Sitting of 10 June 1881

Preamble
The House met at Two of the clock.

MINUTES.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES—Class II.—SALARIES AND EXPENSES OF CIVIL DEPARTMENTS.
Resolutions [June 9] reported.
PRIVATE BILL (by Order)—Considered as amended London and South Western Railway.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Consolidated Fund (No. 3) *.
Select Committee—Rivers Conservancy and Floods Prevention [120], nominated.
Report—-Local Government Provisional Orders (Horfield, &c.)*[166].
Considered as amended —Newspapers (Law of Libel) [5], Further Proceeding adjourned.
Third Reading —Land Tax Commissioners' Names * [126], and passed.
Withdrawn—Irish Railways Purchase * [28].

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  LONDON AND SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY BILL (by Order).

    CONSIDERATION.
    Order for Consideration read.
    Bill, as amended, considered.
    MR. CHEETHAMsaid, that in rising to move the omission of Sub-section D of Clause 4 of the Bill which sanctioned the construction of a branch of this Railway, he could only express his regret that the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Bryce), who had also given Notice of his intention to move the omission of the sub-section, was not in his place. It was thought that the Bill would be amended in certain particulars, and a prospect was held out that modifications would be made to meet some of the objections which had been urged. he ventured to think that a simple statement of the facts of the case would show at once how reasonable the opposition was that was now entertained to this part of the Bill. Great and Little Bookham Commons formed one continuous open space of about 400 acres, and were of great beauty, being well wooded, and containing several sheets of water. The proposed railway passed through the centre of the commons for a distance of nearly a mile, and the injury to these commons might be imagined from the results of similar encroachments on

    225
    the commons of Wandsworth, Barnes, and Mitcham. It was needless, in these days, to speak of the value and importance of protecting and preserving open spaces of this kind for recreation grounds. On that point there could be no higher authority than the right hon. Gentleman the late Home Secretary (Sir R. Assheton Cross). In his speech in introducing the Commons Act of 1876, the right hon. Gentleman dwelt upon the sanctity of the commons. He observed—
    "That there were a great number, such as the commons of Surrey, which no one would think of inclosing."—[3 Hansard, ccxxvii. 192.]
    And again, on the second reading of the Bill, he spoke as follows:—
    "The other object of the Bill was to prevent, as far as possible, the inclosure of commons, and to give facilities for keeping them open for the benefit of the people; so that not only those having rights in those commons should enjoy them, but that the people enjoying the use they had hitherto had of these commons might have them improved, drained, and levelled for their enjoyment. The House would remember the old rhyme—
    ' The law condemns the man and woman,
    Who steal the goose from off the common;
    But does not punish what's far worse,
    To steal the common from the goose.'
    He had no intention of stealing a common from any goose, but to give every facility for the continued user by the poor labourer, the artizan, and the dweller in large towns of that beautiful scenery which they had hitherto enjoyed, but in an improved state."—[Ibid., 543.]
    Again, in answer to a deputation of I agricultural labourers on the subject of the Bill, the right hon. Gentleman was reported to have said—
    "That he believed the practical effect of the Bill would be to put a stop to the inclosures; in fact, it was drawn with that object."
    The encroachments of the Railway Companies had done much to injure the commons of the country, and it was to be regretted that of all the interests that were represented before the Committee which sat upon this Bill that of the hundreds of thousands of artizans of the Metropolis whom it so nearly concerned should alone have been left without direct or adequate representation. He certainly thought, after the words uttered by the right hon. Gentleman the late Home Secretary, that he might venture to expect the support of hon. Members who sat on the opposite side of the House. He would venture also to hope that those who succeeded the late Government as the guardians
    226
    of the popular rights—the right hon and hon. Gentlemen who now occupied the Treasury Bench—would display a like regard for the maintenance of those rights. It was not necessary that he should apologize for the course he had taken in bringing the matter under the notice of the House. He did so mainly because the rights of the public had found no voice before the Select Committee upstairs, and because he felt that the House was under an obligation to exercise a full supervision over every measure of this kind that was brought down from a Committee. Even from the standpoint of the promoters of the Bill themselves it could not be urged that any great injury would be done to the Railway Company by asking for the abandonment of this part of the scheme. It simply authorized the construction of a branch line; which might very easily, without detriment to the interests of the Railway Company, be allowed to stand over. There could be no doubt that a little more consideration would enable the promoters so to plan their line as to prevent this spoliation of one of the most lovely of the suburban commons; and he begged, therefore, to move the omission of subsection D of Clause 4.
    Amendment proposed, in page 9, line 14, to leave out "sub-section D of Clause 4."—(Mr. Cheetham.)
    Question proposed, "That sub-section D of Clause 4 stand part of the Bill."
    MR. TILLETTwas very sorry that the hon. Member who presided over the Committee was not in his place. The Committee sat for a long time, and gave the fullest consideration to all the evidence that was brought before them. The Chairman was himself very much interested in the question of the preservation of commons, and was exceedingly anxious for their protection, and jealous of any step that might interfere with their enjoyment by the public. He was also at great pains in visiting and going over every part of the country likely to be affected by the proposed line; so that the Committee had the I advantage of consulting with his hon. Friend, and hearing the evidence that was brought forward. In regard to the commons now in question, it must be understood that the proposed railway did not affect any very beautiful or

    227
    attractive portion of the land. One part of the common was very beautiful; another part was extremely useful; but in the middle there was a swamp, the land lying low and being very wet, unprofitable, and, at times, impassable. It was through that particular part that it was proposed to construct this line of railway, and a clause was placed before the Committee by the promoters of the Bill, which placed the construction of the railway, and all proceedings in reference to it, so far as regarded this common, under the complete direction of the Secretary of State for the Home Department. That clause was carefully considered before it was adopted, and he believed it was as strong a clause as could possibly be worded. Although only a small piece of line, the proposed branch formed the connecting link between the new South Western line and Leatherhead and Epsom, and, indeed, formed a most important part of the scheme. The Committee had also before them the question of Wimbledon Common; and more than half the labours of the Committee were devoted to the consideration of the protection of these common lands. They were as anxious as any Members of that House could be that the commons should be protected in every possible way. In regard to Wimbledon Common, the hon. Member for Mid Surrey (Sir Henry Peek) attended the Committee, and told them he was perfectly satisfied with the arrangements which had been made for the protection of that common, and for those who might go upon it. The objection of the hon. Member for North Derbyshire (Mr. Cheetham) had reference to the commons of Great and Little Bookham. In regard to those commons, the Committee had before them all who were interested in their preservation; and it was represented that all, or nearly all, were in favour of the proposed line, and had made representations to that effect to the Home Secretary. Further, he might inform the House that the In-closure Commissioners, in their Report, did not condemn the line. They suggested that there might possibly be an improvement in regard to it; but it was pointed out, in confirmation of what he had said, that the line passed through an unserviceable part of the common, and that it did so in the way most conducive to the public interests. He would remind
    228
    the House that before the Bill was read a second time there was a discussion upon this part of the scheme; and no w that the Bill had come down from the Committee, if they were to enter upon a discussion of every sub-section or part of a clause contained in it, he confessed that he could not see an end to the questions that might arise upon every Bill that might be sent up to a Select Committee. The Business of the House was sufficiently overcharged already—indeed, alarmingly overcharged with pressure upon Imperial questions; and if Select Committees, sitting under a most experienced Chairman, and one who had always taken the deepest interest in the preservation of commons—such as the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Evans)—if, after sitting for nearly three weeks, patiently hearing all the evidence tendered to them, they were then to have their decision overruled by hon. Members who had had no opportunity of hearing the evidence or the arguments, or of having the able assistance and. advice of the Committee—then, he said, a blow would be struck at the proceedings of Committees which would seriously impair their efficiency and responsibility in future.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he rose, as he did the other day on a somewhat similar question affecting a Private Bill, to appeal to the House not to continue the present discussion. The Government had fixed a Morning Sitting, in all good faith that an opportunity would be afforded for making progress with the Public Business of the country; but if they were to get into the habit of re-discussing Private Bills in the House after they had been settled and determined by a very competent Committee upstairs—and nobody would say that this was not a very competent Committee—it was impossible to say what injury and delay would be occasioned to matters of Imperial importance. This was the second discussion they had had upon this Bill; and, without sinning against the Rule he asked the House to adopt, he called upon the House to set its face against the re-discussion of Private Bills of this kind, and to support the Committee in the decision which, after three weeks' patient investigation, they had arrived at.
    An hon. MEMBER said, that, as a Member of the Committee, he wished

    229
    to corroborate the statement of the hon. Member for Norwich opposite (Mr. Tillett) that the Committee were unanimous in deciding that the construction of the proposed line would be of great public advantage. He regretted the absence of the Chairman of the Committee, and hoped the House would support the decision at which the Committee had arrived.
    LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEhad no wish to prolong the discussion; but it would be unfair if the impression went abroad that his hon. Friend (Mr. Cheetham) who had raised this discussion was not fully justified in raising it, even if he abstained now from going to a division. He would certainly not press his hon. Friend to go to a division unless he was anxious to do so; but, unless they were to abandon the discussion of Private Bills altogether, he could not accept the dictum of his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. He fully admitted that the pressure upon Imperial Business was very great, even exceptionally great, and that no hon. Member ought to take upon himself, if he could possibly avoid it, the raising of a discussion upon a Private Bill. He would even go further, and say that it was un-advisable even to raise a discussion upon a public matter unless it was absolutely necessary. But the inclosure of common land in this particular case was proposed to be carried out in a manner so detrimental to the interests of the public that he thought his hon. Friend was fully justified in entering a protest against the Bill. Considering what the nature of the last Report of the Committee of that House was in regard to the inclosure of commons, no blame could attach to his hon. Friend for calling the attention of the House to the question. But after what had fallen from the Home Secretary, he would appeal to his hon. Friend not to divide the House; and he made the appeal chiefly from this reason—that the time could not be far distant when the Report of the Inclosure Commissioners would come up for consideration, and then the whole question might be gone into. Not only were the Railway Companies becoming more encroaching and oppressive in this respect every day, but the ordinary law with regard to the inclosure of commons in the country was being carried out in a manner most injurious to the interests
    230
    of the populations of our large towns; He thought it would be desirable to consider at some early day whether the Standing Orders of the House might not be amended, so as to give the public a locus standi when the rights of common lands were affected. At the same time, in regard to the present Bill, he would advise his hon. Friend not to divide the House.
    MR. CHEETHAMbegged to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendments made.
    Bill to be read the third time.

QUESTIONS.

  NAVY—FRESH MEAT RATIONS.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether he can now state at what decision the Board of Admiralty have arrived respecting the landing of fresh meat rations from Her Majesty's ships?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, the Admiralty have decided upon allowing such married men and others as the captains in Her Majesty's ships in the home ports may deem deserving of the indulgence to take on shore a portion of their rations, fresh meat included, for consumption in their own homes; but no article liable to duty is to be landed. The regulations by which the concession will be governed will be issued without delay?

  CENTRAL ASIA—RUSSIAN ADVANCES—THE TRANS-CASPIAN TERRITORT.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the Czar has by Imperial Ukase incorporated in the Russian Empire the whole Country of the Tekke Turcomans, including Askabad, the furthest part of General Skobeleff's advance, notwithstanding the assurances of his Government that Russia did not intend to annex but merely to punish, the Turcomans; that this country is being colonised by Cossack and Russian immigrants, and that the railway from the Caspian towards Herat is being rapidly advanced; that a deputation of Turcoman leaders is at present at St. Petersburg, and has promised fidelity and

  231
  military service to the Czar, thus securing for Russia the aid of some 60,000 of the finest cavalry in the world; and, that negotiations are in progress to secure the submission of the Turcomans of Merv also?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Sir, an Imperial Ukase has been issued announcing the annexation to the Russian Empire of the territory of the Tekke Turcomans, occupied by the Russian troops, under the name of "Trans-Caspian territory." Her Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires at St. Petersburg has been informed that the territory thus described is the "Teke Oasis;" but we have no precise information as to its limits, or as to its being colonized. The last information we have received as to the progress of the Trans-Caspian railway was taken from a telegram from Krasnovodsk, published in The Golos, and dated April 19. It stated that the railway had been completed for a distance of 108 versts, and would reach Kagandchik by the middle of May. It appears that a deputation of Tekke Turcomans arrived at St. Petersburg on the 27th of May. They were accompanied by a Turcoman of Merv, who is stated to have come only with the object of seeing the capital of Russia, and reporting what he saw to his countrymen. We have no information as to negotiations being in progress to secure the submission of the Merv Turcomans.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTasked whether the whole of the Tekke Turcoman territory was included in the annexation?
  MR. E. STANHOPEasked whether it would be possible to have a map placed in the Library showing the territory annexed?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, that at present the Government did not know what the exact limits of the district were. When they did, no doubt a map could, with the assistance of the Intelligence Department of the War Office, be prepared.

  SOUTH AFRICA—CONVICTION OF A ZULU FOR HIGH TREASON.
  MR. R. N. FOWLERasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether he is aware that Solinye, one of the Zulu prisoners convicted of high treason at Pietermaritzburg, was a subject of the Zulu King; whether his
  232
  attention has been called to the fact that on the trial the judge expressed grave doubts as to whether Solinye was amenable to British Law; and, whether he will ask the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown on the subject?
  MR. GRANT DUFF: I am aware, Sir, that Solinye was once a subject of the Zulu King; but evidence was given at the trial that he had resided for three years in the Colony, and had become amenable to British law. I know that the Judge expressed some doubts as to the point of allegiance. In answer to my hon. Friend's third Question, I have to say that the Law Officers may have to be consulted; but we should require more evidence than we have as to the state of facts before we had materials enough to submit to them. I told my hon. Friend, however, long ago, that we were only waiting for rather calmer times in South Africa to take final action as to the cases of all these raiders.

  NAVY—THE TROOPSHIP "NEMESIS."
  VISCOUNT NEWPORTasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether it has come to the knowledge of the Admiralty that the troop ship "Nemesis "broke down between this Country and the Cape upon several occasions, one of which was when crossing "the line," that her boilers were in an unsafe condition, that her fittings were rotten, that she ran short of provisions and water, and that, so great were the inconveniences and privations on board, that the troops eventually had to be transferred to the "Calabria" to finish the voyage?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, no Report has been received from the Consul at St. Vincent. There is no doubt, as I stated a month ago, that the Nemesis made an unsuccessful voyage. As far as the ship herself is concerned, there is no stronger merchant ship afloat; but the repairs done to her boilers by the owners were apparently defective, and the boilers leaked when the voyage was about half through. The fittings were new, and precisely the same as were supplied by the Transport Department to all the other transports. She was victualled for 50 days, in addition to having seven or eight days' fresh provisions on board. No Report has been received from the commander of the vessel or the commander of the troops that provisions and water had run short;

  233
  and it is unlikely that there should be scarcity of water, because the ship put into Madeira before should have run short. It was not in consequence of inconvenience or privation that the troops were transferred to the Calabria, because no Report of that kind had been received; but the order was sent out from the Admiralty in consequence of the ship having made such a bad passage owing to the leakage in her boilers. Pains had been taken to ascertain that there were no defects in the vessel before she started; and the defect was of a kind that could not be ascertained.
  VISCOUNT NEWPORTasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he can state to the House the exact number of horses that died on board the "Nemesis," and also on board the other vessels that conveyed cavalry to the Cape?
  MR. CHILDERS: In reply to the noble Lord, I have to state that the number of horses that died in the Nemesis was 39, and in the other vessels 51, including two mules.

  POLICE EXPENDITURE—INCREASE OF COST.
  SIR BALDWYN LEIGHTONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether, in view of the great difference of opinion as to the causes of the increase in the cost of police, he would take steps to obtain a report from the different police authorities as to such causes; and, if so, whether he would consider further what steps might be taken to make such information public or accessible?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Sir, I doubt whether there is much room for inquiry in connection with this matter. I have received a Return showing the increase in the cost of the police outside the Metropolis. The increase from 1879 to 1880 was less than £23,000 upon a total cost of £1,850,000; and it appears to me to be proportionate to the increase of the population. I doubt very much whether there is anything in the increase in the cost of the police outside the Metropolis which calls for any special inquiry. If the hon. Member should require it, I shall be very willing to lay Papers upon the Table showing the increase in the cost of the police, and the increase in the numbers of the force.

  LAND LAW (IRELAND) BILL— " URGENCY."
  MR. O'KELLYasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, in view of the state of Ireland resulting from the enforcement of existing Laws by the Military forces of the Empire, it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to demand urgency for the Land Bill, and so shorten the period of dangerous tension which must elapse before the remedial measures proposed by Government can come into operation?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, the hon. Member will excuse me for guarding myself against being supposed to assent to the proposition that the state of Ireland results from the enforcement of the law by the Military Forces of the Crown. That may be the opinion of the hon. Member, but I do not share in it. I should be disposed to attribute it to other causes. As to his Question whether it is the intention of the Government to demand "urgency" for the Land Bill, I have to remind the hon. Member that the House has kindly consented to take Morning Sittings on Tuesdays and Fridays, for the purpose of carrying on the discussions on that Bill. If we are more fortunate than we have hitherto been in avoiding an enormous and unprecedented multiplication of Questions, and Motions for the adjournment of the House, there ought to be a considerable time at the disposal of the House for the prosecution of the measure referred to by the hon. Member. At the same time, our estimate of the importance of the Bill, and the necessity of carrying it forward, is in no way abated, and it might possibly become our duty to make fresh proposals to the House.
  SIR, EARDLEY WILMOTasked the Prime Minister, Whether there was any truth in the statement which had appeared in some of the morning papers that, with the view of expediting the progress of the Irish Land Bill through Parliament, portions of the Bill were to be abandoned?
  MR. GLADSTONE: None whatever, Sir.

  POST OFFICE (TELEGRAPH DEPARTMENT)—THE CLERKS.
  MR. MACLIVERasked the Post- master General, If there is any ground for the complaint that the privileges pro-

  235
  vided by the Acts of 1868 and 1876 have been withheld from the telegraph clerks; and, whether it is intended to place them in the position to which, according to the opinion given by the Attorney General on the 19th of May, they are legally entitled?
  MR. FAWCETT: Sir, in reply to the hon. Member I have to state that, so far as I am aware, no privileges to which the telegraphists are entitled have been withheld from them, nor is it intended that any privileges to which they are entitled should in future be withheld from them. In order to prevent a misapprehension which may arise from the reference contained in the hon. Member's Question to an answer given by the Attorney General some time since, I think it is well to say that I have the authority of my hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General to state that in the answer to which reference has been made he never for one moment intended to convey the idea that the telegraphists were entitled to any legal rights which they have not enjoyed.
  MR. LABOUCHEREasked the Postmaster General, Whether overtime is compulsory in the Telegraph Department; and, whether he will define the legal status, rights, and privileges of the telegraph clerks—those transferred from the Companies; those irregularly appointed; those appointed since the last day of 1876?
  MR. FAWCETT: Sir, I think it will be obvious to the House that in the Telegraph Service there must occasionally be an exceptional pressure of work, when, for instance, unusually long Parliamentary debates or important political demonstrations have to be reported. Unless a staff were maintained which for ordinary purposes would be redundant, it is evident that when there is this pressure of work it can only be got through by some of the telegraphists being employed overtime. It often happens that a sufficient number of volunteers are found for the overtime work which is required; but when this is not the case the course which is adopted at the Central Office is to select by ballot the number required to work overtime. In reply to a Question addressed to me on a former occasion, I stated that I was very desirous that the amount of overtime work should be no greater than is rendered necessary by the requirements of
  236
  the Service; and in order to effect this, among other objects, I have already submitted certain proposals to the Treasury. With regard to the latter part of the Question, I am sure my hon. Friend will see that an inquiry involving considerations of legal status would be most fittingly addressed to the Law Officers of the Crown.
  MR. LABOUCHEREasked the Secretary to the Treasury, When the scheme relating to the telegraph clerks, which the Postmaster General has already stated is in the hands of the Treasury, will be issued?
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH: My right hon. Friend the Postmaster General communicated tome unofficially certain preliminary proposals for the improvement of the position of the telegraphists towards the close of last month. I have since been in constant communication with him with the object of arriving at the best settlement of a question which is of great importance, both from the number of persons affected by it and the serious financial considerations involved. I can only assure my hon. Friend that we are anxious to arrive at such a settlement with as little delay as the difficulty and complexity of the subject will allow, and that it is intended by my right hon. Friend to issue the scheme as soon as it is definitely settled and sanctioned by the Treasury. In order to prevent injury to individuals from such unavoidable delay as may still occur, it is proposed that the scheme, when adopted, shall take effect from the 1st of April last.

  TREATY OF BERLIN—BULGARIA.
  MR. LABOUCHEREasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the statement in the public journals is correct that the First Lord of the Treasury has forwarded a letter to M. Zancoff, one of the leaders of the Constitutionalists in Bulgaria, expressing his sympathy with them in their endeavours to sustain the Constitution of their Country; whether there is any truth in the report that the Russian Government is sending officers and arms to Bulgaria to aid Prince Alexander in an attempt to subvert the Constitution which he had sworn to obey; and, whether any confirmation has been received by Her Majesty Government of the publication of a note in the Russian

  237
  Official Gazette, in which it is stated that—
  "The Russian Government desires the Bulgarian nation, placing confidence in the loyal words of the Prince, should remain faithfully united to him, and oppose the instigations of ambitious agitators who may plunge the Country into anarchy involving its ruin;"
  and, if so, whether Her Majesty's Government intends to communicate to the Bulgarian Constitutionalists that this appreciation of the confidence to be placed in the loyal words of the Prince, and of the results of their efforts to maintain the Constitution, is not shared in by Her Majesty's Government as one of the signatories of the Treaty of Berlin?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Sir, the first portion of my hon. Friend's Question should be addressed to the Prime Minister. Her Majesty's Government have received no such information as that referred to, respecting the despatch of Russian officers and arms to Bulgaria; and, with regard to the last Question, I can only repeat that Her Majesty's Government have not been called upon to express any opinion as to the recent events in that country so far as the main portion of the case is concerned.
  MR. LABOUCHEREasked the First Lord of the Treasury whether he would answer the first part of the Question?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, a short time ago M. Zankoff addressed a letter to me on the state of affairs in Bulgaria; but it was not an official letter, audit did not draw forth an official reply. I had the pleasure of making that gentleman's acquaintance in 1876, and he therefore was quite entitled to write to me. The substance of my answer—I am quoting from memory—was that we had not received sufficient information to enable me to form a judgment on what was meditated in Bulgaria. I added, however, that the prepossession of the British Government must always be in favour of order, legality, and liberty. We have since received further information; but it will require elucidation before an opinion can be expressed upon it.

  AFRICA (WEST)—THE GOLD COAST.
  COLONEL DAWNAYasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether, in consequence of the serious mortality prevailing amongst the West Indian regi-
  238
  ments stationed on the Gold Coast, resulting in a great and unnecessary sacrifice of valuable lives, Her Majesty's Government will consider the advisability of abandoning Cape Coast Castle as a military station, and removing the West Coast garrison to St. Helena?
  MR. CHILDERS: Sir, I need hardly assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman that the troops recently sent to Cape Coast will not have been kept there longer than necessary for the special circumstances of the threatened war, and orders have been already given to reduce the force. But to speak of the mortality there as "a great sacrifice of valuable lives "is a somewhat exaggerated expression. Though there has been much sickness, as is always the case at this time of year, the entire mortality was one European officer and three men of the West India Regiments, according to Colonel Justice's last Report. It would not be possible to abandon Cape Coast Castle altogether as a military station, if the Colony is to be preserved; but Colonel Justice reports that both officers and men quartered in the Castle have been in fairly good health. The sickness has been among the troops quartered outside the Castle in the town.
  SIR HENRY HOLLANDinquired, whether it was intended to establish a sanatorium on the Gold Coast?
  MR. CHILDERS: I do not think any Question on the subject has come before me since I have held Office. If, however, the Question is put again, I will endeavour to answer it.

  ARMY (AUXILIARY FORCES)—THE VOLUNTEER FORCE—MEDALS OR BADGES.
  MR. ANDREW GRANTasked the Secretary of State for War, If he will consider the desirability of signalising the approaching Royal Reviews of the Volunteers of England and Scotland by conferring a medal or badge on all Volunteers who can show continuous service in the Volunteer Force from the date of its enrolment, twenty-two years ago, till the present time?
  MR. CHILDERS: No, Sir; this suggestion has been considered; but it is not, in my opinion, expedient to adopt it. A star is already worn for every year's efficient service.

  LAW AND POLICE—ATTEMPT TO BLOW UP THE LIVERPOOL TOWN HALL.
  MR. ARTHUR ARNOLD: As I do not see any of the hon. Members for Liverpool in their places, and as I represent a neighbouring town, perhaps I may be allowed to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he has received any information as to the report of an explosion at the Town Hall at Liverpool?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Sir, I have received a telegram from the Mayor of Liverpool, dated 12.25 this afternoon. It is to the following effect:—
  "At 4 o'clock this morning a police-constable on duty discovered a lighted fuse close to the side door of the Town Hall, perceiving at the same time two men apparently watching. The constable followed them, giving the alarm to a brother officer of what he had seen at the Town Hall. The second officer proceeded to the Town Hall and saw a package having the appearance of a sailor's bag, with something making a fizzing noise inside. He began to open the outside cover, but, finding it smoking and very heavy, lie dragged it into the centre of the roadway and, becoming alarmed, he left it there. He had not got more than ten yards when it exploded with a loud report, breaking the windows of the Town Hall and the windows opposite, and destroying a piece of the iron palisade, some pieces of the bomb passing over the buildings and breaking the windows in the adjoining streets. Pieces of iron picked up showed that the bomb was of the same material as was used in the attempt made lately on the police-station. The first policeman followed the two men, and, with assistance, captured them. Both were armed with loaded revolvers. Both are Irishmen, and one has recently arrived from America."

  STATE OF IRELAND—DISTURBANCES AT CLONMEL.
  LORD EUSTACE CECIL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, Whether he is now in a position to contradict the very alarming statements which have appeared in some newspapers with reference to the conduct of the troops stationed at Clonmel?
  MR. CHILDERS: May I ask if this is the Question put on the Paper by the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell)?
  LORD EUSTACE CECIL: No, Sir: I meant to have asked a Question after the hon. Member for the City of Cork had addressed his Question.
  MR. CHILDERS: I can answer the Question of the hon. Member for the City of Cork if, in his absence, any hon.
  240
  Member will put the Question which is on the Paper.
  MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHY (for Mr. PARNELL)asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether his attention has been drawn to the following paragraph in the "Freeman's Journal "of June 1st:—
  "The military, consisting of about 100 Hussars, drafted from Cahir and Fethard, and about 100 men of the 48th Foot, and a large number of constabulary, were drawn up in military order in Nelson Street. A small excited crowd, consisting of about two dozen persona, men, women, and children, were standing on the footpath at the corner of Nelson Street, listening to the advice of the Rev. Mr. Byrne, of Clonmel, when suddenly an order was given to the Hussars to charge. The company charged the unarmed crowd full speed on the footpath, slashing their swords in an unmerciful manner. Some of the soldiers' horses fell in the charge, and the people had to seek refuge in shops, private houses, hotels, &c. The troops again came charging back through the town. While coming through Dublin Street stones were thrown from the windows, and the military had to take refuge in the barracks. The shops had to be closed, and business was absolutely suspended. I am unable to give an accurate account of the number of the wounded, having to fly for protection to Hearne's Hotel myself;"
  and, whether it contains a correct account of what took place?
  MR. CHILDERS: Sir, the hon. Member for the City of Cork does not state where the occurrence described by the extract from The Freeman's Journal took place; but I find that it was at Clonmel. The narrative is altogether inaccurate; and, perhaps, I had better read the official Report from Colonel Foster, commanding the troops, which I have every reason to believe is correct:—
  " At about 1 p.m. on the 31st ult. three side streets in Clonmel were occupied by two officers and 40 men of the 20th Hussars, and two officers and 100 men of the 48th Regiment. While there stones and other missiles were freely thrown by the mob, which consisted of some hundreds, into the ranks of the infantry, one man of the 48th being hit on the head with a piece of iron and knocked down senseless. This piece of iron was taken possession of by the captain commanding- the party of that regiment. After the lapse of about three hours the crowd became so riotous that Captain Slack, Resident Magistrate of Carrick, told him (the officer in charge) that the cavalry should mount, as their services might be required immediately. A few minutes afterwards Captain Slack gave instructions that the cavalry should clear the streets, on which the officer commanding the detachment of Hussars was directed to send an officer and half his men for this purpose, which he did. In the meantime a constable had been much injured, and Colonel Carew, R.M., gave

  241
  instructions to move some of the infantry into Nelson Street in front of the Court House. The detachment of cavalry, after clearing the street, took up a position in Nelson Street, with the infantry and a body of constabulary. Large stones were being so continuously thrown by the mob that the constabulary charged them, and, after a little delay, there being no cessation to the stone-throwing, by which men and horses were being injured, Colonel Carew gave instructions that the cavalry should again clear the street; and, on their return, seeing the very turbulent state of the populace, he suggested that the remainder of the infantry in garrison, who were then in barracks, should be turned out, as it appeared that their services would be required; but the proceedings at the Court House having terminated, the gentlemen of the Emergency Committee were escorted to barracks, and it was not necessary to send out any reinforcements. The detachment of cavalry, consisting of about half the mounted force employed on that day, when leaving barracks at Clonmel, on their return to Fethard, at about 9.45 p.m. the same evening, were assailed by a volley of stones from a mob who had taken up a position behind a wall and in the street, one of the Hussars was knocked off his horse, and a horse was so injured that he had to be left behind."
  MR. TOTTENHAM: Are we to understand that there is no foundation whatever in fact for the Question which was put on the Paper?
  MR. CHILDERS: I have already stated that the narrative is altogether inaccurate. The Report was called for in order that I might be able to state the precise circumstances of the case.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: Has the Government received any information as to the serious riot which has occurred, and is reported to be still in progress, at Cork?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOE IRELAND (Mr. LAW): I have not yet received any Report on the subject. I may remind the hon. Member that, owing to the telegraph, information appears in the London newspapers as soon as it reaches the Castle in Dublin.
  MR. RITCHIE: Is the House to understand that the Attorney General for Ireland, having seen the very serious news which came from Ireland in the morning papers, has made no inquiry whether the reports are true or untrue?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOE IRELAND (Mr. LAW): Sir, we receive, in the course of the day, telegraphic accounts of any occurrences happening in Ireland of a serious character. I have not yet received to-day's Report; but when it does come I expect to find that the reports of occurrences which appear
  242
  in the papers this morning are just as much exaggerated as some of those which previously appeared.
  MR. RITCHIE: That is not an answer to my Question. I asked if no inquiries had been made as to the correctness or incorrectness of the accounts in the papers of this morning?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW): If the hon. Member thinks my answer not sufficiently explicit, I beg to say that I have not asked for information, because if anything serious has occurred, I expect, as usual, to receive information about it in the course of the day.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.
  SUPPLY—considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)

  SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.

    CLASS II.—SALARIES AND EXPENSES OF CIVIL DEPARTMENTS.
    (1.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £33,182, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1882, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Offices of the House of Lords."
    MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDsaid, there was a Motion upon the Paper with reference to this Vote standing in the name of his hon. Friend the Member for Southwark (Mr. Thorold Rogers.) He (Mr. Arthur Arnold) had no intention, nor did he believe any other hon. Member had any intention of taking up that Motion, of which the object was to reduce the Vote by the sum of £1,500, being the salary of Colonel Talbot, the Serjeant at Arms in attendance upon the Lord Chancellor. He wished, however, to put a question to the Secretary to the Treasury in reference to the electioneering matters with which Colonel Talbot had been conspicuously concerned. The matter he referred to related to the election for the City of Oxford, and he desired to know whether there had been any expression of the displeasure of the Executive concerning the connection of Colonel Talbot with that election. Although he did not intend to move a reduction of the Vote by

    243
    the amount of Colonel Talbot's salary, he certainly thought it a most unbecoming thing for an officer of the House of Lords to interfere in any way with electioneering matters, either in Oxford or anywhere else; and he believed the Committee would learn with satisfaction that there had been some official expression of displeasure in this matter.
    LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHdid not think that it was the duty of the Treasury to express any opinion upon the conduct of an officer of the House of Lords. He wished to remind the ton. Member for Salford (Mr. Arnold) that until a recent period the salary of the officers of the House of Lords were paid out of the fee funds of that House; but, in accordance with a new rule, an arrangement had been come to by which the House of Lords surrendered that fund on condition that the salary of all their officers should be placed upon the Estimates. He did not think it would be a good return for that concession on the part of the House of Lords if the Treasury were now to take upon themselves the duty of passing an opinion upon the conduct of one of the officers of that House. Still, further, be was assured by his hon, and learned Friend the Attorney General that a reference to the Report of the Oxford Commissioners would show the hon. Member for Salford that no action was required on the part of the Government.
    SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, that there was not the slightest ground for any representation to the House of Lords, or for inflicting a reprimand on Colonel Talbot.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked for an explanation in reference to an item in the Vote for Exchequer extra receipts, and also for some information in regard to the invested fee fund of the House of Lords, out of which the retiring allowances of the officers of that House were paid. He wished to know if the noble Lord the Secretary to the Treasury could inform the Committee what was the amount of that invested fee fund; the amount of interest received from it; what was the particular appropriation of that interest, and whether there was any Parliamentary Paper which gave any information with, regard to it? There was another question he wished to put in regard to pensions. He found in the Report of the Comp-
    244
    troller and Auditor General a statement that the pensions of ex-Lord Chancellors would be found in Vote 3, Class III. He had looked in vain through that Vote to find any account of the kind, and all he could find was that the pensions were referred to in Class VI., Vote 1. He had carefully examined that Vote, and he failed to find any charge of £ 1,500 upon the invested fee fund; and he therefore asked the noble Lord to assist him, as otherwise it would be practically impossible to check the total charge for these Services. He hoped the noble Lord would be able to enable the Committee to come to a complete understanding in regard to the various items of the Vote.
    LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, the amount of the fee fund was £14,000, and the interest upon it was annually returned at £420. With respect to the Comptroller and Auditor General's Report, he could only say that his attention had not been called to any error in the Report; but he would make inquiry and inform the hon. Gentleman where he could find the information he wanted.
    MR. BIGGARsaid, that on page 71 he saw a reference to two officers of the House of Lords. He had no wish to attack either of them. He believed that both of them were efficient and useful officers. One of them was the Usher of the Black Rod, and he saw that Sir William Knollys received the payment of £1,000 a-year as honorary colonel of a regiment. From the same Vote it appeared that one of the door-keepers received £300 for acting in that capacity, and that he was also entitled to a retiring pension of £100 a-year from some other office; but during the time he held the posision of door-keeper in the House of Lords the pension was suspended. There was, therefore, an important discrepancy in the two cases. In the one case one official received two payments, while in the other, although the claim was certainly more substantial than for holding the honorary colonelcy of a regiment, the pension was suspended as long as the salary of door-keeper was enjoyed. He wished to know whether, in the opinion of the Government, it was not advisable to have one system of payment in all cases?
    LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHhad no doubt the real fact of the case

    245
    was that that the door-keeper was entitled to a pension from some other office, which brought him under the ordinary rule by which pensions were suspended in the case of officers receiving direct salaries. It was the usual custom, in all such cases, to hold the pension in abeyance. With regard to the Black Rod, he was not aware of the circumstance under which Sir William Knollys continued to receive the allowance of £1,000 a-year; but he presumed that that allowance was not regarded as a pension. Sir William Knollys was the honorary colonel of a regiment, and as such was entitled to the pay of a colonel.
    MR. HINDE PALMERremarked that the Lord Chancellor was paid in two ways. He received one salary of £4,000, and in addition to that sum there was a charge of £6,000 a-year in the Consolidated Fund in respect to the Lord Chancellor's Office as Lord Chancellor. Now, of late years, the Lord Chancellor seldom, or ever, sat in the Court of Chancery as Lord Chancellor at all, and on several occasions some inconvenience had been experienced inconsequence. At the present moment, for instance, from a cause which they all lamented, there was a vacancy in the Lord Justices' Court, and it became desirable that the Lord Chancellor should take turns in sitting with the Lord Justices as a Court of Appeal. The Lord Chancellor's duty as Lord Chancellor, as far as a Court of Chancery was concerned, had almost become a sinecure in reference to the number of days he sat there. When this Vote was last before the House, he (Mr. Hinde Palmer) had a Return from the Judicial Statistics showing the very few occasions in which the Lord Chancellor had sat at all in the capacity of Lord Chancellor. He merely mentioned the circumstance because he thought it was desirable, if possible, consistently with his other duties, that the Lord Chancellor should take his turn with the Lords Justices in the Court of Appeal. He was happy to see that the present Lord Chancellor, since he held the Office, had taken the opportunity of more fully complying with the position of Lord Chancellor, and had frequently acted as Judge of the Appellate Court. He (Mr. Hinde Palmer) had felt it his duty to make these observations, because he saw that there was a
    246
    sum of £6,000 additional secured upon the Consolidated Fund for the Office of Lord Chancellor.
    MR. FINIGANwished to know what was contemplated by this fee fund, and what was the object with which it was paid into Her Majesty's Treasury? He did not find that the whole of the fees received by the House of Lords were, as a matter of fact, paid into the Treasury; and he wished to know why the sum which was kept back, and which amounted to about £2,000, was not paid into the Treasury in the way in which the ordinary fees were?
    LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, he presumed that the invested fee fund consisted of the accumulated balances of the fees received in former years. These fees were invested for the payment of the expenses of the House of Lords. An arrangement, as he had already said, had been made with the House of Lords by which that House gave up their fees, and the salaries of the officers of the House were charged in the Estimates.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, that one hon. Member—the Member for Stoke-upon-Trent (Mr. Woodall)—had placed a Motion upon the Paper for the reduction of that Vote by the sum of £200, being the salary of the Secretary to the Lord Great Chamberlain. He (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) found that last year the Comptroller and Auditor General directed special attention to that charge, and to some correspondence which took place in regard to it between Mr. Treherne and Sir William Rose. It was a matter which certainly ought to be ventilated in the House of Commons, if only for the sake of the officer referred to. The first letter was from the Exchequer and Audit Department, and was dated the 9th December, 1880, and ran as follows:—
    "In your cash account of the House of Lords for the quarter to 30th June last, a sum of £50 is charged as a payment to the Hon. "W. H. P. Carington, for salary as Secretary to the Lord Great Chamberlain. I am directed by the Comptroller and Auditor General to request that you will be good enough to inform him if this gentleman is the Lieutenant Colonel the Hon. W. H. P. Carington, who is stated in The London Gazette, of 2nd April last, as a Member returned to serve in the Parliament summoned to be holden at Westminster on the 20th April, 1880, for the Borough of Chepping Wycombe. If this should be the case, I am to inquire whether this payment is, in your opi-

    247
    nion, as accounting officer, one that can be properly charged to the Vote for the House of Lords, having regard to the Act of Parliament 6 Anne, c. 41, s. 24."
    The answer which the Comptroller and Auditor General received was scarcely satisfactory. Sir William Rose acknowledged the receipt of the letter, and went on to say that he believed Lieutenant Colonel Carington, the Secretary, was Lieutenant Colonel Carington of the Grenadier Guards, who was returned Member for Chepping Wycombe at the last General Election. The letter proceeded to say—
    "The salary of £200 per annum attached to this office appear to have been sanctioned by the Treasury in 1855, and paid by that Department together with the salaries of the Chairman of Committees and his Council, Serjeant-at-Arms, and extra door-keepers, until 1868, when, in consequence of the Treasury refusing to continue such payments, the matter was brought before the Parliament Office Committee, and the Committee directed the Clerk of the Parliaments by Resolutions, copies of which are inclosed herewith, to prepare a detailed statement and estimate of 'the salaries and expenses relating to the House of Lords;' and the expenses of the Lord Great Chamberlain's Department, including the salary in question, appears in the Civil Service Estimates laid before Parliament in 1869, and has been continued in the Estimates down to the present time. The appointment of the Secretary is in the Lord Great Chamberlain or Deputy. He is not of my establishment, nor in any respect under my control. The statute 6 Anne, c. 41 (in the ordinary editions, 6 Anne, c. 7), s. 24, referred to, imposes certain disabilities, and your inquiry is whether, in my judgment, it is applicable to the office in question. The answer to this appears to me to affect the status of a Member of the other House of Parliament, and any such question is, I apprehend, to be decided by the House of Commons. Under these circumstances, I must submit that any further inquiries should be addressed to the Deputy Lord Great Chamberlain rather than to myself; and I certainly do not feel called upon to give any opinion upon the construction of a statute which eventually might have to be decided by the other branch of the Legislature."
    This letter would show that this was a matter which ought to be brought before the notice of the House of Commons. The Comptroller and Auditor General replied to that letter in these words—
    "I have, in the first place, to observe that your opinion was requested, not upon a construction of a statute, but upon the propriety of a payment which you, as accounting officer, had charged to a Vote which you were responsible for administering within the limits of the Estimates and authorities relating thereto. I am to remind you that, as accounting officer of the Vote under the provision of the Exchequer and Audit Act, the Comptroller and
    248
    Auditor General can only look to you to supply him with any information necessary to substantiate charges in your account. He, therefore, does not feel himself justified in accepting your suggestion that he should apply to the Deputy Lord Great Chamberlain on the subject."
    He thought everybody would admit that the Comptroller and Auditor General was right in the course he took. His reply elicited another letter as unsatisfactory as the first. It was as follows, and was dated Parliament Office, House of Lords, 11th January, 1881:—
    " I am directed by the Clerk of Parliaments to acknowledge the receipt of your letter, No. 1723, dated 24th December, 1880, referring to his letter of 20th December, to Mr. Treherne, on the subject of a payment to the Hon. Lieutenant Colonel Carington, from the Vote for the Expenses of the Offices of the House of Lords, in which you state that 'the only matter upon which the Comptroller and Auditor General feels it necessary to trouble you further has reference to the concluding paragraph in which you submit that any further inquiries should be addressed to the Deputy Lord Chamberlain rather than to yourself, and that you certainly do not feel called upon to give any opinion upon the construction of a statute which eventually might have to be decided by the other branch of the Legislature,' and you proceed to state that the opinion of the Clerk of Parliaments was not required upon the construction of a statute, but 'upon the propriety of a payment which you, as accounting officer, had charged to a Vote which you were responsible for administering within the limits of the Estimates and authorities relating thereto.'"
    Mr. Treherne's letter, after inquiring whether the Hon. Lieutenant Colonel Carington, the Lord Great Chamberlain's Secretary, was the hon. Lieutenant Colonel Carington, the Member for Chepping Wycombe, proceeded—
    ''If this should be the case, I am to inquire whether this payment is, in your opinion, as accounting officer, one that can be properly charged to the Vote for the House of Lords, having regard to the Act of Parliament, 6 Anne, c. 41, s. 24? The Clerk of the Parliaments was and is still of opinion that this inquiry can only be answered by giving an opinion upon the construction of the clause referred to. You remind the Clerk of the Parliaments of his duty as accounting officer, and that the Comptroller and Auditor General can only look to him to supply him with information necessary to substantiate charges in his account. The Clerk of the Parliaments was called upon, not merely for information, but for an opinion. The Clerk of the Parliaments, in his letter to Mr. Treherne referred to, stated the grounds upon which the payment in question is included in the Estimates of the House of Lords, and as the Comptroller and Auditor General does not require any further information on the subject, the Clerk of the Parliaments presumes that he is

    249
    satisfied with the explanation, and that the Clerk of the Parliaments has duly discharged his duty as accounting officer, and has afforded the Comptroller and Auditor General the information necessary to substantiate the charge in his account. I am further directed to acquaint you that the Clerk of the Parliaments is ready to furnish any further information which may be required, and which belongs to his Department; but, with reference to the gentleman who may be acting as Secretary, this is a matter that rests entirely with the Lord Great Chamberlain, or his Deputy, to whom upon this particular point the Clerk of the Parliaments begs again to refer the Comptroller and Auditor General."
    It would appear that that officer distinctly refused to express any opinion as to the propriety of a charge which he himself made in his capacity of accounting officer. He appeared to decline to go into the question submitted to him by the Comptroller and Auditor General, and that officer very properly declined to continue the correspondence, but referred to the matter as one which ought to be dealt with by the House of Commons. The hon. Member for Stoke-upon-Trent (Mr. Woodall) had given Notice of his intention to move the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £200, the amount of the salary of Colonel Carington; but the hon. Member had not brought that Motion forward. It had, however, been upon the Paper for some time, and must have been brought to the notice of the hon. and gallant Member for Wycombe (Colonel Carington) and his friends, and it was only right that the noble Lord the Secretary to the Treasury should have an opportunity of offering some explanation upon the matter.
    SIR HENRY HOLLANDsaid, that, as Chairman of the Committee of Public Accounts, he hoped to be allowed to make a few observations. The hon. Member for Queen's County (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) was quite right in bringing the question before the Committee; but it appeared to him (Sir Henry Holland) that the hon. Member had read to very little purpose the long correspondence which had passed between the Comptroller and Auditor General and Sir William Rose, if he did not go a step further and show the state of facts brought out by the Public Accounts Committee, so as to enable the House, if it was desirous of doing so, to express an opinion upon the whole question. Now, the Public Accounts Committee did not consider that it was within the scope of
    250
    their duties to offer any opinion upon the legal question; but they thought it only fair and just to an hon. Member of that House to give him an opportunity, when the case was brought before them by the Comptroller and Auditor General, of appearing before the Committee, so that the Committee might hear what he had to say. Colonel Carington came before the Committee, and handed in a Memorandum, which, with the permission of the Committee, he (Sir Henry Holland) would read, because it embodied the whole case. The Memorandum was dated 8th March, 1881, and was as follows:—
    "I am advised, and submit to the Committee, that the position which I occupy as Secretary to the Lord Great Chamberlain does not bring me within the disqualification created by the 6th of Anne, c. 41, for I hold no office of profit under the Crown. I am appointed by and solely under the Deputy Lord Great Chamberlain. My appointment is in no way submitted to the Crown for approval or rejection. Even the Lord Great Chamberlain holds no office of profit from or under the Crown. It is an hereditary freehold office, held by descent, and not by appointment. The creation of my position appears to proceed from the Lord Great Chamberlain requiring assistance in the performance of his duties, and so establishing an office in which was located a Secretary. Originally the whole expenses of such office amounted to £210 per annum, of which the Secretary received £100, since raised to £200. The annual expenditure was, in the first instance, defrayed by the Great Chamberlain, and repaid by a Treasury grant. The fact that the salary of the Secretary is voted by Parliament cannot cause me to be regarded as holding an office of profit under the Crown. The Estimates are full of instances (such as Judges, Marshals, or Gaol Chaplains) where persons performing public services are paid through a Parliamentary Vote; but yet no office of profit under the Crown is held by them."
    The Memorandum began with the words "I am advised." He thought it desirable to know whether the hon. and gallant Member had been advised by counsel, and in answer to a question upon that point, the hon. and gallant Member stated that he had been advised by counsel, and, he (Sir Henry Holland) believed, by a very eminent counsel, on the whole matter. As it was not for the Committee to offer an opinion upon a point of law, they reported that it was beyond the powers intrusted to the Committee to express an opinion upon the question. They added in their Report that they had considered it desirable to call Colonel Carington before them, in order that

    251
    they might afford him an opportunity of making any statement he chose upon the matter. He (Sir Henry Holland) ventured, in conclusion, to express his entire concurrence in the opinion given to the hon. Member and embodied in the Memorandum.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wycombe (Colonel Carington) placed himself unreservedly in his (the Attorney General's) hands when this question first arose; because, if the contention of the Comptroller and Auditor General was correct, it might have affected the seat of his hon. and gallant Friend in that House. He (the Attorney General) went as fully as he could into the matter, and examined the whole of the documents relating to the Office of Lord Great Chamberlain. He found that the Office was an hereditary one, and that the Secretaryship to the Lord Great Chamberlain was certainly not an Office of profit under the Crown. The money voted in payment of the salary was voted by Parliament; but it was in no respect an office of profit under the Crown. If he had entertained any doubt upon the matter before he made this inquiry, that doubt was entirely dispelled by the facts that were brought before him.
    MR. RYLANDSentirely supported the views which had been expressed by the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee (Sir Henry Holland). The matter was very carefully considered by the Committee, together with the whole Correspondence; and he could scarcely understand why the hon. Member for Queen's County (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) should have brought the matter forward, if he had seen the Report of the Committee.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORremarked that he had not seen the Report of the Committee.
    MR. RYLANDSventured to point out that it was hardly necessary to read the whole of the voluminous Correspondence if the hon. Member was not prepared to state the conclusions which the Committee of Public Accounts had drawn from it. The Correspondence and the Report had been placed in the hands of every hon. Member. He thought that, in future, it would be a great advantage if hon. Members, before the Estimates were discussed, would refer to the Re-
    252
    port of the Committee on Public Accounts, in order to see the manner in, which the Committee dealt with the various points connected with the Estimates that were raised by the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, that he had not been at all prepared to move the reduction of the Vote by the amount of the salary of the Secretary to the Lord Great Chamberlain; but it had struck him as strange that the hon. Member for Stoke-upon-Trent (Mr. Woodall), who had placed the Notice upon the Paper in regard to the salary of the hon. and gallant Member for Wycombe, should have left it standing there for a very long time, and should not have been in his place to bring it forward when it came on that morning. The course taken by the hon. Member for Stoke-upon-Trent struck him as so very extraordinary, that he had himself brought the matter forward in justice to the hon. and gallant Member for Wycombe. He now wished to ask why it was that the Serjeant at Arms in attendance upon the Lord Chancellor got £1,500 a-year, or £300 in excess of any similar Vote? Unless some good grounds could be shown for it, he would move to reduce the Vote by the sum of £300.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £32,882, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1882, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Offices of the House of Lords."—(Mr. Arthur O' Connor.)
    MR. R. N. FOWLERsaid, he quite agreed with the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) that the salaries of the officers of the two Houses of Parliament should be the same; but he thought the remedy was to be found, not in reducing the salaries of the House of Lords, but in increasing those of the officers of the House of Commons. He hoped the noble Lord, whoso duty it was to bring the Estimates before the House, would, before another Session, seriously consider this question. There could be no doubt that the work of the officers of the House of Commons had been very much increased. As far as the officers of the House of Lords were concerned, the noble Lord had already stated that that House had arranged to give up certain fees out of which their officers

    253
    were originally paid, on the understanding that the whole of the salaries would be voted by the House of Commons. Under those circumstances, it would be a breach of faith to reduce any of the salaries.
    LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, in reply to the question of the hon. Member for Queen's County (Mr. A. O'Connor) that the Serjeant at Arms in the House of Lords was paid £1,200 a-year for one office that he held and £300 as Deputy Serjeant. It was thought that that office should be put on the same footing as the Serjeant at Arms in the House of Commons; but the Serjeant at Arms in the House of Commons had an official residence, which he believed Colonel Talbot had not.
    MR. BIGGARstated that the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn), in the last Parliament, suggested what was afterwards carried out, that the salary of the Chairman of Committees in the House of Commons should be raised so as to be the same as that received by the Chairman of Committees in the House of Lords. The Government which was then responsible for these matters agreed to that proposal, and placed an increased sum upon the Estimates for the salary of the Chairman of Ways and Means. He (Mr. Biggar) thought the salaries of the two offices should be equalized, and perhaps the noble Lord the Secretary to the Treasury would look through the list of salaries, and ascertain whether it was necessary or desirable to raise them or to lower them so as to assimilate them in future.
    MR. RYLANDSsaid, he had no faith in the economical professions which hon. Members made in dealing with the National Expenditure. He always observed that hon. Members who, under ordinary circumstances, professed to be economical, when they came to deal with the public money and had an opportunity of gratifying persons who were connected with the Public Service without putting their hands in their own pockets, rarely paid the slightest regard to their professions. They were always generous and readily disposed to reward public servants at the public expense. Now, he (Mr. Rylands) was quite as much alive as any hon. Member to the value of the services rendered by the officers of both Houses of Parliament; but he must confess that he looked with some jealousy
    254
    upon the payments that were made in "another place," payments, too, over which the House of Commons had no control. It might be that the House of Lords, situated as they were in a magnificent chamber, and surrounded by great and august associations, might consider it necessary that all their officials should have large salaries, in order to mark their sense of the dignity of their position. But it did not at all follow that the House of Commons were to allow themselves to be influenced by the same considerations. They could not with propriety reduce the salaries of the officials of the Upper House; but he hoped they would guard against the feeling that because the House of Lords paid certain salaries they were bound to raise those which they paid to the same amount.
    SIR JOSEPH M'KENNArose to Order. He thought the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) was availing himself of the occasion to make a speech that had nothing whatever to do with the subject before the Committee. He would also express a hope that his hon. Friend the Member for Queen's County (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) would not press his Motion for the reduction of the Vote.
    THE CHAIRMAN: I waited until the hon. Member for Burnley sat down, in order to remind the Committee that any remarks upon the salaries of the officers of the House of Commons should be made upon the next Vote, and not upon the present one.
    LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, he had already pointed out that the salaries of the officers of the House of Lords were in no way under the control of Her Majesty's Government. He believed that they were mainly settled by the Parliament Offices Committee, which had existed for a long series of years.
    MR. BIGGARsaid, he had not recommended, as the hon. Member for Burnley implied, that the salaries should be raised in the House of Commons. All that he said was that if the one salary was fair then the other must be presumed to be too high. He knew that it would be difficult to carry into operation any scheme that might be devised there by reducing salaries in the House of Lords; but he would suggest that if they found, on comparing the

    255
    salaries of the two Houses of Parliament, that the salaries of the House of Lords officials were too high compared with the labour they underwent, an arrangement might be made that when, any vacancy arose, the person succeeding an existing official should be required to take the appointment at a salary more in conformity with the sum paid in the House of Commons. On the other hand, if it was found that any salary was really too low, he saw no reason why it should not be raised. He certainly thought it unfair that one official should be paid upon so much higher a scale than another; and he would suggest to the Government that some means should be adopted for revising the salaries paid to the officials of the House of Lords, so that hereafter they might be assimilated to those paid in the House of Commons.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he had no wish to press the Motion to a division. He had simply made it in order to obtain an explanation and some information from the noble Lord the Secretary to the Treasury. There was, however, one point upon which the noble Lord had as yet given no answer, and that was, what was the amount of money deducted from the Exchequer receipts in aid of the fees. It appeared that the sum of £2,000 was taken out in aid of the House of Lords Vote, and the balance only paid into the Exchequer. He wished to know on what ground that was done, and if it was intended to extend the system to any other Votes?
    LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHpaid, he was unable to give any precise information on the point at that moment; but he would make inquiries. He would, however, point out that when the arrangement was made with the other House of Parliament, by which they gave up their fees, they really made a very considerable concession to the House of Commons; and it was not desirable, under all the circumstances of the case, that they should impose anything like pressure upon the House of Lords.
    MR. BIGGARsaid, he had received no explanation in regard to the different treatment received by the Black Rod and the door-keeper of the House of Lords. At present these two officials appeared to be paid in an entirely dif-
    256
    ferent way. He thought that when an official was promoted to a position which involved the receipt of an increased salary he should be required to surrender his pension, or, at any rate, that it should be held in abeyance. He had no doubt that the Usher of the Black Rod was thoroughly deserving of the promotion he had obtained; but he did not see why that officer should continue to receive the salary attached to his former position; and he was of opinion that the sum of £1,000 a-year should be deducted from Sir William Knollys' salary, being the amount he received as honorary colonel of a regiment.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    Original Question put, and agreed to.
    (2.) £40,644, to complete the sum for House of Commons Offices.
    MR. FINIGANwished, before the Vote was passed, to call attention to a matter which had occupied the Committee upon that Vote for several years past—namely, the propriety of equalizing the payment of all the police officers who did duty in connection with the House of Commons. As the matter now stood, one portion of those officers was paid at one rate, which he believed was a very fair rate, while another portion was paid at a very low rate indeed. Although he might suffer in the estimation of the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands), he was certainly of opinion that the lower scale should be raised to the higher one, and that the policemen who now received the lower rate of wages should be paid the higher rate, which at present was only paid to a part of the officers. He was strongly of opinion that if any payment was made at all, it should be made equally to all persons who were required to perform the same duties; and, so far as he knew, all the police officers connected with the Houses of Parliament performed exactly the same duties. Under these circumstances, he trusted that the Government would really promise to do something for the officers who were underpaid. The noble Lord answered the question very favourably last year. He hoped the noble Lord would be prepared to give a similarly favourable answer now, and even go a step further, and say that something would really be done in the matter.
    LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, he had made inquiries into the circumstances, and he found that all the police were paid equally during the Session; but some of the less experienced of them did not receive as much during the Recess, as their general duties were not so heavy. An exception was made, however, in the case of some of the senior officers on this ground—that they had given up all chance of promotion, and had, therefore, to a certain extent, placed themselves in a disadvantageous position. They were all meritorious officers, and it was not desirable that they should be constantly changed; and, therefore, it had been agreed that they should receive a small additional remuneration.
    MR. R. N. FOWLERappealed to the noble Lord to consider this Vote before next year, observing that there could be no doubt that the work of the House had very much increased, and, consequently, the work of the officers of the House must have increased. Under these circumstances, he believed the noble Lord would have the support of the House generally if he saw his way to liberally increasing the scale of remuneration.
    LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHexplained that this Vote was very slightly under the control of the Treasury. The salaries paid to the officers of the House were determined by a Commission, which consisted of the Speaker, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Master of the Bolls, the Attorney General, and the Solicitor General. In order to relieve the mind of the hon. Member, he would mention that some increase had been made in the salaries of some of the officers since last Session.
    MR. FINIGANwished to call attention to the case of the Votes Office, mentioning that the salaries in that Department were fixed by a Committee of the House in 1835. Since that time everything had changed; money was not of the same value, and the gentlemen connected with that Office had now very much more heavy and serious duties than they formerly had. He wished to ask whether the noble Lord would introduce into that Office the principle that prevailed in the other Treasury Departments, so that the Deliverer of Votes and the first, second, and third Assistants should in future be paid as other
    258
    officers of the House were paid? The salaries were now so fixed that if a clerk entered that Office at 16 and finished at 90 he only got the same fixed salary. He hoped that between this Session and next Session the noble Lord would try to introduce some system more in keeping with the general spirit by which this officialism was ruled, and more in keeping with the exigencies of the times, and with the increased work of these officers.
    LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, that it would be irregular for any one Department to recommend such a change.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORinquired whether the police who were kept at the House sometimes all night, as hon. Members were, received any extra allowance for the additional strain put upon them? He was under the impression that they did not, and he thought that unfair.
    LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHobserved, that the police and Post Office officials held positions which were rather sought for, and he reminded the hon. Member of the different conditions of the work of the police engaged in the House from those of the police engaged outside, who were exposed to all kinds of weather. He did not consider that the night duty was very arduous for the police in the House.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, the police engaged in the House were men of special character and qualifications, and far above the ordinary run of policemen; and he thought it shabby that they should be detained sometimes all night without a penny of extra pay. He would suggest to the noble Lord, if the matter lay with the Treasury, to use his influence to obtain some additional payment for these men.
    LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHstated that the House police received Is. a-day extra pay.
    MR. LOWTHERwas glad to hear the hon. Member for Queen's County took so much to heart the fatigues of the police, and he trusted that next Session he would do all that lay in his power to prevent All-night Sittings.
    Vote agreed to.
    (3.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
    " That a sum, not exceeding £35,732, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum

    259
    necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1882, for the Salaries and Expenses in the Department of Her Majesty's Treasury, and in the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel."
    GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURsaid, he found that this Vote was largely-increasing. Last year the fees for counsel amounted to £7,200; but this year they were £8,700. He objected to the double mode of paying counsel by salaries as well as fees, mentioning that there were two legal officers of the Treasury, with a clerk, receiving fixed salaries; and yet there were additional charges in the form of fees for counsel to the extent of £3,000 more than those fixed salaries. With such large sums annually paid as fees, in excess of the fixed salaries, it would be far preferable to employ additional lawyers at regular fixed salaries. He did not object to gentlemen rendering service to the State receiving remuneration; but the fees annually paid to individuals ought to be known to Parliament. The Appropriation Account gave no information upon this point. He hoped that the matter would receive attention, and that similar information would be given with respect to the English counsel to that given with regard to the Lord Advocate and his Department. In Scotland the amount paid as fees to the Law Officer was fixed and clearly stated.
    LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, that on general principles he agreed with the hon. Member; but he had not been able to carry them out.
    SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSwished to know how it was that there was an increase in counsel's fees this year, seeing that there had not been many important Bills?
    LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHexplained that for many years the Government had endeavoured to have all Bills, as far as possible, drafted by their own officers; but that had not been, altogether possible, and there had been an annual necessity for a Supplementary Vote. This year they had thought it better to acknowledge the fact, and to make some provision for it.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORthought it very likely that some of this money had been wanted for the drafting of the Coercion Bills; and, to mark his opinion of the action of the Government, he should move to reduce the Vote by £400.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    " That a sum, not exceeding £35,332, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1882, for the Salaries and Expenses in the Department of Her Majesty's Treasury, and in the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel."—(Mr. Arthur O'Connor.)
    LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHdid not know whether it would be satisfactory to the hon. Member if he stated what his hon. and learned Friend (the Attorney General) had done in this matter.
    MR. BIGGARsaid, he supposed that part of this money was for the Coercion Bills, and part for the Land Bill; but he could not understand the matter.
    SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAhoped his hon. Friend would not proceed with his Motion, for it was only nibbling at the subject to reduce the Vote by £400; and that was not half as important as the question of time. The hon. Member was right as to the necessity for economy; but this was so small an economy that he hoped the Motion would be withdrawn.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    Original Question put, and agreed to,
    (4.) £61,278, to complete the sum for the Home Department and Subordinate Offices.
    SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSwished to know whether any alteration had been made in regard to the examination of candidates for the office of certificated manager of mines? Lord Aberdare, when passing the Coal Mines' Act, thought these examinations should be self-supporting; and he (Sir R. Assheton Cross) had followed in his steps to a certain extent. He only wanted now to draw attention to the subject.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he was not aware that any change had been made.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORreferred to a Return recently issued, which gave the names and previous occupations of the Inspectors of Factories, and stated whether they had been appointed by nomination or by open or limited competition. Looking through that list of 41 Inspectors, he found that only three had passed any examination by which their qualifications for their appointments were tested; while the other 38

    261
    were appointed directly by nomination. The first of these persons was a student-at-law; the second was an ensign; the third was a private tutor; the fourth had been a farmer who had farmed his own land; the fifth was a local secretary of the Royal Insurance Company; the sixth was a clerk in the Customs; the next was a B.A. of Christchurch, Cambridge; the next was a barrister, and so on. Those Inspectors had no proper qualifications for their appointments; and he wished to know whether the Government intended to institute, in the system of appointing Inspectors and Sub-inspectors of Factories, any mode of testing their qualifications?
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he had lately instituted a considerable change. A deputation had represented to him the desirability of appointing as Inspectors of Factories persons more conversant with the details of the work than the class from whom they had hitherto been appointed. Mr. Redgrave had agreed with him that it would be safe and wise to make make the experiment of selecting an Inspector of Factories from the artizan class. Nothing could be more injurious than to select a person who would represent a class interest, and who would be likely to exercise his influence as against employers; but with Mr. Prior, who had been selected, there was no fear of that. It was a matter of considerable importance that the class affected in this respect should feel that they were personally represented, and that they should feel that they had a share in the Public Expenditure. How far that experiment would succeed remained to be seen; but he should be sorry to consider that appointments such as Factory Inspectors were to be regarded as the appanage of any particular class. They ought to be made as generally representative of the community at large as possible; and the great object ought to be to select persons who would represent the different classes of the people. He understood the hon. Member to think that the standard of examinations for these appointments was not sufficiently high; but while it was quite true that a certain number of the Inspectors were appointed by nomination, he could assure the hon. Member that, according to his experience in the few cases that had occurred while he had been at the Home Office, the stan-
    262
    dard was extremely high. Besides Mr. Prior, he had only appointed one Inspector. There were, as candidates for that appointment, two gentlemen of the highest University reputation and attainments. One of them, who had passed the examination, was afterwards found to be physically unfit for the post, and he was succeeded by the other gentleman, who came next in the examination. Rather than exalt the standard, he thought if there was to be any reform it should be in another direction, for although candidates might be men of great ability, just come from the Universities, he was not quite sure that they were the right persons to send to inspect a sweating tailor's factory. He was not sure that such a man was the best instrument; what was wanted was a rougher and readier instrument; and if he could see his way to utilizing men employed in factories as Inspectors, and so getting material of a rougher character for the purpose, that, he thought, would be the best way in which to attempt a reform. He did not despise his Predecessors, and he desired to proceed tentatively. He had made one experiment from the artizan class, and he should watch that with great interest. He should be the last to desire to lower the standard of efficiency, though he thought it might be of a somewhat different character from what it had hitherto been.
    MR. C. H. JAMESwished to draw the attention of the Home Secretary to the question of Inspectors of Mines. He had been struck by the disparity between the deaths from explosions in mines in different parts of the country, and he could not make up his mind that there was any good reason for that disparity. It might be that the different condition of the collieries, the veins of coal, and a variety of other circumstances, would account for a certain amount of disparity; but he did not think those varying conditions would account for so terrible a disparity as there was. He did not know whether it would be possible to get all the Inspectors together upon some occasion, so that they might put their heads together and see whether there was a substantial reason for the difference; but his impression was that if that was done it would be found that there was one sort of working in the North, another in Staffordshire, and

    263
    another in Wales. If they found that they might suggest something by which the great loss of life in collieries might be lessened.
    SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSinformed the hon. Member that the Inspectors did meet every year for consultation, and that that had been the practice for many years. He wished to ask the Home Secretary whether he could give the House any information as to when the Royal Commission on Mines were likely to make their Report?
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTreplied, that he had answered that question a fortnight ago. A preliminary Report would soon be made; but there had been considerable delay with the final Report in consequence of a number of experiments which had been made with the safety lamp. The work was going on very satisfactorily, and the final Report would be presented as soon as possible. The right hon. Gentleman had stated what he was going to say with reference to the suggestion that the Inspectors met for consultation; but with respect to the disparity in the deaths, he had at one time thought there might be something special in the character of the coal mine affected. All at once, however, there occurred the explosion at Seaham, and that altered the whole balance of the year's calculations. One district might be perfectly safe for a long time, and then suddenly it was overwhelmed by some terrible calamity. Whether the Royal Commission would be able to throw any light on the subject he did not know; but the Reports on the four explosions which had occurred while he had been at the Home Office had thrown very little light upon it.
    MR. BIGGARsaid, it seemed to him that with regard to the qualifications of Inspectors the Home Secretary had done very little to remedy the present system, and he thought the experiment of appointing Mr. Prior might be carried yet further. He agreed with the right hon. Gentleman that it would be absurd to appoint a graduate of a University to inspect a tailor's shop; but he thought the Inspectors, as far as possible, should not be military men or unsuccessful farmers, or whoever could obtain the appointment through personal or political influence. Great benefit would be effected to all parties by a further improvement in the system of
    264
    making appointments, and he thought it probable that if more practical men had been Inspectors of Mines there would have been fewer accidents.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTexplained that no person was appointed an Inspector of Mines who had not served in a mine, and who possessed actual knowledge of mining. Factory Inspectors were on a totally different footing, and the examination of Mine Inspectors would be of a lower standard than in the case of Factory Inspectors.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORwished to know why the system in regard to Mine Inspectors was not applied to Factory Inspectors, instead of men being appointed without any qualification whatever? What qualifications had a man who was merely a student at Oxford or Cambridge? Absolutely none. The Inspectors should be men who had some practical acquaintance with the work they had to inspect. If they did not know the ropes they would be of little use as Inspectors. He wished also to have some explanation of the legal charges under sub-head E.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTpointed out that while the work which a Mine Inspector had to inspect was always the same, a Factory Inspector had to inspect 50 different sorts of work. It would, therefore, be impossible for a Factory Inspector to have practical knowledge of all the work he had to inspect. He might know one trade out of the 50, but that would not help. There was one thing that was wanted—that was to get, not such men as could be obtained by competitive examination, but men of whose integrity there could be some guarantee. There was no class of men so exposed to temptation as the Factory Inspectors; and, therefore, it was difficult to select the best men. With regard to the legal expenses, it very often occurred that the costs incurred in enforcing penalties for breaches of the Act were not recouped to the district authorities by the penalties, and in those cases the Government made up the amounts and put them down as legal expenses.
    SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAobserved, that to find fit men for Factory Inspectors it was necessary to search not in one class alone, but all through society, and there was scarcely any way of preparing a class of men for such posts. It was a great thing if the Government

    265
    could in each, case find a man of intelligence and integrity, and who was content to take £200 a-year. These appointments should be given with regard to fitness only, and were not suitable objects of patronage.
    Vote agreed to.
    (5.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
    " That a sum, not exceeding £48,068, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1882, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of Her Majesty's Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs."
    MR. RYLANDSsaid, that last year, he believed, there was a Supplementary Estimate, in addition to the £7,000 charged for telegrams. However that might be, so much money was spent upon telegrams for the Foreign Office that he should be glad to hear from the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs that this large sum was not likely to be exceeded. He believed it was stated by his hon. Friend on a former occasion that it was under the consideration of the Foreign Office how far the expenditure in connection with telegrams might be reduced. He wished to call the attention of the Committee to the amount paid to Queen's Messengers. It was a remarkable circumstance that these persons were paid a much larger amount of money than was paid to the Queen's Home Messengers. In the Home Office the pay Was £150 a-year, while in the Foreign Office the Home Messengers received £ 150 increasing to £250 a-year, and the Foreign Service Messengers £400 a-year and £1 a-day for expenses. He had never been able to understand why a higher salary should be paid to persons going abroad on the Queen's Service; and he ventured to say there was no Foreign Office in the world which had officers fulfilling the same duties as these to whom anything like the same amount of salary was paid. His hon. Friend the Under Secretary would, perhaps, be able to afford an explanation of this matter.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, with respect to the cost of telegrams, he was in a position to inform his hon. Friend that a Circular had been sent to all our Consuls abroad, calling attention to the great expenditure under that head, and asking them to limit the amount, and
    266
    especially to abbreviate their messages as much as possible. The good effect of the Circular would, he hoped, be apparent in future years; but the Bill for the present year would necessarily be considerable, partly on account of the war between Chili and Peru, in relation to which a telegram cost at the rate of £1 6s. a word, and partly owing to the state of affairs in the East, in which case also the cost was very high. With regard to the second subject of the hon. Member's remarks, he had to say that the Foreign Service Messengers were required to speak foreign languages, and that the nature of their duties was the reason for paying them higher salaries. The Home Service Messengers of the Foreign Office would, in future, be placed on the same footing as the Messengers at the Home Office.
    MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTthought it right to point out to the Committee that a large portion of the expense for telegrams in connection with Greece might have been saved had the Government made up their minds last October to do what they had done in April this year. The whole of the troubles in connection with Greece had been brought about by Her Majesty's Government, who took credit for the recent settlement which had been arrived at with regard to that question; while the truth was, as in the case of Ireland, that the Government had first created difficulties, and then undertaken to settle them. He should put himself in Order by moving the reduction of the Vote by £5,000.
    THE CHAIRMAN: I must point out to the hon. Gentleman that he should not discuss the Eastern Question on the Civil Service Estimates, and that he cannot put himself in Order by simply moving a reduction of the Vote.
    MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT. did not propose to discuss the Eastern Question. He was simply advancing a reason for his proposed reduction of the Vote, on account of the misconduct of the Foreign Office. He had merely stated that in October last it was open to Her Majesty's Government to take the steps which they had taken only a month ago. That might be ascertained by a perusal of the Blue Books, which would show that the Turkish Government made the same offer in October as they had made since. Of course, the question might be greatly developed. He

    267
    believed it would be easy to give such details as would satisfy hon. Members as to the unnecessary expenditure to which the Government had put the country. The same thing might be said with regard to affairs in North Africa. Her Majesty's Government had quite misconducted their relations with Tunis. He should not, however, go into that question, nor would he have alluded to it had it not been for the monstrous statements made outside the House by Members of the Government, which could not be allowed to pass without protest. Again, he considered it a just cause for complaint that Her Majesty's Ministers had not furnished the House with any Papers relating to their foreign policy for a period of more than four months.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £43,068, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1882, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of Her Majesty's Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs."—(Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett.)
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLhoped that the hon. Member would not press his Motion to a division. The country did not pay the officials of the Foreign Office according to the success of their policy, but in order to secure the attention and intelligence that were undoubtedly devoted to the Public Service. For that reason he did not think the hon. Member for Eye would be justified by any precedent in dividing the Committee upon his Motion. He wished to ask a question with regard to an item which appeared as an allowance to the Permanent Under Secretary to the Foreign Office for the management of the Secret Service Fund. That was a most extraordinary item. The Permanent Secretary received a salary of 2,000 a-year, and the Government gave him £300 a-year extra for his services in connection with the Secret Service Fund. He believed the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) had on former occasions taken part in the discussion on this Vote; and, being aware of his economical interest in matters of this kind, he was anxious to attract his attention to the item in question. He ventured to say that the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs would
    268
    not get up in his place and say that the Secret Service money disbursed in the Foreign Office amounted to more than £1,000 a-year; and even if it did it was ludicrous to pay a man already in receipt of £2,000 a-year an additional amount of £300 for his management of this small fund. He hoped a full explanation of the item would be given, otherwise he thought the Committee would be justified in supporting a Motion for the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £300.
    MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTtrusted the noble Lord would not oppose this item. He knew of no precedent that would justify the noble Lord in moving the reduction of the Vote by this sum of £300 for so necessary and important a purpose. It was well known that the Foreign Office had to conduct duties of great delicacy and difficulty, and he could not help thinking that the noble Lord was singularly unfortunate in choosing this particular item to object to.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he believed that the £300 a-year now paid to Lord Tenterden replaced the sum of £500 paid from 1824 to 1872. The Committee that sat in 1871–2 recommended that the sum should be reduced as it had been to £300. It should be remembered that the money was paid under peculiar circumstances. The Secret Service money was expended in a manner which did not admit of the account being audited by a clerk, and was, therefore, placed in the hands of one person—the Permanent Under Secretary of State. Under those circumstances, he thought the allowance was not an improper one. It might, perhaps, be thrown into the salary of Lord Tenterden; but he saw no reason why the two sums should not be voted separately. Under any circumstances, he could not undertake to withdraw the item.
    MR. NORTHCOTEthought there was a legitimate opportunity for effecting a small saving of public money in connection with the Department. It was formerly the case, when legal questions were raised of minor importance, to make the documents relating thereto up into a bundle, and send them to the Law Offices of the Crown, who very naturally objected to the practice; and it was therefore suggested that a legal adviser should be appointed to deal with minor legal points. There was a sum of £2,000

    269
    paid to a gentleman for legal advice given to the Foreign Office which he thought might be saved. Even if it were necessary to appoint another Assistant Under Secretary there would be a saving of £500 a-year. For this reason he would like to receive some information from the Under Secretary upon the point.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEthought they could best discuss this matter on the Vote of £2,000 a-year for Dr. Parker Deane's salary. The opinion of the Law Officers, when asked, was given after consultation with Dr. Parker Deane; and, therefore, any proposal for saving money under that head would be better discussed as he had suggested. He believed that a large reduction had been effected upon the sum voted for the purpose in question, and it was possible that some reduction might be made at a future time.
    MR. RYLANDSdid not think it desirable that the item of £300 objected to by the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock should be passed without further consideration. It was true that Mr. Hammond received for several years £500 a-year for managing the Secret Service Fund, and that £500 a-year was taken out of the Secret Service money without the knowledge of Parliament, though the same gentleman was receiving £2,000 a-year as salary. With no little difficulty he (Mr. Rylands) was able to extract from the Government for the time being that this £500 was paid, and it was then arranged that the item should be put upon the Estimates, with the understanding that it should be reduced to £300. But he had never at any time agreed to, or expressed any opinion in favour of, this £300 a-year being paid. On the contrary, he had always considered that any payment for the administration of the Secret Service money was altogether unjustifiable, and that the Permanent Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs should have a salary sufficient to cover all the duties of his Office. The Committee must observe that the control of the Foreign Office over the Secret Service money was of a very partial character; and he thought the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) was quite justified in raising this question.
    MR. GORSTthought it was a great pity that the discussion of a point of this
    270
    kind should not be conducted without personal references. He did not consider it becoming that, in Committee of Supply, they should be occupied in praising or blaming gentlemen whose salaries they were asked to vote. The question of the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock deserved a more complete answer than it had yet received from the Under Secretary. The noble Lord's observation was that £300 a-year was paid to an official to whom, independently of that sum, Parliament paid what it considered to be a sufficient remuneration. The first question asked, and to which no answer had been given, was as to the amount of the Secret Service Fund of the Foreign Office. They knew that the accounts of the fund could not be audited; but there could be no objection to a statement on the part of the Under Secretary of the amount of Secret Service money spent by the Foreign Office. If that were stated, the Committee could then judge whether £300 a-year was a proper sum to pay any person for managing the fund. He supposed there was Secret Service money in every Department of the State; he knew there was in the Office of the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. Would the Under Secretary say that as much Secret Service money was spent by the Foreign Office as was spent in the Department of the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, who received nothing whatever for managing the Secret Service Fund of his Department? The question which the Government had to answer was, why someone in the Foreign Office should, be paid a certain amount of money for managing the small amount of Secret Service money at the Foreign Office, while in other Departments exceedingly large sums of Secret Service money were managed without any payment at all? That was a question which ought to receive an answer.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he might state, in general terms, that the expenditure of Secret Service money by the Foreign Office was much larger than that of the Lord Lieutenant in Ireland. For the reasons he had given, he could give no figures or details.
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, the question was, why the Permanent Under Secretary at the Foreign Office received a salary for managing

    271
    the Secret Service Fund, which no other official received?
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, the only reason he could give was that the expenditure at the Foreign Office was larger than that of any of the other Departments.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORreminded the Committee that when Mr. Fox was asked about the Secret Service money, he expressed an opinion that it was a disgrace to the country; and he added that he did not wish to know more about it than would prevent him making a fool of himself when he had to answer a Question in the House of Commons. He presumed the reason why the allowance was made for managing the Secret Service Fund at the Foreign Office was that a very large sum was placed for Secret Service purposes at the disposal of that Department, and it was not unusual for drafts to be made by Secretaries of State for the other Departments upon the Foreign Office—some of the Secret Service money placed in the first instance at the disposal of the Foreign Office being passed on to the other Offices as occasion required. He was quite at a loss to understand why the Foreign Office should act as banker for the other Departments in the matter of the Secret Service Fund, and that a charge of £300 a-year should be placed upon the Estimates in consequence. Supposing, as he hoped would be the case, the Secret Service Fund came to an end, that charge of £300 a-year would reckon as a kind of vested interest, and would become a permanent charge in favour of the official who drew it, because, no doubt, it would be agreed to in the same generous way in which, according to his experience, similar cases were always dealt with by the Government. It would, therefore,-cost the country a considerable sum of money to wipe out this charge, and for that reason he objected to its standing upon the Estimates.
    MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTsaid, he was willing to withdraw his Motion for the reduction of the Vote, and wished, at the same time, to appeal to the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock and the hon. and learned Member for Chatham not to press their opposition to this charge of £300. It was clear that the administration of the Secret Service money was a very delicate operation; it was also clear, from the statement of
    272
    the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, that more of that money came under the control of his Department than under the control of any other Office of State, and it was obvious that the negotiations and general business of the Foreign Office were far more difficult in their character than the business of other Departments. Under those circumstances, he hoped the Vote would be allowed to pass without further opposition.
    SIR HENRY HOLLANDsaid, it was admitted that there must be Secret Service money, and that it must be administered by some one person in each of the offices. Therefore, he thought it not unreasonable, where so large an amount was disposed, of as in the Foreign Office, that remuneration should be given to the person specially responsible; and it was simply a question whether it should be given by way of increase of salary or by special payment. His own opinion was that it should appear as a special sum, because, if the Secret Service Fund should cease, there would be no reason why the payment should continue; whereas by increasing the Permanent Under Secretary's salary a vested right would be established.
    GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURbelieved the Secret Service Fund was administered through the Treasury, and the accountant entered in the Estimates as responsible to Parliament for the money voted was the able and reliable officer, Mr. Welby, of the Treasury. With such an officer the House of Commons might fully trust in the accountability, if supplied with the requisite information as to how this money was applied.
    LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, the Treasury had no knowledge whatever of the administration of the money.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    Original Question again proposed.
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, he felt it his duty to move that the Vote be reduced by the sum of £300. He quite agreed with the hon. and learned Baronet the Member for Midhurst (Sir Henry Holland) that if the remuneration for administering the Secret Service Fund were included in the salary of the Permanent Under Secretary, there would be a risk of establishing a vested right. He wanted

    273
    to know why the Permanent Under Secretary should receive £300, when no other official had the same payment? The Under Secretary had stated that the amount disbursed by the Foreign Office was larger than the portion of the Secret Service Fund disbursed by the Irish Office. He had reason, however, to believe that the hon. Baronet was in error; but, without entering into particulars, he preferred to have his own opinion on the subject, and to say that the amount disbursed by the Irish Secretary was, in all probability, more than that disbursed by the Under Secretary at the Foreign Office. But whatever might be the fact, it would not account for this amount being paid to the Under Secretary at the Foreign Office, and nothing being paid in the case of the Irish Office. He had always understood that the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) was one of those great reformers who advocated reductions in all the Departments of State; but it appeared that the only argument he could bring to bear on the present question was that the payment had been defended by successive Governments.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    " That a sum, not exceeding £47,768, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1882, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of Her Majesty's Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs."—(Lord Randolph Churchill.)
    MR. GORSTthought the Committee had been left unintentionally by the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in a state of great misapprehension. He believed that most hon. Members supposed that the principal part of the Secret Service money was disbursed by the Foreign Office for Foreign Office purposes. Now, he ventured to say that a very small part of the fund was so spent. He believed everyone knew what the money was spent for, but that no one liked to say. No doubt it was quite true, as the Under Secretary had said, that the Foreign Office acted as bankers for the fund; but he (Mr. Gorst) denied that any considerable portion of this money was spent for strictly Foreign Office purposes. He challenged the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to state whether it was not the fact that it was only a small part of this
    274
    money that was spent in the Foreign Service of the country.
    MR. MITCHELL HENRYsaid, that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Chatham had just challenged the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to say on what the Secret Service money was spent. But the hon. and learned Gentleman then went on to say that everyone knew; and, therefore, he (Mr. Mitchell Henry) would challenge him to state how the money was applied. He appealed to his hon. Friend the Member for Burnley not to join in a discussion raised by hon. Members opposite upon this miserable item of £300. There was a time for all things, and he ventured to say that the time which had been occupied in this discussion represented the loss of a large sum of money to the country, because it delayed the consideration of a great remedial measure.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEwished to correct the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) with regard to one point. The observation attributed to him by the hon. and learned Gentleman, that the Foreign Office acted as bankers for the other Departments in the matter of the Secret Service money, had really fallen from the hon. Member for Queen's County. Certainly, as far as the disbursement of the Secret Service money went, he believed it would be highly improper, without sufficient reasons, for any Member of the Government to say what was the amount spent in his Department in the course of the year; and he could therefore only in general terms say that the normal disbursement of the Foreign Office was much greater than that of any other Department.
    MR. BIGGARsaid, that the remarks of the hon. Member for Galway had no bearing on the question before the Committee. After appealing to the hon. Member for Burnley not to occupy time by joining in this discussion, he had done nothing else than occupy time himself. For his own part, he thought that a proper discussion of the Estimates, and an examination of the various charges contained therein, would tend to a considerable reduction of the Votes. Therefore, when a question of importance like the present arose, hon. Gentlemen, in his opinion, were perfectly justified in discussing it fully.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORremarked, that last year the Prime Minister assured the House positively and emphatically that there should be a considerable saving effected in the amount of the Secret Service money—larger than there had been in previous years. As a matter of fact, however, there had been nothing of the kind. He repeated his statement that the Foreign Office was drawn upon frequently in past years by the other Departments, and that would account for the large amount of money placed at the disposal of the Foreign Office for Secret Service purposes. As a matter of fact, a very large proportion of the Secret Service money was spent by other Departments than the Foreign Office; and there was no reason whatsoever why this permanent charge of £300 a-year should be inserted in the Estimates for the remuneration of one particular official, when, at the same time, there was no similar charge in any other Department. If, as he believed, much of the Secret Service money found its way into the hands of those persons in Ireland who recently issued the notorious Circular relating to persons "reasonably suspected," the management of the fund was both discreditable to the Government and the Empire. Under the circumstances, he hoped the Motion of the noble Lord would be pressed to a division.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 21; Noes 165: Majority 144.—(Div. List, No. 237.)
    Original Question again proposed.
    MR. CARINGTONremarked that there seemed to be 22 Messengers abroad who spent no less than £12,500 in travelling expenses. There were also £7,000 charged for telegrams in connection with the Foreign Service; and he should be glad if the Under Secretary would afford an explanation with regard to these items, for it was clear that the present method of gaining knowledge of the world's affairs was very expensive.
    MR. LABOUCHEREthought he could explain how this money was spent—that was to say, if things went on at the Foreign Office as they did when he was attaché at Constantinople. On one occasion £450 was spent in the ex-
    276
    penses of an officer who brought a box of pills for the late Sir Henry Bulwer. Most of the despatches sent could be put into cipher and sent by post. In his opinion, £12,500 was a great deal too much to pay for Foreign Office Messengers; and therefore he should be glad to have some explanation as to how this money was expended.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he could not agree with the hon. Member for Northampton that it was desirable to intrust the Post Office with messages in cipher. The translation and deciphering of the messages would necessitate the employment of a large number of clerks and create a great additional expenditure. There would in that way be more money spent than under the present system. The Messengers were formerly paid by mileage; but they now received £1 1s. a-day for subsistence and their travelling expenses. Their accounts were produced in elaborate detail, and were audited by clerks at the Foreign Office, extreme care being taken that the money paid to them was the money actually spent. The journeys undertaken were large and difficult, and the staff had been cut down as much as possible. Indeed, the Department had been at considerable inconvenience on some occasions for the want of a sufficient number of Messengers. In the late commercial negotiations with Spain, for instance, it was necessary to send a special Messenger owing to the reduction of the staff; in fact, they were continually forced to put on special Messengers. The late Government, shortly before they left Office, had appointed an additional Messenger. In conclusion, he begged to assure the Committee that the greatest care was taken to reduce the number of journeys undertaken.
    MR. GORSTsaid, there was a discrepancy with regard to the number of Messengers, which was an instance of the extremely careless manner in which the Estimates were prepared. Looking at the Estimates, it would seem that the number of Messengers had been reduced from 10 to 8, whereas it had been actually increased from 10 to 11. He agreed with the hon. Member for Northampton that the journeys performed by these officers were, for the most part, useless, because he supposed that most of the Foreign Office despatches, which were of a character that anyone in the world

    277
    might read, could very well be sent by post. He did not suppose that oftener than once or twice a-year there was any need of secrecy. At any rate, those occasions were very rare, and the Under Secretary had admitted that the despatches could be written in cipher. When the hon. Gentleman said that it would take so long to write and decipher them he had wondered what cipher the Foreign Office used. He ventured to say that the despatch could be written in King Charles's cipher almost as quickly as ordinary writing, and that it could be deciphered with equal facility. If the Government would send most of their foreign despatches by post and use King Charles's cipher in the very few cases where secrecy was necessary, he believed a reduction of this large expenditure might be secured.
    MR. LABOUCHEREasked whether these appointments were made by public competition?
    SIR, CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, they were not; but officers were generally appointed. If the appointments were by public competition, persons who had been residents abroad would be appointed, and, in that case, there would be no guarantee of their trustworthiness.
    MR. LOWTHERremarked, that in his time there was a greater number of Messengers than now, and it was even then the case that Her Majesty's Legations were put to great inconvenience by the want of a proper number of Messengers. The Under Secretary had stated that the Messengers received £1 1s. a-day during the time they were absent from home. But he considered that hardly a sufficient allowance for English officers living in foreign hotels, where it was well known they would be put to greater expense than the people of the country. Indeed, he regarded this payment as a very small one, and he trusted the Under Secretary would see his way to increase it. The hon. and learned Member for Chatham asked why the Foreign Office did not make use of a well known cipher in their despatches; but a Member with a certain amount of common sense would see that it was not at all desirable to do so. The hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) would recollect that Mr. Hammond had given evidence before the Committee, of which he was a Member, to the effect that no
    278
    cipher had been yet introduced or used which could not in a short time be made out by a practised man.
    MR. CARINGTONwished to know if there would be any objection to instituting an inquiry as to the desirability of appointing Messengers by public competition?
    MR. GORSTsaid, there appeared to have been an additional Messenger appointed within the last year. He presumed the hon. Gentleman did not bring that as a charge against the late Government?
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, that the last appointment appeared to have been made on the 16th March, 1880. His reference was to an increase in the number of Messengers of the Home Service.
    MR. GORSThoped, in that case, the Under Secretary would explain how the increase in the number had arisen. There must have been an addition to the number, because it appeared that 10 Messengers were provided in 1881, and 11 in 1882.
    LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, that, according to the information of his hon. Friend the Under Secretary, the appointments were made before the Estimates were framed.
    MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, the hon. Gentleman had given a reason why, in the ordinary way, the Foreign Office Messengers were not selected by public competition. He would like to know why it was that exception was made in the case of clerks at the Foreign Office? The objection of the hon. Gentleman would hardly apply to the case of clerks, who, it was generally recognized, should be appointed by public competition.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, it must be that the present Government were responsible for the increase in the number of Messengers, because it had gone up since the hon. Gentleman was in Office from 21 to 23. It would be seen on page 88 that there were three officials resident abroad who received an extra £100 a-year each for their knowledge of foreign law. It was, to his mind, an extraordinary thing that these officers, while they were employed abroad, should receive a salary, not for the work they performed, but for a qualification which they possessed, whether they were abroad or at home; and he should very much like to know why

    279
    that charge was relegated to Vote 1, Class V. There was another point to which he wished to call attention. The; Committee would remember that last j year, for the first time, the stationery and printing work of the country was thoroughly overhauled. It appeared that the printers received between 27 and 28 per cent more for the confidential work which they executed at the Foreign Office than they received from the War Office for the same work, and 41 per cent more than the work executed at their own premises, all of which they were bound by the terms of their contract to treat as confidential. He thought it would be very hard to defend the charge for the printer and reader on page 89.
    MR. A. MOOREasked if it was the fact that a weekly Messenger was sent to the principal European capitals, whether there was anything particular to communicate or not? Looking at the increased postal facilities, he thought they had a right to hope for a reduction under the head of Messengers.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, they could not trust to the telegraph, for if telegrams were sent in cipher they must be followed by written despatches. It was quite true that there was a fixed Messenger Service. The routes were so arranged that the Messengers, as they returned, picked up bags sent from other places than the capitals. For instance, a man going to the Danube would pick up on his way home despatches from such a place of importance as Bucharest. It was a mistake to suppose that the Messengers ever left on their weekly route without despatches of the most important kind. With regard to the observations of the hon. Member for Queen's County upon the charge for printing and binding, it was quite true that the bill of the Foreign Office for these items was high; but the cost of binding was higher than at other Public Offices because the documents were of an extremely confidential kind, while the cost of printing was higher than it was at the War Office, because many of the documents were in foreign languages. He could assure the hon. and learned Member for Chatham that there had been no increase in the number of Messengers since the present Government came into Office. Two names were, he believed, omitted from the Esti-
    280
    mates of last year; but those Estimates were not prepared by the present Government.
    MR. BOURKEreminded the hon. Gentleman that the two names were added because two office-keepers were abolished. He agreed with all that the hon. Gentleman had stated with regard to the Foreign Office practice; but he was quite unable to agree with the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) that there was not sufficient work for the Foreign Office Messengers to do. He could assure the Committee that this question had been fully investigated by both Lord Derby and Lord Salisbury, who both agreed that it was absolutely impossible to reduce the number of Messengers. He would not go so far as to say that that these officers carried despatches of great importance every week; but if there were important despatches to be sent a sufficient staff must be retained. The hon. Gentleman had dwelt upon the necessity of sending a special Messenger to Madrid. He should like to ask him what had been the result of the commercial negotiations at that city, and whether this country had any chance of obtaining better terms with regard to their commerce?
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he did not think he should be in Order in answering the question of the right hon. Member who had just sat down; but if he would give Notice of the Question, he believed he should be able to assure him that there was a chance of the negotiations with the Spanish Government leading to a satisfactory result in the course of the next winter.
    MR. GORSTbegged to withdraw what he had said with regard to the increase of the number of Messengers. He had been misled by the form of the Estimates, and had to thank the hon. Gentleman for the explanation he had given.
    MR. LABOUCHEREreminded the Under Secretary that he had not explained why the clerks at the Foreign Office were not appointed by public competition.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, it was the distinct policy of Parliament, on the last occasion when this subject was dealt with by the House of Commons, to make a distinction between the Foreign Office and other Offices in the application of unrestricted competition. The decision arrived at was a tentative

    281
    one; and this, no doubt, was a matter which might fairly again occupy the attention of the House. An attempt had been made by Lord Granville to enlarge the field of selection, and, on the average, 11 or 12 candidates had competed for each of the latest vacancies. Most of the men who came in passed a brilliant examination, and he believed they would have come in under a system of unlimited competition. This was a matter which, from time to time, would come under revision. He believed his noble Friend had gone as far as public opinion was prepared for at the present moment in opening the doors as widely as he had done, and in enabling 11 or 12 candidates, on the average, to compete for a single vacancy.
    MR. NORTHCOTEasked whether the clerks in the Foreign Office did not receive smaller salaries in consideration of the fact that the Office was not thrown open to public competition; and whether the question of throwing open the Office to competition was not decided by the Secretary of State on his own responsibility, and not by the Department?
    MR. LABOUCHEREasked whether, on the other hand, the clerks in the Foreign Office did not receive larger salaries than those paid in other Offices?
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, that the Foreign Office clerks received usually low salaries, and that, in particular, the junior clerks were paid only half as much as clerks of the same grade received in other Offices.
    MR. CARINGTONasked whether the Queen's Messengers could not be appointed by open competition?
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he would take care that the point was brought under the notice of the Secretary of State.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked the Under Secretary if there was any way by which economy could be effected in the cost of printing for the Foreign Office?
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, that two months ago, when a discussion took place on this subject, he had engaged that the question should be again considered.
    Original Question put, and agreed to.
    Resolutions to be reported upon Monday next.
    Committee to sit again this day.

  RIVERS CONSERVANCY AND FLOODS PREVENTION BILL— [Lords.]— [BILL 120.]
  (Mr. Dodson.)
  RIVERS CONSERVANCY AND FLOODS PREVENTION BILL— [Lords.]— [BILL 120.]

    NOMINATION OF SELECT COMMITTEE.
    Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Nomination of Select Committee [4th May], "That the Select Committee on the Rivers Conservancy and Floods Prevention Bill do consist of nineteen Members."
    Question again proposed.
    Debate resumed.
    Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "nineteen," in order to insert the words "twenty-one,"—(Mr. Heneage,)—instead thereof.
    Question, "That the word 'nineteen' stand part of the Question," put, and negatived.
    Question, "That the words 'twenty-one' be inserted instead thereof," put, and agreed to.
    Ordered, That the Select Committee on the Rivers Conservancy and Floods Prevention Bill do consist of twenty-one Members.
    Select Committee nominated :—Mr. DODSON, Mr. SCLATER-BOOTH, Mr. PEEL, Mr. HARCOURT, Sir ANDREW FAIRBAIRN, Mr. REGINALD YORKE, Mr. A:RTHUR ARNOLD, Mr. FELLOWES, Sir ROBERT CUNLIFFE, Mr. COMPTON LAWRANCE, Lord EDWARD CAVENDISH, Mr. PELL, Mr. ARNOLD MORLEY, Sir RAINALD KNIGHTLEY, Mr. MAGNIAC, Mr. STANHOPE, Lord EDMOND FITZMAURICE, Mr. LEVETT, Mr. HIBBERT, Mr. PUGH, and Mr. ARTHUR BALFOUR:—Five to be the quorum.
    MR. E. STANHOPE, in moving the Motion of which he had given Notice, observed that the Bill had been 21 times on the Orders of the Day, and he was anxious to expedite its progress. The examination of witnesses by the Select Committee was most desirable; and though it would slightly prolong their work, it would enable them, by means of the evidence they obtained, to settle many points of dispute. As the Bill stood, it contained no definition of uplands, with regard to which most important proposals of taxation had been made. Without some such definition the Conservancy Board that would be created by the Bill would have dangerously excessive powers. A few witnesses would enable the Committee to define this difficult and important term, and would make it

    283
    possible to settle the question in an equitable manner. He moved that the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.
    MR. DUCKHAMseconded the Motion.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records."—(Mr. Stanhope.)
    MR. DODSON, while admitting the perfect fairness with which that Motion had been made, felt bound to say it was one which he could not accept. The hon. Member thought that its adoption would not long delay the Bill, and that the hearing of a very few witnesses would suffice; but he entirely differed from that view of the matter. Looking at the number of rivers in this country, and at the variety of interests concerned in them, he believed that if they once opened the door to evidence it would be impossible to stop at the examination of so very few witnesses as the hon. Gentleman supposed. If they admitted witnesses from one part of the country, they must admit them from other parts, and to attempt to do that at this period of the Session would be fatal to the Bill. Moreover, the Bill was based on the Report of a Select Committee of the House of Lords, which took a great deal of evidence; and, further, it was only an enabling measure—that was to say, it would give to each locality which desired them facilities for legislation in its own way for its own requirements. Before, however, any river basin or part of a river basin could be legislated for there must be a local inquiry, at which evidence must be given; then the scheme thus originating must be considered by the Local Government Board, who would hear arguments for and against the scheme; and, lastly, before any scheme could acquire the force of law, it must be embodied in a Provisional Order, which had to come before Parliament, when, if opposed, it would be treated like a Private Bill and sent to a Select Committee, who would take evidence. Therefore, to take evidence on this Bill would not only be a waste of time, but also a waste of power and of expense. He thought he had now given sufficient reason for not agreeing to that proposition, more particularly at that period of the Session. Of course, there would be
    284
    no objection, he apprehended, on the part of the Committee to any Petitions being laid before them.
    MR. HENEAGEsaid, there were several rivers which were in no way represented on the Committee; and a Petition had come, among others, from the Humber Conservancy Board asking to be heard by counsel and by witnesses. If it could be arranged that the Committee should take cognizance of the various Petitions sent to the House in regard to that measure, he did not think that the present Motion would matter so very much; but as he doubted whether they could do so without powers being given them as proposed, by the Motion, he should support his hon. Friend the Member for Mid Lincolnshire.
    MR. HICKSsaid, he should support the proposal of the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. E. Stanhope). In his opinion, no Bill had ever been brought before the House which was of greater importance than the present one, because it dealt with every river in England and taxed every acre of land under the name of lowlands, middle -lands, or uplands. He did not say that many of their rivers were not in a bad state and did not require improvement. They had got into that state, in a great degree, in consequence of a falling off in the navigation, and through there being no funds to carry out the works which the Navigation Commissioners in former times executed. No doubt, some great Corporation should be established to execute such work; but he greatly questioned whether a skeleton Bill like that, to be carried out by means of Provisional Orders, was the best way of effecting the object in view. They ought to have the question thoroughly sifted by a Committee, and a measure brought down to them in a shape in which it could be accepted. Those who were liable to be taxed under the Bill should be allowed to state their case before the Committee. The great level of fens had been, in fact, created by the owners at great cost. They covered about 500,000 acres; but for these works these acres would have been covered with water. Was it just that these works should be handed over to a new body, or that the owners should should be taxed to clean out rivers? Then, again, the uplands were not affected in any way by drainage and would not be

    285
    benefited in any degree by an alteration of rivers, and yet they would be taxed under the Bill without the power of protecting themselves.
    MR. MAGNIACsaid, he felt certain that the only satisfactory way of framing a Bill which would meet all the circumstances of the case would be to proceed on the lines indicated by the President of the Local Government Board.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 63; Noes 116: Majority 53.—(Div. List, No. 238.)
    MR. MAGNIACsaid, he begged to move that the River Floods Prevention Bill be referred to the same Committee.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the River Floods Prevention Bill be referred to the Select Committee."—(Mr. Magniac.)
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLwished to be informed by the right hon. Gentleman in the Chair whether it was competent for the hon. Member, without Notice, to make a Motion of that kind?
    MR. SPEAKERsaid, that the House had already ordered that the Rivers Conservancy and Floods Prevention Bill should be referred to a Select Committee, and the Motion of the hon. Member being simply that the River Floods Prevention Bill be referred to that Committee, it was competent for him to make that Motion without Notice.
    Motion agreed to.
    Ordered, That the River Flood Prevention Bill be referred to the Select Committee.
    Ordered, That all Petitions for or against the Bills be referred to the said Select Committee.—(Mr. Hibbert.)

  NEWSPAPERS (LAW OF LIBEL) BILL.
  (Mr. Hutchinson, Mr. Gregory, Mr. Edward Leatham, Mr. Samuel Morley.)
  NEWSPAPERS (LAW OF LIBEL) BILL.

    [BILL 5.] CONSIDERATION.
    Bill, as amended, considered.
    MR. WARTONsaid, that frequently ex parte damaging statements were made by a certain class of solicitors before magistrates in the City, the object of those who made the applications very
    286
    often being merely to damage the character of some trade rival by having the statements laid before the magistrate reported in the Press. It seemed to him that reports of such applications ought not to be protected under the Bill.
    And it being ten minutes before Seven of the clock, Further Proceeding on Consideration of the Bill, as amended, stood adjourned till To-morrow.
    The House suspended its Sitting at five minutes before Seven of the clock.
    The House resumed its Sitting at Nine of the clock.

ORDER OF THE DAY.

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

  LAND LAW (ENGLAND)—LAW OF ENTAIL.—RESOLUTION.
  MR. W. FOWLER, on rising to call the attention of the House to the state of the Law as to the settlement of Lands, with special reference to the permission and perpetuation of ownerships for life; and to move—
  " That, in the opinion of this House, the law permitting the creation and perpetuation of life estates in land has caused great injury to all classes of the people, and specially to owners and occupiers of land and the labourers employed in its cultivation, and that such a change in the Law is imperatively required as shall prevent (with very slight exception) the creation of such estates, and shall secure a real and competent ownership, and a complete freedom, in the buying and selling of land throughout the Country,"
  said, the present position of agriculture was in a large measure due to bad seasons, and, in some measure, at any rate, due to wrong laws. There was a third question in regard to agriculture which could not be forgotten, and that was the amazing amount of foreign competition, which had so rapidly developed during the last few years. As regarded himself, however, he entirely set aside the question of foreign competition and bad seasons. The question had been discussed when the seasons were good, and when foreign competition was not nearly

  287
  so severe, and it had the same amount of interest then as it had now. For instance, he did not think there was a more favourable season than that of 1871, and the question was discussed then, and acknowledged to be in need j of a remedy; and in September of the same year, Lords Derby and Leicester j made the remarkable statement that, were our cultivation what it should be,; we could double the gross produce of our soil. Therefore, it was clear that complaint was made of defective cultivation long before our present difficulties arose. Bad seasons only brought up the defects of the law. It must, however, be plain to anyone who considered the question that foreign competition afforded a strong reason for removing all hindrances and restrictions in regard to the letting of land in this country. There could be no doubt as to the danger of foreign competition with home producers when it was remembered the imports in corn and similar products from America amounted to about £62,000,000, and of cattle, butter, and cheese, &c. to about £50,000,000, making altogether £112,000,000 imported into this country in one year. They were therefore in this position—of not merely importing half our wheat and corn, but absolutely importing half the agricultural produce that we consumed. That could not be said to be a satisfactory state of things, and could not be looked upon with satisfaction, for it was clearly our duty to get as much as was possible out of our own soil. There were several reasons, apart from any question bearing directly on the Land Laws, which bore upon this point, and these had been stated at some length by Sir Edward Sullivan in his paper on joint-stock farming, where he calculated that from the absence of one simple expedient—the use of covered yards—the English farmers incurred a loss in manures which was to be reckoned by millions—he thought he put it at £40,000,000 a-year; and by Mr. Caird, a most competent witness. But it might be said that farming would not pay even if the farmer expended capital and skill on his land. Well, he had a letter from Mr. Prout, one of the most able and intelligent of modern farmers, in which he said that, taking from the year 1868 to the year 1878, during which period
  288
  there were several bad seasons, the average price on the whole farm was £10 16 s. 9d. per acre, while the expense was about £8 per acre, leaving a net profit of over £2 an acre. He was, however, willing to admit that recent times had been very adverse to the farmer; but all the more important was it, then, that the laws should not be adverse as well as the seasons—that good laws should counteract the adverse influence of bad seasons. He had always thought that the grand remedy for the present state of things was freedom for the owner and freedom for the occupier. The question might be divided into the two heads of occupiers and owners. He should not refer to the former to-night. They had lately discussed compensation for improvements, on the Motion of the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin); and they had passed a Resolution, without a division, condemning the Law of Distress. Sooner or later, they would have to deal with local taxation, though, if he was not mistaken, farmers would be disappointed if they expect to obtain any very important relief by any change in that direction; but as to the system of perpetuation of life ownership in the land, he thought the defect of the law as regarded that matter might be considered in three points of view—first, as to the owners of the land for the time being; secondly, as to the future owner; and, thirdly, as to the cultivator. As to the owner of a life estate, it was obvious that he was in a very awkward position unless he were a man of wealth. But, taking the ordinary life owner, his position was a very difficult one. However burdened he might be by the acts of his ancestors or by his own, he could not sell an acre of the land. The law prevented the natural dispersion of the land which would enable a man in that position to sell his land in order to pay his debts. Moreover, tenant for life had not only to bear the interests on old charges and jointures and the like, but also all reductions of rents arising from bad times. The charges were fixed, but the rents fell. But even if a man had some means to spare for the improvement of his estate, honesty often forbad him from doing it. It was impossible that an ordinary life owner could improve his estate, not for want of means to do so, but because he was bound in

  289
  honesty to make provision for his younger children. He had thus not only to leave cottages unrepaired and farms unimproved, but in too many cases he had very little indeed to live on himself. The law ought to step in and relieve a man in such a position. He knew one case of a nobleman, formerly in that House, who asserted boldly that he was worse off now than when he was a younger son, and he owned some 40,000 or 50,000 acres; and he could point to another who had £12,000 a-year and had only £4,000 a-year to deal with. Wherever they went they heard of like cases. Let them take the case of a man of £6,000 or £7,000 a-year in land, and as many children as thousands. [Laughter.] Well, he was glad he had said something to enliven a dull discussion; but they knew what he meant. [" No, no! "] What he meant to say was, let them take the case of a man with £6,000 or £7,000 a-year, who had six or seven children; and he asked would not that man have a great difficulty in providing for his younger children and making ends meet? There was another man who was far more considered than the man in possession—namely, the heir-at-law, the remainder man, for whom everything was arranged. In reading the evidence given before the Committee of the House of Lords in 1873, nothing was more remarkable than the anxiety about the future owner. The man in possession was little thought of as compared with the man who was to follow. But he said that he, too, was injured by the present system. Many a man was ruined for life by the consciousness that whatever he did he had a large estate coming to him, for that knowledge too often made a young man extravagant and careless to his duties. The management of land was a difficult and complicated business, one to which a person should be brought up; but, as a rule, the heir-at-law was not trained to it, and, therefore, whether as regarded the owner for life or the remainder man, the present system was a bad one. And what, after all, was the benefit claimed for it? It was this, that it kept the land in one family—the tenant for life might be ruined, but the land remained. Well, he did not say a word against the maintenance of great families; but if they could only maintain them by the maintenance of bad
  290
  laws, then it was time that great families should be left to take care of themselves, and that good laws should be provided for the country. He wished now to refer to the effects of our system as to the public. It was perfectly clear that under the existing law a great deal of land was kept out of the market which would otherwise find its way into it. Land was treated as a luxury, and not as an article of commerce, and why should it be so? Why should it not be treated as any other article? Why should not the forces of dispersion and accumulation have their natural course with land? It would be deemed ridiculous and absurd to treat any other article as we treated land. One of the great obstacles to the transfer of land was the expense of titles, and, according to all the evidence, the greatest cause of all that was the settlement of land with elaborate deeds and wills, and the continuous creation of life estates with charges and jointures. These were the great causes of the complication of titles, which led to that expense which was the great obstacle to the transfer of land. By way of contrast, he would mention what was stated before the Committee on Registration in 1878. It being stated that the power of settlement existed in Australia, a witness was asked what proportion of Australian land would be settled, and he replied—"Not one-thousandth part." Of course, there was no difficulty about the transfer of land when there was only fee simple ownership; with that we could have registration quite easy. But if we continued our elaborate and costly system, we should never have registration and easy transfer. Another result of our system was that land was unquestionably retained in the hands of embarrassed owners. Whenever he made inquiries in a district with which he was not personally acquainted he always found flagrant examples of this evil. The other day he met with an instance in which, with an income of £35,000 a-year—the owner did not reside on the estate-—the family mansion and everything else were going to ruin, and for 40 years nothing had been done by the owner to improve the land. This condition of things existed on large estates as well as small ones. If we could get the aggregate acreage of all the small estates in this condition the total

  291
  area would be enormous; but, unfortunately, there were no statistics. But what might have been the diffusion of land if there had been real freedom for the past 200 years! Would there in that case have been 9,000,000 acres in the hands of 847 men? Many of the difficulties of Ireland would have been settled long ago if there had been free sale for 200 years. He feared also that besides the economical evils arising from great accumulations of land in one hand, such accumulations tended to an emulation in extravagance. Smaller men emulated the great men, and so an evil tendency was set up. And now he wished to refer to some actual instances which illustrated what he had said. He had never said a word against large estates as such; he did not care how much land was held by first-class owners like the Duke of Bedford and Lord Overstone, who took the utmost interest and pains in improving their lands. What he objected to was land being in the hands of men who were incompetent to do justice to it, and being kept by law in their hands against the natural forces which would take it from them. In the remarkable book by Mr. Kay on Free Trade in Land a case was mentioned in which a large estate was subject to stagnation for 40 years through the impossibility of selling any portion of it. There was another remarkable case. Lord Carrington, in the remarkable speech he made at the audit dinner of his tenants in October last, said—
  "The largest landowner in England and Scotland has a total of 1,358,548 acres. I see no harm in that; there is no reason why he should not own 2,000,000 acres; but what I do think wrong is that a landowner should either by his own act, or by the deed of his predecessors, be saddled with an enormous tract of country, of which it is impossible for him to get rid of a square yard, however necessary, however beneficial the sale of a small portion of it would be to the country, the estate, to his tenants, or to himself. I will try to show what the consequence is. In the North of the country I have two strong clay farms on my hands; one I cannot get a bid for, nobody will cultivate it at any rent. I say to my agent, What am I to do?' He answers,' the buildings must be rebuilt, the worst land laid down in grass, the land drained, and cleansed, and in two years you may get a tenant.' Very good, but all this ought to have been done years ago and the tenant would have been saved, and the land would never have got into so miserable a condition. But the same millstone is round my neck which hampered my father, which I must
  292
  wear till my death, and my brothers as well, if they succeed me, and the land is not free till after our deaths, or the 21st birthday of an unborn heir. As tenant for life, I hoped against hope, trusted to the good season of 1879 to put things right. That failed, the tenant is ruined, and the land starved. It is a small matter, one farm in hand, you will say. But look around us. I hear of a proprietor with 4,000 acres on his hands, a Berkshire landowner with 13 farms, and land thrown up in all directions. People would improve their properties if they could, but the majority cannot, as is shown by the Committee of the House of Lords."
  And in the same speech Lord Carrington said—
  '' Following the advice of my best friends' during my father's lifetime, being 22 years of age, I re-entailed the estate. There-entail was drawn up by one of the first firms of solicitors in England, in the manner which they considered most advantageous to the estate and to me, the tenant for life. I inherited 11 years ago property in Bucks, in Lincolnshire, and in Wales. I found property had been bought in this county, and to pay for that property the Welsh estate had to be sold, and the money reinvested in the land purchased in Bucks. The farm buildings were so bad on the Welsh property that it was calculated that the purchaser would have to spend one whole year's rental on them to put them in decent repair. Mind, I do not blame my father for this; far, very far, from that; but I do blame, and I think justly, the strictness of the entail and the law which prevented him being able to put and keep the buildings in such a condition as to enable the tenants to do justice to themselves and the land by which they got their living."
  He would give only one more illustration—he referred to the condition of the cottages of labourers. A consequence of the difficulties in which life owners were placed was that they could do nothing to improve the condition of labourers' cottages, which, speaking generally, was deplorable. They all admitted that nothing was more important than having good cottages; and yet, if they read the Reports of the Commission as to the state of women and children employed in agriculture, they would find extraordinary statements as to the condition of the cottages throughout England. The Bishop of Manchester went over 300 parishes in four of the finest counties in England, and he could only remember two parishes where the cottages were good. Mr. Portman made a similar statement with regard to Cambridgeshire and Oxfordshire, and Mr. Stanhope and Mr. Culley as to other parts of the country. What, however, he considered more important

  293
  to his point was that the Commissioners stated that they considered the main cause of this the position of the life tenant. For instance, Mr. Culley said—
  " What can the poor life tenant, especially if his estate be burdened, do towards providing good cottages for his labourers? Nine times out of ten he strives to do his duty, and suffers fully as much as the ill-housed labourers on his estate"
  Mr. Portman strongly confirmed this view. Could anything be a greater disgrace to this country, so enormously wealthy, as that these long generations should pass, and at the end of it all they should find that, notwithstanding their great estates, great counties, and splendid domains, there was an almost general bad condition of the cottages of the poor? Now, he thought he had shown that their present system of continuous life ownership was bad for owners and for the public. The facts were, he thought, indisputable. Various Acts had been passed to enable life tenants to borrow money to improve their estates; but, owing to the expense of applying the law, and the disinclination to obtain the consent of Commissioners or of the Court of Chancery, very few owners had availed themselves of these Acts, and they had been practically inoperative. Things were even worse now than in 1873. The whole system had broken down because the farmer could not pay additional interest in consideration of improvements. When they wanted more capital laid out on the land, the system became a dead letter. With regard to the remedies for the evils he had adverted to, one of the most important was to forbid all settlements on unborn children. He believed that would have no effect at all, for the family lawyer would be one too many for them, because he would simply wait till the son was born, and not draw up the settlement at the time of marriage. A more drastic remedy than that was wanted. In his opinion, there should be for the future fee-simple ownerships, with only two single exceptions—they should allow a man to leave his widow a life interest in any part of the estate, and also a life estate to a minor, so as to let the land go over from one son to another, in case of death during minority. The effect of that would be good to all concerned and to the public. There would then be simple titles and free sale. But certain
  294
  objections were made to this change. One was that a man would not be able to do what he liked with his own. The answer to that objection was this—he would increase the freedom of every man while he lived, and would restrict him only when he died. Then he would have to leave the land as he held it. Why should a man dictate to the world 50 or 60 years after he was dead? Without taking away a man's freedom, he would lessen his power to diminish the freedom of coming generations. But it was further said—You do not propose to take away the powers of settling personal estate; why, then, interfere with the settlement of land? The answer was obvious. You could not affect personal estate by settlement. Nothing depended upon ownership in the case of personal estate; but as to land, everything depended on the character of the ownership. You could not lessen the value of Consols whatever you did with them; but the value of land depended on the way in which you treated it. The Committee of the House of Lords said, as another objection, that if a man could not settle his land he would have no way of showing "solicitude for descendants"—that he would not care to be an improver, if he could not settle the land as improved. It seemed to him (Mr. W. Fowler), on the other hand, that they all had that solicitude without any reference to their power of selling their property. Men need not show their solicitude by leaving their children less free than they themselves were. Another common argument was why, when they allowed personal estate to be settled, should they interfere with reality? But he thought the answer was very simple and obvious indeed. As regarded personal estate, whether in railway shares or Consols, it did not matter who the owner was, inasmuch as you could not make it more or less by ownership. But as regarded land, everything depended on who the owner was. As to the view that so long as they allowed a man to borrow upon land no change would do any good, he held, on the contrary, that a man ought to be able to borrow upon land, just as he could upon any other property, because it enabled him to improve his land. But it was said that the habits and feelings of the nation were against this change; he, on the other hand, believed the habits and feelings of

  295
  the nation were becoming favourable to the freedom of the land. But it was said with entire freedom we should have bigger estates than at present. He believed there would be a rapid diffusion of land among the people; there would be fewer large estates, and more moderate estates. The real objection to the change was the Peerage and great families. He thought they might very well leave the Peerage and great families to protect themselves. They could best do this by greater prudence in the management of their affairs; and thus they would greatly benefit the public. At any rate, he objected to have the tenure of all the land of England moulded to suit their ideas. If they must have a law specially for the nobility, it seemed to him more logical and sensible to have a law like that which obtained in France—one for the nobility and another for the commoner—rather than to have the whole law moulded because of the family condition of a mere fraction of the people. What were the 500 Peers to the great millions of the people? The same argument applied to the great families. It seemed to him this whole system placed the family before the nation. It was their duty, as Members of this House, to put the nation before the family. By considering what was good for the nation they would really consult the power and interest of the family. Before he concluded he must refer to a Bill which had come down from the other House with the sanction of the name of the ex-Lord Chancellor. It must be received with great respect; but he confessed he considered it a most imperfect remedy. But it showed how unsatisfactory even that distinguished Nobleman, so remarkable for his ability as well as his Conservative opinions, thought the present law was, and how necessary that a material change should be made. When they came to analyze the Bill they would find that it really offered no remedy, for it merely amounted to this—the tenant for life should have power to sell, but not to touch a penny of the money, which must all go back to the settlement and to the same uses as those which affected the land sold. The Bill, no doubt, was well-intended; it might make the thing look more tolerable, but would not mend the matter. No good could be done without courage. There must be a thorough remedy; the law must be fundamentally
  296
  changed, or it might be as well to leave things as they were. He thought he had proved his case and shown the necessity for a change. Apart from foreign competition, and long before the bad seasons, the state of agriculture was extremely unsatisfactory, he believed mainly by reason of our old-fashioned laws in regard to the ownership of land. If they had competent owners over the whole area of England, they would soon see a very great change in the condition of agriculture. The condition of Ireland might be alarming; but this question was just as important as the condition of Ireland. If it was true, as Lord Derby said, that the land of England ought to produce double what it now produced, they were losing more than £200,000,000 a-year by bad cultivation. It was for the House to consider whether what he had stated had anything to do with that bad cultivation, and therefore it was that he asked the House to pass the Motion which he now begged to move.
  MR. B. T. WILLIAMSsaid, that, in seconding the Motion of the hon. Member for Cambridge, it would not be necessary for him to add anything to the exhaustive speech they had just listened to. Under the present system of family settlements, the nominal owners of life estates, who had to pay jointures and the interest on the mortgage debts of previous generations, had also imposed on them the duty of providing for their daughters and their younger children. They could only do that by putting themselves in the position of insolvent owners; they were obliged to exact the greatest amount of rent, and they could not assist their tenants, or advance afarthing for the improvement of their estates. Those settlements not only checked the investment of money in the proper cultivation of the land, but prevented the sale of the land when it was the interest of all parties concerned that a sale should take place. There was a desire in the country that that subject should receive the attention of Parliament. The people of England and of Wales expected a Land Bill from the present Government; and although they had no wish to import into this country the peculiar features of land tenure in Ireland, or to cut up the land into allotments and parcels, which would not afford full scope for the energy and enterprise of the English farmers, still they desired a change which would give

  297
  them a security for the investment of their money in the cultivation of land, and which would remove all the obstacles that were calculated to prevent the land from, becoming the subject of free sale among themselves.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "in the opinion of this House, the Law permitting the creation and perpetuation of life estates in land has caused great injury to all classes of the people, and specially to owners and occupiers of land and the labourers employed in its cultivation, and that such a change in the Law is imperatively required as shall prevent (with very slight exception) the creation of such estates, and shall secure a real and competent ownership, and a complete freedom in the buying and selling of land throughout the Country,"—(Mr. William Fowler,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. T. COLLINSsaid, that although they had had a very interesting speech from the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. W. Fowler), which he believed had also been made in previous Parliaments, he did not think that the hon. Gentleman had made out his point. There might be reasons, based upon social grounds, why they should alter the law on that subject; but the hon. Member had not in any way established his proposition that the present law was specially injurious either to the occupiers or to the labourers engaged in agriculture. The hon. Gentleman had stated, and stated truly, that something like one-third of the food of the people of this country was imported from abroad, and that that quantity was increasing year by year in comparison with our home-grown produce. But that must necessarily be the case, because our population was increasing decade by decade; therefore, as long as our trade existed, and we could have the population of our large towns producing goods for export to other countries, we must have a greater proportion of our people dependent for their food on foreign supplies. Nor could he say that that was in itself an undesirable state of things. He wished that foreign countries would adopt Free Trade, as we ourselves had done; and if they could have Free Trade prevailing throughout the world, there was no
  298
  reason why they should not have a much larger number of the people of these Islands than they had now not employed in agriculture, but employed in manufactures to supply the wants of the whole world. The hon. Member for Cambridge had quoted Lord Derby, who was not a practical farmer; and although Lord Derby had once not very wisely stated that the soil of this country was capable of producing twice the amount of its present produce, they should listen to him on questions of politics, but on farming he was no authority in that House. Now, the law of England in relation to settlements was almost identical with regard to land and with regard to money, and if the House affirmed the proposition of the hon. Member in reference to settlements of land, it ought to affirm it in reference to settlements of money. He himself knew something about land and its cultivation, and he did not believe that one farmer in 50, or one labourer in 1,000, knew, as a matter of fact, whether the land he occupied and tilled was held by the owner as tenant for life, or as tenant in fee. In the case of large estates, of course, it was a matter of notoriety. He did not think a farmer in this country curiously inquired whether an owner of land was owner in fee or owner for life. A great part of the land in this country, rightly or wrongly, was held under tenancies from year to year, and not under the system of leases. When farmers were about to take farms they did not inquire into the nature of the ownership which the landlord had in property; but whether A or B was deemed to be a bad landlord, and whether they were likely to be rack-rented. If landlords asked their tenants whether they would take a lease for 10 or 15 years, or go on as before, the great bulk of the tenants—he spoke only of the tenants in his own neighbourhood—not one in 50 would take a lease. They might take a 30 years' lease, but not one for 14 or 18 years. They knew that at times they might in the one case get a reduction of rent, and that in the other case they could not. He did not believe it would be desirable on social grounds to alter the power which now existed with reference to the devolution of land and money. He did not think his hon. Friend had made out his case that the alterations he suggested would have much effect upon

  299
  the occupiers of land, and certainly it would nave no effect upon labourers. His hon. Friend had stated a good deal about encumbered property. The worst farms in his own neighbourhood were farms in the hands of small proprietors, who clung to them with great tenacity. Those farms were mortgaged up to the hilt; therefore, a person who owned a small property, worth £50 or £150 a-year, was borrowing money at £4 or £5 per cent, and thus rented his land at a much higher rate than if it were let to a tenant. He was practically the tenant of a banker or a mortgagee. The buildings on small estates were in a far more dilapidated state than the buildings on the property of a neighbouring squire. It must necessarily be so, because the owners of the small estates were practically not the owners. He hoped the House would not consent to the Motion in its present crude shape. He thought the Bill of Lord Cairns, which his hon. Friend spoke of rather slightingly, would work very beneficially, because wherever property was encumbered, the debts might be cleared off by a sale of part of the estate. He was opposed to any alteration with reference to the settlement of land which would not equally apply to the settlement of money.
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, I will not attempt to traverse the wide field opened up by the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. W. Fowler.) I think, however, the speech which we have just heard from the hon. Member for Knaresborough (Mr. T. Collins) is, in some degree, a sign of the times, because the hon. Member is disposed to make admissions that there might be strong reasons—though he did not think the proposition before House is proved—social and political, for a great change in the law with reference to land. I do not agree with the rather disparaging remarks in which he spoke of the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge, which appeared to me a speech of great interest, and by no means deficient in originality. With respect to originality, I think it would be a bad sign, indeed, if everything that were said on a subject of this kind had to be altogether new. It is necessary to go back to the fountain-head of truth, and bring out matter which, although it may have been previously produced, has yet not obtained
  300
  its full currency, nor the full command over the public mind; and in the mode of presenting his contribution, and the many collateral considerations which it opened up, I must say that the hon. Member for Cambridge conferred a service upon us by the able address he delivered. I said that a still wider field is really opened by this subject, because I believe we all feel—certainly many of us feel—that this question of life estate is one upon which really hang a number of other very great questions of vital interest to landed proprietors, and of vital interest, through them, to the public—such as the great questions of the transfer of land, and the whole system by which a person who possesses land may borrow upon his land, just as other possessors of property may borrow upon their property—which questions, when they come to be dealt with by Parliament, may lead to fundamental alterations in our law of landed property. All these questions are of the greatest importance; and there is one observation which, although it is no part of my business to attempt any full discussion of the subject to-night, lies at the very root and threshold of this subject. Do not let it be supposed that this is a question of hostility to the owners of land. Whatever system gives the greatest freedom to the descent of land, to the transfer of land, to the holding of land, and to raising money upon land, is the system that will be far the best for the interest of the owners of the land, and for the interest of the entire public. I do not deny that there are difficult questions connected with this subject. The legal aspects themselves are difficult. There are difficulties as to the economical aspects, on which I agree with my hon. Friend, that much economical loss attends the present limitations upon ownership, and devolution, and transfer of land; and as to the domestic and social aspects, on which I confess that I have a very strong opinion, I believe that nothing can be more mischievous than the present system of settlement and entail, and that nothing would more tend to the moral strength of the aristocracy of this country than a great and fundamental change. I must say I agree with the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. W. Fowler) that in small changes there is very little advantage; that this is a subject which, when Parliament pro-

  301
  ceeds to deal with it, should be dealt with broadly. I am not able, I confess, to feel very great enthusiasm for the Bills of Lord Cairns. I am not able to follow the reasoning that led to the introduction of those Bills. In the first place, I do not understand those Bills—although, of course, it is not for me to be an expounder of Conservative principles. I must confess, however, that I do not quite comprehend how those who support Conservative principles can approve the extraordinary liberties which, under Lord Cairns' Bills, the tenant for life would be able to take with the interests of the remainder-man. My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge, I think, did very wisely in opening this subject with a reference to the important question of foreign competition. We are not, I think, to take, under any circumstances, a desponding view of the prospects of British agriculture. But, at the same time, it is right, I think, that we should lay to heart this fact, that in dealing with American competition we are dealing with something that is different from any competition we have ever had to deal with yet. Not different absolutely in kind, yet so different in circumstances that we should commit a serious error if we thought that this competition is as comparatively transitory as was the competition with the wheat of the Baltic or of the Black Sea. Many circumstances which give this exceptional character to the growth of agricultural products in America are constantly in the public view; but there is one which I do not think is so often mentioned as it deserves to be. America is a country which is almost or altogether distinguished from all other countries of the world in this respect, that, with unbounded command of natural resources, she has united most severe discipline for producers. By that I mean that the scarcity of labour, and its exceptionally high, price in America, has driven that people, beyond every other people on the face of the earth, upon the multiplication of labour-saving contrivances, and that at this moment the American farmer is far more economically efficient in the command and application of labour-saving contrivances than the farmers of old countries, and notably of our own country. By a combination of great fertility of soil, which the farmer has merely to scratch in order to secure a
  302
  crop, and the great economy of human labour, aided by great ingenuity in the employment of machinery, and of cheap and useful contrivances for the saving of human labour, there has resulted an extraordinary advantage to America, the effects of which, when competing with ourselves, have not even yet been fully felt. My hon. Friend is in some respect, perhaps, more sanguine than I am myself as to the consequences of his Motion, for I own I am by no means convinced that any very great or very general dispersion of landed properties would follow the abolition of life estate in this country. I believe that the economical circumstances and laws of the country, and the laws which govern in that respect the rapid creation of large fortunes, the social distinction attached to the possession of land, the constant pressure and competition amongst possessors of large new fortunes to take rank with the possessors of old fortunes—that is, the landed proprietors of the country—will always induce a very large body of purchasers to give for land prices far higher than it is worth as an economical product, and will, therefore, keep together, in the main, the large estates of: this country. No doubt, there are particular sets of circumstances where we have constantly at work very healthful agencies in this matter. For example, every flourishing town in this country where men of the middle class are continually acquiring property is a centre from which there are men why buy their 50, or 100, or 200 acres, partly for residential purposes,' partly for agricultural purposes; and considerable breaking up of landed properties goes on from that cause alone. I believe that after the experience we have had in commercial legislation, we may come, perhaps, with some safety to two conclusions—first of all, that it is impossible to forecast with any precision or minuteness what the results of the change recommended in the Motion would be; but, on the other hand, that the virtue of freedom has proved itself to be so great when applied to the subjects in which human enterprize develops itself, that we are justified to expect much from the removal of the fetters that now attach to the ownership and to the incidence of landed property. My hon. Friend asks us to affirm a Resolution, the main effect of which is to condemn

  303
  the life estate in land. Ha does, indeed, Bay that he proposes to leave a very limited field of exception. I do not think, if I followed him with accuracy, that he distinctly explained to us what these exceptions would be. [Mr. W. FOWLER: For widows and minors.] That does not seriously interfere with what I was about to say. The Resolution is a Resolution against life estates in land. In the main, I must own I am prepared individually to go with my hon. Friend. For reasons which it would be out of place to enter upon at full length, I have arrived at the conclusion that that proposition is a wise one; and I agree with my hon. Friend in thinking that there are undoubtedly some difficulties connected with the constitution of the other House of Parliament which must be looked in the face when we come to face this question. I do not know how to resist the proposition of my hon. Friend, which is this—that if it be true that with a view to the maintenance of a hereditary Chamber it was necessary that the system of settlement and entail should continue substantially as it is, yet that can be no good reason for maintaining the system of entail and settlement all over the country. That appears to me undeniable. I am not able to accede to the doctrine of the perfect parallelism between landed and personal property. In the first place, I do not believe that the system of settlement ever will prevail, with regard to personal property, to the same extent to which it now applies to laud; and, even if it did, it is a totally different matter. The hand of Providence has placed a limitation upon the stock of land in the country that has not been placed upon the stock of personal property, and the interest of the people in the land of the country is entirely distinct from, and far greater and deeper than, the interest they possess in any part of its personal property. My hon. Friend will ask—" With these views, what do you say to my Motion considered as a proposition addressed to the House of Commons?" Well, I hope that he has proposed this Motion rather for the sake of helping onwards the public mind in the consideration of a very wide and difficult question than for the sake of eliciting a judgment from the House of Commons, for -which, probably, it is not yet altogether prepared. At any rate,
  304
  I wish to explain that what I have said has been in my individual capacity. I do not think it is generally desirable that Governments should announce, or even affirm, fixed and irrevocable conclusions upon matters of public policy and legislation until the time is at hand when they can act upon those conclusions. I should think it a most dangerous proposition to lay down, and a most dangerous practice to adopt, if Governments were encouraged or permitted to deal in loose and vague promises of what they will do at some future period, and thereby to earn, or endeavour to earn, some favour and popularity attaching to these plans, without having to confront and to deal with the practical difficulties that must be met in giving them effect. We have not made this Bill a subject, and we have not thought it our duty to make it a matter of practical consideration, as we should have done had it been one pressing for immediate settlement. I need not tell my hon. Friend that we have had to deal since the time that we took Office with quite a sufficient number of grave matters demanding the best resources and faculties of mind that we could apply to them; and I hope that when we do approach the consideration of this question also, we shall approach it in a spirit which will be liberal, impartial, and fearless. At the same time, I could not venture to say, and I am very far indeed from desiring to convey any unfavourable impression in regard to the convictions of anyone. Yet I must hold the Cabinet free to form its own opinion on this subject. My own feelings I do not think are likely to be changed, and substantially they are in accordance with what has been propounded by my hon. Friend. That being so, I should be sorry if we are driven to vote on this subject, which might be misunderstood to imply some disinclination to make changes in the law of devolution of land. I hope, therefore, my hon. Friend will not seek to put the House in that position. I think it will not be for the interest of the cause he has taken in hand if he should seek to place it in that position. There are, no doubt, matters which undoubtedly are of great difficulty to be faced, and, no doubt, my hon. Friend knows there are many persons the sincerity of whose political concurrence with himself—of political orthodoxy, if

  305
  I may so say—could not be questioned, and who are not prepared to accompany him the whole length of the journey that lie himself has performed; and it would be a great pity if there was to be recorded against him a vote against any interference with this subject. For my own part, it would be my duty, with no ill-will towards his general views, but, on the contrary, with convictions founded upon reasons that I think are strong and deep, not to join in any merely abstract declaration of policy on this subject. I wish to make no declaration binding in form upon it till the time comes, if the time does come—it would be daring to say it will come, but for some of us I hope it will come soon—when there will be an opportunity and possibility of giving effect to that which is proposed. In the meantime, I, for one, sincerely thank my hon. Friend for the Motion he has made and the speech he delivered. I think there was nothing in it to excite what may be called Party or sectarian feeling in this House, but that it was made with no other view than that of promoting the interest of the entire country and the interest, I will venture to add, of all classes of the country. I believe the more freedom we have in our land system the better it will be for all, and the better any beneficial changes will be for those who are the owners of land. I hope, having given this opportunity of free and open discussion, my hon. Friend will not be disposed to press the House to adopt the Resolution, inasmuch as, even if it were adopted, there is no present opportunity of acting upon it.
  MR. GREGORYsaid, he agreed with the right hon. Gentleman who had just addressed the House that the question was one of great importance, for he could say, as matter of personal experience, that under the present circumstances of the law there was a large number of estates in this country which could not find purchasers. Under the existing law a tenant for life who found himself embarrassed by the encumbrances on the estate not of his own creation, and who could not, therefore, effect improvements, could apply to the Court of Chancery for relief, and, if a proper case was made out, relief would be afforded to him. The Bill, too, recently introduced by Lord Cairns extended the present system and would enable an owner for life to advance
  306
  money for the necessary improvements, and to charge it on the inheritance. He could not see that there was any objection to settle estates if power were given to the limited owner to sell when necessary, with the condition that the purchase money should be applied to the trusts of the settlement. He believed that if the Bill of Lord Cairns were adopted, every improvement that was required could be carried out by the tenant for life.
  MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDsaid, he knew that the hon. Member for Sussex (Mr. Gregory) had a deep admiration for a good settlement. He agreed with the statement of the hon. Member that large estates were generally well cultivated. The hon. Member admitted that there was a wide extent of land in the market, and spoke of the parcels that were in hand. The hon. Member could not doubt that the Law of Settlement was an obstacle to transfer, and that land would pass out of his hands at a higher price if the law were reformed. There was no doubt that the present depression in agriculture, and the want of confidence that prevailed on the part of owners and occupiers of land, was mainly due to American competition. Corn could be carried from New York to Liverpool at a smaller price than it could be carried from Lincoln, to London. In that fact alone there was matter for very careful consideration. We had arrived at this point, that a year's supply of food for a man could be carried from Chicago to Liverpool for 10 s. He had heard statements made as to the advantages that would be derived from the introduction of implements such as Darby's Digger; but these machines would be of far greater advantage to the farmers of the prairies. The evidence of experts given to the Duke of Richmond's Commission showed that out of 17,000,000 acres in England and Wales which needed land drainage only 3,000,000 had been drained. It could not be contended that our system of limited ownership had been productive of rapid improvement in the soil.
  Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members not being present,
  House adjourned at a quarter after Eleven o'clock till Monday next.