Commons Sitting of 22 April 1898

Preamble
MR. SPEAKER took the Chair at Three of the clock.
PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
  CRAWLEY AND DISTRICT WATER BILL.
  Read third time, and passed.
  ST. ANNE'S-ON-THE-SEA GAS BILL.
  Read third time; Verbal Amendment made; Bill passed.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 1) BILL.
  Read third time, and passed.
  STATUTE LAW REVISION BILL. [H.L.]
  Read first time; to be a second time upon Thursday next, and to be printed. [Bill 183.]
  HOLMES'S PATENT BILL. [H.L.]
  Read first time, and referred to Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
  LIVERPOOL AND LONDON AND GLOBE INSURANCE COMPANY BILL [H.L.]
  Read first time, and referred to Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
  TORRINGTON AND OKEHAMPTON RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
  Read first time, and referred to Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
  BAKEWELL GAS BILL. [H.L.]
  Read first time, and referred to Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
  STIRLING GAS BILL. [H.L.]
  Read first time, and referred to Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
PETITIONS.
  ADULTERATION (FOOD PRODUCTS) BILL.
  From Chippenham, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  ARMY PENSIONS.
  For weekly payment; from Banbury and Royston; to lie upon the Table.
  COTTAGE HOMES BILL.
  In favour, from Middleton Tyas, Northallerton, Bedale, Thornton-le-Moor, Catterick, and Newby Wiske; to lie upon the Table.
  EAST INDIA (CONTAGIOUS DISEASES).
  Against State Regulation, from Glasgow (3), Moseley and Edgbaston and Dulwich (2); to lie upon the Table.
  GROUND RENTS (TAXATION BY LOCAL AUTHORITIES).
  From Ogmore, in favour: to lie upon the Table.
  LIQUOR TRAFFIC LOCAL VETO BILL.
  From Middlesbrough, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) ACT (1894) AMENDMENT BILL.
  From Glasgow, against: to lie upon the Table.
  LONDON SCHOOL BOARD ELECTION BILL.
  From Battersea, in favour: to lie upon the Table.
  MIDWIVES.
  From South Hetton, for Alteration of Law; to lie upon the Table.
  MINES (EIGHT HOURS) BILL.
  In favour, from Ireland, Park Hills, Oxenford, Ormiston, Penistone, Elphinstone, House of Muir, Tranent, Featherstone, Glasshoughton, Wheldale, Acklam Hall, Kippax, Edge Green, Bowers No. 1 Snydale, Nostell, Fryston No. 1, South Kirkby, Ellesmere, Trencherbone, and Tibshelf Collieries; to lie upon the Table.
  PRIVATE BILL PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  In favour, from Edinburgh and Borrowstounness; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS (IRELAND) BILL.
  In favour, from Hednesford and Thornaby-on-Tees; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS (IRELAND) BILL, AND SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
  In favour, from Banbury and Haroldswick; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
  In favour, from Lewisham, Water-houses, Hawkesbury, Hurworth, Stockport, Belmont, Portesham, Whittington Moor, New Whittington, Dronfield Woodhouse, Shipley, Sheffield, Wakefield, Reigate, Leiston, Eastbourne, Colnbrook, Norwich, Didsbury, Weston-super-Mare, Wanstead, Wyresdale, Westminster, Gloucester, Brighton, and Copford; to lie upon the Table.
  SUPERANNUATION (METROPOLIS) BILL.
  In favour, from Lee and Metropolitan Local Government (Officers) Association; to lie upon the Table.
REPORTS, RETURNS, ETC.
  EAST INDIA (FINANCIAL STATEMENT) 1898–9.
  Return presented, relative thereto Address 21st April; [Sir H. H. Fowler]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 168.]
  RAILWAYS ABANDONMENT.
  Copy presented, of Report by the Board of Trade respecting the Exeter, Teign Valley, and Chagford Railway Bill [H.L.], proposed additional provision, and the objects thereof [pursuant to Standing Order 158A]; referred to the Committee on the Bill.
  TUBERCULOSIS (ROYAL COMMISSION).
  Copy presented, of Report of the Royal Commission appointed to inquire into the administrative procedures for controlling danger to man through the use as food of the Meat and Milk of Tuberculous Animals, Part II., Minutes of evidence and Appendices [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  IRISH LAND COMMISSION (PROCEEDINGS).
  Copy presented, of Return of Proceedings during the month of August 1897 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  POST OFFICE (POSTAL UNION CONVENTION [VIENNA] 1891).
  Copy presented, of Correspondence relative to the accession of the Orange Free State to the Postal Union Convention, signed at Vienna the 4th July 1891 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  AMERICAN MAIL SERVICE.
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 22nd February; Sir John Leng]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 169.]
  QUIT AND CROWN RENTS (IRELAND) (REDEMPTION).
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 4th April; Mr. Lecky]; to lie upon the Table.
  POST OFFICE (INLAND POST).
  Copy presented, of the Inland Post Amendment (No. 1) Warrant, 1898, dated the 23rd March 1898 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

  SUPERANNUATIONS.
  Copy presented, of Treasury Minute, dated 5th April 1898, declaring that for the due and efficient discharge of the
  792
  duties of the Office of Assistant Inspector of Boarded-out Children under the Local Government Board, professional or other peculiar qualifications not ordinarily to be acquired in the public service are requisite [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

  EGYPTIAN GUARANTEED LOAN OF 1865.
  Account presented, up to 31st March 1898 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copy presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, No. 2063 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
QUESTIONS.

  CENTRAL TELEGRAPH OFFICE.
  MR. W. C. STEADMAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether the male telegraphists of the Central Telegraph Office are provided with only one staircase by which to enter the instrument gallery; whether this staircase will only permit of two men walking abreast, while 750 men are compelled to descend it, and 250 men to ascend it, every night at 8 p.m.; whether repeated complaints have been made to officials regarding its insanitary condition; and whether the Postmaster General will at once take proper advice to ascertain if the exit fulfils all the requirements that the Government demands from private owners of factories; and, if not, whether the necessary improvements will immediately take place?
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. R. W. HANBURY,): There is at present only one staircase used as an entrance leading from the men's cloak room in Roman Bath Street to the instrument galleries, but there are no fewer than six other exits communicating direct with the galleries, which are

  793
  available in case of emergency, and the provision in this respect is ample. The staircase in question is about the width stated, but the numbers using it at 8 p.m. are not so large, usually from 400 to 500 descending and about 100 ascending. Representations have been made that smells from the refreshment rooms, kitchens, and sculleries are at times perceptible on the staircase, but it is not believed that the condition of the staircase is insanitary in the ordinary sense of the term. When the alterations and improvements now in contemplation are carried out these defects will be remedied, and another staircase will be available for the men.

  TELEGRAPHISTS AND THE JUBILEE YEAR.
  MR. STEADMAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether his attention has been called to the fact that the private telegraph companies have granted bonuses to their staff in commemoration of the Jubilee year; whether he will state what steps he will take to recognise this event among the staff of postal telegraphists; and whether he is prepared to recognise the exceptionally heavy work of the past year in a similar manner?
  MR. HANBURY: Some of the private telegraph companies have granted bonuses to their staff in commemoration of the Jubilee year, but there seems no adequate reason for recognising the event among the postal telegraphists any more than among the rest of the Post Office staff. All extra duty performed by the staff during the year was paid for as overtime, the rate for which is on a liberal scale.
  MR. STEADMAN: Is it not a fact that the Post Office telegraphists had their maximum of salary reduced by £30 a year during the Jubilee year?
  MR. HANBURY: No, Sir; I do not agree with that statement at all.

  TELEGRAPH EXTENSIONS IN SCOTLAND.
  MR. J. G. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether the attention of the Secretary for Scotland has been drawn to the passage in the Report of the Congested Districts Board for Ireland, recently issued, in which it is stated that the Board have offered guarantees for telegraph extensions to no less than eight places in the area under their control, and add that in few ways can so much satisfaction, if not real benefit, be produced as by the promotion of telegraphic extensions, and that there are now few places in the congested districts of Ireland that are not within a reasonable distance of a telegraphic office; is he aware that Apple-cross, Ross-shire, with a population of nearly 2,500, is situated at a distance of 15 miles from the nearest telegraph office; and will the Congested Districts Board for Scotland consider the advisability of providing the guarantee demanded by the Post Office for a telegraph extension to Applecross?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. A. GRAHAM MURRAY,): My attention has been called to the passage in the Report referred to by the hon. Member. Any application for telegraphic extension to Applecross made to the Congested Districts Board for Scotland will be considered, along with any others that may be sent to them from districts which have in terms of the Act been declared to be congested districts.

  BEE-KEEPING IN SCOTLAND.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether, following the example of the Congested Districts Board for Ireland, the Congested Districts Board for Scotland will consider the expediency of giving assistance in bee-keeping, where practicable, in congested areas in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland, on similar lines to those adopted with so much success by the Irish Board?
  MR. GRAHAM MURRAY: Yes, the question is under consideration

  STORNOWAY MAIL SERVICE.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether, with a view to expedite the Stornoway mail service, he has yet acted on the suggestion contained in the Report of the Departmental Committee on the mail steamer services on the West Coast of Scotland, and urged the Highland Railway Company to dispatch the Stornoway mail immediately after its arrival at Dingwall at 11.9 a.m. instead of retaining it at that station until 11.55 a.m., as at present?
  MR. HANBURY: The Highland Railway Company have been asked to consider whether it cannot be arranged to dispatch the train with the Stornoway and Skye mails from Dingwall immediately after the arrival of the mail train from the south, instead of waiting for the stopping train from Inverness which follows the mail; and it is hoped that in connection with the alteration of hours which must follow, on the opening of the shorter route to Inverness viâ Aviemore—probably on the 1st July next—a material reduction of the interval now occurring at Dingwall will be effected.

  EX-ARMY MEN FOR POSTMEN.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that A. A. Cresswell, of Henley-on-Thames, who was in the service as telegraph messenger for three years, and had to vacate the appointment on arriving at the age of 18 years, has (after doing auxiliary duties as postman for 18 months on the understanding—with the local postmaster—that he should have the first vacancy on the establishment) been refused his appointment on the established staff because instructions had been given by the Secretary to the Post Office that the vacancy which had arisen must be filled by an ex-Army man; and whether, under these circumstances, Cresswell's case will be reconsidered?
  MR. HANBURY: The Postmaster General's attention has been drawn to the case of A. A. Cresswell, auxiliary postman at Henley. It is the fact that Cresswell was recommended by the postmaster for a recent vacancy on the establishment, but, under the rule, the vacancy had to be given to a soldier, and consequently the postmaster's recommendation could not be accepted. In the ordinary course Cresswell would have been, brought forward for a subsequent vacancy, but, as he is now in custody on a charge of theft, it is doubtful at present whether he is a suitable person for appointment.

  POISONOUS INDUSTRIES.
  MR. D. H. COGHILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, to prevent the serious evils arising from the use of lead in the manufacture of china and earthenware, he will appoint a small committee of scientific experts to ascertain if it is possible to use a glaze which shall be entirely free from lead in its composition?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (SIR M. W. RIDLEY,): I am taking steps to secure the services of two eminent scientific experts to test and report on the various glazes; but it must be clearly understood that the inquiry can deal only with the question of the comparative danger or safety of different materials. The further Question: how far materials found to be harmless, or relatively harmless, lend themselves to the practical requirements of each section of the trade is one for the manufacturers to decide by experiment. I feel sure I may count on their co-operation in this matter, and their readiness to adopt satisfactory substitutes if such should be found for the dangerous glazes now in use.

  LABOURERS' COTTAGES IN THE MIDLETON (CORK) UNION.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) whether he

  797
  is aware that the Local Government Board have declined to sanction a resolution adopted by the Midleton (county Cork) Board of Guardians in December last, granting a temporary reduction of threepence per week in the rental of the labourers' cottages in the Union, owing to the failure of the potato crop, on the ground that they have no power to give any such sanction; (2) whether it is a tact that, by a letter, dated 31st October, 1890, the Local Government Board sanctioned a similar reduction for the year 1890–91; and (3) whether any, and if any what, alteration has been made in the law regulating the action of the Local Government Board in such matters since the date of the above-mentioned letter?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR ICELAND (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,): The Local Government Board did not decline to sanction the resolution of the guardians referred to in the first paragraph; the Board merely pointed out that there is no power vested in them, by statute or otherwise, to sanction any reduction of the rents specified in the letting agreements in such cases, and that if the guardians choose to adopt the course proposed they must do so entirely on their own responsibility. The Board did not sanction a similar reduction made in 1890, although they stated they saw no objection to it. It is open to the guardians to make the reduction on their own responsibility, subject to any review by the auditor, and there has been no alteration of the law as suggested in the third paragraph.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: Did the Local Government Board exceed their powers in 1891?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: No, Sir; they did not exceed their powers. They merely said that so far as they were concerned they saw no objection to the course proposed.
  MR. D. KILBRIDE: If the local guardians reduce the rental of the cottages threepence a week, will the auditor surcharge them with the amount?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: That is a question entirely for the auditor.

  LAND PURCHASE IN COUNTY CORK.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that,, although the tenants on the estate of the representatives of the late Admiral Hay, situated at Ballycrenane, Castlemartyr, county Cork, entered into an agreement, to purchase their holdings so far back as May, 1891, the arrangement has not yet been carried out; and whether he can state the cause of delay and, approximately, when the transaction will be completed?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The agreements for purchase on the estate referred to in the Question were lodged in the month of March, 1895, and the applications for advances were sanctioned in the same year. Considerable difficulties arose in connection with the vendors' title owing to the death of the vendors. The vesting orders have, however, now been settled, and will be executed as soon as evidence is produced that the purchasers are still alive and in occupation of their holdings.

  ARMY COMMANDS.
  COLONEL A. C. EARLE WELBY: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that all great Continental nations make public the names of commanders and staffs of their field armies, and give those officers opportunities for practising in peace time the duties they will perform in war; and what special military advantage is gained by us in keeping secret the names of our field army commanders and staffs, and by not affording them opportunities for unitedly practising their duties?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. W. ST. JOHN BRODRICK,): In all great Continental armies the troops are maintained in peace in the same formations—Army Corps, Divisions, or Brigades—in which they would take the field, and under the same commanders. The distribution of our troops does not admit of their being grouped in peace in their war formations. Accordingly, except at specially organised

  799
  manœuvres, only military district commanders can exercise the troops. No advantage would, therefore, arise from publishing the names of the field army commanders and staff.

  POSTAL FACILITIES AT RAILWAY STATIONS.
  MR. J. HENNIKER HEATON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that in many of the principal Continental cities a post office is kept open at the railway terminus, at which business, including registration, is transacted until the departure of the mail train; and that letters can be posted in the travelling post office or van attached to through trains up to the moment of departure whether he will provide similar facilities at the railway terminal stations in the United Kingdom, and cause a letter box for the reception of letters to be attached to every through train in the three kingdoms; and whether, in all agreements entered into with new railway companies, and for new lines or renewed agreements with old companies, he will insist on letter boxes for all through trains, and, where possible, travelling post offices or sorters' vans on these trains?
  MR. HANBURY: In some of the principal Continental cities post offices are maintained at the railway termini. In Berlin, for example, it is understood that ordinary letters posted at such offices may be handed in at times varying from five to twenty minutes before the departure of the train by which they are to be conveyed. Registered letters and parcels must, however, always be posted half an hour at least (in some cases an hour) before the train leaves. Letters can also be posted in the travelling post office up to the time of departure of the tram. Facilities for late posting are already provided at the principal railway termini in London, and at many other railway stations, and a letter box for the reception of late letters is affixed to every train in the kingdom in which there is a travelling post office. The system is only adapted to trains in which there are officers of the Post Office travelling, who can examine the letters posted at each station and put them in proper course
  800
  for their destination. Without such examination, letters for intermediate places would be constantly over-carried, and great complaint would arise. The Postmaster General does not, therefore, see his way to extend the late letter box system to every through train in the three kingdoms as suggested by the hon. Member. It would, for the reasons just given, answer no useful end (and would certainly enhance the demands of the railway companies) if in all agreements the Postmaster General were to insist on the provision of letter boxes in all through trains. When travelling post offices or sorters' vans are required it is already the practice to provide for them in the railway contracts.

  POSTAL REMITTANCES.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether his attention has been called to the inconvenience caused to publishers, booksellers, vendors of fancy goods, and others, by the fact that postal remittances of less than a shilling must be made in stamps; whether he is aware that large quantities of stamps thus received are disposed of at a loss in discount, much time being sacrificed in counting; and whether he will issue a sixpenny postal order, so as to do away to a great extent with the necessity for the transmission of stamps by post, and the consequent temptation to clerks, messengers, and postal employees?
  MR. HANBURY: The Postmaster General is not aware of the inconvenience referred to, or that large quantities of stamps are received as described by the hon. Member. There has been no general demand for a sixpenny postal order, and it is not proposed to incur the expense which the addition of such a denomination would involve.

  AUSTRALASIAN POSTAL ORDERS.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether there is any other reason for the

  801
  refusal of the British Post Office to grant the request of the assembled Australasian Postmasters General for payment of their postal orders in the United Kingdom, they undertaking to pay British orders, than the fear of forgery; whether the British Post Office pays postal orders issued in India, the Straits Settlement, Hong-kong, Newfoundland, and the Transvaal; and how many cases of such orders being forged have come to his knowledge; and whether he will reconsider his objection to such an exchange, provided that the Australasian Governments guarantee him against all losses due to forgery?
  MR. HANBURY: No request of the assembled Australasian Postmasters General for the payment of their postal orders in the United Kingdom, they undertaking to pay British orders, appears to have reached the British Post Office. The British Post Office pays its own postal orders issued in India, the Straits Settlements, Hong-kong, and Newfoundland, but no British postal orders are issued in the Transvaal. The British Post Office has in no case paid a forged postal order. No practicable scheme for the exchange of postal orders has yet been suggested to the Postmaster General.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say no application has reached him?
  MR. HANBURY: Yes; my information is that no such request has been made.

  BOOTS OF BRITISH SOLDIERS ON THE NILE.
  LORD CHARLES BERESFORD: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office why no official Report has been received as to the shocking condition of the boots of the English regiment now serving on the Nile; whether he will immediately take steps to obtain a full Report; whether he is aware that the boots supplied to this Egyptian and black regiments are far more durable than those supplied to the British regiment; and whether the War
  802
  Office will assure this House that they intend to take steps to ensure that the British regiments employed in the next campaign in the Soudan are booted as well as the men of the Egyptian Army?
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. J. POWELL WILLIAMS,): We have asked for a Report upon the boots worn by the British troops serving on the Nile, as compared with those worn by Egyptian troops, and as to any defects which the former have shown. Until this Report is received I cannot answer the Questions of my hon. and gallant. Friend, but I will let him know when I am able to do so.

  STRENGTH OF THE NAVY.
  LORD CHARLES BERESFORD: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will now inform the House how many of the 100,050 officers and men, voted in the Naval Estimates, 1897–8, were actually borne on 31st March, 1898; how many of these were actually available for commissioning ships, excluding all with less than six months' sea training; and how many of the 100,050 were men, and how many boys?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. G. J. GOSCHEN,): According to the latest Returns the total number of 100,050 officers, men, and boys voted in the Navy Estimates, 1897–8, has been fully realised, the actual number borne on the 25th March last being 100,052. Included in this number are 3,880 "Service" boys, and 6,265 boys under training. I am unable to answer the Question of the noble Lord as to the number actually available for commissioning ships, as, apart from the question of length of sea training, the degree to which men would be taken from ordinary peace duties, such as the coastguard stations, or the various educational establishments, to be put on board ship, would depend upon the nature of any emergency winch might arise.

  DUM-DUM BULLETS.
  MR. M. DAVITT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary for War whether his attention has been directed to the statements, attributed to Dr. von Brums, in a paper on "Inhuman Weapons of War," read a few days ago at the German Surgical Congress, to the effect that the Dum-Dum bullets used by British, troops in the North-west Frontier of India produced fearful results on the human body, and that Germany should try to obtain a condemnation from the European Powers of the further use of such bullets; whether any steps will be taken to meet these views; and whether he will forbid the sale of these bullets by British makers to the belligerents in the Spanish-American War?
  MR. POWELL WILLIAMS: I have no knowledge of the statements referred to or of the paper mentioned. I think the general ideas as to the effect of the Dum-Dum bullet are very much exaggerated. It is nothing like so severe as that of bullets which have been previously employed.
  MR. J. DILLON: Has the hon. Member acquainted himself with the results of any experiments made by surgeons as to the effects of these bullets?
  MR. POWELL WILLIAMS: Yes, Sir. English medical officers of the Army have been shown the results of the use of this bullet, and they are of the opinion indicated in my answer to this Question.

  AYLESBURY PRISON.
  MR. E. H. PICKERSGILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to the Return of the Establishment of Prisons in the Annual Report of the Commissioners, from which it appears that Aylesbury Prison is provided with a deputy medical officer only, instead of a medical officer, as is the case in all other prisons; and what is the reason of this exceptional arrangement at Aylesbury Prison?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT: The Governor is the medical officer at this prison.

  PRISON MEDICAL OFFICERS.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, how many prisons in England and Wales have a medical officer who is required to devote the whole of his time to the service?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT: Ten local and five convict prisons.

  SKILLED INSTRUCTORS OF PRISON INDUSTRIES.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many prison warders act as skilled instructors of industries; (2) how many skilled instructors of industries in prisons are exempt from discipline duties; and (3) how many skilled instructors of industries (apart from warders who have discipline duties to discharge) have been introduced into the prisons service since the date of the Report of the Departmental Committee on Prisons?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT: The answer to the first paragraph is 93, besides artisan warders. The information asked for in the second cannot be given until further experience of the new scheme shows definitely to what extent discipline duty can be carried on consistently with instruction in a trade. The instructors appointed have been existing members of the staff, who, after inquiry, were deemed eligible.

  VACCINATION PROSECUTIONS.
  MR. H. LABOUCHERE: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board, whether all prosecutions for non-compliance with the obligations of the Vaccination Act have, until now, been instituted by Boards of Guardians; whether it is intended in future that they shall be instituted by the Medical Officer of Health, with or without the approval of the Board of Guardians, under directions from the Local Government Board; and whether the cost of such prosecutions will be a charge on the rates?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. H. CHAPLIN,): It has been the practice of the Vaccination Officers to institute proceedings under the Vaccination Acts, either under general or special directions of the Guardians, but I am not prepared to say that it has invariably been the case. There is nothing in these Acts which makes it necessary that the Guardians should give directions for or approve of those proceedings. It is not proposed that the proceedings should be instituted by the Medical Officers of Health, but by the Vaccination Officers, who are under the Statute appointed for the express purpose of prosecuting persons charged with offences against the Vaccination Acts or otherwise enforcing their provisions. The cost of prosecutions will be charged on the rates, as at present.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: To whom does the right hon. Gentleman refer when he speaks of vaccination officers? Does he mean the medical officers of health?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD: No.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: Who are they?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD: The officers appointed for the purpose of executing the Acts.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: This is a very important question. What officers are appointed for the purposes of the Act?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD: Vaccination officers are expressly appointed for the purpose of administering these Acts.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: Then I will ask the right hon. Gentleman what happens to these officers when they do not fulfil their obligations? Take the case of my own constituency: nobody is vaccinated.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD: If the officers refuse to fulfil the duties for which they are appointed then it would be the duty of the Local Government Board to interfere.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: Yes: but what can it do?
  [No Reply.]

  BUTCHERS' BOYCOTT IN SCOTLAND.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture (1) whether he is aware that, as the result of the butchers' boycott, there has been a large increase in the number of farmers and feeders of stock throughout Scotland who have erected cattle-weighing machines at their farms, and who sell their fat cattle direct to the butchers without the aid of auctioneers; and that the weekly publication of the official returns of prices received under The Markets and Fairs (Weighing of Cattle) Act, 1891, would be of great assistance to such farmers and feeders; and (2) whether he is prepared to arrange for these official returns to be published weekly instead of quarterly as at present?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. W. H. LONG,): I have no reason to doubt that the facts are as stated in the first paragraph of the Question, but the returns we receive are not as yet so complete or so promptly rendered as to enable us to publish weekly statements of prices at the present time. The matter is, however, one which I shall be glad to keep in view.

  RAILWAY COMPANIES' BYE-LAWS.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the Board of Trade have communicated with the railway companies on the points in the bye-laws of the various railway companies which are in contravention of Section 5 of The Regulation of Railways Act, 1889; and whether any date has yet been fixed for issuing the revised bye-laws?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. C. T. RITCHIE,): Yes, Sir; the Board of Trade and the Railway Association have been in communication with reference to a new code of Bye-laws. Negotiations are advanced, but there are points, legal and otherwise, which must receive full consideration, and I cannot name a date on which the Bye-laws will be issued. The Railway Companies themselves are anxious for a new code.
  MR. WEIR: Is there any prospect of the Bye-laws being produced this year?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE: I should be very much surprised if they are not issued within a month or two.

  KILKINURE (IRELAND) GRAVEYARD.
  MR. DILLON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the loan to the Swinford guardians of £100 for enlarging Kilkinure graveyard has been refused by the Treasury in the face of a strong recommendation from the Irish Local Government Board; and, if so, on what grounds have the Treasury based their refusal?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Perhaps the hon. Member will be good enough to repeat this Question on a future date, and to my right hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury.

  BRITISH NORTH BORNEO COMPANY.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has received a reply to the letter which he promised to address to the Court of Directors of the British North Borneo Company, in regard to a Petition to the Company from 25 merchants, traders, etc., of British North Borneo, setting forth certain grievances in the administration of the Colony; and, if so, whether he proposes to take any steps in the matter?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,): A reply has been received from the directors to the effect that they are communicating with the Governor on the subject of the points raised in the Petition. The further explanations will be awaited.

  HOP CROP RETURNS.
  MR. A. M. BROOKFIELD: I beg to ask the President of the
  808
  Board of Agriculture whether he has now considered the possibility of making some improvement in the present method of estimating the hop crop for the Annual Returns; and whether he is prepared, if it may seem to be desirable, to make some increase in the number of local estimators, and, where necessary, to order greater care to be taken in their selection and appointment?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE: I am giving attention to the representations made to us on the subject to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers, and am in communication with the Inland Revenue Department respecting them. At present, however, I am not in a position to come to any final conclusion in the matter.

  AMERICAN-SPANISH WAR.
  SIR EDWARD GOURLEY: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General (1) whether, owing to the transition which has taken place in the motive power of ships of war since the Declaration of Paris from sail to that of coal and liquid fuel, any agreement has been arrived at with the signatories to the Declaration and other Governments owning ships of war regarding the treatment of coal and liquid fuel as contraband of war or otherwise; if contraband, will neutral ships be allowed to supply belligerents at sea; (2) can he further state whether belligerents' ships will be allowed to enter British or other neutral harbours for shelter, repairs, coal, and other stores necessary for navigation and war; and (3) will he inform Parliament the meaning of an effective blockade; does it mean a blockade by ships of war, or, in the absence of these, blockade by submarine mines?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir R. WEBSTER,): As far as I know, no agreement has been come to as to whether coal or liquid fuel is contraband of war. If contraband, it would certainly not be lawful for neutral ships to supply belligerents at sea. The rights of belligerent ships to enter British or other neutral harbours will be found stated in the proclamations and notices

  809
  which will, in accordance with the invariable practice, be issued in terms similar to those which have been published on previous occasions. I regret I am not able to give the hon. Member the information which he asks for in the last paragraph of the Question, as it would involve a dissertation of considerable length, which I should not be justified in inflicting upon the House, beyond stating that to attempt a blockade by submarine mines and without ships would be a completely new departure.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Is it not the case that Sir A. Cockburn in 1873 declared coal to be contraband of war?
  [No Reply.]
  MR. DAVITT: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General (1) whether England expressly refused to allow British coal to be carried to a French fleet lying in the North Sea during the Franco-Prussian War in 1870, as coal is an indispensable part of the fighting equipment of ironclads and other warships; and (2) whether, in the event of Her Majesty's Government not selecting to follow the precedent thus established in respect to fleets near British possessions in the West Indies or Canada, the United States will be justified in intercepting British vessels which may carry coal from British or Colonial ports to Spanish warships?
  SIR R. WEBSTER: The facts are not exactly as stated in the first paragraph of the hon. Member's Question, On a suggestion being made in 1870 that there was an intention to charter some colliers to serve as storeships to attend the French fleet, instructions were given that inquiries should be made with a view to the detention of any such vessels if an offence against the Foreign Enlistment Act were in contemplation, but no action was found necessary, as there was no evidence that any such intention existed. Her Majesty's Government has no intention of adopting any change of policy in regard to such a matter.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether a reply has been received from the Spanish Government
  810
  announcing its intention to act upon the principles laid down in the Declaration, of Paris?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): In answer to this Question, and to a similar one of which I have received private notice, I have to say that no statement has yet been received from the Spanish Government with regard to their intention to act upon the principles laid down in the Declaration of Paris.
  MR. T. GIBSON BOWLES: As the matter is urgent, will the right hon. Gentleman consent to lay on the Table of the House the document containing the adherence of the United States?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: It is not a document; it is a telegram; and if my hon. Friend will ask me a Question on Monday I shall be prepared, I think, to read it to the House.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will move the United States and Spain to set forth what articles will be deemed contraband of war by them, irrespective of that laid down by the best writers as inherently contraband in their nature. I may also ask whether there is any existing Treaty between Spain and the United States specifying what articles are contraband of war; and, if so, whether he will lay it on the Table of the House, or otherwise publish it?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I am not aware of any Treaty such as that to which the hon. Member refers. All the Treaties of which I have any cognisance between Spain and the United States on the subject are, I believe, to be found in the Library. I will consider as to laying them on the Table. The difficulties inherent in any attempt to make a complete enumeration of articles deemed contraband of war, would, I conceive, render any such application to the two Governments absolutely nugatory.
  LORD C. BERESFORD: I wish to ask whether either of those countries, when they have become belligerents, can declare anything they like to be contraband of war?
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I wish to know whether the decision as to what is or is not contraband of war rests exclusively with the Prize Courts, and whether their decision is not final?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: I conceive that my hon. Friend has stated the case right. I should be sorry to give offhand a decision on a very difficult and important question of international law, nor do I think it expedient that I should do so.
  MR. DAVITT: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether his attention has been directed, in connection with the impending conflict between Spain and the United States, to a circular issued by Lord Granville in 1870, on the outbreak of the Franco-German war, to the Treasury, Home, Colonial, War, and India Offices, declaring that no ship of war of either belligerent shall be permitted, while in any port, roadstead, or waters subject to the territorial jurisdiction of Her Majesty, to take in any supplies except provisions and such other things as may be requisite for the subsistence of her crew, and except so much coal only as may be sufficient to carry such vessel to the nearest port of her own country, or to some nearer destination; and no coal shall again be supplied to any such ship of war in the same or any other port, roadstead, or waters subject to the territorial jurisdiction of Her Majesty, without special permission, until after the expiration of three months from the time when such coal may have been last supplied to her within British waters as aforesaid; and whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to issue similar directions to the Colonial Office for the guidance of British subjects in ports in the West Indies, Canada, and Nova Scotia?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: Former precedents will be closely adhered to.

  KIRIN.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the large Chinese
  812
  garrison has been withdrawn from Kirin; and, whether Russia is in possession of the arsenal at Kirin?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: We have no information as to the military situation at Kirin subsequent to a telegram from the British Military Attachê, who telegraphed from that place on March 5th that the rumours of the presence of large numbers of Russian troops were untrue.

  JEDDAH PILGRIMAGE.
  SIR WALTER FOSTER: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the reappearance of plague in Jeddah this year, Her Majesty's Government intend to take any steps to stop the pilgrimage to Mecca from British possessions and from Egypt?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: It has been found unnecessary to take steps to prohibit the pilgrimage, so far as British-Indian subjects are concerned, as the Government of India reports by telegraph that no more Indian pilgrims will leave India for the Hedjaz this season. As regards Malay pilgrims it was decided, when the first outbreak of plague at Jeddah was notified, that it was already too late to prohibit the pilgrimage, as all intending pilgrims for this year's Haj had already left the Straits Settlements. With reference to Egypt, the question is one which directly concerns the Egyptian Government, but Her Majesty's Agent and Consul General at Cairo reports that intending pilgrims have been warned of the danger from plague, and informed that those who persist in going in face of this warning, will be required to sign a declaration that they will not return to Egypt until the complete disappearance of the plague, and steps have been taken to prevent such return.

  PRIVATE BILL PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  DR. R. FARQUHARSON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury what are the intentions of

  813
  the Government with reference to the Private Bill Procedure (Scotland) Bill?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: The intention of the Government is to refer this Bill to a Select Committee, the formation of which is now proceeding.

  SCOTCH SUPPLY.
  MR. T. R. BUCHANAN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will agree not to take the Scotch Votes in Class 2 to-night?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: If it should appear that there is any general reluctance on the part of Scotch Members to take these Votes they will not be pressed.

  METROPOLITAN STREET TRAFFIC.
  MR. H. C. RICHARDS: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if his attention has been directed to the fact that the London County Council are about to construct a new sewer in High Holborn from Cray's Inn Road to Southampton Row, and that for this purpose it will be necessary to divert the traffic of this main artery of the Metropolis for a period of eight months; and whether he will surest to the London County Council that the work should be postponed until the autumn?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD: The Local Government Board have no jurisdiction with regard to the public traffic, and, under these circumstances, it is not part of my duty, nor indeed do I think it would be my business, to make any representations on the subject to the County Council.

  BLUE BOOK ON CHINESE AFFAIRS.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I have to ask about the circulation of the Papers dealing with China. They were promised on Thursday or Friday, but we have not yet got them.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: They were laid last night, but have not been circulated.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THIS TREASURY: The delay which, I regret, has arisen from the fact that one of the foreign Governments concerned made some small objection, which involved a change in the Blue Book at the last moment; but I had hoped, in spite of that, to have the Papers in the hands of hon. Members this afternoon. I will make inquiries.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  MR. JAMES LOWTHER: What is the business for Monday?
  THE FTRST LORD OF THE TREASURY: The Criminal Evidence Bill will be the first Order on Monday.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

  DISTRESS IN THE WEST OF IRELAND.
  MR. J. G. WEIR: I represent a constituency where there is poverty similar in character to that which prevails in the west of Ireland, and I sympathise with the Irish Members in their appeal to the Government to make a satisfactory inquiry into these matters. The method of conducting inquiries through the police and landlords' agents or factors, whether in Ireland or in Scotland, is not satisfactory. The Irish Members are dissatisfied with these reports, which are not considered to be impartial, and I would suggest that some arrangement be made whereby a few members of the Manchester Relief Committee, with others added, would inquire on the spot into the state of affairs in the west of Ireland, and present a Report to the Chief Secretary. That Report, I have no doubt, would be accepted as satisfactory by many Members, who would feel that it was an impartial one. I think it is a serious state of matters when, in view of the enormous amount of money which the Chancellor of the Exchequer receives, a few thousand pounds cannot be freely given to alleviate distress and suffering, not only in Ireland, but in the western Highlands.
  Question put: That the House do now Adjourn.
  The House divided:—Aves 100; Noes 204.—(Division List No. 66.)

  Gourley, Sir E. Temperley

  Molloy, Bernard Charles

  Roche, John (E. Galway)

  Hammond, John (Carlow)

  Morgan, J. L. (Carmarthen)

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale-

  Morton, E. J. C. (Devonport)

  Smith, Samuel (Flint)

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Norton, Capt. Cecil Wm.

  Stanhope, Hon. Philip J.

  Jameson, Major J. Eustace

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Steadman, William Charles

  Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Kilbride, Denis

  O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary)

  Stuart, James (Shoreditch)

  Knox, Edmund F. Vesey

  O'Connor, Arthur (Donegal)

  Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

  Labouchere, Henry

  O'Connor, Jas. (Wicklow, W.)

  Thomas, A. (Carmarthen, E.)

  Lambert, George

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Wallace, Robert (Perth)

  Leng, Sir John

  Owen, Thomas

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Pease, J. A. (Northumb.)

  Wayman, Thomas

  Lloyd-George, David

  Philipps, John Wynford

  Wedderburn, Sir William

  Lough, Thomas

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Weir, James Galloway

  Macaleese, Daniel

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Williams, J. Carvell (Notts)

  McDonnell, Dr. M. A. (Qn.'sC.)

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Wills, Sir William Henry

  MacNeill, J. Gordon Swift

  Price, Robert John

  Wilson, H. J. (York, W. R.)

  McCartan, Michael

  Reid, Sir Robert T.

  Woods, Samuel

  McDermott, Patrick

  Richardson, J. (Durham)

  M'Hugh, E. (Armagh, S.)

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  McLeod, John

  Roberts, J. H. (Denbighsh.)

  Mr. Dillon and Mr.

  Maddison, Fred.

  Robson, William Snowdon

  William Redmond.

  Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand

  Roche, Hon. J. (E. Kerry)

  NOES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F.

  Colston, C. E. H. Athole

  Greene, W. Raymond- (Camb.)

  Aird, John

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Greville, Captain

  Allsopp, Hon. George

  Cook, F. Lucas (Lambeth)

  Gunter, Colonel

  Arnold, Alfred

  Courtney, Rt. Hon. L. H.

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. R. W.

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Cox, Robert

  Hanson, Sir Reginald

  Baden-Powell, Sir G. Smyth

  Cross, H. Shepherd (Bolton)

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Bagot, Capt. J. FitzRoy

  Cruddas, W. Donaldson

  Haslett, Sir James Horner

  Baillie, J. E. B. (Inverness)

  Curzon, Viscount (Bucks)

  Heath, James

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'r)

  Dalbiac, Colonel Philip Hugh

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. G. W. (Leeds)

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Helder, Augustus

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Denny, Colonel

  Hill, Rt. Hn. Lord A. (Down)

  Barnes, Frederic Gorell

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir J. P.

  Hill, Sir E. Stock (Bristol)

  Barry, Rt. Hn. A. H. Smith-

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Hoare, E. B. (Hampstead)

  Bartley, George C. T.

  Donkin, Richard Sim

  Houldsworth, Sir Wm. H.

  Barton, Dunbar Plunket

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Howard, Joseph

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen B.

  Doxford, William Theodore

  Howell, William Tudor

  Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (Brist'l)

  Drucker, A.

  Hubbard, Hon. Evelyn

  Begg, Ferdinand Faithfull

  Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

  Hughes, Colonel Edwin

  Bemrose, Sir Henry Howe

  Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Hart

  Jebb, Richard Claverhouse

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Edwards, Gen. Sir J. Bevan

  Jolliffe, Hon. H. George

  Beresford, Lord Charles

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn E.

  Kemp, George

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Mnc'r)

  Kenyon, James

  Biddulph, Michael

  Finch, George H.

  Knowles, Lees

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Lawrence, Sir E. (Cornwall)

  Boulnois, Edmund

  FitzGerald, Sir R. Penrose-

  Lawrence, W. F. (Liverpool)

  Bowles, T. G. (King's Lynn)

  Flannery, Fortescue

  Lawson, J. Grant (Yorks)

  Brassey, Albert

  Folkestone, Viscount

  Lea, Sir T. (Londonderry)

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)

  Lecky, Rt. Hon. W. E. H.

  Bullard, Sir Harry

  Fry, Lewis

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Garfit, William

  Legh, Hon. T. W. (Lanc.)

  Butcher, John George

  Gedge, Sydney

  Leigh-Bennett, H. Currie

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbvsh.)

  Gibbs, Hn.A.G.H. (C. of Lond.)

  Leighton, Stanley

  Chaloner, Capt. R. G. W.

  Gibbs, Hon. V. (St. Albans)

  Llewellyn, E. H. (Somerset)

  Chamberlain, Rt.Hn.J. (Birm.)

  Gilliat, John Saunders

  Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn- (Sw'ns'a)

  Chamberlain, J. A. (Worc'r)

  Goldsworthy, Major-General

  Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward

  Loder, Gerald W. Erskine

  Charrington, Spencer

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Eldon

  Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Liverp'l)

  Clarke, Sir E. (Plymouth)

  Goschen, Rt. Hn. G. J. (St. Geo's)

  Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller

  Cochrane, Hon. T. H. A. E.

  Goschen, G. J. (Sussex)

  Lorne, Marquess of

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Colomb, Sir John Charles R.

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Maclean, James Mackenzie

  856

  857

  McArthur, Chas. (Liverpool)

  Plunkett, Rt. Hon. H. C.

  Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxf'd Uny)

  McKillop, James

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Malcolm, Ian

  Priestley, Brigg (Yorks.)

  Tomlinson, Wm. Ed. Murray

  Maple, Sir John Blundell

  Priestley, Sir W. O. (Edin.)

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Marks, Henry Hananel

  Purvis, Robert

  Verney, Hon. Richard Greville

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Rentoul, James Alexander

  Warde, Lt.-Col. C. E. (Kent)

  Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

  Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M.

  Waring, Colonel Thomas

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Ritchie, Rt. Hon. Chas. T.

  Warkworth, Lord

  Monk, Charles James

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Warr, Augustus Frederick

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Webster, R. G. (St. Pancras)

  More, Robert Jasper

  Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

  Webster, Sir R. E. (I. of W.)

  Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

  Rutherford, John

  Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-

  Mowbray, Rt. Hon. Sir John

  Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse)

  Whiteley, Geo. (Stockport)

  Muntz, Philip A.

  Seton-Karr, Henry

  Williams, J. Powell- (Birm.)

  Murdoch, Chas. Townshend

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Murray, Rt. Hn. A. G. (Bute)

  Sidebottom, Wm. (Derbysh.)

  Wilson-Todd, W. H. (Yorks.)

  Murray, Chas. J. (Coventry)

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Wodehouse, E. R. (Bath)

  Murray, Col. W. (Bath)

  Smith, Abel H. (Christchurch)

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Newdigate, Francis Alexander

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Stanley, Henry M. (Lambeth)

  Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

  Northcote, Hon. Sir H. S.

  Stephens, Henry Charles

  Young, Comm. (Berks, E.)

  O'Neill, Hon. Robt. Torrens

  Stewart, Sir M. J. M'Taggart

  Younger, William

  Pease, Arthur (Darlington)

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

  Pender, James

  Strauss, Arthur

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

  Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

  Sir William Walrond and

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Mr. Anstruther.

  DISTRESS IN THE WEST OF IRELAND.

    MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT.
    MR. J. DILLONrose in his place and asked leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely—
    "The acute distress now existing in certain districts of the west of Ireland; and the failure of the relief measures of the Government."
    MR. SPEAKERasked whether it was the pleasure of the House that leave should be granted, and, understanding that there was no opposition, called upon the hon. Member to proceed.
    MR. T. GIBSON BOWLES: I rise to a point of order. I said "No."
    MR. SPEAKER: If any "No" had reached my ears I should have called upon the requisite number of Members to rise in their places.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Both the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean and myself said "No."
    MR. SPEAKER: I do my best to gather the opinion of the House, but no expression of dissent reached my ear.
    MR. DILLON: My justification for seeking to bring this Motion before the attention of the House is that it is a matter of urgent public importance. The conviction which I have, and which I trust I shall be able to show, is that, in spite of the measures that have been adopted by the Government and announced in this House by the Chief Secretary for Ireland, there are in these districts in the west of Ireland at the present moment a very large number of people in a state of actual suffering from want of food. Now, if ever there be a matter which justifies a Member of this House availing himself of the custom of launching a Motion for the adjournment of the House I think the existence of a large number of our fellow subjects suffering from the pangs of hunger and from want of food justifies such a course. Now, it may be asked what has occurred since this subject was last discussed in the House to justify me in taking this proceeding in order to bring on a discussion, and I say the statement made by the Lord Mayor of Dublin, in his capacity as Chairman of the Mansion House Committee of that city, if there were no other grounds to justify my action, would be ample justification. The Lord Mayor of Dublin some time ago addressed an appeal to the mayors and municipal officers in this country to come to his assistance in order to deal with the distress existing in Ireland. I regret to say that the Lord Mayor of Dublin, while he did receive a most generous response from the municipalities of England and Scotland, did not receive any response from the Lord Mayor of London. But the Lord Mayor of Dublin is a man entitled to the same consideration in this House as the
    816
    Lord Mayor of London, and his statements are worthy of just as much consideration. If the Lord Mayor of London had, in his official capacity, made such a statement as that to which I shall now proceed to direct the attention of the Members of this House, I ask whether it would not have received some consideration? I desire to read to the House a few extracts from this statement of the Lord Mayor of Dublin, made in his official capacity of Chairman of the Mansion House Committee of Dublin, which was composed largely of Unionists. It was not a political body at all, but was composed, as a matter of fact, largely of Unionists. This is what he said—
    "You are well aware owing to the wet summer, and as a consequence the failure of the potato crop, the small landowners of all these districts suffered acute distress, which has now become a case of actual famine."
    This is said under his responsibility as Chairman of the Committee. Those words alone would justify a Motion for calling the attention of this House to the condition of affairs which exists in the west of Ireland. In this connection I wish to say that, in reply to repeated questions, the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland denied that anybody in the distressed districts had died of starvation. I say that depends upon the definition which you give of death by starvation. Now, from private information which I have received I can say that there are raging in many of the districts epidemics of influenza, typhus fever, and a malignant form of measles, and the rate of mortality is exceedingly high. The people who are attacked are; people who have lived for months on insufficient and diseased food, and everybody knows that where in many cases a man cannot be proved to have died from insufficient and diseased food a very great mortality arises from the very first outbreak of an epidemic. Many of these families have been living upon one or two meals a day, and there have been a great many deaths caused in that way. Thanks to the exertions and humanity of Professor Long and the Manchester Guardian, the dire condition of these people in the distressed districts has been brought under the notice and forced upon the attention of the people of Great

    817

    Britain, and the people of Manchester. Liverpool, Warrington, Sheffield, and other places have taken up this matter and have subscribed large sums of money for their relief. They have sent down inspectors to investigate the condition of affairs in these districts who, so far as my information goes, upon their return fully confirmed, and have gone beyond, the accounts which we have given in this House of the condition of the people in the western districts of Ireland. The Lord Provost of Glasgow has also taken up the matter, and within two or three days nearly 300 tons of seed potatoes had been sent to the distressed districts, nearly as much as the British Government could spare. Paisley and other towns in Scotland have also taken up the matter. Scotchmen, although a kindly race, as I know from personal experience, are also a shrewd race. These people have proved the distress. They are not going to organise public subscriptions in aid of distress if it were a bogus distress. All these moneys that had been subscribed are now gone, and the fund of the Mansion House Committee is nearly exhausted, and exhausted at the moment when, as the Chief Secretary well knows, the direst distress is upon the people in many of these districts in the west of Ireland. The period of greatest distress is from this date until the new potatoes are fit for use, because there is no work to be done. Before I pass away from this subject I will just press upon the House the Reports of the Mansion House Committee. Now what I want to know is what the Government proposes to do in order to deal with this situation. We have already heard of the Measures which they have taken, and I have no hesitation in saying that by both the general public opinion which has taken any interest in this subject in this country and the whole of Ireland the Measures proposed by the Government are condemned as being utterly and entirely inadequate. We have heard from the Chief Secretary a good many speeches upon this subject, and one thing I have to complain of—and I think I have a just cause of complaint, and for this observation—is that from the commencement of his speeches to the electors down to this year, not a single word of
    818
    human sympathy has passed from him. We have heard harsh officialism and defence of rules and regulations and labour tests. We have had insinuations of highly-coloured pictures, and charges of bogus distress, but we have never heard from the Chief Secretary those words of kindness and human sympathy which, whether you are dealing with Irishmen or with Indians, are naturally to be looked for from the man who is responsible for the whole government of the country. I put it to the Chief Secretary whether it would not be desirable on his part to show in his speeches that he, to some extent, feels for these people, and recognises the great patience and endurance which they have shown under the cruel sufferings to which they have been subjected. What are the Measures of relief which the Government have up to the present taken? A grant of £20,000 on what is called the labour test for the relief of the congested districts. Now, a fact which cannot be denied is that in the year 1890, on the eve of a general election, when unquestionably the distress which existed in Ireland was much less acute than it is now, the Government of the day spent half a million upon that distress, and the brother of the right hon. Gentleman who is now Chief Secretary appealed to the country on behalf of these unfortunate people, and £40,000 was subscribed. [Mr. G. BALFOUR: That was two years ago.] The General Election was at a time when the distress in Ireland was infinitely less acute than it is now, and £500,000 was spent by the Government of the day for its relief. I believe that is the universal opinion of Ireland; and all the Government spend now is £20,000. Now, I think it will be said that that sum is ridiculously inadequate, and it is somewhat hard upon us, and trying to our patience, to sit here and listen to these dreams of wealth which we had last night, to be told that the Exchequer of the country is literally bursting with the taxes, and to be told at the same time that you cannot spare a few pounds to fill the stomachs of these starving peasants, who, by your own admissions, are the victims of misgovernment and mismanagement in the past. Now that is the first point I take. The second is

    819
    this: I frankly admit that the task of an Irish Chief Secretary is a difficult task, and I know perfectly well that whatever he does his action will be criticised, and that fault will be found with him, but in the present instance I say that the spirit of officialism has taken complete possession of the Chief Secretary, because, having got £20,000, his proposal is this: He goes to Unions in the west of Ireland whose rates are now 6s. or 7s. in the £, and he says if you are afflicted with famine you can have relief out of this £20,000 if you yourselves pay a proportionate amount. If the Unions will not undertake to pay a proportionate amount, the people may starve, and I believe in the case of one Union the guardians alleged that the rates were so high that they could not do so, and the Chief Secretary said they could accept the labour test in that way, but they would not, and therefore could not participate in the grant. What is to be said of a Chief Secretary for Ireland who, when people are starving, says, "You can starve if you like; your guardians will not accept the labour test, and that clears my hands of responsibility." I say that that is not reasonable government, and that he cannot wash his hands of the sufferings of these people for their not having accepted a system which has never been accepted or approved of by a responsible man in Ireland, but which was the invention of the Government or some one in office—a system which we in the beginning warned the House would not work well. As to the amount of the grant, I impeach the policy of the Government; as to the distribution of it, I impeach it, and I say there are thousands of families in the west of Ireland who are suffering from hunger and disease; the Chief Secretary will not allow that they are dying from starvation, but they are from disease which is introduced into the districts through want of food. It is an extraordinary condition of things that such a state of affairs should be allowed to exist in a country, and that the Government should make no attempt to deal with it. Now, I turn for a moment to the language of a circular issued by the Local Government Board the week before last, and I say that more extraordinary
    820
    language was never used upon such a subject. This circular begins somewhat as follows. I have not a copy of it, but I remember the phraseology of it perfectly well—
    "It having been recently represented that there is a scarcity of seed potatoes in some of the western districts and distressed Unions of the West of Ireland, we have decided to make a grant—"
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE LORD LIEUTENANT OF IRELAND (Mr. GERALD W. BALFOUR,): Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will not misquote the circular, but allow me to quote it. The words of the circular are—
    "Representations having been recently made that many persons employed upon relief works have been unable to avail themselves of the Seeds Supply Act this year."
    I have been charged in the Irish papers of having stated in a circular that we had only recently received information as to distress in Ireland. What we had recently received information of was that certain of the poorest classes of the people had not been able to avail themselves of the Seeds Supply Act.
    MR. DILLON: I was not going to found any charge upon the wording of the circular.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: It was not the scarcity of seed, it was the inability of the people to avail themselves of the Seeds Supply Act, because, in consequence of their extreme poverty, the guardians were not prepared to advance upon the usual terms of payment.
    MR. DILLON: The point I want to make is this: that notwithstanding the interpretation put upon the circular, the Government has been told for weeks and months there was a most urgent and dangerous scarcity of seed potatoes in the western districts of Ireland. The Chief Secretary may get off by a slight quibble of words, but the important fact is this: that there has been a cry of well-known wants from the people who are stricken by distress—of their want of potato seed and their incapacity to supply themselves with it, and now,

    821
    according to the Returns, that the sowing time is over hundreds and thousands of the people are without any crops at all. The Chief Secretary, at the end of March, sends out his circular saying that his attention had been drawn to scarcity of potato seed—at a time when the potatoes ought to be in the ground—and then with a flourish of generosity he sends down some 500 or 600 tons of potatoes to the country. These unfortunate people, among the poorest in the Union, are to be left to starve because the guardians have refused to fall in with the system of Government. That is what I object to. I put it to the Chief Secretary whether it would not be more rational to consult some of the Irish Members, who can speak for these starving people? If he did he might get information as to how the Government can best deal with the situation. The Irish Members have a consultative right. It is a fact that each one of the officials lays down a hard and fast rule which is not to be departed from, even at the cost of human life and human suffering. There is another point I want briefly to refer to. I drew the attention of the Chief Secretary before the Recess to the Report of the Manchester Committee. That Committee, I may say, I am never tired of praising, because it first brought this matter before the attention of the British public. It sent a deputation to the west of Ireland consisting of men of different political opinions to investigate the condition of affairs on the spot, and see it with their own eyes. One of the things that struck them most, was the horrible condition of the children in some of the schools. The Chief Secretary will agree that some of the Reports made by the Committee were very heart-rending. The Committee found that, in some schools, nearly all the children were suffering from dysentery, or a form of diarrhœa, that was really appalling, and not compatible with the conditions of a civilised country. They succeeded in stopping the ravages of the disease by distributing to the children at play-time, a pennyworth of dry bread, which immediately checked the evil of this dysentery. I asked the Chief Secretary whether he consulted the Manchester Report, and whether the Government were prepared to do anything. I should like to hear
    822
    him say to-day whether he has seen that Report, and whether the Government are prepared to give any assistance, or to co-operate with the Manchester Committee. Though the state of affairs is so grievous, it is very easy to deal with, because, according to these Reports, one pennyworth of dry bread served out to the children at play-time stopped the disease. Now, that is the position in these districts. You have a large population in these western districts actually suffering from hunger at the present moment. Through the stupidity of the Government yon have a considerable number of people unable to have an average crop for next year. I want to know how these people are going to live for the next three months. Remember this important fact: when we raised this question in October last, and pointed out from our own knowledge of these districts, that the distress was a serious and undoubted fact, the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland was asked by some American correspondent whether in his opinion there was going to be distress, and the opinion of the Lord Lieutenant was given that the accounts were grossly exaggerated. There is no doubt that the opinion of the Lord Lieutenant checked the flow of charity in this country, and but for the Manchester Guardian we would have had no relief. But it undoubtedly did check the flow of American charity—this throwing of cold water upon the appeal on behalf of these poor people. The Government, by this action, have placed upon themselves a fresh burden of obligation, because they have dried up the springs of private charity. When the Chief Secretary gets up and tells us that he is quite prepared to investigate any cases to which his attention has been drawn, I say that is not fair. We have unimpeachable evidence, beyond all suspicion of partisanship, that there are masses of people actually suffering from hunger, that they are compelled to feed their children with unwholesome food. I say it is the duty of the Government, more especially in view of the circumstances to which I have directed their attention, to see that these people have not sunk in disease, and are not worn out in suffering. It is rather a harsh doctrine to say that, with regard to other portions of this country, the Government has always adopted the principle

    823
    of self-help. The Government of this country interfere as little as possible in these matters. They trust to local exertions. That has never been the principle of Irish Government. We, in Ireland, live under a centralised Government, and under that system we have never been allowed scope for the free development of local life. The people of Ireland have never been allowed a fair chance to accumulate wealth, and thus acquire habits of independence and self-assertion. I say that the Irish Government cannot be judged by the same standards that you are entitled to apply to the Government of this country. They are bound to adopt a much more paternal system there than in this country. If any man has ever had the experience of many humane Englishmen and Englishwomen who visited these poor people, and seen their little children, barely clad, their limbs hardly thicker than your fingers, and their faces pinched with hunger, that sight would never leave his mind. It is to that that I direct the attention of this House. It is that that fills our hearts with bitterness when we think of the sufferings of the poor people at home.
    MR. W. H. K. REDMOND: It is to me always a source of extreme humiliation to be obliged as an Irish representative practically to apply for some slight assistance for our people in Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant was not in the House—probably through no fault of his own, because I did not give him notice—on the occasion just before the holidays, when I referred at some length to the necessity of the Government taking some steps in order to relieve the distress prevailing in some portions of the country; but some of the supporters of the right hon. Gentleman who were present took me to task for occupying the time of the House, and insinuated that I, and others on these Benches, were exaggerating, and that there was no cause for the Government to take these steps. The House adjourned for the Easter holidays. I found a few days afterwards that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary had been obliged
    824
    during the Recess to take some further steps, although it was repeatedly said in this House before the holidays that there was no necessity for further action on the part of the Government. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary probably will not place importance on the opinions of those who differ from him when they give their views on the distress in Ireland, so I will refer him to a statement appearing in a journal which is a very warm supporter of the Unionist policy, and of the present Government, I refer to the London Observer newspaper, of last Sunday week. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary will find, if he refers to that day's issue, an important communication from the Irish correspondent of the Observer on the situation in the western districts of Ireland, and the action of the right hon. Gentleman. I have not got the extract with me here, but it is sufficient to say that no Member of these Benches could possibly frame a more severe indictment against the Chief Secretary than was to be found in that statement of the Irish correspondent to a Unionist paper. He charged the Chief Secretary with ignoring representations coming from certain portions of Ireland with reference to the distress, and he directly charged him with neglecting to take necessary steps for the relief of the distress. It really, to me, as an Irish Member of some years' standing in this House, is a surprising thing to find that no Government will take some steps to do away with the evil practice which exists in the Irish Office, of never meeting distress until it has practically gone too far. I do not remember, during the 15 years which I have been in this House, any Government which was willing to admit that distress was likely to occur; on the contrary, they always refused to admit the likelihood of distress, and they never took any steps to meet it until it had actually arrived in Ireland. There is no doubt that there has been a great deal of suffering. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant this afternoon exhibited a great deal of impatience when the hon. Member for East Mayo was stating his case before the House. The Chief Secretary may think he is entitled to be impatient.

    825
    He is the representative of a prosperous English consituency, although he is our Governor in Ireland. But I think he himself would whine if he were the representative of some of these districts where great distress prevails; he would have more reason for feeling impatient than he has at the present time. It requires on the part of Irish Members an amount of patience which Englishmen have no idea of to be obliged to come here year after year and ask, not for some great benefit, not for some great change in the law, on which opinions may differ—nothing of that kind, in fact—but simply to ask for a few thousand pounds to keep our unfortunate people alive. Hon. Gentlemen in this House sometimes find it hard to understand how it comes to pass that there is considerable feeling in the hearts of many Irishmen against England and English rule, and everything connected with it. The scene in the House to-day goes far to justify and provide reasons for the existence of that feeling. Here you find men representative of the vast majority of the Irish people practically asking for the most ordinary measures of relief, and asking them from the English Members of Parliament. We have here the spectacle of the vast majority of the Irish representatives coming here and asking an English Member of Parliament, the Member for Leeds, for nothing more nor less than to take ordinary steps to prevent suffering. These periodic requests to grant relief for these periodic famines will continue in Ireland until you give the Irish people the control of their own affairs. I know that the right hon. Gentleman will say that the reports are exaggerated, that when famine is spoken of no statistics are given as to deaths by starvation. I say here, without the slightest hesitation, that I am absolutely convinced in my own mind that numbers of people have met their death through want of wholesome food in Ireland during the last few months, and I will go so far as to challenge any Member of this House, or any member of the British public, to go to Ireland and make an impartial investigation into the circumstances. I am perfectly convinced that if they do they will come back and say that there is need for great relief from the
    826
    Government, because the greatest distress prevails. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary and other officials of the Irish Office seem to me to be personally aggrieved because Irish Members come forward and ask that measures of relief should be taken. The Chief Secretary this afternoon has, by his gestures and by the impatient shakings of his head and his interruptions, really exhibited a feeling which seems to show that, in his opinion, we are not justified in coming here and making any complaint. The right hon. Gentleman and the two Irish officials who sit near him know perfectly well that it would be the very last thing that any Irishman would do, unless the distress were widespread and the measures taken by the Government were insufficient. I think we are justified in view of the fact that it is admitted on all sides that Ireland pays more than her proper share of taxation. We remember the Budget statement of yesterday that £63,000,000 a year are spent in this country for the maintenance of the Army and Navy, and yet here we are coming and asking for a few thousand pounds to relieve people who are suffering from starvation. We cannot be expected to be very loyal to a system which takes millions of Irish money for the maintenance of the Army and Navy of this Empire and yet refuses a few thousand pounds for the relief of the distress. Does the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary think we are telling what is not true in this House? Does he think that Irish Members have no sense of self-respect or of pride left, and that they come here without proper reason for their request? As far as I am concerned, it is a thing I positively loathe to do. I would rather exercise any other duty or function in connection with my position in this House than to come here and speak thus on behalf of my unfortunate fellow-countrymen and women who are suffering and starving in Ireland. If proof is required it is to be found in the fact that large sums of public money have been subscribed by charitable persons to meet the distress in Ireland. The fact that public subscriptions have been opened to relieve distress is in itself a condemnation of the action of the Government. I hold that it is the duty of the

    827
    Government in cases of urgent necessity, such as have arisen in Ireland, to take measures into their own hands, and not leave the responsibility to Manchester and other English cities. I must say I am much disappointed at the Chief Secretary's attitude on this question. I certainly do not expect him to improve the longer he is in the Irish Office, because the tendency of the permanent officials of the Irish Office is chronically to disbelieve everything that Irish Nationalist Members say, and to refuse to recognise any necessity for any relief whatever. The right hon. Gentleman will have to explain how it is that private funds have been subscribed to meet the distress. Either there is no distress or there is very real distress in Ireland. If there is no distress this money has been subscribed under false pretences. The hon. Member for East Mayo referred to the statement of the Lord Mayor of Dublin, which has received very little recognition from the Government. Why? Because he is an opponent of the present Government, and an opponent of the present system of English government in Ireland. If he had been a Unionist every word of his would have been received with the greatest consideration and attention. But the fact is that he holds the views of the vast majority of Irish people, and I see no reason why his word should not be received with credence by the Government and recognised. So far his statement has not been so received, and the Government have taken no steps whatever. As far as I am concerned, the longer I am in this House the more I despair of anything being done for the good government of the country under the present system. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary may have the very best intentions in the world, he may be anxious to relieve distress in Ireland, and he may say, "Where you show there is distress I will relieve it." Unfortunately, he does not listen to the representatives of the people, but he is influenced by those in Ireland who surround him, and who have not the same means of gauging the actual state of affairs as the representatives of the people. I say that his intentions, however good they may be, are not exercised in such a way as to give permanent relief
    828
    to the people, and that the steps taken by the Government have been insufficient. I declare that if something is not done there will be more acute distress in Ireland, and if the acute distress should result in loss of life I hold, and the majority of the Irish people will hold, the right hon. Gentleman and the Government responsible for what may occur. It is certainly a hard case that we should be obliged to come here to this House time after time, and make a humble appeal to the Government for a little money to relieve the distress which nobody can deny does exist. In view of the fact that our Imperial contributions are out of proportion to what they ought to be, I say it is monstrous, that it is a disgrace and a shame, that we should be obliged to occupy the position that we do. I know there are some hon. Gentlemen who hold that Home Rule for Ireland is not justified upon the ground that everything can be done for the good government of Irish people, and is done by this House, but I would ask any Member in this House does he for a moment imagine that if the system of government in our country was in the hands of the representatives of the Irish nation that affairs would be allowed to come to the pass which they are in in certain districts in Ireland at the present time? No Irish Government would permit for a moment the existence of the state of affairs which now prevails in certain western towns of Ireland where people are suffering. This distress is prevailing simply as the result of that system of government which denies us in Ireland the right to rule ourselves; and so an Englishman—whether he be the Member for Leeds, or whether he be the Member for any other constituency—is put in the office of Chief Secretary to rule us in Ireland better than Ave are able to rule ourselves!
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member for East Mayo only gave me notice just as I was entering the House that this discussion was to be raised. If I had had longer notice I might have been in a position to make a fuller statement than is now possible. However, that is, perhaps, less necessary, inasmuch as I had

    829
    already, at the commencement of the Session, given a very full description of the steps taken by the Government to deal with what undoubtedly has been a season of exceptional distress in Ireland. But, Sir, I listened carefully to the speech of the hon. Member for East Mayo, and I must say I entirely failed to discover any reason why he should take this special form of moving the adjournment of the House, and of raising a Debate on what he described as a question of urgent public importance. Sir, the hon. Member has literally adduced nothing whatever, beyond that which has already been put before the House, except the statement of the Lord Mayor of Dublin. He asked me yesterday if I had read that statement. I told him that I had, and that it was a highly-coloured account of the actual facts of the case, which I think the House will admit when they have heard one or two of the extracts. The Lord Mayor of Dublin mentions eight Unions in which distress exists, and in those eight Unions he says there—
    "are 39,718 houses, which, at six inmates each, gives a population of 238,308. Of course, all these people are not distressed, but if there be added the 'sporadic cases' to those that are, there is a population of about 300,000 people on our western seaboard in distress, and the distress acknowledged by the Local Government Board, I take it to be, means that 300,000 people are without necessary food, seeds, and clothes."
    Well, Sir, I venture to say that that is one of the most extraordinary inferences which can possibly be drawn, even from the Lord Mayor's own figures. But supposing that distress existed in a district having a population of 300,000 people, are we to infer that every one of those 300,000 is without the necessary food, seeds and clothes? Can any statement be more ridiculous and extravagant than that? I venture to say that the stale of things actually existing in the west of Ireland does not resemble that described by the Lord Mayor in the faintest degree. If you were to divide that number by ten it would be very much more like the actual facts of the case, but even if you were to divide it by ten you would have a larger number than were actually suffering in such a way as to have any claim for relief from the public funds.
    MR. D. CHILLY: Has the right hon. Gentleman been down there himself? I have.
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: It has been frequently cast against my predecessor and against myself that when exceptional distress exists we have not ourselves been to examine into the condition of affairs. Sir, I venture to say that every Chief Secretary has ample means of ascertaining accurately what the condition of affairs is in those distressed Unions, and we should not be one whit better informed if we actually went to the spot than we are by taking the numerous accounts which reach us from all kinds of sources. If the Chief Secretary were to go down to those distressed districts, the almost inevitable effect would be to raise the expectation of the people that they would receive more assistance than in the opinion of the Government it is wise should be given. Hon. Members opposite seem to think that the Chief Secretary derives his information from one, or perhaps two, officials residing in Dublin. That is not in the smallest degree the case. I have before me all the statements which are made in the papers, which support hon. Members opposite. As a matter of fact, these statements are so exaggerated that very little is to be gained from perusing them. But I have, in addition to that, large correspondence from the priests in the districts affected. Those accounts I test with the accounts which come from the Local Government Board and the accounts received from the police. Yes, but I can test one sort of information by another. I have, in addition to that, the whole of the information which is at the disposal of the Congested Districts Board at my disposal, and I say it is idle to imagine that the Chief Secretary is not completely and amply informed as to the condition of things. Now, Sir, to return to the speech of the Lord Mayor. The Lord Mayor says—
    "It is a reproach to the Government that the people should be left in this condition. At the present time we hear a lot about the condition of Cuba, and we can see one of the

    831
    greatest nations of the world about to take the awful step of declaring war in order to end a condition of things not even as bad as that which prevails in Connemara."
    Well, Sir, I do not know if the Lord Mayor's sources of information about Cuba are as inaccurate as the sources of journalistic information in Ireland, but I understand that 150,000, or 200,000 people have actually perished in Cuba from privation and want.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: How many Irish people have perished from hunger in this century?
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I venture to say that it would be impossible to point to any single case of death from famine or starvation during the whole of the present year. I defy anybody to point to a single case. Am I not, therefore, justified in being more or less impatient in hearing and reading the continual denunciations of famine and starvation, when I know, as a matter of fact, that not a single death has occurred from famine or starvation during the last three or four months?
    MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean by death from famine—death from absolute want of food whatever? If that is what he means that is one thing. If he means death by famine, as I hold it to be, death from insufficiency of food, or unwholesome food, I can undertake to bring him dozens and scores of such cases.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: That must be to a large extent a matter of opinion. I do not say that, during periods of distress the death-rate is not likely to be somewhat higher, and the people would not be less likely to resist the weakening effect of illness. Of course, that must be admitted. [Mr. W. REDMOND: That is what we call death from starvation.] How far is the hon. Member prepared to go? No doubt, if we could distribute champagne to such people—
    MR. CRILLY: Shame, shame!
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! I must ask the hon. Member for North Mayo to abstain from these disorderly observations, or I must call the attention of the House to his conduct.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: If we could send them champagne—
    MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: They ask for bread, and you speak of champagne.
    MR. SPEAKER: I must remind hon. Members that the word "shame" is not a word that can be used. It is a disorderly expression, and I shall have to call the attention of the House to any Member who uses it.
    MR. CRILLY: We call attention to the severe distress in Ireland, and the right hon. Gentleman then suggests the sending of champagne. Is it in order that the right hon. Gentleman should use the word "champagne" in connection with the west of Ireland?
    MR. SPEAKER: I must ask the hon. Member to observe the rules of the House with more decency.
    MR. CRILLY: I bow to your ruling, Sir; but the right hon. Gentleman ought not to use such terms.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I desire to disclaim any intention of using terms of insult to the Irish people. My point is that any rise in the death rate, consequent upon a period of distress, or how far any particular effect results from want of food, must be to a large extent a matter of opinion. If you could administer to the sick people champagne, or could send them to the south of France, the probability is that you would be able to save a certain number of lives. But I venture to assert in the most distinct manner that the epidemics of fever and measles which the hon. Member for East Mayo has referred to have not produced the terrible results which he represents. Sir, the fact of the matter is that there may be a little more sickness and a few more deaths in the west of Ireland during the present season than usual, but there is always a certain amount of sickness, and there is always a certain amount of fever arising from, I am afraid, the not very cleanly habits of the people; and this year there has been in some districts a certain prevalence of influenza. The Lord Mayor of Dublin, in his speech, laid stress upon

    833
    the prevalence of the epidemics and sickness at the present time. I can assure hon. Members that I have had most careful inquiry made, and can discover no evidence to lead me to believe that there have been appreciably more deaths during the present season than during ordinary seasons. During the Easter holidays, at my request, one of the Commissioners of the Local Government Board, and also the Under Secretary, went through the distressed districts, and this is the account which I have received from the Commissioner of the influenza in, I think, the worst district—
    "I saw the medical officer, and he told me that he had seen the cases, and that the relieving officer had provided suitable nourishment for those patients who are not able to procure it for themselves. The medical officer has been directed to obtain the necessary assistance during the prevalence of the epidemic. One patient has died, another is in a critical state, and the others are progressing favourably."
    This is one of the very worst districts in the west of Ireland, and I think, after what I have read, hon. Members will see that the language used about the effects of the epidemics is grossly exaggerated. Now, Sir, as I have said, the speech of the Lord Mayor is the only excuse given by the hon. Member for raising this question in the manner in which he has chosen to raise it. [Mr. DILLON. I spoke also of the exhaustion of the relief fund.] The hon. Member has taken the opportunity to once more generally criticise the steps taken by the Government for dealing with the distressed areas, and, therefore, I should like to remind the House what those steps are, The hon. Member unfavourably compared what I have done this year with what was done in 1891; much, he said, was spent on that occasion, and a comparatively small sum during the present year. That may be true. Sir, and I sincerely trust it is. I think the distress in 1891 was more severe than the distress has been, or is likely to be, this year. That is my opinion, and I certainly hope and expect that the system of relief which I have adopted will involve a smaller expenditure of money. Sir, what was this system? In 1891 the Government started relief
    834
    works, and did not influence any local body to check or control the amount; spent in relief, and a similar plan was adopted by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose [Mr. John Morley] in 1895. Sir, I came to the conclusion that in order to deal, on sound principles, with the distress it was necessary to make the local authorities responsible, in the first instance, and, where acute distress existed, the Government informed the guardians that if they chose to start relief works assistance would be given them by the Government. Relief works have been started in all the union areas in which really acute distress prevailed, and the result is that at the present time on those works no fewer than 4,300 heads, or representative families, are engaged. [Mr. CRILLY: In how many counties?] In the counties of Mayo and Galway. The House will, therefore, see that, counting five as the average number of persons to each family, there are more than 20,000 persons receiving relief in this manner. Now, Sir, of the amount spent in this way, the Government have contributed three-fourths, and I venture to say that no one who is a proper recipient of relief, and has applied to be placed on those relief works, has been refused. I have not heard of a single case. Then, in addition to that, in Unions where the distress has been less acute the guardians have been allowed to give outdoor relief free from the restrictions which the law usually imposes, so that people too old or infirm to go on relief works can be relieved without going into the workhouse.
    MR. P. J. POWER: Will the right hon. Gentleman state what is the average of the wages paid on the relief works?
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The rate varies in different Unions, the maximum being 6s. a week; but I do not regard these works as means of employment, and the payment made as ordinary wages. On the contrary, the works are intended mainly for the people who seek relief, and are intended mainly as a test of their destitution. It is by that test only that they can be judged. When English

    835
    Members hear that 6s. a week is the maximum rate, it must be remembered that the wage of an able-bodied labourer employed in those counties at this season of the year is not very much more than 7s. or 8s. a week, and that it is absolutely necessary that there should be some relation between the habitual rate of wages in the district, and the amount given in relief.
    MR. P. J. POWER: I do not like to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman a second time, but what is the minimum wages?
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I cannot say off-hand. The different Unions adopt different methods of dealing with the question of remuneration; the guardians are responsible for fixing the actual amount given. Well, Sir, I have now described to you what steps the Government have taken to cope with this distress. But that is not all. There have been in previous years Acts of Parliament passed described as Seed Supply Acts, and it has invariably been the case that, though these Acts have been passed after Parliament has been sitting some months, the guardians have been allowed by administrative authority to anticipate the provisions of the Act, and that, also, has been done on the present occasion. The effect of this is to enable guardians to borrow for the purpose of purchasing seed potatoes, and, in the present instance, seed oats, and they are empowered to distribute these potatoes and oats to owners of land under £15 valuation, those persons receiving the seed—and they receive it at cost price—being allowed two years in which to pay for it. In providing seed supplies we have done everything that has been done by the previous Governments—
    MR. P. J. POWER: Is there not a difficulty in consequence of persons being in arrear under the Act of 1895?
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I will come to that point. We have done, I say, everything that previous Governments have done; but when we received accounts from the guardians just before Easter as to the amount for which they
    836
    had made themselves responsible we ascertained that there was the difficulty to which the hon. Member has just referred—i.e., that in a certain number of cases the guardians had reason to believe that even though two years are given for payment they would not get the money back, and in their discretion they refuse advances in certain instances. Well, Sir, I have come to a very rapid decision, for the time for planting potatoes is drawing to a close, and I have decided that it would be possible for the Government to distribute to those persons who have been on the relief works, and to whom, therefore, the test of destitution has been applied, two hundredweight of potatoes each free of charge. But, so far from this arousing the slightest degree of gratitude in hon. Members opposite, all they say is, "Is that all you can do?" "Are you not able to distribute more than the amount already distributed by those who have been getting up subscriptions?" My reply is that this distribution has been made to those persons to whom alone it is possible for the Government to give. The amount of seed is given by way of bonus on the wages paid for the relief works. It may be urged that we are stretching a point, and doing what no other Government has done, and that it would have been, perhaps, more strictly in accordance with the principle which we have laid down in relation to relief works if we had abstained from making this concession; but I argue that the object of the Government is to avert the danger of famine in the coming year, and the step which I have described must be taken as an amplification of the principle of the Seed Supply Acts rather than as a development of our distress policy. Sir, I have now described to the House what we have done in the way of meeting the existing condition of things. I will only add to that, however, that I have obtained an undertaking from the Treasury to advance to the Congested Districts Board an amount of £10,000, which they were allowed to expend during the present year in anticipation of future income. The hon. Member for East Mayo takes me to task because the Government have not done the work which the Manchester Relief Fund and

    837
    other funds were undertaking to do. Sir, the hon. Member for East Mayo seems to me to have most extraordinary views upon this subject. He lays it down that what is done in other countries by means of charity should be done in Ireland by the Government.
    MR. DILLON: I said that it actually is done by the Government, and should be done on a more liberal scale.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The hon. Member is wrong there, because I must remind him that distress funds have been started on many other occasions before the present year, but it could not be said that the Government has always undertaken work of charity. But this I venture to assert in the most explicit manner that if it be true that the people in Ireland expected that the Government should do that work which in other countries was carried out by means of charity, the sooner they are disabused of such a notion the better. [Mr. DILLON: You clear out of the country altogether.] I never deny that there is room for the exercise of charitable work in the west of Ireland, as there is, unfortunately, in a great many other parts of the world. At the same time, our experience of the working of these funds in previous years, notwithstanding the great care with which they have been distributed during the present year, had been that, while good had been done, evil had also been done, and I am afraid I must add that the distribution of this money is almost always attended by demoralising results. [Mr. WILLIAM REDMOND: What about English rule?] The hon. Member for East Mayo says that one of the reasons which led him to move the adjournment of the House this evening was the fact that these funds were now coming to an end. I cannot help thinking that perhaps more money might have been subscribed to these funds if the descriptions of the distress given by the hon. Member and his friends and sup porters in Ireland had not been so obviously possessed of a political side. [Mr. SWIFT MACNEILL: If the Lord Lieu tenant's letter had not been written—] One word with regard to the Lord Lieu
    838
    tenant's telegram. In the month of September his Excellency was informed by the correspondent of an American paper that very alarming reports had been received in America, and that great excitement was caused by them, and he desired to know whether they were true. The Lord Lieutenant, in reply, caused a telegram to be sent to the correspondent, stating that—. Perhaps I had better read the telegram. It runs—
    "In reply to your telegram of the 8th the Lord Lieutenant desires me to say that the reports which you characterise as most alarming of the pictures of famine are in His Excellency's opinion unjustifiable."
    [Mr. P. O'BRIEN: Was that right?] That was dated September 9th, and I believe the Lord Lieutenant to be absolutely right, for the predictions made at the time were gross exaggerations, which have not been in any sense borne out by the facts. [Mr. MICHAEL DAVITT: Is there no political motive in that statement?] No, none whatever. Let me call the attention of hon. Members to this. I was really most astonished the other day to see in one of the Irish newspapers that the Irish in America, who on previous occasions had been accustomed to subscribe largely to this so-called famine fund, had on this occasion failed to do so, and this was put down as entirely due to the Lord Lieu tenant's telegram. Now, Sir, I am surprised that hon. Members should venture to make such an assertion as that. We are told that the Irish in America, if possible, dislike and distrust the English Government and everything connected with the English Government more than even the people of Ireland do. [Mr. WILLIAM REDMOND: No, they could not do that.] For months the Irish news-papers have been raising this cry of and famine and distress, and yet the Irish America have paid more attention, according to the account of hon. Members themselves, to this one telegram from the Lord Lieutenant than they have paid to all those diatribes and all those descriptions in the Irish papers. Is it really true that when it comes to a question of fact and truth that the Irish in America distrust their own countrymen and believe the Lord Lieutenant? Well, Sir, to tell the truth, if we are to go into

    839
    that question, I am rather afraid that it may be argued that even the Irish in Ireland seem to believe the account of the Lord Lieutenant rather than the accounts of their own papers. If it be actually the case that these were not highly coloured descriptions of famine and of starvation, how comes it that, although every effort has been made by the Irish papers to stimulate subscriptions in Ireland, the total of these subscriptions amounted only to £14,000 or £15,000. Sir, the hon. Member for East Mayo has used very strong language about the action of the Government, and it appears to him that it is the duty of the Government of this country to keep people in a condition of comfort at the public expense. He and others have charged me with being callous and hard-hearted and wanting in sympathy. I trust that I am not wanting in sympathy, for I have every sympathy with the state of things existing in the west of Ireland. [Mr. WILLIAM REDMOND: Then why do you talk of champagne?] I know it is a most serious state of things, but it is not a case in which there is a danger of starvation and famine. But that seriousness does not arise from any existing suffering—at least that was not the most serious point, which is that we are confronted with a problem, the solution of which has long been one of the greatest difficulties in connection with statesmanship in Ireland. As regards that question, it does press upon me, and it must press upon anybody who has got anything to do with the Government of Ireland, but it is not to be cured by pouring money into the distressed districts, which, so far from being a real remedy has been the very reverse. I knew perfectly well that in adopting the policy which I have adopted. I should be covered with calumny, vituperation, and abuse, but I nevertheless deliberately adopted that policy, because I felt that it was the right course to adopt, and that I should have been faithless to my trust if I had not adopted it. I appeal confidently from the kind of language used about me and about the Irish officials who are doing their duty to the utmost of their ability, and I ask this House, by rejecting this Motion, to strengthen and not weaken the hands of the Irish
    840
    Government. [Mr. WILLIAM REDMOND: "Champagne Gerald" you ought to be called.]
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
    MR. J. G. SWIFT MACNEILL: I think the speech of the right hon. Gentleman has given us our credentials to go to the people of England, and show them how we are governed. The right hon. Gentleman somewhat misappreciates his position for he has no trust or mandate from the people of Ireland, and he was there as a foreigner and the representative of a Government supported by the two pillars of violence and fraud. The right hon. Gentleman knows that from the humblest constituency, or even the most fanciful constituency, in Ireland, he would not be returned. He does not voice our opinion any more than a Turk would voice the opinion of Armenia, or a Spaniard would voice the opinion of Cuba. Now I am pleased with the speech which the right hon. Gentleman has made. I am pleased with it, because it shows the true inwardness of this Government. He has a deep sense of the ridiculous, but he has to save his position. He talks about governing Ireland, and about his responsibilities there. Now, what are they? His responsibility is more like a junior Sultan sent over to depopulate an impoverished country. I ought not, in reference to this subject, to speak unkindly, because the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor organised a famine fund in Ireland, and the "Sultan of Ireland" sent £10,000 to these starving people. Now, I will take the right hon. Gentleman's speech step by step. He was very angry and very indignant with my hon. Friend for not giving him more timely notice of this Motion. Now, if there were people starving in the country over which the right hon. Gentleman has been called to govern, or if my hon. Friend had given him notice of this Motion, some of his understudies would have gone, and put down a blocking Motion, and we should have been unable to discuss it to-day. The right hon. Gentleman says that my hon. Friend's contention—which he misunderstood—that the English Government

    841
    ought to apply in Ireland funds which would assist private charity, as in other constitutions, was an absurd and an irrational proposal. Well, it would be most absurd and most irrational if we governed ourselves, and if we had the destinies of our own people in our own hands, but what are we asking for now? We are asking for this, as only one drop out of the ocean of all the benefits that you have abstracted from us by deliberate plunder and robbery for a century. How dare the right hon. Gentleman talk of charity and gratitude to a people who have been emasculated by his misgovernment? How dare he talk of charity when he knows—his own officials have stated it—that the Irish people are robbed year after year, to the tune of £3,000,000 of money. [Mr. P. J. O'BRIEN: That is where the champagne goes.] Talk of charity—what nonsense! Why, these people are the victims of charity! They exist in the best of years under the most painful conditions that can be, and reduced to the verge of starvation. And why? Because every one of these people are the victims of your misgovernment, and you have produced an artificial system of misery in Ireland for your own purposes. Do you wish to forget things that are written in your own statutes with the blood of martyrs—
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member is going into a general Debate, and he must confine himself to the definite matter before the House, which is the acute distress now existing in Ireland, and the Measures now being taken by the Government to relieve it.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I admit it is rather general, but I was only following, for once, the evil steps of the Chief Secretary, when he began to talk about champagne.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: It is the most disgraceful thing I ever heard, to talk about champagne when the people are starving.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I say that in these very districts the people are the victims of misgovernment and poverty, and they have been driven by
    842
    the English Government off the good land on to the waste. The right hon. Gentleman was very angry with me a few days ago when I said the deliberate policy of the Government of England was to keep the country in a chronic state of distress. Now, I wish to repeat every word and syllable of that statement. I was rather surprised at the right hon. Gentleman's idea of what should be an appropriate time and an appropriate subject for instituting a Motion for the adjournment of the House. Now, I cannot imagine anything more urgent or appropriate on which the Motion before the House could be moved than the hunger of our fellow creatures, and in order to expose this state of things to the people of this country we shall adhere to this Motion, and we shall again and again bring it forward. I was also anxious that the right hon. Gentleman should talk under less restriction than he generally assumes. Is there any reason for giving the House information of this kind, only from the Irish police, when they are excluded from popular control? It seems only yesterday—and I have gone through at least twelve of these miserable Debates on this subject—that I heard the First Lord, in reply to questions touching the distress, read the Constabulary authorities Report, which seems to be a common form; and even now the right hon. Gentleman prefers to take the testimony of the Constabulary authorities against the collective voice and the collective opinion, of the people in Ireland. Perhaps I have spoken hardly of the right hon. Gentleman, and I think hardly of him now, and I try to soothe that feeling by the knowledge that he has never visited these districts, and does not—
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. I have been all over those districts.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Never in a state of distress. The right hon. Gentleman was over there, and saw considerable poverty, but he was over there in a comparatively prosperous time, but never at a time when a cry of distress has been raised. If he had, and giving him credit for the ordinary feelings of humanity, he would not have been capable of making

    843
    the speech he has made. I am obliged to the House for the patience with which they have heard me. I am speaking from my heart in reference to these matters, and I am speaking because I have seen the destitution of these people. The scenes I have seen hang before me, and I cannot get rid of them; and I do say that to all Irishmen, wherever they are, all over the globe, when they hear an English statesman justifying this state of things, hatred of the English Government ought to be a religion of the heart with the Irish race. What a contrast yesterday's proceedings and to-day's are, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer got up and said that English prosperity was proceeding by leaps and bounds, in a manner astonishing to themselves, and that they were overflowing with money; but he did not name Ireland. And here the next day there comes this miserable statement of famine justified and distress perpetuated, by the representative of a Government which has no interest in the people in any section of Ireland. It is no monstrous exaggeration when I declare that upon this question there is not a dissentient voice in Ireland. Only last month an extreme Orange paper—the Dublin Evening Mail—had an article in which the Government were censured for their heartless neglect in reference to Irish distress in language as strong as any that has been used this afternoon in this House. What a complete justification of the efforts of Irishmen to get rid of English rule! The Unionist Party talk of the difficulties of government in Ireland, but I state distinctly that the English Government is the great Irish difficulty, and is the great bane and curse of the country.
    MAJOR J. E. JAMESON: I think this Debate has shown that most unmistakably there exists dire distress in the west of Ireland. I had the opportunity of speaking and addressing the House when the subject of distress in Ireland was brought before Parliament on a former occasion, and I then pointed out the importance of immediately grappling with the subject. What I quarrel with in the statement of the Chief Secretary is that he states he has no evidence before him of acute distress calling for imme
    844
    diate remedies. At all events, I may answer for my own constituency. I brought him every evidence that any reasonable man could wish. Whom did I bring? I did not bring people of political opinions the same as I hold, because they would not probably have been listened to. I brought him five of the Deputy Lieutenants of the county, who were identified with the prosperity of the county of Clare. I brought him also two of the principal priests of the county, and I brought him three people who, like myself, believed in Home Rule. We showed him unmistakably that there was dire distress in the west of Ireland, more particularly in the part which I have the honour to represent. We pointed out to him—although he told us it would be impossible for relief works to be works of permanent utility—that that alone would be conferring a benefit on the county, and that that alone would prevent distress. Sir, are we not to blame the Government, are we to show no concern, when the representatives of the people, in whom the interests of the country are wrapped up, are absolutely ignored? Why, Sir, what could have been easier than for the Chief Secretary to have come to this House with a suitable proposal? And if he had I do not think hon. Members opposite would have opposed him. I believe that the Chief Secretary, when he turned a few moments ago to those benches, was afraid to let them know that on these great relief works given to the people of Ireland the minimum pay, to keep a family, was 3s., the maximum 6s., and the average 4s. a week. Sir, do you think—as the hon. Member who, jointly with me, shares the representation of the county of Clare has said—that we like to come here and beg day by day of you on those opposite benches to relieve this distress? Why, Sir, I can only tell you this, that there is nothing on the face of the Lord's earth that I would rather not do than come here to ask for charity. I have personally, within my own means, been ready to help my own people. I asked the Chief Secretary a year and three months ago if he would let me have £40, to make a little fishing siding at Ross, where the direst distress prevails at the present moment. I asked him to let me have this money to make the coast suitable for the canoes, in order

    845
    that the people would not starve. Well, he said that he was perfectly willing to do it. But, Sir, within a month I received a reply that some official at the Castle had reported that if they did the work it would only be washed away. I replied to the right hon. Gentleman, stating that I totally disagreed with him, having been there myself, and I offered to do this: that if the Government would put it there, and it was washed away, I would put it back at my own expense. I have been from that day to this unable to get a trifling thing like that done. As regards Ross at present I do not think there is any place in the west where distress is more rife. The right hon. Gentleman has told you that nobody dies of starvation. Well, I will tell you what they have died of: it was influenza, produced by starvation. Will any reasonable man in this House tell me that a man with influenza, and nothing to live on but a small portion of Indian meal, is able to resist the effects of that dire disease? And, Sir, I think the House generally, and more especially hon. Gentlemen opposite, who know of the surplus in the Budget, would freely give any grant that could be recommended by the Government of Ireland in order to stop these unfortunate people from dying, if not actually from starvation, at any rate, because the very small amount of food, and perfectly bad food, which they are able to get is insufficient to enable them to resist any disease with which they may be attacked. I cannot believe or credit that the right hon. Gentleman or hon. Gentlemen opposite would allow such a state of things. They themselves do not prevent and block anything being done for our people, but it is the fact that they allow themselves to be managed year by year by Dublin Castle officials, who do not understand, and will not understand, the wants of the people, because they do not desire to do so, and will not recommend that they should be helped to help themselves. That is the reason why Irish Members on these Benches hate the idea of English rule. I do not believe that one of us would ask anything that this House of Commons could grant if we only had the power to give it to Ireland ourselves. I am bound to say that I think the hon. Member for Mayo has amply made out
    846
    his case. Are we going to wait for relief for another year, until our place is depopulated by famine? I think every possible justification has been shown by the hon. Members on this side, and I do ask the House to-night to mark its sense of the gross and permanent injustice under which we are suffering, and to say that the Government have absolutely failed to grapple with the question that is now before them, as they have failed, and always will fail, because they will not look to the representatives of Ireland for that advice which they can alone correctly give.
    MR. D. KILBRIDE: I failed to find myself anything in the statement of the right hon. Gentleman to show whether in his opinion there is famine, or a state of destitution bordering on starvation, in Ireland, or no. The right hon. Gentleman accused the Lord Mayor of Dublin of making exaggerated statements in a speech he delivered in connection with the distress, but may I draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that, a short time ago—on April 16th, I think—a circular was distributed containing a resolution proposed by the Lord Mayor of Dublin. This resolution was as follows—
    "That this Council begs to direct the immediate attention of Her Majesty's Government to the acute and wide-spread distress and destitution at present existing in the counties of Kerry, Cork, Mayo, and Galway."
    I was not satisfied, from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary whether or not his view is in accordance with the statements made in this resolution. My own impression was that the right hon. Gentleman is of opinion that the terms of this resolution are exaggerated; but will the House be surprised to hear that the Gentleman who seconded this resolution in the Dublin Corporation is Sir Robert Sexton, the most influential Unionist in the city of Dublin? Does the right hon. Gentleman accuse his own supporter, Sir Robert Sexton, of being given to the use of extravagant language when he seconded this resolution in connection with the

    847
    famine in the west of Ireland? I would also ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he read the remarkable letter published in the Irish papers a few days ago relating to the destitution, poverty, and famine in South Kerry? Has the right hon. Gentleman read the letter describing the condition of the people in the villages of Port Magee, Prior, and Kells? The writer of the letter says that if something is not done immediately by the Government towards supplying relief, before the harvest is reaped the people will die, not, perhaps, of famine, but of disease produced by insufficient food, and brought on because the people are more susceptible on account of weakness. That is not the letter of an Irish Nationalist; it is not the letter of a Catholic; it is the letter of a man who, in the discharge of his duty, thought it was right that the public should know of his Catholic parishioners; it is the letter of the Protestant vicar of the parish of Port Magee. Perhaps, however, the right hon. Gentleman would prefer the evidence of the local head constable before he takes the opinion of the Protestant rector. In the course of his speech the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary challenged the Irish Members to produce a single case of death from starvation. I am not prepared to say, so far as the destitution has gone at present, that there has been any death from absolute starvation in any part of Ireland. But is that due to anything the right hon. Gentleman or the Government have done to prevent such an occurrence? Any man who knows Ireland, and knows the spirits and feelings of the peasantry of Ireland; any man who has been amongst the people in the west and the south of Ireland, knows that a death from starvation is not likely to occur, because, so long as the people have food they will share it with those who are poorer than themselves; and because there is not death from starvation the Chief Secretary wants this House, and the people of this country, to believe that there is no such thing as distress in Ireland. Will the right hon. Gentleman deny that people in Ireland have died of an epidemic disease, which might be described as "famine measles"? It is an epidemic due to the enfeebled and weakened condition of the people,
    848
    and that condition arises from the insufficiency of ordinary food. The right hon. Gentleman compared the distress in Ireland in 1891 with the distress which at present prevails, and he told the House that, in his opinion, and in the opinion of Dublin Castle, the distress of 1891 was greater than the distress of 1898 in the west and south of Ireland. Anybody who knows Ireland knows that no statement could be more convincing than that of the Chief Secretary's absolute ignorance of this distress. The blight was more severe in 1897 than in any year since 1848; in some of the moorland and mountainous districts the failure of the potato crop has been greater in 1897 than in any year since 1848; and, as a consequence, the distress is more severe now that at any time since that year. The right hon. Gentleman told the House that the Government had done a great deal to facilitate the distribution of seed in these districts. But what advantage is this "Seed Supply Act" to those who are in the direst necessity? As the right hon. Gentleman admitted, in reply to my interruption, anybody who is in arrears under former Seed Supply Acts does not participate in the relief.
    MR. G. BALFOUR: I did not say that. I said the guardians have refused to give seed potatoes to those who are in arrear for rent under the Act of 1891.
    MR. KILBRIDE: The guardians have refused; but why? Because they know that, if they give seed to people in arrears under the Seed Supply Acts of former years, who are not able to pay up the arrears due, they have no chance of being paid this year. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary said there was nothing to prevent boards of guardians giving seed to these people. But there is nothing to prevent any member or boards of guardians supplying seed to these people out of his own pocket, and it amounts to the same thing. The right hon. Gentleman and the officials of the Local Government Board are aware that people so poor as some of these people are will not be able to repay the boards of guardians the price of the seed. Where does the boon come in? I know boards of guardians who are supplying seed, not

    849
    at the ordinary market prices of towns in the neighbourhood, but at 50 per cent. beyond those prices. Is that a great boon? The right hon. Gentleman twitted us on the fact that the Irish-Americans—men not proverbial for their love of England—have paid more attention to a letter written in September by the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland than to statements made by Irish Members, or to statements in the Irish Nationalist papers relative to the distress.
    MR. G. BALFOUR: I made no such statement. I said I had read such a statement in the Irish papers.
    MR. KILBRIDE: I read as many Irish papers as the right hon. Gentleman, and I failed to find such a statement in any of them. I did not see it either in my Irish-American papers.
    MR. G. BALFOUR: I read it in the Freeman.
    MR. KILBRIDE: The Freeman is not an Irish-American paper.
    MR. G. BALFOUR: No, Sir; so I understand.
    MR. KILBRIDE: I was afraid the right hon. Gentleman's knowledge of Ireland was so limited that he did not know whether the Freeman is an Irish-American paper or not. Speaking for myself as an Irishman I am glad that the Irish-Americans have not subscribed any money towards relieving distress in the west and south of Ireland; and the reason I am glad is that I believe Irish-Americans, of this and of the last generation, have sent a great deal too much money, both for the relief of distress and the relief of the landlords. But what became, and what becomes, of most of the money that comes annually from Irish-Americans? It goes into the rapacious and avaricious maw of the Irish landlords. If the people of Ireland were left more to their own resources by their kinsmen in America it might tend more to the speedy solution of this land question. I hope that any Irish-American who is desirous of benefiting Ireland in the future, who is desirous of raising the condition of the people from what it is
    850
    to something like what it ought to be, instead of sending his money across the Atlantic for Irish landlords, or Irish shopkeepers, to grab, will put it to a very different purpose. Perhaps, if they did, the time might come—
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member is going beyond the subject under Debate.
    MR. KILBRIDE: I bow to your ruling, Sir; but I wish to say that, while, according to the right hon. Gentleman, the Chief Secretary for Ireland exaggerated statements are made in Irish Nationalist papers with regard to the distress, neither he nor any other man in this country would accuse those responsible for the conduct of the Manchester Guardian, one of the most influential papers in the provinces, of having exaggerated the condition of affairs. Professor Long has made statements in the Manchester Guardian with regard to the distress in Ireland. He has gone there himself, and has investigated the condition of affairs. Professor Long is not an Irish Nationalist; he is not even an English Liberal. I understand he is a Unionist in politics, and a political supporter of the Government. If that is so, I hope that any statements emanating from Professor Long will have due weight with the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland. But one extraordinary thing in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, and, indeed, in all his speeches in connection with Irish distress, is that, from beginning to end of them, I fail to find a single note of sympathy with these unfortunate beings in Ireland. I presume the right hon. Gentleman did not intend it as a taunt when he spoke about champagne. I daresay, he did not intend it as a taunt, but, at any rate, it was an unfortunate illustration. I think that when these people in the distressed districts of Ireland, who cannot, perhaps, discriminate as clearly as Members of this House, the meaning in which the right hon. Gentleman used the phrase, read to-morrow the head-lines in the newspapers connecting the right hon. Gentleman's speech about the distress with champagne their love for the English Government, either the present Unionist Government or any

    851
    English Government, will not be greatly increased. I do not know if it is entirely useless to appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to watch the condition of these people. The right hon. Gentleman is always watching them; the police, not having much to do in these times, I am sorry to say are also watching them. [Cries of "Oh!"] Yes, I should, speaking for myself, very much prefer that the Irish police were better engaged than at present in the old practice of shadowing Members of Parliament and prominent politicians through the country, because then we should have more sympathetic speeches from the Chief Secretary than we have had to-night. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will, at any rate, pay attention to the letters he will no doubt be receiving from clergymen of all denominations—and, surely, clergymen of different denominations cannot be prejudiced on this question.
    DR. ROBERT AMBROSE: The Irish representatives have taken the trouble to come down to the House, and move the Adjournment in order to bring before Members what we consider a true picture of the state of affairs in the west of Ireland; but, in my opinion, we might as well be whistling jigs to a milestone as to try to convince the Chief Secretary of the accuracy of our statements about these starving people. When the hon. Member for East Mayo was speaking of the condition of some of these people we heard sounds of laughter coming from under the Gallery, and now we find laughter coming from bloated Gentlemen opposite.
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Member must withdraw that expression.
    DR. AMBROSE: Well, Sir, I withdraw, but we found it coming from Gentlemen opposite who dare not open their mouths in opposition to the Government Whip. With regard to the condition of these people, we find, from correspondence in English papers, that their food for the most part consists of Indian meal. I ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chief
    852
    Secretary whether such a condition of affairs is not a sufficient reason for moving the Adjournment of the House? My way of dealing with this aspect of the affair would be not to appeal to the House—I am sick of that. I would prefer that the people of the congested districts would use physical force, so that the American Republic might come to our assistance as she has to the assistance of the Cubans. This is, I think, the third time in the course of this Session that Irish Members have asked the Government to come to the relief of these people. Every time we have suggested a remedy, the Chief Secretary, instead of sympathising with us, has said that, as long as he is a member of the Board—and he takes very good care to preserve the chairmanship of it—he will do the utmost in his power to prevent that Board buying up any estates in order to alleviate the condition of the suffering poor in these districts. This is the last time I shall trouble the House about this business; I would rather appeal to other force. It is galling for a body of Irishmen to come on their knees year after year and cry for relief only to be met with laughter and scoffs, not only from. Members on the opposite side of the House, but from the Chief Secretary himself.
    MR. FREDERICK MADDISON: I desire, as an English workman, to join in the protest of the Irish Members. I listened carefully to the speech of the Chief Secretary for Ireland, and, while admitting that the extract read from the speech of the Lord Mayor of Dublin seemed somewhat exaggerated, yet I am prepared to take the case as the Chief Secretary left it. Taking his percentages, and taking his description, I feel I must associate myself in every way with this protest from the Irish representatives. Yesterday I listened to the Chancellor of the Exchequer introducing a Budget, the figures of which left on my mind the impression that this is a great and mighty Empire; but when I knew, as I did before the Adjournment of the House was moved, that there was a portion of this Empire, a part of this United Kingdom, where there was, if not

    853
    famine, at any rate what we in our English villages and towns call famine, when I knew this—although I am proud of the Fatherland—I could not join in the exultations which greeted almost every sentence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I could not help asking myself where, in all this glorying about the Empire, were the poor and the wretched and the outcast? I think I can find them in England; but I know that they exist in the western and the southern districts of Ireland. As an English Member of Parliament, I have been appealed to for my assistance at meetings, and also for subscriptions. It is out of my power to help the people in these distressed districts with subscriptions, and I belong to a school of politicians who do not believe in constant doles from the State to either the working class or any other class. I believe that these State subsidies are dangerous, and that the rich and the powerful in the scramble always get the biggest share of the Government subsidy. It appears to me that the so-called poverty-stricken landlords in England are having a fair share of class relief, and if Parliament is to give any class doles, it should be to those who need it most; and. I venture to say, that no man in this House will venture to say that there is any section of the kingdom that needs relief more than these wretched peasants in the west of Ireland. I have, therefore, come to the conclusion, after listening to this and other Debates, that we are utterly powerless to govern Ireland. We cannot by our rule inculcate that spirit of thrift which the hon. Member for Mayo himself held up as the ideal form of prosperity; our methods, right or

    AYES.

    Abraham, Wm. (Cork, N. E.)

    Brigg, John

    Curran, Thomas B. (Donegal)

    Allan, Wm. (Gateshead)

    Broadhurst, Henry

    Curran, Thomas (Sligo, S.)

    Allison, Robert Andrew

    Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

    Daly, James

    Ambrose, R. (Mayo, W.)

    Burns, John

    Davitt, Michael

    Ashton, Thomas Gair

    Caldwell, James

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Austin, Sir John (Yorkshire)

    Cameron, Robert (Durham)

    Doogan, P. C.

    Austin, M. (Limerick, W.)

    Cawley, Frederick

    Duckworth, James

    Barlow, John Emmott

    Channing, Francis Allston

    Ellis, John Edward (Notts)

    Bayley, Thos. (Derbyshire)

    Clark, Dr. G. B. (Caithness)

    Evans, Sir F. H. (South'ton)

    Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

    Clough, Walter Owen

    Farquharson, Dr. Robert

    Billson, Alfred

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Foster, Sir W. (Derby Co.)

    Birrell, Augustine

    Crilly, Daniel

    Goddard, Daniel Ford

    wrong, are alien to the temperament of the Irish people; and, therefore, I feel, not only that we are denying Ireland her freedom, but that we are refusing her relief when she is in a poverty-stricken and woe-begone condition.

NEW BILLS.
  SCHOOL BOARD VOTING BILL.
  To permit the adoption of the method of the Single Transferable Vote in the election of School Boards; Ordered to be brought in by Mr. Courtney, Sir John Lubbock, Mr. Scott, Sir William Houldsworth, Mr. Knox, and Mr. Parker Smith; Presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Tuesday 3rd May, and to be printed. [Bill 184.]
  CROFTERS' HOLDINGS (SCOTLAND) ACT (1886).
  To amend The Crofters' Holdings (Scotland) Act, 1886; Ordered to be brought in by Mr. Weir, Dr. Clark, Mr. McLeod, Sir Leonard Lyell, Sir William Wedderburn, and Mr. Caldwell; Presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Wednesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 185.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY.
  [SEVENTH ALLOTTED DAY.]
  (Considered in Committee.)
  [Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith), CHAIRMAN of WATS and MEANS, in the Chair.]
  (In the Committee.)

  CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.
  On the Vote for £8,107 for Salaries and Expenses of Officers of the House of Lords,
  MR. SYDNEY GEDGEsaid: Mr. Lowther, in rising to question the propriety of passing this Vote, I shall be obliged to make a few observations with regard to the Lord Chancellor and to move the reduction of his salary by £100. I need not say that I do not in the least wish to reduce the salary of the Lord Chancellor, but there is no way open to a private Member to bring before

  859
  the House anything that requires its attention in connection with a Vote, except by a Motion of this kind. Now I am aware that the salary of the Lord Chancellor, as a judge, £6,000 a year, is charged upon the Consolidated Fund, and with that we have nothing to do, but a salary of £4,000 is charged upon the Estimates, and given to him, I take it, as a member of the Executive Government, and therefore whatever he does as a member of the Executive Government can only be brought before this House upon a Motion such as that of which I have given, notice. I see the Chairman shakes his head, but I submit to him that there is no other way of questioning the acts of the Lord High Chancellor as an individual Member of the Cabinet, and the use he makes of any powers that are entrusted to him, either of patronage or in the execution of the law, but the course I have now taken. Therefore I say at once that I am not going to take up the time of the House by entering into what, under its rules, would be irrelevant; but, with a slight allusion to his exercise of patronage, my desire is to call attention to the action of the Lord Chancellor in the manner in which he is carrying out the Land Transfer Act of last Session.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF WATS AND MEANS: If the hon. Member will look at the Votes which are before the Committee he will see that the salary put down opposite the name of the Lord Chancellor is proposed to be paid to him as Speaker of the House of Lords, and in that respect only, and not as a Member of Her Majesty's Government. And, therefore, if the hon. Member wishes to raise any question with regard to the action or rulings of the Lord Chancellor—though I am not aware that he gives any rulings in the House of Lords—it must be in respect of his conduct as Speaker in the other House.
  MR. GEDGE: Of course, Sir, on the point of order I submit to your ruling. There seems, however, to be no other way of calling attention to anything that the Lord Chancellor does. Of course, we cannot call attention to what he does in another place; and, in fact, we do not
  860
  know what he does there. If your ruling,, Sir, is that the action of the Lord Chancellor is beyond all criticism, well, that must be so; but I venture to say that he acts as Lord Chancellor in the two things that go to make up his salary, and he can no more divide himself into two people than the Cardinal Prince who swore very much, and said he only swore as a Prince and not as a Cardinal. He was asked, "My Lord, when the devil flies away with the Prince, what will become of the Cardinal?" Now, with regard to this Vote, I do not wish to say anything personal of the Lord Chancellor, but, Sir, if your ruling is that what he does as Lord Chancellor cannot be questioned I shall have to contend that he is not fit to sit as Speaker of the House of Lords. I shall be happy to direct my observations to that argument. Would that not be in order?
  THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: No, I do not think so. I hope the hon. Member will not understand me to rule that the conduct of the Lord Chancellor cannot be questioned. All I have ruled is that, in Committee of Supply, the conduct of the Lord Chancellor in the exercise of his patronage cannot be questioned on this Vote.
  MR. J. H. LEWIS: I wish to make a few remarks upon this Vote, Sir, as it has not been discussed for three years. I think that, whatever may be said with regard to the operation of the new Rules, they certainly have not been very successful with regard to this particular Vote, because it has been impossible for the House of Commons in Committee of Supply to discuss it at all in the course of the last three years. Now, Sir, I wish to ask one or two questions with regard to the salaries of various officers of the House of Lords. My first question is one of a general character, and mainly as to what Commission or Committee has authority to appoint, dismiss, or vary the terms of appointment and so on, of officers of the House of Lords. I understand that with regard to officers of the House of Commons, at all events, there is a Statutory Commission under various Acts of Parliament, beginning with an Act passed in

  861
  the reign of George the First. I do not know whether that Commission has met recently, or whether it has anything whatever to do with any appointment of officers of the House of Lords; but I will postpone my remarks upon that subject until we come to the Vote for the House of Commons. There is another question which I wish to ask upon this Vote. It relates to the Fee Fund. The receipts of that fund amount, roughly speaking, to £25,000 a year. They are chiefly fees on private Bills. We have recently had a discussion in this House with regard to the propriety of reducing fees on private Bills, and I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman who is in charge of this Vote, having regard to the very general expression of opinion on the part of the House on that occasion, whether the Government have in contemplation the reduction of the fees on private Bills. If they have in contemplation any reduction of that kind, will it be possible for them to differentiate between the fees that are paid by strictly private promoters of Bills and the fees that are paid by municipal corporations and other public bodies coming before the House specifically for public purposes and not for private purposes? The object of my suggestion, of course, is this. In the case, say, of a great railway company, it would be quite right that these fees should be paid, but with regard to corporations, which at the present time are obliged to come to us for Parliamentary powers and to pay very heavy fees, so long as the present system of private Bills is in existence, I would ask that in their case special indulgence and favour should be shown. Obviously, it is in the public interest that that should be done. Of course, private promoters stand in a totally different position; but I hope that in any change that may be contemplated—a change which I understood was contemplated owing to what was said from the Treasury Bench the other day with regard to this matter—the Government will draw a very distinct dividing line between public promoters and private promoters. With regard to police, I believe there is an increase of £3,720, as compared with last year. I am not going to call that in question, as I think it is only right, as the police are engaged in discharging services in an Imperial institution, that the charge should be
  862
  borne imperially, and not by London. I am sure we all agree as to that. I trust the right hon. Gentleman will bear in mind that there are other claims made on behalf of London, and we hope that what is local to London will be borne by London, and that what is an Imperial charge will be borne by Parliament.
  Mr. J. G. WEIR: I rise, Sir, to protest against the system of dual offices in the House of Lords. Nearly every official in that House draws revenue from more than one source, and the bad example is set by the Lord Chancellor himself. The Lord Chancellor receives £6,000 from another source, and if that is not sufficient let it be augmented. This system of taking money from different sources is a most reprehensible one, and in order to economise the time of the House I move the reduction of the Vote by £4,000.
  MR. T. GIBSON BOWLES: I think I can claim a certain patent right in a Motion of this kind, and I certainly am in sympathy with the remarks of the hon. Gentleman opposite. But the question of pluralism is one that should be treated as a, whole. I have always shared the hope and belief that I might be able, with the irrefutable arguments I could bring forward, to induce the House to pass a Motion that no person should hold two offices. I myself intended to table a Motion similar to that now made, but there is a question of policy and propriety in dealing with the matter. Instead of laying down a principle the hon. Member only moves to reduce the salary of one particular officer of the House of Lords, and I think that is an inconvenient way of raising the question. I respect the high functionary against whose salary and position the hon. Member's Motion is directed. The Lord Chancellor of England is a very great personage. Undoubtedly, his name will go down in history as one of the ablest and purest Lord Chancellors that ever sat on a Woolsack, and as one of the most revered expounders of the law in this country. I would remind the hon. Gentleman that we are dealing in this Vote with only one side of the

  863
  Lord Chancellor. His other side—the legal side—cannot be touched. I want the hon. Gentleman to reflect on the consequences if his Motion were passed. The House of Lords would be left without a Speaker. We cannot expect even a Lord Chancellor to consent to discharge duties when he is deprived of the salary attaching to them. I am aware that the Speakership of the House of Lords does not correspond with the Speakership of the House of Commons. Any Member of the House of Lords may act as Speaker in that assembly, and I think I am, right in saying that the Speaker of the House of Lords has no authority over the Members. He cannot call on one Member to speak, or on another to hold his peace. Still less can he call the Serjeant-at-Arms to take an offending Member, I will not say by the collar, but by his robes and coronet, and remove him from the House. I accept the inferiority of the position of the Lord Chancellor in the House of Lords to that which he would occupy as Speaker of the House of Commons. He might have been Speaker of the House of Commons if the House had chosen him, but in spite of all that I do consider that it is highly desirable that the Upper Chamber should have a Speaker, as otherwise it may fall into disorder, and may not observe the rules of Debate. It must be understood I am speaking purely from the public point of view. It has been my painful duty to attack some of the Lord Chancellor's Bills—it has even been my unhappy lot to turn out one Bill of his three times. That was most unfortunate, but it was on public grounds. I do feel this House has a duty to the other House, though I confess that the other House does not always feel conscious of its duty to this House; but, Sir, I appeal to the Committee to show a good example in that respect, and not pass a Motion which would deprive the other House of a Speaker, and leave it without anyone to direct its Debates. It is partly on that ground, but mainly on the broader ground of the interest I take in pluralism, that I ask the hon. Gentleman not to proceed with his Motion. I do think that the question of pluralities in the public service is one which will have to be considered, but it should be considered as a whole. It is not convenient to
  864
  consider one case only, and leave all the other oases undisturbed. What would be the position of the other pluralists if we got rid of the incidental pluralism of the Lord Chancellor? His office is, I understand, the highest ambition of Members of his profession to attain, but suppose we abolish the pluralism in his case, we would leave the other 300 pluralists exactly where they are, and we would not have got any nearer to their abolition than at present. I do think that the right way to raise the question is not in individual cases, but on a general principle. That is my opinion of how the matter should be dealt with, and I hope that the hon. Member who has called attention to the unavoidable case of the Lord Chancellor will not proceed with his Motion.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. R. W. HANBURY,): I think I can also give another good reason why the hon. Member should not proceed with his Motion. He, no doubt, objects to pluralism, and is very anxious that the Lord Chancellor's salary should be reduced by that portion of it which is included in this Vote. I do not, however, think he can be aware of what the immediate effect of his Motion would be. The Lord Chancellor's salary would not be reduced by a single penny, because, under an Act of 1852, it was distinctly laid down by Parliament that the salary of the Lord Chancellor should be £10,000, and that any portion of it which was not voted for him as Speaker of the House of Lords should be charged on the Consolidated Fund. The result of any reduction in this House would be that the amount of the reduction would immediately be paid out of the Consolidated Fund, and it would have no effect whatever on the Lord Chancellor's salary. At present the salary of the Lord Chancellor as Speaker of the House of Lords comes before us in this House, and it is possible to hear such speeches as that just delivered by my hon. Friend, and if the hon. Member opposite desires that this salary should continue to come before the review of Parliament then he had much better leave it in this Vote.
  MR. H. LABOUCHERE: It seems to me that the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has given us very excellent reasons for not voting this money. I have great respect for the Lord Chancellor, and I think that when the House of Commons declared that he ought not to have this money he would not take it from the Consolidated Fund. Those who hold the view that the Lord Chancellor would take this money from the Consolidated Fund would also be able to support my hon. Friend's Motion, because by it the Lord Chancellor would not lose anything, and it would relieve us of any act or part in giving him this excessive sum of money.
  MR. J. CALDWELL: It is only five years since this question of the plurality of offices was very keenly debated in this House on this same Vote, and on that occasion the most prominent opponent of the Vote was the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury. We mean now to keep him a considerable time on this Vote; we mean to go over all the ground on which he attacked the Liberal Government, and we want to know now what remedy he proposes to apply to his own complaints. We can afford a little time on this discussion, because everybody knows that Votes of Supply are automatically closured. No time of the Government will be taken up, and it will only mean that there will be less left for the other Votes. It is evident that if we begin the work of reform we ought to begin at the head. Now, here is this flagrant case of pluralism—the case of the Lord Chancellor. The hon. Member for King's Lynn says this subject should be treated as a whole, and that we should not deal with individual cases. I should like to know under what procedure of this House we can bring the matter up as a whole. We cannot—
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: If the hon. Member will get a day from the Government, I will do it myself.
  MR. CALDWELL: We cannot get a day from the Government. Our duty is to take advantage of the present occasion; we have got it, and we will keep
  866
  it. The Lord Chancellor gets £4,000 as Speaker of the House of Lords, and we want to know what particular duties he performs for that money. Then he gets £6,000 as President of the Supreme Court of the Chancery Division. Of course, we know we cannot attack his salary as President of the Supreme Court, but we can attack, and it is our duty to attack, his salary as Speaker of the House of Lords, which comes under our purview. I am surprised that the Secretary to the Treasury did not say a single word in opposition to plural offices after the immense amount of eloquence and time he expended in 1893. I am surprised he should have forgotten so soon all he said then upon this very important subject. Now he has no word to say except that if we do not give the Lord Chancellor this money he will take it out of the Consolidated Fund. Let him do so. But, so far as this House is concerned, it will not be responsible for the salary of the Lord Chancellor as Speaker of the House of Lords. I think my hon. Friend did well to take up the most flagrant case of all, and make it the turning-point for a Division in this House as regards plural offices.
  MR. H. BROADHURST: Mr. Lowther, last night we had a rebuke from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who said we had ceased to be economical, and I know of no better opportunity than the present of redeeming our character from that charge. With regard to the Lord Chancellor, I know little of him as a lawyer. He may be worth all he gets, or he may not; but as regards the Speakership of the House of Lords we have all a fair opportunity of judging what that position is worth. In this House we have a Speaker who is very hard worked, who has to show great physical resources and great patience. Hon. Members on the other side probably know from personal experience the tax they impose on him. I believe the Speaker of this House gets about £5,000 a year, but there is no comparison whatever between the duties he discharges and the duties discharged by the Speaker of the House of Lords. The Speaker of the House of Lords takes the Chair three or four days a week for five or six minutes, sometimes for two

  867
  minutes, and sometimes even only for one minute. On three or four nights during the Session the sitting may last from Five o'clock to Eight o'clock, seldom or never until Twelve o'clock; and I say it is monstrous that the Lord Chancellor, who has a large salary as President of the Supreme Court, should take £4,000 out of the taxes for merely nominal duties which any ordinary person could perform equally as well. As the hon. Member for King's Lynn showed in his very excellent speech there is very little, if any, necessity for any Speakership in the House of Lords. Any nobleman can be taken by the hem of his garment, or by his coronet, and led up to the Woolsack, and there he can discharge the duties equally as well as the Lord Chancellor, who gets £4,000 a year for them. The Secretary to the Treasury has advised my hon. Friend to seek some other occasion. That advice he never accepted himself when he sat on these benches. The present occasion was always the occasion for him, and although we on this side of the House are always slow to learn these Parliamentary tactics, still we sat so many nights under the tutorship of the Secretary to the Treasury that we must be dull indeed if we have failed to benefit in some measure from his excellent example. This is the time, this is the opportunity, and I sincerely hope my hon. Friend will take the sense of the House on the matter. Indeed, he is bound to do so as a mark of respect to a colleague of the Secretary to the Treasury, the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I shall certainly support my hon. Friend if he goes to a Division.
  MR. J. G. SWIFT MACNEILL: I feel, Sir, like a sheep that is lost. I have lost my shepherd. The right hon. Gentleman who used to teach me so well the art of intelligent criticism I see now on the Treasury Bench, and he has been made Secretary to the Treasury, because he knows so well how to protect things he used to demolish. There is a personal element in this case. In any discussion on the salaries of officers of the House of Lords we must take the example of all others. The Lord Chancellor has many sides. He has a judicial
  868

  side, to which I will not refer; he has a political side, of which I can speak If I choose; and, above all, he has a family side, as we all know. The Secretary to the Treasury says that if we do not vote this money it will come to the Lord Chancellor by the automatic force of a statute passed in the early fifties. That is a point only good enough for one of the Old Bailey tribunals, in which the Lord Chancellor formerly appeared. My right hon. Friend knows that if this sum were negatived by the House of Commons, as a matter of course, this statute would be repealed. The point is that on the public funds there is a most distinguished specimen of a sinecure. There is no work whatever, and it is waste to give £4,000 for it. I do not know whether hon. Gentlemen are aware that the Speakership of the House of Lords differs in all its qualities from the Speakership of the House of Commons. The Speaker of the House of Lords need not be a Member of that House at all. Again and again the Speaker of the House of Lords—at one period for ten years—was not a Member of the House of Lords. Sir Thomas More was never a Member. Then, Sir, the gentleman who is Keeper of the Great Seal for the time being need be in no fear whatever. He can take a rest. There is no difficulty whatever, and nothing to be done. A Speaker of the House of Lords would have to keep quiet if a Peer—I can scarcely imagine it in such an assembly—took a header from one side of the Chamber to the other. There would be no remedy for it. I am delighted to think that the Lord Chancellor does not require this money, and I do not think he would ask us to grant it to him. I confess I did not come in to take part in the Debate. I came in to listen to a speech which I am very anxious to hear from the hon. Member for Walsall, who put down an Amendment to reduce the salary of the Lord Chancellor by £100. I see he has vanished, his courage has failed him; but it would be immensely comic to see an attorney attacking the Lord Chancellor. Who would say we did not live in democratic times after that? [An HON. MEMBER: The Amendment was ruled out of order.] But he could have

  869
  joined in general Debate. Members versed in the Rules of this House can say most disorderly things in an orderly fashion. As the Lord Chancellor is animated by nothing but public spirit, as he is so great and just on the Bench, I think he might discharge the duties of Speaker of the House of Lords without this money. If this money is stopped, there will still remain £6,000 a year, a barony and an earldom, and the Keepership of the Queen's Conscience, whatever that may be worth. We are not doing anything disparaging to the Lord Chancellor, but I am sure that is his view—I have never spoken to him—and the view of his relatives.
  MR. J. BRIGG: It is very probable that during the course of this Debate we shall have to decide many of the salaries before us, and I think it my duty to call attention to the salary of the Lord Chancellor in his capacity as Speaker of the House of Lords. There can be no doubt that, considering the amount or work he does, and comparing that amount of work with the work done by our own Speaker here, he is very much overpaid. I certainly must protest against this unnecessarily large payment, and I think we shall have in this matter the support of the country behind us.
  The Committee divided.—Ayes 74; Noes 170.—(Division List No. 67.)

  Clarke, Sir Edw. (Plymouth)

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

  Cochrane, Hon. T. H. A. E.

  Hill, Rt. Hn. Lord A. (Down)

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Hill, Sir Ed. Stock (Bristol)

  Plunkett, Rt. Hn. H. Curzon

  Colomb, Sir Jno. Chas. Ready

  Hoare, E. Brodie (Hampst'd)

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Colston, C. E. H. Athole

  Holland, Hon. Lionel Raleigh

  Priestley, Sir W. O. (Edin.)

  Compton, Lord Alwyne F.

  Howard, Joseph

  Purvis, Robert

  Cook, Fred. Lucas (Lambeth)

  Howell, William Tudor

  Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W.

  Courtney, Rt. Hon. Leo. H.

  Hubbard, Hon. Evelyn

  Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. T.

  Curzon, Viscount (Bucks)

  Jebb, Richard Claverhouse

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Johnson-Ferguson, Jabez Ed.

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Denny, Colonel

  Kemp, George

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Kenyon, James

  Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

  Donkin, Richard Sim

  Knowles, Lees

  Rutherford, John

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Samuel, H. S. (Limehouse)

  Doxford, William Theodore

  Lawrence, Sir Ed. (Cornwall)

  Sidebottom, Wm. (Derbysh.)

  Drucker, A.

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Hart

  Legh, Hon. T. W. (Lancs.)

  Smith, Abel H. (Christchurch)

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edw.

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Finch, George H.

  Llewellyn, E. H. (Somerset)

  Stephens, Henry Charles

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn- (Sw'ns'a)

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir J. M.

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

  Strauss, Arthur

  Flannery, Fortescue

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Sturt, Hon. H. Napier

  Fry, Lewis

  Long, Rt. Hon. W. (L'pool)

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Garfit, William

  Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller

  Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxford U.)

  Gedge, Sydney

  Lorne, Marquess of

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans)

  Lowles, John

  Tomlinson, Wm. Ed. Murray

  Goldsworthy, Major-General

  Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Verney, Hon. R. Greville

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Eldon

  McArthur, Chas. (Liverpool)

  Wanklyn, James Leslie

  Goschen, Rt. Hn. G. J. (S. Geo's.)

  McKillop, James

  Warr, Augustus Frederick

  Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

  Marks, Henry Hananel

  Webster, R. G. (St. Pancras)

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Webster, Sir R. E. (I. of W.)

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

  Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Whitmore, C. A.

  Greene, W. Raymond- (Cambs.)

  Monk, Charles James

  Williams, J. Powell (Birm.)

  Greville, Captain

  More, Robert Jasper

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Gunter, Colonel

  Muntz, Philip A.

  Wodehouse, Edmd. R. (Bath)

  Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord G.

  Murdoch, Charles Townshend

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robt. W.

  Murray, Rt. Hn. A. G. (Bute)

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

  Hanson, Sir Reginald

  Murray, Chas. J. (Coventry)

  Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Murray, Col. W. (Bath)

  Young, Comm. (Berks, E.)

  Haslett, Sir James Horner

  Nicholson, Wm. Graham

  Heath, James

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Heaton, John Henniker

  O'Neill, Hon. Robt. Torrens

  Sir William Walrond and

  Helder, Augustus

  Pender, James

  Mr. Anstruther.

  MR. LABOUCHERE: Mr. Chairman, I wish to call your attention to what took place in the Lobby just now. The honourable Gentleman the Member for North-East Bethnal Green was in the "Aye" Lobby and refused to vote.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: There is no method of compelling an honourable Member to vote.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: Could he not be brought up to the Table of the House, which is actually done sometimes?
  THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: A decision was given by the late Speaker, which solved such difficulties as had arisen up to that time. I think his decision was that any Member who did not wish to vote could not be compelled to vote. I have heard it said that there are means of escape.
  MR. WEIR: The Serjeant-at-Arms in the House of Lords receives £1,500 a year, out of which he provides a Deputy Serjeant-at-Arms, to whom he pays £250. That is £1,250 for himself and £250 for the man who does probably as much of the work. This means that he absolutely gets £50 a year more than the Serjeant-at-Arms in this House whose duties are very much more onerous. It seems to me a very absurd arrangement. Besides, I object to this principle of sub-contracting. A highly placed official of the House of Lords ought to be above sweating—I can call it by no other name. If £250 a year is a fair sum to be paid for the Deputy then I think that double the amount

  873
  ought to be sufficient for the Serjeant-at-Arms himself. Objecting, as I do, strongly to the sweating system—a system which I believe we are all opposed to in this House—I beg to move the reduction of the Vote by £750.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I am sorry again to trouble the House, but I think I can give sound reasons why this official should have the salary put down for him. First of all, the honourable Member will observe that when there is a vacancy the salary is reduced, and if the honourable Member reflects upon the uncertainty of life, who knows that to-morrow, or the day after to-morrow, there will be a vacancy, and we shall be saved £500 by the disappearance of this officer. I do not know whether the honourable Gentleman is acquainted with the fact that the Serjeant-at-Arms in the House of Lords is not merely Serjeant-at-Arms, but he is Serjeant-at-Arms in attendance on the Lord Chancellor; and I will venture to say that that attendance upon the Lord Chancellor is incomparably the most important part of the duties he has to perform. Has the honourable Gentleman reflected what the Lord Chancellor is, what his state and magnificence are, and how small a person the individual filling the position of Lord Chancellor might look if he were a person of mean appearance and sordid outside—if he were not attended by this great functionary, the Serjeant-at-Arms? Are we to suffer this tremendous office of the Lord Chancellor to be depreciated in the eyes of the public by the inadequate appearance of the officer attending upon him? The Serjeant-at-Arms is provided for that purpose, because he redeems, by his own magnificent appearance, any shortcomings of the Lord Chancellor. That part of the functions of the Serjeant-at-Arms in the House of Lords is a very important part indeed. It is always to be remembered that it is not the individual we have to look at. The individual who fills this office of Lord Chancellor may be unfortunate in his appearance, he may be unpopular, he may have too great an affection for his own family, or he may be afflicted in other ways. It is the office
  874
  we have to look at. It has never been disputed that the Lord Chancellor's office is a dignified one, and we must keep up the dignity of the office, and the principal agent in keeping up the dignity of the Lord Chancellor is his Serjeant-at-Arms. He invests that great office with splendour, with dignity, and with magnificence, and I am astonished that these manifest and superficial reflections have not occurred to my honourable Friend opposite.
  MR. CALDWELL: We must look at this matter according to the services rendered to the nation. Looking at it in that point of view, I would ask the House if this appointment were to be paid for according to the duties performed and by a fixed salary, what is the salary which we should like to pay? Everybody knows what attendance on the Lord Chancellor is—perhaps half an hour a day. In the case of the Speaker here, we know very well that he performs certain specified work, and we know that the Serjeant-at-Arms has to wait on till Twelve o'clock at night and sometimes much later. It is very laborious work in this House, and not only that, the Serjeant-at-Arms here is called upon to do other work, but the Serjeant-at-Arms in the House of Lords cannot take anyone into custody. I hope that the Secretary to the Treasury will tell us when the last occasion was that the Serjeant-at-Arms in the House of Lords acted officially in vindicating the will of the House of Lords and the dignity of the Lord Chancellor. From our own experience we know that the Serjeant-at-Arms in this House is rather frequently called upon to do duty of that kind, and here we are asked to give a man, who only works half an hour a day, £1,500. What does he do for it? He pays a deputy £250 out of the money, but that deputy is under neither the control of the House of Lords nor of the Lord Chancellor. He is merely the deputy to the Serjeant-at-Arms, and we are paying the money for that deputy. No one would object to giving a man a reasonable salary for services performed, but will anybody say that a man should receive £1,500 a year for dressing himself at Four o'clock and then undressing himself in about an

  875
  hour's time? I venture to say that if you look at the matter from that point of view it must occur to everybody that this officer is overpaid. After all, it is not the salary that gives dignity to the office. It is not too much to expect that, if a man is paid a salary like this, he should do some tangible work for it, and I think that a sum of £750 a year is quite sufficient to give to a man who does such a small amount of work as that done by the Serjeant-at-Arms to the House of Lords.
  DR. G. B. CLARK: I had hoped that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, when he got on the Treasury Bench, would have been able to bring about some of those changes which we all know he desires. I have no doubt he is doing his level best to bring about those changes, and perhaps by our discussion to-night we shall be strengthening his hands. I see that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is here, and I think that he will see that here is an opportunity—a really fair honest opportunity—for bringing about one of those economical changes which he desires, and which we all desire. We have got our own Serjeant-at-Arms, who is, if anything, underpaid. If you consider the work done by our Serjeant-at-Arms, he is only paid £1,200 a year, and the Deputy Serjeant £800 a year. Look at it from the standpoint of the House of Lords. The real officer who is doing the work there is the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod. He only receives £1,000 a year for that office, and, of course, he is receiving £1,000 more, because all the officers in the House of Lords are pluralists. You are now proposing to make a change. A change will be made when the new Serjeant-at-Arms is appointed, and I believe the work of the Serjeant-at-Arms will then be to do the work in the Court—to act in the House of Lords when that House is sitting in its judicial capacity. That is a most important court, but even then he will be higher paid for filling what is certainly a secondary position, because the House of Commons and the House of Lords in their legislative capacity are surely superior in their status to the House of Lords in its judicial capacity. So that, even if this suggested reform
  876
  comes about, the new Serjeant-at-Arms in the House of Lords will be the highest paid of all the officials. As a matter of fact you will be paying him £1,200 a year. The difference between the Serjeant-at-Arms in the House of Lords and the Serjeant-at-Arms in the House of Commons is this, that the latter has a house, because he has work to do—a great work to do—and in my opinion he is scarcely paid adequately for the work that he does. There has been no change in the officers of this House for a great number of years. During that time, although the wealth of our country has increased, they are not in the position that some of their predecessors were in. Everything in the House of Lords is different. The House of Lords charge very heavy fees for private legislation for Corporations and others, and spend these fees in giving large salaries to their officers. At present you are paying £1,500 a year for a Serjeant-at-Arms in the House of Lords, and permitting him to do his work by deputy. I really hope the right honourable Gentleman will bear these things in mind, will take them in hand, and that he will be able to make some drastic changes.
  MR. HANBURY: The officers of the House of Lords to whom reference has been made were appointed on the understanding that they were to receive a certain salary. When a vacancy occurs the question of remuneration will be considered, as well as the system which the hon. Member has objected to, and I think very properly objected to, of allowing the Serjeant-at-Arms to pay his own deputy, instead of the deputy being paid direct. The hon. Member has compared the salary of the Serjeant-at-Arms in the House of Lords with the salary of our own Serjeant-at-Arms, and he says the salary of the former is higher than that of the latter. I understand that the salary of our own Serjeant-at-Arms is £1,200 a year, with a furnished house worth between £300 and £500 a year. I object very strongly to the officials of the House of Lords being paid at higher rates than the officials of the House of Commons, and, to a very great extent, this inequality has been removed. I object altogether to these comparisons

  877
  between the salaries of the officers of the House of Lords and those of the House of Commons, because, as a matter of fact, the salaries in both Houses are very much above those paid to permanent Civil servants in the ordinary Departments. We must also recollect that these officials get a great amount of holiday which the permanent Civil servants do not get. Therefore I object altogether to these comparisons of salaries. I think it should be remembered that the Serjeant-at-Arms has not only to attend on the Lord Chancellor in his capacity as Speaker of the House of Lords, but has also to attend his Lordship in the Courts, for the House of Lords is what this House is not—it is a Judicial Court. The Serjeant-at-Arms has to attend the Lord Chancellor not only when the House is sitting as a legislative assembly, but when it is sitting as a judicial assembly.
  MR. LEWIS: The right hon. Gentleman has just told us that we cannot compare the salaries of the officials of the House of Commons and the House of Lords with those of Civil servants, because the officials of the House of Commons and the House of Lords have a very much longer holiday. I contend that that strengthens the argument for a reduction in their salaries put forward on this side of the House. I was going to ask the right hon. Gentleman this question: Is it necessary that there should be in the House of Lords a Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, a Yeoman Usher, a Serjeant-at-Arms, and a Deputy Serjeant-at-Arms? It appears to me that the duties which are performed in the House of Lords by these four officers could adequately be discharged by two officers. Could not these four offices be amalgamated? It seems quite possible that at a future time these offices could be amalgamated, and the country saved an expenditure which is utterly unnecessary. I give the right hon. Gentleman credit for having accomplished a great deal which was desired on this side of the House, but I do not see why these offices should not be amalgamated. Two officials ought surely to be able to perform the duties which are now entrusted to no fewer than four.
  MR. J. SAMUEL: There is one statement in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman that I think we ought to take exception to. I am speaking as a new Member of this House, but I certainly think that the principle which the right hon. Gentleman has laid down—namely, that we cannot under any circumstances reduce the salary attaching to any offices in the Upper House, or in this House, until there is a vacancy through death—is one which we should condemn in very strong terms. We ought to adopt, in regard to the salaries of our public officials, the same principles that are adopted by large employers of labour, who, when they consider that a reduction of wages is necessary, never think of waiting until the death of their manager or workman before putting that reduction into effect. The same principle should be applied to the public service under the Votes of this House, and I think, Mr. Lowther, that the present is a very opportune time for applying the principle. In commercial houses when a reduction in wages takes place there are two reasons given for that reduction—namely, that there has been a decrease in the amount of labour to be performed by the employees or a fall in the selling price of the articles manufactured. We must all admit that since this Government came into power there has been very little work in the House of Lords. Therefore there is very little work for the officials to do, and consequently there ought to be a corresponding reduction in their salaries. It was quite different when the late Government were in power. The House of Lords then met oftener and sat longer. Those of us who have seen the work of the House of Lords since this Government came into office know that there has been very little work indeed for that House to do, and when we compare the work done by the Serjeant-at-Arms of this House with the work done by the official whose salary we are now discussing, I think it evident that some reduction such as suggested should take place. I hope the hon. Member will press his Amendment to a Division, and if he does I shall be pleased to vote with him.
  MR. CALDWELL: Mr. Lowther, the Secretary to the Treasury has referred to some changes that have taken place since he made his memorable speech in 1893. I do not wish to press him too far, but I would ask the right hon. Gentleman one question: What single reform in the salaries of the officials of the House of Lords has he brought about since he has been Secretary to the Treasury? What individual salary has he been instrumental in reducing since he has been Secretary to the Treasury? In 1889, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, a Committee was appointed for the purpose of considering the salaries of the officials of the House of Lords. That Committee went into the matter, and made reductions, as vacancies would arise, to the extent of £6,874. That was in 1889. The right hon. Gentleman's speech was in 1893. Automatic reforms have taken place since 1889, as a result of the action of the Committee. Does the right hon. Gentleman take credit to himself for the reductions which have taken place through the action of the Committee? I feel sure he has no wish to take credit for anything he does not do. He does so much that he can afford to be satisfied without wishing to take credit for anything he does not do. I should like the right hon. Gentleman to tell us what reform in the salaries of the officials of the House of Lords he has been instrumental in bringing about since he has been Secretary to the Treasury.
  MR. HANBURY: The hon. Member's request is a very reasonable one, but he should remember, in criticising my action, that the Treasury has no power whatever over the salaries of the officers of the House of Lords. If he will look at the foot-note he will see that it is entirely outside the power of the Treasury to reduce these salaries by a single penny. The whole matter is in the hands of the Committee of the House of Lords. What I said was that I was in a position to defend this Vote, because a great many changes had taken place.
  MR. CALDWELL: Yes, but these have been the automatic changes brought about by the action of the Committee of 1889. The right hon. Gentleman's speech was
  880
  apt to have misled those who do not know that since 1893 there has been practically no change in these salaries. Whatever argument existed in 1893 exists at the present time. The right hon. Gentleman states that these salaries cannot be reduced, but that argument did not prevail with the right hon. Gentleman in 1893. In that year he criticised these salaries, and condemned them as excessive, though there was no vacancy at that time. That is exactly what we expected we should find to-night. All the arguments that were used against the Liberal Government in 1893 apply with equal force now, and yet there has been no change with regard to these salaries. How are these officials appointed? No one has advocated more strongly that they should be appointed according to the principles of the Civil Service than the right hon. Gentleman. Well, how is the Serjeant-at-Arms appointed? He is appointed, I suppose, by the Lord Chancellor. Certainly he is not appointed under the Civil Service. There is no provision whatever regarding qualification or age of retirement, such as exists in the Civil Service, and I do not see why we should pay this inordinate salary to a man who has undergone no Civil Service examination, and who secures his appointment merely by patronage. The right hon. Gentleman says you cannot compare the salaries of the officials of the House of Commons and House of Lords with those of the Civil Service, because of the short period that the two Houses are in Session. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Flint Boroughs that the fact that they are employed for a shorter period is an argument in favour of their being paid less salary. I think the argument of the right hon. Gentleman was this, that when a man has more time to spend money he requires a larger salary to keep him going. A man who is busily employed has not so much time to spend his money as a man with plenty of leisure. In this particular case we object to these salaries because these men are not paid upon the principles of the Civil Service, but upon the principles of patronage, and it is only now, by reducing this Vote, that we have any opportunity whatever of recording our opinion on this question. It may be

  881
  that you cannot alter the salary, and if we carried this reduction we should, as a matter of course, accept the Resolution as merely recording the opinion of the House, and support a Supplementary Vote to pay the man his salary during his appointment.
  MR. BROADHURST: I can scarcely join my hon. Friend on my right [Mr. Caldwell] in his line of attack on the Secretary of the Treasury. I should like my hon. Friend to remember that it is not only inconvenient but unusual to challenge a Minister to name the reforms which he takes credit to himself for having brought about. We know the large promises the right hon. Gentleman has made in years past, and how few opportunities he has had of redeeming them since he has been in office. With regard to the Vote, I think the Secretary to the Treasury will agree with me on this point that the office of Serjeant-at-Arms, as well as that of Black Rod, requires no intellectual endowments for the discharge of the duties appertaining to those positions. They require absolutely none whatever. I think the right hon. Gentleman will also agree with me that there should be some examination in which candidates for the office should be compelled to pass, and that the vacancy when it occurs should be put up to public competition like the clerkships in the Treasury, and like the clerkships in the Postal Service and the Telegraph Service. We are told frequently that the salaries of these poor clerks are governed by the law of supply and demand. If the Post Office had 50 vacancies there would probably be 500 applications. Now, let us put up the offices of Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod and Serjeant-at-Arms to the same competition, and see how many applications we should receive. I have no hesitation in saying that the House of Lords might receive some advantage even from competition for such an office, as there are several Member of the House of Commons who would be very glad to become candidates. [An HON. MEMBER: No.] Well, we will say there is one. I should be very glad indeed—exceedingly glad—to discharge either the office of Serjeant-at-Arms or Black Rod for £500 a year, if the Secre-
  882
  tary of the Treasury will put them up to competition. They are not positions which require great personal adornment. If they did, I should not lay claim to being able to fill them. Neither do they entail the exercise of any intellectual faculty, or I should not presume to offer myself as a candidate for so distinguished a position. Therefore, as the discharge of the duties does not imply nor require any such condition, I, as a humble citizen, cannot be accused of presumption when I say that it is possible that I might enter into competition for one of these offices. And if, as the result of putting the offices up for competition, the taxpayers of the country could be saved a thousand or two a year, the suggestion is well worthy of consideration. I contend that those who pay these salaries ought to have the appointment of these officials. It is intolerable that any member of a Government, or any officer of State should have such large patronage in his control when he does not find the money out of his own pocket. Why should it be the case with the Serjeant-at-Arms and Black Rod more than with the clerks of the War Office, the Admiralty, of any other Government Department? The grievance we have, and which we want to press home to the Government of the day, is that those who pay this money have not the appointment of these officials. We claim that they should have that appointment through their popularly-elected representatives. I am sure that in the abstract, if not in practice, this principle recommends itself to the right hon. Gentleman's practical and sound sense of right, and if the right hon. Gentleman will get up in his place, and give us some hope that he will, at the earliest opportunity, take this matter into consideration, I think my hon. Friend would almost be inclined to withdraw his Amendment. If these appointments were put up to public competition, and a standard of examination and qualification created and defined, it would be an enormous advantage. If the right hon. Gentleman will promise definitely and without reservation that he will do everything in his power to secure this, I will vote with the Government, should my hon. Friend divide the House on this Vote.
  DR. CLARK: I do not think the Amendment should be withdrawn. A Division should be taken in order to strengthen the Treasury in the desire for economy. They say they have no control. They cannot say the House has no control, for on two occasions we have reduced this Vote; one, on a Motion of the hon. Member for Northampton, and once on the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman himself. In the latter case the reduction was carried into effect. In the House of Lords you have one class of men holding three or four offices, and drawing three or four salaries. What we want to do is to stop this system of sinecure offices in the House of Lords. These offices have been invented for the purpose of drawing the salaries; there can be no work for these officers to do. The real work, so far as the House of Lords is concerned, is that attaching to the position of Gentleman-Usher of the Black Rod, but there are four officials to do it. The present Gentleman-Usher is a colonel in the Royal Artillery, and drawing, as a colonel in command, £1,000 a year should give his entire time to that service. There ought to be plenty of work for him to do in his position as colonel in the Royal Artillery, and if he did that work he ought not to be loafing around the House of Lords. We are fighting against a bad system, which the right hon. Gentleman himself fought against before he occupied his present position. I think we should divide for the purpose of strengthening his hands. The Committee of the House of Lords refuse to carry out the suggestions of the Treasury and the Select Committee, and it is time that this House showed them that, so far as money was concerned, we are all powerful.
  MR. J. DALY: I rise, Mr. Lowther, to support the Amendment which my hon. Friend has proposed. The right hon. Gentleman who is in charge of this Vote has been a great reformer,

  AYES.

  Abraham, Wm. (Cork, N.E.)

  Brigg, John

  Clough, Walter Owen

  Allan, Wm. (Gateshead)

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Crilly, Daniel

  Austin, Sir J. (Yorkshire)

  Burns, John

  Curran, T. (Sligo, S.)

  Bayley, Thos. (Derbyshire)

  Caldwell, James

  Daly, James

  Billson, Alfred

  Cawley, Frederick

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Clark, Dr. G.B. (Caithness-sh.)

  Dillon, John

  and his aim in times gone by has been to try to economise as much as possible. I am entirely in sympathy with the conduct of the right hon. Gentleman in the past, and I hope he will see his way to carry out to-night what he advocated so strongly during the time the late Government were in office. To my mind, £500 a year is quite sufficient for Black Rod and Serjeant-at-Arms combined. I think, Sir, that the sum we now pay is an extraordinary amount of money to throw away on officials who do practically nothing. It is true they wear gorgeous uniforms, but I dare say even these uniforms are supplied at the expense of the country. I support with all my heart the reduction that has been moved by the hon. Member, and I also agree with several of my hon. Friends around me that this office should be put up for competition, and I have not the slightest hesitation in saying that if it were put up for competition we should get a much superior man to fill the office for £200 a year. The position should be occupied, not by a pet of the Lord Chancellor, but by a man who has undergone some examination. I am sure, Mr. Lowther, that the right hon. Gentleman in charge of this Vote is only too anxious to bring about the reduction proposed in the Amendment. I speak from a knowledge of the character of the right hon. Gentleman, and I believe that he only requires an opportunity in order to effect this reduction. I hope, therefore, that he will not put the Committee to the trouble of a Division, but accept the Amendment and agree that £750 a year is quite an exorbitant sum to pay this official for the duties he performs.
  Motion made and Question put—
  "That Item A (Salaries) be reduced by £750, in respect of the salary of the Serjeant-at-Arms in attendance on the Lord Chancellor."—(Mr. Weir.)
  The Committee divided.—Ayes 64; Noes 143.

  Donelan, Captain A.

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Roche, John (East Galway)

  Doogan, P. C.

  McCartan, Michael

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Duckworth, James

  McDermott, Patrick

  Steadman, William Charles

  Ellis, T. E. (Merionethshire)

  McKenna, Reginald

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Ferguson, R. C. M. (Leith)

  McLeod, John

  Strachey, Edward

  Foster, Sir W. (Derby Co.)

  Morgan, J. L. (Carmarthen)

  Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Ure, Alexander

  Gourley, Sir Ed. Temperley

  O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary)

  Wedderburn, Sir William

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  O'Connor, Arthur (Donegal)

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Hammond, John (Carlow)

  O'Connor, J. (Wicklow, W.)

  Williams, John C. (Notts.)

  Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

  Pease, Jos. A. (Northumb.)

  Wilson, Fredk. W. (Norfolk)

  Kilbride, Denis

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Wilson, H. J. (York, W.R.)

  Knox, Edm. Francis Vesey

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Leng, Sir John

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Priestley, Briggs (York, W.R.)

  Mr. Weir and Mr. Maddison

  Lloyd-George, David

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Macaleese, Daniel

  Robson, William Snowdon

  NOES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F.

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Muntz, Philip A.

  Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis

  Flannery, Fortescue

  Murray, Rt. Hn. A. G. (Bute)

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Flower, Ernest

  Murray, Chas. J. (Coventry)

  Bagot, Capt. J. FitzRoy

  Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)

  Murray, Col. W. (Bath)

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. Grld W. (Leeds)

  Garfit, William

  Newdigate, Francis Alexander

  Banbury, F. G.

  Gibbs, Hon. V. (St. Albans)

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Barnes, Frederic Gorell

  Goldsworthy, Major-General

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Bartley, George C. T.

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward

  O'Neill, Hon. Robt. Torrens

  Barton, Dunbar Plunket

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Eldon

  Pender, James

  Begg, Ferdinand Faithfull

  Goschen, George J. (Sussex)

  Phillpotts, Captain Arthur

  Bemrose, Sir Henry Howe

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Plunkett, Rt. Hn. Horace Curz'n

  Beresford, Lord Charles

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Bethell, Commander

  Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs.)

  Priestley, Sir W. O. (Edin.)

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Greville, Captain

  Purvis, Robert

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord G.

  Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W.

  Bond, Edward

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robt. W.

  Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. T.

  Brassey, Albert

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Haslett, Sir James Horner

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Bucknill, Thos. Townsend

  Heath, James

  Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

  Bullard, Sir Harry

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Rutherford, John

  Butcher, John George

  Hill, Rt. Hn. Lord A. (Down)

  Samuel, H. S. (Limehouse)

  Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbysh.)

  Hill, Sir Ed. Stock (Bristol)

  Sidebottom, Wm. (Derbysh.)

  Cecil, Lord Hugh

  Hoare, Ed. B. (Hampstead)

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Chaloner, Capt. R. G. W.

  Holland, Hon. Lionel Raleigh

  Smith, Abel H. (Christchurch)

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.)

  Howard, Joseph

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Chamberlain, J. Austen (Wore.)

  Howell, William Tudor

  Stephens, Henry Charles

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Hubbard, Hon. Evelyn

  Strauss, Arthur

  Charrington, Spencer

  Jebb, Richard Claverhouse

  Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

  Clarke, Sir Edw. (Plymouth)

  Kenyon, James

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Cochrane, Hon. T. H. A. E.

  Knowles, Lees

  Tomlinson, Wm. Ed. Murray

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Lawrence, Sir E. (Cornwall)

  Verney, Hon. Richd. Greville

  Colomb, Sir J. Chas. Ready

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

  Wanklyn, James Leslie

  Colston, Chas. Ed. H. Athole

  Legh, Hon. T. W. (Lanc.)

  Warr, Augustus Frederick

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Webster, R. G. (St. Pancras)

  Cook, Fred. Lucas (Lambeth)

  Llewellyn, E. H. (Somerset)

  Webster, Sir R. E. (I. of W.)

  Curzon, Viscount (Bucks.)

  Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn-(Sw'ns'a)

  Welby, Lieut.-Col. A. C. E.

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-

  Denny, Colonel

  Long, Rt. Hon. W. (L'pool)

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir J. P.

  Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller

  Williams, J. Powell- (Birm.)

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Lowles, John

  Willox, Sir Jno. Archibald

  Doxford, William Theodore

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Wodehouse, Edm. R. (Bath)

  Drucker, A.

  McKillop, James

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C.B. Stuart-

  Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

  Marks, Henry H.

  Young, Comm. (Berks, E.)

  Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir Wm. Hart

  Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Ed.

  Monk, Charles James

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Finch, George H.

  More, Robert Jasper

  Sir William Walrond and

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Morrison, Walter

  Mr. Anstruther.

  On the return of the CHAIRMAN after the usual interval,
  MR. DALY: As an Irish Member, I must say that I have not much regard for any Vote for officials in the House of Lords. The House of Lords has been subjected to a great deal of criticism with regard to—
  THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: That is out of order.
  MR. DALY: Well, of course, when I am told that I am not at liberty to refer to the House of Lords, at the same time I must say that I cannot separate the servants of the House of Lords from the House of Lords itself. I think that now is the time for this House to practise all the economy that is possible, and it is only by endeavouring to cut down the salaries of those in attendance on the House of Lords that we can, to a large extent, reduce expenditure. And now, Mr. Lowther, I will just take the position of the Chairman of Committees in regard to the House of Lords. In proportion to the duties which the Chairman of the House of Lords performs, I think everybody will admit that £2,500 a year is too high a salary for that official. In a great many instances the Chairman of the House of Lords has very short work indeed, and if I had the matter in my hands I should be rather inclined to increase the salaries of the officers of this House, and reduce the salaries of every officer in the House of Lords, as I consider that the officers employed in the House of Lords are, in fact, paid larger salaries than they are entitled to for the amount of work they perform. Now, Sir, I see there is "an examiner of Standing Orders," and when the right hon. Gentleman gets up to reply I hope he will be able to fully explain what duties this officer has to perform. The idea of having officers to perform dual offices is not, to my mind, the correct thing, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman who has charge of this Vote will see his way to give a full and ample explanation of the duties of this official. But, Sir, as a protest against the salary of the Chairman of the Committees of the House of Lords—believing, as I do, that the amount of
  888
  work that he has to perform is so very little—I will enter my protest with regard to the salary by moving the reduction of the Vote by £500, and I hope I shall have the support of every Member on this side of the House. All these salaries should be consistent, and I hope that my hon. Friends around me, both above and below the Gangway, will see their way to give every opposition to this Vote, because I think it has come to the time when these salaries should be cut down, considering the very bad times going on at present, and I am sure they can get an officer for this post even if you throw off the odd £2,000; even then you would get hundreds of applicants far more capable of performing those duties.
  MR. CALDWELL: I think, in comparing the salaries of the House of Lords with the House of Commons, we should look at the duties performed by the one as well as the other. I cannot understand why it is that, merely because a man happens to be in the House of Lords, he should receive proportionately more money for his services than in the House of Commons. Now, in the House of Commons, as we all know, the Chairman of Committees has £2,500, whilst in the Lords the salary is exactly the same. Now, what is the difference in the duties? The House of Lords, for instance, met to-day. What time did they meet, and when did they rise? How often, for instance, does the Chairman of Committees of the House of Lords sit? Why, they come down there and only sit for about an hour any time. Now, compare the time that the Chairman of Committees of the House of Lords sits with the work done here, and I am sure nobody would say that the pay should be the same, because we look upon it that the pay should be in some relation to the amount of work performed. If a man happens to be a Member of the House of Lords, and happens to get practically what is a sinecure office—perhaps a position of honour to a certain extent—there is no reason why he should be paid a higher salary. We do not find that there is a distinction between salaries in the House of Lords and the House of Commons in any other way. Take the case of

  889
  counsel to the Chairman of Committees. In the House of Commons counsel gets £1,800, and in the case of the House of Lords the amount is £1,500. The Estimates acknowledge this: that the salary should be somewhat proportionate to the work, and therefore, as we find that the work is more for the counsel in the case of the House of Commons he gets more salary. That shows that the Estimates are based upon a footing that the men should be paid in proportion to their work. Well, if you adopt that same principle of proportion, I think you will find that if we pay £2,500 to the Chairman of Committees in the House of Commons £2,500 would be the relative proportion compared with the salaries of counsel of the Chairman of Committees in the case of the House of Lords. I think it is our duty on all occasions such as this really to give serious attention to the matter, and the discussion upon this House of Lords Vote must end in this way, that there must be a revision of the salaries and a Committee appointed in 1898, as there was in 1890, to consider the whole situation. I cannot conceive it possible that these salaries can be discussed in this way without some practical result coming. Then we might give some indication as to the extent to which we think these reductions should be made. The pay should be something proportionate to the work that is done, and after giving the House of Lords all the benefit that they might be supposed to be entitled to it should be laid down that a Peer should not be paid for services to the State one whit more than a Commoner is, and who is not doing any more work. It must be remembered that in the case of the Chairman of Committees in the House of Lords he is not a man like the Lord Chancellor, who has had a legal training, and there is no special reason why he should have an exceptional salary. I therefore think that, as regards this particular Vote, in paying £2,000, looking to the fact that the Chairman of Committees here has only £2,500, we are acting most handsomely to the House of Lord's, considering the little work the Chairman of Committees of that House hits to do. The Chancellor of the Exchequer told us last night that we were not economists, for he accused us of not being economical. I think, as far as our action to night is concerned, he has no cause to
  890
  complain, because we are endeavouring to give effect to his wish.
  MR. J. DILLON: I quite agree with the hon. Member that it is really time that some steps were taken to see that the salaries of the House of Lords were in proportion to the work done. We hear a very great deal about the patriotic willingness on the part of people of high station to serve their country, and it is nothing short of a scandal that wealthy men—for we must assume that all Members of the House of Lords are wealthy men—should draw from a fund contributed, and largely contributed, by the poorest of the working classes, enormous salaries for practically doing nothing. Now, Sir, I do not attempt to say that the Chairman of Committees of the House of Lords does absolutely nothing; but I do say this, that before this Debate closes we ought to have a statement from the Secretary to the Treasury of the amount of his work in comparison with the Chairman of Committees in the House of Commons. Everyone here will say that there is not a harder-worked official than the Chairman of Committees of this House. I do not think there is a man amongst the officials who works harder, and I should certainly vote for raising his salary, for I believe that he is the most underpaid official, in connection with the Government, in this House. When we turn to the Chairman of Committees of the House of Lords I venture to say that, although I do not pretend to be acquainted with the procedure of the House of Lords, I am well within the mark when I say that for every five hours which our Chairman works the Chairman of Committees in the House of Lords does not work one. I daresay he does not work one for every ten. Therefore I want to know why a Peer—presumably a man of great wealth, because no man is made a Peer unless he is a man of enormous fortune, and he must be a man of, say, many thousands a year before he is made a Peer—why a man of great wealth should require to be paid on five or six times the scale on which a Member of this House is paid for evidently the same class of work. I think it is monstrous, and we are—those of us who do not

  891
  believe in the sublime usefulness of that great chamber, the House of Lords—at least entitled to demand that men who work for the nation in the House of Lords shall be paid on the same scale in proportion to the work they do as men who work for the nation in the House of Commons. I think that is a simple statement, and I think the Secretary to the Treasury, before we go to a division—and I am convinced the hon. Member intends to proceed to a division—ought to explain the exact position of the Government in this matter. I can only say, in conclusion, that I regret the hon. Member for South Monaghan did not move that the Vote be reduced by £1,500, because I feel convinced that £1,000 a year would be a generous payment for all the work done for the nation by the Chairman of the Committees of the House of Lords.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Naturally, I feel somewhat diffident in discussing your salary, Mr. Lowther, but I think the office of the Chairman of Committees in this House is most hardly worked. Now, the Chairman of Committees in the House of Lords has a counsel, an examiner, a clerk to the examiner, and a messenger; while you, Sir, have yourself alone. I am well aware that our Chairman has the assistance of the clerk, but I do not know that he has any messenger of his own, or anything in addition to that office, which constitutes the whole total of the Chairman of Committees' salary. But, Sir, one question I have risen mainly to ask from my right hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury is this: Why is it that it is necessary in the House of Lords to have a separate counsel, an examiner, a clerk to the examiner, and a messenger? Why is it not necessary to have those separate officers in this House?
  MR. HANBURY: I wish to point out in reply that the counsel to the Speaker of this House very largely assists the Chairman of Committees in regard to all private Bills, and I am given to understand that the counsel to the Chairman of Committees in the House of Lords actually does the same work done here by the counsel to the
  892
  Speaker. Now, the counsel to the Chairman of Committees in the House of Lords is only so called because it might seem rather absurd that when the Speaker of the House of Commons is necessarily a lawyer and the head of the legal profession he should have a counsel to advise him, and I believe that is the reason why he is "Counsel to the Chairman of Committees," and not "Counsel to the Speaker." My hon. Friend the Member for King's Lynn has asked why the Chairman of Committees in the House of Lords has the assistance of those other officials mentioned by him. Well, the Chairman of Committees in this House has officials exactly corresponding to those in the House of Lords. It so happens, however, that their names are different, although those offices exactly correspond. I think all through this discussion it has been somewhat forgotten that although no doubt the Chairman of Committees in this House does sit throughout discussions in Committee of the whole House, a great deal more than is the case with the Chairman of Committees in the House of Lords, still I venture to say that by far the most arduous part of the work of both Chairmen is the very large amount of work they have to do in connection with private Bills, and that proportion of work is fully shared by the Chairman of Committees in the House of Lords. At any rate, I think the work done in the two Houses is almost exactly parallel in that respect. When we speak of the salaries of the Chairman of Committees in the House of Lords being so much more than the salary of the Chairman of Committees in the House of Commons, we ought to recollect that, until a few years ago, the Chairman of the House of Commons Committees was paid only £1,500 a year. The two salaries are now pretty much on a level. The course I took when I was in Opposition, in regard to these salaries, was that they should be put on a level. If the House is going into the large question of apportioning salaries according to the work done, we should have to go through the whole of the Civil Service Estimates.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I wish entirely to corroborate what the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the

  893
  Treasury said with regard to our views on this question when we sat on those Benches apposite. The right hon. Gentleman is a remarkable instance of a Minister who, in office, has consistently followed the same principles that he held when in Opposition; and if hon. Members will look through these Estimates they will see traces of his handiwork on almost every page. But I would ask hon. Members to remember that the salary of this particular office is the last the House should seek to reduce, because it is intended to cover a great amount of extra work that will be placed upon him in connection with the Private Bill Procedure (Scotland) Bill. [An HON. MEMBER: That is not in the list.] I read it entirely in that way, and I do not think this will be a particularly happy moment to diminish the salary of an officer who is to have a large amount of extra work put upon him.
  DR. CLARK: I am afraid my hon. Friend the Member for King's Lynn is not progressing; he is standing still. The House of Commons has given up all fees for Government business, but the House of Lords charges fees, even charges Government fees for passing Departmental Bills. We are now proposing to pay an adequate salary for the work done. I admit that this particular office is the hardest worked office in the House of Lords, and I think the hon. Member for Monaghan has not erred on the side of parsimony by moving that the salary should be reduced from £2,500 to £2,000.
  MR. H. J. WILSON: If the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury will explain the precise duties of the Chairman of Committees in the House of Lords with regard to private Bills it would simplify the discussion.
  MR. DILLON: I think this Vote for the reduction of the salary of the Chairman of Committees of the House of Lords to the level of the salary paid to the Chairman of Committees in the House of Commons is not unreasonable. The right hon. Gentle man the Secretary to the Treasury made
  894
  what was, to my mind, a most extraordinary statement. He said that the Chairman of Committees in the House of Lords had a great deal of work to do, and he seemed to treat as a matter of no consequence the sittings in Committee of this House. But I venture to say that if our Chairman were consulted confidentially he would say that fully half of his labour consisted in sitting in the chair while this House is in Committee. A more exhausting, more worrying labour, than sitting in the chair while the House is in Committee from four till twelve o'clock I cannot imagine. It is preposterous to ignore that portion of the Chairman's labours. The proposition we advance is that a Peer, because he is a Peer, and Chairman of Committees in the House of Lords, ought not to be paid out of the taxpayers' money a larger sum than he earns, judged by the standard of the House of Commons. Indeed, I think Members of the House of Lords might very well adopt the principle of noblesse oblige, and do the work of the nation without salary. As to the work of the Chairman of Committees in the House of Lords it is really only recreation. I think there is no force in the argument used by the hon. Member for King's Lynn, and, therefore, I trust my hon. Friend will go to a Division on his proposal to reduce the salary this year. It will only be a first challenge, others being reserved for future years.
  MR. HANBURY: I think I ought now to give an answer to the question which the hon. Member has raised as to the salary of the Chairman of Committees in the House of Lords. With regard to private Bills generally, I have no hesitation in saying that his work is harder than that of even our own Chairman of Committees, owing to the fact that the House of Lord's does not discuss private Bills as fully as we do. A great deal of work is thrown upon him with regard to the clauses of those Bills, which is taken off the shoulders of the Chairman of Committees in this House by the discussions which occur in this House. It is undoubtedly true that the Chairman of Committees in the House of Lords has to examine, every private Bill which comes before Parliament. He goes

  895
  through all the clauses of each with the Parliamentary agents, in order to see that those clauses contain nothing contrary to precedent or the rules of the House relating to private Bills; and that has to be done by him alone. Then he has further duties—which do not fall upon our Chairman—to perform corresponding to those of the Chairman of the Committee of Selection in this House. In this House that Committee actually does the work which is performed by the Chairman of Committees in the other House.
  MR. CALDWELL: The Chairman of Committees in the other House is a permanent official, whereas in the case of the House of Commons you have a variable body.
  MR. HANBURY: There is nothing in the objection of the hon. Member. It is undoubtedly the fact that the Chairman of Committees in the other House has to do that work which does not fall upon our Chairman of Committees. And it must also be recollected that there are a large number of unopposed private Bills in both Houses, and the responsibility for those unopposed private Bills practically falls upon the Chairman of Committees in each House. That is a very important part of the work of both Chairmen, and great responsibility is thrown upon them from the mere fact the Bills are unopposed. There can be no doubt that, with the exception of the work done by the Chairman here in Committees of the whole House, in all other respects the Chairman of Committees in the House of Lords does undertake very onerous duties fully equal at least to those performed by our own Chairman.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I will not stand long in the way of my hon. Friend near me, who wishes to address the Committee, but I think my right hon. Friend who has just sat down is to be congratulated on his command of his countenance, as well as on his sense of humour, when he can with a serious face speak of the enormous amount of work which is laid upon the Chairman of Committees in the House of Lords in addition to his work upon the Committee of Selection. We all
  896
  know how many Members of the House of Lords attend its sittings upon the average, we know that there the quorum is three and we know how arduously they work on the Committees with regard to private Bills. My right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford University, a gentleman whom we are all delighted to recognise as the Father of the House, has been for 25 years Chairman of the Committee of Selection in this House. He regards it, I believe, as an honour. He is only as yet a Commoner, and I do not know that he has got any great ambition to be a peer, but I do not think my right hon. Friend ever came cap in hand to this House to ask for a salary for doing public work. And yet my right hon. Friend's duties as Chairman of the Committee of Selection are far more difficult than those of the Chairman of Committees in the House of Lords. We are a very mixed assembly, including all sorts and conditions of men. Anyone who has spent a few hours in the House of Lords will know every man in public life there. This assembly varies from day to day, and the office of Chairman of the Committee of Selection is a delicate and responsible one. He is brought constantly in contact with various Members, and his duties are almost as difficult and irritating as those of a Whip, so that it must be a liberal education in good temper to be Chairman of the Committee of Selection for a single Session in this House. My right hon. Friend discharges all those duties with great kindness, courtesy, and consideration. He is the finest specimen of an English gentleman and, while I am bound, of course, to speak respectfully of peers, I think you would not find his equal in the House of Lords. I ask, why should a peer, presumably a man of independent means, ask to be remunerated for similar services? And I would ask whether this case was presented by the Chairman of Committees in the House of Lords himself, and whether this idea of his services as Chairman of the Committee of Selection entered into the head of anyone until it came into the brain of the right hon. Gentleman himself. I think he has made a defence of this salary which the Chairman of Committees in the House of Lords would repudiate. Now I will go a little further. I am bound to say that I am utterly sceptical about the

  897
  active exercise of revising powers as regards Private Bills by the Chairman of Committees in the House of Lords, believe these things are done by his advising counsel, and that the Chairman, very unlike our Chairman, is simply an ornamental personage and nothing else. Mr. Lowther, I say this, not in any spirit of jealousy, but because I hold that we ought to have regard to the facts in dealing with these salaries; and I say that by a Vote of this character the poor are robbed for the sake of the rich, who do nothing for us. Now I cannot understand how a noble Peer could have a greater luxury than a little responsibility. They ought to vie with each other in getting it; it ought to be an object of ambition. I cannot imagine anything more calculated to relieve them from painful ennui and idleness than doing a little public business without remuneration. And I will go a little farther. If the Chairman of Committees in the House of Lords gets £2,500 a year, the Chairman of Committees in this House ought to get at least £7,000. I cannot imagine a more wearisome task than is imposed on him from day to day in sitting, sometimes for twelve hours, glued to that Chair, while sometimes being pounded by Parliamentary bores. Let us consider this absurd hypothesis, which is almost too bad for the House of Commons, that the Members of the other House do as much public work as those of this. I do not in the slightest degree wish to speak in a way of prejudging, or with disrespect of the House of Lords, but I will take a description of the House of Lords—not as I see it, because I frequently go in to look at it for a moment, though rarely for the purpose of obtaining information—but I will take a description of the ordinary public business of the House of Lords given by an ex-Lord Chancellor, who had special means of knowledge upon the subject. I remember reading a few years ago, in Lord Campbell's "Lives of the Chancellors," a description written when he had retired from the Chancellorship. Lord Campbell said that after he retired he did not much mingle in public affairs, but he occasionally attended the House of Lords—
  "going down, as many Peers do, for a few minutes, engaging in conversation and lounging on the red benches before dinner."
  898

  Well, what has the Chairman of Committees to do when he is in the Chair, as he rarely is, with three or four noble Lords lounging on the red benches before him, compared with the work of the Chairman of Committees in this House? The Chairman of Committees in the House of Lords has not got to perform the responsible and difficult duty of keeping unruly Members in order. I always support our Chairman. But the Chairman of Committees in the House of Lords has as much power as the Lord Chancellor ought to have in the House of Lords, and that is none at all. He can do nothing. He cannot call them to order; and he is not ornamental, for he is only dressed in plain clothes, so that he has neither the glory of Solomon nor of the lilies of the field. Now, I have wished to put these points. First of all, I say that if the outside duties of the Chairmen of the two Houses are equal, which I deny, their duties inside the House are totally disproportionate. Let us look this matter calmly in the face in the interests of the great body—the Conservative working men. How will the Conservative working man like to be compelled to meet taxation to pay £2,000 or more per annum as a species of outdoor relief to titled members of society? This is simply an office by means of which a salary of £2,500 a year is given to one of those of whom it has been said "They toil not, neither do they spin." On all these grounds I think this salary ought to be reduced, even if it were for the very best man in the House of Peers. Perhaps some gentlemen in this House who in the course of nature will become Peers, might think that such work as they could do would be done extremely well for nothing, and that one Chairman of Committees would be sufficient. I should be very glad to see the whole salary be given in globi to our Chairman here, and I say that hon. Gentlemen do not support the dignity of this House when they permit their own officials to be ill-paid as compared with the officials of the House of Lords. It is a scandalous and improper system. If the Chairman of Committees of this House ought to be paid £1,000, then the Chairman of the House of Lords Committees ought not to be paid more than £500. It is wrong in itself and dishonest to the public to give people

  899
  who do not want it, and who do not earn it, such a salary. I have felt very strongly upon this matter for a very long time, and I confess that all these salaries given to the Members of the House of Peers appear to me to be given in gross breach of trust by the people who are in honour and duty bound to safeguard the public trust.
  MR. LEWIS: There is just one question in relation to this matter, which I think ought to be brought to> the attention of the Committee. There is a pretty strong consensus of opinion that the duties of the Chairman of Committees are of a very much more onerous character in this House than they are in the House of Lords, and if there is to be any disproportion in the matter of salary at all, then that disproportion ought to be in favour of the Chairman of Committees in this House. Take, for instance, the great public offices; the men who are at the head of great Government Departments are men of exceptional ability, who, if they were working in the City, would earn three times as much as we pay them. Why do those men accept positions of this kind in the Government service? It is because there is considerable honour attaching to their office, and thereby the Service gains. The Government gains the services of exceptionally competent men, to whom, it pays an extremely low salary. Compare their services to those of the Chairman of the House of Lords Committee. That gentleman gets a holiday of six months in the year; the other gentlemen very often cannot get any at all. If you compare his salary with that of any of the permanent heads of any of our great public Departments you will find he is very greatly overpaid indeed. That is a simple way of looking at the question, and I ask, what argument can there possibly be urged against that view of the case? I think, under those circumstances, that the reduction asked for with regard to the salaries here is only proper.
  MR. WEIR: My hon. Friend has moved a reduction of £500 a year. In my opinion it would be more to the point if he had moved a reduction of £1,500. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury said that in his opinion the Chairmen of the Committees of the House of Lords and House of Commons ought to be paid alike. Now there I beg to differ from him, as there is no comparison in the duties. In the one case, that of the Chairman of the Committees of this House, he has to work from early morning to one or two the next morning. Now, what has the Chairman of the House of Lords Committees to do? He merely attends to private Bills, and comes down to the House of Lords for perhaps one hour a day. I think £1,000 a year would be ample for any duties which he performs. I shall go into the Lobby with my Friend for this reduction. I look on this in the same manner as the hon. Gentleman the Member for Mayo looks upon it. I am in favour of paying adequate salaries. Now, if the salary of the Chairman of the House of Lords Committees is an adequate salary, then the salary of the Chairman of Committees of this House is wholly inadequate. The Chairman of Committees of this House, so far as I know, does not ask for a rise, and therefore I take it he considers that his salary is an adequate one. That being so, it is very certain that the salary of the Chairman of the House of Lords Committees is out of all proportion. I listened most carefully to the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer last night, when he urged economy upon us. I read, marked, learned, and inwardly digested the homily on economy to which we were treated, and I think I am only doing my duty by protesting against this excessive payment to the Chairman of Committees of the House of Lords. I certainly hope that my hon. Friend will not withdraw this Motion, but will press it to a Division, and then we shall see who in this House opposes the reform of reducing this excessive salary, which is

  901
  paid for the very small amount of work done.
  Motion made and Question put—
  "That Item B be reduced by £500 with respect

  AYES.

  Allan, Wm. (Gateshead)

  Foster, Sir W. (Derby Co.)

  O'Connor, J. (Wicklow, W.)

  Allen, Wm. (Newc.-under-L.)

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Allison, Robert Andrew

  Gourley, Sir Edw. Temperley

  Pease, Jos. A. (Northumb.)

  Austin, Sir J. (Yorkshire)

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Philippis, John Wynford

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Hammond, John (Carlow)

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Bayley, Thos. (Derbyshire)

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale-

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

  Price, Robert John

  Billson, Alfred

  Kilbride, Denis

  Priestley, Briggs (Yorks.)

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Knox, Edmund F. Vesey

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Brigg, John

  Labouchere, Henry

  Roberts, Jno. H. (Denbighs.)

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Lambert, George

  Robson, William Snowdon.

  Caldwell, James

  Leng, Sir John

  Roche, John (East Galway)

  Carvill, Patrick G. Hamilton

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Cayley, Frederick

  Macaleese, Daniel

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Channing, Francis Allston

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Strachey, Edward

  Curran, T. B. (Donegal)

  McCartan, Michael

  Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

  Curran, Thomas (Sligo)

  McKenna, Reginald

  Ure, Alexander

  Davitt, Michael

  M'Leod, John

  Wallace, Robert (Perth)

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Maddison, Fred.

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Dillon, John

  Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand

  Wedderburn, Sir William

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Monk, Charles James

  Whittaker, Thos. Palmer

  Doogan, P. C.

  Morgan, J. L. (Carmarthen)

  Williams, J. Carvell (Notts.)

  Duckworth, James

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Wilson, H. J. (York, W. R.)

  Ellis, John Edward (Notts.)

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Ellis, T. E. (Merionethshire)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Ferguson, R. C. M. (Leith)

  O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary)

  Mr. Daly and Mr. Weir.

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  O'Connor, Arthur (Donegal)

  NOES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F.

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)

  Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis

  Charrington, Spencer

  Fry, Lewis

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Chelsea, Viscount

  Garfit, William

  Baden-Powell, Sir G. Smyth

  Clarke, Sir Edw. (Plymouth)

  Gedge, Sydney

  Bagot, Captain J. Fitzroy

  Clough, Walter Owen

  Gibbs, Hon. V. (St. Albans)

  Baillie, J. E. B. (Inverness)

  Cochrane, Hon. T. H. A. E.

  Goldsworthy, Major-General

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. Grld W. (Leeds)

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Eldon

  Barnes, Frederic Gorell

  Colomb, Sir J. Chas. Ready

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Bartley, George C. T.

  Colston, Chas. Ed. H. Athole

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Barton, Dunbar Plunket

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benj.

  Cook, Fred. Lucas (Lambeth)

  Greene, W. Raymond- (Cambs.)

  Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (Brist'l)

  Cox, Robert

  Greville, Captain

  Begg, Ferdinand Faithfull

  Curzon, Viscount (Bucks.)

  Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord G.

  Bemrose, Sir Henry Howe

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. R. Wm.

  Beresford, Lord Charles

  Denny, Colonel

  Hanson, Sir Reginald

  Bethell, Commander

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir J. P.

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Donkin, Richard Sim

  Haslett, Sir James Horner

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Heath, James

  Bond, Edward

  Doxford, William Theodore

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

  Drucker, A.

  Helder, Augustus

  Bowles, T. G. (King's Lynn)

  Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Brassey, Albert

  Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Hart

  Hill, Rt. Hn. Lord A. (Down)

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edw.

  Hill, Sir Ed. Stock (Bristol)

  Bucknill, Thos. Townsend

  Finch, George H.

  Holland, Hon. Lionel Raleigh

  Bullard, Sir Harry

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Howell, William Tudor

  Butcher, John George

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Hubbard, Hon. Evelyn

  Chaloner, Capt. R. G. W.

  FitzGerald, Sir R. Penrose-

  Jebb, Richard Claverhouse

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.)

  Flannery, Fortescue

  Kemp, George

  Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc.)

  Flower, Ernest

  Kenyon, James

  to the salary of the Chairman of Committees of the House of Lords."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 77; Noes 159.

  Knowles, Lees

  Murray, Rt. Hn. A. G. (Bute)

  Stewart, Sir M. J. M'Taggart

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Murray, Chas. J. (Coventry)

  Strauss, Arthur

  Lawrence, Sir E. (Cornwall)

  Murray, Col. W. (Bath)

  Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

  Lawrence, W. F. (Liverpool)

  Newdigate, Francis Alex.

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Tomlinson, Wm. Ed. Murray

  Lea, Sir T. (Londonderry)

  Northcote, Hon. Sir H. S.

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Legh, Hon. T. W. (Lancs.)

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Verney, Hon. Richard G.

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Pender, James

  Wanklyn, James Leslie

  Llewellyn, E. H. (Somerset)

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Warr, Augustus Frederick

  Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn-(Sw'ns'a)

  Plunkett, Rt. Hn. H. Curzon

  Lockwood, Lieut. Col. A. R.

  Priestley, Sir W. O. (Edin.)

  Webster, Sir R. E. (I. of W.)

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Purvis, Robert

  Welby, Lieut.-Col. A. C. E.

  Long, Rt. Hon. W. (L'pool)

  Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W.

  Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-

  Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller

  Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. T.

  Williams, Jos. Powell (Birm.)

  Lorne, Marquess of

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Lowles, John

  Robinson, Brooke

  Wilson, Fredk. W. (Norfolk)

  McArthur, Chas. (Liverpool)

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Wilson-Todd, W. H. (Yorks.)

  McCalmont, H. L. B. (Cambs.)

  Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

  Wodehouse, Edm. R. (Bath)

  McKillop, James

  Rutherford, John

  Young, Comm. (Berks, E.)

  Marks, Henry Hananel

  Sidebottom, Wm. (Derbysh.)

  Younger, William

  Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  More, Robert Jasper

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Morrison, Walter

  Smith, Abel H. (Christchurch)

  Sir William Walrond and

  Muntz, Philip A.

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Mr. Anstruther.

  Murdoch, Chas. Townshend

  Stephens, Henry Charles

  MR. BRIGG: I should like to ask a question with reference to the salary of the Counsel of the Chairmen of Committees. I find that that office also includes the office of Taxing Master for private Bills. Yet the work of the latter office is performed by inferior clerks who receive salaries of £250, £200, £150, and £50. I think we should have some explanation of this.
  MR. HANBURY: It is impossible that the private Bill work should all be done by one man. There is a great deal of work to be done, and, of course, a staff of clerks are required to do it.
  MR. T. W. NUSSEY: I think we are entitled to a fuller explanation than that. The right hon. Gentleman has carefully avoided telling us what work this official does, or how much time it occupies. I am quite aware that in connection with private Bills there is a great deal of work, but we want more detailed information as to the particular work covered by this item.
  MR. HANBURY: I may say that this Gentleman does exactly the same work as that performed by the Counsel for the Speaker in this House. The Counsel for the Speaker is paid £1,800; the officer performing exactly the same duties for the House of Lords get £1,500.
  MR. CALDWELL: There is an item covered by this Vote for salary of the Reading Clerk of Committees in the House of Lords, £900. The Examiner of Standing Orders has a salary of £300 under Item D. The same person fills the two offices, so that his total salary is £1,200. I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he can promise that, in the event of a vacancy arising, some arrangement will be made to combine the two offices, so that a salary of £900 will cover the work of the two?
  MR. HANBURY: The hon. Gentleman all through has been comparing the salaries of officials of this House with those of the corresponding officials in the other House. He will find that the Reading Clerks in the two Houses receive exactly the same salary. I cannot answer for any future arrangements. I am only responsible for the Estimates as they stand for this year.
  CAPTAIN D. V. PIRIE: I desire to support my hon. Friend, and I have an object in pressing this. I should like to read to the Committee what the right hon. Gentleman opposite said some four years ago when the late Liberal Government were in power. Referring to the salaries of the Reading Clerks, he said—
  "While he thought that this branch of the constitution [the House of Lords], which some people looked upon as anomalous, ought to be maintained, at the same time he thought they

  905
  ought as far as possible to relieve it of many excrescences. The House of Lords, with regard to the salaries of its officials, stood in an unfavourable position."
  Since that time the country has taken up a very different view of the House of Lords. The change is not yet reflected in the constitution of this House, but I hope these protests will be repeated year after year until the country returns so large a number of Members to this side

  AYES.

  Allan, William (Gateshead)

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Allen, Wm. (Newc.-under-L.)

  Gourley, Sir Ed. Temperley

  Price, Robert John

  Allison, Robert Andrew

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Provand, Andrew Dryburgh

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Haldane, Richard Burdon

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Austin, Sir John (Yorkshire)

  Hammond, John (Carlow)

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale-

  Roberts, Jno. H. (Denbighs.)

  Bayley, Thos. (Derbyshire)

  Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Kilbride, Denis

  Roche, Hon. Jas. (Kerry, E.)

  Billson, Alfred

  Knox, Edmund F. Vesey

  Roche, John (Galway, E.)

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Labouchere, Henry

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Lambert, George

  Smith, Samuel (Flint)

  Caldwell, James

  Leng, Sir John

  Steadman, William Charles

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Cawley, Frederick

  Lough, Thomas

  Strachey, Edward

  Channing, Francis Aliston

  Macaleese, Daniel

  Sulliyan, Donal (Westmeath)

  Clough, Walter Owen

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Ure Alexander

  Curran, Thos. (Sligo, S.)

  McCartan, Michael

  Daly, James

  McKenna, Reginald

  Wallace, Robert (Perth)

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Maddison, Fred.

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Davitt, Michael

  Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand

  Weir, James Galloway

  Dilke, Rt, Hon. Sir Charles

  Morgan, J. L. (Carmarthen)

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Dillon, John

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Williams, J. Carvell (Notts.)

  Doogan, P. C.

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Wilson, Frdk. W. (Norfolk)

  Duckworth, James

  O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary)

  Wilson, H. J. (York, W. R.)

  Ellis, T. E. (Merionethshire)

  O'Connor, Arthur (Donegal)

  Ferguson, R. C. M. (Leith)

  O'Connor, J. (Wicklow, W.)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmund

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Mr. Brigg and Mr. Pirie.

  Foster, Sir W. (Derby Co.)

  Pease, Jos. A. (Northumb.)

  NOES.

  Acland-Hood. Capt. Sir A. F.

  Bowles, T. G. (King's Lynn)

  Curzon, Viscount (Bucks.)

  Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis

  Brassey, Albert

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Denny, Colonel

  Baden-Powell, Sir G. Smyth

  Bullard, Sir Harry

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Bagot, Capt. J. FitzRoy

  Butcher, John George

  Donkin, Richard Sim

  Baillie, J. E. B. (Inverness)

  Cecil, Lord Hugh

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Balfour, Rt. Hon A. J. (Manc'r)

  Chaloner, Capt. R. G. W.

  Doxford, William Theodore

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. Grld W. (Leeds)

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.)

  Drucker, A.

  Banbury, Frederick George

  Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc.)

  Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

  Barnes, Frederic Gorell

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Ellis, Jno. Edward (Notts.)

  Barton, Dunbar Plunket

  Charrington, Spencer

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edw.

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benj.

  Chelsea, Viscount

  Finch, George H.

  Beach, Rt. Hn. S. M. H. (Brist'l)

  Clarke, Sir Edw. (Plymouth)

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Begg, Ferdinand Faithfull

  Cochrane, Hon. T. H. A. E.

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Bemrose, Sir Henry Howe

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  FitzGerald, Sir R. Penrose-

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Flannery, Fortescue

  Bethell, Commander

  Colomb, Sir J. Chas. Ready

  Flower, Ernest

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Colston, C. Edw. H. Athole

  Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Foster, Harry S. (Suffolk)

  Bond, Edward

  Cook, Fred. Lucas (Lambeth)

  Fry, Lewis

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

  Cox, Robert

  Garfit, William

  of the House that these anomalies will be swept away altogether. I beg to propose the reduction of the Vote by £100.
  Motion made, and Question proposed—
  "That Item C be reduced by £100 in respect of the salary of the Reading Clerk of the House of Lords."—(Captain Pirie.)
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 79, Noes 167.

  Gedge, Sydney

  Leigh-Bennett, Hy. Currie

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Gibbs, Hon. V. (St. Albans)

  Llewellyn, E. H. (Somerset)

  Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

  Goldsworthy, Major-General

  Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn-(Sw'ns'a)

  Rutherford, John

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward

  Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

  Sharpe, Wm. Edward T.

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Eldon

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Sidebottom, Wm. (Derbysh.)

  Goschen, George J.

  Long, Rt. Hon. W. (L'pool)

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Lorne, Marquess of

  Smith, Abel H. (Christchurch)

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Lowles, John

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs.)

  McArthur, Chas. (Liverpool)

  Stephens, Henry Charles

  Greville, Captain

  McCalmont, H. L. B. (Cambs.)

  Stewart, Sir M. J. M'Taggart

  Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord G.

  McKillop, James

  Strauss, Arthur

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. R. Wm.

  Marks, Henry H.

  Sturt, Hn. Humphrey Napier

  Hanson, Sir Reginald

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

  Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxf'd Uny)

  Haslett, Sir James Horner

  Monk, Charles James

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Heath, James

  More, Robert Jasper

  Tomlinson, Wm. Ed. Murray

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Morrison, Walter

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Helder, Augustus

  Muntz, Philip A.

  Verney, Hon. Richard G.

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Murdoch, Charles Townshend

  Wanklyn, James Leslie

  Hill, Rt. Hn. Lord A. (Down)

  Murray, Rt. Hn. A. G. (Bute)

  Warr, Augustus Frederick

  Hill, Sir Ed. Stock (Bristol)

  Murray, Chas. J. (Coventry)

  Webster, R. G. (St. Pancras)

  Holland, Hon. Lionel Raleigh

  Murray, Col. W. (Bath)

  Webster, Sir R. E. (I. of W.)

  Howell, William Tudor

  Newdigate, Francis Alex.

  Welby, Lieut.-Col. A. C. E.

  Hubbard, Hon. Evelyn

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-

  Jebb, Richard Claverhouse

  Northcote, Hon. Sir H. S.

  Williams, J. Powell (Birm.)

  Kemp, George

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Kenyon, James

  Pender, James

  Wilson-Todd, W. H. (Yorks.)

  Knowles, Lees

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Wodehouse, Edm. R. (Bath)

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Plunkett, Rt. Hon. H. C.

  Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

  Lawrence, Sir Ed. (Cornwall)

  Purvis, Robert

  Young, Comm. (Berks, E.)

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (L'pool)

  Rentoul, James Alexander

  Younger, William

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.)

  Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W.

  Lea, Sir T. (Londonderry)

  Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. T.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Sir William Walrond and

  Legh, Hon. T. W. (Lancs.)

  Robinson, Brooke

  Mr. Anstruther.

  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I have had two evenings in the course of nineteen years of Parliamentary life in this House, which gave me a feeling of unmixed triumph. On both those occasions I had the pleasure of voting in the Lobby with two Conservative Tellers counting the votes, and on both occasions I had the pleasure, as it was at the time, of defeating a Liberal Administration. The first occasion was in 1885. My hon. Friend the Member for King's Lynn did not then give us the advantage of his presence in the House, though I understand that he would have had it in his power to do so, but several hon. Members whom I see on the opposite side of the House and some hon. Gentlemen whom I see on the Treasury Bench, took part in that famous Division. On that occasion, I say, we had the satisfaction, by a united Conservative and Irish vote, of defeating a Liberal Administration. That was on 8th June, 1885; and, Mr. Lowther, a similar exultant triumph did not come to
  908
  me until 5th September, 1893, and on that occasion I find that I voted in a majority consisting of: Ayes 103, Noes 95. The Tellers on the occasion of that triumphant majority of eight, of which I formed a modest part, were the right hon. Gentleman the present Secretary for the Treasury and my hon. Friend the Member for King's Lynn. Now, Mr. Lowther, if I went through this Division list I should find that it was quite as influential as it was successful. I find, for instance, among those who voted upon this occasion, the right hon. Gentleman the present Vice President of the Council. I find, also, in the majority the names of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, the hon. Gentleman the Member for a Division of Worcestershire, a relative of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, a Scotch Member, the Member for North Ayrshire, who, I understand, is the unpaid secretary of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham. I find another name—that of the right hon. Gentleman, who is not only a near, but almost a tender,

  909
  relative of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham—namely, the right hon. Gentleman, I think it is for the Bordesley Division, the Under Secretary to the Home Department. Well, Sir, I find also in it the names of an independent Member, whom I do not think I see in his place, and of two independent Conservative Members: one the Member for Brighton, and the other the Member for Dover. Well, now, Sir, here is the question—
  "Motion made and Question proposed—'That a sum, not exceeding £23,095, be granted to Her Majesty to complete the sum necessary to defray the charges falling due for payment in the year ending 31st March, 1894, for the saaries and expenses of the officers of the House of Lords.'—Whereupon Motion made and Question put—'That Item C, Houses of Parliament, be reduced by £500.' (Mr. Hanbury.)—The Committee divided:—Ayes 103, Noes 95."
  As to my hon. Friend the Member for King's Lynn, I cannot forecast what he will say. I do not think anyone ever can. I could have understood his position better if he also had now been on the Front Bench, but I note that he has to-night even taken up a position on the wrong side of the Gangway. I do not think I need add anything to what I have said, especially as the House must be almost panting with excitement and curiosity to hear the defence of the right hon. Gentleman with regard to the difference in their Votes on these two occasions.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I may say, in defence of the singular position which I take to-night below the Gangway, that I am here in consequence of the action of an unfailing adherent of the Government, who has appropriated the seat usually occupied by me. My change of seat has no political significance—it is only accidental. I am surprised at an hon. Member of the political acumen of my hon. Friend thinking that I voted against a certain Vote in 1893, and against the same Vote now. Does he not see that in 1893 my right hon. Friend and I perceived that the Vote was £500 too much? With great trouble, and much oratory and much persuasion, we induced the
  910
  heads of our Party, and even the Secretary for the Colonies—a most unusual thing—to vote with us in reducing the Estimate. We also induced the President of that mysterious body the Committee of Council on Education to take the same course, and I fear the House will hardly be able to rise to a sense of the strength of the arguments which we must have used to bring about those results. That reduction of £500 we regarded as required to render the Vote perfect; but, of course, when the Vote now comes before us less the £500 it is our bounden duty to vote for it. I think I need add nothing to that explanation. I only wish all hon. Gentlemen on that side could show conduct as consistent. There are moments when I regret the days when I sat on the Second Bench on that side with the present Secretary for the Treasury beside me, and we were able to do so much good work; in fact, I think that in the whole of Parliamentary history there never were two Members so thoroughly justified by events as my right hon. Friend and myself.
  MR. HANBURY: I also am inclined to agree that events have shown the two most consistent men in the House to be my hon. Friend and myself. And why? Because to-night the hon. Member and I have been advocating, ever since six o'clock, the very principles which we advocated on that memorable occasion, which were that the salaries of the officials of the two Houses should be placed on the same level. Hon. Members opposite have departed from that very proper principle, and while, owing to our advocacy of this principle in 1893, these salaries have actually been put on the same level, we find those hon. Gentlemen claiming that the salaries of House of Lords officials should be lower than those of the officers of this House. The hon. Member for King's Lynn seems' to think that the reduction effected in 1893 makes the Vote a fair one. I do not quite think so, for as a matter of fact the Vote has been reduced by more than £500. What we voted for then was that the salaries of the clerks of the House of Lords should be brought down to the same level as those of the clerks here, but in certain

  911
  cases the clerks in our House get larger salaries than those holding corresponding positions in the House of Lords, though all new clerks appointed there will be on the same scale as the clerks in this House.
  MR. DILLON: I should like to say, for those sitting with me, that when we supported the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for King's Lynn on the occasion which has been referred to, we did not at all accept their contention that the salaries of officers of the House of Lords should be on the same scale as those of officers of the House of Commons. We were glad to see that they were taking a step in the right direction, and any step in that direction would have commanded our cheerful support; but we held then, as we hold now, that the salaries of officials of the House of Lords should be fixed in some fair proportion to those of the officials of this House in relation to the duties performed by each. The Treasury has not endeavoured to lay before Parliament any reason why the officials of one House should be paid the same amount as the officials of the other House for doing only one-tenth of the work, since these latter are admittedly equally competent men. We in this quarter of the House followed the right hon. Gentleman's lead on that occasion, but we desire to improve upon his example, and to carry further the good work which he then accomplished.
  MR. J. E. ELLIS: I think the matter now before the House raises a very considerable principle, and for myself I accept what has fallen from the hon. Member for East Mayo—that remuneration should have some relation to the amount of the services rendered. There is hardly an item in Votes 1 and 2 of Class II. which does not make clear the gross disparity which exists between remuneration for the services rendered by the officials of another place and that for those rendered by the officials of the House of Commons. If the amount of time devoted to their duties by those two bodies of gentlemen respectively were made the subject of an
  912
  official Return, I am sure that no hon. Member would endeavour to defend parity of payment before any public audience of reasonable men. The right hon. Gentleman opposite [Mr. Hanbury] may found himself on the principle that both sets of officials should be placed upon entirely the same level, but I do not think a large number of hon. Members, placed face to face with their constituents, would accept that doctrine. I am sure that until an alteration is made the question will come up again and again, and for that reason I shall support the proposed reduction.
  MR. J. A. PEASE: There seems, I think, to be some misapprehension as to the position of the Secretary to the Treasury. I remember his speech in 1894, when he used these words—
  "Last year it was shown that, while the duties of the officials of the other House were lighter than those of the officials of the House of Commons, the former were paid on a more liberal scale."
  Obviously the right hon. Gentleman is there enunciating the principle laid down by the hon. Member for East Mayo—that the officials of both Houses should be paid according to the duties they perform.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: My hon. Friend who has just spoken has got a good quotation, but he has not got the best. On the occasion on which the right hon. Gentleman led me and the other Members on this side of the House to victory he made a speech which was entirely opposed to the doctrine he has to-night laid down. He said: "Salaries ought to be paid according to the work which the recipients perform"; and he immediately added, with that true insight into popular feeling which a thorough democrat always displays, that this course ought to be possible. Going on, however, to ask how, if the House of Lords did not set an example, they could expect other Departments of the Civil Service to do so: "The House of Commons was bad enough," he added, "but the House of Lords was infinitely worse." Apart altogether

  913
  from the question of economy, this matter has a larger and an even more important bearing. In the midst of all our prosperity, a great many of the people of this country find it very hard to make ends meet. There are a large number of the most useful public servants of this country who are underpaid. [An HON. MEMBER: No, no!] An hon. Gentleman below me says "No, no!" He is a Scotchman, and I am an Irishman, and we naturally take somewhat different views of these matters. I was referring to that great body of public servants of this country—our military and naval forces. Take the men engaged in the recent operations on the North-West Frontier of India, risking their lives at every hour of the night and day, going through swollen fords, and over mountain passes, enduring every kind of hardship. How many of them received anything approaching the salaries given to the men who are engaged for a few months in the year in the comfortable work of the House of Lords' offices? There are a body of hon. Members of this House who style themselves the Services Committee, and one of their aims is to increase the efficiency or our forces. Well, Sir, the great body of the people of this country do not measure these things by salaries per annum, but by amounts paid per day. I wonder what the relatives of your gallant Gordon Highlander, with his fifteen-pence a day, think when they read that a stay-at-home and not very hard-worked clerk of the House of Lords receives £1,000 a year. This is not a Party question. I do not oppose this Vote on Party grounds. I appeal as confidently to hon. Members on the other side as to those on these benches. I am perfectly certain that everybody who goes up and down the country knows that on this question of the bloated, unearned salaries of public officials there is a strong and universal feeling of discontent and disgust. I venture to assure the Secretary to the Treasury that he can do no greater disservice to his Party than to stand up send defend these entirely unjustifiable salaries paid to men for doing practically nothing in the offices upstairs, while the gallant men who risk their lives in the defence of the Empire in all quarters of the globe are put off with a miserable pittance.
  MR. BROADHURST: I am glad that the suggestion I made earlier in the evening, that the Secretary to the Treasury should promise an inquiry, has received such support. My hon. Friend who has just sat down, if I understood him rightly, said he would be satisfied with an inquiry conducted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Secretary to the Treasury, and one or two other Members of the House, and I agree that if we had the promise of such an inquiry our immediate opposition to this Vote might be withdrawn. I do not think the utter waste of public money in connection with the officials of the House of Lords has ever been so well exposed as it has been to-night. In the interests of the taxpayers it is time that the House of Lords should be thoroughly overhauled, and that the waste and extravagance going on there, from the public purse should be brought to a close, and that some approximation between service and pay should be brought about. The Secretary to the Treasury must not imagine that the necessity for economy is any less now that he is in power than it was when as a Member of the Opposition, he denounced this expenditure a few years ago. If he will promise that he will bring this subject under the notice of the Lender of the House and of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I am sure he will give pleasure to some of his own supporters, as well as to a large number of earnest reformers on this side of the House.
  MR. CALDWELL: I find that the Senior Clerk in the House of Lords begins with a salary of £600, and goes up to £800. The present Senior Clerk has a salary of £800, but he holds other offices, from which he receives £400 a year, bringing his total salary to £1,200, as against £650 paid to the Senior Clerk in the House of Commons; and I venture to say that there is no comparison between the work of these two gentlemen. Now, with regard to these clerks in the House of Lords, they are not gentlemen who have passed any Civil Service examination whatever; they are under no obligation to retire at any particular age. The position we on this side take with regard to this matter is this: We

  915
  recognise that the House of Commons is responsible for the expenditure of the country, and that it is the duty of the House of Commons to see that the country gets value for the salaries voted, whether for the service of the House of Lords or the House of Commons. This House has no control whatever with regard to these appointments; they are practically patronage appointments. What was contended for by the present Secretary to the Treasury when he sat on these benches, and what I repeat now, is that this House should insist that these clerks in the House of Lords should be put on the same footing as ordinary Civil servants as regards qualifications and selection by competition, and that their appointment should not be a matter of patronage. That is the principle for which we contend, and we hope to be able to convince the Government that there must be an inquiry into this matter, with a view to bringing the clerical service of the two Houses into line, and placing the officials on exactly the same footing. This point is not a new one. It was referred to in the Report of the Public Accounts Committee of 1893, and they expressed very strongly the opinion that that was the policy which the House should adopt. The hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool has said

  AYES.

  Allen, Wm. (Newc.-under- L.)

  Haldane, Richard Burdon

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Allison, Robert Andrew

  Hammond, John (Carlos)

  Price, Robert John

  Austin, Sir John (Yorkshire)

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale

  Provand, Andrew Dryburgh

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Bayley, Thos. (Derbyshire)

  Kilbride, Denis

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Billson, Alfred

  Knox, Edmund F. Vesey

  Roberts, Jno. H. (Denbighs.)

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Labouchere, Henry

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Brigg, John

  Lambert, George

  Roche, Hon. Jas. (Kerry, E.)

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Leng, Sir John

  Roche, John (Galway, E.)

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Smith, Samuel (Flint)

  Cawley, Frederick

  Lloyd-George, David

  Spicer, Albert

  Clough, Walter Owen

  Lough, Thomas

  Steadman, William Charles

  Curran, Thos. (Sligo, S.)

  Macaleese, Daniel

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  Daly, James

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Strachey, Edward

  Dalziel, James Henry

  McCartan, Michael

  Stuart, James (Shoreditch)

  Davitt, Michael

  Maddison, Fred.

  Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath)

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand

  Ure, Alexander

  Dillon, John

  Morgan, J. L. (Carmarthen)

  Wallace, Robert (Perth)

  Doogan, P. C.

  Morton, E. J. C. (Devonport)

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Duckworth, James

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Weir, James Galloway

  Ellis, T. E. (Merionethshire)

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Farquharson, Dr. Robert

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Williams, J. Carvell (Notts.)

  Ferguson, R. C. M. (Leith)

  O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary)

  Wilson, Fredk. W. (Norfolk)

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  O'Connor, J. (Wicklow, W.)

  Wilson, H. J. (Yorks, W. R.)

  Foster, Sir W. (Derby Co.)

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Pease, Jos. A. (Northumb.)

  Mr. Caldwell and Mr.

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Jonathan Samuel.

  that this is not a Party question. Hon. gentlemen who are sitting opposite, if they were sitting on this side of the House, would probably be making the very same demand that we are seeking to enforce. It is the interest of the country, whichever Party may be in power, that these offices should be given only to persons who are properly qualified, that there should be competition for the selection of officials, and that there should not be plurality of offices.
  MR. H. V. DUNCOMBEmoved "That the Question be now put," but the CHAIRMAN declined then to put the Motion.
  MR. CALDWELL: The first Senior Clerk, whose salary is covered by this item, receives £800 a year, and in respect of other offices he receives a further £400, making £1,200 in all. I beg to move to reduce the Vote by £400 in order that his total salary may remain at £800.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That Item C be reduced by £400, in respect of the salary of the Senior Clerk of the House of Lords."—(Mr. Caldwell.)
  The Committee divided: Ayes 78; Noes 172.

  NOES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F.

  Foster, Colonel (Lancaster)

  More, Robert Jasper

  Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis

  Foster, H. S. (Suffolk)

  Morton, A. H. A. (Deptford)

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Fry, Lewis

  Muntz, Philip A.

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Garfit, William

  Murdoch, Charles Townshend

  Baden-Powell, Sir G.

  Gedge, Sydney

  Murray, Rt. Hn. A. G. (Bute)

  Bagot, Capt, J. FitzRoy

  Gibbs, Hon. V. (St. Albans)

  Murray, C. J. (Coventry)

  Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manc'r)

  Goldsworthy, Major-General

  Murray, Col. W. (Bath)

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. Grld W. (Leeds)

  Gordon, Hon. John Edward

  Newdigate, Francis Alex.

  Barnes, Frederic Gorell

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John E.

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Barton, Dunbar Plunket

  Goschen, Rt. Hn. G. J. (S. Geo's)

  Nicol, Donald Ninian

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benj.

  Goschen, G. J. (Sussex)

  Northcote, Hon. Sir H. S.

  Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir M. H. (Brist'l)

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert T.

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Pender, James

  Bemrose, Sir Henry Howe

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Bentinck, Lord Henry C.

  Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs.)

  Plunkett, Rt. Hon. H. C.

  Beresford, Lord Charles

  Greville, Captain

  Purvis, Robert

  Bethell, Commander

  Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord G.

  Rentoul, James Alexander

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Hanbury, Rt. Hon. R. W.

  Ridley, Rt. Hon. Sir M. W.

  Bond, Edward

  Hanson, Sir Reginald

  Ritchie, Rt. Hon. C. T.

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Robertson, H. (Hackney)

  Bowles, T. G. (King's Lynn)

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Robinson, Brooke

  Brassey, Albert

  Helder, Augustus

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Bullard, Sir Harry

  Hermon-Hodge, Robert T.

  Russell, T. W. (Tyrone)

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Hill, Rt. Hn. Lord A. (Down)

  Rutherford, John

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Hill, Sir Edward S. (Bristol)

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Butcher, John George

  Holland, Hon. Lionel R.

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.)

  Howell, William Tudor

  Sidebottom, W. (Derbysh.)

  Cecil, Lord Hugh

  Hubbard, Hon. Evelyn

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Chaloner, Capt. R. G. W.

  Jebb, Richard Claverhouse

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.)

  Johnstone, John H. (Sussex)

  Smith, A. H. (Christchurch)

  Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc.)

  Kemp, George

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Kenyon, James

  Stephens, Henry Charles

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Knowles, Lees

  Stewart, Sir M. J. M'T.

  Charrington, Spencer

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Strauss, Arthur

  Chelsea, Viscount

  Lawrence, Sir E. (Cornwall)

  Sturt, Hn. Humphrey Napier

  Clarke, Sir Edw. (Plymouth)

  Lawrence, W. F. (Liverpool)

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Cochrane, Hon. T. H. A. E.

  Lawson, J. Grant (Yorks)

  Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G. (Oxf'd Uni.)

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Lea, Sir Thos. (Londonderry)

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Lees, Sir E. (Birkenhead)

  Tomlinson, Wm. E. Murray

  Colomb, Sir J. Chas. Ready

  Legh, Hon. T. W. (Lanc.)

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Colston, C. Edw. H. Athole

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Verney, Hon. Richard G.

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Llewellyn, E. H. ((Somerset)

  Wanklyn, James Leslie

  Cook, Fred. Lucas (Lambeth)

  Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn (Sw'ns'a)

  Warr, Augustus Frederick

  Cox, Robert

  Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

  Webster, Sir R. E. (I. of W.)

  Curzon, Viscount (Bucks.)

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Welby, Lieut.-Col. A. C. E.

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Liverp'l)

  Wentworth, B. C. Vernon

  Denny, Colonel

  Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller

  Williams, J. Powell (Birm.)

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir J. P.

  Lorne, Marquess of

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Lowles, John

  Wilson-Todd, W. H. (Yorks)

  Drucker, A.

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Wodehouse, E. R. (Bath)

  Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V.

  McArthur, Chas. (Liverpool)

  Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn E.

  McCalmont, H. L. B. (Cambs.)

  Wyndham-Quin, Maj. W. H.

  Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Mnc'r)

  McKenna, Reginald

  Young, Commander (Berks)

  Finch, George H.

  Malcolm, Ian

  Younger, William

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Marks, Henry Hananel

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  FitzGerald, Sir R. Penrose-

  Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

  Sir William Walrond and

  Flannery, Fortescue

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Mr. Anstruther.

  Flower, Ernest

  Monk, Charles James

  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I wish to raise, as shortly as I can, a question which, I think, the Committee will consider to be one of very great importance—it has been already before the Committee in another shape—I mean the question
  918
  of the salary of the Librarian to the House of Lords. Since the discussion we had on this subject on Monday I have been able to obtain Papers which establish the story I am about to relate; and I think the Committee will agree that the conduct experienced by this House is

  919
  such that it can only be met by the moderate reduction of £200 which I am about to move. If what I propose to detail to the Committee has the weight that I think it has, I may view with confidence the cohorts behind me, relying on the impartial gentlemen from Ireland to again follow me into the Lobby in the carrying out of a real, radical reform. The story is not a very long one. In 1897, as I ascertained from the first Report of the Select Committee on the House of Lords Offices—and here I may remark, as exhibiting the business capacity of that Committee, that the document itself bears neither the name of the Committee nor the date of the Report, which I only get from internal evidence—the Committee were of opinion that the salary of any future Librarian should be £800 per annum, and that the official residence should be continued to him on the express understanding that he should surrender it "if at any time it should be required for the extension of the Library or for any other purpose," in which event he should receive an allowance of £200 a year in lieu of the residence. Now, a short time ago, I do not know exactly under what conditions, the Librarian of the House of Lords, Mr. Pullman, resigned. Strangely enough, when the Treasury came to consider his pension, they valued the residence not at £200, but at £400, although it certainly cannot be worth more now than at the date of the Committee's Report. That is one of the great injustices of giving residences as part salary to officials—that, when you come to calculate their pensions, an increased value is put on the residence. A complacent Committee of the House of Lords adopt that view, and the result is that Mr. Pullman gets a pension upon £1,200 a year instead of upon £1,000 a year. Then, Mr. Pullman having resigned, a Mr. Strong is appointed Librarian. I have not a word to say against Mr. Strong; he may be, and presumably is, a most excellent official. On the 23rd April Mr. Strong receives the Lord Great Chamberlain's warrant to take possession of this residence. On the 21st July, however (why that interval of three months elapsed I cannot quite tell), the Treasury make a representation on this subject, to the effect that the state of the Librarian's house is such that it would require something
  920
  like £600 to put it into habitable condition. On the 24th July (and here the real story begins) the First Commissioner of Works suggests to the Lords Committee that the Peers should give up two of their Committee Rooms, and also one of the Joint Committee Rooms, and that in lieu thereof they should take possession of two of the rooms of the Librarian of the House of Lords. The Lords Committee said they had not Committee Rooms enough as it was, and that this proposal of the First Commissioner would decrease instead of increase their accommodation. The next suggestion was contained in a letter from Sir Francis Mowatt, the Permanent Secretary to the Treasury, of the 29th October, 1897, and I will ask permission to read this extract from that letter—
  "I am directed by my Lords Commissioners of the Treasury … to say that Mr. Akers-Dougas remains of opinion that the proposed re-arrangement of rooms would materially contribute to the comfort of the House of Commons without detracting from the space available for the accommodation of their Lordships; and, further, that the number of resident officers in the Houses of Parliament should be minimised as far as possible"
  The important part of that is that the First Commissioner of Works remained of opinion that the proposed rearrangement of rooms would materially contribute to the comfort of this House without detracting from the accommodation of the House of Lords. Now, what did the Committee of the House of Lords say in reply to that? They adhered to their decision that no alteration whatever which could be made either now or hereafter in the Librarian's house would enable them to dispense with any of their present Committee Rooms, and that, consequently, no extension could be looked for in this direction. They decided, however, in view of the strong opposition to the Librarian keeping his house, that the Librarian should leave the house, and that he should have an additional £200 a year. With regard to the house itself, the Committee say that they reserve for further consideration the question for what purpose the house shall be utilised. Now, I point out that here is an absolute difference of opinion as to whether it is possible to make such a rearrangement as will not interfere with the

  921
  Lords. The First Commissioner of Works says it is possible, the House of Lords Committee say it is not. The First Commissioner of Works is supported by the Treasury, so that there are two opinions against one in favour of the view that the arrangement suggested can be carried out without inconvenience to the House of Lords; and what do the Lords do? They agree to turn the Librarian out of his house. The Treasury, as I read these Papers, refuse, and very properly refuse, to ask this House to pay £600 to make the house habitable. The result is, here is an uninhabitable house; it is of no use whatever to the Lords, but what they say is, "We will keep this uninhabitable place; we will charge you, the Commons, an extra £200 a year for the Librarian; we are not going to make any use of the place ourselves, but you shall not get it." I must say that that seems to me only capable of being described as a dog-in-the-manger policy, and I am not only surprised, but I am shocked, that a Committee of the House of Lords should be found capable of taking up this position of keeping in possession of an absolutely destitute, forlorn house, which will presently get into the position of an Irish mud hovel after a crowbar eviction, and at the same time ask for an extra £200 a year for their Librarian. In this description that I have given, I have only adopted the language of Her Majesty's Government through the First Commissioner of Works and the Permanent Secretary to the Treasury. Under these circumstances, I say that we are morally relieved from the obligation of paying this £200 a year which it is proposed to give to the Librarian instead of this house. Therefore, with great regret, I move the reduction of the Vote by £200, and I hope and believe that a majority of hon. Members will follow me into the Lobby on this occasion.
  Motion made, and (Question proposed—
  "That Item 'D' be reduced by £200 in respect of the salary of the Librarian of the House of Lords."—(Mr. Gibson Bowles.)
  MR. FORTESCUE FLANNERY: I think the time has now arrived for a definite statement on the part of the Treasury as to principle in this matter. I confess that I have voted, after hearing some of the speeches from hon. Members opposite, with very great doubt and very great hesitation, in the Divisions that have taken place; but the reason which has weighed with me, and I believe with many other hon. Members on this side, is that, the country having agreed that the individual holders of offices at present should be paid certain sums of money, it is only right and honourable on the part of this House that those sums should be voted. But it is a very different matter when we come to discuss the question of principle with an eye to the future. I think this Debate has shown gross instances of inconsistency; first, that the officials are paid to an extent entirely disproportionate to the service they render; and secondly, that their appointments are made in a manner which is entirely obsolete, and is not just to the taxpayer. I think the hon. Member for Mid Lanark made a very strong point when he said that these appointments are matters of patronage, and that they ought to be matters of open competition. Sir, I have risen for the purpose of appealing, and I do appeal, as a supporter of the Government, in the strongest manner to the Secretary to the Treasury to consider this question on the broad lines of general principle, with an eye to the future. It would be in accordance with the feeling of the House on both sides if he were to give an undertaking, on the part of the Government, that at the very earliest possible opportunity a Committee or Commission, or some other form of official inquiry, should be set up for the purpose of formulating a scheme by which these appointments as they fall vacant, should be reorganised on a proper and fair system of election and remuneration. If the right hon. Gentleman can see his way to make that concession, he will set at rest a great deal of uneasiness on the part of hon. Members below the Gangway on both sides of the House.
  MR. HANBURY: This question, Sir, has been treated as if the anomalies that have been pointed out existed only in regard to the House of Lords. I think it might have been better if Members of this House had sought to set their own House in order. No doubt the system of nomination in both Houses is somewhat anomalous. It is undoubtedly the fact that with regard to the Houses of Parliament the system of appointment of the clerks does differ from the appointment of clerks to very important offices in other Departments; it differs from the system of public nomination in the Treasury and other Departments, but that rule which exists with regard to the House of Lords also exists with regard to the House of Commons. This House is very well aware that the body which is practically the governing body of this House is, as I have often said when I was in Opposition, a very anomalous body, and I should be justified in saying that the time has come when, as the hon. Member has suggested, there might be an inquiry into the whole system prevailing in the two Houses, with a view to determining whether it might not be possible to bring the system of appointments in the two Houses a little more into unison with what is now the common practice in other public Departments. With regard to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for King's Lynn, I am a little disappointed that he has thought it right to move this reduction of £200, because I should have thought I might find in him a most faithful ally in connection with this subject, inasmuch as he and I have before now worked together in opposing the system of giving residences partly in lieu of salary, a system which, I agree, is a most wasteful one, and a system which the present arrangement will, at any rate, put a stop to in one instance. Take the one matter of pensions. Under the old system the Librarian of the House of Lords would have been pensioned on a salary of £1,200 a year; now he will be pensioned upon a salary of £1,000 a year. Then, with regard to his present pay, he will receive only £1,000 a year, instead of
  924
  £800 and a furnished house, which, I venture to say, will cost this House a great deal more than £400. Therefore, I say that, by substituting £200 a year instead of the furnished house, we are saving the country a considerable sum. As to this residence of the House of Lords Librarian, it could by no possibility have been utilised by this House, and the use to which it should be put is still left an open question.
  MR. LEWIS: The outcome of this matter, as I gather from the statements of the hon. Member for King's Lynn and the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury, is that this Librarian's house, containing 22 rooms, is now no longer required by the House of Lords. Meanwhile, the House of Commons is suffering greatly from want of accommodation, in regard to Newspaper Rooms, Tea Rooms, Smoking Rooms, and so on. I trust the Secretary to the Treasury will feel that this discussion has strengthened his hands in insisting that the accommodation at the disposal of this House should be increased. The needs of the House of Commons in this respect have reached such a point at the present time—
  THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: I must remind the hon. Gentleman that he cannot, on this Vote, go into the general question of the accommodation of this House.
  MR. LEWIS: Then, Sir, I will not pursue the matter. I am perfectly satisfied with the assurance of the right hon. Gentleman that the subject is to be inquired into.
  MR. DALZIEL: I hope the inquiry promised by the right hon. Gentleman will be instituted without delay, and prosecuted to a definite result. We have had Committees on this question before, and no practical result has been achieved; and I hope that the inquiry now to be held will not be similarly abortive. I only rise now to ask for information on two small points. First, I would ask whether the present Librarian was

  925
  appointed over the heads of all the other assistants in the Librarian's department, whether he was private Librarian to a distinguished Member of the Government, and whether he does not hold that appointment at the present time? Then I should like to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he could not see his way to making some representation to the House of Lords with regard to more easy access being given to Members of the House of Commons to use the Library of the House of Lords during times when that House is not sitting? A short time ago I had occasion to go to the Lords' Library for a Parliamentary Report. I was told the Librarian was on a holiday, and there was no one to find the Report for me. I think it is absurd that when we vote money for so many assistants, who have practically nothing to do when the House of Lords is not sitting, it should be impossible for a Member of this House to get access to the Lords' Library.
  MR. LEWIS: I should like to offer a suggestion on this one point. The Library of the House of Commons is in constant use during the Session; the Library of the House of Lords is much less frequently used. Would it not be possible to combine the two Libraries, so that both might be thrown open for the general use of Members of the two Houses?
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: The right hon. Gentleman says that I am opposing an alteration which he and I have in former times joined in advocating. Not at all. I should be delighted to vote for the payment of the additional £200 if we could only secure the Librarian's residence. My complaint is that this House is called upon to pay this £200 a year, while we do not get the residence at all.
  MR. DALZIEL: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will see fit to give some reply upon the two points I raised.
  MR. HANBURY: There is a Committee of the House of Lords, which deals with all these appointments, and the Librarian was appointed by that Committee, so far as I am aware. I think everybody will admit that the appointment of Mr. Strong was a most admirable one. He is in every way qualified for the appointment, and, so far as I know, he does not hold any other post. With regard to the other point mentioned by the hon. Member for the Kirkcaldy Burghs, I am very sorry he had the unfortunate experience he has detailed to us, and I cannot think that it is the ordinary experience of hon. Members of this House who desire to make use of the Lords' Library when that House is not sitting. As to the suggestion that the Libraries of the two Houses should be combined, I am afraid I am not in a position to make any promise of that kind.
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: It would not seem that the Committee are to get to any definite result in regard to this matter, for the present year at any rate; but after the promise that has been made by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury I think it would be an unworthy course for the hon. Member for King's Lynn to press this Motion to a Division.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is in order in attributing to me an unworthy course?
  THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS: I see nothing unparliamentary in what the right hon. Gentleman has said.
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: My right hon. Friend has said that it is expedient that the whole subject should be inquired into by a Committee, and I think that that should satisfy the hon. Gentleman. It is quite a mistake to suppose that the officials of either House are appointed

  927
  without the ordeal of examination. Very strict and, I believe, competitive examinations are instituted. With regard to accommodation, I would remind the Committee that from time to time considerable portion of the House of Lords' accommodation have been transferred to this House. After the House of Lords has gone sudh a considerable way to meet the wishes of this House in regard to this Librarian's residence, I think it is rather too much to say that no time should be given for some arrangement to be made as to the allocation of the rooms. I venture to think it would be unseemly to press the matter to a Division on this occasion, and I hope my hon. Friend will withdraw his Motion.
  MR. FORTESCUE FLANNERY: If this item of the Vote were postponed to the next occasion on which the Estimates are taken, that would give an opportunity for negotiation between the Secretary to the Treasury and the House of Lords; and if this Motion for a reduction were held, as it were, in terrorem, I think the hands of those who conduct the negotiations with the House of Lords would be strengthened, and in all probability a satisfactory arrangement might be come to.
  It being Twelve of the clock, the Debate stood adjourned.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again.
  House resumed.

BUDGET RESOLUTIONS.
  WAYS AND MEANS [21ST APRIL, 1898.]
  Resolutions reported—

  TOBACCO.
  "That, in lieu of the Duties of Customs now payable on Tobacco, there shall, on and after
  928
  the sixteenth day of May, one thousand eight hundred and ninety-eight, be charged, levied, and paid upon Tobacco imported into Great Britain or Ireland the Duties following (that is to say)—

  Tobacco, manufactured, viz.—

  £

  s.

  d.

  Cigars the pound

  0

  5

  0

  Cavendish or Negrohead the pound

  0

  3

  10

  Cavendish or Negrohead, manufactured in bond the pound

  0

  3

  5

  Other manufactured tobacco the pound

  0

  3

  5

  Snuff containing more than thirteen pounds of moisture in every one hundred pounds weight thereof the pound

  0

  3

  2

  Snuff not containing more than thirteen pounds of moisture in every one hundred pounds weight thereof the pound

  0

  3

  10

  Tobacco, unmanufactured, viz.—

  Containing ten pounds or more of moisture in every one hundred pounds weight thereof, the pound

  0

  2

  8

  Containing less than ten pounds of moisture in every one hundred pounds weight thereof, the pound

  0

  3

  0

  And the drawback allowed under Section 1 of The Manufactured Tobacco Act, 1863, on Tobacco exported from Great Britain or Ireland, or deposited in a bonded or Queen's warehouse, as by Law provided, shall, on or after the said sixteenth day of May, one thousand eight hundred and ninety-eight, be allowed at the rate of Two shillings and Nine-pence upon every pound weight, instead of Three shillings and Three pence as in the said section."

  INCOME TAX.
  "That Income Tax shall be charged for the year beginning the sixth day of April, one thousand eight hundred and ninety-eight, at the rate of Eight pence."

  GENERAL.
  "That it is expedient to amend the Law relating to the Customs and Inland Revenue."
  Resolutions agreed to.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. James William Lowther, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Mr. Hanbury.
  House adjourned at 12.5.