy of building such works was no concern of the Admiralty. As to the salary of the engineer-in-chief he stated that the work could not be done by the resident engineer. The engineer-in-chief was connected with a firm which had probably the widest experience in this class of work of any engineers to be found. The Government had had their assistance in the preparation of the Dover Harbour plan, and they had designed harbours and dockyards in all parts of the world, and the value of whose advice could hardly be exaggerated. Though the resident engineer was a very competent man he was not in the position to take the place of the engineer-in-chief. The salary of the engineer-in-chief covered all clerical assistance and the payments for draughtsmanship in the office in London, but the travelling expenses were paid apart on a scale sanctioned by the Treasury.

§ MR. WEIR
proposed, "That Item B (Salaries) be reduced by £300, in respect of the salary of the Chief Engineer."

§ MR. DILLON
intimated that he contested the whole Vote.

MR. WEIK
said he would in that case withdraw his Amendment.

§ DR. CLARK (Caithness)
remarked that a Royal Commission Reported in favour of a harbour of refuge on the east coast of Scotland which was being constructed, and now it, was proposed to stop the work that £12,000 should be devoted to similar work for Ireland. £10,000 a year had been spent on the construction of a harbour at Holyhead. The west coast of Scotland had plenty of natural harbours, but a harbour of refuge was much needed on the east coast which was often very rough and stormy, and where ships and lives were frequently lost. Convict labour was being used in the construction of the harbour which did not seem likely to be finished for the next 20 or 30 years. Free labour should be employed and more money devoted to the work that it might be finished in the near future.

§ LORD HUGH CECIL (Greenwich)
culled attention to the injustice of the valuation of Woolwich Arsenal for the purpose of contribution in lieu of rates, and asked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he would consider appeals from the Government Valuer, inquire into the complaints of the assessment committee, and give them an opportunity of stating their case. The noble Lord stated that the Woolwich Assessment Committee were very much discontented with the way they were treated by the Government Valuer, who appeared to act in a very arbitrary and dictatorial manner, and would give no details as to the basis on which he made his valuation. The Assessment Committee greatly wished to have an opportunity of putting their side of the case before the Treasury.

§ MR. J. C. FLYNN (Cork, N.)
drew attention to the charge of £10,000 for the Metropolitan Fire Brigade. He 1558 failed to see why the Metropolitan Fire Brigade should get this subsidy from the Government tiny more than those of Dublin, Cork, Belfast, or anywhere else. No doubt there was a considerable amount of Government property in London, but so there was in Dublin also; and considering; the enormous rateable valuation of the metropolis, he thought, that, Dublin was even more entitled to a contribution than London was. It was a paltry and contemptible thing that the Metropolitan Fire Brigade, which, was under municipal management, should come on the general taxpayers in this way. Either the item should be struck out of the rates altogether, or the fire insurance companies, who made such huge profits, should subsidise this £10,000. Really, when property was insured up to the full value, the municipally had no interest in extinguishing a fire. The insurance companies had obviously the paramount interest in the matter.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES
called attention to the item of "rates on houses occupied by representatives of foreign Powers," which had gone up this year by £800. He was glad to see this figure in the Votes, because he thought nil remissions granted on the ground of comity should be subjected to the control and criticism of the House of Commons; but he should like to have an explanation of how it was the charge had increased by 25 per cent. He did not know whether the habit was growing among foreign Ambassadors and Attachés of taking larger houses than they formerly occupied, but, if so, considering the enormous and increasing proportion that rates now bear to rental, the item would become a very large one in future years, more especially if this country should be invaded by a wealthier type of Attaché.

§ MR. B. L. COHEN (Islington, E)
wished to see the contribution to the Metropolitan Fire Brigade increased rather than struck off the Votes. He agreed, however, that the fire insurance companies did not pay as much as they ought towards expenditure which went very much to increase their own profits. He pointed out that while the contribution had not been added to for a great many years, the expense of the Metropolitan Fire Brigade, which falls on the County Council, had increased by an 1559 enormous sum in the last few years, while he claimed that the work of the Brigade was done with an efficiency which was a model to any provincial or continental town.

§ CAPTAIN PIRIE (Aberdeen, N.)
crew attention to the fact that while the War Department properly contributed to rates Volunteer drill-halls escaped without any contribution at all.

§ MR. WEIR
asked for an explanation of the item of rates paid on behalf of occupiers of apartments in Royal palaces.

§ *MR. HANBURY
said that as to the question of remission of rates, they were not really remissions, as there was no power to enforce the payment by representatives of foreign countries. For some time the arrangement was that the rates on houses occupied by representatives of foreign Governments should be paid by the landlords. But the foreign Governments protested, and now it was arranged that some of the rates should be paid by Her Majesty's Government and the remander by the Diplomatic Body. This arrangement was confined to those representatives whose Governments gave reciprocal privileges to our Diplomatic Service. The reason why the item in the Votes on account of these rates had gone un was that one house, occupied by a foreign Attaché, was a great deal above the rateable value of the houses generally occupied by officials in that position. As to the Metropolitan Fire Brigade grant, he agreed that the contribution ought to be considered by the Treasury. This contribution was made originally because the Government did not pay their full share of the rates in respect of Government buildings. Now that the system— which he believed to be just—of the Government paying in the same proportion as private individuals had been introduced, the argument for making this contribution to the Fire Brigade was not so strong. As to the rating of Volunteer drill halls, one reason why the Government did not think that they should pay the rates was their opinion that the localities might fairly be asked to contribute so much to the local Volunteer corps. As to the rating of Woolwich Arsenal, the policy of the Government was to pay rates in the same proportion as the private person. But they felt it necessary to insist that the valuation of Government property should be made by 1560 Government Valuers. Government property differed very largely from other property, and was situated in many different localities. The Government could not place themselves entirely in the hands of the local authorities, who might make one estimate of the property here and another there, and possibly run up the valuation too heavily against the Government. As to Woolwich, there was less ground for complaint than elsewhere. Woolwich had been specially favoured. The question of revaluation came up, and the contention was that the arsenal was closely analogous to a large private manufacturing establishment, and ought to be rated on the same principle. The Government agreed, and, as had been done in no other case, an outside valuer —a gentleman from Manchester—was called in to assist the Government Valuer. Objections to the valuation were raised by the local assessment committee. They contended that the dockyard ought to be treated in the same way as the arsenal; but the Treasury properly resisted that contention on the ground that there was no comparison between the dockyard and private property. The result of the arsenal valuation was that the net rateable value had been raised by £15,000; and he, personally, believed that if, as the assessment committee had desired, a local valuer had been appointed instead of the gentleman from Manchester to assist the Government Valuer, there would have been no complaint at all. With respect to all Government, and especially War Office, property, the Government had steadily refused to allow local valuers to be employed. The War Office were exceedingly jealous of strangers being admitted to their premises, and even the Government Valuer had to obtain a special permission. If any one were allowed to visit the arsenals and dockyards, there would be an end of all secrecy. As to the appeal which was asked for, he would point out that the Assessment Committee had been thrown over by the Plumstead Overseers and by the Woolwich Local Board, who had written to the Treasury thanking the Government for the increase in the arsenal valuation, and saying that they had nothing to complain of. He had himself gone into the matter carefully, and he was satisfied that there was no grievance, as well as the hon. Member 1561 for Woolwich. He saw no reason for reopening the case.

§ LORD HUGH CECIL
said that Plumstead had been dealt with in a. most generous manner, and, therefore, it was not surprising that the overseers were satisfied. The arsenal had not been valued in a spirit satisfactory to the Woolwich Assessment Committee. The Woolwich Union did not receive an adequate return. He believed that the Woolwich Local Board had been induced to acquiesce in the Treasury arrangement on account of the pressure exerted by the Government Valuer. The Assessment Committee maintained that the arrangement was a very unfair one and they accepted it not without some discontent. They wanted to know the grounds upon which the valuation was made, and he thought that in fairness they were entitled to an opportunity for investigating the case of the Treasury.

§ DR. CLARK
thought that if the Government paid rates like everyone else for watching and lighting they ought to get the cost of their own watching deducted as in the case of other large ratepayers. The local authorities could not have subventions from Parliament and at the same time require the Government to pay the same rates that other people were paying. He was glad, therefore, to hear that the Secretary to the Treasury intended to reconsider the matter.